washington policymaking for all to see, bring you content from congress and beyond. this was true people power. in the 40 years since, the landscape has changed. there is no monolithic media. youtube stars are a thing. c-span's big idea is more relevant today than ever. no government money support c-span. it's nonpartisan covering -- coverage of washington is funded by your cable or satellite provider on television and online. c-span is your unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind. up next, live on washington journal, your calls and comments. democratic congressman peter welch of vermont discusses attorney general william barr's summary of special counsel robert mueller's report. also grace marie turner talks about health care in the future

of the affordable care act. ruger on how states and moneyty are spending on safety funds to protect schools from mass shootings. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ host: secretary of state mike pompeo appears before the house foreign affairs committee at 1:00 this afternoon talking about the united nations' foreign policy approach. question federal officials on the current status of airline safety at 3:00 this afternoon on c-span 2. you can keep track of those and other events on capitol hill when you go to our website at c-span.org. this is the "washington journal" firm march 27. how can health care be improved? hearis what we want to from you especially as the

president and house democrats fight over the future of the affordable care act. if you have experience in the health care market or health care overall and want to give your expect -- perspective on how health care can be improved, here is how you can call. if you receive insurance under the aca, 202-748-8000. perhaps you receive employer insurance, 202-748-8001. if you are uninsured, 202-748-8002 and all others can give us a call this morning and give your thoughts at 202-748-8003. you can post at our twitter feed @cspanwj. our facebook page, about 500 of you posting at facebook.com/cspan. at the end of last year, there were a couple polls looking at the status of health care. one took a look at how americans rated health care quality overall. the findings saying solid majorities of americans rate the 80%rage 69% and the quality

of the health care they receive as excellent or good. americans were much less positive about health care in general in the united states with the bare majority rating the quality of health care positively at 55%. about a third giving positive reviews to health care coverage at 34%. if you go back one month to november of 2018, a survey taking a look at the cost of health care in the united states . this is from gallup saying when it comes to the cost, most americans see health care cost as a major issue. only 5 in 20 are satisfied with the total cost of -- 79% dissatisfied. satisfaction with health care costs have never exceeded 28% and was as low as 8% in may 1993 when bill clinton was wanting

his attempt to reform the health care system. you can put those into the mix and others as you tell us about health care overall and ways you think it can be improved. if you receive insurance under the aca, you can call at 202-748-8000. if you are uninsured, 202-748-8001 -- if you get employer insurance, that is the number. 202-748-8002 if you are isnsured and 202-748-8003 our line for all others. you can post your thoughts on our social media site as well. tony in texas says he is uninsured asking folks about how health care can be improved. go ahead. caller: first of all, we need to pharma. big americans pay more in medicine than any country in the world.

it is unreal. this country is supposed to be a rich country. we are supposed to have health care and there are other countries that are not that rich . it is insane. we need to regulate big pharma and make a new law because big farmer -- big pharma is getting richer and richer and we are paying for it. host: how do you handle the cost for medicine then? caller: igo to mexico. i speak two languages. i can get medicine cheaper. if you live on the border with canada, americans go to canada because it is cheaper and regulated, as simple as that. you don't have to be a rocket scientist. host: let's hear from linda in

washington state, says she is uninsured. caller: it is $1000 a month for me to have insurance. who can afford that? host: what improvements are needed? how would you improve the system? caller: just so it was not -- it is not so much for it i used to be a caregiver. it's the same insurance and i was with the union and it was $25 a month. the same insurance is $1000 a month now. i don't understand and my half, $60he boss pays a week, $250 a month, so $500 a month. host: on our facebook page, ron says health care is awesome, adding that insurance and cost are another thing. -- davenport says

david off of facebook adding his thoughts when it comes to improving health care single-payer, we need to join the rest of the industrial nations in the world. we have set aside a line for those who receive insurance under the affordable care act. that is lou in new york. good morning. caller: good morning. we pay for our son's health insurance under the aca. .e has two children it is about $2500 a month and it covers everything. one of his kids has a genetic disorder and i cannot imagine what would happen if the aca was thrown out. i think the republicans should try and improve obamacare, not get rid of it. it is a matter of how much money you want to fund obamacare with.

the premise of obamacare is good, it provides insurance. host: that 2500 you pay, is that all out of pocket or does your son receive a subsidy at all? caller: that is all out of pocket and i am happy with it. i can afford it. i cannot imagine this kid with a would costorder, it $10,000 a month if he did not have obamacare. talking aboutlou his experience and talking about the fight going on in capitol hill over the future of that program. the justiceously department taking a more moderate stance in the continuing lawsuit by republican led states seeking to topple the aca. congress eliminated the penalty imposed on people who don't have health insurance.

the administration asked the court to only invalidate parts of the health law, the coverage protections for -- the new justice department action goes further in asking for the law to be abolished and the president called for its .emise in the 2020 budget house democrats wanting their own effort to preserve the aca and expand. the democratic bill is a smorgasbord of provisions to expand health and undo the regulatory actions to weaken the aca. it would expand tax credits and cause for low income families and expanding eligibility for middle-class americans to receive assistance. keep premium increases in

check and rollback the trump givingtration's actions states the freedom to undermine the laws, benefits, requirements, and cutting outreach funding. you can use that as you talk about your experiences with health care and ways to improve it. for others, bob, hello. and i: i am on medicare wish when medicare had been established i would have been given the choice to take that money and put it in a private savings account for nothing but medical. i think that would have been a better choice. goodo think it would be a thing if we had things like medi insurance.ad of

that is really something and i am quite impressed with it. host: what is medishare? where they share the cost of medical expenses. .t is quite the thing getting people a choice of taking that money and putting it in a private savings account to be used later would see a better improvement than the aca. int: let's hear from dale pennsylvania, gets insurance through the employer. hello. caller: i consider myself fortunate to have health insurance through an employer, especially now that i am retired and able to continue that. one of the items that must be included in the health care discussion this morning and many

times the discussion is only on how do we pay for health care. in legislation and media discussion -- discussion in general, very limited discussion on percival -- personal responsibility for ones health. i believe part of registration and the movement in health care is on preventative care and getting annual preventative care visits to health care providers. part of that is personal responsibility for their own health and living a healthy lifestyle. host: that is dale offering his thoughts on -- as many have done this morning, taking a look at ways of improving health care. usa today in talking about the political battle currently going on highlights some of the features of the aca saying it offers protections for people with pre-existing conditions,

children could remain on their parents insurance until 26. premium subsidies for those with low or modest income, expanded medicaid eligibility for low income adults. it offers a variety of tax increases to finance changes. al receives insurance under the aca in california and he is up next. caller: since 2010, my insurance was 375 dollars a month and now we are paying over $2050 a month. it is not affordable. there is nothing affordable about it. host: why did it rise so drastically? caller: in 2013 when they implement it obamacare, we lost our insurance. they said it was cheaper to have toand it went from $375

$1200. if you make over $52,000, there is no break for you, you have to pay everything with a $3500 deductible. everybody that says it is affordable, it is not. even when you go to the doctors, you pay all your stuff. host: from hawaii, george is next. he receives insurance from an employer. caller: how are you doing, pedro? happy anniversary to c-span. i get my insurance through workplace. it is essentially free and i am glad for that. down the road when you retire, you have to buy medicare insurance and i don't think that is right. i would love to see for everyone, not just retirees, some kind of conscientious

status. if you don't want health care, you should be able to sign something and say you do not want health care and not pay for anything. being forced to pay for something is wrong. i was in health care insurance for 10 years and i never understood why if you are paying and getting employer funded health care or paying out of your pocket for years and you do not use it even for office visits and somehow after many years you get some kind of ailment, i don't see why you still have a co-pay. i don't see why after all those years of paying, you don't have some kind of recourse to get your medical free. will be goldberg --will be opi goldberg,ho with her recent ailment, she

argued about the machine they wanted her to buy. therewe will leave it george in hawaii, thanks for the call. the new york times highlights some of the numbers associated with the idea if the affordable care act was struck down. some of those numbers include $21 million. the people who buy health insurance in the marketplace, by law that is $11.4 million. about 20 million are most at risk if obamacare is struck down. another 33 million americans with protected pre-existing conditions, this piece adding an existing medical condition includes high blood pressure or asthma which could require someone paying on their own to pay more for a policy. more numbers in this new york times piece connected to the

debate going on on capitol hill. it was the house minority leader hein mccarthy asked about if supported this idea of overturning the aca. [video clip] > i think the president has been clear he wanted to appeal obamacare and put a system in that actually lowers the cost, protects individuals' pre-existing conditions and have a health care system that works with a relationship between the patient and the doctor, not with insurance or the government. you can talk about that or you can talk about the current status of health care and how it can be improved. if you receive insurance under the aca, it is 202-748-8000. if you receive insurance through your employer, 202-748-8001. if you are uninsured, 202-748-8002. we have heard from all three categories this morning. we have a line for others as

well. that is 202-748-8003. even as kevin mccarthy was making his comments, democrats on cac and -- capitol hill are working to pass legislation that would strengthen current aspects of the aca. here is some of what is going on when it comes to that legislation, the changes it would make. we will go to rich in florida on our line for others. go ahead. caller: good morning and thanks for taking my call. i just think if people would realize the majority of us have little, if any control over what is going on in this world. the top 1% are very much controlling everything and if they wanted us to be a healthy society, they would cut loose the money to make it happen. until then, the rest of us are servants to them and i think that is something to think

about. they spend their money lobbying almosty have control of every political office in the united states and throughout the world. if the top 1% would free up some funds, we could all be healthy. it's like alan grayson said to congress. please die quickly. in texas, receives insurance through his employer. hello. caller: good morning, pedro. one of your earlier callers was explaining how his health care policy has risen from 270 before obamacare and now it is $2000 a month and he was asking and you were asking why have the premiums risen so high. as a health care veteran 37 years in this field, i can probably throw some hints to you . think about a situation where

you have home depot and lowe's in business. if one of them goes out of business, the other will raise prices because that is how markets work. the same thing happened in our health care delivery system. obamacare forced health-care providers to form accountable care organizations, acos. in markets when you had 50 competitors, 50 different hospital systems, 50 different clinics competing against each them, obamacare forced into like three or four competitors and this happened nationwide. what do you think happens to prices when you have less competitors? they rise. prices have risen because we have created monopolies all across the country. democrats and president obama may have had good intentions, wisdome most ivory tower

of people who don't really work for a living, they don't understand how markets work. host: that is peter in texas. that is where lorraine is, who receives insurance under the aca. you are on. caller: what i was calling for is about having to pay co-pay when you go to the doctor. i have been in the workplace all my life and i did not have to use it. now i reached the age of 76. it is upsetting when you have to pay such a big copayment when to doctor. dr. i don't like that. host: what is your copayment like? $45 for thes specialist.

host: every time you go to a specialist or general doctor, that is what you pay every time? caller: exactly. host: does it prevent you or make you question if you need to go to the doctor at all or a specialist? do your habits change or do you go as you regularly would? caller: like i was saying, i haven't had to go to the doctor until like lee -- lately. you get an ailment like a heart problem and then you have to go from dr. to dr. and pay these high fees. if you go to your primary doctor, you don't have to pay co-pay -- every month you have to pay a $45 fee to the same doctor. ont: since you said you are aca, what are you paying for month -- per month? i am also on social

security and i pay for my extra.e pay and $70 that means i am getting -- paying 100% -- 80 from medicare and 20% for the other payment. lorraine ins georgia giving experience on how to improve health care. she is citing the cost of health care. some people bringing up the cost of the aca. add yours to the mix on the numbers below and social media sites. you've heard from kevin mccarthy about his thoughts on overturning the aca, the current events going on on capitol hill. also got the thoughts of senate schumer.leader chuck this was said yesterday. [video clip] >> last night we learned president trump and attorney declarebarr decision to

the entire affordable care act unconstitutional. the conversation has shifted already in a day to health care and the republicans know they are in trouble. president trump said the republican party will be the party of health care. if that is true, god help middle-class americans because donald trump wants to raise the cost of prescription drugs, get rid of protections for pre-existing conditions, throw tens of millions of people of health care and throw 21 through 26-year-olds they can no longer get health care through their parents plan. i have not heard a single republican or the president defended the administration's decision. why? because it is indefensible. this is an x collation --

-- constitutional. the doj crystallized to the republican plan in two short sentences. health care for 20 million americans, pre-existing conditions, protections for seniors on drug prices, tax credits should be annihilated. that will not stand. don't they know what the american people care about? host: more of that available to you on our website. several hearings taking place today and you can find that information when you go to c-span.org. the polling company quinnipiac takes a look at a pole in recent days taking a look at health care. 55% of those repair to improve rather than replace the health care system. 51% said -- in support of

keeping the current system and allowing the option of buying .nto medicare let's go to kansas, this is pat. receives insurance through their employer. you are not in health care and it is for my family. it's cheaper than a lot of other people, $148 a month. when obamacare came across, i don't mind giving part of my check. keep itns wanted to down to what we are paying now. they did a good job. this did not happen until obamacare came along. insurance. i have been around a lot of

disabled people. my best friend has a lost arm. they pay for that. in north carolina receives insurance under the aca. hi. justr: yes, i think it is -- one way to improve health care is to fund research and the treatment of mental illness. i think it is an outrage little boys and little girls have so much pressure in life they snap. even though i am a schizophrenic, i am a psychiatrist. i would love to be an american president if i can find a cure. host: that is daniel in north carolina. some of our responses include that of bobby saying prices have risen because insurers are .andated to justify cost stephen green says possessing health insurance as an employee is no guarantee of health

insurance. we need federal health care just like bernie sanders says. you can continue conversations on our twitter feed. there are about 500 people who posted on our facebook page. you can continue to do there as well. in indianapolis, receives insurance under the aca. i hope i said your name right. caller: thank you. republicans are just nuts. trump is nuts. people need health care. health care is a human right and we need it. i just got kicked off of medicaid because i have a little too much money in the bank. i was honest and sent in my bank statement and was immediately denied. i am being covered for a disorder right now. thank god for the aca act

because they got me right on it, the minute i got in the paperwork, they got me right on it. i pay $82 a month and i am covered. aremy prescriptions covered. i have a few that are non-generic. we need quality health care in this country. host: do you get a subsidy as part of that? caller: meaning is there something paid on top of what i pay? host: do you get assistance from the federal government to pay for the aca? caller: yes, i do. i am so thankful for it because i don't know what i would have done. that is nuts to take away health care. host: one more call because our first guest is joining us. carlos in washington state, receives insurance through his employer. go ahead. caller: one thing i have noticed

is i have lived in so many states, they mentioned georgia, california as well as oregon and washington and one thing i have noticed is a lot of the people that complain about high prices are because of the get those states did not expansion for health care which, in part, was because of the republican push to do that. it was intentionally sabotaged by the republican party to fail. currently i am insured. when i was disabled in an accident, my feet got crushed by two semi's. i was part of the aca and it helped and covered me. a lot of these problems are intentionally put in for people to complain. i used to live in texas.

aca was expensive there, but that was because of the simple fact that in those states, medicare expansion never happened. host: that is carlos in washington state. he will finish this half-hour. if you did not have a chance, we will take up this question in about half an hour. our first guest of the morning is democrat from vermont, a member of the house and senate oversight committees. peter welch joining us to talk about the conclusion of the mueller report and next steps. that conversation coming up next on "washington journal." ♪

announcer: this weekend on american history tv, world war ii navajo code talkers and a look at the 1970 93-mile island 1979ar power accident -- three-mile nuclear power accident. navajo code talkers served in the marine corps and used their native language to communicate operational plans. the navajo code talkers and they divided and that itin such a way uniquea role -- a very code confusing the enemy. the 40th anniversary

of the three mile island nuclear power plant accident near harrisburg, pennsylvania, considered most serious nuclear power accident in the united states. joining us, samuel walker, acting director of the nuclear safety project for the union of concerned scientists, and the cofounder of concerned mothers and women in middletown, pennsylvania. at 4:00 p.m. on railamerica, report from79 cbs three mile island. [video clip] >> please stay indoors with your windows closed. >> for almost a week, the people of middletown, pennsylvania, lived in fear of an enemy they could not see, hear, or feel. announcer: watch american history tv this weekend on c-span 3. " continues.

--"washington journal" continues. peter welch.st is good morning to you. guest: good morning. are the reports --committees expected to receive the mueller report in full? guest: we should have it right away because all we are talking about is this four-page letter summarizing his conclusion and his views. it.ybody wants to see let's get it sooner rather than later. host: when you receive the report, what happens with it? guest: we read it. here is what i think we do know. i accept mr. mueller made the confusion -- the conclusion the president was not colluding with the russians and the active interference in our election. what he also said is that he was not exonerated.

the question of obstruction while mr. barr has said he has come to the legal conclusion you cannot obstruct, we do not know what the specifics. the report will reveal an immense amount of the basis upon which the mueller report reached the first conclusion and the second one where he really did not render an opinion. host: are you surprised he did not render an opinion on that? guest: without reading the report, i cannot say. there are two issues. one is the fine legal distinction about whether something has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of a prosecutor that he or she could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and the other question is political. what kind of conduct was the president and the people around them engaged in? that is where every citizen has an interest and a right to come to their own conclusion when we receive the report as to whether that is appropriate conduct for

a president. host: how do you suspect it will shape, guide, your current investigation into the president's activities in the white house? guest: the mueller report is the gold standard and the main question that was before him was, was there active conclusion -- collusion by the president? he has concluded there was not. host: and you are satisfied with that? guest: i have always said the mueller report is the guidepost here for it i accept that. this in norma's amount of activity that has been proven by mueller is really, really inappropriate. you have the campaign manager of the president going to jail. you have the national security advisor actively involved in inappropriate discussions with the russians. he lied about it, he is likely to go to jail and there were

several others as well as the active intervention by the russians in trying to tilt the election toward president trump. that is the undisputed conclusion of intelligence agencies and by the mueller report as well. these things are disturbing and i think there will continue to be a discussion about that. on the question of whether the president himself, candidate trump was guilty with colluding with russians and their interference, i think we have to accept the mueller report. host: our guest with us for the half hour. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. independents, 202-748-8002. you can tweet your thoughts at@. .- at @cspanwj counterintelligence issues still being investigated. is that a worthwhile pursuit? guest: anything that gets at the truth of what the russians did. keep in mind our election was

interfered with by a foreign government, by the russians. whether you voted for trump or clinton, that should be of concern because you are entitled to have your vote count, not the russian interference count more than your vote. we want to find out exactly what they did and make certain we take every step we can to , particularlye russian interference in our elections. trade.ou are a lawyer by what is the gold standard when it comes to finding something when it comes to obstruction? guest: i am a lawyer, but we are in a political environment. it has been very politicized already, the back and forth with what the white house has done and back in sport -- back-and-forth disputes between the democrats and republicans. any crime is beyond a reasonable doubt. the american people have to decide what standards they expect of their leaders and

frankly, while the mueller report has given -- the president said he has not colluded with the russians even though all these people were colluding with the russians and even though he was aware the russians were interfering, that is a judgment call for voters to decide to we want that? there was a time when vice president gore was running for president. when they were doing debate preparation, tom downey was playing the part of bush. -- gote transom, he gap a copy of the debate. he did not read it, he gave it to the fbi because he knew that was a crime. that is not what happened when the trump folks got word of what the russians were up to. host: our first call comes from doug in washington state on the republican line.

good morning, go ahead. doug from washington state, hello? caller: hello. i don't understand how come our sayinghis morning keeps they were convicted of colluding when none of them were. it was for lying and tax evasion and stuff like that. general flynn had every right to talk to the russians. he was going to be the whatchamacallit. mueller said no one colluded. not trump or anyone in the campaign, that is what it says. guest: thank you. they did get convicted. was the national security advisor and he is having inappropriate contacts with the russians and lying about it. that is serious. we can argue if it is collusion or whatever the legal term is,

but he committed a crime and the line was about -- lying was about trying to cover up what those actions were. you are making a distinction i disagree with, but the bottom-line point, what is he doing talking to the russians inore he is, in fact, sworn and they have foreign policy responsibility? we only have one president at a time here. host: joe, hello. caller: good morning. was wondering about the trump tower meeting. they got a letter from the russian government and a lawyer from the russian government and then they lied about it. on,p lied about it later saying it was about adoptions. we know both of those things are lies, we know this. how can that not be conspiracy and a cover up? i don't understand.

guest: a lot of people don't understand and one of the theons you should read mother report is i expect to those points will be discussed in great detail and i will have more information and come to some conclusion. the point you are making is a good one, whether it legally crossed the line of a crime, mueller came to the conclusion all the activities did not do that. on the other hand, should we have our candidates meeting with russians and having them in his home? that is the question and i don't think a candidate should have their agents like the campaign manager talking to a foreign entity about the command -- about the campaign. host: do you expect the copy you receive will be redacted and are securitywith the

concerns that have been expressed about the process? guest: i certainly respect security concerns if that is the basis of any redaction. if there are certain sources or methods, things that would threaten national security if revealed, yes. sometimes that is used as an excuse to keep us from getting information that the public is entitled to know and we cannot come to judgment on that until we see the report. that caller made a very good point, there are questions that reasonable people have on both sides. trump folks and folks who don't like trump. ideally, we are going to get the underlying material, access to that that mueller had that was the basis of his conclusion. host: there were calls to have this available to you april the second. if that comes and goes, is there any penalty for that? any recourse? guest: the recourse would be a subpoena and a court battle.

be thatrence would it was voluntary and it should be changed in his mind. what they have been able to do is with the report, still secret, the mueller four-page press release in the view of some out there, that is the story. -- of us in the press there is a lot more in the report and that will allow us to have a discussion about the meeting of the findings. host: here is kevin in maryland. comments.have two first on the obstruction of justice charge, it is really absurd because the whole investigation was baseless from the beginning. it was supported by misinformation from the intelligence agencies and the democratic party. to the extent there was interference, i think it should be -- it was obstruction of

injustice, not obstruction of justice. guest: i have to say i disagree with you. this special prosecutor was appointed by attorney general sessions. this was someone in the trump orbit who knew there was something serious. the special prosecutor got convictions on many people, including people very close to then candidate trump. third, we had this overwhelming evidence of the russian interference and there were 18 indictments of russian operatives who are beyond our reach, but who were actively interfering in the outcome of the elections. this was not a situation where there was smoke, there was plenty of fire. the question ultimately on collusion by the president, mueller came to his opinion, there was definitely not only

evidence, but convictions based on that evidence that there was bad stuff going on. host: charlene in ohio, republican line. caller: how are you this morning? guest: hi. caller: hi. i have a couple questions for .ou why all this -- he was cleared of collusion. he was cleared of collusion, no obstruction and when he fired comey, he had every right to position andr his rod rosenstein wrote the letter fired.nding comey to be ok? then all of a sudden it is obstruction of justice. when are you democrats going to

start investigating your side when it was known that hillary through her campaign behind everybody's back, a lawyer to go to that one guy in that -- host: we got your point, caller. we will let our guest respond. guest: i disagree with you and basically it sounded like the white house talking points. first of all, the mueller report did not render an exoneration on obstruction. there is collusion and obstruction. it appears to be the case, we have not seen the report, that mueller did not say there was no obstruction. we have to take a look at the report. secondly, the question of the firing comey, the president made

it clear he wanted that investigation to end. he was tweeting it, he was saying it, saying it was all bogus. he was doing all these things that obviously were about trying to get attorney and roll sessions, he talked to mr. comey and said he wished it would go away. these are things where it raised a serious question about what the motivation was. on this question of obstruction, if you have the power to fire a person, it doesn't necessarily mean you can do it if the motivation is you want to obstruct an investigation that may result in jeopardy for you. he had the legal authority to .ire comey the question, and we will read the report, was the basis of the firing. host: the trump administration -- through the justice

department asking to reconsider the aca. how serious is this? guest: it is really very serious and, in my view, quite cynical. your earlier callers were talking about the cost of health care. they are right, it is -- it is too expensive. the trump administration say they wanted to abolish the affordable care act where there is no replacement. we went through this already. we have to focus on how do we make a more efficient system, more affordable system and bring down the cost of prescription drugs? the abolishing of our entire structure of health care rather than focusing on cost is a way of bringing down cost by kicking people off of access.

it means the big achievements that everybody really likes that you get coverage even if you have a pre-existing condition, even if you have a child born into this world and has a condition that needs ongoing medical care, that you do not get denied coverage because you get an illness or born with an illness. that is a huge achievement and important for us to maintain he is attacking it. host: what is the recourse of democrats in the house are planning for? guest: first of all, i would be astonished if the court did that because fundamentally, it is such a legislative action, this is the purview of the elected representatives of this country to set up something like a health care system more like we did social security or medicare, two problems that were controversial and now totally essential to the well-being of people in this country. how can the courts abolish an

action taken by congress? it is an indication, even with our supreme court, that it is getting too political. let's hope the court does not lose its mind on this. house democrats are planning a series of bills to bolster the aca. guest: it is a photo bitterly -- it is affordability. republicans failed in their effort to repeal and there was never a replacement, they started attacking it bit by bit. they were starting to unravel the market and the result was it created disruption in pricing and hardship on people. as a result of them taking away some of the subsidies and the efforts to get people to enroll, it resulted in higher premiums and that became the argument it was too expensive even though these were manufactured crises.

we want to restore subsidies for middle income families at a cut where they don't get the help they need. we want to reassert our commitment to maintaining access regardless of whether you have a pre-existing condition or not. we are also going to start trying to attack these high costs. we want to get the cost of prescription drugs down. it's not whether you voted for trump or clinton, you are paying too much for prescription drugs. we pay -- way more than our competitors. insulin is outrageous. this has been around since 1920, it is not as if there has been a scientific breakthrough, but the price keeps going up and up. one of the callers was talking about a broken market. it is broken because it is all s workinge manufacturer'

with the consumer. i was at the white house with mick mulvaney as chief of state and a czar said the same thing. i am ready to work with him and my democratic colleagues are as well. that would be a real good thing for us where all would benefit. we in the congress have got to start focusing on doing things that are going to make things better economically for everyday americans and things like bringing down the cost of prescription drugs, making certain there is net neutrality, having an ambitious infrastructure plan that helps in our cities and rural america. these are the few of the things we should be doing and they will be good whether you voted for trump or hillary.

we have to do things that start addressing income and equality. host: this is from massachusetts, independent line. we will hear from greg. caller: hello? guest: hi. byler: i would like to start telling the gentleman the woman that called a little while ago i thought he was very rude to her by telling her all she is doing is carrying the white house's talking points. she cannot have an opinion of her own that matches the president without being a parent? guest: first of all, thank you. if i was offensive, i apologize. it did literally sound like that, so i did express that. perhaps i should not have done that. that could be her opinion and that regard, you are right. host: michael in indiana, independent line. caller: first of all, i want to

say i am a true independent. i did not vote for democrat or republican. i am a true independent person. i know you are going to say i am saying talking points. i am just a plain, everyday person. i am not nobody special. i am a person that has common sense and seeing this whole thing through. you are getting on here and -- it started us with barack obama who said it was ok to start the investigation and start wiretapping mr. trump. after that it went to the dossier. after that it went to richard steele who made the dossier and then ukraine helping out hillary clinton. -- you all on air

are confusing your own people, the democrats, telling them every day the same stuff about donald trump and he is a racist and all this stuff. we know the common, everyday people like me that work every day, get up every day and go to work every day, i know you are lying to me. host: we will let our guest respond. guest: first of all, everyday people are the backbone of this country. you get up every day and go to work and that is really, really good and important. , there ared convictions of people very close to president trump. those were not convictions the democrats got, these were pursued by the independent investigator, mr. mueller who enjoys a solid reputation for integrity with republicans and

democrats. he is a republican. this isn't me talking, this is the mueller investigation talking. paul manafort convicted, michael flynn, convicted. the deputy campaign manager, convicted. these things happen and this isn't talking points by democrats or republicans, this is the action of a respected property -- prosecutor and all of it had to do directly or --irectly with these president trump rejected the decision that there was collusion. there is -- interference in our election. host: chuck, go ahead. caller: you talk about russian

interference -- let's talk about when obama said after the election, i will be a little easier on you. let's talk about bill clinton $500 to russia and getting million while hillary clinton was secretary of state. we can talk about these convictions you just talked about and they did not have anything to do with russia. flynn has gone broke. guilty.o go you have ruined an honorable man with this bowl crab. crap.bull guest: that is more an opinion then a question. whatever happened with clinton

and other presidents has to be evaluated on its own terms. said.s he said, she this is what happened during the trump campaign and the trump administration. .here were convictions some people may have thought there never should have been an investigation, but this investigation was done in an impartial way by a respected prosecutor who, as a result of the evidence he obtained got a solid conviction. host: the house failed to override the president's veto yesterday. talk about the results and what does it mean for future requests for emergency declarations? guest: -- alexander said you cannot just make up the claim it is an emergency because you did not get your way and that is a bad precedent to have for a president. let's say we have a democratic

president and he or she says it is an emergency on climate change, i happen to think it is an emergency and they start taking from all these agencies to combat climate change. i think we should combat climate change, but we have to get legislative approval to take the concrete steps. the only emergency was the president did not get his way on the wall and what is so important is not just the issue of the wall or not, it is the separation of powers and a system we have had in this country since its founding of the checks and balances. the appropriation authority rests with the house and senate. the president, what he has done is i don't care what you did, i don't care what your article one authority is, i am going to take money from military projects you

authorized that i wanted and i am going to spend it in another way i want. that is a dangerous precedent. host: from texas, our republican line. go ahead. know why they so byisted on having the paper april 7 when it took more than two years almost to investigate. and also, it is a national emergency. why are you all investigating the president when you should be working on building a border with all of these immigrants when you sense -- when you spend $60 billion in this year alone on illegal immigrants when the people in the united states are suffering, taxpayer money, and on abortion? that is what you need to be fixing. first of all, it took two years for the report, but the report is done. this is not a difficult act.

it is on the mueller desk, it is on the barr desk. they need to give it to the press so you have direct access to it as well. just delivering it. it is not redoing it. secondly, there is legitimate debate about what is the situation, what is the best way to address it at the border. i am for secure borders. that does not justify a president who fails to get support even from his own party in some cases for this wall to make a unilateral decision that he is going to do it. so this emergency is not just about the wall. it is about the separation of powers and how our constitutional system of government operates. you may be supportive of the president's position on the wall. but let's say you had a different president and you did not support what he wanted to spend money on on the basis of him declaring it "an emergency

that would be upsetting to you. we have to have standards here and constitutional rules that apply, whether you are a democrat, republican, or independent. host: when you get the physical report, will each member of the committee get a copy, and how are they protected once they are delivered? guest: what is going to be delivered i think is going to be public. that is my hope. it will not do our democracy good if there are only 535 reports that go to members of the congress but the rep help -- but the public cannot see it. this has to be made available to everybody. be of national security importance, that will be redacted presumably from everyone. this is a situation were even as a member of congress i had some access to information in the public was denied, i would prefer not to have that. it.nt the public to have

if there is secret stuff that only a few people know about, it will undercut everyone's confidence as to what is in the report. i strongly believe that whatever is released to the congress has to be released to the american people. host: peter welch serves on the intelligence and government reform committees for the state of vermont. one more question. you mentioned net neutrality. a subcommittee you are on, is taking a look at this. why is this an issue in this day and age? guest: because the current federal communications commission unraveled the protections the fcc provided to make certain the internet providers could not interfere with your internet, depending on whether you are a big or small buyer, whether you are a small struggling start a business or a giant business that needed it. we want rules for the road that make certain that if you are in the a tiny town in the most

rural part of this country and you have an idea, they are going to have the same access to the internet that the big guys have. host: do you see any support of that coming from the senate side or the white house? guest: the white house appointed mr. chi, and he is the one who attacked fcc protection. i am not sure we will see much support from the white house, but there will be solid support from the house when we get this on the floor. host: peter welch, thank you very much. we will return to the question we started our program with this morning -- how can health care be improved? if you receive insurance under 202-748-8000. you can share your thoughts on improving health care on one of those lines as well as our social media as well. if you go to our website, you

can see the best from yesterday, featuring former california republican governor arnold schwarzenegger. he appeared at the national press club to discuss his efforts on redistricting reform. he told the audience the response he received when he decided to get involved in the issue. [video clip] >> both of the parties hated it when they got involved. therevernor is sitting with the legislative leaders, and they are having a big argument, and they start cursing at each other and calling each other words and all kinds of things, instead of spitting at each other. the chairs are flying back, they are getting up and storming out of the room. one comes back and says, i am so sorry, i get so mad when he is talking about this issue and bl blah.h

two hours later, i get a phone call from both of those leaders. hi, governor, how are you? been sitting here at the bar. you should join us. come on over here. wait a minute, what are you two guys -- you were spitting its each other -- spitting at each other two hours ago. there is one thing we have in common, that we totally agree on, and that is you should not get involved with this report. [laughter] what? i know that you started endorsing this redistricting reform. this is bad for our party. it is really bad for us democrats. but my friend here can tell you what it does for republicans, and the guy chimes in on the phone and says it is terrible for republicans, too. he says we get along very well

when it comes to this kind of an issue. and they hung up. i realized that they just wanted to do something that is good for the politicians. it did not matter republican or democrat. this is when i got really inspired. after that phone call, i was so inspired to go all out and do everything that i can to pass redistricting reform. [end video clip] announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: here is a post this money from the "minnesota post" website. taking a look at was going to happen in his state, saying, lacrosse and blue shield of minnesota is committed to improving health -- blue cross and blue shield of minnesota is committed to improving health care of people and help minnesotans lives better, fuller lives. cost6, annual health care could reach $94.2 billion, more

than 18% of the state spending. unsustainablet an rate. a new report from health affairs found that hospital prices for inpatient care increased 42% between 2007, 2014. that is one of the main reasons why average american families spend 35% of their income on health care in 2015. according to the counsel for for affordable of coverage, it could be more than 50% of household incomes by 2030. we are getting your perspective as well when it comes to improving health care. you can talk about costs, the quality of care you receive, from people in our earlier segment talking about the aca itself. we had medicare perspectives. here's how you can let us know if you want to give us your thoughts in the next one imminent or so. -8000 if you receive

insurance under the aca. if you receive insurance from insurance that is -8001.er-provided, 202-748 if you're in a category that does not fit the other three and you want to give your -8003.ctive, it is 202-748 you can post on our social media wj., at c-span this goes on on capitol hill. fromeard about the efforts the trump administration to see the aca invalidated, and there is democratic reaction as well. we will show you that as we go through this half-hour. you can call us, tweet us there you can also call us on our facebook page -- post on our facebook page. this is from "the washington post," talking about the efforts by the administration.

that court filing that the justice department argued that the aca m also known as obamacare, should be thrown entirety, allowing young adults to stay on their parents' health care plans. this quotes president trump, who praised the move during a lunch with senate republicans. he said, "let me tell you exactly what my messages. the republican party will soon be known as the party of health care. you watch." that is some of the debate going on on capitol hill. receiving carolina, insurance from an employer, this is sharon. what would you offer? caller: well, what i do not understand is the guy that was just on there said the republicans were not considering pre-existing cases, but they said they were going to consider

that that would be if they change, that the existing would be covered. and also, it is going up like this there this is the way the democrats planned it so that single-payert in a plan. this is all a plan so they can go to single-payer plan. host: with all you said, how would you improve health care? -- well,ell, that is it is such a mess now, and then you hear some people say that it is cheaper, some people say it is higher, and some of the figures i have heard that people say they are paying for affordable care, i just cannot believe it. when i have talked to other people when they say their prices have doubled and tripled -- host: let's hear from someone who does receive insurance under the aca. kurt is in indiana. hello. caller: hi.

it is not really my idea -- is that the first article you talked about from --nesota, from blue cross all over this country, there are nonprofits that have great big buildings. you know, they pay a lot of people to manage care. middleman between the providers of health care and the people that are sick. those people make a lot of money. that is where the efficiency is lost. that is why we pay more for health than anywhere else in the developed world. to get the least effect. host: why do you think efficiency goes down with those middlemen, as you described them? ofler: because it is a layer administration that does not need to be there. for primaryple

billing codes that are not necessary. if you are there for an x-ray, if you need bloodwork, if you have cancer treatment, the providers know that. they have some records ostensibly there for you, or you could have the records to present to them. i do not need a provider in or to beo be billing subsidized by the aca. host: ok. that is kurt with his thoughts. another aca recipient. this is in wisconsin michael, hello. caller: hello. reduce ortwo ways to contain costs that are escalating so rapidly. number one, in many's -- and many states used to have this. there is a hospital review board where the capital expenses on hospital construction and so forth have been eliminated and hospitals get built willy-nilly.

our town, 75,000 people, has three hospitals that are quite large. the capital infrastructure has raised the expense dramatically. the second thing we could do on prescription drugs, which is done in canada, is they add up the cost of drugs and 160 countries. they divide it for each drug so that they get a world price per drugs -- for drugs. and they are not overpaying or underpaying, they are paying in the average middle. if you did those two things, you would see hundreds of billions of dollars removed from the system over time. there is no constrain on capital spending in the health care system, and we clearly have to put a lid on it. host: ok. dave, davenext to from maryland gets his insurance through an employer. go ahead. caller: thanks for taking the call. within the health industry, i

would say when you look at meaningful use, what the aca has done to try to help reduce the cost of health care, probably is really one barrier state law across the country. and the privacy acts that are tied to each state really are what are barring these health plans from being able to share information across state lines. i know that -- and unless that information can travel freely without fear of prosecution, we will see these high health care costs because labs and all these different reports will constantly be getting duplicated. significantably a barrier to reducing health care costs. the factd barrier is that many americans get confused between the concept of insurance

and noninsurance. most health care plans are not insurance plans because the fact allow forf them pre-existing conditions. if you have a pre-existing condition, you are not a good insurance candidate. so these are really more like a benefit plan. subscribing to costco or sam's club, you are basically grouping yourself with a much larger population who wish to shop for health care in a particular way. host: that is dave and marilyn. what -- in maryland. half-hour, 25 minutes, you can add your thoughts to the mix. the numbers are on the screen. if you receive insurance from the aca, it is 202-748-8000. 8001 if you receive insurance from an employer. one of the efforts going on on capitol hill yesterday was words

from the democratic caucus chairman, hakeem jeffries. he was talking about the trump administration through the justice department asking a court to invalidate the aca. here is the desk here are the thoughts of hakeem jeffries. [video clip] >> once again, the republicans have shown their true colors. they simply cannot help themselves. americans all across the country woke up to news that the trump justice department is once again munching an assault -- once onin launching an assault health care in the united states of america. the republicans want to take away health care from tens of millions of americans again. imposeublicans want to what would be effectively an age

andon americans between 50 64, forcing a dramatic increase in premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. again, the republicans want to strip away protection for americans with pre-existing conditions they simply cannot help themselves. issue of thefining 2018 midterm elections. we embrace this fight. because house democrats were in order tojority defend health care on behalf of every day americans, and that is exactly what we are doing. host: again, if you want to see more of that, go to our website, c-span.org. john is next in missouri. caller: thanks for taking my call.

i was just curious. i think the other guy mentioned it. it was like up in canada, it seems like they are doing pretty good. we ought to switch over to theirs. by the way, i just lost my medicaid thanks to the republicans. host: why do you think the canadian system is doing well? caller: because why are all the americans going over there for their health care? host: diana from california receives insurance from the aca. good morning. yes, thank you for taking my call. that on yourrn is channel i heard that the president has already set his calet for medicare, that a and social security for california. i am not sure if the latter one was included, but i know about

the first two. he said he would never touch it. i know california is supposed to billion in medicare, medi-cal insurance cuts. why is it true, then being just california? you know, having to have a budget cut like this? and when he said he was not going to touch medicare and medi-cal or the affordable care act -- it is not really -- andre -- that he pre-existing conditions -- i happen to be diabetic, and i have had to had open heart surgery. it was not something i was seeking. i passed out and went into a coma. the doctors said i needed it. so it was with a condition like

that, and circumstances just happening. they said i would have died without that open heart surgery. host: and so with that in mind, talk about your current experience with the aca. are you satisfied with that? caller: yes, i am. i am happy to have the service. i do not understand why the diss abolishant to it. without having something else in its place. host: that is diane in california. a lookt posting taking at the comments of joe biden. talking about taking on the president over his plans for health care. "did you see the budget that was just introduced? billions, -- $845

a trillionmost dollars cut in medicare. why? because of a tax cut for the super wealthy that created a deficit of $1.9 trillion, and now they got to go make somebody pay for it." screen decided to refresh. apologies for that. biden goes on to say, spending from year-to-year, the reduction is from past medicare would be on if nothing changed, and approach president barack obama advanced in his last two budgets. it goes on if you want to go to the medicare or the full effect website to take a look at that claim when it comes to statements about medicare. thomas in georgia, our line for others. caller: yes, sir. i am not down on the health care deal, but what was it that when

obama said we could keep our same doctor and the price would be affordable, and i am seeing that it is not? as far as medication, congress keeps talking about our medicine is too high. all they have got to do is pass a law. the companies will still sell the medicine, but i believe they are giving the representatives and the senators money for their campaigns. so, i mean, everybody knows that. host: a viewer from virginia beach, virginia, with aca insurance care. hello. go ahead. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say, prior to aca being introduced, insurance was running me roughly $400 a month. the minute it was introduced, it went up to $2100 a month. subsidizing with the government. so my government, my tax dollars are going to subsidize a premium

that has tripled -- or actually quadrupled. my main point is we should be looking at the insurance companies and regulating them. personally, i believe they should be nonprofit. since aca has come into existence, they have tripled in their income. if you look at the reporting's each insurance company, they went from $100 billion to $300 billion in profits. we have got to look at regulating the insurance companies. they should do pre-existing. they should not be making billions of dollars on the backs of the american taxpayers. and personally, i limit my income per month since i am self-employed so that i can afford the affordable health care because if i could not, i would not have insurance. ok, from virginia beach, talking about her inch

experiences -- about her experiences. the aca is known as obamacare, also known as the benefits and protections given there. it is up for debate on capitol hill. andhe topic of health care improving health care, that is what we want to hear from you. on different tangents of experiences when it comes to the health care world. let's hear from ed in georgia, receives insurance through an employer. doler: what i would like to is bring to the attention that the drug companies pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to the ' congressmen to vote to keep drugs cost up there. bring trump is trying to

our drugs down to where it is cheaper like other countries, but when the lobbyists are look, andnd saying, you can google this stuff, you can find out the company and the politicians. whatever his name is, he gets way up to hundreds of thousands of dollars for voting no. in grovetown,ed georgia, calling up to give us his experience. if you go to the website, it highlights many stories others are talking about this morning. makerthe oxycontin perdue pharma. that is off the website. there are other publications picking up that story.

massachusetts, matthew, go ahead. he receives employer insurance. caller: i am a physician who has worked in germany and here, and the increase in health care costs is universal to all health care systems, and it cannot be stopped because technology continues to develop. science continues to offer ever eversophisticated and expensive solutions to diagnosing and therapy. the issue, what i see would be the better solution is increase, improved health by a plant-based whole food diet, to recommend that. view is theod in my biggest health hazard for americans at the moment. and recommend or somehow motivate people to do a reasonable amount of moderate exercise on a daily basis.

dramatically reduce the number of diabetes, obesity, way,tension, and, by the it is proven evidence, and that will lower the health care cost to an amount where the way we pay or who we pay and who pays for what will no longer be as pressing or as relevant. host: let me ask you this because you have experience in the united states in germany. which system is better when it comes to health care? [laughter] the outcome i believe here in the united states is better. the training that i have received here is better. i am sorry to say, for germany. the overall state of health, if you have good insurance in the united states, it is excellent. probably the service is better than in germany. maybe the training and expertise

of physicians is better. he really depends on how you look at it. host: as far as costs are concerned, do germans -- what do they pay generally when it comes to health care services, and how much is that is divided by insurance and things like that? caller: germany has a -- a general fund that everybody has to enroll to. since i believe in the 1880's, there is a law that you have to have health insurance. law,ly after passing that a medicare-like company was founded where everybody can enroll, kind of similar to medicare. besides that, there are private insurance companies where you payinsured, and you according to risk assessment, more healthyu are

you pay less. if you are not so healthy, you pay more. but: apologist, matthew, thank you for the perspective. larry -- apologies, matthew, but thank you you for the perspective. larry, hi. set things way they up, even with medicare, i pay into an employer system, through the union and through my salary, and when they got on medicare, they put the medicare is the primary payer. the government should only be the payer of last resort, not first. that is what makes the prices go up so much higher. because medicare is the primary payer. and i feel they have a very bad system with the affordable care act. they call it the affordable care act, and after they passed it, the people who vote for it say they cannot afford it. now the congressmen, the

senators, and their staff, the theirers pay 70% of premium. if they cannot afford it and they make $185,000 a year, how do they expect the average $40,000 or $50,000 a year, to afford it? host: one more call, raffaella from michigan. caller: thanks for taking -- rafael from michigan. caller: thanks for taking my call. i am a military vet. i think most of the problems is that the big pharmaceutical comedies are making millions of dollars, and they are donating money to congress -- that the big pharmaceutical companies are making millions of dollars and they are donating money to congress. when you go to the hospital, you go to get one test and they give you 20 tests, and then they max

your billing out. i have had that happen to me at the dentist. he tried to say that i had all these problems, which i know i did not have. what he was doing was trying to max out my balance. nobody is monitoring none of this. -- thatat is raffaella is rafael. grace-marie turner will join us to take your questions. later on, cq roll call's todd , federal money to protect schools in mass shootings. this weekend on "american history tv," world war ii navajo code talkers, and a

look back at the 1970 93-mile island nuclear power accident. -- the 1979 three-mile island nuclear power accident. the code talkers who served in the marine corps and use their native language to secretly communicate operational plans. us, the never hook code talkers, compelled to use their language, and they devised it, and they schemed it in such role, aat it played a very unique role of confusing the enemy. announcer: live sunday morning at 8:30 eastern on american history tv and "washington journal," the 40th anniversary nuclearhree-mile island accident near harrisburg, sylvania, consider the most serious nuclear power accident in the united states are joining

us, historian and author samuel walker. coradi.yman, and joyce kara report,h the 1979 cbs "fallout from three-mile island." >> please stay indoors with your windows closed. >> for almost a week last month, the people of middletown, pennsylvania, lived in fear of an enemy they could not see, hear, or feel. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: this is grace-marie turner, president of the galen institute, here to tell us about -- what didf the you think about the justice

department move? people, frankly, were surprised. but there has been argument from the beginning that the individual mandate was unconstitutional. the federal government telling people they have to use private money to buy a private product. all of the court cases about that. justice roberts decided it could be upheld if they called it attacks. that -- if they called it a tax. that saves the affordable care act. the 2020 attorney general without the tax, the law does not hold up because when this 1327 page bill, if any provision in this law is declared unconstitutional or invalid, the rest of it stands. that was not there. so basically they are arguing,

and a district judge in the northern district of texas, agreed. so now we have got -- what upsets me, though, is the hysteria that the whole thing is going to collapse and that nothing will come to replace it. when republicans were talking about repeal, they were talking about and replace. all of the effort went into, what are we going to replace it with. people are not going to lose their coverage. years ofow got nine experience with the aca. what did not work, what can we do better, but make sure we protect people and protect people with pre-existing conditions? buys thethe court justice department argument, you are arguing that nothing changes? guest: i am arguing that congress will come back to this right away. we are working hard with members of policy community and members of congress on replacement provisions.

there is legislation being drafted. there will have to be a transition. not say tomorrow the aca is invalid. they would say we are going to give you time to find out how you are going to build new infrastructure. to make it more affordable for millions of people who are having to drop coverage because they cannot afford it. host: even as you say that, the democrats on their side are working to bolster the aca. what are things that you like about their approach? guest: here is a copy of the bill. this is not 2800 pages, but it is a set of provisions about a dozen different provisions. i testified twice in february before the energy and commerce the energy -- the education and labor committee on these provisions for the bill. they are, for example, upset the trump administration is giving people other options outside of

obamacare coverage. giving them the option of bridge plans. an early retiree. you are starting a new business, you are a young person and you do not have a job yet. you need coverage until you can get that permanent policy, as permanent as anything is in this world. but the obama administration had limited those to simply three months, and that is not long enough for people who really need coverage for these kinds of events. so the trump administration said, we want to allow people to have these bridge plans for up to three years. they are more affordable because they do not have to comply with all the rules and regulations from the aca that has made health insurance so responsive for others. they also do not like the association health plans that allow small businesses to come together and get some of the economies -- the economy of scale to large companies are they are trying to undo the

guidance of the trump administration on state flux -- on statete flexibility. i am not really sure this is going to help. by the way, when you look at this, this is not talking about pre-existing conditions. it is talking about spending more money, allowing everybody to have aca subsidies if they do not have some other plan, either a public or employer plan, so it is really kind of obamacare for all. people need to ask themselves, how is that working out? with these high deductibles, premiums that have tripled, and with networks that people have to sometimes drive 10, 20 miles to get to a hospital or a doctor who is part of their plan. 202-748-8000 if you receive insurance through the aca. -748-8001 if you receive

insurance from an employer. what is the galen institute and who funds it? we focused just on health care. we are sort of small, narrow, and where funded by come as we have to be, in order to be a , primarily through philanthropic organizations and individuals who are concerned and want to see the right kind of change. does it include insurance companies, hospitals? guest: a range. donors come and go, and it is inside and outside. host: in two segments we have had, people ask us about the status of health care and ways to improve it. some people thought efficiency is the way to go and some people thought about the pricing. what does that state -- what

does that say about the status of health care as you see it? guest: host: one of the reasons -- guest: one of the reasons this is such a crucial political issue is that everybody feels this personally. they have a child, themselves, a parent, a neighbor, relative significantly impacted. people are scared and they want to be protected. the scare taxes -- the scare tactics unfortunately work. when i testified before the committee, they were saying that republicans want to take away pre-existing condition protection. everyone one of them said we want to make sure that people with pre-existing conditions are checked it. there is more than what you way -- there is more than one way to do this. i talked in my testimony about a woman named janet from colorado, who was diagnosed with hepatitis needing a wound up

liver transplant. she was in the colorado high-risk pool, and they paid every penny, offer $600,000 liver transplant operation, and they also paid for her antirejection meds. passed, the obamacare plan had a much higher deductible, higher premium, much narrower network. pay for antirejection meds out of pocket, and she said i was better off in my state plan. she certainly had pre-existing conditions, but because of all the rules and regulations of many of these plans, she did not have access to the care she needed. from the first call comes may, in alabama, receives insurance through the aca. go ahead. caller: i just want to say that that is not true what ms. turner is speaking about, because the aca -- yes, it is high in some

areas. but it is a wonderful plan. i have it. it works. they do not have anything to .ack up, any plan to back up the doctor of your choice will not maybe see you because you have a pre-existing plan. that is very scary, and very uncomfortable. i am just sorry, but i disagree with her. host: ok. guest: i am really glad that you are happy with your plan. so many people, especially those who do not offer subsidies, find that the costs are really prohibitive. they may have a deductible of $12,000. that means they have to pay that amount out of pocket every year in order to get the care they need. others find the doctors they want to see, maybe they are a lifelong pediatrician for their children, is not in their network. so there are a lot of people who find that the plans really do

not work. but as far as the pre-existing condition issue, virginia foxx, who is the ranking member of the labor relations committee in the house, is talking about the protections that are already in law, not just the aca. insurance copies now are prohibited from denying and not renewing coverage due to pre-existing conditions. they are banned from rescinding coverage based on pre-existing conditions. they are prevented from raising premiums on individuals with pre-existing conditions. she cited another -- a number of paa, asxamples with hi well as a health care act of 2017, that the house passed but it did not make it through the senate. there are a lot of protections in law for people with pre-existing conditions, but a lot of people who are in the aca plan is finding it bashar areing it very difficult --

finding it difficult to get the care they need. "we wills statement, continue to engage on this issue as it continues through the appeals process, that we can support coverage for every american." terrific but he represents the insurance companies, who are heavily subsidized. they are getting major subsidies . to individuals -- the subsidies do not go to individuals, they go to insurance comedies. and they say in this bill yesterday that was presented by speaker pelosi, even more subsidies from the federal government to insurance companies so it is not surprising to me that the insurance companies are saying we want to make sure all those subsidies continue. republicans also want to make sure that people who need help in getting health insurance coverage get subsidies, they get coverage, but they want more -- 3 millionr than

people have dropped out of the insurance market. just in about an 18-month per iod because the premiums were so high they could not afford them. calledally have a plan health care 2020.org. people can look up our plan. we have 100 people that have helped this together. we are talking with a lot of members of congress about it. there are serious efforts to not only make sure people keep coverage, but it is the kind of coverage that works and meets needs. so that janet does not really have to worry about whether or not she is going to get the care she needs. host: this is linda from missouri, who gets insurance through an employer. hello. caller: hello. i am insured through my employer. the insurance is ok, but those premiums go up also. andve two brothers on aca,

they are very satisfied with it. i have not heard any negative about it -- anything negative about it, what i just know that if the premiums are going up because the sides are ill limiting the services, you are going to have to pay more if you want that service. i am always so hard -- i am always so tired of them doing what democrats and republicans do. i know i have insurance, but i still worry about other people. they are so partisan, it is just ridiculous. linda, i cannot agree with you more about the importance of bipartisan support for reform. one of the reasons that medicare and medicaid have been so durable is because they were passed with bipartisan support. with theame thing health insurance affordability and accountability act of 1996. those had bipartisan support.

i would like to see us get to a solution that works for everybody, that is sustainable, that has bipartisan support. and i work hard on that. with onei was here pollock, talking about the work that we are doing with other organizations, to try to come together to get a package. one of the things that i think we have -- we might find agreement on is the issue of giving states more authority. states know the needs of their populations, and they know their markets and resources better than the federal government does. give them more authority and power to help find out how they can lower costs, how they can give people more choices, give people more flexibility with the kinds of plans they have. there is some early evidence with the aca that that could work.

there is a paper that heritage has published that talks about states that have taken some of the aca money and separately subsidized people who have high medical costs, pre-existing conditions, so that they do not drive up the cost for everybody else in the pool. some states like maryland have found that premiums are 43% lower than they otherwise have been because of this one change by the state of maryland. morepremiums are lower, people come into the market, it the plan. about seven states are trying this experiment. there are lots of others. one of the provisions of the law that nancy pelosi is proposing would give states less flexibility, and i think that is not the right way to go. but i do think that giving states more flexibility but continue to make sure that people do not lose their

coverage have it. i cannot emphasize strongly enough that people with current coverage on the aca are not going to lose it. congress has our best interest in making sure that those people are protected and that others who are being shoved out of the market also are able to afford coverage. host: this is pat in new jersey, uninsured. hello. caller: can you please address what i consider the major flaw in obamacare? which is one-size-fits-all. paydo older women have to for maternity care? why do people who do not want it have to pay for transgender coverage? one benefit they say would come from throwing out the aca entirely is that insurance companies will go back to offering people to coverage they need, not the coverage the government decides they should have. guest:guest: first of all, -- guest: first of all, i am sorry you are uninsured because we all need that protection. maybe you could send me a note

and i could see what i could do to help you guide you to affordable insurance. i agree with you. one of the reasons people are dropping out of the market is because of the cost of health insurance, and the reason it is so costly is because it is required to cover so many different benefits. it is more than a gold plan. it is a platinum plan. and many people simply cannot afford that coverage. that is where we talk about state innovation, to give states more authority, to give people a broader range for coverage. one of the options is short-term limited duration plan, that gives people the opportunity to buy a non-obamacare compliant plan, keep it for up to three years until they can get more stable coverage. they have been calling these junk plans because they are not obamacare compliant, that they do not cover all these

illnesses, that therefore they are a junk plan. i had a broker, after my testimony before the labor education committee on this, i had a broker who called me and said he had a father who was no longer able to afford the aca premiums. and he said i have got to make sure my kids -- he bought one of these bridge much more affordable premium tragically, one of his sons was diagnosed with leukemia. the bridge plan paid $170,000 for the care that child needed. he said without that, my child would not have gotten the care that he needed or i would have been bankrupt. people need more options, and that is what republican's are trying to do, particularly the trump administration, and the legislation that was introduced and proposed yesterday would take away a lot of those options. sayinghat people were about health care before you

came on, one of those sent a true -- sent a tweet. this is a piecemeal approach to treatment and encourages unnecessary tests and procedures. what do you think about that when it comes to the service side? guest: we have some existing models that are working. one is medicare advantage. that is the part of medicare that allows people to use the value of their medicare benefit to buy a private plan. those provide much more coordinated care. think about it. a serve -- a third of seniors have voluntarily opted for these plans rather than fee-for-service. fee-for-service, in this increasingly complicated health care market, people are really bewildered by it. they need somebody to help coordinate their care. they need to have somebody know, did you already have this test? are these meds compatible with others? you really need to see a cardiologist again.

i think that is the way the health system would evolve if we did not have washington setting host: so many of the rules. -- washington setting so many of the rules. host: are lined for others. this is from washington. go ahead. caller: my wife teaches in upstate new york. for years we have been going down to florida. it itetirement community, is located with what they call canadian snowbirds. they spend their winters down there. i get to talk to them all the time. to a person, they love their health care. when i described our health care system in our country, this one fella last year made a great point. of st., right outside petersburg -- he said, drive to tampa, go downtown, take a look at the biggest, tallest buildings, and those are always owned by health insurance companies.

it is the prophets. he is right. thes the prophets -- it is profits. thel money is taken from health-care care industry, we will never see the -- guest: we see those same buildings and we see huge hospital growth, but more than half now of our health picture is funded through public programs, primarily medicare and , theaid, but also the v.a. children's health insurance program, there are a lot of public programs that are also pouring money into the health venture. and of course the aca, with the tax credit subsidies and medicaid expansion. it is not just the insurance companies. i will tell you that if there were to be a medicare for all plan or some sort of a plan where all of us are under a government program rather than having a mix of private and think, you would find, i

that you still need the people to process the bills, figure out if a service was approved, or even if a doctor provided that service, then figure out how much the doctors are going to be paid. that infrastructure is not going away. what we need to do is figure out , how are we going to have the greatest efficiency so that the health sector can have the efficiency have seen in other sectors of the economy to get to lower costs, higher quality, and more choices? the more the government is writing the rules, more these companies are fixed on, how am i going to work around that rule to get the biggest share of that health care pie? the rightn, what is thing for customers? what do they want? they want lower costs, more choices, a coordinated care plan. they want a limited network in order to be able to save money.

they want an hmo to be able to go to one place to get all their care. everybody has some different need. trying to do a government cookie-cutter plan that would look a lot like a single-payer fee-for-service plan is not going to solve the problems in our health sector. host: greg and marilyn. you have employer insurance. go ahead -- greg in maryland. you have employers insurance. go ahead. greg, hello? this is clark in new york. clark, good morning. caller: good morning. i get health insurance through my employer. my wife and i pay for her health insurance through the aca. it is $400 a month and we can barely afford it. the thing is, it is insurance. i am trying to follow your guest's argument, which seems to be on the one hand knocking the aca, the cost and the efficiency of the aca, and then picking

these fragments of solutions. i am not following what her overarching plan will be. it does not really make sense. having insurance of any kind is a relief to me, even though it is barely affordable. guest: i absolutely cannot agree more. i started both of my testimonies by saying republicans and democrats absolutely agree that we want everyone to have health insurance. we want to make sure people have coverage that they liked, that they feel is secure, that they are able to use that insurance to get the care that they need. so absolutely, we are on the same page. 173the reality is that million americans have coverage through their employer. nearly 60 million have insurance through medicare. there are about 10 million people who have coverage through the aca. for many of those, that coverage works fine. they do not want to lose that.

the after poll shows american people are not in any mood for another major disruption of our health sector. they want security. they want to make sure that changes are made in such a way that does not disrupt their own coverage. but that also expands coverage to the millions of people who are left out of the system. there is new data that has come out, to figure out who are the people being left behind who cannot afford insurance? we had a call earlier today who cannot afford insurance. i would like to know why he does not have insurance and to see what can be done. there are many people eligible for medicaid that are not enrolled. so we need to build on the system we have. we need to figure out who is falling through the cracks, and make sure they can have coverage that they like and that works for them, and that they can afford. and if they need subsidies, there are some that they can purchase. host: from twitter, can you

comment on those age 50 to 64 who cannot afford for-profit insurance and that is charging retirees, likely to be a major focus. if we were to look at that breakdown, many are in that category. we have to make health care more affordable. that is what states are trying to do. if you cannot afford the individual market, why is that? it is often because the state coverage is being rule driven rather than consumer driven, to give people more choices. association health plans, that is one of the things the trump administration has offered, to give individuals, small businesses to group together and get efficiency of plans that a large employer covers. another row coming out, health ,eimbursement arranges

sometimes employers cannot deal with the infrastructure of offering coverage, but they can offer a defined contribution and give people the option of buying a plan. it may be a bridge plan for the time being that gay people affordable options, good coverage -- that give people affordable options, good coverage, looks very much like employer coverage. there are other coverage options out there. if we are going to guarantee everybody have health insurance -- everybody has health insurance, that will require a mandate. we have been through that. we have to figure out, this is a system we have got. let's figure out how to build on that, fix the flaws and make sure people that people being left out get coverage and people have more security. a word fromget

carolyn who gets insurance from the aca. caller: i would like to correct the guest on some of her facts, first of all. she said, should the aca be repealed, maternity care or protections for pre-existing conditions are in law and would not go away however those are in law because of the aca. if you repeal the aca, those protections go away. i would like to zoom out and think about us as a society, a group of folks that should see having insurance as a normal part of life. why is this a political discussion? we are talking about insurance versus business, a benefit versus medicaid -- we should start from a position where having insurance should not be a worry for folks in this country. i would like to end zooming back

to 2009, before 2010, before the aca came into effect, when maternity care had to be person, a woman had to predict before she got pregnant, if she needed maternity coverage and purchase insurance at a great in -- at a great expense. it is a part of life. host: go ahead. guest: many provisions i was reading from testimony by representatives, representative carolina,ginia, north these were in existing law before the aca. the accountability act was in effect for 20 years. there have been many protections for pre-existing conditions at the federal and state level. the affordable care act added

additional ones. i am will tell you, after talking to members up there on capitol hill, members are absolutely committed to protecting people with pre-existing conditions. how do you do it in a way that does not increase cost for everybody else to the point that you are pushing people out of the market like this dad that i talked about earlier who wanted to buy coverage, he could not afford it. he was not eligible for coverage, subsidies. plan thatthis bridge helped get his child the care he needed for leukemia. we want to make sure people have coverage but they don't have to be frightened they will lose it. congress is committed to doing that. there are other ways to do this. states have to be part of this conversation. frankly, they know a lot more about regulating the health insurance market, after doing this for the last 30 years than the federal government does.

galen.org is the website if you want to see the work they have done. guest: thanks. host: coming up next, we hear from cq roll call reporter, todd ruger on how schools are spending close to $1 million on how to protect them from mass shootings. coming up next on washington journal. ♪ >> the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do

for your country. [applause] >> the people who knocked these buildings down, [applause] book, thes newest presidents, noted historians rank america's best and worst chief executives, providing insight into the lives of the 44 american presidents through stories gathered by interviews with noted historians. explore the life events that shaped our leaders, challenges they faced and the legacies they live left -- they have left behind. 23,ill be on shelves april you can preorder your copy as a hardcover or e-book today at /thepresidents or wherever books are sold. >> sunday night on q&a, supreme court reporter talks about her latest book, the chief, a

biography of john roberts. >> john roberts controls, however he votes now, that anthony kennedy is gone, he will determine the law of the land. the liberals want him to come over, inch over a little but the conservatives are trying to hold him back, where he always was. meanwhile, you have this chief justice declaring, there is no such thing as an obama judge, a trump judge, a bush judge. he wants to project a bench not political when they all have their agendas of sorts. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on q&a. washington journal continues. cq rolldd ruger of call. congress set aside $1 billion after parkland. now schools are starting to use it.

guest: good morning. host: take us back and what happened after parkland. guest: school shooting after school shooting at this time. john rutherford, former sheriff from florida, introduced the bill in january of that year to give grants to schools about how to make their schools safer, training and stuff. a couple days before that, there was a school shooting in kentucky. one month later was parkland. this shows how congress can, if they want to, do something quickly. the bill got on the house floor on a day that students were marching because of the parkland shooting. they were leaving school. the house overwhelmingly voted. only 10 against. later that month, they incorporated it into the spending package and they funded

this at $100 million per year for the next 10. this was as the march for our lives was coming, the nationwide march, teenagers were becoming vocal and going on tv and demanding something be done. this is the only thing congress has done so far to specifically address school violence. host: when it comes to a locality, what do they have to do to request the money? rules they hadof to come up with quickly. there are rules in the law, such as a certain amount has to go to rural schools, certain amount to urban schools, all states have to get it. after that, they have to put together a plan that says what they need and how they plan to spend the money. districts or a city has to come up with a 25% match for the money. once they get the grant, the

schools will go back to their city, or the school boards themselves are approving spending and getting it going. first round of grants handed out in october, those approvals are at local level going through. they are just now starting to spend this money. host: one of the schools you highlight was in kentucky. funds, theyfederal put shatter resistant film over doors and windows, handheld radios, installing cameras in buses, increasing security cameras in school. is there leeway on how to use the money? guest: they put together an application and said what they need. great example of a school -- the superintendent said, this was money we could not find in our general budget, for this kind of stuff. the shatter resistance on the glass, that will not stop bullets but if a shooting

happens, it will keep it from chattering. that is one of these basics. this is a district that needs basic stuff to help school safety. host: $1 million federal --nding protecting schools $1 billion federal spending, protecting schools. ask questions on the phones. if you are a school teacher/administrator, (202)-748-8000. 8001 for parents. all others, (202)-748-8002. they come up with a plan, then can they ask for more money after the initial grant is exhausted? rounds.0 years worth of i'm sure they can put together another application. there is a lot of demand for

this. superintendents are facing pressure to keep school safe. at the same time, they don't want to turn it into basically a jail. there is pressure to do something, get mental health counselors in. a lot of grants go toward training, assessing schools to see where safety can be improved. training students to see the warning signs, maybe create an anonymous warning line, so if there is suspicious behavior that can get called and, seeing where there might be vulnerabilities, putting sros in. there are a lot of things these schools can recommend for training and safety. there is also physical things they can buy. door locks, new ways in and out of the building, video cameras, smart video cameras. there is a lot of things they can do.

billion of spending per year. charlotte, $400,000 in grant, union county schools. upgrade ald plan to fire training simulator. guest: this is the other end. they already have a firearms training simulator. they want to upgrade that. octagon of screens an officer can step and with a special weapon, shows where they are pointing. a video simulation they have to react to. in this grant, they are planning to film some of the schools in the district so they can train specifically for response in those schools. they say that is the best way. there is no better way of training. it is. i have done one before. it is intense. that school district is also going for apps that would scan

social media to see threats. threat assessment apps. communication, in case there is an emergency. host: our first call from stephen in pennsylvania. i think schools could start with educational programs with the kids when they first start the school day or year. gather everyone to the gymnasium, tell them they will not tolerate any type of bullying or actions that could lead to harsher actions by other students. being a little league coach, working with kids, kids that are properly educated through football, you know, training. , if you want to

enter a gun club to the school, that teaches firearms training at a certain level. in pennsylvania you have to take a hunter safety course to even go hunting, to show you can conduct yourself safely. see what is going on in kids lives, to see what you could do better, such as these video games they play. host: thanks. doing a range are of activities to try and keep bullying out. training/funding is to get early warning signs, train people to step in when they see something. askeddistricts have voters for more money for that kind of thing, for school safety. this is on top of a lot of other things schools are doing locally to try to step in and keep kids

safe. for: have schools asked farming for teachers? guest: i didn't see any. -- arming for teachers? in oklahoma, they created an emergency response team that has prosecutors, mental health people, probation parole officers, school administrators, mental health counselors. that is a rapid response team if there is a child that is showing signs -- they can interact without letting it escalate. host: line for parents, bill from illinois. caller: hello. thanks for taking my call. i am a grandfather. i have a 13-year-old grandson. ago, a kida half brings a knife on the bus and he is flashing it around saying, this is for daniel, this is for

daniel. my grandson is a sweet kid. if this girl didn't go to the about thisnd tell kid had a knife, inside the school they are calling it an object. not a knife. an object. the kid got a one-week and was told to say sorry. my grandson says it was heartfelt. this kid is back in school. my grandson sleeps with the light on, scared to go back to school. what if this kids parents have guns laying around? host: how much of these grants are used for after an event, specifically for counseling? guest: the caller brought up a point. there is concern putting a bunch of surveillance cameras and

will makede schools it more like a jail, closer to a juvenile justice system than a school where the focus might be, instead of educating students, connecting them somehow between the school and jails, if they bring a knife to school, is it a crime? they get into the justice system and there is problems with that. balancealways have to between being in a place of education and a place of safety, not being too tough on students. it is a hard line to walk. a lot of this stuff, what you bring up is interesting. if you have cameras, that is and after, after a mass shooting about thing. what happened? it will show you. it will not necessarily stop someone from coming to a school and doing that. broward county, florida, they

are putting in smart cameras which they say can detect behavior that is not normal, like if someone is jumping a fence, that they are not supposed to be jumping, and then alert the authorities. host: just one of the things. also training sessions for teachers and students in broward county, training for threat assessment teams, that grant, $1.3 million, for a large state, do you get more of an advantage? guest: you're not supposed to. they are supposed to be divvied up. broward county did a good job. they got all three different types of grants under the program. that totaled over $1 million. state, got $1big million for training, they will use it for a three year training program. texas got $1 million under two different ones. figure states got money.

hard to cover the entire country with this year, $75 million, next year $100 million. trying to cover the whole country with that is not possible. they are starting to sprinkle this money through but we have not seen exactly how it will divvy up overall. host: a floridian, jeff. caller: hello? host: you are on. caller: my concern is about having more guns in school by arming teachers. i don't understand how that will help stop school shootings, even more, when the student grabs the teachers gun. i don't understand that, why someone would even think of that. that is just putting more guns in school. guest: interesting debate. everybody is trying to think of every way they can respond to a

mass shooting. on one side -- train and arm a teacher, they are already there and they will be able to stop something more quickly than the police, who have to respond. they are also all over the school so they can respond wherever. the other side -- this is not why they got into teaching. what happens if they misfire and hit a student behind a shooter? there are concerns on both sides. that is why there has not been real movement on that. website,you go to the congress set aside $1 billion after parkland. schools are starting to use it. todd ruger wrote the story. if you want to ask him questions about it, for teachers, administrators and schools, (202)-748-8000. 001.parents, (202)-748-8 for all others, (202)-748-8002.

caller: good morning. i believe i'm speaking to a german brother, there. i am a retired math and history teacher. being a man of the numbers, you have to make sure they work. as far as the gentleman from florida is concerned about the issue with the guns, i would think if people knew certain people will say, in a specific school, we are armed, that would be a deterrent. you know? common sense tells me that. now, i have been retired for a few years. there has been an increase in incidents, not major ones, here within rhode island. it is very, very sad.

i think they should hire retired policeman for these types of jobs, even though retired policemen get a pretty good pension, some of them would take them up on that. host: thanks, jack. how much of the money breaks down for resource officers? experts thated to say a child is 87 times more likely to be the victim of a shooting or suicide outside of school then inside. schools are generally safe. there's not a lot of research that shows if you put in cameras and door locks and all those things, that it is going to stop mass shootings. also, we don't really know exactly what the trigger is for causing someone to become a mass shooter as opposed to just posting something online, vague

threats, but someone who actually follows through. the aclu has pointed out congress has blocked funding, or the cdc to study the link between firearms and school shootings. there is criticism that throwing money at this problem and hardening schools is not really solving the problem. there is a harder conversation around hiring sros or mental health counselors because those are ongoing costs. if you hire a mental health professional, for example, you might get an outlay every year, as opposed to buying a camera. host: online for others, will, high. . caller: hello. is, we protect our president, our congress, banks,

treasuret all of our throughout this country with armed guards. why don't we protect our greatest treasure? our future. our children. with armed guards? lot of schools a across the country. the cost would be great. reason than our children? what better way to spend our money than protecting our children? this would be money well spent. we have got the money. it is in taxes. what better way to spend our money then to protect our children? host: thanks. guest: interesting. the money being spent on students is by far, especially with safety, by far at the local and state districts.

the federal program is a layer on top. when you talk about spending -- federal lawmakers shouldn't be giving taxpayer money to schools anyway, some say, local school should keep students safe. that is where most of it should come from. if you want to protect the kids in your community, you can ask the school board for more money or they can pass a referendum and spend it. you are right. there are a lot of schools and students in the country. when you look at the cost of actually, for instance, hardening every school in america, it starts getting really big. this grant program, for example, there was a school in iowa that got $500,000. that is just one school in iowa. think about all of iowa, times $500,000. host: if you're putting more

--eras, surfing social media are there privacy concerns? guest: the aclu has recently written about this. you're turning this into surveillance state, when there is no real reason to know exactly if that will stop but next mass shooter. host: jane, florida. caller: hi. friends, one of which is that lower level teaching small children for 25 years, another one teaching high forol math who got an award being a teacher. both are retiring. the kids are out of control. these are the most patient people i have ever met. a lot of it has to do with the fact that parents are being called out of the home to work so much. moms used to be able to afford to stay home and take care of kids, maybe keep an eye out for

them and shovel them to this event or that and now parents don't have that option. there is a loss of connection between parents and kids. i live in south florida. this is the first time i have seen this huge link between massive funding and these issues. the fact that this money was just rolled out and the responses interesting to me because there was a lot of inconsistencies i saw in the parking situation. once again, we see, there is a big rollout of funding for mental health that, there is a new facility, i think it is called eagles refuge or something, for the kids to go to. lots of money involved, opening in april, then of course we have

these -- host: you put a lot out there. we will let the guest respond. guest: this is the first thing congress has done in terms of money for this. the democrats in the house have tried to pass other laws they say would stop school shootings, such as universal backup checks. republicans say that would not have stopped any of these. the senate they are working on a red flagler, which people say would help. there were a number of red flags in parkland from the shooter, and florida in fact, put in a red flag law after that. congress is mulling it over. host: see that hearing on www.c-span.org. here is a portion featuring the sheriff of palm beach county talking about red flag laws.

[video clip] broward,my belief in you had three or four different agencies that do this individual was a problem, knew that he had issues he was dealing with. just because someone is mentally ill, doesn't mean they are violent but these people demonstrate mental illness issues. he had those issues. he had bullying issues from his brother. he had self-esteem issues. he had other issues playing out. he kept getting recycled into the system. if they would have had the type of unit i have developed -- deputy sheriff, mental health professional as a team and they are able to evaluate this person and get them to the place they need to have help, nikolas cruz would have been taken out of the system and not been available to do what he had to do. host: is it possible funds

you're talking about could be used to set up these systems? guest: any sort of instant response team can be part of these applications . tell the doj what they want, they say, this is what we want to fund. if so, they can spend. host: maryland, hello. caller: how are you? host: you are on. caller: i am a vietnam veteran, i grew up in a small town in south carolina, mullins, near myrtle beach. berettause, we had a from world war ii, italian style firearm. 's,ended up with two .22 finger shot an automatic. and a 12 gauge shotgun.

that was pretty typical for most families in south carolina, in the south, i would assume. i used to see pickup trucks with gun racks, shotguns, rifles, .22 - 12 gauge. host: what would you like the guest to address? have always been, you know, we have had guns in this country for years. we have not had these masks shootings -- mass shootings and schools. guest: we don't know exactly what causes someone to do this at a school. there are many responsible gun owners. these grantsings go to is for, hold a training session for a student, students

to look for warning signs for who might be in that household with a gun and willing to use it. timothy, alexandria, virginia. caller: i just had this conversation the other day with friends -- [indiscernible] up, have friends i grew they called the cops and it took them 30 minutes to respond sometimes. has there been talk of looking at it through a regional lens -- rural teachers, arming them, versus the difference? district arere looking at every option they can all over the country for doing this. for instance, in the iowa school district that got this grant, they are looking at setting up a system where it detects a gunshot, if it is in one of the three schools. it will automatically call the police.

that will help response. there looking at ways to make sure police are trained. guest: -- host: on capitol hill, a memorial set up for these type of shootings. how much of these groups are still appealing to congress to address the larger issues of gun use overall? guest: this is a huge topic on the hill. there are people going to congressional offices all the time, getting arrested, protesting. there are still a lot of momentum. democrats in the house who voted to expand background checks, universal -- they think this is a winning issue for them politically in the next election. when they gained seats in the house, a lot of that was because of their stance on gun control and gun safety and trying to stop mass shootings, especially in schools. guest: the cq roll call website

is where you can find the story by todd ruger, looking at $1 billion in funds to protect schools. thank you for your time. guest: thanks. host: the house comes in at 11:00. until then, talk about the senate rejecting the green new deal resolution, overwriting the president's veto on the emergency declaration, and the robert mueller report. comment on those things in the next half-hour. (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8002 for independents. we will take those when we come back. ♪. >> the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

>> ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. >> the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon. [applause] >> c-span's newest book, the presidents, noted historians rank america's best and worst chief executives, providing insight into the lives of the 44 american presidents through stories gathered by interviews with noted historians. explore the life events that shaped our leaders, challenges they faced and the legacies they have left behind. published by public affairs, the presidents will be on shelves april 23. preorder your copy as a hardcover or e-book today at presidents org/the wherever books are sold. night on q&a, supreme

court reporter on her latest book, the chief, a biography of john roberts. >> he controls. whatever, however he votes now that anthony kennedy is gone, he will determine the law of the land. the liberals want him to come over, inch over a little but the conservatives are trying to hold him back where he always was. meanwhile you have this chief justice declaring there is no such thing as an obama judge, a trunk judge, a bush judge. -- trump judge, a bush judge. he wants to portray a bench not political when they all have their agendas of sorts. eastern, night on 8:00 on q&a. >> washington journal continues. host: comment on several things.

yesterday, the house failing to overturn the veto from the president over his desire for border wall funds. 14 republican siding on with democrats on that effort including brian fitzpatrick, francis rooney, dusty johnson, thomas massie, justin amash. it goes on from there. that story is at the hill. on the senate side, there was vote on the green new deal resolution set up by mitch mcconnell. the senate rejected that effort on tuesday in a decisive 57-0 vote. democrats decried it as a political stunt.

they said in protests yesterday, 43 democrats declined to oblige senator mcconnell's efforts of abstaining from the rollcall and voting, only present. , lightsanders, present. still voted the caucus failed to mount a unified front. go to the atlantic for that piece. the washington examiner, this is william barr, the attorney general, say when it comes to the released version of the robert mueller report, expect that in weeks, not months. you can make comments in our meeting 20 minutes -- in our

remaining 20 minutes. (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8002 for independents. colorado, andrea, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you so much. i wanted to comment on the robert mueller report, the comment being made around the country by politicians on the american people. i wish they would just go ahead and do their jobs. we spent enough money and time on the report. it is done. can we move forward? the other thing that is sad is that we are spending so much time fighting the president over not getting a border wall that they are not spending time fixing the immigration issue, which does need to be fixed. i am an independent. i am an american. i work every day. i do the things i need to do. i work hard. my expectation is for

politicians, democrat and republican, to start working, stop being out on television, and to get work done as opposed to going back-and-forth and forth i'm talking about one side not doing their job. i am the american people. i am a person that votes. i honestly see that the same thing they did during the obama administration, they are doing now. we are not really accomplishing anything. stop wasting our money. host: elena, illinois, republican. caller: good morning c-span and happy birthday, glad you are on air. i was watching the vote yesterday on c-span. the thought came to my mind -- why do we have to know exactly how many democrats are voting yea and nay. their job is on the line. if there job, if their heart

says, i would like to vote nay against but i might lose my job, i might disappoint my voters, my righttuents -- our voting as an american citizen is supposed to be held dearly and privately. which vote were you watching? caller: the one against the veto to override. host: on the house side. caller: we don't need to know how many democrats -- illinois,s go to max, democrat. caller: i am nervous but i will try and get this out. i am a democrat. i believe there were nefarious

things happening around trump. the full report, redacted for security reasons, but why i'm calling today, something i thought of a few here, ago that researched what do we do with a severely weakened executive? if he was, there seems to be no good outcome. host: do you think the president was weakened after the release? uh, certainly, to the lead up, the initial findings uh, maybe iing, oh, have to kowtow a little, toe the

line of the republicans and certainly made me glad nancy pelosi hadn't brought up impeachment yet. host: jim, michigan, independent line. caller: hi. i am a retired attorney. the robert mueller case was tried criminal. proof required was beyond a reasonable doubt. the people, with the oj case, he was found not guilty, but with the family, the family brought a civil suit against him, the whole thing was wide open. i would like congress to review this case with a lower standard. the standard required for impeachment, which is not beyond a reasonable doubt.

host: that is jim. two former first ladies, two books to be talked about. the washington journal talks about the sales of michelle obama's book hitting the 10 million mark. "we believe this could be the most successful memoir in history." figure highlighted, the book includes print, digital and audiobook copies globally. go to the front page of usa today, a profile of a forthcoming book looking at barbara bush. this is susan page who wrote the book. a couple of sentences. "barbara bush blamed donald trump for her heart attack." it wasn't technically a heart attack. it hit her like a sledgehammer. an ambulance was called to take her to the hospital.

you can read more in the pages of usa today. republican line. caller: gun violence. what they could do is put coaches in these schools to talk about guns before they hit the street, starting with 12-year-olds. this is something they will have to work through. they will have to work themselves through the 12-year-olds, all the way up. get it in the school system. everybody,lice stop they are harassing them or educating them. host: carlos from missouri, democrats line. caller: i wish congress would e-verify, which would

solve the border problem, because a lot of people come here to get employment. a womanht citizenship, can come into our country and automatically have citizenship for their child, which most countries around the world do not have. i wish they would work on those items. it would solve the border problem. host: editorials on the green new deal vote, yesterday. wall street journal. democrats vote present on climate. failed, allal vote republicans, three democrats. the senate had not seen such a display of political courage since the scottish law, voting

not proven in the bill clinton impeachment trial. times taking a different tack? where is your climate plan, mr. mcconnell? he has no interest in pursuing policies to address what many regard as the defining crisis of our time. he is passionate about making life politically awkward for the opposition. huge infrastructure investment and a shift to carbon free energy, strikes unrealistic and politically perilous. he sought to raise the stakes tuesday by forcing democrats to cast a vote, exacerbating tensions in the process, the ploy fell flat. the new york times this morning. franklin, alexandria, virginia, independent line. caller: good morning.

opinions.e i am retired. i live in alexandria by way of charlottesville. leave it alone. that is history. we cannot change it. one of the big problems i see in this country is the left has gone way left, the right has gone way right. i am more in the center. us recognizeto see how we can solve these problems. as for the issues with the president, the russian collusion -- it is over. let's move on. as for schools -- host: are you interested in seeing the report released?

do you think you will read it? caller: absolutely. no question. host: what do you think about the fact that it will be delivered in weeks? you are ok with that? caller: i am. it doesn't matter. host: let's go to sean in connecticut, republican line. caller: good morning. money isto mention, always a problem for schools and districts. there is a program that will send a consultant into any school for free and they will do an assessment and they can make recommendations for how to harden schools. the name of this is, school shield task force. i just wanted to make, mention that to any school systems that might be listening. host: one of the hearings on

capitol hill today, 12:30 p.m. this afternoon, mike pompeo appearing before the house foreign affairs committee. watch that on c-span3, www.c-span.org and listen on the c-span radio app. administration policy shift announced by mr. pompeo saying the administration will withhold funding from nongovernmental organizations that give money to foreign groups that perform abortions. strict prohibition on backdoor funding schemes. american taxpayer dollars will not be used to underwrite abortions. perhaps that might be part of the conversation that takes place. senate subcommittee looking at airline safety, 3 p.m. this afternoon. find out more about it. www.c-span.org. this is in light of stories of recent days, concerning boeing.

janet, tennessee, democrats. i called in about the robert mueller report. enough is enough. it should be released so americans can see what he found. this has been dragged along enough. i'm thankful he did a thorough investigation. i am a senior citizen. i want to know what is in that report. host: what are you most interested in learning? ifler: i want to know president trump did commit obstruction of justice. that is what i would like to know. did he or didn't he? reporting will be out in several weeks. you are ok with that timeframe?

caller: that is better than months. host: stella in florida, independent line. caller: hi and congratulations c-span on your birthday. host: we thank you. caller: i guess i am still very coveragethe media's after the robert mueller report. theselike no matter what reports are, the media in general is not satisfied with it, as the democrats are not satisfied with it. there is also something else i would like to direct to c-span. am i wrong that most of the articles you read from newspapers, journals, magazines, whatever, is always geared, antitrust?

-- anti-trump? host: i would not say that. time, and ite seems you never bring up articles that are pro trump. host: we bring up articles depending on the story of the day. pieces,ead two opinion one from the wall street journal, one that is conservative, and one that is not. we tried to present different perspectives. people have certain opinions. caller: i have not got an opinion. that is why i am an independent. i listen to all sides. host: ok. is there publications we should be paying attention to? caller: i am not sure. int: let's go to joan minnesota. caller: hi.

i have a comment about mitch mcconnell. with mitch mcconnell, he will never side against trump. it was the same with kelly, conway and her husband. mitch mcconnell is tied to trump. if his wife loses his job, he would have had to pay. that makes a big difference in how this man runs the congress. i don't think he is his own man. host: you can read it for yourself because we are short on time, but if you go to the opinions page of the new york times, george conway, the husband of kellyanne conway, has an opinion piece.

on at least one charge, trump is clearly guilty. find that online or in print. johnny, south carolina, independent line. caller: president trump is doing a fine job where he is at. he might be arrogant, speaks his mind, but you cannot make friends with everybody and leave the country like it were. the boss man cannot be everybody's friend. he is doing a great job. lead on, brother. host: george papadopoulos profiled in the washington times. how various witnesses are caught up in the robert mueller report. jeff morlock writing, george papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the fbi, revealed tuesday, he has formally asked for a presidential pardon.

another campaign official, gordon, is mulling over a defamation lawsuit. you can read more at the washington times website. kevin, california, republican line. caller: good morning. the robert mueller investigation was impressive. director did a good job. he had 58 indictments of people. conviction or confession that what they did was guilty. he had the evidence to slamdunk those cases. when it came to the president, there was not enough evidence. if he had the evidence, i am certain he would have brought it forward. either way, i would have believed him. i trust him. he did a good job. at the end of the day, what is

he really? going to do anything illegal -- what is he really going to do? host: do you mean of obstruction? caller: and collusion. both. anything the director could have brought forward. people that committed crimes, he busted them, every single one, and he had enough evidence to where they had to confess or they are in prison. there were no indictments he did not complete and get a conviction or a guilty plea. he did a good job. if he had that evidence on the president, he would have brought it forward. he didn't. there was not enough evidence for prosecute. what else is the report going to show/ it might show details of what shady people did on the side. if there was evidence to

convict, the director would have brought it. host: i apologize to cut you off. robin, kentucky, jump right in. russia andthey found having to do with trumpesident, getting into presidency, trump had something to do with it -- to say to the american public, if you think he or we did not know about it, you are calling us idiots. you are saying we are idiots. itthey say, you knew about and they are now finding you know about it, you are calling us idiots. host: that is robin in k