Skip to main content

tv   After Words with Ken Buck  CSPAN  June 2, 2017 8:00pm-8:58pm EDT

8:00 pm
>> and ohio governor and former presidential candidate, john kasich, discusses the 2016 campaign and the future of american politics in his book; "two paths". up next on "after words," colorado representative ken bucks talks about washington reform in his book "drain the swamp." representative buck is interviewed by fredreka schouten usa today campaign finance reporter. >> host: congressman buck, thanks so much for joining us. let's get to the heart of the matter. tell us why did you decide to write a book with this really interesting title; "drain the swam
8:01 pm
swamp". >> guest: i came to washington in 2015, won the election in 2014. when i arrived i realized i was learning the details of how this town is broken as an opposed to having a general feeling the fact it was dysfunctional. as i learned more details, i thought it was important the american people know the details so they can take action and help fix the problem. it has to have americans involved in helping and so i decided to write a book about it. >> host: we will get deeply into the problems and solutions but i want to share with viewers a bit of your history. you had been a federal prosecutor and ran unsuccessfully for the senate in 2010 and decided to run again in 2014. tell us about yourself and your district. >> guest: sure.
8:02 pm
i accidently started out of law school with dick cheney, who is a congressman from wyoming at the time, on the contraband investigation in d.c. in 1987, i left the committee and worked in the department of justice for three years. moved to colorado to join the u.s. attorney's office in 1990. worked there for a number of years and eventually became the chief of the criminal division at the u.s. attorney's office. i left the u.s. attorney's office and ran for district attorney in northern colorado. i worked there for ten years. during that time, i ran in 2010 for the united states senate and in 2014 i ran for this house seat. >> host: in the book you talk about a health crisis that seems to have influenced your decision. tell us a bit more about that.
8:03 pm
>> guest: in 2013, i had cancer. stage four, non-hodgkin lymphoma. as i recovered from that cancer, i started questions what do i want to do from here. the interesting think about the district attorney's job is it is term limited and i advocate term limits here but it requires you to think while i was at the time 52-53 what i want to do with the rest of my life. i decided i wanted to run for office and was fortunate enough to serve for congress. >> host: you are in good health now? >> guest: i am in great health. thank you. >> host: you make it to washington in january of 2015. what do you find? what surprises you about it? >> guest: right after the election in november 2014, all the members were brought together for orientation. there is one lavish party after another in orientation and the
8:04 pm
message is very clear: if you are willing to play the game, life in d.c. kgb a comfortable existence. -- can be. the game is agreeing with special interest groups on how to vote and govern. i am not very agreeable and wasn't interested in doing that. i have a passion to reduce the size and scope of the federal government and the deficit. it was much more exciting for me in my first term than many others. >> host: in what way was it conveyed to you there is a game that needs to be played? >> guest: when you show up and the army choir is singing and there is beef tenderloin and
8:05 pm
waiters and as much alcohol as you want to consume, i don't drink but you are in the canyon caucus room which is a beautiful room, or in the old house chambers, and there is a clear message. this is how you now live. you are given gifts from the time you arrive by leadership and others that are thanking you for sacrifice for coming to d.c. i have never consumed as many calories as i did in this orientation session. the other thing is you are told pretty quickly you never vote against a rule and some things you don't do as a party. both sides are wined and dined and get the same rules and instructions and the idea is that the most important thing you can do is get reelected and the most important thing to get reelected is to make sure you
8:06 pm
play the game. >> host: you are defining play the game as being in line with your party. not necessarily in those early sessions are you meeting with lobbyists is the like but it is sort of an -- an understanding that you are developing about who there leaders are and what they expect of you. >> guest: i think that is right. the fact you have, as a member of congress, special access to areas, one of the parties was in the national archives after hours. it was opened up after this party. george will came and speak spoke to the group. there is a feeling of being special as a member of congress when you are constantly given special privileges. >> host: you don't hold back in his book. i read it last week and you use tough language to describe the men and women you serve. you write, i quote, members of
8:07 pm
congress are for the most part happy alligators woo feel pretty darned comfortable in the swamp of washington. tell me what you mean. >> guest: i don't know they are alligators. what i do mean is they are swamp creatures. when you arrive in d.c., and you have the surroundings that i have described earlier, you get very comfortable and don't want to give up the comforts and the way to continue to earn those comforts is to spend more money and to grow government and to not solve problems but to create programs and take credit for those programs whether they are efficient and effective. many of the members of congress are here, it is the best job they have ever had and the highest paying job they have had. it is a job they don't want to give up. so their re-election is more
8:08 pm
important than the actual problem solving that needs to go on in d.c. >> host: you write that influence in washington comes with a price tag. you spell out early in the book the steep due that members must pay to the house republican campaign committees to secure and retain their seats on influential committees. i wonder if you can talk us through the dues required and how they climb depending on the importance of the committee and what your dues are. >> guest: both the republicans and democrats have dues based on assignments. if you are on an a committee like appropriation, ways and means and energy and commerce the dues for a republican, this congress, the 115th congress, are $450,000 per person. on a b or c committee, the dues are $200,000 per person.
8:09 pm
if you want to be a chair of an a-committee you have to pay 1.2 million in dues for that privilege. so the way you raise the dues you have events in washington d.c. you have receptions and the lobbyists come and donate money to you. if you don't vote with the lo y lobbyi lobbyists they don't show up. so it is a way to coerce members of having outrageous dues. it is a way to course members to vote as lobbyists and special interests want you to vote. >> host: you are on an a committee and pay dues. >> guest: i pay my dues. >> host: how do you pay the dues
8:10 pm
when you describe a system of lobbyists asking you to vote in a certain way. what do you do? >> guest: i am fortunate in colorado. we have two events in the fall of each year during the election cycle. we have private individuals come together for those events and support the four republican members of the house of representati representatives at those events. i don't hold receptions for the purpose of paying my dues to the nrcc. i am, along with the other three members from colorado, we have our dues paid by holding those two events. >> host: at those events, do you interact with lobbyists and feel they are trying to influence the colorado delegation as a group in any way? >> guest: i am not hundred percent sure but i don't think any lobbyist attend those events. we have individuals that support the republican party and
8:11 pm
individuals that believe the republicans should be in the majority and i think -- and let me back up. i don't think it is wrong to expect members of the house to raise money for the party to raise money. what i find offensive is the linkage between raising money and assignment to committee. this is not whether you can pay more money than the doctor. that should not be the determining factor on whether you make this committee or not.
8:12 pm
>> you have described and some of your fire is trained on someone who is no longer there. former house speaker john boehner. but you talk about house leaders taking away overseas trip and subcommittee chairmanship and you write about loosing your position as president of the freshman class after you busted the party brass over a vote. can you describe what happened in your case and how you dealt with it? >> guest: sure. there was an attempt to unseat me as the president of the freshman class and that is something that during that orientation i described earlier i was elected president of the freshman class.
8:13 pm
there were four other members of the program class elected to four positions. it is a wide open job. you do what you can to bring people together and to help other members of the class. there is no real job description. so, it didn't mean a lot until they tried to take it away and then it became a competition and it became more meaningful at that point. so i worked with others in the class and had the votes to win the vote if it had been called to a vote. i was notified there would be a meeting and this came on the heals of voting against the trade promotion authority bill and it was very controversial -- heels. it was a vote leadership was mad members of the freedom caucus were voting against them in that particular way so mark meadows had his subcommittee chairmanship taken away on the oversight and government reform committee.
8:14 pm
we had, i believe, four members from the freedom caucus removed from the woods team as a result of their vote against a rule. there were a number of actions taken against individuals for voting against the rule. and you know, it just showed the petty retaliation involved in that kind of a vote. >> host: what did you say to the house leadership at the time? what were your interactions like with them as this was unfolding? >> gues >> guest: what did i think of house leadership? >> host: what did you say to them? >> guest: i didn't have a lot of conversations with them. a lot of this is a surprise. i think house leadership has jobs and part of that job is maintain party leadership. they need to govern and get 218 votes. the problem when you have a president from the other party in the white house is that it is
8:15 pm
very difficult to govern. you have to move to the center to get something passed and signed by the president of the united states and those of us on the right, those who are conservative, did want like the move. it was hard for leadership to get the 218 votes they needed unless they went over to the democrat side and tried to get democrats to vote with them. that was really the bad position leadership was in at the time. >> your book came out on tuesday. curious about what has been the reaction from your colleagues? obviously congress is not in session at the moment. >> guest: that is a good thing. >> host: have you had any phone calls or e-mails from anyone? >> guest: i have had a few text and voice mails congratulating me and thanking me for writing the book. i have not heard anything from leadership other others about the book. i imagine we will have conversation when evered returns to congress.
8:16 pm
>> you are and you alluded to this. you are a founding member of the freedom caucus which is a group of 35-40 house members who in recent years have taken a lot of stands against the house leadership. notablely forcing john boehner's resignation in 2015 if you will. some freedom caucus members objected to the obamacare repeal and replace bill and forcing the bill to be pulled from the floor. has the reaction to the book among your fellow freedom caucus members been a little different than some other members? you have been hearing from folks even before it was published, haven't you? >> well, no. really not that much. occasionally someone would walk up to me on the floor and say
8:17 pm
did you mention me in the book and i did my best to avoid mentioning a lot of the names in the book. i do talk about some members and i do talk about a lot of stories that happened but in terms of throwing people under the bus, this has been going on so long, and it is going on in both parties, that for me, the important thing is to change the institution. i think people are generally good people when they come to congress. i think people are well meaning and principled. i think the institution corrupts and we need to change parts of the institution. >> let's talk about that. i know one of your big concerns is the lack of fiscal accountability. and the way the process works, for those of us who have been for a while, we know the way it used to work is appropriation
8:18 pm
committees passed 12 separate bills funding the government but that hasn't happened since the mid 1990s. it is bundled up in a continuing resolution that keeps funding at the same level or big package that pulls together all the appropriation and is usually hard against the deadline. you know, we have seen in recent years, government shutdown as a result of the inability to reach agreement. the next stop gap funding measure is keeping the lights on expires on april 28th. so, you are about to face another deadline congress. can you talk about the consequences of sort of making spending decisions in this fashion? the way it has happened the whole time you have been in congress. >> guest: sure. it the wrong way to do it. it is management by crisis and we don't have to have the crisis. we have been promised for a number of years, regular order, which means we deal with each
8:19 pm
appropriation bill in the house, pass it, send it to the senate, they come together and we vote on the bills one final time and the president signs them and we have an appropriation process. by having a continuing resolution or omnibus we end up with little time to read a massi massive document, very few members have any idea what is hidden in that document, it benefits the special interest groups and those in leadership that can figure out how to put something into an omnibus or resolution. >> host: how does it benefit the special interest? >> guest: i talk about an example with a drug company where i got a provision that expanded a patent they were concerned about in the omnibus
8:20 pm
bill. they had given a lot of money to leadership in the senate in both parties and were able to get the provision in the omnigh bus -- omnibus bill. for the small amount of money they gave, they made tens of millions in profit. so, it is a business savvy decision, perhaps, but it does not benefit the american people. it waste taxpayer dollars. >> what are the solutions? >> well there are a lot of solutions i talk about in the book. i think it is important to disengage committee and leadership assignment from the dues that someone is expected to pay. i have no problem paying dues or supporting the party and effort to maintain majority. i have a big problem with that
8:21 pm
link so i have written a letter to the ethics committee and asked the ethics committee to make it unethical for an individual to consider fundraising which making an assignment to committee or chairmanship position. we have taken attention from the routine issues we face. i plan to go the chairman of the ethics committee and members and talking to them about this, i plan to get other members on board and we will see if we can get something like this passed. it is process.
8:22 pm
i want to create a rule where no one suffers as result. >> host: you mentioned term limits earlier. i gather this something you would like to see as well. we can talk about the procedures to get there but what do you think is the appropriate amount of time for a member to serve in congress? >> guest: i support term limit bills out there but i think some are too short. i think we have to be realistic about if you have a speaker of the house who is third in line to the presidency that person should have served a sufficient number of years to have learned the entire system. it is not practical for a
8:23 pm
speaker of the house to have served four years, become speaker of the house for two years. that sort of turnover wouldn't be healthy. it would empower the staff to a degree that we see the bureaucracies in the executive branch and we don't like them having as much power as they do. so i think we have to be careful about the number of years. but hard to pinpoint an exact number that would be the maximum. i think the 12-14, 16 years is the range that i think is a fair range. when you start talking about 30-40 years, there are members i served with that have been around from the time richard nixon has been impeached and that is a long time to be in the swamp. >> host: don't you think it gives them institutional knowledge and the mistakes they made? >> guest: i think they are the institution. i think they are learning from
8:24 pm
the mistakes that have been made but also learning ways to avoid accou accountability and manipulate the system. i think when you get too comfortable in d.c., you get less accountable to the people you represent. >> host: one of your projects is to make a lot of friends; right? i have to ask you isn't this something that will be deeply offensive to some of your colleagues in which you describe them in these broad terms? >> guest: sure. i didn't come here to make friends. i didn't have friends in d.c. before and not planning on having any when i leave this town. i am here to do a job. i am hear because there is a lot -- here -- of people in america in panic mode. i think this election we had for president is an indication of that. we hired on out sider to be president of the united states because the american public didn't trust the insiders. i think that is a clear message
8:25 pm
those of us in congress should accept. >> host: the title of the book, "drain the swamp," picks up on a theme we heard a lot from donald trump in 2016. curious what you think about his performance. is he draining the swamp in your view? >> guest: i think it is difficult to say. i think judge gorsuch was a great pick. i think he has done a great job picking a cabinet. he doesn't have an administration in place to run the government at this point. so, really difficult to judge
8:26 pm
his first hundred days. i think that he has done a good job in terms of sending signal to the world that america that america is going to be actively engaged and they will not put up with human atrocities and not let other countries use biological weapons on their populations without a response from the united states. i think that is a clear message this president has sent. i think that in terms of the ethics involved in washington d.c. he has talked about certain things and we will see whether those are actually done. limiting the number of years or putting a boundary in there is a good idea and i think congress
8:27 pm
should adopt that. >> host: do you think congress should pass a legislation that put as limit? it is a year in the house and two years in the senate you can lobby your former colleagues. you would like to see a barrier where maybe a former member can never become a lobbyist? or longer time? >> guest: i think five years is a good time period. it requires you leave congress, go do something else, and then if you want to lobby you can. i make the distinction here. i think if you are going to be lobbying for an interest group you should have wait a certain period of time. >> host: i mentioned some of the freedom caucus members were concerned about the initial health care bill.
8:28 pm
talk to me about your perspective. you were not among the noes at that point. i know there was never a vote cast before the bill was pulled but exmrplain your position and how it may vary. >> guest: i was opposed to the original bill. i feel the speaker and president worked on the bill and it got better and more conservative and gave states more flexibility and would have provided better health care to individuals in this country. i also looked beyond the four corners and looked at what the president did with the cabinet and supreme court nominee with his executive orders.
8:29 pm
i was ready to support the bill with the understanding that the secretary of health and human services, tom price, would do more in terms of regulation and we would pass other bills to help strengthen the initial effort. the challenge with the health care areas we have to use budget reconciliation which is a gimmick to try to get something passed through the senate with something less than 60 votes. for 51 votes, we could pass the bill we had but couldn't pass a full repeal or replacement with budget reconciliation so i un r understood the legislative restrictions and felt it was as good as it would get at the time. the timing was important because the savings from the health care bill would be used for tax reform. if we don't do health care first, tax reform looks a lot different. >> host: i know the president called out other members of the freedom caucus on twitter saying
8:30 pm
hey, sort of alluding to a potential primary threat. i am curious what you thought of that given your concerns about too much pressure from party leadership to tow the line. >> guest: yeah, it is an interesting question. i don't -- while i think that leadership has done some things to send signals in congress, if i had lost the presidency, i would not have voted differently. it didn't affect me and i didn't lose sleep over the effort. mark meadows didn't lose much sleep over the position. i describe it as petty because it isn't life changing at all. and the same with the tweet. i think the people in eastern colorado know he and who i am and know i am in d.c. and they support me. if the president tweets something negative about ken
8:31 pm
buck i think it will have minimum impact. i think the president has made a decision and it is interesting because the day it was pulled he had a press conference and says i am not mad at the freedom caucus, they are my friends and a week later tweets something. i think the freedom caucus is going to be allies with the president on most of what he accomplis accomplishes. >> host: you think health care will come up again? >> guest: i do and i hope it goes to the senate and they pass it. >> host: you seem to be encouraging your fans to join the article five movement to get state legislatures to call for a convention of the states to consider amendez -- amendments
8:32 pm
to the constitution including balancing the budget. talk about how that would work and concerns of this leading to a runaway convention and people deciding to take another look at gun rights and whether there is a second amendment right to carry arms or whether gay marriage is constitutional. how would this work? how do you avoid it running away? >> guest: article five of the constitution is the article that describes how the constitution k can be amended. the first way is what we have done in the country's history and that is for a measure to pass the house and senate with identical language and be sent to the states for radification. now we would need 38 states to ratify an amendment to the constitution. the other way is for the state legislatures to get together and two thirds of the state legislatures to petition congress for a convention of the states. that petition lists a very
8:33 pm
specific area to be debated at the convention. it would not be an open ended let's rewrite the u.s. constitution. and really the way to make sure that it doesn't become a runaway convention is not only letting it stick to the original purpose and that 38 states have to ratify whatever comes out of the convention. i can list the 13 states that would not approve of that and i think it is not only prudent for a constitutional convention to remain very narrow because whatever it creates will not be accepted by the majority of the united states but i think there is a stop gap that will encourage the convention to stay n narrow. >> host: and what are the issues you would like to see them take up?
8:34 pm
>> guest: i think if we covered one issue we would be fine, two even better. but i don't think we should good beyond that. the first issue i would like to see is a balanced budget amendment and the second issue i would like to see are term limits. there are as many budget balance amendments as there are hairs on my head right now floating through congress. there are ideas that would cap spending, ideas that would allow increases in taxes or deficit spendings in times of war and economic hardship. there are all sorts of c combinati combinations that come together in balanced budget amendments. my thought is that is why we have a convention or debate in congre congress. i do think that we need thoomake sure we have something in place
8:35 pm
because 30-40 percent of what it takes today and i hope we find something and i hope we are able to implement it. >> host: are you encouraged there are so many states discussing this right now? >> guest: yes. you don't like yes/no answers but yes. i am encouraged because i think this has to be a bottom up process. it will be rare we take a risk around congress and try to convince the state and local communities to try to adopt it. >> host: do you think the movement might spur congress to act and it will not necessarily be convention of the states? >> guest: that is a lesson we learned in the 1990s. the convention of the states movement was gaining traction.
8:36 pm
congress acted and the balance budget amendment passed the house and won by one vote. the state effort and congression congressional effort went away. i think a certain amount of pressure is exurted when an article five movement starts at the grassroot level. >> host: there are couple states that pulled back. i think maryland recently did. it will be interesting to see how it plays out. >> guest: it will be. a group of legislatures and democrats from colorado during the bush administration filled a resolution for a balanced budget amendment and the republicans opposed it because they didn't want to embarrass bush and when the republicans proposed it
8:37 pm
while obama was in offense the democrats opposed it. i am not sure if we can get beyond the partisanship and agree it is good idea but i know both sides in colorado and other states proposed it at one point or another. >> host: you express a lot of concern about executive branch overreach and i would like to talk about that for a bit. you said you are concerned federal agencies have too much power to collect fees and fines and things not appropriated by congress. you also think congress hasn't done a very good job of over oversight. you say congress is weighing in only when problems reached a crisis. talk about what you have seen in the time you have been in washington that spells out this executive overreach and what are the solutions? >> wubt about a third of the congressional budget has
8:38 pm
collected fees and fines collected by there executive branch that don't go through the executive process. there is no power of the purse or direct oversight. that is a problem. i think the constitution is very clear that the legislature would have oversight problems run by the executive branch and make sure they are efficient and effective. the other problem is that when an executive branch can raise its own money it tends to have an incentive to raise its own money regardless of whether it is using proper methods to do that.
8:39 pm
if the u.s. can take money to funds themselves it is a runaway agency. >> host: what about executive order orders coming from the president? you mentioned president obama's use and you see president trump using executive orders as well. i used to live out west. i lived in idaho and i know about the debates over federal land and concerns about the use of antiquity allowing the president to set aside a lot land. talkt what you have seen in the west and the response in the west about the u.s. of executive order. >> this is a great example of executive overreach. the act was enacted when teddy
8:40 pm
roosevelt was president. it was designed to really deal with two areas of concern. the first was a native american sight that had special significance and the other was a natural wonders and making sure we didn't have some sort of mining going on in the grand canyon or special places for american heritage. what happened is the antiquity act has been used as a shield and used to prevent real estate development and used for various other means and it has really
8:41 pm
caused havoc when a president we have done a good job of creating national parks and monuments but we come together with the state legislature and governor and others and listen to the ranchers, farmers, and environmentalists and others and we develop a plan and move forward in congress with that plan and have it signed by the president. when the president with a stroke of a pen determines that an area should be a national monument, it affects the water rights of the ranchers and farmers and affects the ability of planes to fly over an area and creates problem. there is a lot of unintended consequences that are not taken into account. i believe the antic act has
8:42 pm
been overused. >> host: congress should take action to curb this act? >> guest: and others that are archaic at this point where their usefulness changed. >> host: what do you think of president trump's use of executive powers? he has wielded his pen quite often in the short term of the presidency. >> guest: we complain about overreach from one president and the other president uses the same power to curb that overreach. he has not used it to my knowledge concerning the antiqu antiqua
8:43 pm
act. president obama declaired 22 miles of the grand canyon to be a national monument as a tribute to mark udall who lost his seat in the election. i think you are right. a lot of people are let out of prison and the act is used at the end because it tends to be a fairly controversial act but it should be amended and restricted so it is not used unless it is used with congressional approval and the approval of the state legislature. >> host: so in your view, not too much overreach? it has been correcting the overreach of his predecessor? >> guest: i think so but i
8:44 pm
haven't looked at what the president has done. if he does get into the same type of overreach, i think that the congress will try to assert its article one powers and make sure this president like others realize why the legislative branch. >> most notablely is the travel ban that has gotten the greatest attention. have you weighed in on that? >> guest: i have not. i don't think this president -- i think he is acting within the scope of his authority in that. now that the courts have ruled it is unconstitutional for other reasons but not because he exceeded his authority. congress gave the president the authority to decide how many refuges come in and where they come from. whether the courts add another provision that the president can't use religion as one of the factors in determining whau
8:45 pm
comes in. -- what. >> host: you talk about the role of the inspector general which i don't think most people know about. talk about the role in the government and the oversight you would like to see of executive branch agencies from these sort of independent auditors working there? and the role congress should play? >> sure. and i think inspector generals are a great example of important part of congressional oversight. they are assigned -- at least by the president and they live in the same structure as the agency they are overseeing. their budget is submitted by the agency they are overseeing. i think their eversight ability is diminished as a result of being in the building and being
8:46 pm
susceptible to budgetary restrictions by the person they are supposed to be a watch dog of. i think they do a great job but i think they would bdo a better job if they had that independence. >> host: you talk about the mechanics of congress during the workweek. can you explain to viewer whose may not have a sense of the schedule of what it is like month-to-month and week-to-week for members of congress. what is the workweek? >> typically we fly in on a monday which means that we have to be in the house on the house floor at 6:30 monday night. we have 3-4 fairly insignificant issues to address and they are
8:47 pm
votes that typically get 98% of the members to vote for them naming a post office, for example. so that counted as a work day. then tuesday and wednesday are crazy days. there is a lot of committee hearings and form work and work that gets done on tuesday and wednesday. on thursday it is a fly out day and we will finish the vote on the house floor by wednesday. sometimes the votes are significant and sometimes they are like the monday evening votes and being insignificant. then we go back to our districts on thursday and on friday, saturday and sunday have a lot of work to do in the districts. so the workweek is there. it is just the time in d.c. isn't much time legislatively. they are trying to solve problems in the district running were office.
8:48 pm
it is a time when we can campaign formally or in informally. the legislative time i think is the most important time and it is time we need to spend solving problems. >> host: i think you talk specifically about mondays. do you think monday should be a full work day and votes scheduled throughout the day? >> i think if we worked two weeks in a row and started on a monday and worked until friday night and started early monday morning we would double the amount of floor time we had in congress. two, members who spend their time on the weekend get to socialize, they get to talk
8:49 pm
about problems informally. i think that is enhanced by not having people fly out all the time to get people to run for office or hold town halls. i think the balance is off in the amount of time. there is a balance to creating a culture in d.c. where members work together. it reduces the partnership and increases the relationships. >> this from a guy who didn't expect to make friends in washington. >> guest: and i won't. >> host: you will just be alone during the weekend. i think the folks watching who are writers are probably curious about the process. how did this start? how long did it take? when did you find time between the time you are on the floor
8:50 pm
all be it abbreviated and being back in the district. talk to me a little bit about that. >> sure. it is an interesting process and being my first book i am not sure that i will do it again. it starts off with an idea. i put an idea together. i hired an agent. i hired or started working with a fellow officer who i thought very highly of. bill is a great guy and i have some of his other works. i put together a proposal and the agent shops that proposal to various publishers. a few called, had meetings, talked about it, explained the role of an author in meetings like this after the book is published. it was an interviewing process
8:51 pm
for not just the idea but me as the salesman for the idea. and then gregory, great publisher that i know, they have worked with senator lee who is a friend of mine. we went through the process of really plushing out the proposal and went chapter by chapter and rewrote them. >> host: you are working with your co-author? >> guest: right. a few weekends i would fly to atlanta where he lives and we would work together and he would tape the interviews, have them transcribed and parted putting the chapters together and he would send them to me and i would work through them and get research and send them back. we went through that process and reached a deadline where we send it to the publisher. they examine it and have an
8:52 pm
editor and it was probably 50% longer than it is now. i think they did a great job in really reducing it and getting the same power of out of the ideas. the artwork for the cover was done by the publisher. there is a lot of great talent that went into the book outside the writing part of it. it is a matter of planning how to release the book and who to talk to. >> host: what are you been doing in the last few days? i think you were at the heritage foundation. >> guest: can you see the bags under my eyes? i was in new york yesterday doing regular interviews and tv interviews and today in d.c.
8:53 pm
and again doing radio and tv and i will leave here on friday and next week i will spend in colorado and do so radioing over the phone and other meetings and do some of the regular work that i do in colorado. >> host: what have people been asking you? what are you hoping people take out of the book? >> i am hoping people get energized and realize this is their government. we have more responsibility in america than just sending someone to d.c. and hoping they do the right thing. we have to get involved personally in how we run this government. so i am hoping people read this, i am hoping people get angry, i am hoping once people overcome that anger they are willing to spend time and work with an article five group in their state and understand a balanced
8:54 pm
budget and term limits and work on things that need to get done and encourage their members of congress to make changes in terms of fundraising or other changes that need to be made to the ethics code or rules of the house. >> host: you have a couple appendices and one is how to get new zealand in the article five and the other is the constitution -- and the --. why did you include those? >> guest: the effort to win state by state i think is important. i think the state legislatures are often waiting to come their way. the constitution is simple and i
8:55 pm
am not sure how many have read it. i am talking about the proper role of the federal government and reference the constitution and i want to be sure it is handy and people can go through it and agree or not. >> host: thank you so much for sharing this book with our leader and have fun with the rest of your promotion. >> guest: thank you very much. appreciate you being here today. >> nebraska senator ben sas encoura encourages how to teach young adults to become if gauged citizens.
8:56 pm
>> by and large, students graduating this spring and summer from college will change industries three times in the first decade post college. that is new and all the unsettling scary stuff that produced progressive during the industrial revolution period was about the idea job disruption created unsettled ripples. a lot of what people panicked about then is what we will experience at warp speed forever more. we will have 45 and 50 year olds getting disrupted out of jobs and firms but whole industries. we will have to create a civilization of life long learners and no civilization has ever done that. >> watch "after words" sunday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span2's booktv. >> former fbi director james comey will testify next week at
8:57 pm
a senate hearing investigating russian interference in u.s. election. watch live coverage thursday at 10:00 eastern on c-span3 and or listen live with the c-span radio app. >> next, a report on siberia's first female elected president. ms. cooper is interviews by california representative aaron bass the top democrat on the foreign affairs committee on africa. >> helene cooper, i must tell you i have enjoyed every minute of reading the books and the things you say. you know,


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on