Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal  CSPAN  September 26, 2015 7:00am-10:01am EDT

7:00 am
visiting u.s., and the state of u.s. china relations. washington journal is next. >> clear a path, please. clear a path. >> congratulations, mr. speaker. doesn't feel -- does it feel like a weight off your shoulders? , it is a wonderful day. host: that is bigger boehner yesterday morning. he is now set to resign from his speakership and leave congress at the end of october. what may have averted a
7:01 am
potential shutdown next week, it created a shuffle in the leadership ranks. we are getting your thoughts on his for years and nine months as bigger. our phone lines are open. give us a call. democrats can call in at (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. .ndependents, (202) 745-8002 you can also text is your thoughts this morning. -717-9284.r 202 of course you can also catch up with us on social media, twitter, and facebook, or e-mail us at a very good saturday morning, after a very busy day on capitol hill yesterday with the announcement coming yesterday morning. speaker john boehner set to resign at the end of october. here are the headlines from papers around the nation this morning.
7:02 am
"with exit,globe," boehner sets off shockwaves." from "the denver post," "push came from within." the front page of "the washington post," "house speaker resigns to avert crisis." "the los angeles times" already looking at the succession of the speaker and looking at heaven mccarthy from california -- kevin mccarthy, from california, favorite to replace boehner as speaker. to the front page of john boehner's other hometown, here call," "gton, "roll
7:03 am
boehner resignation sets off chaotic leadership scramble." to help answer your questions this morning, we're joined onset by jason dick of "roll call." conference andan up becoming too big, too unruly for him? guest: it looks like it. we have in watching capitol hill for a long time. the majority only gets so big. as you said, this is about as big as it gets for any majority. once you get into the to 40-250 range, you are bringing in people to your caucus were not necessarily all unlined with the people at the center of it, or leading it. what we are talking about, when we're talking about undone by the right or the conservative wing of it, we attack about 30,
7:04 am
maybe max 40 people. to get anything done, he needed to succeed to some of their wishes. he could not push legislation or an agenda without running it by them. it seemed that at a certain point he lost them. us injason dick here with our first hour, as you call in, asking questions about leadership. you can start dialing in now. we will show you first speaker john boehner at the press conference that he gave yesterday. [video clip] my, oh my, what a wonderful day. day is my mission every to fight for a smaller, less costly, and more accountable government. , i have last five years
7:05 am
advanced the majority of conservative reforms to help large odor. we are on track to cut government spending by $2.1 trillion. we have made the first entitlement reform in two decades, and we have protected 99% of the american people from an increase in our taxes. we have done all of this with a democrat in the white house. so, i am proud of what we have accomplished. more than anything, my first job as speaker is to protect the institution. host: john boehner saying yesterday that his first job as speaker is to protect the institution. he did not want to damage the institution. what did he mean by that check ?uest guest: what we are looking at is .a fight over the gavel it could have happened at any time. mark meadows filed a motion to vacate the chair. that motion is basically a vote
7:06 am
of confidence. accounts, john boehner was going to survive this. there is not any consensus replacement pick from the right-wing. kedlook like -- like it was going to be a chore. a governmenting shutdown, the middle of this week, september 30. boehner knew what he needed to do to of her the shutdown. what it would do what anger this group of conservatives. after trying to push that through, if they are trying to get to a leadership struggle, and whether or not he survives a vote of confidence, boehner felt that he could prevail, but did not want to put his members through that.
7:07 am
later on, he said that he would be leaving at the end of the year anyway, so why put his fellow republicans, and the house itself, which he does respect, through that trauma. host: put this in some historical perspective, a chart from "the washington post" this morning. the resignation of three speakers in the last 26 years marks a change for a position that people often held until death or retirement. sam rayburn, you can see, there on the chart. down the line, the speakers who have resigned over the years. gingrich, now,t john boehner, residing at the end of october. your
7:08 am
we can answer your questions as well. john is up first, by for republicans, phoenix, arizona. good morning. . site wherean only the speaker spoke to the golden rule. i have very, very concerned thoughts that the republicans have forgotten about that golden ole, and the idea of the gop, and reagan gop spirit of the party itself. i do not see the conservatives in this position, this party, or this time of the nation looking forward. the american people are reaching out for people who are antiestablishment. mr. boehner is an honorable man, he did that to achieve the party goals, and to be welcoming. i do not see the conservative
7:09 am
party, in any way, form, or fashion welcoming any other race or disposition of the people by to ag this contrary move man of audible distinguish ability like this man. have you thought about who you would like to see as the next bigger of the house? caller: i think, if it has to be anybody, it has to be an individual who is not afraid to call whatever it is whatever it is, and take on the conservative party and say, you know what, this is the party of lincoln, not antiestablishment individuals, who are only there for their own gains and short-term purposes. not for the disposition of the republican party, the lincoln party, and for that, the reagan disposition. i think the party has lost its
7:10 am
disposition on what its goals are and what it's meeting is. i'm totally disgusted that a small group of 30 had the 40 individuals would have that much empowerment. host: a headline from "roll call" and the many articles written yesterday, "boehner resignation sets off chaotic leadership scramble." let's go through it. guest: at least the front runner will be kevin mccarthy, a republican from bakersfield, california. stafferhe longtime top in the district for representative bill thomas, who is a republican from the same area. kevin mccarthy is relatively young, 50 years old. he is well-liked in the conference. he has been around since 2006. he has risen through the ranks relatively quickly. he was tapped by eric cantor,
7:11 am
when he was the majority chief deputy whip. spotrt of ticked off one after another, and became whip, and now is looking like consensus front runner for speakership. there is another member, a republican from florida, daniel webster, who was elected in the freshman class of 2010. he has thrown his hat in the ring. he received 12 votes in january, during a relatively on organized coup attempt, or an attempt to e first balloth of the speakership in january. he is kind of unknown, but liked , but does not have nearly the support or political infrastructure that kevin mccarthy has. host: john boehner st. nick
7:12 am
kevin mccarthy would make a great speaker, when asked about this. of course, if he moves up to leadership, that leaves the house leadership position open. we want to get your calls, including phil, calling in on our life for republicans from maine. good morning. caller: good morning. back in 2010, when the republicans were scrambling when obama beat their brains than on obamacare, they -- we, the people, organize ourselves into groups that decided to fight back. they tagged us the tea party. when the time does the tea party, republicans were in love with us. we were the back road of republicans. we were this, we read that -- we were that.
7:13 am
we elected a republican house. i don't know if your member that, but we did it. then, republicans came along and that, oh my gosh, these guys are powerful, we may lose the republican power to them. we will get in bed with the press and destroy them, tell lies about them. they call this racists, everything in the book. i have news for you. we are coming out again. we are getting organized again. there fed up with what republican establishment is doing. host: who are you going to organize for? for the 2060 presidential election? caller: exactly, and for our local elections. we have a congressman in the second district of maine who lied to us. we are going to make sure that somebody primaries him. we are tired of being lied to. i don't think the press
7:14 am
understands it. they come along, tell us what they, and do whatever the hell they want. we have a senator, susan vote 75%-80% with the democrats. republican, it is up to them. they have to decide whether they are going to become a party of the people, or a secondary party to the democratic party. did john boehner understand the tea party movement? guest: i think he understood the tea party movement, but there's only so much you can do to adhere to its principles, before you run into opposition. john boehner was fond of saying of one was the head part of themall
7:15 am
legislative branch. it was not enough. he could not impose his will on a democratic president, a democratic senate, now a republican senate, that has rules that give the minority a lot of power. then, the supreme court has really asserted itself into public policy in a way that is a little shocking, a little for some people. i think john boehner understood, but there was only so much he could do about it. he certainly understood when he opponent last year. he saw the power of the tea party. he sees the power when he goes into the conference meetings and says, this is what we could get. there is only so much he can do given the realities of the power structure. host: a few tweets this morning.
7:16 am
robert writes in, more than a quarter of a century in office, more than enough for a politician. he was first elected in 1990, and took office in 1991. edwin wrightson, mr. boehner resignation will shake up congress. judy is calling in. what do you think this morning? caller: good morning. i feel that mr. boehner is teaching all of us one heck of a lesson. i pray that the tea party take heed and adjust their thinking and approach. i believe that because you have been elected into politics does not make you a politician. you have to earn that. the way the you do that, i believe, is the at what people want, and the approach you take to getting us to where we need
7:17 am
to be. host: before you go, you on the line for democrats what you think boehner's recognition means for your party? for the heads of your party, and how they tried to move their issues on capitol hill, not having john boehner around. does that change their strategy? caller: i would think it would have to change because an important element has been removed. everybody has to rethink. what do you think? host: i will tell you what several democrats in congress think. several of them tweeting out their statements yesterday. speaker adam schiff -- boehner is inherently decent, and cares about congress, the resignation is a sad commentary on dysfunction of gop. says theards announcement is another sign that the house gop is not prepared or capable of governing
7:18 am
on behalf of the american people. isphen: -- pete's diner losing a celebrity client. mark takano, nothing to lose now, bring up comprehensive immigration reform -- his suggestion. we are giving your thoughts as morning on "the washington journal." we are joined by jason dick of "roll call." again, (202) 748-8000 democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. .ndependents, (202) 745-8002 you can also text us this morning. we will look for those as well. is calling in, line for republicans. good morning.
7:19 am
go ahead. caller: my thoughts about boehner resigning, i was rejoicing this morning. last year, unfortunately, i was 3 million over americans that lost their employment benefits because he blocked the house for extending them. as far as working for the people, i certainly did not feel he was doing that. every time he changed it, he had another obstacle. i felt like why am i supporting this republican house when the speak of the house clearly is not working for this people -- for the people. it was frustrating. host: thank you for the call from california. jason dick, a question from twitter, how does a nurse resignation delay the government shutdown, which would have come about on september 30? walk us through it. guest: what will happen in the
7:20 am
next couple of days, the senate will pass the queen resolution, which means a continuing resolution to keep the government open until december 11. what will happen after that is the house will take up, boehner has said, the same clean resolution. it will likely pass with democratic support. then, the president will sign it . it will essentially extend the government spending with very few goodies, or policy overtures . right now, conservatives are really amped up about planned they came, the videos out with fetal tissue cells have defund therts to
7:21 am
group. there were demands that something be attached to the continuing resolution, but i will not happen. that was really the crux of whether boehner would be able to pull this off, and keep his speakership. when he decided to do was, on his way out, pass this clean , use democratic votes to get over the how, and say goodbye. host: lawrence, you are on. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i wanted to ask the editor if he felt that this is maybe the getting what they started. what i mean by that is they have been so against obama. they have demonized this guy
7:22 am
like no one else before. what obama was able to accomplish some of the things he came into the office to a conference, with the backing of the american people -- when the republicans see that obama is getting some of the things done, this is like the devil getting something done. this is how bad they have demonized him. , it is a goodal case of how they demonize the good that obama is trying to do for the country. ,hen he gets it through republicans are forced to say, why did this happen, instead of them working with obama. guest: i think the caller brings up a really good point. it is difficult to lose. it is difficult to keep having somebody you have targeted for defeat to win. we saw this in the 1990's.
7:23 am
he was impeached by the house and acquitted by the senate, but came back more popular than ever. it is difficult. washington isy structured. this is the way the government is structured. it is structured this way by design, by the founding fathers. it is difficult to get massive change quickly. lose, notontinue to be able to fulfill the goals we set before yourself, it is very difficult to accept that. at this point, rainer was a casualty. one thing i would like to point out is at one point john boehner was a revolutionary.
7:24 am
when he was elected in 1990, he was a young, firebreathing conservative. he was very of front about abuses in the house banking scandal. republicans became the majority party in 1994, he had a leadership seat at the table. he was, at one point, one of the young bucks, but he worked a little more in the system. it is interesting to see that now we are almost seeing a generational shift. andspeaker will be 66 november. a lot of the people who are looking to move up our his age, when he started making his move, and was elected to congress. host: the caller bringing up president obama, getting that news yesterday, just before he had his own press conference with the president of china. here is what he had to say. [video clip] issident obama: john boehner
7:25 am
a good man. he is a pager. he cares deeply about the house, an institution in which he served for a long time. he cares about his constituents. he cares about america. we have obviously had a lot of disagreement, and politically, at different ends of the spectrum, but i will tell you, he has always conducted himself with courtesy and civility with me. he has kept his word, when he made a commitment. he is somebody who has been gracious, and i think, maybe most important, he is somebody who understands that in governanceand gov , you do not get everything you want, and sometimes you have to to do theith people people's business. i will not prejudge who the next speaker will be.
7:26 am
that is something that will have to be worked through in the house. certainly reach out immediately to whoever is the new speaker to see what his or her ideas are and how we can make progress on important issues that america faces. host: that was president obama yesterday. te are talking abou speaker boehner's announcement that he is stepping down in october from speakership and his house seat. mere take your calls, your tweets, e-mails, and also your exts. in --texts that have come , indiana, alle americans need to come together against those 50 troglodytes.
7:27 am
this one coming in from atlanta, the speaker fell on his sword to avoid a government shutdown and the pope had some influence. mike is up next from iowa, life for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. is indicative of what is going on in this country, so is mcconnell. they are both jokes. they are obama puppets, is what they are. that is why we are pissed . host: who is not an obama puppet? would you want to see in these positions? caller: trump. as far as the senate, cruz. it does not get any better than cruz. host: abraham is up next year
7:28 am
good morning. caller: good morning. host: good. go ahead. caller: john boehner had to step he alwaysse capitulated to the democratic party. the democratic party had no problem changing the rules of the house or the senate, in order to get health care benefits through. mcconnell, it seemed like they always wanted to go by what the institutional rules had when the counterparts no problem getting through what they're constituents want. a democrat on the line saying oft obama is doing the will the american people. he is doing the will of a small portion of the american people.
7:29 am
there are a lot of other people who think that obama is doing a horrible job. host: jason dick, these last two colors bringing up john .oehner's credentials is he a moderate, does he have a conservative record? guest: the record shows a very conservative republican. cut deals when he needed to cut deals. the biggest difference is likely the onepproached -- thing i think a lot of people don't like to think about is politics is a career. it is a business, just like any business. you have to be good at what you do, and sort of find your way in, when there are opportunities. ted cruz has not been the
7:30 am
firebreathing conservative for his entire political career. he is relatively young, and his 40's. he worked for george w. bush. he worked on immigration reform for bush in texas. sees an somebody who opportunity, like any good businessman. he has gone from being a democrat to reform party to being pro-abortion rights, antiabortion. he sees a place where he can get into the conservative structure. that is what we are seeing right now. this is really a generational push by people who are tired of being led around by people who are in their 60's and 70's very busy and opportunity, smelled b blood, and are going for it. host: the boehner legacy, we are asking our viewers about it.
7:31 am
yesterday, in that press conference, john boehner was asked what his legacy would be. here is what he had to say. [video clip] boehner: i'm not in the legacy business. you have heard me say it, i'm a regular guy with a big job. i never thought i would be in congress, much less speaker. people know me as being fair, honest, straightforward, and trying to do the right thing every day on behalf of the country. jason dick, your take on those comments about his legacy. guest: i think the speaker is showing -- i think he is a modest person, but there is a modestyit of false ho going on there. the speaker has repeatedly tried to strike big deals in his .peakership, and even before
7:32 am
this is the guy that works with ted kennedy and george bush to pass no child left behind. he repeatedly want to obama and tried to strike a grand bargain cut entitlements and taxes. not come here for a big title, i came here to do big things. i think he is reduced to can he keep the government open past wednesday. that has to be very frustrating for someone who has spent there life in politics. he does come from humble roots, he is a regular guy. he likes merlot and going to the pizza diner. he had ambitions that were .hwarted the: john boehner became 53rd speaker of the house in 2011, and represented the eighth
7:33 am
congressional district since 1990. he lived in southwest ohio his entire life. he grew up waiting tables at his family's tavern. he often talks about a job. we have shown you some tweets from democrats reacting. here are tweets from republicans. just in a mosh -- justin a amash, we have had our differences, but i will miss you. john shimkus, with sacrifice ial love, speaker boehner is laying it down. ileana rosslipman -- -letiten. john is calling in from maine.
7:34 am
go ahead. caller: we had another caller from maine who mentioned someone who is known for voting against the party line. i was wondering, do you think -- onre is sort of a pushback the individualism in congress. to think they are focusing on the party line, or boehner may be more than move towards freedom of conscience for congress? guest: that is a really interesting point. it almost seems that we are seeing a coalition government in the republican party right now. you have a very conservative about 30-40, and you have a relatively conservative group that differs on tactics. they can't really -- they are
7:35 am
bound by a common set of ideals, but differ on tactics, and exactly what would mean success and failure. we are in an era of more party line votes, but if that continues to fracture, and they continue to need votes from the opposition party to pass funding bills -- again, this is the most basic job that congress has, which is to keep the government open. if they are having trouble doing this and coalitions, we will see. the democratic party is certainly more unified. they are smaller, so it is easier to keep people in line. they have experience in nancy pelosi, in particular, one of the fuse acres who has not had any scandal or pushed out. she is still around. host: nancy pelosi makes an
7:36 am
appearance in this front-page cover of "roll call." celebrating 60 years on capitol hill. there she is on the merry go round to speaker john boehner. we are getting your calls and comments with jason dick. debbie is up next, line for republicans. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i hope everybody is doing well. it is a good day for america, in my opinion. time for the speaker of .he house boehner to leave a previous caller had it correctly. i will be nice and just say, we are extremely angry. we have worked to do what we needed to do to get republicans
7:37 am
voted into the senate, and into the house. we are tired of hearing "we ."n't do this we are tired of republican leadership rolling over on their backs and slapping their hands and feet in the air and surrender. it is time for new leadership. do not think that it is going to be good enough just about people of the latter. we need new leadership completely. host: debbie and north carolina. yesterday at the value voters summit, perhaps some of that frustration could be seen when marco rubio announced that he just heard that speaker boehner was stepping down. here is a bit of that yesterday morning. marco rubio: how can it be that we set a republican majority to
7:38 am
congress and they still cannot stop our country from fighting in the wrong direction. [applause] we will see how things progress. just a few minutes ago, speaker boehner announced that he would be resigning. [applause] host: that was the reaction from the value voters summit. we are getting your reactions. robert, good morning. caller: good morning. i do not know how much you know about this, or not, but there are very few requirements for speaker of the house. a sittingcould
7:39 am
senator be secure the house? couldn't governor be speaker of the house? you see where i'm going. guest: actually the caller brings up a good point. the speaker the house does not need to be a member of congress. in the last round of speaker elections, there were gingrichns -- newt actually got nomination, and has not been in congress since 1998. it is feasible. it has never happen, but it is feasible to a nonmember of congress could be speaker, considering most people who would love being speaker have trouble gathering coalitions, it is unlikely. host: unlike most of the leadership positions, this is a vote by the entire house. republicans cannot lose too many other fellow republicans in a vote of the entire house when democrats are involved. guest: right.
7:40 am
this is the thing that john boehner said he wanted to spare the institution. democrats could conceivably vote all in block to reelect, or install, nancy pelosi as speaker . if they all voted one way, and got close to a plurality, that could throw it into another ballot. if you deny majority to a candidate of speaker, it keeps on going through these roll call votes. ofis tough to get -- because the numbers and the way the party is organize right now, we're not going to eat a democrat be the speaker -- going see a democrat be the speaker again. it could have thrown the process into chaos as they sought these candidates who would get enough votes to have majority. maryland,p next from a republican.
7:41 am
caller: thank you. he should have left long ago. to stop democrats from doing a lot of things -- harming the american people. he allowed a lot of bad laws to be passed. he basically took up space. what do you call them, the tea party, and all that -- the rand paul's, trying to fight these laws -- he went against them. he was more obama allied. maybe his buddy and the white ,ouse will take his lead and all the dirty people that have been in their too long, will leave us alone. host: we will stay in maryland,
7:42 am
line for independents, robert is up next. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you doing this morning? host: good. go ahead. caller: i have a statement i would like to make. first of all, i am a vietnam vet. i see a continual problem that continues to exist and does not go away. this current crop in the republican party, creating so much destruction in this country , once were in the democratic party. from the civil war to when johnson became president, johnson said, we have to get these people out of the democratic party, send them over to the republican party, let them ruin that party. that is exactly what they did. constant conflict. when i examine their new
7:43 am
ascension to power, i have gotten at least 35 items that are exactly similar to what happened in germany in the 1930's, in the early 1930's. this party, if we don't give these people's, they will close the government down, and all the things that are destructive. host: you are calling in on the line for independents, do you mostly vote democratic? .aller: no i am an independent. were republicans and eisenhower and mr. should. my first vote was for republican back in the early 1960's. i switch back and forth, that makes me an independent. the thing i am so concerned about is this ideological saying of not thinking.
7:44 am
more some tweets from some republicans, and their reaction to this announcement made yesterday morning. huelskamp saysil' the only thing speaker boehner his pro-lifeow is principles. matt salmon says, i congratulate john boehner for everything he has done, this is a wake-up call to stop ignoring the people. pete king says the resignation of john boehner is a victory for the crazies. those are just a few tweets from republican members of congress. we're getting your thoughts this morning. warren is up next from washington, d.c., like for democrats. caller: i appreciate the opportunity to make a couple of comments here. as a democrat, i'm thoroughly
7:45 am
enjoying the republicans cannibalizing themselves. they do not seem to get it. there was a call this morning that obama is not supported by the majority of the people. when you have the opportunity to vote obama out, they didn't. they lost every major democratic .roup they still don't get it. choices.t is about nobody is supposed to get everything they want, yet, they take these single issues -- why would you want to shut a of anment down on the eve election year? find a way to govern effectively together. that is what we need.
7:46 am
as democrats, we will not get everything we want. republicans will not get everything they want. find a way to govern, to compromise. that is what the pope was talking about. that great man, obesity has time the other day, trying to explain to these people, it is not about you, it is about the people you represent. honestly speaking, we are not be adequately represented by either side. host: jason dick, walk us through democratic reaction yesterday, and how they are viewing this. that: i don't think anybody has reallyublicly, in congress, along the lines of the waser's comments -- there shock initially. they also probably see an opportunity also in the chaos. this, people like
7:47 am
have an opportunity to take advantage of the situation. democrats, at this point, are saying, it was almost universal, john boehner was a good man, he never lied to me. that is what the president said, what harry reid said, and number of other high-end democrats said. they are in the mode of let's back up, and when there is a circular firing squad, get out of the circle -- the sentiment of the democrats. host: harry reid on twitter, i was always happy with what speaker boehner toby, but was untrue. that is said or harry reid. nancy pelosi spoke about speaker boehner's resignation in her weekly news conference. [video clip] pelosi: nonetheless, here
7:48 am
we are, the speaker announcing his resignation. that resignation is a stark indication of the disarray of the house republicans, and a demonstration of their obsession of shutting down the government at the expense of women's health , and a sign of the failure of the house republicans to be willing to engage in dialogue for the good of the american people, and for us to move forward. host: that was house minority leader nancy pelosi yesterday. we are getting your reaction, including your texts this morning, like steve from new orleans. he says, they operate like mafia, the to not have mercy on people, and they don't even have mercy to one of their own. omert gohm t --
7:49 am
is the man for the job. cassidy says, stepping down will cause a vacuum, like what we have seen from the u.s. withdrawal from the middle east. en is up next from cincinnati, ohio, close to speaker boehner's hometown. caller: i host a radio show here in cincinnati. i grew up right next to where john boehner grew up. i graduated from xavier university, the same university as john boehner. i felt the trade by john boehner, and mitch mcconnell. i feel like they rolled over, and gave president obama everything he wanted. this whole issue of shutting down the government, you have to me,d on principle, and, to cap the continuing
7:50 am
resolution going. host: who do you want to see as the next speaker of the house? caller: i do not know yet, but i do not want them to move everyone up, whoever is below john boehner. we need someone who is strong and willing to stand on their own principles. i like ted cruz, not necessarily as speaker, but we need someone with that type of principal who will stand on their principles. this whole thing about bipartisanship and compromise, youe, it means it is ok if surrender. that is what democrats want republicans to do, to surrender, and then they call it a compromise. nancy pelosi and harry reid, they ran their congress just like they wanted. they did not compromise at all. as a matter of fact, president obama had some very harsh words for people who did not agree with him.
7:51 am
i think we need to stay on our principles. this whole issue about planned parenthood and abortion, i think that is an issue that is they send it to him, and the president vetoes it, so be it. let the government shutdown. host: talking low bit about the succession, he talked through -- we talked through kevin mccarthy. can you talk about down the line, what it means for the majority leader, the majority whip position? guest: right now, we have a couple of members of leadership the majority leader. steve scalise, a republican from louisiana, just outside of new orleans, he is the majority whip . he will run for majority leader. also, cathy mcmorris rodgers, the conference chairwoman, she will also run.
7:52 am
the chief deputy whip, patrick chenry, republican from north carolina, is running for whip. the rules committee set the , the for the house chairman has indicated some interest. it looks like he will run for the whip position. i hesitate to even go further because it seems -- there may be one who jumps in. host: certainly a lot of moving in the last 24 hours. when will the election take place? guest: some people were asking, will boehner leave the speakership before he leaves congress. dedication we have now is that october 30 will be boehner's last day as speaker and member
7:53 am
of congress. then, an election would take place shortly thereafter. the maneuvering has already started. the body is not cold. the lobbying has begun to succeed him. you have to move fast and the relatively roofless to win a leadership election, a political election. this is the part of politics that i think is difficult for a lot of people to stomach, which is it is a business that is a ruthless, calculating business. people who are organized, and have their ducks lined up are the ones who get those positions. one thing we keep hearing a lot of is boehner and mcconnell capitulate and give democrats everything they want. i really don't think president obama wanted to cut bending $2 trillion, which is a deal that boehner mcconnell helped to make happen. they certainly did not want to .equester on the budget
7:54 am
and, they did not want to make permanent a lot of tax cuts for 99% of the population. these are all things that john boehner and mitch mcconnell helped make happen. they get very little credit for the 1%-2% that they did not get in their time as leaders. host: as we take the next call from mary in ohio, we will show you some of the other headlines from the major papers around the country this morning. go ahead. caller: before i forget, i would like to say, i wish you would have a professional film editor on to show how things can be manipulated on film, especially with the planned parenthood videos. i wish that all of these bully the values voter summit, and men of a certain age 45-50, and over, who are so angry, would take a look at
7:55 am
themselves in the mirror. i'm so tired of their whining -- just because they think their ideas are the best does not mean they necessarily are. host: chuck is up next from florida, line for republicans. your thoughts this morning? opinion.his is just my i just believe that john boehner .umped ship the people i talk to, both democrats and republicans, and you can include a, are willing to shut down government, and at my age, delay welfare stamps, food stamps, and everything we need to to shut down the government, and get something finally resolved. that is one issue. the other thing i'm so curious understand,not
7:56 am
planned parenthood certainly was mostly designed for women. women need that extra assistance . i do not understand why we have obamacare, which covers everybody, for everything. i am a male,, -- and i want to know where my condoms, iol is, my can even get breast cancer. i do not know why the male species is not represented at all. it another way -- it is another way to divide us. we have to come together when there is not enough money. i think this time, john boehner should have hung on a little longer. i think we are all angry enough to shut down government for as long as it takes to stop this spending irrationality. the lead editorial in today's "washington post," "
7:57 am
boehner's copout." we respect his devotion, the editorial board writes, but is because primary responsibly is to the nation, not the house, and what the nation needs is a congress willing to make compromise in the national interest, compromises that mr. boehner may have favored the , but rarely had the stomach to promote. joann, line for democrats, good morning. caller: good morning to both of you. thank you for receiving my call. my point is this. god speakd a man of to us in reference to everything going on here in our country. there are countries that are suffering worse than what we are
7:58 am
-- starvation, disease is, not having food, and things of that nature. along is my get question. republicans, democrats, who ever. thesee people, voted people into office. we are not getting what we voted for. no one can get all of anything. no one. things to accept some where mommy and daddy say, no we cannot have. for two people, when obama was elected, to stand and say, i will make him a one-time president -- that is not fair. mr. do not refer to him as obama, like they did, mr. clinton. they say that we are getting
7:59 am
better, as far as racism. we are not getting better. look at the little kid who was handcuffed for building a clock in school. yes, he should have been pulled aside, but they did not have to handcuff him. there are so made problems that are so deep-seated into our country. we need to step back, take a good look at ourselves, take a good look at the people we are putting into office. host: that is joann from north carolina, our last caller this morning. joann brings up the post visit visit to capitol hill. can you talk about that visit and its influence on speaker boehner's decision? guest: this is related: nation of john boehner's political
8:00 am
career. he had been pressing for a papal since hisongress and earliest years who was speaker of the house when he was elected. despite his best efforts, he was not able to make it happen until this year. that --is something boehner has this image of being a country club republican, likes to smoke cigarettes and drink merlot -- i think what a lot of people do not see is that he is -- has very deeply held catholic beliefs. he is somebody who this meant a to be able to be speaker and preside over a joint meeting in congress, to have the pope, you know, speak to the congress. there is a little bit up -- it is ironic that the pope, in a very lengthy speech, kept
8:01 am
appealing to the common good and to the benefit of listening to the most vulnerable people in society and not trying to get ahead of others expense. -- get ahead at others' expense. level of just sort of anger that is out there, too a lot of people, it did not connect on that level. obviously been thinking about leaving for a wild. he said his original plan was that he wanted to leave at the end of last year. that changed when eric cantor lost. at the beginning of this year, he said i will say it on my birthday, i will announce my retirement on my birthday, november 17. he will be 66. maybe he's all this was a confluence of events. it was not point to get better than this, he had a private audience with the pope.
8:02 am
the pope told him to pray for him, and boehner, you know, as is characteristic, got choked up when he said that. maybe this is it. maybe this is going to be as good as it gets, and i am going to keep the government open for a little while, and get zippity doo da on his way out the door. the: a moment captured by "washington post," on the front page story today, late on thursday night, the speaker was reenacting that moment. you can read that story in the "washington post." if you want to see more of the pope's visit and c-span's ning again atnppe 4:30, the pope is speaking in philadelphia at 7:30. you can catch that on c-span
8:03 am
come on season radio, and of course jason dickhank of rollcal that is the place to go for that information. thanks so much for joining us on the "washington journal." up next, we will talk about a big week of climate and energy ben with been demon -- with geman. later, jennifer harris will discuss chinese president xi jinping's visit to the united states and discuss china-u.s. relations. earlier, there was an interreligious service at ground zero. the pope praised the solidarity of those there on 9/11, including the new york city firemen who fell that day. the pope spoke in spanish with a translator here. [video clip]
8:04 am
francis: among this pain, we think of the capacity of a relic goodness that the human being is also capable of. at times of greatest pain and tofering, you were witness the greatest acts of giving of yourself and held a stretched given.d, lives people were able to show a powerful solidarity of help, of
8:05 am
love, of sacrifice. at that time, it was not about blood or origin or neighborhood or religion or political views. it was a matter of solidarity. it was an emergency of brotherhood. it was a matter of humanity. york firemen and women came in to the towers that were crumbling without much thinking of their own lives. in their duty and with their sacrifice, it allowed for so many others to survive.
8:06 am
this place of death also is transformed into a place for life. saved lives. we will always triumph over destruction, over death, and win over bad.ys reconciliation and unity will prevail over hate and division. >> "washington journal" continues. and: ben geman is an energy environment for correspondent at t. with speaker boehner leaving, how do that change some of the major energy bills moving through congress, and how does it change the reaction from
8:07 am
republicans in congress trying to push back about -- against the president's climate initiative? tost: it is interesting while we have a speaker who is leaving under fairly intense pressure from the most conservative wing of his caucus, climate change issues, it is hard to imagine that speaker boehner could have given conservatives anything more than he already did. this is a house that in recent years has voted repeatedly to wart presidentth obama's climate and energy initiatives. none of these things made it to the legislative finish line after passing the house. they either stalled in the senate or would get vetoed, but that said, there was vote after vote in the house to require the expansion of areas made available for drilling to block climate change is coming from the white house. even more fundamental than that,
8:08 am
going forward, if these bills became law, they would have fundamentally changed how we do regulation and really tipped it more in favor of industries, for example, by having the energy department having the ability to somehow veto regulations or give congress the authority to sign off on regulations before they become final. very frequent basis, for years we have had a very aggressive, sustained assault on environmental and energy regulations. on that score, obviously they have clashed on other things. host: kevin mccarthy seen as the most likely candidate to take over these are shipped -- the speakership. does he have a different record on those issues? guest: not in any major way. one thing he is quite concerned about are the upcoming ozone pollution standards that the white house push during obama's first term.
8:09 am
certainly that is something that in california, he thinks can create very big problems for certain industries there. i would see kevin mccarthy being equally as aggressive as speaker boehner. california does not get as much -- there is a pretty big mix in california, and it is not a state like louisiana where you want to see a big expansion of offshore drilling, but there is a certain amount of oil development in california. but i do not see a potential speaker mccarthy softening the house's tone on energy and all.ent at
8:10 am
it could not get further to the agreedquite china -- to the rising carbon dioxide emissions. they agree to a big expansion in green energy use. yesterday was the chinese sort of building on that commitment. they announced that in 2017 they will launch a nationwide trade system for carbon dioxide and missions p or will build on smaller and more regional pilots is a and systems that they held already had in place. trade, looking back to the proposals here in the united states, is this similar to what was being proposed then? guest: conceptually it is. you have some type of ways for different industries to have these treatable air pollution credits, and that in theory will findregulated issues
8:11 am
low-cost ways to reduce low carbon. it will address that only energy but also several industrial sectors, manufacturing, cement, and so forth. that was just one thing announced yesterday. i think equally consequential is that -- use all the u.s. and china laying out something of a very division for how the high-stakes global warming talks in tariffs should unfold later this year. -- in paris should unfold later this year. that is a final climate pass protocol. kyoto they said here is where we agree , and this is important because together these two countries account for roughly 40% of global carbon dioxide emissions. china is the world's biggest emitter, butest
8:12 am
the u.s. a second here that could be quite relevant later this year. the: just to define terms, kyoto protocol? guest: the kyoto protocol was the 1997 global warming accord that was never ratified to try to get a handle on worldwide emissions. bit of a rocky road. it did not include any commitments at all by developing countries, including china, and so what they are moving for in paris is something that would have some level by countries worldwide. to get into the weeds that little bit, it will of different than the kyoto protocol because what we are seeing is the emergence of an architecture in which countries make these national pledges to reduce emissions, so the u.s. pledge would be to cut emissions by run 2025, and other
8:13 am
nations are coming through with pledges, too. that is sort of the nonbinding part, but it will be tethered to other provisions around how countries review what others are doing, and it will somehow be defined under international law. the final architecture remains to be seen. host: that meeting in paris happening in december. we talking about it this morning on "washington journal" and also other issues from a very busy k on the climate and energy front. if you want to join the conversation with ben g eman, republicans, (202) 748-8001, democrats, (202) 748-8000, independents (202) 748-8002. you can text us as well. make sure to include your name and your city if you send us a text. before we get to your calls, we want to ask you about the pope's visit to capitol hill.
8:14 am
climate, energy a big theme. he talked about in his joint speech to congress. what was the reaction on capitol hill? guest: what was interesting that the joint speech is that the pope did not speak to climate change and issues as sort of forcefully as he did the day before on the south lawn of the white house where he explicitly praised president obama for the epa regulations to cut emissions from power plants, and he spoke about the urgency of some climate change and the generational challenge of it. his speech to congress, he did not use the words "climate change" or global warming. he did say to congress there is a role for congress to play in addressing humans' impact on the environment. it is very difficult for me to imagine that this is going to sway the policy divisions of either party. exampleoffer up as one congressman darrell issa, a very
8:15 am
conservative republican from california, told green wire and reporters that this is not going to change things. i believe he said "not a bit." universally being very respectfully the pope, it was quite clear that they were not going to see this as something that kind of forces any changes in policy. one look at that, which is interesting, just hours after the pope left the capital, the house took up a piece of legislation. the timing is somewhat incidental, but the house took up a piece of legislation that republican-led piece of legislation that would block federal regulars from weighing the social cost of carbon dioxide emissions when they do sort of environmental restrictions around permits. that bill was voted on the next day and passed very easily with essentially all republicans supporting it. what that illustrates is you have got a regulatory agenda money house gop that is not going to be swayed by the pope's
8:16 am
message on climate change. host: pope francis -- harm to the environment is harm to humidity cured you can read about it, we are taking questions and comments with ben geman. our call, just from north carolina -- jeff from north carolina, republican line. caller: here in fayetteville, it was 69 degrees, and i am looking at the weather archives. to 89rs ago, it got in fayetteville. i would not call it global warming like you people are advocating. professors in college is our receiving a lot of -- professors and colleges are receiving a lot of grants. they would lose that money, so there is a lot of money involved. incentive for people
8:17 am
to carry obama's water. they have got to say there is global warming to continue to receive their grants. so i do not buy this bs. but, hey, thanks a lot, guys. host: thoughts? guest: temperature changes in one city or county or another tremendously over time. that said, the data is very difficult to argue with. the data is very clear that there is a warming trend. the statistics going back to -- temperature records going back to the late 1800's show that 2016 is on pace to be the warmest year ever by some margin, and i think nine of the top 10 have occurred within the last 10 years to 15 years. certainly regional variations notwithstanding, the trend is unmistakable.
8:18 am
there is very recent data about where we are in 2015 so far. next,william is up newport, arkansas, line for republicans. william, good morning. caller: good morning, little brother. how are you today? it is good to hear a conversation that we can argue about this, we can argue about that, but we can all pretty much agree on clean air. it is good to hear a conversation going on about it. host: william, before you go, did you listen to the pope's speech on capitol hill? you have thoughts on what he had to say about the environment? caller: well, he is not a republican, and he is not a democrat, so we can agree that there is some you out there -- that there is somebody else out there who has got it. the media in general from fox to al jazeera to the chinese -- everybody at least is now talking about it, where you know a year ago, it did not even make the news, you know? so it is good to hear people talking about it.
8:19 am
like i said, we can all agree that particles in the air is not good for anybody, so, you know, whether it is warming or cooling or what is going on, clean air is good for everybody. host: thanks for the call from arkansas. an article in the "washington post" this morning -- environmental and cyclical can transform the discourse on ecological crises. can you talk about the pope and the debate on capitol hill? guest: yes, but to turn briefly it iso william's point, related to what is happening in china because china has been suffering under tremendous air pollution problems. leaving global warming aside for a moment, the problems are sort of standard -- particulate matter, haze, and other things that are very acute. that is one of the things forcing somewhat of a political transition in china toward cleaner sources of energy and getting a handle on very large
8:20 am
emission sources, which also has a correspondent benefit of addressing local warming pollution. so to the sense, as the caller pointed out, on the need for stronger air quality, i do not think that is inconsistent with climate change. host: and on the pope's encyclical? guest: yeah, certainly he had a very friendly audience in a lot of ways on capitol hill. his speech was very -- it was fairly small. this comes some months after a very detailed date meant that really says this is something that must be, that climate change must be confronted, and it really addressed a lot of different issues. i did not read the whole thing. it really talked about how we need to look at consumer culture, how we need to look at the moral responsibility to the
8:21 am
earth, how we need to look at the effects of capitalism. that is something that i think for people on the left was quite heartening that he confronted that issue sort of head-on. what remains to be seen is how much this is going to sway people in the long-term. i was looking at some polling among catholics in particular that was taken just before the release of the encyclical, and that with some few polling, -- some pew polling, and about 1/3 of catholics felt that combating climate change was at all central to their catholic identity, so what i would be curious to see is one, how much pope francis discusses this two, going forward, and whether it has any type of ripple effect among the faithful worldwide and really among the worldwide. climate change is not something that tends to register -- in the u.s. anyway -- as a top concern for the public in general.
8:22 am
if you ask people sort of open ended what are the biggest problems in the country, global warming does not tend to be -- it is at the bottom of the list. if you ask a direct question -- do you think we should be imposing limits on emissions from power plants? and the answer will be quite affirmative. which side of that coin on the polling ultimately wins the day will say about where climate change goes in the future. host: the pope taking his message from the south lawn of the white house to the house chamber to the united states -- nations.ited he said any harm done to the environment therefore is harm done to humanity. we are talking about a big week in climate energy news. if you want to call in, you can do so. we will put our lines on the screen. tom in pittsburgh, pennsylvania, line for republicans. tom, good morning. caller: good morning, and thanks for c-span. my opinion is of the climate is
8:23 am
changing, but the climate is always changing, and we have no definitive proof that it is man-made changes. that man is causing this changes. people are getting rich over this climate change issue, like al gore is. he has made hundreds of millions of dollars from what i understand from this. and others -- money is a big part of it. like the caller that mentioned college professors are getting these big grants to come up with statistics that the government, you know, favorable to the government's stance, and one of those is michael mann at penn state, a professor of there who came up with the, hockey stick graph, and it came out to be bogus. he is still there and getting grants and making money for the university, so that is why he is still there. i think it is all about money. it is not about the environment.
8:24 am
climate is always going to change, and that is my opinion. host: tom from pittsburgh, pennsylvania. carol is expressing similar concerns. our all want to protect planet," she writes, "but the caveat is how." mentioned caller michael mann at penn state university. one thing i would say to the caller, his research, because it has been so controversial, this is research that essentially , reconstructs temperatures going back over about a millennia and shows a sharpening of take over the last century. uptick over the last century. his research has been probed, and the allegations of academic that has never come to anything at all. is know, honestly it
8:25 am
somethg you hear quite a lot of people are sort of doctoring science in the name of somehow getting rich. i was fine that theory interesting because it seems to me if you are smart enough to say, perhaps atmospheric physics, if your only goal is money, why would you not be creating algorithms for goldman sachs? i do not agree, with all the , thatt, to the caller studies in climate change are only in it to get grant money. i am not sure there is a lot of evidence for that. host: greg is next. caller: good morning. it is about time i got in. it has been almost 10 years. host: glad to have you back, greg. caller: this is really a tax on life. when you think -- what is a tax todit? -- that is permission
8:26 am
pollute. of course we will have differential of seasons if our shifting, and i think that has something to do with our galaxy, which is a lot more serious. talking about the chemicals that they spray up there every other day. the money is already out of the bag. when are we going to address that? host: frank in union city, georgia. -- greg in union city, georgia. any comments on greg? guest: the research goes back quite a long time. the issue has a political and social salience that is somewhat higher than it has been, but there is a lot of research going back quite a long time, and the consensus view among the
8:27 am
scientific community is that the production of greenhouse gases through activities such as cutting down and burning forests, and most notably the burning of fossil fuels -- coal, oil, and to a lesser extent natural gas -- is creating an effect that is leading to a long-term warming trend of the atmosphere. there is not much disagreement on that point any scientific realm. now in the political realm, it is hotly debated for a couple of reasons. ,ne, notably among republicans presidential candidates and lawmakers, there is dispute about the extent to which there is global warming. that is the dominant or largest driver of warming you see going back a ways. staying on the political round, there has been a huge and very legitimate debate about what should the appropriate
8:28 am
the p are youce will have one or's and losers created -- force be. you will have winners and losers created. host: kerry clinton making a lot of news this week coming out with her -- hillary clinton making a lot of news this week coming out opposing the keystone xl pipeline. talk about the timing on that. guest: this has been fascinating. the keystone is under review at the state department, which clinton led under president obama's first term. back in late 2010, she seems to be heading in a different direction on the keystone pipeline. -- now somewhat famously then secretary clinton said she was inclined to approved the pipeline. it blew up into becoming the high profile climate change and energy policy fight of president obama -- of the obama
8:29 am
presidency, and the administration has been slow walking businesses in four slowalking this for years. her suck answer was, well, while this was under review while i was at the state department, it would not be appropriate for me to weigh in. might change her tune because she was getting impatient with the last decision from the obama administration. host: to be clear, this is what she comes out with this week. "i am opposed to the construction of the keystone xl pipeline. we should not be building a pipeline dedicated to moving north america's dirtiest fuel through our communities -- we should be focused on what it will take to make america the clean energy superpower of the 21st century." a pretty definitive answer. guest: very definitive. very much like literature from environmental magazines -- "the dirtiest fuel."
8:30 am
this was a huge piece of news because again clinton have been so silent on this for such a long time. one thing that was interesting, though, because this issue splits and a lot of weight the environmental community -- in a lot of ways the environmental community, clinton the very next day was quick to come out with a on severalement other energy-related things that i think is more favorable to unions, so she talked about how to would be very aggressive as president in a large national initiative to fix modern infrastructures, specifically the pipelines and rail infrastructure, modernizing the power grid. i think what she was signaling is that, as she pointed out quite forcefully, in the energy space more generally, i will try to be more aggressive on things that unions would have very good reason to like. host: dennis is in west palm beach, florida, line for republicans.
8:31 am
dennis, good morning. caller: good morning. my questions have to do with whether there is such a thing as "man-made climate change" as opposed to global warming or whatever. one of my questions is, number one, can reasonable people actually disagree on this issue as to whether it actually exists or not? this bewo, showuldn't decided as a scientific issue as opposed to a political issue? i know somebody many people who want to fight to the death on whether this is an issue or not but do not have a clue on how to spell the word "science." for aing back to the pope moment, in one of his writings, he pointed out that there could be a situation where businesses are making tremendous amounts of money, let's say south of the so making alln these profits, they are leaving behind phenomenal amounts of work to do in the future that are based on damage to the environment, and they are
8:32 am
leaving that work for future generations. he is saying this is not fair. does climate control actually exist? can reasonable people actually disagree as to whether oit does? and should it be a scientific issue or a political issue? guest: it is an issue in both spheres. on the question of -- does it exist? i think that is something that finance has spoken to their he definitively at this point. -- spoken to their he definitively at this point. science has spoken to a number of scores, but that is different to flatly -- does exist. now the question of what will the long-term impact the, what will the rate increased be, if you have x amount of increase in carbon dioxide emissions, what exactly will the temperature response be? these things are very legitimate questions for debate, but as far
8:33 am
as the threshold question of is there a human-induced climate change, i think the scientific community has spoken fairly strongly on that. i want to mention on clinton and keystone for a moment, that was interesting, there is more than one democrat in the democratic riemer he -- democratic primaries. senator bernie sanders has been surging in the polls, and he has long been against the keystone pipelines, one of the more active members of congress opposing it. martin o'malley also opposes the keystone pipeline, and they were very quick to come out with statements to kind of limit the, i suppose, political traction that clinton gained or could gain from finally coming out on this. sanders said very pointedly, "i am glad she is finally coming to a decision on this," and o'malley was quick to point out that he also has been out on this for a long time. but clinton really is making sort of a role to look to left on the environment in a couple of ways.
8:34 am
it was not just the keystone pipeline, but a couple of weeks before that, she made an announcement that was not quite as high profile but almost equally interesting, maybe even more consequential in terms of our energy system and policies going forward. she said, look, i do not support drilling in the arctic ocean off of the alaska coast. the obama administration has not been all that favorable to it. they have really given shell permission after years of kind of regulatory maneuvering, permission to drill so far just a single well off the coast of alaska, but clinton's position was much stronger on this then even president obama's. keystone pipeline, her views on arctic drilling -- i think she is starting to answer some of the questions that i frankly a s have of environmentalist had for her. you can call in and send us tweets. that have come in, one fewer wrote that the pope was quite welcome when it comes
8:35 am
to environmental questions that he put in. another wrote -- someone should remind the boat that in "the bible," god leaves earth a burnt center. i guess god is the worst offender. next call on our line for democrats. ralph, are you with us? caller: they have the harp weather machine, and they can keep that to 15,000 degrees. how warm do wanted to go? certainly hold off on the heart and less you want to address the situation. guest: it is not something i know much about. host: warren is next. -- a rapid rate of which it was going the past.
8:36 am
host: what was the question? i did not catch it. caller: people are denying the problem with climate change, if the polls are melting at such a rapid rate. host: do you want to talk about polar melts? guest: there are a number of different indications that climate change is having an effect on the ecosystem. if you look at sea ice in the arctic, it is always moving around, and future and will be linear, the same every year, but certainly the scope of the arctic is something that has been declining over time, and that is one of several symbols of climate change we see. a few weeks ago, we chatted about that. one of the issues he spoke about a lot is the level of coastal erosion that is really something that -- a huge threat and problem for coastal villages in alaska. we're certain to see as the
8:37 am
caller points out some really affects of this already, let alone what some of the warning signs are for decades and centuries in the future. host: joe on our line for democrats, go ahead. caller: did you say joe? that is me. thank you, sir. briefly, i think science is using too small of a window for proximally 200 years to come up with and say this is "settled science." a couple of comments that i have never heard anybody else say or comment on -- how many ice ages have we had -- and science does agree on this -- there have been five. after two of those five ice ages, there was no ice anywhere on this earth. likef course, if anything
8:38 am
that happened today, of course everybody would go nuts. the second thing is, it is in the same vein. if it is settled science, why can't they figure out what caused the dial 250 million years ago, or virtually, 90% of every living thing on this earth? man was nowhere in sight that time. thank you, sir. host: a couple of questions on the history of the research. guest: some of his questions are beyond the scope of my authority -- way beyond. [laughs] scientists do not argue that there was not climate change before humans. the more is that recent climactic changes we have seen set in motion and the more recent temperature trends dating back probably toward midcentury, the mid, if you look at the theresince then, i think
8:39 am
is very widespread agreement in the scientific community that if you are looking typically of the warming trend we are seeing now, bear the very strong footprint of human activities. sure, obviously going back over millions and millions of years, you have had a number of changes in the climate system that has by definition nothing to do with humans, but since we are looking at some of the much more recent changes and the much more recent spikes in atmospheric carbon and whatoncentrations, the impact of that will be in the future, especially if we keep continuing at the present rate, i think that is something again a veryr heavy human imprint. host: another text we received -- the idea that researchers are getting away with promoting climate change is silly, and the oil and coal industry enjoys profits in the hundreds of millions of dollars. speaking of the oil industry, can you bring us up-to-date on the issue moving through congress, the crude oil export ban and where we are on that?
8:40 am
guest: yeah, we could have a houseboat in the not too distant future. nextuld be even as soon as week, although i'm not sure. to the oilting back stocks in the 1970's and the era of oil embargo, the u.s. but a series of restrictions on its crude oil exports, and while crude oil exports in the u.s. and not outright banned, i would say it is a de facto ban or something close to a ban, large-scale exports are not permitted. the situation is very different from when that was put in place, and in the years since, you have the huge boom in natural gas. u.s. oil production is now back up to his early 1970's peak, we are up to the 9 million barrel a day range.
8:41 am
that is going to start to level off given the collapse in oil prices, but this has oil prices chomping at the bit to send the oil out in the domestic market. oftentimes they can fetch a larger price on the world market then they can in the domestic market. host: what is the administration saying? guest: it has been interesting. they have taken small steps on this. you have the commerce department giving the green light for exports, a very ultralight form isoil, saying that allowable under the existing way that our restrictions work. if you minimally processed the stuff, then we can send it off our shores. we do not restrict the export of diesel fuel or other fine products created in the u.s. -- just the crude oil. they have also prove the swap with mexico, so we would swap light oil and get heavier crude
8:42 am
back. as far as the wholesale change in policy, the administration -- in fact, the white house has said that it opposes the house bill to force the removal of the crude oil exports. the white house did not say it is against crude oil exports, but it is at the administrative discretion of the industry. ve "newsmakers"f program yesterday, they talked about this effort to lift the crude oil export ban. [video clip] have bipartisan support to lift the ban on the export of american crude, and the american people are somewhat frustrated that the iranians suddenly will not have an export ban, but the united states has one. host: if you want to see our "newsmakers" program, you can catch a sunday after the "washington journal" at 10:00 a.m. and it re-airs at 6:00 p.m. a few calls less, we are talking with ben geman of the national
8:43 am
journal. richard is waiting, good morning. i wanted to look at this issue from the bottom of your it i know over the past few years, i have literally felt the effect of climate change, the ridiculous change in temperatures in one day or one week. last week in new york, it was about 90 degrees in september. cruises inas gone on alaska, and they are seeing huge pieces of ice, the size of buildings, falling into the water. i do not think this is necessarily an issue that needs science to prove. and secondly, i just wanted to ask if it is possible for the people to reduce their own energy usage. and i don't believe we can rely
8:44 am
on the top or the elites to make this change because unfortunately i believe many of them are profiting on the oil and the other greenhouse gases. host: how does it happen, richard? caller: thank you. host: richard hung up. ben geman, any thoughts? guest: definitely. that is one of the pillars of energy and climate policy, which is finding ways to help not only have our energy created from lower carbon sources of energy but also to use less energy. for example, there are a lot of thegrams around, on federal side in the private industry side, to make homes better energy use. of the smart meter, control your home energy use, it can be much more efficient, certainly. you have got a fairly robust program of appliance energy efficiency standards, and we have got some fairly
8:45 am
increasingly stringent vehicle mileage standards. the reduction of energy, not just generating it from c leaner sources, is both on federal and state why machines. there is also somewhat of an economic policy, the idea that helps save people money if they can use less energy now. one of the problems now of course is that it requires up level -- some level of upfront investment on more efficient houses in general. host: let's see if we can get in tom in texas. can you make a quick? caller: yes, sir, thank you for taking my call. i want to say that that exists on global temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations going back well over one billion years, and it shows that there is no correlation between global temperatures and the carbon dioxide concentration. i just want to know -- what does scientist obama think caused the last three ice ages?
8:46 am
was it the united states, the koch brothers, fox news? do you get your data on this when you are looking at data that goes back one billion years? somer: uh -- it is website. i cannot remember. i am sorry. i have looked at it. all this global warming garbage. i cannot remember the website's name, though, but i usually go there, and they have the chart showing global temperatures over one billion years him and carbon dioxide concentrations, and there is no correlation! host: let's give ben geman a in.ce to jump when you are doing your reporting on climate science, if you are looking at data on global temperatures, what is considered the best climate data out there? guest: there are a variety different sources. the national oceanic and atmospheric administration has a
8:47 am
lot of data, nasa has a lot of data, the u.k. met office -- there are a number of different sources. and then the data is input and --d by the international agency, the national academies of science have written fairly widely on climate change. i want to quickly jump back to this point, to plant a bit of a bug as the show starts to end -- i would look for the senate to become more interested in how these global science changes play out. senator bob quarter, we reported in the "national journal" last night that he is really stressing to secretary of state john kerry to divulge negotiations and get him to say on the record that he did not plan to submit this agreement as a formal treaty, but by all accounts, the deal will not require justification, and that is something above and will be upset about, and that will be a political battle to watch going forward. host: if you want to watch the
8:48 am
story on it, ben geman and his colleagues at "national journal ," that is thanks for your time this morning on "washington journal." up next, jennifer harris will join us to review chinese president xi jinping's visit to the u.s. this week and discuss the state of u.s.-china relations at it later, in our last half hour of the show, we will hear your reaction to speaker john boehner's announcement yesterday that he will resign his position and seat in congress at the end of next month or we will be right back. ♪ >> president harry truman referred to his wife as "the boss," and she served as first lady on her own terms to her she had little to say to the media, especially after some unforgettable moments. and she spent a good part of her white house years home in
8:49 am
missouri. nightruman, this sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's original series "first ladies -- influence an image." examining the private and public lives of the women who filled the position of first lady and their influence on the presidency, from martha washington to michelle obama. sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. feature-span networks weekends full of politics, nonfiction books, and american history. the pope's visit to the united states continues today as he travels from new york to philadelphia. live coverage starts at 4:30 p.m. eastern as pope francis meets at independence hall. then at 7:30 p.m., the pontiff attend the festival of families, which is part of the world meetings of families. moving to our road to the white house coverage, join us sunday evening at 6:35 eastern as harvard professor and
8:50 am
presidential candidate lawrence lessig talks about his decision to run for president, and his suggestions to change the political system. and on c-span2's booktv, tonight at 10:00 p.m., fox news host bill o'reilly speaks with dave buchanan on his latest book "killing reagan: an inside look at ronald reagan's political career and the challenges he faced following an assassination attempt." sunday afternoon at 1:00, author doug casey this down at freedomfest to discuss his latest book on politics and economics feared on american history tv on c-span3, today starting at 7:00 eastern, we're live from gettysburg college to mark the 125th anniversary of president dwight d. eisenhower's birth, discussing his military and political career with his e,andchildren, susan, ann
8:51 am
and mary eisenhower. america," theeel afghan king and queen visiting the united states from 1963. get our complete weekend schedule at >> "washington journal" continues. host: as our c-span viewers know, the past two days, the white house has focused on the visit of chinese president xi jinping. here to talk about some of the items highlighted by the visit is jennifer harris, a former policy staffer at the state department. ms. harris, talk through what this does it mean for china and its president, not only the white house visit but the upcoming u.n. address on monday. is being billed as the most important in a generation. there is a bit of hyperbole and every one of these cases, but it comes closer this time to those
8:52 am
words because this relationship is being rocked kind of by all sides, and there is a real desire for a balance. host: in terms of what is happening in china right now, especially with the chinese markets in such turmoil, like we saw in recent months, i want to walk through kind of what that background, the influence that that is having on president xi jinping's visit. guest: sure. anytime the chinese economy begins to show signs of stress or volatility, you really see the leadership going back to its old playbook, and the sun is really no different, and the moves that you would see, the central bank of china makes to having the currency, very helpful motivations and co-benefits around boosting
8:53 am
exports. that is perhaps par for the rse and should be expected. i think there is a lot of market reaction that is still sorting itself out for it i think they will be able to manage it in the long run. this is nothing of any greater magnitude than the chinese have been able to handle before, but going to the decisions about whether the u.s. federal reserve will raise interest rates, there is a lot of anxiety and jitters to work its way out in the markets. host: one of the headlines from the "wall street journal," the chinese president is looking more vulnerable than at any time since taking office in 2012 p let's look at it from the inted eights perspective -- 2012. let's look at it from the united eights perspective. guest: cyber, fiber, fiber. cyber, cyber.
8:54 am
you have seen the united states rightly hit that hard. pointcond is another plot in the climate agreement of the u.s. and china have been in the process of negotiating. these are two very different stories, and the cyber discussions have been a real sore point in this relationship, whereas on the climate and environment right, this is probably the one happy story providingpable of that balance that this relationship needs so much. host: in our last segment of the "washington journal," we touch a little bit on what was announced on the climate fight in this meeting between the two presidents. what was announced on the cyber issue? guest: it was certainly better than no announcement, but it with reeks of aspiration questionable enforcement capabilities.
8:55 am
it is essentially a broad agreement to keep talking until they find some common ground around cyberspace, but the president rightly came out and said, the jury is out, i want to see if there is a purpose on the part of the chinese before i understand how much stock to put in to this. i think that is exactly right. i would add two more things -- one is urgency. i think the u.s. government times to thaat understand how much progress is enough progress. the second is measurability. cyber is inherently covert. for something that is secretive, no evidence of ongoing activities is very different than affirmative evidence that these activities have stopped. as with the breaches, with the office of personnel management, 5.6 million americans having
8:56 am
their fingerprints turned over to the chinese government -- i am probably among them -- it leaves you with perhaps less confidence than you would like that the u.s. government is actually able to know how well this agreement is being i guided abided by by the chinese. host: if you have questions on the issues, give us a call, democrats (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. we will for you on twitter, facebook, and you can e-mail us at from thee scenes white house lawn yesterday, the president addressing the cyber issues and his joint is conference with the chinese president. [video clip] president obama: i raise once concern aboutous
8:57 am
growing cyber threats to american companies and american citizens. i indicated that it has to stop. the united states government does not engage in cyber economic espionage for marshall gain, and today i can announce that our two countries reach a common understanding on the way forward. we have agreed that neither the u.s. or the chinese government knowinglyct or support cyber-enabled that, theft of intellectual property, including trade secrets or other confidential information for commercial advantage. in addition, we will work together in with other nations to create rules for the road inappropriate conduct in cyberspace, so this is progress, but i have to insist that our work is not yet done. i believe we can expand our cooperation in this area, even as the united states will continue to use all of the tools at our disposal to protect american companies, citizens, and interests. host: that was the president yesterday in his joint press
8:58 am
conference. jennifer harris from the council on foreign relations. missiles, cyber weapons are impossible to count. they are easy to hide. it to the american investigators more than a year to figure out that the security records of 22 million federal contract employees and contractors were being stolen by chinese actors, and unlike the nuclear age, the state has no monopoly on the technology. patriotic hackers, or mo brooks, -- patriotic hackers, criminal groups, terrorists, and even teenagers have access." how effective will they be? guest: i am skeptical for precisely the reasons david singer describes. there is little ability for peace of mind when so much of secretive. nature,
8:59 am
but i want to talk a little bit about how we got to this agreement because i think this is important. u.s.s only really when the started publicly threatening sanctions, you know, meaningful economic consequences for this behavior that you saw china come to the table and even willing to have this sort of frank conversation in the first place. eveledct that the u.s. l a threat amid the market volatility going on in china, it was something quite new and meaningful, and i was heartened to see it appeared i think it is a step in the right direction. host: we're taking viewer calls in this segment of the washington journal. text messages as wealthier and we will put a message on your screen. next and washington, d.c., line for republicans. tim, good morning. caller: good morning. first of all, i wanted to know the evidence that this is
9:00 am
something that is going on in the terms of reciprocity. this is both sides of the fence here in china and the u.s. the chinese are hacking, you know, the u.s., the u.s. is hacking china. hacking china. we have a list of countries, not just china, that is hacking the u.s.. we have russia, we have israel. we have other countries that are hacking the u.s. and we have other countries also that are hacking china. this is something that is going on in an international all over the world. host: so we are focusing just on china, is this happening everywhere? caller: it is protocol. other countries hack on other countries.
9:01 am
i think that is absolutely right. this has become a regular, andine part of statecraft it is basically the wild west. what you are from the obama administration is an attempt to lay down some rotted norms of context in the way that we have done over the decade with very tricky field of arm control. but i do think he has an important point about the reciprocity at play here. this is something that the administration has had a difficult time explaining to their chinese counterparts. the subtleties of the fact that the u.s. government is not passing anything that it picks up onto american firms is a lost on the chinese system, because it is still very much a state where the lines
9:02 am
between state and market are quite muddy. it is not quite possible to pass from the state entity to a market. host: charleston south carolina, jean is waiting on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i wonder if this lady has ever heard of julian assange or this guy snowden in russia. great, but there is one problem with rules, you have to follow them and expect people to, and they don't. host: jennifer? guest: that is certainly true. theave rules governing handling of classified information here in the u.s., and those rules can be broken. it is really no different than the rules we have governing or anythingand guns
9:03 am
else. there are rules on the book and people can and do break those every day. the question is whether or not we have the right incentives and deterrence building. one of the problems here is that so much of this is just out of view from the american public. it is classified. it is just very difficult to have a conversation about the dividing line that we as a country want to draw around a lot of competing interests. jennifer harris of the council of -- on foreign relations is our guest. she is a senior fellow, an expert in economic statecraft, energy, finance issues. also writing a book on the modern use of economic and financial instruments as tools of statecraft. you can call in for the next 20 minutes. john in massachusetts
9:04 am
on our line for republican. the morning. -- good morning. john, are you with us? caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: yes. host: just turn your tv down and go ahead and talk through the phone. we will get it sorted out for you. is in new alberni, indiana, live for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: yes. we have the chinese president the twoe and we are biggest actors in this thing going on here. but we are ignoring the elephant in the living room and everyone is just looking around. that is the fact that if iran developed a nuclear weapon they will develop a whole arsenal of nuclear weapons and we won't about the economic
9:05 am
issues. we have got to get somebody in guts toat will have the tell the chinese that either they do something about this or we are going to do something about it. put it on the line. host: jennifer harris, can you talk us through china's role in the development of the iranian nuclear deal? guest: they certainly have had the ability to be a spoiler in dos process, but they as yet not have very strong affirmative incentives to be a meaningful partner in the u.s. western agenda to bring this to a peaceful conclusion. progress,ve seen real especially if you look over the longer arc of the last five or six years of diplomacy.
9:06 am
you have seen china join in with the u.n. sanctions. it was only through these very punishing multilateral sanctions that we were able to bring iran to the negotiating table. that is where i really have to differ with the caller. the day after we launch a iranary attack on an nuclear facility, with walk me through -- walk me through have a goes. it is not clear that there is any happy solution for using u.s. military tools, although they are the strongest military tools and the world. it is not clear that this is a problem that lends itself to that solution set. with a lot more promise economic tools that we have used pretty successfully. visit by thete
9:07 am
chinese president has been watched closely by members on capitol hill, especially those on the foreign affairs committee in both the house and senate. here is a statement from elliott angles, the committee ranking member in the house. he said, we know that this relationship faces significant challenges. we need to grapple with issues such as china's state-sponsored cyber hacking of american businesses and civilians. china's behavior in the south china sea friends at u.s. partners and allies and challenges fundamental international norms. the impediments stand in the way of companies seeking to invest in chinese markets. take that second one. what is he talking about china's behavior in the south china sea? guest: we have seen china come into a rather exotic interpretation of its territorial bounds and lay claims on parts of the south east china sea that a lot of other countries have laid claim to, several of those countries
9:08 am
are u.s. treaty allies where the to comeitary is bound in and defend these countries if they are threatened. iss is a conflict that quickly escalating, and that has real potential to draw the u.s. war.another prolonged that is why you have seen so much effort from washington focused on the diplomatic outcomes to these conflicts. host: we are taking viewers called and questions. for democrats, republicans, and independence. linnumbers are on your screen. we are talking with robert. caller: hi jennifer. could you talk about what leverage we have here in america
9:09 am
when we do business here with the chinese. iran for we always had some leverage over the way they treated their people, human rights, things like that. it just seems like we have kind of sold our soul to the economic side and i don't see what leverage we have now to really influence china for the betterment of the world. i would love to hear your response. thank you. host: jennifer? guest: great question. i would argue that we do have leverage. we have the largest economy in the world, the largest military in the world. one of the most capable, sophisticated diplomatic course -- diplomatic corps in the world. that of the responses would have people set up and take notice are not risk-free, but nor is anything in diplomacy. this is just one example of the ways in which the u.s. has begun
9:10 am
to publicly threaten economic sanctions on china is the cyber stuff does not stop. it is a great example of finally being willing to put some spine behind asking nicely. host: of course one of the most anticipated parts of the state visit is accompanied by the state dinner. that happened at the white house -- that happened at the white house last night. you can see president obama giving a toast. the washington post noting some of the members of congress and other americans invited to that state dinner, a very exclusive a invited,g those congressman judy chu, bob corker of tennessee, along with the owner of the dallas maverick. diane feinstein was there. henry kissinger was there along
9:11 am
with entertainer lee daniels, the actor and filmmaker, mark zuckerberg was in attendance. along with energy secretary ernie moniz. , the leadr of cnn reporter was there. debbie wasserman schultz, the democratic the national committee. just a few names viewers might recognize. up next, omaha, nebraska. for democrats. good morning. you are on the "washington journal". caller: thanks for taking my call. in the course of all this discussion about the chinese resident and cyber warfare and just financial worker in general, -- financial warfare in general, another story in the news today is the volkswagen scandal and i wonder if there is
9:12 am
any evidence that this itself might be a form of economic warfare. not just malfeasance on the part of the german operators, but that they could possibly be -- we couldfluence name the chinese but it is far too early for that. is there any evidence for that? host: jennifer harris? guest: in so far as volkswagen is by and large a german germansd company, the happily have a pretty good record when it comes to climate and environment. to begine reluctant pulling on that thread, per se, but i think it does raise an interesting question of what the lines between companies and the state begin to blur like you are seeing in so many countries today. of thef them are kind
9:13 am
largest economies in the world. russia, china, just to take a couple of the leading examples. countries that are sending out foreign investment all over the world very much at the direction of the state. that comes with certain diplomatic benefits that are ust not on offer for the u.s. it is not as if president obama could order boeing to source massive parts of its supply just to helpxico punctuate the occasion of a state visit from the u.s. to mexico. much in the way we see china doing just as a routine, regular part of its diplomacy. host: a question from joe, the a text, how is the conversation
9:14 am
affected by the money we are china? question,ove this because i think the conventional if you go your bank or $100 that is a problem for you. if you are your bank or $1 billion that is more of a problem for your banker, the application being that the u.s., by virtue of just how much money we oh china really has the upper hand. but i think this turns on what one's aims are, in so far as china would be looking to vent a geopolitical disagreement, really make a geopolitical point to the u.s.. options forhoice of how to make that point, they run the gamut from military to economic. when you look at the asymmetric superiority of the u.s. military
9:15 am
, it is far from clear that the better bet for china is not to just dump a few billion u.s. treasury dollars on the market and really challenge our federal ability to respond as a way of making a geopolitical point. that could be a lot more return for investment than a of the options that they might have in offer in their dramatic or military. writes, you twitter can't quit buying stuff from china. there are thousands of things available only from them. calling in for missouri, line for democrats. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. , do have an issue, a question ofause there is this issue the federal employee information
9:16 am
being taken which he discussed earlier. whyst don't understand china has done that and there is such a piling on of hillary clinton and her not using the federal system to transfer is it is so honorable. another question is if folks are going to be able to hack into our system globally, is there going to be some kind of a in order to maybe hold some of these people accountable? thank you. host: jennifer harris, i will let you take that up. she is a former policy writer at the state department undersecretary clinton. go ahead. makes i think the caller an excellent point. it is a little little difficult -- it is a little difficult to see how, given the magnitude of these breaches, the u.s. linenment can maintain a
9:17 am
that a lot of this information is so much safer in government hands. allowed.protocol was maybe it should not have been, but it is not for any of us to rewrite the rules. i feel like this is a bit of a sideshow, perhaps to be expected in the run-up of a presidential race, but i think the larger point is that there are 21 million americans whose information is now in the hand of the chinese government and five and a half million americans whose fingerprints are no somewhere floating around in china. i have yet to see anything from this administration that gives me confidence that we are going to be able to systematically go after that. hope is do our best
9:18 am
relying on the same sorts of the dramatic deterrents that we have always relied on. i would be very cautious before going down the road and assigning jurisdiction to a evel of the u.n. host: you mentioned earlier that you yourself might be affected by the hack, that your information might have been stolen. how has that impacted you? to thethis gets back point of how much progress is enough progress? the u.s. government is just inherently bad at inventing .nternal benchmarks for itself
9:19 am
this is not cost free. i wake up every morning wondering whether by dint of the chinese having my fingerprints, this now compromises my iphone in some way? i am not a tech expert, but these are the kind of fears that become lingering lines for your thoughts on any given day. inhink the people who are public service and you have dedicated their lives to the u.s. government, we at least oh them peace of mind about their security. host: andy from california is our next caller, line for independents. caller: given the fact that companies around the world illegally have access to our information, shouldn't we not keep critical parts of our of the internet, off computers, so that what they get cannot be used?
9:20 am
in addition to that, shouldn't we greatly shorten our intellectual property protections so that people the law have property? host: the first part of your question, what information would you keep offline? caller: i deal with people where i have to know them by their byurity phone numbers -- their security numbers. we know them only by four digits. have thee have to inconvenience of keeping part of the information only. we learned that al qaeda was transferring information person-to-person and doing it quite effectively. maybe we have to go back to doing a little bit of that if we want to keep supercritical information out of the hands of people who can hurt us. host: jennifer harris?
9:21 am
guest: i think he makes a great point. that sounds like a pretty expensive proposition, governments of the scale of the u.s. government tend to be binary. you either operate on a computer or you don't. the idea of some kind of hybrid blend sounds tricky. it is something that probably should be put on the table and considered if we can't manage to find a more systemic solution. unit is next, california, line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i was just wondering what she had to say, i don't understand .hy we fill out all the forms i would like to know what she has to say about that. we have a job.
9:22 am
when they ship it off to china, how are we going to eat? host: jennifer harris, do you want to pick that up? guest: sure. we have seen a lot of countries china being a leading example, very eager to ensure the kind of security that is feed one to see -- to point 5 billion people. often that has meant buying up farmland, becoming a co-investor and age tracts in sudan lot of the produce coming out of west africa. i think in the u.s. certainly you have seen a lot of chinese, korean money move into real estate. i am a little bit less familiar with the agricultural context,
9:23 am
but this is becoming a real issue in parts of the u.s. market warehousing is tight. when housing market in northern northern california are outperforming the s&p by orders of magnitude and you see a lot of money coming in from parts of asia to buy up what our second, third homes, really as a store of value, it is not clear that this is the best public policy for the u.s.. i think you are beginning to see those conversations start at state and local levels. host: last question from dd on twitter, when did we last have a trade surplus with china? is a good question. it has been a wild. clear that this is headed for a meaningful improvement anytime soon.
9:24 am
going back to where we started this segment with the utility and the way in which the chinese government has gone back to old habits in going first to the exchange rate as an easy place to boost exports, this to me actually seems to get far more important conversation to be having than whether we are for or against today's trade deal, whether it is the transpacific partnership with regulation countries, not including china, or the people we are currently negotiating with. none of these questions actually touch the deeper question the caller of identifying of access notxcess surpluses that are being reinvested. just these global imbalances that could be setting us up for another financial crisis. at councilr fellow
9:25 am
for foreign relations. you can check out her work at thank you so much for your time this morning on washington journal. guest: thank you. host: up next, we want to hear from our republican viewers here in the last 30 minutes of our show to get your reaction to speaker john boehner is announcement yesterday that he will resign his post and seat in congress at the end of next month. we will split our phone lines geographically around the country. republicans only start dialing in now. in the meantime on newsmakers this week, republican committee chair joined us to this -- to claim what it is like and the republican congress and what happened on friday when speaker john boehner told members that he would resign at the end of october. [video clip] was likey he framed it this. he said when he was first elected as speaker his plan was
9:26 am
to serve for four years, but then when eric cantor lost the primary and we had to change majority leaders he decided to stay on for another year. so he was originally planning to stay through the end of this calendar year and then he looked at the state of the conference and the fact that there was disunity and that there could be to reaffirmh vote his leadership, which i think would have passed fairly easily, and he decided for the good of the conference, why put anybody through that. it was time to go ahead and let him get out of the way. the problembecome to ask achieving those common goals that we have. >> what was the reaction and what did you think when you first heard it? >> i think all of us were pretty stunned. we were stunned at first but then we thought you know, this man has made the most selfless decision that you can expect any
9:27 am
leader to make. half ornext hour and a so, you heard person after person come up to the microphone and give positive testimony about what john boehner has done for the country and for our conference. a point, itecame gave us a rallying cry so that we can come back together. he really laid the stage for us to have that unification. >> when speaker boehner said that he had delayed his decision because eric cantor, the majority leader, had lost, did you interpret that as signifying that kevin mccarthy is the next majority leader? >> no. and speaker boehner kept his cards very close to his vest. certainly did not let us know in any way, shape, or form what his opinion is in terms of what the leadership should look like.
9:28 am
>> a signature feature of booktv is our all-day coverage of book fairs and festivals from across the country with top nonfiction authors. october it is the southern festival of books in nashville. the weekend after that we are live from austin for the texas book festival. you're the end of the month we will be covering to book festivals on the same weekend. nation's heartland, the wisconsin book festival in medicine. back on the east coast, the boston book festival. at the start of november we will be in portland oregon for wordstock, followed by the national book awards from new york city. at the end of november we are live for the 18th year in a row from florida for the miami book fair international. that is a few of the fairs and festivals this fall on c-span booktv.-span2's >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are talking just to republicans.
9:29 am
we want to get your calls on speaker boehner half decisions yesterday, that shocking decision on capitol hill that we inld -- that he would resign both his speakership and his seat in the house at the end of october. start dialing in now. if you are in the eastern or central united (202) 748-8000. matador pacific, (202) 748-8001. if you want to send us a text you can please call -- also send us a text message. we want to hear from republicans only. george is up next, jacksonville, florida. good morning. good morning. i have lived all over the world and seen countries that work and ones that don't work. right now we have 94 million people out of work, that is only
9:30 am
-- almost 30% of the people in the country. the government numbers are false. boehner has not addressed increasing the middle class, stabilizing the middle class, putting money in the middle class with more jobs. he has been very good about building a congress with more abundant in it, but they are mainly elitist and this is the reason many people are upset with him. he needs to balance trade, moved to a consumption tax like chile and south america -- like chile in south america. we need a balanced trade that increases jobs in both countries. this is an elitist view of the world. who is a republican that has the same view of the world as you do. who would you push to promote that? caller: frankly, the stronger ones are in the senate.
9:31 am
like cruise. cruz.e the ones that are like the tea party type candidates. in florida we have several. one is running in my district, i can from ever his name. those kinds of people are the ones that should be voted in, but i don't want them to just go wild and start shutting the government down before the election. if they want to push extremely controversial bills, just do it after the election. mean right, but they need to be very careful that they don't bring more bernie sanders into power. george in jacksonville, florida. here are some of the headlines from around the country this morning. "the atlanta journal-constitution." resigns to and turmoil. the move likely avoids the federal shutdown.
9:32 am
resign" is the headline from "the hartford current." herald," house speaker pushed out by conservatives. ," push camepost from within. we are getting thoughts from just republicans in this last 80 minutes of the washington journal. we will also continue to show you some of the clubs from all of the action around capitol hill yesterday in the wake of the speaker's decision, including from the press conference in which he talked why he decided to resign, saying it had nothing to do with hisiving a vote on speakership. he said he knew he could win it. here is a bit from that speech. [video clip] listen, it was never about the votes. therewas never a bit -- was never a doubt about whether i could survive a vote. i don't want my members to have to do this. when i knew i was
9:33 am
thinking about walking out the door. .t was the right time to do it i feel entirely comfortable doing it. that aard you say before leader who does not have anyone following him is just a guy taking a walk. >> i have plenty of people following me. beenhis turmoil that has churning now for a couple of weeks is not good for the members, it is not good for the institution. if i was not planning on leaving i could keep it up. host: we will keep your calls for the next half hour from just republicans and we will show you those reactions from on and off the hill. a tweet from a tea party patriot yesterday, their official account, we have been working to fire the tweeter since 20 -- we have been working to fire the speaker since 2012. he did not have the votes he
9:34 am
needed and human resigned in october. thank you representative mark meadows. mary, what do you think in kingman, arizona? good morning. yes.r: i want to make a comment why the conservatives are so upset with boehner. it is because every time they have a tough vote and obama threatens to veto that vote they given. i don't know that they have actually ever put something on his desk and forced him to veto it. i just don't know of any. , bute tried to look it up they just pulled up and say ok, he is going to veto it so we are not even going to make an effort to put it across his desk. this is not right. this is not what they promise us. do you think the issue of planned parenthood funding was one of those issues that you think you could have done this
9:35 am
on, even though it could have caused a government shutdown? caller: it is not just that. my gosh. they promised about the health care thing. that is just a disgrace. i am not for shoving the government down, but i am for putting something on his desk and let him veto it. see if he will veto it. thingsre probably 10 that they talk about doing and changing, and you threatened to veto a they say oh, ok. we will pack it in. we won't make him veto it. host: and richard writes on twitter, speaker boehner never a leader. he was a weathervane. anyone writes, how could address the issues when they only work 126 days the year. wayne is up next in jefferson, north carolina. riddance toy good
9:36 am
john boehner. what he did not understand is what a lot of republicans don't understand. the era of big government in the united states has failed, and as far as closing the government down, i am all for it. abortion was not an issue to me until i saw the videos. when i saw the videos i realized it is the biggest moral issue since slavery to confront the united states. i can't think of a more appropriate issue to shut this government down over. wayne in west jefferson, north carolina. anything else? caller: i think that's it. if we can't stop the murder of babies because we are afraid to shut -- a partial shutdown of this government, we are in a moral nation -- and immoral nation. host: and "the republican vote
9:37 am
-- and "dirt -- the washington majority leader have inside track for the job. kevin mccarthy putting out feelers yesterday about speaker banners resignation. profoundit takes humility to step down from a position of power, and john stepped of character is unmatched. as our country has weather difficult times at home and abroad, john has acted as a true statement -- statesman. nobi is up next, calling in from hawaii. go for it.-- caller: it is a good program. i have been active in republican part -- politics. my family has been involved. but the party has changed
9:38 am
tremendously. my grandmother used to tell me diaries from me relatives on my mother's side going back to the underground .ailroad they would bring in the slaves, the freed slaves, get them clothes and bring them in the home and treat them like part of a family. teach them to read. all kinds of stuff. my the republicans -- father, i grew up under that type of republican philosophy, affordable education. you need health care? you have got to have health care. quality schools. clean food. safe food. those kinds of things. a strong economy. good jobs.
9:39 am
this is from the late 50's, early 60's. a picture of an elephant, he was holding a lunch pail, he had big overalls. it was reminding the union voters to support the union. this is from a long time ago. now the largest debt and the country is credit cards, student desk -- student debt. i have seen two people commit suicide. the college tuition -- when i got married, two years later right after reagan said in his last speech with jimmy carter, three days before the election, we have to have a recession to bring down inflation. it was 1982. the temperature got down to 50
9:40 am
below. i have been laid off as a machinist. they laid off 25%. unemployment ran out. they would not give an extension. it was around thanksgiving. host: let me ask you. where do you think you fit in your philosophy for the republican party? where do you think you fit in the party today? caller: i see john boehner being forced by tea party people to push back on what is called obamacare. i am in hawaii. we have had obamacare for years. is it has not been for some of the changes that the president had pushed through, i would not have gotten adequate medicare and i would died. these are public is are saying, no health care. or they look at biased, edited film about planned parenthood as a oh my gosh, killing babies is terrible. let's go kill someone in iraq. let's go carpet bomb vietnam.
9:41 am
but we don't want to kill anymore unborn babies. john is getting hit by such an insane, reactionary insanity. who cares. i don't want an unborn baby killed. well, how about birth control? gregory is up next calling in from pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. i am looking back on theectively depression and the war, and i'm that stuff myself, expired in the late 70's and the early 80's when reagan took office. but instead of taking the bull by the horns, reagan was not somebody who would willfully work or do anything.
9:42 am
he just kicks that new deal into overdrive. the president's we have had since then have done nothing but invade our treasury and dissipate vast sums of money for frivolous drivel. boehner is the tail end of that whole deal. that whole new deal. you just can't allow this to continue. he resigned, rightfully so. i give the man credit. he just can't deal with the problem. all he wants to do is go into the future and continue to dissipate and enhance the communist elements in our country. that's all i have to say. it's pathetic. host: who do you think can deal with problems? caller: marco rubio. he is the guy. he is the one who knows what the issues are, where the problem lies in how to deal with it. he was a victim of it in cuba.
9:43 am
host: we are also asking our viewers to send us a text message to get in touch with us to tell us your views on speaker boehner stepping down. one of those text messages notes, how come the tea party ists boehner gone, but trump a conservative purity disappointments? fromne other tweet wildwood, florida, one down and one to go. perhaps referring to senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. if i am wrong about that, send us another text and let me know. jim is up next here in pennsylvania. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. the reason i think many conservatives are sorry to see boehner go is because he did avoid fights. they asked for political
9:44 am
contributions, the reason they did that as they said they were going to fight for us once they got to washington dc. but the first time some democrats started criticizing them they would run for the hills. that is not will be sent them there to do. if you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen. john is doing that. second of all, he was not listening to us. he did not care what conservative thought. we are trying to solve problems. $17 trillion of debt is not a good thing. and regular order is a good procedure. oh -- send obama these bills and see how many vetoes. is representative jordan of ohio would be a great replacement. host: the question i want to ask you, the editorial board of "the washington journal" says it is time for the gop rebel caucus to
9:45 am
run its own candidate. this is the moment for them to put up or stand down. the member should organize behind a candidate of their own and put into a vote among your colleagues. the worst outcome would be if they continue to use eight threat to coerce the next speaker as a strategy to steer from the caboose. what do you think about? caller: i agree with anything -- everything they say but i do think there are alternatives to speaker boehner. both boehner and mcconnell has shown an unwillingness to engage on the field of battle, which is what politics is. war is politics by other means. that mathematical equation works in reverse.- politics is war by other means. what we are seeing from them is has of the republican party an unwillingness to confront both the media and the democrats on the field and ideas.
9:46 am
we have to engage that field of ideas. i think representative jordan abiola would do a great job. iowapresentative jordan of would do a great job. host: stepping down next month after 25 years in congress. at the press conference yesterday he was asked what he thought his legacy might be. [video clip] >> i was never in the legacy business. i am a regular guy. i never thought i would be in the speaker.h less people know me as being fair, being honest, being straightforward. the right thing every day on behalf of the country. i don't need any more than that. host: speaker boehner at his press conference yesterday. we are talking to just republicans in our last 15 minutes on the program. we want to hear your thoughts on
9:47 am
speaker boehner stepping down and who you think should be the next speaker, who should be the leadership of republicans in congress. nancy is in hamilton, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. i believe speaker boehner weather down in history as being the congressman or speaker that cries a lot. he seems to cry at the drop of a hat but he is not a fighter. he may lead but he does not fight. republican, a moderate. there are some things that i agree with with conservatives. is, when a baby is born alive after an abortion i believe that baby -- they should try to say that baby's life. god wants that baby to live.
9:48 am
i think they should fight for that as far as republicans go. believe birth control should be used by women and not abortion. way to end --ul use birth control. us andlooking down upon he does not like what he sees as far as america. we don't stand up for what he believes in. he does not believe in gays and lesbians getting married. we are going against god. we are being punished for that and we will be punished more severely down the road by god. people wonder why our country is hurting so much, and i believe
9:49 am
god is punishing us for not standing up for what he believes in. afraid. like we are the republican leaders are .fraid to stand up we need a new leader, a new speaker. we need a new leader in the senate. who is that new leader in the house? ,aller: the gentleman before me he was from ohio, correct? host: you are talking about the caller before you or the speaker ? caller: not sure. yes. host: not sure where he was from, but go ahead. aller: i believe he mentioned speaker -- a, some from ohio.
9:50 am
host: congressman jordan. caller: that gentleman before me spoke so intelligently. he would run for office, i wish he would run for senate. people like him is who we need. i will go along with his selection. host: jim jordan is a congressman from ohio. one of the founding members of the freedom caucus, the other founding members include , johnssman labrador fleming, matt salmon. all of course republican. members of congress. we are asking viewers to join us via text this morning if you want to share your thoughts. one of our viewers right then, john boehner has run out of and integrity to reverse the problems in his country. that is marco rubio.
9:51 am
and one of our tweets from l johnson following up on our question of whether he was referring to mitch mcconnell when he said one down, one to go, he writes exactly right. mitch mcconnell took to the floor of the senate to talk about speaker boehner stepping down yesterday. here's what he had to say. [video clip] >> grace under pressure. country and institution before self. these are the things that come to mind when i think of john boehner. friend, ally, he is a he took over as a republican leader at a very difficult time for his party. some said republicans could never recover. he never gave up. hen some gave into defeatism kept up the fight. and because he did, speaker
9:52 am
banner was able to transform a broken and dispirited republican minority into the largest republican majority since the 1920's. a legacyhe legacy -- few can match. host: "the wall street journal" business priorities now thrown in disarray. againsteen as a bulwark tea party excesses. write, the manufacturing community released a statement praising him as an ally and lauding his steely resolve he has displayed in moving legislation to enhance our nation's economic competitiveness. "the wall street journal" noting that. if you more of your comments, republicans only here in our
9:53 am
last few minutes of the washington journal. ed is calling in for mississippi. go ahead. are you with us? [no audio] caller: i read his own words.
9:54 am
host: come up to yesterday. come up to the speaker reading and your reaction to that. caller: certain people are in place to act as guards for the president. obama is one of the people he has put in office. he has helped other people through the years to get where they are and to be in the right place. ,e infiltrated the u.n. infiltrated imf and world bank. now since the president is in office, he has nato. host: so you are talking about speaker banners resident -- speaker boehner's resignation yesterday. tom is calling in from malibu, good morning. are you with us? go to james, waiting and the bronx. good morning. caller: good morning.
9:55 am
my name is dr. james mcclellan and i am an african-american republican. i became republican because i am so done with the democrats and the problem we have is that many of the minorities don't understand that the democrats -- what they try to do is build up the government and wants to give you free ,ealth care and free medicaid and they are ruining the country. they just want to get out handouts. the republican party, the true republican party, really want to ,elp people do for themselves get your job, your own businesses, euro homes. the democrats try to keep you down. the problem i had with rainer,
9:56 am
he always gave in -- the problem i had with boehner, he always given to the president and the democrats and never put up a fight. what is making him run is the tea party. we need to put the tea party and there. we need to put a strong republican to take his place that has the foundations of the constitution that this country was built upon. it is terrible now with the .bortions happening this country is in trouble. we are going to see the wrath of god like we have never seen it before. i tell most african american people. i say, look at the republicans. they are not for the homosexual and the gay marriage. they are for the standards of living right with god and they are not for abortions.
9:57 am
we need to switch over from the democratic party and look at the republican party. i don't know -- host: james in the bronx, new york. we want to note that all week long in our c-span cost the city tour, we have been in syracuse new york. retired ceo and she said board members bob mirren and his wife. we worked with local elected officials and our cable partners to do outreach event every month. every month we visit cities and for the life there as we work closely with the cable industry to produce programming and do community relations events that help those around the country learn more about our network offerings. you can learn more on our .ebsite,
9:58 am
time now for one more call. we are continuing to get reactions from just republicans. joe is in california, good morning. caller: hey, how are you doing. very simple. we think that boehner was too easily cowed by the media. obama, he confronting was not putting legislation on his desk in the same way that the republicans who brought us through a few government shutdowns in the 90's did to clinton and forced him to eventually sign legislation. the bogeyman of the so-called government shutdown is actually only a government slowdown. 50% of the government does not affect anybody. it is not a big problem. andmedia has us all cowed afraid of using our power in the purse to actually say hey, listen. obama wants to show the government down? fine. it shutdown every weekend. we have lived through 20 shutdowns. the republicans that balance the
9:59 am
budget had to live through a little too much, too many symbolic government shutdown. it is only a slowdown. let them go out there and passed legislation in force obama to veto it. does budget and force obama to actually have to do some legislative work. host: and our last caller on , but's washington journal today and tomorrow at 7 a.m. pacific. we will speak more about speaker banner's surprise -- speaker boehner's surprise decision. obtuse aqua be here to talk about that. then we'll be joined by dr. scott gottlieb, with the food and drug administration, to discuss how drugs are priced by pharmaceutical companies and the role played by the fda. gray will5, selena join us to discuss campaign 2016 as well as her group's run for
10:00 am
america. that is all tomorrow morning beginning at 7 a.m. eastern. have a great saturday. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit] grandma next, -- >> next, republican campaign managers discussed the 2016 candidates. then, governor scott walker dropping out of the race. then, donald trump.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on