havana for the first time in half a century, and sweeping aside the last vestiges of the cold war. the surprise announcement came ofthe end of 18 months secret talks that culminated in a prisoner exchange negotiated in canada. republicans dial in. and democrats. an independents. also, waiting on twitter. eigh in on twitter. and on facebook. we will get your thoughts in a moment. but first, alan gomez from the usa today from miami. what is the reaction from the cuban population there? mixed bag, as you can imagine. on one hand, you have that older generation of humans take a shortly after fidel castro came over in cuba who are just enraged. they feel betrayed. they feel this is a fight they have been fighting for over 50 years and the government down there was on its last legs. i doing this, -- by doing this, they feel that the president gave them a lifeline and allow them to maintain a little bit of power with all of the money that will be headed to cuba now. but there is a younger generation of humans who are a little more accepting of like this. the embargo on the island is not as popular as it used to be down here. obama first ran for office, he talked about changing things. of anger, a lot of resentment, a lot of passion from some of those older ones. but i think a lot of other cubans were a little more understanding. host: what is the fight they have been fighting? guest: against the castro brothers. when you put the -- put yourself in their shoes, you understand of history. these are folks who had their property taken from them, who themselves and their relatives spent a lot of time being kept as political prisoners down there. they think by maintaining the embargo, by maintaining the isolation that the u.s. has made as foreign policy for cuba for all of these years, that is what was going to squeeze him out. that is what was one to squeeze the brothers out of there. that is what they have been trying to push all the time to maintain, so i felt like yesterday was the ultimate loss for them. host: what if president obama first you when he came into office -- what did president obama first do when he came into office on cuban relations? and how did that play out, and what has been the economic and political plan -- political fallout of that decision? in as ahen he came candidate in 2008 for the first time, he talked about making changes to come if not the embargo at least, whatever he told do as an executive change things up with cuba. there were some folks that were angry and upset, but he went ahead and started doing what he did. in 2009, he made it easier for stateses in the united to travel more frequently, to send back more money. for011, he opened it up more americans to get down there a little bit easier. that is in the form of education, he military and trips, religious trips, and a lot more americans started heading down there. the economic impact was felt mostly, at least in the united .tates, by the travel industry there are a lot more fights to cuba from new york or california where before it was only a few flight out of miami. there are people spending money down there to sort of help in a very minor way the mess in cuba small business enterprises. there is an minimal impact in terms of how the u.s. has benefited from this. but what he has done now will vastly expand that. host: in what ways? yesterday, i was hearing a lot of misunderstanding about this, but to be clear, the economic embargo as we traditionally know it remains. initially byct president, but now it is an act of congress. congress would have to weigh in if they want to change the embargo in any way. what the president has done, as he is an with so many other things recently, he has used his to allow authority more americans to go down at. opportunitiesre for americans to visit, to send will be increased. before, you could only send $500. if you're a regular american who is not related to a cuban. now it been raised to $10,000. you can smell -- sell more products to small business owners and kuiper -- in cuba. restaurants, now more americans will be able to send more money to help them out. you will be able to start using your debit cards and you -- debit cards and credit cards down in cuba, which was something that was absolutely unheard of before. some people say you can take out about $100 worth of rum and cigars out of cuba. i know some people are pretty excited about that. the overall ideas that you would be able to send more money and more americans down there in the next couple of years. what does it mean for the economy in miami? what industries will benefit from this? and also, what about syndication technologies, internet, etc., is that going to be allowed to come into cuba? as far as the economic impact, the airlines will , and is starting to imagine -- i'm starting to imagine it will be a lot of -- the line at the airport, for example, is usually very heavy with relatives taking as much stuff as they can back. i think those lines will get a lot longer now. there are a lot of people who will be able to get down there -- will benefit from hopefully reaping the rewards of business successes in cuba. sending things down there. but you're right, that is a big change going on in business. what happens now, you cannot go down and start your business. on technology and internet access, u.s. companies will not be able to go down and help cuba -- i was when to say rebuild, but they never really had much of one -- really build up their internet infrastructure. internet usage has been incredibly restricted. internetonly about 5% penetration to the population. the majority of that has to deal with the government's policies and restricting what people can see. now they are saying they want to open that up a little bit and u.s. businesses will go down there and help lay the fiber-optic cable and increase access to the internet in different parts of the country. host: and finally, alan gomez, the politics of this, how does this play out in 2016 with florida being a key state for and capturing the cuban-american vote, or just the floridian vote? is hard to underestimate the impact this is going to have, at least for the gop primary in florida. every candidate will have to answer now how they are going to deal with this. most republicans that we have seen so far have come out very much opposed to the president on this. because they think this is another example of his executive overreach, or because they think it is a bad idea to sort of deal with terrorists, or negotiate with somebody like this. very upset,m are but you look at somebody like jeb bush, the former florida governor, he's already thrown his name in the hat. it's going to be very important for him. he served as governor for eight years, and was very popular among the cuban community. it will be interesting to see how he maintains his angry opposition to what the president did. senator marco rubio from florida, even of the popular -- possibility in -- he is another possibility in 2016. and ted cruz from texas, his father is also keeping stop -- is also cuban. ony all deal with this another level. but the issue is how floridians welcome this and what they will think about candidates who try to roll the stack. gomez, of usa today, we appreciate your time this morning. thank you. guest: absolutely. have a good day. host: let's turn to all of you and get your thoughts. lou, democratic caller, what do you think? caller: i'm 100% in favor of what the president said yesterday. i visited cuba last christmas. can tell you, i mean, i have many perspectives on this. it's not just went to help the cuban people, who absolutely have very little -- it's not just going to help the cuban people, who actually have very little. people walking down the street asking for our pens. you cannot get cold milk in cuba . it's difficult to get new shoes. they have almost zero access to consumer items. this is going to help the cuban , this is goingo to help america. wherever you look in cuba, you look at things that have to be either repaired or replaced. the streets have to be replaced. buildings have to be replaced. grids,g, the electrical new cars, this is an opportunity for america that we should not let go by the wayside. host: all right, lou. let's hear from our in bronx, new york -- from mark in bronx, new york. independent color. forer: thank you so much c-span. i think this is a good idea. i am in vietnam veteran and if we can have relations with vietnam, we can certainly have relations with cuba. the sooner we institute relations with cuba, the sooner their government will collapse, the sooner they will go to capitalism and hopefully democracy. i also think if we can have joann chas martin back, who killed a new jersey straight -- state trooper that will be wonderful. she killed a state trooper and she fleet and broke out of prison. -- and she fled and broke out of prison. host: ok, mark. robert, in pittsburgh, democratic caller, what do you think? caller: it seems like we forget about history. at one time, baptista was in power and a had all kinds of things over there in cuba. i don't think castro would have come to power. that is number one. and never two, rubio, -- number two, rubio, we read his balcony, and his claims that his parents came to cuba because of castro, but he wasn't even in power yet. pastve rubio a really good and i think the media -- a really good pass and i think the media should tell the truth. host: all right, bonnie, republican, go ahead. caller: i think it isn't that idea. people, wake up. don't you see that this president is just trying to get more communist? this is what communism looks like. look at cuba. do you want that in america? no, we don't. rubio wastor marco passionately opposed to what the president did yesterday. he writes in the opinion pages of the "wall street journal" -- he held a news conference just on capitol hill. here is a little bit of what he had to say. [video clip] >> all of the -- all that this is going to do is give the castro regime an opportunity to manipulate the changes to perpetuate itself in power. these changes will only lead to greater wealth and influence for this oppressive regime, whichally the military, controls most, if not all of the cuban economy and controls all of the oppressed people. these changes will lead to legitimacy for a government that shamelessly, continuously abuses .uman rights but it will not lead to assistance for those whose rights are being abused. it is another concession to tyranny by the obama administration, rather than the defense of every universal and inalienable right our country was founded on and stands for. in short, what the changes are going to do is they will tighten this regime's grip on power for decades to come. and it will significantly said that the hopes of freedom and democracy for the cuban people. grossverjoyed for alan and his family. he was a hostage of this regime for far too long. prisoner. just a he was a hostage. but this president has proven his foreign policies more than just naive. it is willfully ignorant of the way the world truth -- truly works. senator marco rubio on capitol hill talking in opposition to what president obama did, restoring full diplomatic ties to keep up. inre will be anonymity havana after half a century. embassy inll be an have an after half a century. he writes in "the wall street journal" you can read more that in the "wall street journal" today. , the journalubio he ands headline, that other critics about 25 normal ties. -- valve 25 normal ties. what do you all think? tony in iowa city, independent. caller: i support independent style government for cuba. if anyone bothers to read the cuban constitution, the government owns the people there. they are essentially slaves of the government. anything we do will strengthen the government there, and their americans -- the americans after member this is the regime that was a war with united states. i think president obama ought to think about what he's doing before he takes these unilateral actions. host: kelly, athens, georgia, a republican there. you're on the air. caller: i think it's a good idea to certain extent -- a certain extent. because so many people were wronged by the cuban government. my grandfather owned property. i lost my inheritance. my [no audio] host: kelly, i wish we could hear you, but you're breaking up. if you can, call back in. mark, democratic caller. you're on the air. caller: i would like to remind people that, yes, castro overthrew a dictator that was allied with the mafia. that ran cuba. baptista was a dictator. and at first, the united states welcomed it. but later, he became communist. saying thate caller he threatened us with nuclear war, well, we invaded his country and try to overthrow him. number two. and number three, that in the 1970's -- back in the 1970's, i grew up in miami and there were , but there were also elements of domestic terrorism in miami. they blew up cars because they were such anti-castro patriots. there will be a wide range of opinions. we cannot isolate the country 90 miles away. ships a goat -- that go from canada to cuba after wait six months because of a number of -- because of an embargo to go through a u.s. port. if we are against doing this with cuba, should we cut off with all ties -- cut off all ties with common is china? that is a different story. . don't know this is just a political furor with people coming out trying to spin this in their favor. if it helps the people of cuba, good. everyeople say, well, dollar that goes to that country goes into the hands of the castro's and then they disperse will stop take communist china -- dispersed it. take communist china. all companies go through a central bank dispersal. simple thing. i'm glad we are fighting -- finally making steps. in new york, an independent, grace, what do you think? throughi'm going back history. back when i was in my 20's -- i'm in my 70's now. i remember castro coming to new york. i remember the parties. i remember the cockfights in his hotel room. we were happy to see him. the cuban population that was here was happy to see him. .k, we sent him back home he decides he was going to do , and that'sed to do when the problems started. we always put people up, but when they want to do what they want to do, we get upset and we pushed them aside. .ook at saddam hussein we've got to keep our dog on hand -- our hands in our pockets. listen to what president obama had to say from the white house yesterday when he announced this move. [video clip] >> i don't think we can continue to do the same thing for over five decades and expect the same results. moreover, it is not serve the americans interest, or the cuban people to try to push cuba towards collapse. even if that worked, and it hasn't for 50 years, we know from hard-earned experience that countries are likelier to enjoy lasting transformation is the people are not subjected to chaos. we are calling on cuba to unleash the potential on 11 million cubans by ending their researches on the political, social, and economic activities. in that spirit, we should not allow u.s. sanctions to add to the burden of cuban citizens that we seek to help. obama at thent white house yesterday making the argument for restoring full dramatic relations with cuba as well as easing up on the embargo. it is not a full release of the embargo, as we learned from alan gomez. congress would have to take a vote on that. i also want to show you what the cuban president, raul castro, had to say yesterday when he talked about the deal. [video clip] to renewe also agreed diplomatic relations. means that the key matters have been resolved. the economic, trade, and financial embargo, which has led to enormous human and economic damage to our country must cease. host: randall castro speaking to the cubanstro into people yesterday and talking up the steel and finger still needs to be major issues worked out. -- speaking to the cuban people yesterday and talking about the major issues that still need to be worked out. in the 2014 miami-dade whole, you can take a look at it. it shows 68% of those living in miami-dade county favor diplomatic relations with cuba. also from that same poll, when you look inside it shows that the main findings, almost three quarters of cubans living in miami-dade county believe the embargo has not worked. 42% say "not at all." the respondents oppose the continuation of that embargo. in massachusetts, a republican, what do you think you caller: -- what do you think? the things that marco rubio are saying and others it's all deception. we went into the schools, clinics, hospitals, and we also went into the nightlife, the club, the beaches. again, i applaud president obama. again, america, go see for yourself. go see for yourself. we were there for 13 days. the things that marco rubio says, lies. ted cruz, also life. .- lies i think president obama is doing the right thing. again, america, go see for yourself. host: on our line for democrats, bill, in michigan. hi, bill. caller: hello there. a couple of colors ago the caller mentioned -- a couple of mentionedgo, a caller communist red china. that is what i want to talk about. they created communist red china and give them most favored trading status. this sent our jobs over to china. it is absurd for any republican to be angry about opening relations with cuba after their party opened relations with china. thank you very much. -- joseph innorth north carolina, independent. just a, go ahead. you're on the air. caller: thank you very much. i would like to go what one previous caller said about the misleading statements and misrepresentations made by folks like ted cruz and some of the other senators who seem to be against it. i do want to say that the notion and thatization capitalism necessarily follows and that capitalism leads to democracy is not necessarily something that we have seen in history. the other thing i would like to say is that most folks like toelf feel that any attempt bring back to core as part of this agreement would not be something we would expect the cuban government to do, nor would i as one person would want to happen. tweetsook at some of the that members of congress put out in response to the president's announcement. we will begin with congressman chris van hollen from maryland. he was on the flight cuba -- to cuba to pick up alan gross, who had been imprisoned for five years, along with senator flake, and the senator from vermont, senator leahy. and also, senator jeff flake on that flight, he included in his suite a picture of alan gross as i announced we were in u.s. airspace. take a look at the reaction from alan gross. also, on twitter, you have members of congress who were opposed to the idea in support as well. senator john boehner with this week out. if anything, this emboldens all state sponsors of terrorism. florida said it shows appeaser in chief obama is willing to provide unprecedented concessions to a brutal dictatorship that opposes the u.s. interests at every opportunity. ros-lehtinen of florida said alan gross should never have been jailed. obama's unilateral move is propaganda for the castro regime and mail by lot -- and may violate law. mitchell from virginia, republican. what do you think? caller: i don't think that obama through the american people under the bus, because we have been divided for a long time. ok.: does this make it worse? we lost him. let's go to cynthia, illinois, democratic caller. hi, cynthia. caller: good morning. i am ecstatic about this. i think is wonderful. have a little bit of freedom to see their families. and i'm tired of america in the moral majority -- and the moral majority. we always want to bring them down, certified, disgraced them. let's get over it. let's -- we always want to bring them down, start a fight, disgraced them. let's get over it. let's do something peaceably. marco rubio and the others, i would like to send them somewhere where they cannot talk and we cannot hear them, because i'm sick of them and all this chaos will stop and what about rubio with allies -- and all of this chaos. and what about rubio with his lies and the ties to cuba? some have peace and reflection of democracy. let's do something positive. president that knows and really understands -- and for us that know and understand what he's doing, we are ecstatic. host: what do you make of pope france's helping to forge this deal? when i thought, i'm going to be honest with you, they can terror obama to shreds, and he's the president, but they won't mess with the pope. and they won't say too much about gross, because he's jewish. let's get real here. host: that is cynthia's opinion. let's show you what the vatican had to say. this is the statement they put out after the deal was announced. and the front page of "usa today" says, pope francis played a key role in forging this deal. he wrote a personal letter to president obama this fall, something had never done before, at a separate letter to cuban role castro. -- role castro. times" thisal morning has more of the back story on how this came to -- together. in the papers this morning, wondering if this -- this is from the "washington post" -- is there going to be and more open role for people diplomacy? times" reporting this morning on the last congressional race to be called. part of the area that had been represented by gabrielle giffords. by the way, the "washington post" reporting that republicans got a big bounce from election success. the gop approval rating is up 14 points since october. and in other news from congress, i also want to let you know that after a week of confirmation , the senate finished up its business for the 113th congress. and c-span asked dr. robert browning, the director of the c-span archives and a political scientist at purdue university for a quick look at statistics for the 113th and how it .ompared to previous congresses here are some numbers. total call votes increase. tofirmation votes increase 188, up from 82. and cloture votes increase to 215 from 73. overall measures passed, this is final passage, 25 in the 113th congress from the 36 measured in the 112. that is overall measures passed. and that is rollcall votes on when the days and gays are recorded -- the a's and these are recorded. yeas are and recorded. good morning, richard, what do you think about president --ma's decision you caller: decision? caller: my understanding is the correctional facility for women which is near to where i live in new jersey is the one from which joe manchin is part escaped. chesapart escaped. worth, texas.t. you're on the air. thank you for taking my call. there is something fishy about this deal that the president made. why would he do this when congress is going on holiday break? is secondly, guantanamo bay located, i believe, on the continent of cuba. president could be close down guantanamo bay without the approval of congress. and my last point, the president is doing this out of spite, because there is nothing that changed with the cuban president. didn't changen anything. what is going to happen is, we are going to open up an end -- mbassy in cuba and the people will not get the benefit s. the four people in cuba, they will not get the medication or the front -- the court people into but, they will not get the medication or the finding that the democrats are saying. rich in virginia beach, democratic caller. good morning to you. it.er: i am for i think we should give it a try. they are a close neighbor of ours and we have diplomatic relations with many countries that have in the past have in -- been against our policies. the have a concern about possibility of the loss of jobs. i do have another concern. it seems we have a president that is more concerned with people from other countries, such as the immigration policies, and now cuba, and has ignored shoring up social security. i've read social security and disability has about two years worth of funding and then it will be depleted. i challenge president obama to do something that will help all of the country and the peoples in it. host: we are getting your president obama's surprise announcement yesterday that there had been a deal reached on prisoners with cuba and that president obama was restoring full diplomatic ties with the country, planning to .pen up an embassy in havana the reaction from capitol hill, senator marco rubio, a -- floridafrom lorna who will be taking over the foreign relations committee for the western hemisphere vallen to tok that move -- vowing block that move. we have about 10 minutes left for your thoughts. and later on in the program, another news item we want you to weigh in on, and that is this headline from "the washington kills the movie "the interview" amid terror threat. we will ask you to weigh in on that little after 9:00 a.m. here , your thoughts on sony's decision to pull the plug on the movie "the interview." douglas in bellingham, washington, an independent. hi, douglas. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i applaud president obama's move on this. i hope that congress carries through. . doubt that they will on opening up closer ties for travel with cuba. i just want to remind your audience that marco rubio's about us supporting democracy throughout latin america are false. overthrown the longest chileatic government in in 1973. an illegalported war, according to the international court of justice, against the government of nicaragua. we supported and openly fascist regime in el salvador. and we also supported a genocide against the mayan people of guatemala, and a bunch of other stuff. that is what i wanted to say. i just want to say that the being, basically -- they are making this stuff up out of thin air. douglas. right, on marco rubio and in 16 contest and how this plays out for that, the "wall street journal" says that this move shakes out the white house race. the cuban news gave freshman marco rubio a chance to step out as a leading voice on opposition. and just bush also weighing in on what president obama had to say, on his decision to resort time -- restore ties to cuba. here is what he said. jeff bush -- jeb bush weighing in on the president's decision. also, i want to show you what "the wall street journal" put forther, the trade picture the economy. before 1959, the u.s. was cuba's biggest trading partner. important a relatively small. most of his coming from venezuela, the european union, and china ranking third. after that, canada, brazil, neck the co, and then the united states. exports to cuba, 260 million. is expect it to rise. we will hear from sheila, massachusetts, republican caller. good morning to you. greta. good morning, thanks for taking my call. i hear all these colors mentioning ted cruz and marco rubio like they are the grinches that so cuba. but i would like you to read what senator menendez said. he is a staunch democrat. this thing has been in the works for over a year and a half, and he says that congress was never even told about it. and i'm worried about what is going to happen we have these cuban refugees coming over here. -- when we have these cuban refugees coming over here. obama can do what he pleases without even mentioning this to our representative government. host: thanks for the reminder. senator robert menendez, who is the outgoing chairman of the foreign relations committee, he writes the opposing view in today's "usa today" and he writes this. senator robert menendez in usa today weighing in on that. by the way, "the washington post" agrees with senator menendez. it extends the regime's bailout it doesn't deserve. morning,times this they agree with it. administration officials recognize that congress is unlikely to take steps toward a healthy relationship with cuba anytime soon, but this will inevitably inform the debate about the merits of engagement. and in all likely that history will prove mr. obama right. the wall street journal editorial rights -- rights that they disagree. bob in jacksonville, florida, democratic caller. what do you think of this? caller: going back to the cuban crisis and everyone trying to get out of cuba because of the over fromstro took baptista as a dictator. i'm worried about the money that will come into cuba, but may not leave. will america be able to own land in cuba? need to seeople their relatives in america. it's a great thing. what about the moneys? what about the financial aspect of it? will they kick us out of cuba in certain areas and just take our and people's hearts and destroy what good relationship could come from this? that's all i have to say, thank you. coming up next, we will be talking with former acting cia director john mclaughlin about the ongoing fight against terrorism, and also, that torture report released last week. in later, talking about national security and foreign policy challenges with david ross cop -- rothkopf of foreign policy magazine. yesterday, said chair janet yellen was asked a question about low oil prices and inflation. here's what she had to say. [video clip] >> we are very attentive to global development, and certainly discussed them in the meeting. substantial the klein we seen in oil prices, -- decline we have seen in will prices, that is one of the most important things in shaping global outlook. it will have different effects in different regions, and it could well have effects on financial markets, as we are seeing. i think the judgment of the committee is that from the standpoint of the united states thethe u.s. outlook, decline we have seen in all prices is likely to be on net a positive. it is certainly good for families, for households. it is putting more money in their pockets having to spend .ess on gas and energy in that sense, it's like a tax cut that boost their spending power. remains,d states although our production of oil has increased dramatically, we still remain an importer of oil. of course, there may be some off in the form ofet reduced activity and possibly some change or reduction in and inlan in journaling that area. but on balance, i would see these developments as a positive from the standpoint of the u.s. economy. , we respect to deflation see downward pressure on headline inflation from declining energy prices. we certainly recognize that is going to be pushing down headline inflation and may even spillover to some extent to core inflation. but at this point, although we've indicated we are monitoring deflation developments carefully, we see these developments as transitory. and the committee continues to theeve, especially with improvement we are seeing in the labor market, which we expect to continue, that inflation will move up to the 2% objective over time. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with john mclaughlin, former director of the cia, and now resident at don hopkins school of international studies. i want to begin with the news at the white house yesterday, what the president had to say about .his reopening of ties to cuba it really: he this exchange of prisoners. with really culminated this exchange of prisoners. what can you tell us about this other prisoner that the united states exchanged for, this u.s. that was a long time asset to the united states? guest: not a lot, i cannot tame a lot about it, but what i can say is that in the history of spy craft, spy exchanges are quite common. we saw this a lot in the cold war. this was an individual who helped actually to put behind bars the three prisoners that have now been released by the united states back to cuba. this was an individual who monitor their activities, who brought their activities to the attention of the united states, and was also instrumental in detecting the number of people -- a number of people, including a former employee of the defense intelligence agency who is now still in prison, not released. and actually, a former colleague of mine at johns hopkins who was working for the cubans. that is how counterintelligence works. you have someone who infiltrates the movement who reports to you on what is going on with an intelligence service in your country, and that allows you to set up a surveillance operation. and in some cases, what is popularly called a sting operation, in which you detect these people. host: this cuban born u.s. by has been serving 20 years in prison in cuba. guest: yes. or she and asked that before they went to prison, during prison? how was this information gleaned? all i canwas -- about say on that is that he was an asset before he went to prison. in other words, he was caught by someone who was basically ratting out their agents here. that is how it works. host: remind the viewers of the cuban five. guest: you are talking that the aircraft that went down? host: the people that we did this exchange for, the prisoners. guest: right, they were part of a network in florida that was monitoring, in our judgment, military installations there. headquarters with southern command, and of course, central command, and other military installations in florida. evidence is that they were monitoring those and reporting back to the cubans. you havee things that to realize about cuban intelligence, is very effective, but they also, an agent for other -- they also are an agent for other intelligence services. they might have been doing this for russia, for venezuela, with whom they are very close. they do not collect all of this information just for themselves. they pass it on to others. these spies themselves claim they were not doing that. they claim they were looking for on behalf of cuba, for people that cuba judges to be terrorists in florida, who are the judgment of cuba causing trouble for cuba by sending in their own agents and so forth. but i think the prevailing view in the united states, and i'm sure there was strong evidence for this, is that these folks were here monitoring our military for these. what thet do you think president announced yesterday means for the cia? well, it means a lot of things. among other things, the cia will be one of the agencies responsible for telling the president and future presidents how this is going. in other words, from monitoring the situation in you -- in cuba, in terms of the kind of things the president is seeking to achieve here. he is seeking to achieve a more open cuba. he is seeking to achieve greater attention to human rights. he is seeking to achieve all of those things we would like to see in cuba, and the cia will be one of those institutions that looks carefully at cuba under a microscope and says, how are we doing? in my own view, there is a lot of political controversy about it and i stay out of that. but my point is, when you look at the history of opening up authoritarian regimes, we don't have a great track record in terms of changing the nature of those regimes. china would be one example. vietnam would be another. russia, in a sense, would be another. but cuba is a little closer to us, obviously geographically, culturally. a longer, more intimate relationship prior to castro. we may see some change here. i think we need to be guardedly optimistic about what the president is trying to achieve. host: what about those that say specifically the outgoing chairman of the foreign relations committee, senator menendez, who says this is setting a dangerous precedent? he writes in the pages of "usa today" that it invites dictatorial and rogue regimes serving overseas as bargaining chips. host: well, that is the risk you take. in some respect, one of the thoughts that i have had frequent me during my career is that a precedent is only a precedent when you declare it one. in other words, you look at it on its merits. you do not have to do something to from just because the situation has worked this way. i think he has pointed to a legitimate risk that the united states has to think about. think there are a lot of things that the president has done that i would personally disagree with. in this case, i think it is important to keep an open mind. i can understand how someone could be cynical about what he has done here, and how you could oppose it on various grounds. i would look at this as an extremity of sorts. -- an experiment of sorts. one of the things we have to think about cuba is, what do we want them to do in response to this? and we have to have a checklist of those things, and we have to be careful not to give them additional concessions unless they worked their way down that checklist. and right at the top of that checklist, i think, would be freedom of the press and freedom of access to information for their people, particularly through the internet. if that begins to change, there is a potential for broader change. but we will have to monitor that. it as one of those things where you keep your eye on it and you make a judgment as you go along. and maybe you have to reverse policy at some point. host: i also want you to weigh in on another news item, and that is the threat -- what the papers are saying is coming from north korea over this sony movie, "the interview," and sony deciding to plug -- pull the plug on the movie and president obama saying it is a serious threat. host: i'm sure it was a serious threat. i doubt the north koreans themselves could carry out any major way terrorist operations here, but they could come -- subcontract those to someone else, inspire someone else to do it, hire some else to do it. and they could probably infiltrate some people to carry something out. but by and large, north korea is one of the great bluffer states of history. in other words, they rattle their sables -- the rattle their sabers a lot and make a lot of noise. that said, if you are the president, or the cia, or in some responsibility position charged with protecting united states and guaranteeing it security, you do not take chances. let's assume the odds of them carrying out something was somewhere in the range of 1% to 5%, you still have to take it seriously. i think back over my history of the cia. we had lots and lots of things that would come in, russian nuclear weapons are loose, lots of things on terrorism that on the surface seemed unlikely. but you've got to run them all down and take it seriously, because the one you don't i -- might be the one that goes off. i'm sure that's the way they are approaching this. it's doubtful that they can do it, but on the other hand, you don't want to take the chance. host: we are talking with john mclaughlin, who served as cia director in 2004 and the .irector deputy we invited you want to talk about this report that the senate put out last week, senate democrats, before this news happens. i want to get to that with you. remind viewers when you served and what your role was with this guest: well, i was the deputy the number two -- from 2000 to 2004, retiring in 2005. so i was there during the period of 9/11, and during the beginning of this program, enter part of its history. host: what did you make of the senate report? by senator ts, led dianne feinstein, saying that the techniques for brutal and that the cia deceived congress and the white house. guest: well, the first thing that i would say is that you have asked me more about this report than anyone in the senate did. no one who had anything to do with this program was interviewed by the staff that read this report. so do i make of it? well, i think it is fundamentally about job. it is wrong. it uses information selectively. it incorrectly says that the cia lied and misled. this is a program that was authorized by the attorney general, by the white house. it was carefully monitored by the inspector general. on many occasions, i think about twenty of occasions, we investigated someone who cross the lines. twenty times we reported that to the department of justice. during the obama administration, a veteran at every r looked an officer between said there was no pprosecution necessary. the case cannot be made that lied, or is ed, doing something here that was not fully authorized by our government. host: you and other former cia directors were recently in the that street journal" these interrogations saved lives. why do believe that? guest: i believe that's because our daily lives -- we met every day at 5:00 am. couple hours and reviewed the situation with terrorism. i saw, day after day, information from this program helping us to capture terrorists. remember, we captured essentially the 9/11 leadership of al qaeda. a big capture of lately? i don't think so. think, through this program to help us find -- i was not there then, but i was by officers involved -- that this program was instrumental in isolating and read to the top of everyone's attention the courier who letters to osama bin laden. this program helped us to capture the architect of 9/11. once he was with us, we were get information he provided, and capture any number of other terrorists. including seventeen people who are preparing to carry out a second wave of attack on a west coast. this day after day. people to hing for understand here is that you don't have a lot of hollywood moments. -- names, ttle things phone number, and address -- which you linked up with a lot of other things. many things i could say, but let me stop there. host: tthe senate democrats on the intelligence committee, and senator mccain, himself, said torture produced misleading information more than actionable intelligence. and that some of this information that you got could have been gleaned in other ways. guest: well, look, everyone has to have great respect for senator mccain. authority with moral on this issue. comes to this program, i would disagree with him about this program. i would not disagree that torture, as he is thinking it is commonly defined, is not something we do. but i kind of recoil when people call this torture because torture is a legal concept. we were told by the attorney general, the white house legal advisors that we were not torturing people. in fact, this program was designed not to torture people. to many people, it will strike them is pretty brutal. what this program did, though, was not to torture information when they ple, but were not -- by the way, we are here about 100 detainees. a third of them receive these techniques, oonly when they fail to reveal what they know through just a conversation. that is something that some of them did, but not many of them did. host: okay. i'm going to get our viewers involved. good morning, philip. caller: ggood morning, thank you for taking my call. my question is -- it is purely a question -- is there any the timing between cuba and xchange with decline in russia's economy, enabling cuba -- which has been an ally of russia for years in the past? i was just wondering, is there any link there with that phenomena that is happening? guest: well, philip, that is a great question. i was actually driving in here this morning wondering the same thing myself. i do not think there is an overage connection here, but if at the two situations, interesting that russia's ruble is at an all-time low. putin is still popular, but coming under greater pressure. is a not think there direct connection; in fact, has visited cuba recently, and is seeking to closer political relationship there. are i do not think humans being driven -- cubans are being driven in this direction because of a lack of russian assistance. it is interesting that these two things are happening simultaneously. host: and the washington times does just that -- cuba moves comes as russia tries to revive ties with havana. let's go to dan in pennsylvania, an independent. caller: hi. they give a taking my call. you had mentioned the cuban five. that the tanding is cuban five actually went to the to ted states government reports of them that there was going to be attack done in cuba by these radicals in florida. for than they were arrested we would people who consider terrorists, the world would consider terrorists. they arrested them and send them to prison for life. mostly in solitary confinement. if i could just ask another question, please. host: sure, dan. caller: in sydney, australia, the self-described movement -- there was a request or a demand from iran in 2000 to extradite him back to iran. know anything about that, or if you know whether -- what they wanted him back into iran for. thank you. host: john mclaughlin. do not know enough about that, dan, to give you an answer. if i were to speculate, i would sought t this man had asylum in australia from iran. so it is clear that iran had some grievance with him. on your first question, again, i am unclear on the details here. we are still digging this all out, but my hunch is -- and i simply don't know whether what my heard is true -- but hunch is that he may have -- they may have reported in that the u.s. government. we may not have taken action we if we didn't have equal information that these people were also spying on our military installations. i have to make that assumption without having the case here in front of me. i think it may have been a little of each. host: mickey, a republican. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. i had a question regarding the statement of the interrogation and how they received terrorist calls. i understand that, most likely, cia and the other agencies who were probably working on that very carefully to find out who started that -- you be just some could fifteen-year-old in north korea or whatever that might have started it. i felt bad about this, in a way, because it has taken away some of our freedoms that we, here, in the united states are so grateful to have. like we have always had this feeling that we don't work with terrorists. and in this kind of situation, are working with terrorists. meetings in senate whatever -- i mean, those same things -- they could all be watching a movie, when it comes right down to it. we could be doing the same thing, although i know there are movie theaters around the world. host: okay, mickey. we'll take your points. sort of in the face of freedom of speech and that we don't react or negotiate to do with terrorists. guest: well, this is a tricky one. as i said earlier, i think what you're seeing the u.s. government to hear -- and perhaps sony pictures -- his act on prudence. in other words, we don't know whether to take this threat to say, but you cannot take the not a serious is threat. one could ask whether sony pictures thought to carefully the consequences in making a movie like this. you do not want to limit your freedom of speech, on the other hand it seems very provocative make a film that -- i am no expert on hollywood, but it to be very provocative to about a foreign leader, where that leader is seen as kind of a deity. that is how many north koreans think of him. which is not to say that we should limit our freedom of speech, but maybe it was worth thinking about the consequences of such an action. host: a democratic caller: from texas. caller: yes, i would like to comment on the eit. the gentleman keep saying that information from those terrorists, but they contest because the terrorists didn't have anything to do with that. back in the 1980's -- and i am that was tness -- created by george herbert walker bush, george w. bush -- the all going to call the names -- but this was an inside job. thanks. you : john mclaughlin, do have any thoughts? sure : i am not quite where are caller is going with that -- our caller is going with that. a they somehow think that 9/11 was somehow not an attack was a terrorist attack, then i have to disagree. that day was a terrorist attack that we partially saw coming, but do not understand fully enough to prevent. host: hi, glenn. on the air with former acting director, john mclaughlin. caller: good morning. i want everybody to remember that a communist country is a communist country. castro went against the united states and decided that cuba could it run itself. and he was going to do it all by himself. then throw weapons that is, nuclear weapons. let us not forget that point. thank you very much. guest: i don't forget that point at all. was sitting in my college dormitory listening to a speech kennedy give about the missile crisis and challenge. and thinking to myself, as a young person, my lord, we might be on the verge of a war. on the other hand, i would say that communism is dying in the world. we're at the point now where there are only a few communist and most of ft, them no longer really believing communism. they are just hanging on to their regimes and power. i don't think the chinese, at deep level, believe in marxist leninism. of an turned into more authoritarian regime than a classic marxist regime. perhaps at the president is trying to do here -- and it is and i am 50-50 on his moves here -- but what he may be trying to do is put a dagger into the heart of this old ideology that is just about power. what is the evidence that this regime is on its way out? the castro brothers. guest: well, they are on their way out for a number of reasons. one, they are old. other reason is that when you look at the economic reasons, they do not have a lot of money. they also have declining help of their principal sponsors -- venezuela. who is also on the ropes. so there isn't a lot propping this regime up. one of the critiques one could the present has done is that some of the things offer them l now could -- if not managed carefully -- ggive them a bit of a crush to keep going. if it brings more economic prosperity to cuba. i think we need to monitor how what are they d doing in return for the concessions are getting. cannot get them anymore until we see progress on those things. host: alberto in miami, florida. a republican. caller: good morning. cuba in the 1970's, and i traveled in 2000 because i have family there. i am proud of being a united states of america citizen. friends, young people -- everybody loves america. it is something that is there for years and years. i am -- i am against obama on a of stuff, but now he is saying something that is going to be the future of my country. we need to sit down and talk. we cannot fight. what happened to the church community? the catholic church sat down they the united states and took all the miss doings and hid it there. what we need to do? we have to start, you know, sit down and talk. before you go -- of pope you make francis's role in helping negotiate this deal? caller: i think it is a good deal. we human beings have to sit down and talk. we -- host: okay, we got your point. guest: alberto, as we say in my own business, you have been there. i'm not going to challenge your understanding of this. just listening to you and realizing that what you're the view of cts someone of cuban ancestry, if i understood you correctly. has visited the island and has sent to family feelings about this. so let's pocket all of that and see how it goes. as i said earlier, i think one cautious optimism about this, provided we keep an eye on what the cubans are actually doing today people. that is the key thing. and i think you would agree with that. it is what happens to the cuban people that will determine just how far we should go here. i would hope a lot would improve. your i want to get was tion to this poll that in the papers last week in the "washington post". majority of t a americans support harsh cia methods. when they asked americans -- do think did or did not pproduce important information obtained any e and r way, 331% in that fifty-three presented -- 33% did not, and 53% did. things people the don't understand when they talk about, you know, american of that is -- for the cia, the american value that mattered most here was to was in re that there another attack in which americans would die. i think, fundamentally, americans get that. i was thinking the other day, you know, theirs is perfect -- four n afghanistan in pakistan, in which close to 200 children died. murderers brutal burnt their teacher in front of the kids. what if you have the information in your hands a before that attack occurred. that's all you knew. to get that ou do information, if they do not volunteer to you? would you put a little pressure on them? you just might do that. and if you didn't, and that would you rred, how feel then? that is kind of an analogy to the with the cia felt in 2001 after 9/11. we had, for example -- forgets the context -- we had absolutely clear information that we confirmed bin laden met with pakistani nuclear scientist. a at he had in his possession crude nuclear design. that when a scientist said to him, look, the hard thing to is nuclear explosive material, he said -- how do you know we don't have it? that is what we're dealing with an, along with reports that into new ere coming york city. i think the average american citizen gets that. in the average american citizen is not supporting torture. this has been called the torture report, literally for months now. one could easily in quality report on interrogation. the serious public policy issue have what do do, when you in your possession, someone who has information that relates to and safety and security lives of americans? host: you call that putting a little pressure on these people. to call waterboarding and the other techniques that were revealed in this report a little pressure? guest: yes. and there are varying degrees of pressure that range from -- at the low-end -- a simple grab to the high-end -- waterboarding. done on three individuals in that part of the program which ended in 2003. i don't think there is moral equivalence between slapping the architect of 9/11 and, support the and i drone program -- but let's say, is not moral equivalence between that and are drone program which kills people. it has taken out many terrorist leaders, but also sometimes creates what we call collateral damage. that is, civilians die. i don't think there's a moral equivalence there. host: okay. we will go to scranton, pennsylvania. don, aa republican there. caller: good morning. i am in favor of interrogation. look around the world where they are chopping heads off and killing kids, like he just said. i think what we do is minor what they are doing. we should keep the good work up. host: don mentions pakistan. do think that this could be a the government r of pakistan in ridding the country of the taliban? guest: i actually think it might be. pakistan has had an inconsistent policy towards terrorism, particularly the pakistani military. a pretty e carried out serious campaign over the went t months, but if you back before that, they attacked some terrorists. others, like the group that sponsored the attack in mumbai in 2008 -- they have left him alone. they have had an inconsistent policy towards terrorism. remember, pakistan is in the of an enormous transition -- midst of an enormous transition. are under enormous pressure, and are struggling to get into the world of -- that in terms miliar with, of governors running the country's. going on in ngs are pakistan, and i think this the way - somewhat in that beheadings focused us on the isis problems -- i think focus the k might pakistani government more intensely on the existence of people gime from these who fundamentally oppose civilian rule. served at mclaughlin the cia. a long career at the cia. how many years total? guest: thirty-two years total. host: thank you for being here and talking to our viewers about a myriad of information. guest: thank you, greta. host: coming up, david rothkopf talks about foreign policy. he has a new book out about that. we'll talk about the new medical device tax in the affordable care act. we'll be right back. >> here are some of the will find this weekend on the c-span networks. 9:30 pm on ght at c-span, actor seth rogen discussing politics and humor at the harvard institute of politics. evening at 8:00 pm, on what she h perceives as the rhetoric of the word women. book tv, william dershowitz argues that top universities are missing the marks, and student should learn to think creative and have a goal in life beyond the material. and sunday morning, book tv visits west lafayette, indiana to interview several of the city's authors. and on "american history tv" on at 6:00 pm turday eastern on the civil war, we'll talk about the life of irish american soldier patrick cleburne. piece 1974 investigative by san francisco on police brutality in neighboring oakland. find our complete schedule online. let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us, email us, or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome to our editor of o and "foreign policy", david rothkopf. he is out with a new book, as well. given the title, i want you to did t to what the president yesterday with cuba. that the ll, i think cuban action predates the age of fear. because the early days of the relationship with cuba -- the call war -- i sometimes policy the -- because it was just as successful as a lot of the car. this has not worked for one minute. the rest of the world realized time ago that engaging with cuba was a better idea than trying to isolate them. of , you know, what do start the a policy go on for twenty, years and rty, fifty not work, then it is time to move on from it. from it was ng on smart and i think it will give us much more leverage with cuba. say that er critics will, with if you cuba -- they hope that it works better than it has worked with russia, north korea, iran. guest: well, first of all, korea, and a run are very different countries at this-- iran are very different countries at this point. slightly more geopolitically significant than, say, trinidad and tobago. they do have some relations with venezuela, which is relevant in some sense. iran is a big regional hegemony for a nuclear capability. north korea is a rogue state. these are just very, very different situations. host: president obama, though, engaging with those countries. is he succeeding? guest: i cannot say he is succeeding in all four cases. i think the way we have handled we handled north korea has not worked very well. the jury is out on iran. ongoing a long, negotiation with them on containing the development of the nuclear program. a high, high priority of the obama administration. think back, in 2008 in the presidential debates, there was a conversation between the and a questioner during the debateabout engagement. he mentions during that conversation both iran and cuba as places where he might do that. the e are a lot of places foreign-policy has worked, bbut if he finishes strong with a and iran deal -- an iran deal eal, -- that could change public perception has tried to engage with russia -- the infamous reset button. then turned to his tough actions -- sanctions. some say, not tough enough. but the headline on the "wall journal" this morning -- science and miscalculation. to president obama's ssanctions work? guest: i do not think that they work at all. first of all, they were small. putin went into crimea and got crimea. he went to the border of ukraine and sent troops into ukraine. he has not backed off from that of all. relevance have grown, meanwhile wwe have maintained close working relationships with them. so we have that penalize them from disconnecting. it is coming from the united states, is coming from oil prices. if the oil prices continue to fall, the russian economy will continue to fall. the ruble will continue to fall. the big factor is if the that by saying -- wwell, i have to go on and get along with the world a little bit better. he respond to that, as he has in the past, being adventurous with his borders to distract his people through political, military interests. fears may push russia into ukraine deal. guest: well, they may. it is possible. but every time in the past, they thought it would produce change input and for the better. change for the worse. not a good actor, and even if the economic pressure pushes him into a corner, i to ld not expect this letter change a spot. about the you think geopolitical ramifications oof what is going on with russia's academy? to fall even further. could be think it devastating. has fallen by half in just a year. the oil prices could go lower for another year, so the pressure could get worse. russia is an economy that is heavily dependent on resource exports. they get boxed in, you can have crackdowns from the the rnment, crackdowns on streets, crackdowns from the to remists and other groups seize this opportunity. putin's main message has been -- i am going to make russia strong again. i'm going to restore the sense as russians you might have. that is going to be very hard to do, and he doesn't have a lot of economic tricks in his bag. so he may -- i think you may end up reverting to tthe kind political and military maneuvers that have worked for him in the past. remember, the world may not been happy with crimea. russians were happy with crimea. host: does this, then, give leverage in ama foreign-policy? guest: i think it does in some ways. it does add pressure. but you know, in the recent people in we have this position and we've had this pressure, we have not been to capitalize on his. you would have thought that the was going to syria weaken. it hasn't done that. you would have thought that the isolation of north korea would weaken them. it has not done that. you without that the sanctions european frustration with putin would have weakened him. it hasn't done that yet. we are not because really good at following. we often have a plan to go in. we often have a bold move. our military interventions -- we intervened in iraq, and the problem has come when we pulled out. in afghanistan, we are on the verge of a problem like that. libya is one of the biggest problems in the world right now because we didn't have step two. need to be ou strategic to have step two and three and four. i think one of the air is the u.s. government has seem to be recently is weak that it doesn't have a long-term strategy. host: we will talk more about that. that is what you read about in book " national insecurity". it was featured recently. can obama save himself? let's go to frank in florida. an independent. caller: good morning. mister rothkopf, i have been to you since eak 2008, when he described a world billion people is effectively controlled our about 6000 by superclass -- or power elite, if you will. he is on cnbc aalways talking about this term -- new world order. and etary of state kerry vice president biden have also used this term. you uld like to ask you how define this thing that is called a new world order? and how close are you to achieving this? and a brief follow-up, if i may. guest: it is a very dangerous business, writing a book in which you address fears that conspiracy theorists have. because they immediately look this and say, see, confirms my theory. while i'll acknowledge that wealth is hugely society rtionate in our and globally -- and this leads to huge disproportionate allocation of power -- the reality is that those few who power, you know, of a backroom rt committee plus the illuminati sort of cooking up a happens in the world. if it was, the world would be a different place. no new world order in the sense of some organized progress towards a goal. in fact, if you look at the world today, there is a lot of chaos and disorder. henry kissinger recently talked world order under the powers of the world. the united states is now joined powers of s the great this age. that there are emerging powers.l that the european powers are weakened. and that we, as a sort of look at how to make our way in the world is united states, need to find a way to manage these power relationships, countries done in the past. much a problem that so wealth is concentrated in the hands of so few people? that hundreds of thousands of people have a wealth equivalent to the bottom half of the earth? of course it is a problem. it is a social failure. it is a political failure. it is something that needs to be addressed. but i think that a fragrant have an intelligent conversation, we have to be to view any quality, view disproportionate allocation of power, and address the root problems of that without into the kind of cuckoo theories that y are comforting, but completely wrong. host: frank, can i get a quick follow-up from you? caller: yes. thank you for your answer on that. it is a dehumanizing system of control. rockefellers, the kissinger's -- you're not going to get your new world order. host: let's move on. steven in ocean city, maryland. republican. caller: hi. how you doing today? first of all, i heard about the chaos. i'm a republican and i am very to be a republican. if i were a democrat, i would be proud to be democrat. but as far as what is going on with the academy today, well, you know every generation has different investments. back in the day, call was a big was a big one. i think the way that the world right now, if people could just open up and view it, it is good. we are joined by so many people. united states has joined with so many people around the world. thank god we have the united nations. not look so good if you look at it, but if you look much e big picture and how we progress -- it doesn't matter if we have republicans, democrats, whatever want to call each other -- it is about good and it is about that. host: okay, steven, we got your point. guest: aa lot of good things are happening for the united states. if you look over the past years, you will see that we recovered from the financial crisis faster than any other country -- developed country. we have created lots of jobs. we are creating jobs now at a pace faster than the pace even clinton he administration, in which i served. the housing market is coming back. i think these are positive things. think, as the caller suggests, we have the alliances that no other country has. that is of great strategic we need lthough i think to devote some real attention to refreshing, revitalizing, some of the ng alliances since many of them date back to the second world war. we are at a moment of great opportunity. there's no question about that. there is a revolution in manufacturing. we lead the world in terms of higher education. we lead the world in terms of research and development. we live in a world in which the what st change is not happened in 9/11 or the cold war. the biggest change is that at the beginning of that period, there were 12 million cell phones in the world. we just recently passed a mark of having more cell phones than people. for the first time in history, we are connected in a man-made system. opportunities he to participate politically, obtain education. i think we shouldn't lose sight look at these headlines that talk about this chaos. we also shouldn't whistle with regard to the crisis. we need to look at them and we are going to attack this -- particularly for those who are least able to benefit. countries live in most vulnerable -- then we also have to devote some attention stabilizing these insecure situations. host: let's go to north carolina. clearances watching as their. a democratic color. caller: good morning. if the predicate of your for to go to war, and obviously that is not what president obama is intending. we go through collaboration to execute our foreign policy, i would like you to give a great to obama's foreign-policy relative to north korea, russia, and syria. on the a grade based collaborating s with other nations, rather than using our military might as the total instrument of foreign policy. is st: look, collaboration great with people who are willing to collaborate with you. there is some people out there who don't want to collaborate with us. there are some people out there who view our interests as being antithetical to ours. so you need to have a uses the olicy that right techniques with our counterparts. and we have to knowledge that each of them are different. it is perfectly good to go out and engage with countries where engagement makes progress. that is not going to make us progress with north korea. it is not making us progress right now is put in. and it is not making us taliban or th the with isis or some of these other terrorist groups out there. try by all means, engage, to build alliances, try to persuade without the use of force. but where you need to be smart application of force or -- like economic sanctions -- by all to do it that strategically and deal with as many allies is can. put your shoulder into it. be committed to a positive outcome. grade the i were to obama administration, it is making some progress on some of these collaborations. thing is a s cuba that, but having said these open wounds that are out there do not look like they're getting better. they look like they're getting worse. and it looks like the approach of the administration, thus far, iis essentially to do just a lid on them, but not actually solve them. to t is why i think out have grade them down on some of those things, even as a grade them up on some others. that why you're right -- can obama save himself? guest: that is part of it. this year, the president's foreign-policy was in a particular dire straight. control d spun out of -- 200,000 dead, the world's biggest humanitarian crisis. had the nsa scandal, which was a big scandal brewing behind-the-scenes. we had this torture report, which is another problem. and the president himself didn't seem to have his arms around it. he was going through a period he was saying, look, we are looking to hit home runs. out and played golf after foley was beheaded. it sort of push them into some sort of action in iraq. i think they failed to understand exactly the threat of isis early. that isis took falluja early in january last year, so this has been coming a long time. out, we were came right at a moment where things look pretty bleak. but if you studied presidents who had two terms in office, there is a pattern. last hat is is that in the couple years -- iin the bush administration, the clinton the reagan ion, administration -- tthey have all gotten significantly stronger in foreign policy. and he ged his focus changed his strategy -- so the last few years are characteristically higher in foreign-policy. host: brian, you are next in fitchburg, massachusetts. an independent. caller: good morning. i was watching on public tv were talking the uprising used in egypt was -- they had a dry it was 2010, nk 2011 where russia said that they were not going to export any of their food because they got such a low crop. way up in es went egypt and that is what caused the uprising, actually. his global ith warming -- i think we're going to have a lot more of that. it seems like the poor people are the ones who always suffer. host: okay, do you want to weigh in on that subject? guest: i think it is a thoughtful comment, and the right analysis. it was triggered by food prices. there were droughts in russia, their droughts in the united states. able to get are not food. this, throughout history, has been a source of unrest. if, in fact, the predictions come true with regards to we see more ng and droughts, then you are likely to see conflicts. whether it is over food or access to water. that will have a geopolitical significance. that is why it is so important to get ahead of it. i found it frustrating, earlier this week, when the world the ed its attention to crisis in sydney. it turned out to be a deranged guy in that part of some global conspiracy. a shred use there was might be a t that it conspiracy, all eyes went to this because we live in a society of fear. the big story of the day before, which was from lima, peru, was that all the had rnments of the world gotten together and said they were going to do something about their emissions. it was completely overtaken by a guy who simply recognize that weapon have an automatic and an ipad, and you have the can t kind of banner, you draw the world's attention away big, important long-term issues towards the thing that inflame internal anxieties. in your new book -- wwhat is going to be american leadership in an age of fear? guest: well, i think we should first to market out of the age of fear. what happened was, unlike past wars or pass conflicts where triggered a more distant conflict -- we approach an irrational f way -- this was an incident where everybody in the united states saw these towers collapse. we had a sense of vulnerability. this hit home. what some people called our liquid assets over the pacific ocean and atlantic ocean. had we been struck, had the pentagon been stuck in thousands of people killed, iit was done by a couple of dozen of people. it was not done by country. all of a sudden we started thinking, well, if they could do that, what could a couple dozen other people do? work at a lone wolf with a nuclear weapon do? all of a sudden, instead of in a world wheretthe cold adversary, we were in a world where anyone could be an adversary. any little twitch of a letters to hreat ramp up because we didn't want to have another 9/11. here rior guest: was on was talking -- the prior guest on here was talking about this. we had to do everything we another 9/11 from happening. including setting aside international laws that we advance, and making arguments -- arguments like people have been making, which essentially said that these guys behaved so the rules are off. and we should also be able to behave that way. that is a very, very dangerous precedent. manifestation of the fear is a reluctance to get involved in places where come in the past, we might have used force or he might have worked together with allies to do something earlier. syria was a place where we could have done something sooner. would it have produced a perfect outcome? certainly not. perfect outcomes are not possible. but it might've crated a better outcome. more balanced er, foreign policy that is driven by aspiration, and not fear. listening to the ceo and pf, editor and author of "foreign policy". let's go to nathan, a republican caller. caller: i just wanted to know what individuals or groups you currently view in america as using their foreign policy for personal gain? thank you. guest: well, there are no individuals using america's foreign policy for their own personal gain. with a ave individuals dis-appropriate amount of power in order to guide our foreign policy in one direction or another. when groups or individuals like the have more influence on people at large, yyour system is broken. when they have appropriate influence and are counterbalanced, that is democracy. it is an issue of fine-tuning. i think washington, which is by money these days, broken s driven by finance campaign systems, which essentially says that a candidate to become president to raise $1 billion, if a candidate wants to be a senator, they have to raise millions of dollars -- a system like that place in the hands oof people with more money. they are think writing big checks and don't expect anything, that they are wrong. i think one can be critical trap ut falling into the that they will fall during their work. american policy is far too incoherent to suggest that there is some master plan behind it. those least suggest that who have disproportionate power have a coherent view. host: in pennsylvania, a democratic caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. i played golf with people who is ot of money -- this my theory -- then castro took all the assets away from made it a vestors and people's government down there. and give it to the cuban people, supposedly. that is when eisenhower decided had to embargo cuba and they had to be our enemy. it was all involved with money. -- a nk the age of fear lot came earlier than you are saying. i remember having to lie on the the gym locker room when i was in high school because we were practicing for a nuclear attack. i mean, i grew up with fear. i think that is a way we keep the power in the hands of the few in this country. of t: and you think the age your ever waned? caller: probably not. i think the way that is how power has always kept itself in power. host: ookay. david rothkopf. guest: i think power has been a tool for politicians for a long, long time. fear was one of the things that kept a spending. more on national defense than all the other leading powers of the world combined for a long, long time. that has been a choice we have that has made try it harder for us to invest in things like infrastructure, education, and healthcare. but having said that, i think the fear ebbs and flows. edit takes different forms. at the end of the cold war, we talked about the end of the world. a world in which the united states was the sole force. a sense of hope -- aand we were moving in a new direction. that is why i think 9/11 was such a body blow, but i also nature of the attack -- even at the height of the cold war, there was really only one other country that posed a threat to us. that could contain country, we could contain the threat. or we could counterbalance it the thought of destruction. we could end up saving the world. eisenhower recognized that. he recognized that if we could on tain them and put them hold, are flaws in our own system would ultimately bring them down. this showed an enormous amount of foresight on his part. but if you get into the are in now -- we wolf one person, one lone can take -- can make an act that thousands of others -- over our media -- you know, then it has a different kind of consequence than it has in the past. application of force overseas because we have done it badly in the past, it has a different consequence. attack at a heart movie set, so much impact that they're going to adjust how released a film -- that suggests we are living in a paranoid age. when we go out and we listen in a the phone calls -- not of few hundred terrorists were a few thousand terrorists -- but of millions of people because they might be the possibility that one of small group of them, might do harm to us. and if this means that we relations around the world and listen in on of eign leaders, breakdown foreign-policy network -- that is fine because we are so afraid of the consequences of not doing it. host: let's hear from nancy next, in new york. an independent caller. caller: good morning. next a young woman when went to china, and i was nixon ing if you could -- went to china, and i was wondering if you could compare that to president obama. my second question is -- do opec is mmaintaining its output to help undermine putin? or other completely other either completely other reasons? guest: presidents who take a bold moves get criticism. and president to make moves based on their polls tend to take smaller, more incremental steps. i think some of the criticism president obama is receiving is has been to incremental. if you take this cuban move, he is getting some natural criticism. you are know, when fifty-three years into a failed policy, i also think that it was simply a matter of time before this thing collapsed under its own weight. and collapsed due to the fact that it has been such a resounding failure for so long. opec and oil prices, i have spoken to a lot of who are very smart and are confused about the rationale behind it. a couple reasons that opec prices to fall -- one of them has to do that i think they are testing u.s. market. they are seeing exactly how far they can fall before u.s. production of oil -- a big part of our energy revolution -- is not affordable. what is the price at which we don't want to produce? the price at which we don't invest? they're trying to find a point because the united states is a part of opec. it has a few other benefits for them, though. saudi's and the others fear that the oil prices will squeeze the iranian economy aas a moment that it is -- in a moments that it is vulnerable. i do not think that the implications in russia and venezuela and indonesia -- and other oil-producing countries -- really figure into their plans. and i also don't think that they are doing it to benefit the world economy; although, that is going to happen. if oil prices stay at fifty for the next year, the global growth benefit could be aa point and a half more than that. bit of a ld get a stimulus, adjust the same time that this is squeezing the oil producing countries. caller: yes, i'm trying to get out some points about cuba. and about that movie. that north korea hacked into. mister rothkopf said that sony pulling a sing fear movie. and that is true, but what should be done is that instead a letting north korea have cyber victory -- the cyber wwe are going on now -- if a d outlaw liability movie causes injuries. this allowed the moviegoer normally. let it play big to whoever wants to go. but if you are american, you don't take the threats. you take it to the streets or to the battlefield. as far as cuba, cuba should be as it is now -- a tremendous visual between the difference of a planned economy and a dictator. and free people. just 90 miles up the ocean, aand you see the land is worth a tremendous amount of money. you go down to cuba and it is worth nothing. that is what we're showing the world. now is the time we have to be fighting the dictator because we h the weapons and the way it e it now -- they showed in syria -- that you can take one chemical weapon in cult 1200 people. so people start thinking, now, wait a minute. we were watching syria. there is nothing we can do about russia or china. or even isis, and whatever they want to do. so we have to concentrate on those people. and we .to take out all the you know -- got to take out all the stops, you know. host: okay, caller. i have to jump in here because our time is short. guest: i think the first idea is just terrible. rid of nd getting liability -- the problems do not come when we change our laws. i think we could handle this within the context of a lot. movies have come out in the past where people have argued certain re was a parts of the the producers or movie theaters. movie theaters undertook that risk. in this particular case, it has been ratcheted up. but my sense is -- at some the not-too-distant future -- harvard business school and other schools will case study involving sony and this movie. the way they mishandled the release of the information. the way they capitulated to north koreans demand. as far as dictators go, sure, let's be tough. i think fifty-three years into of s, there is plenty evidence to suggest that not this embargo not worked on any level, it has not have ved a single goal we set out for. the only thing iit has done is we e a few people feel that are doing something without actually changing the outcome of what is happening in cuba. as president obama said something for ng fifty years and expecting a different result now is the definition of insanity. it is time to try something new. he is absolutely right to do it. and i think, ultimately, it benefit the cuban people, it will produce more leverage for change within their own government. and it will benefit the united states in a variety of ways, as well. host: in just a minute, we will ask all of you to weigh in on sony's decision to pull this movie. whether or not you agree or disagree. and beverly hills, florida. an independent caller. caller: hi. thank you very much for taking my call. i heard a gentleman calling about the new world order. first of all, everyone is all is r the internet -- there plenty of evidence if you watch hartline or the history channel where there is overwhelming evidence about this. second of all, i want to say i'm disappointed with c-span callers with conspiracy theories. well, you know what? it witha few ress callers. a lot of different subject for you. guest: i would rather have a rather sed discussion than a paranoid -based discussion. host: you addressed it. the other topic for you this morning is, of course, all the challenges this administration faces. you read about in the cover story about his inner circle. and the national security council. what you make of who is in it and who has access to him? do see that as a problem? you noted other presidents in their second term shaking bringing in new teams. guest: when you face as many in the s as we have make today -- and we can a list -- we find that there are twelve, fifteen problems that are fun burners -- you a whole government solution. that is a plus if you know how to use it. national se of the security council is to policy within that group. has happened over time is that more and more decisions are getting concentrated at the white house. the state department, the defense department, the other parts of government who are process get this left out. we get top-down instead of bottom-up. you don't manage things in terms of the day-to-day. and we get the kind of dysfunction that we have seen. way, what this l has seen is both the national security council twice what it was uunder henry kissinger. when it tries to do those things, it can actually do what it is supposed to be doing in terms of strategy formation or in terms of the implementation of policy. but is also too small and the sense that this president is small group with a of advisers. at the very highest level of is a ministration, they have do not have off and access. people were not listening. during the first term, he had very eam of rivals -- strong personalities -- hillary clinton, bob gates. now those have gone, and i some of the leverage that they might have had is gone. you have all their books coming out, and all the books are the same thing -- small groups around the president, not as much influence as a thought they would have, not as much of the collaborative government as we need. so the small group has essentially isolated the president. now, can it change? yes. listen to if he has what happened -- john kerry is very capable. the more he is listen to, the better things will be. but, you know, a year ago when to go into not syria, the decision was made in which the secretary of defense and secretary of state were not present. this is not really how it is supposed to work. can they grow and can they learn? yes. in fact, bush, reagan, clinton did. perhaps what we are seeing is a turning point. thing as a s cuba of a kind of a breakthrough. department, state the white house, some of the behind-the-scenes negotiations. host: david rothkopf, we appreciate your time. the ceo and editor of "foreign policy" magazine. we appreciated. guest: my pleasure. host: coming up next and later on, we're going to have a the medical bout device tax. but first, we want to take some about other talk news stories. decision to sony's not release their new film. agree or not agree? dial-in on the numbers you see on your screen. we'll get your thoughts here in just a minute. also, you can send us a tweet, or go to facebook.com. you can also email us. of the nt page "washington times" -- federal investigators have connected the hhacking to north korea. they have canceled the december 25 release amid a terrorist threat that artie had prompted the top u.s. cinema chains to pull plans to show the film. centers on lion film a cia plot to assassinate north leader kim jong-un. though, that say, president obama called the sony cyber attack very serious and urged congress to act on cyber security llegislation. so we want all of you to weigh in on this decision and what you make of the terrorist threat. the phone lines are open. please start dialing in now. the front times of the "newyork also have the story saying that americans report, have e concluded that north korea was hacking y involved in a of sony pictures, eeven as they canceled the release about a far-fetched comedy about the north leader. say the white house was debating whether to publicly accused north korea of what amounts to a cyber terrorism attack. the capitulated after hackers threatened additional attacks if the movie was released. some within the obama administration argued that the of kim jong-un must be confronted directly. but that raises questions of what actions the administration could credibly threaten. nick in florida, you agree with sony's decision. why is that? because it is -- korea is north getting bigger, and they are a big hacking threat to the united states, in my opinion. agree with sony to pull the movie. host: in oakland, california. you agree as well. caller: i agree. host: and why is that? c caller: i agree because was from y, that oakland, california. do you agree or disagree with sony to pull this movie amid hacking threats? "guardian" has this headline -- it says that, just in a bond movie, they tap away at keyboards, bent on cartage to their western enemies on the orders of their leader who is bent on revenge. but this isn't the point of the film. north korea and 2014, and the cyber warriors inside work diverted their usual of disrupting governments and big businesses to turn the collective fury on sony. mark. you disagree with sony's decision. why is that? caller: two wrongs don't make anything but a super run. patient have pulled it -- they should not have pulled it. host: bill in lakeside, montana. you agree. caller: this is a decision that a corporation, sony -- we don't want to get the idea that it represents united states. sony is a worldwide corporation. all over the n world, and it has to be considered by the board and their ceo. i think sony is making a wise decision at this point. but then they need to come back with a strategy so that their business is not ruined. host: okay. bill, i mean, you think this damaging e long-term effects on them? on sony? caller: long-term, damaging who has to anyone deal in the asian and worldwide markets. close to north korea, who, you know, is a loose cannon. host: okay. notes that a, it sony corporation is a japanese, multinational conglomerate headquartered in tokyo, japan. also, that the amc theaters -- the number two chains in the by a d states -- is owned chinese owner. there is the headline on your from the "la times". to tim in michigan. you agree, tim. caller: i agree that the movie never should have been made, let alone shown. host: okay, and why? caller: because you have a is a young man o and still developing, mentally, at this point. i think all of this was detrimental. host: what about, tim, those that this, you know, was right in the face of the first amendment -- freedom of speech? in ler: then i can yell fire a movie theater? host: okay. will go to patrick in new york. you disagree, patrick? why is that? caller: yes, i absolutely disagree. first of all, we, as americans, do not agree with dictatorships. sony should not be, first of all, letting them dictate what be writing or reading or understanding. it is comedian things making fun of someone, he should be able to accept it. instead of retaliating away and dictating to us what we're supposed to be writing. you know? host: okay. and stand in sunrise, florida. stan, yyou also disagree. stan, are you with us? you are on the air. one last call for stan. let me go to -- caller: i am here. host: i apologize! am glad it was pulled because there was another movie to be shown allowed here, bbut it was shown at the canadian film festival -- " the death of a president". the "new york times" article, the u.s. is said to have found that north korea is behind the attack. the attack that began by did on corporate computers -- ssomething that had previously been seen in and saudi arabia -- had turned into a threat of americans, one official said. that there l said was no specific information that an attack is likely. threat was very serious. the "new york times" goes on to say that it is very rare for to publicly tates accuse countries. the ia is suspected in first two cases, but there is conflicting evidence in the jp morgan case. from savannah, georgia. for those who disagree to pull the film. why, glenda? caller: because i think it was a really stupid movie, and i would not have gone to see it because it looks so stupid. i do not know if they are successful in doing it. they look like idiots the whole time. and i do not know why the company did not do an anonymous -- oriental, asian dictator. they knew they were kind of asking for trouble. i just -- it is a big business. it is so stupid. to spend the decision this money and all this advertisement. and ay, they went ahead show it -- i would buy a ticket and winning go because i resent the fact that korea could possibly do this to a big corporation. that is my opinion. host: okay. in pennsylvania, you agree, joan. go ahead. caller: i do. first of all, i do not think is anything funny about saying you are going to kill someone, anyone. some of the things that come out of hollywood are so stupid. but if you are the ceo of this company, and everyone knows tthat there's a possibility of going to see this -- or even if you are a bystander there's outside -- and something does happen, all you do is get -- get blowback from a very bad way. but if there's anything -- i don't even know if you could use the word good -- but to the people in t these could do to hacking tthat was on the scale that it if now, i do not know anybody knew that, but maybe that is what we have learned out of this -- the extent that they could actually hack and wipeout files. maybe that was something that everybody needed to know. the other thing -- host: does this make you take north korea more seriously? or did you always consider north korea, you know, a threat to the united states? think it has , i always been a loose cannon. the more we prop them up and poking them, they can supply to anybody in their country who says they can do these kind of things. but i don't think that anybody could have expected that they could go as far as this. point is that -- quietly, i think from now on, i the t think that we'll see end of this. but once it has been designated korea was at rth this -- this is not the end for this. our government and other people to find other ways to mitigate some of the damage tthat has been here, but we'll never know about it. that is what i think. it is never funny to make fun of the killing of anybody else. so -- i don't know whose idea this was, but the whole thing was really stupid. i guess it is blowing up in their face. but by pulling it, it has not blown up against any innocent person, as well. thank you. host: okay, john. this headline -- a fear of a sony style attack. inside they writes that the of the sony attack is causing executives who thought had computer security under control to take notice. in myrtle beach, south carolina. you disagree, graham. why is that? caller: i do. is ever a hink it good idea to make light of killing another country's leader. but it is intruding on our right of speech. charlie chaplin also made fun of hitler. host: robert, you agree. go ahead, robert. caller: yes, hello? host: go ahead. released the had attack nd there was an on the theaters. people lost their lives. host: okay. in georgia, you disagree. caller: i think the obama administration had something to getting it s and shut down, just like the information we had from benghazi. tying these two together? caller: definitely. i think the obama administration is definitely involved and use their phone calls to tell them to hackett. host: okay. tony, good morning to you. why do you disagree? caller: i disagree. they never have should've pulled it. i can't believe that these brave americans -- who would cower in omeone and the corner -- and if our intelligence, the cia, is so why is america cowling them? believe we have so many cowards in this country. host: okay. this from the "new york times" that the four largest movie in the united states and several smaller chains said not sure "the a result the threat. one of the first known instances of a threat from another nation preempting the release of the movie. john and franklin, tennessee. good morning to you, and why do i agree with sony's decision? caller: well, i think there are underlying circumstances. sure that the japanese, the ng world war ii, to do koreans pretty -- pretty terribly. there had been another movie company that by the japanese -- maybe we wouldn't have the same outcome. remember, the chinese were really upset with the japanese cars in anies building their country because the chinese were treated terribly during world war ii. but that is why i think it should remove the movie. host: okay. well, many of you have been even cal of sony for making this movie. that today" notes officials met with political leaders in asia. she did not detail the conversations, though. the spokesperson were not confirm whether robert king relayed messages to sony about the movie. she said the ddepartment had no credible information to support these threats against theaters. the hacking has had other, massive repercussions for the media giant. kelly in florida. you disagree with sony's decision. why is that? caller: yes, it is to. i disagree because during world war ii, we had the three stooges and hitler. it is the nd say that greatest generation and everything. the eems like we are generation of fear. host: okay. okay. fred in the maryland. fred, you disagree. why is that? caller: absolutely. it just sends the wrong message. i think china had something to do with this. they are just using the north koreans because they know we are afraid of them. message sends the wrong to our dictators -- other dictators. they realize that obama's the weakest at point. we are afraid to stand up to the world. we are afraid to stand up for freedom. was a conservative would ent, i think we have nipped this in the bud before it started. .really, we are in a bad place right now but i also remember when there was a movie about president bush, it was fine. on a hen you do a movie dictator, then everybody gets afraid. they had some we put in jail summoning made a movie about his administration, which is pretty much like what is going on. you can tell that nobody knows what is going on. host: okay. that was fred disagreeing. appreciate the phone calls this morning. that conversation for now, and up next switching the medical k about device tax with mark leahey of the medical device manufacturers association. we'll be right back. >> here are some of the will find this weekend on the c-span networks. saturday night at 9:30 pm, actor seth rogen discusses politics and humor. 8:00 pm on ing at "q&a", editor katie pavlovich on what she perceives as the hypocrisy of liberals. on c-span2 on saturday night at 10:00 pm, william dershowitz argues that the top universities are missing the mark in education. and students should learn lessons on how to think creative, and have a goal in life beyond the material. and sunday morning, book tv visit west lafayette, indiana to interview several of the city's authors. history tv" on n c-span3, saturday at 6:00 pm eastern on the civil war, historian damien shields talks of ut the life irish-american soldier patrick cleburne. and a real 1974 investigative san francisco tv station on police brutality in neighboring oakland. find our complete television program online. and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. send us , email us, or a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> this month is the tenth sunday sary of our primetime program "q&a". we are featuring an encore of 1q and a program -- "q&a" program from each year. from 2005, kenneth feinberg's interview. from 2006, lonnie bunch oon the importance of the african-american experience. from 2007, robert novak on his fifty years of reporting. from 2008, renew couture on the value of higher education. 22 9 -- december through the twenty-six at 7:00 pm eastern on c-span. "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back. to our table lcome and leahey, the president ceo of the medical device manufacturers association. let's begin first with your organization. for our epresent viewers to understand? guest: thank you so much for letting me be here. i have been involved with somebody people to help reduce the costs. pacemakers and heart valves. recent advancements help those who cannot see, see. and those who cannot here, here. we are seeing tremendous technology -- improving patient care and reducing the overall cost. seeing the jobs themselves. what people do not often realize is that, according to the department of commerce, 80% the medical device -- this really is an industry of small business out there improving patient care and creating jobs. our job, as the association, is to work with republicans, democrats, and the administration to promote innovation that provide patient overall nd reduce the cost of care. host: what are some of the companies that you represent? cvrx had a device approved just this past week. we do not typically represent all the largest companies, but when you look at innovation -- we are the pipeline. we are the innovation drivers. it is so critical for us to sure that the processes of create an environment that promote innovation. unfortunately, we're seeing leading innovators out there -- a significant drop in medical devices in the past three years. if there isn't an investment coming into these companies, it adversely impact the economy. host: what is the medical it ice tax, and what does say in the aaffordable care act about it? guest: sso this is a 2.3% tax -- an excise tax. this is a tax on total sales, whether the company is making money or not. they can often take twenty years and hundreds of millions of dollars to get these products onto the market. under the affordable care act, levied on if the total ceiling. to address that tax, they have to make the very difficult decision of laying off thousands of workers in the u.s. these technologies may be slower to come to the market for the patients. ultimately, any expansion plans have been halted here in the u.s. we actually surveyed our them rs -- two thirds of actually were cutting or reducing headcount here in the u.s.. nearly 50% were actually making cuts to r&d. again, for every dollar that is another day, is week, month, year that patients are being denied this technology. host: according to the department of commerce, the u.s. medical device industry is a $124 billion industry. it is the u.s.'s largest -- the is the largest medical device market in the world. you look at the industry -- $124 billion -- is there not money there to help pay for the affordable care act? i mean, it seems like there are profits there. that is the total revenue, not just the profits. it is a different story. our report shows that the average profit margin is around 6%. sony look at this levy, it is a impact on companies abilities to invest in r&d. your viewers may not realize that most medical devices are actually reimbursed or hospitals. government is making cuts to hospitals, they in turn pay cuts to the medical device processes. the final issue is that folks may not appreciate the whole notion of a windfall -- coming ion or so patient into the market, and somehow that will offset the tax. looked at ur members massachusetts -- when they move towards universal coverage in 2010. there was no increase deals with when it medical devices. when you look at 3 million or folks who are interested in being covered, most of them are young, healthy users. while there may be an instance uses o wear, yes, someone -- edical device host: we are talking about the affordable care act and the impact on the medical device industry. mark leahey represents the medical device manufacturers association. president and ceo of that group. taking your questions and comments on this. phone lines are open. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8002 for independents. there have been republicans and democrats who agree with you. guest: when this was first introduced in 2009, there was a grassroot organization saying -- this doesn't make sense. if there is an excise tax on something, it is something you want less of -- alcohol, tobacco. never, in 1 million years, would we imagine an excise tax on technology. we are encouraged by the overwhelming bipartisan support to repeal the tax. as you know, they agree that this tax is bad for innovation, for patient care, and for the economy. many senators and incoming leaders. this is something that has overwhelming bipartisan support. now we are looking for both parties to come together. if we don't get this across the finish line, it will adversely impact jobs. host: so when do expect that to happen? goal ou hearing that that can be reached? guest: i think we have heard from both sides of the aisle this is a priority. our emphasis is trying to move possible, so as into money can go back developing the products that will ultimately improve patient care, keep the economy going. host: why should the medical device industry be exempted when the pharmaceutical industry, healthcare companies asked, if dy being you will, to help cover the cost of the slot? as i said earlier, there are already direct cuts. you had cuts to imaging -- those are medical devices. if you are trying to really fight the cost curve in this to 80% is spent on obesity, diabetes. 5% of the population accounts majority of healthcare expenditures. so what does that mean? to manage do more chronic disease. that starts with prevention and wellness. then there are drug options, obviously, for patients. final stop gap here, though, are medical devices. just this week, there was a hypertension device from a small company -- cvrx in minneapolis -- it, for the time, allows the body to regulate their blood pressure. spent about $300 billion a year to manage hypertension. if there is a device out there that can manage it, we're saving hundreds of billions of dollars. the : we are talking about medical device act, which is part of the affordable care act. when the law went into effect in january 2013, is projected generate $29 billion over ten years in net revenue from this tax. our first phone call. the republican. caller: good morning, greta. good morning, mister leahy. i'm interested or not on tax has any impact on dme's? specifically, i am asking about -- supplies. guest: al, thank you so much for the call. there, i have to check into that and get back to. i know that the tax does apply to the overwhelming majority of medical devices. some extensions for eyeglasses. for the most part, the taxes apply to all medical devices. host: al, are you still there? caller: yes, i'm still here. question is really supplies known as pouches and medical equipment -- i think, under the medicare provision. guest: yes. the with the law is constructed, there are exceptions. there are about fifteen areas that are exempted -- oxygen is one i can think of. there is a test that one can go through. if the product is prescribed by a physician and requires the physician to instruct the patient and utilize it, then it is subject to the tax. for that, i think that is a question you could talk to the irs and they could walk to the process. host: maine. we go up to maine. ned is watching as their. caller: hi, how are you? mister leahey, cry me a river. everyone pay sales tax. it makes the world goes round. i don't understand why republicans don't think we should pay taxes. coming into ends washington -- they will be there in january -- and i'm sure this tax will be done away with. that is -- i mean, shame on you. crying about paying taxes. host: okay, ned. guest: actually, all the companies who make the devices absolutely pay taxes. companies are us-based, small companies paying the 35% tax. this 2.3% tax -- an excise tax on total sales -- effectively raises the tax on industry by 29%. all we are saying is that this money could be better served if are allowed to reinvested and work on these products that can improve patient care and lower the overall cost, as well. research ongressional service report recently released, in november, challenges. saying that researchers found the tax is relatively small because half of the output is exempt. and because of the inelasticity of demand. the negative impact is negligible for both small and large companies. guest: and that same report said that the tax is in itself n to the cost to -- and would be significant administrative burdens to try and make sure that you are allocating properly. more importantly, though, that the retical paper makes incorrect assumption that companies will simply pass the tax law onto consumer. in fact, most of the devices are purchased by the hospital. these are often five or six or with a fixed amount. so one were not have the ability to pass that on. to pass that ies tax on would end up terminated. and they were. that was based on a theoretical, incorrect assumption that all these taxes would be passed on to the consumer. host: you also talked about research and development, that that is negatively impacted. back to the "washington post", little proof, however, that the tax has created an innovation catastrophe for the industry. or that r&d spending on medical overall has declined. spending has been affected by increasing regulation in other trends in the industry. spent on otal amount medical technology r&d in the u.s. grew. guest: nearly 50% talked about the direct cuts they were making to r&d. on the average, that was 18%. the folks that we are dealing with, firsthand, are trying to out, as we said, we should make sure that every dollar possible is going into these new therapies. sending $2 billion from an of ustry -- taking it out research and development -- is a shortsighted policy. examples for you -- pacemakers, retinal devices, robotic skeletons. some of these devices -- people it pacemakers are -- but how are some of these other devices used? guest: sure. process look at the itself -- the president awarded him a medal for technology innovation. identified rgeon and that patients going into surgery were dying. -- the loped a technique -- that can er basically go up and extract a clot in the patient, allowing these people to live better, happier, healthier lives. that has really been the foundation for moving to invasive procedures to minimally invasive procedures. typically, even ten years ago, if you had a heart valve issue, open up your uld heart -- and open-heart procedure, cracking your breastbone, with both your long and your heart on a machine during this procedure. this new procedure allows a groin, ncision in the puts the catheter up. patients are having better outcomes. overall costs are being reduced. and these folks are getting out to be more productive. and with their loved ones. there is tremendous value that our industry provides to the country. host: wedding to talk to mark leahey from great falls, virginia. an independent. caller: hi. i am a small business owner and for ealth insurance cost myself and my employees went from 2.5% of our growth to our growth ison of this year with the implication of this aca. i have a pretty -- opinion of your 2.3% tax, since my taxes have been increasing much. taxes going se, my to pay for some of those medical devices. the devices are good stuff in will be be able -- they to make money regardless, but i think that these companies that you are making hokey devices -- a blood pressure monitor that you can hold up. if they can't make it profitable, that is their own problem, sir. but you are employed to decrease the cost, and i certainly agree with that. i think a lot of people are in boat that i am with their healthcare costs getting really, really jacked up. so, you know, really -- it to garner some d sympathy from us and for me. guest: again, the cost of an lthcare, i think that is area with both democratic and republican support. -- have devices hypertension, obesity -- all things that can provide hundreds of billions of dollars in savings to the system. when you look at the totality $2.8 trillion health are , only about 6% aattributed to medical devices. again, yes healthcare costs are increasing, but it is the cost to administer the healthcare. host: from new mexico. a democratic color. hello, there. caller: hi. everyone is aware of the great successes, but aren't many people following the literature that the healthcare dollar has more to more and medical devices, the manufacturers, and those positions that work with them? it has been a constant shift. and more and more questions the extent to which we have now arrived at a point where much of the time we are prolonging long, gruesome deaths. just as often and more and more creating longer, better, healthier lives. is definitely a shift to the devices away from other parts of the industry. guest: that is a great question. the act, when you look at data, medical devices represent 6% of the total health care spending today. constant last two decades. what actually is increasing at a much higher rate is the cost of medical services. the medical devices are growing a much slower rate, and it is the services that are driving a lot of the costs. a great example came out of the york times" this week, talking about an ultrasound for -- in one part of the city, cost $7000. and in another part, a cost $12,000. overhead services and to deliver that which is really the reason for the discrepancy. as i said, there are a lot of technologies. that are t of devices being developed allow the patient to be treated at home. from a patient satisfaction standpoint, they want to be in the home. from a cost standpoint, it also has the least resources. all these things are things industry are working on. here is a story out of the milwaukee journal sentinel raised tions are being cried by doctor firms. back then, an aand inspector general report raised warnings to doctors who own businesses that sell medical devices that those physicians may then implant and their patients. is this sort of a conflict of interest there? guest: absolutely. we have strong concerns and have petition the federal government and capitol hill -- they are called physician owned distributors. these are not your traditional medical device companies. our companies are innovators, developing the ip, they create a business and they grow it. folks, in many instances, they have a product that they can take off the shelf and privately label it. there is an absolute inherent conflict and that. the utilization within those tthe patient's subjective to cases that are absolutely necessary. the hink it compromises patient physician relationship. host: st. louis, missouri. robert. good morning. caller: good morning. the medical devices are so wonderful and can take so many people. company -- i remember it was like you had to be a millionaire to get an mri. if they use the mri and everybody for the good of the people, god knows how many alive that d be would develop even -- even greater things, you know? guest: yes, absolutely. one of the things here with entrances to cover the cost of are reasonable and necessary. mris can be expensive. in fact, there is a recent article that show that the here in washington dc, the prices were $400. areas, it was $200. we think patient should have access to know how much the procedure is going to cost at a particular facility. the more information patients informed there r will be to go to the places that have high quality care at lower cost. host: how much do these devices cost to make? what is the markup on these devices? guest: you know, it really varies. some can come to the market could quickly, others take years and millions of dollars of investments. there is a wide range of variability. what we do know is that there is a significant markup and hospitals. there are instances in which a bag of sailing with the which the - saline hospital bought for two market it up the to eight dollars. i think it is important for the viewers to recognize that those markets are happening not by the device company, but at the hospital. host: mary, in independent. if you are on the air. caller: i think they should get rid of the medical device tax. place ofs the coil in the aneurysm in my brain am i am thankful for it. and minor surgeon. guest: thanks so much for the call. there are millions of patients out there who are seeing the benefits firsthand of medical technology. you're a testament to the wonders that people are literally alive today because of the advances of these physician and mentors entrepreneurs working

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , Montana , United States , Australia , Brazil , Syria , Nicaragua , San Francisco , California , Egypt , Massachusetts , Havana , Ciudad De La Habana , Cuba , El Salvador , Libya , Lima , Peru , Miami , Florida , Canada , Tokyo , Japan , West Lafayette , Indiana , Missouri , Afghanistan , Argentina , Virginia , Georgia , Falluja , Al Anbar , Iraq , Guatemala , Michigan , Pakistan , New Jersey , Sydney , New South Wales , Saudi Arabia , Maryland , Chile , North Korea , Capitol Hill , District Of Columbia , France , Myrtle Beach , South Carolina , Vermont , China , New Mexico , Russia , Washington , Ukraine , Hopkins School , Mumbai , Maharashtra , India , Hollywood , Beverly Hills , Ireland , South Korea , New York , Trinidad And Tobago , North Carolina , Oakland , Iran , Texas , Illinois , Indonesia , Athens , Attikír , Greece , Maine , Virginia Beach , Ocean City , Tennessee , Pennsylvania , Iowa City , Fitchburg , Venezuela , Americans , Saudi , Floridians , North Koreans , Pakistani , Iranian , Cubans , Floridian , Russians , Japanese , Trinidad , American , Canadian , Chinese , Russian , North Korean , Irish , Cuban , Marco Rubio , Gabrielle Giffords , Henry Kissinger , Randall Castro , States America , Jeff Bush Jeb , Dianne Feinstein , Atlantic Ocean , Pacific Ocean , Robert Menendez , Ileana Ros Lehtinen , George Herbert Walker Bush , John Kerry , Janet Yellen , Charlie Chaplin , Al Qaeda , Chris Van Hollen , John Boehner , Kim Jong , Mister Leahy , Mister Rothkopf , Fidel Castro , Joann Chas Martin , Mario Diaz , John Mclaughlin , Robert King , Robert Browning , David Rothkopf , Kenneth Feinberg , Jeb Bush , William Dershowitz , Alan Gomez , Joe Manchin , Johns Hopkins , Katie Pavlovich , Seth Rogen , Robert Novak , Raul Castro , George W Bush , Hillary Clinton , Ted Cruz , Jeff Flake ,