tv Washington Journal CSPAN September 27, 2015 7:00am-10:01am EDT
2016 with run for america cofounder selena gray. she will talk about the influence of super pac's, and efforts by her group to recruit nontraditional candidates for congress. ♪ host: good morning. it is sunday, september twice seven, 2015. welcome to "washington journal." pope francis, today, finishes up his trip to the united states with the mass in philadelphia. president obama will speak at the united nations on monday, so slottedl find it will -- vladmir putin. the house and senate have to pass some sort of funny resolution by september 30 -- resolutionf funding
by september 30. we are asking your view of the gop in congress. here is how to join the conversation. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independence, and all others, (202) 745-8002. you can also post your thoughts on facebook, facebook.com/cspan. we would love to see a tweet from you on this topic, @cspanwj . and, you can send this an e-mail -- send as an e-mail as well. email@example.com. we will get to your calls shortly. forring capitol hill , joining us.
how soon will the flexion for a new speaker happen? guest: good morning. [no audio] almost immediately, people began to put out statement saying that they were going to run for one position or another. speaker, itt, first is kevin mccarthy's race mostly. others have not come out so far to say they will challenge him for that. host: are there any issues that would prevent kevin mccarthy from taking the speakership? are there real concerns and the conference about his ability to lead? guest: i have not heard any. john boehner said the other day that he would make an excellent speaker. i do not believe anybody has talked about challenging him, or
indicating that he is not that experience. he has not been in the house that long. he came in 2007. he is not the institutional ist like boehner has been. he has not chaired a committee, but he has good relationships with members of the caucus. he has worked to develop relationships with that conservatives. he seems to have support from many of them. i have not heard of anything he wouldd make it that not have a good chance to succeed boehner. host: is kevin mccarthy steps in, obviously that means changes down the ticket -- majority leader, whip, etc. guest: there are a lot of people who have artie indicated that
they are interested in running leader.ity committeebudget chair, tom price of georgia. and, we will also see a race for hip probably. conservatives, including members of the house freedom caucus, are really hoping that they will get more representation in the leadership. they are hoping that they will get people that will be more open to promoting their point of view. host: there are a number of members, allies of the speaker, who were not happy with the news, people like peter king of new york and charlie dent.
any chance that their views will be represented? guest: some of the people running for majority leader, or note expected to, are considered to be extremely conservative. you will still see some of that continuity in the leadership. i did hear congressman king talk about how he thought the crazies are now going to take over. at this point, you don't really namesat in the people's that you have heard running for majority leader. host: as those elections happen -- speaker boehner stepping down october.d of we are here he may try to push forward some resolutions on things like reauthorizing the export import bank. what are you hearing? guest: i have heard that there may be this window for boehner to try to cut more deals with
democrats, that he might feel more free. he will not have to have listening sessions with conservatives. maybe he can go ahead and work on this budget deal, find out a transportation program. if he is not going to be around, maybe he can help to renew the charter of the bank. host: nancy covers capitol hill for bloomberg bna. you can follow them on twitter. thank you for joining us this morning. our question for you this morning is your view of the republican congress. (202) 748-8000 is the number for democrats. for republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents and others, (202) 745-8002. we will get to your calls momentarily. nbc with came out from
a view of republicans in congress. the headline says, "72% of gop voters dissatisfied with boehner, mcconnell." it whopping 72% of republican voters said they were dissatisfied with his and mitch mcconnell's ability to achieve gop goals. the graphic here, "who wondered out?" er again, that came out from "the wall street journal."
we go first in chicago on our democrats line, it is kathleen. good morning. caller: good morning. two things. john boehner. when he invited the prime minister over here with his iran underminery to president obama -- hear me out. that was his undoing then. god does not like ugly. all of these people talk about how they are christian, but you do not go and invite someone from another country to embarrass your leader. john boehner and some of these other republican stepping out like rick perry and scott walker why don't they go over to israel and ask bb for a job? no one likes a traitor. people look at us with disdain.
if you do not pledge allegiance to your leader and country, how in the world are you going to treat me? has got toy straighten itself out. you know what i am saying? we are the world's leading country, but we are the most hated country that there is. we have donald trump now. the same thing that people say president obama was doing, president obama was not a dictator. "i."e hollers about is the gop, you are on your way out. you have been very unfavorable in this country. god don't like ugly. thank you for letting me speak. from jim, is a tweet who talks about mitch mcconnell, saying he needs to be next, we don't need incompetent leaders
in the republican party. the boehner resignation does not most likely avoid government shutdown, it just postpones it. erwin, good morning. caller: john boehner ran into man fromproblem that a the american communist party did in the 1940's. the communists had to take a more flexible view to the capitalist system. boehner made certain concessions to the democrats. party -- ican compromise is a bad word. they will be looking for the today -- theyty
, on things like planned parenthood, the national , to have a party line. if you do not go with a party like, you face the consequences. the republican party will face consequences in the next election. host: on the issue of planned parenthood, the funding bill, the senate will take up on monday. up a so-called bill. it may have been on president obama's mind when he was asked this during a press conference. here's what he said. [video clip] president obama: john boehner is
a good man. he is a pager. he cares deeply about the house, an institution that he served for a long time. he cares about his constituents. he cares about america. we have obviously had a lot of disagreements. politically, we are at different ends of the spectrum. 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 importantly, he understands that in government, you do not get 100% of what you want. you have to work with people you disagree with, sometimes strongly, in order to do business. prejudge who to .he next speaker will be
that is something that will have to be worked through in the house. i will 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 the important issues that america faces. on fridayident obama at the white house to give you of the republican congress. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. for republicans (202) 748-8001. .ll others, (202) 745-8002 a headline in this morning's "ashington post," congressional agenda through into disorder with boehner's departure." stunninge that his resignation throws the agenda into disarray, with little hope
crucial items offset by the long-term fear that old battles will only be repeated. host: back to your calls, we hear from glenn in florida, democrats line. caller: how are you doing? host: fine, thanks. , your: you think about it go back to mitch mcconnell, when he said that when president obama got elected, the goal was to make them fail, make him a one time president. that was the agenda for congress . john boehner, his failure is based on that promise that they all made.
washington, d.c., we have to make compromises to make sure the american agenda is passed, but if you have the entire republican party, including a republican-led congress that wants to fail the president because no matter what his agenda is, they say, we will not allow this to happen. the people behind john boehner called it, he just fell in line with everyone else. you still have mitch mcconnell sitting there. they voted him out because he was working with the president. boehner tried, but it did not work. you want a tea party toeresentative that will the tea party line. everybody forgets about the eight years of bush that we had. that is why the republicans cannot make any progress.
they cannot do anything. back in theright bush years, pushed by reaganomics. that is why the republicans are having all those because the american people will not allow that to happen. host: also the street from build , the questioning should not be your opinion of republicans in the house, it should be your opinion of the tea party in the house. and, richard says, the current gop -- to the independent line, here is robert in north carolina. caller: i just want to say, thank you for c-span. you had great coverage of the pope. i agree with president obama that john boehner is a good man. he invited the pope here.
the post message was inclusionary for the world and to honor families. we have to realize, we live on the same boat together. we're all a creation of the lord. i just want to say, we are all brothers and sisters. i hope everyone will come together to honor this creation. host: the speaker making the announcement less than 24 hours after the pope spoke to a joint meeting of congress. by the way, you can see all of our coverage from the past three days at c-span.org. let's hear from james from tennessee. go ahead. you are on the air. hello?
i think we lost you. we will go to arcadia, louisiana, jean on the republican line. caller: good morning. i think speaker boehner is tired of the crazies and his party. he really wanted to compromise, but his party put immense pressure on him to not work with the president. republicanefore, the constituents are for trout because they are haters of president obama. what you must realize, republican constituents, you cannot stop god's plan. if trump is so smart and president obama is so weak and ineffective, why did trump and all the republican candidates in the 2016 primary -- i'm sorry, why did they challenge president obama? think about that. , you a tweet from jim says
keep throwing your hate at the gop, but they have about a 98% reelection rate, that won't change. charles is in georgia on the democrats line. caller: how are you doing this morning? host: find. -- fine. caller: in 2012, when barack got elected again, they got the , he won thisd round, but we will when the next one. ist shows you how the gop out of touch with the world. they want to do it their way or the highway. i think about speaker boehner stepping down, they will make it
better for everybody to know what is going on in the republican party. the republican party will not make it any more. barack has made a legacy for everybody in this country right now, we have to be united. we are supposed to be the strongest country in the world. we need somebody up there, who can work with barack. say.is all i want to everybody have a blessed sunday. host: this is the front page of cq new edition of "seek weekly." in williamsburg -- .r williamstown, massachusetts
caller: williamsburg. i personally believe that john unfortunately we are not going to be able to make jokes about his throbbing direction. host: we will let you go. (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. for all others, (202) 745-8002. for some analysis of john boehner's resignation, the front page of "the new york times." host host: that is this morning from
recent immigrants to the united states. you for opening the store. oor.he d many of you have immigrated, and i greet you with particular affection. many of you have immigrated to this country at great personal cost, but in the hope of building a new life. do not be discouraged by whatever challenges and hardships you face. , likeyou not to forget those who came here before you, you bring many gifts to this
nation. [applause] please, do not ever be ashamed of your traditions. [applause] do not forget the lessons you whichd from your elders, are something that may enrich the life of this american land. host: pope francis in philadelphia yesterday. watch all of our coverage online at c-span.org. back to our topic and the resignation of speaker boehner. your thoughts on the republican congress with just three days fiscal deal with the year. we go to nebraska, jerry. caller: i think it was time for boehner to go.
to shake things up a little bit. also, i would like to comment that it seems like the show is starting to turn into a liberal call-in show. it seems like all the lines you answer are from liberals. thank you. host: just to let you know, we come, asem as they best as we can. we open our minds to republicans, democrats, independents, and others. as they come to our switchboard, we line them up. some mornings, we will get more people with a democratic viewpoint, or more with republican. i hear what you are saying. john is up next on the democrats line, a mentor. caller: good morning. speaker boehner's resignation, i think it was best for the institution. i think that basically he was a , at man -- is a good man
least from what i have seen. at the same time, you have to realize what he was working with. there are only a few people there that basically disagree. i do not think it is all the republicans. my impression-- not seem like he .as a fair man that might have been because he was influenced by that faction of republicans who were only thinking about their agenda, rather than to do the people's business, as they are supposed to do. that is to work with people on the other side of the aisle, the
democrats. i think he did the best that he could with what he had to work with. i think you should be commended. he is a bad guy. i think he is a good man. he has done what he needed to do. he had a big job to do. whoever takes his place is going to still run into the same problem. they are going to have to work with this president. host: thank you for your call. a couple of tweets here. this one is from peg, we voters have to accept part of the blame, and if we want better government, we must vote. richard says, gop is winning ways.
says, the gop sees the government as if it were a business, it is not a business. in baltimore, democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning. like johnly felt boehner was a good person. i felt like he got pushed into some corners. i think the republican party really wanted to work with him. i think he would have compromise, if he had the opportunity. you saw that there was no for some of the other congressman. to dohad had free reign as the speakership could do, i think he would have compromise with the president. host: speaker boehner was obviously the want to appointed the select benghazi committee.
host: back to this morning's topic on speaker boehner at the republican congress, we go to florida and lorraine on the democrats line. go ahead. h.ller: gos a wonderful man, a wonderful leader. the pope just left. my feeling is that we are going from the sublime to the ridiculous. you had a caller before this that said c-span was partial. all you hear from the right is obama is that, the pope is bad, scientists around the world are wrong. boehner and mcconnell blocked just about everything obama tried to do, and the republicans are unhappy? i was a you the truth. i tried to be impartial and
listen to both sides, but i think the republicans are paranoid crazy. host: (202) 748-8000 is the number to call for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. for independents, and all others, (202) 745-8002. inside "cq weekly." a bit of a historical perspective on this resignation with the picture of speaker jim rank, tom fully, newt gingrich. they write the john boehner is only the second house speaker in hisory to walk away from position mid session, following texas jim wright. , in michigan, we go to the republican line, carl.
caller: i have been listening to the comments for a couple days here. it seems like everybody wants to give mr. weiner the -- mr. boehner the benefit of the doubt. the same logic would apply to president obama, by do not hear much of that. host: thank you. after the speaker stepped down, we have not heard yet from kevin on camera, but here is some of the statement that he released on friday.
host: back to your calls in west virginia, bob. caller: hello. host: go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wish herallers -- callers would look at the facts. speaker boehner is a good man, owes the position and a majority in congress to certain factions of the republican party that started shutting them out, would not listen to them, kick them off committees, etc.. i think the colors are mixed up on the information. let's face it, he was not going vote.h stand the he is leaving ahead of getting kicked out anyway. host: who do you think can step in and get the confidence of the
c congress? caller: congressman brown or leave. i believe they will put mccarthy in their. host: here is george on the republican line. caller: good morning. i'm calling about the woman who called from florida just a few minutes ago. i did not quite get her first name. she claimed to be very and partial. that woman calls at least three times a month. she goes by the name "thomasina. she goes by the name of catharine at times. her voice is very recognizable. i would like to let her know that most of the c-span viewers are on to her and her paranoia,
and pathological hatred for the bush family and for republicans in general. she is a violator of your 30 day rule. 10er recognized her years ago and called her the florida lady can she should get the message and stay off the c-span line. host: well said. i could not have said it any better. thank you for that. don from california. caller: i'm telling you, this gop leadership is nothing but an .xtension of rome they are the academy of the roman empire. they want to keep their white supremacy in order. that is all it is. they don't want to work with any negroes, no other race of people, nothing. all they want is the white man to stay on top.
the only way they can do that is keep all of the money in their pocket, and keep everybody else on the bottom. these white folks, voting for the republicans, y'all are going through the same thing that black people are going through. they will all of a sudden put us all back in one big hole, one big ship, and kill us all. host: whitey think african-americans like tim scott are members of the republican party? people who of these affiliate themselves with the white community, they are just confused israelite people. they are jews from israel, and they do not even know it. america, the hispanics, the indians, they do not know that they are the real
host: a couple more minutes of your phone calls on the republican congress, after the announcement on friday that speaker boehner is resigning. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. for independents and others, (202) 745-8002. you can also tweet us, if you like, as well. this is "the national journal." their headline, "for boehner, it
host: a couple more minutes of your calls. we hear from tiffany next, who is in new jersey. good morning. caller: how are you? host: at sign. -- i am fine. caller: first of all, speaker boehner, he tries to be a good man. i don't have anything against republicans, but i think the tea party has to go. they are the problem. a whole.licans as secondly, on immigration, we need to have a way for these
people to be legal. that is all you have to say. thank you very much. will continue the conversation on the resignation of house speaker john boehner here on "the washington journal." up next, we will hear from the 's editor in chief, bob cusack. later on, a look at prescription drug prices in the u.s. first, bill flores explains what it was like in the republican congress on friday. [video clip] >> the way he frames it was like this. he said when he was first elected as speaker, his plan was to serve for four years. then, we had to change majority leaders, and he decided to stay on for another year. he was originally planning to the through the end of
year. he decided, for the good of the conference, why put everyone through that vote. he felt it was time to go ahead and let him get out of the way. he does not become the problem to us achieving the common goals that we have. thehat was the reaction in room? what did you think? >> i think all of us were pretty stunned. we were stunned at first, but then we thought, this man has made the most selfless decision that you could expect any leader to make. i think for the next hour and a half, or so, you heard person after person come up to the microphone, and give positive testimony about what john boehner has done for this
country. i think they gave us a rallying cry, so we can come back together, and unified. he really laid the stage for us to have that unification. >> went speaker boehner said he delayed his decision to step down because there was no takeus successor, do you that as a signal that kevin mccarthy is the next speaker? if not, who do you think should be? >> no. speaker boehner kept his cars very close. know in anyet us way, shape, or form who the next leader should be. "newsmakers"der, coming up. more of that conversation, all of that conversation, this morning at 10:00 eastern.
bob cusack is the editor in chief of "the hill," joining us to talk about the resignation of speaker john boehner. what is next not only for the republican congress but the house? guest: it was stunning. there was a lot of speculation that this would be speaker boehner's last congress. as little as 10 days ago, the speculation and rumors were growing. the speaker said he was not going anywhere, and then 10 days later he was announcing his resignation. i think the timing is what surprised most people. clearly, speaker boehner has been eyeing his exit for quite some time. he confirmed the fact that he was going to resign had eric cantor not lost his primary election last year.
basically, surprising, yes. overall, was this his last congress? most people in washington thought so. host: he mentioned this in his news conference on friday. i want to read part of his statement. the comet was picked up from "the washington post" yesterday. they write that house speaker john boehner insisted on friday protectwas resigning to the institution of the house. they write that we respect his devotion, but a speaker's primary responsibility is the nation, not the house. what the nation needs is a congress willing to make compromise in the national interest, compromises that mr. may have favored, but rarely have the stomach.
we had a number of callers with a similar sentiment. you think the devotion to the institution is something that the next speaker will be equally fervent about? guest: it is a interesting point. house, thee camaraderie of the house. he mentioned that is something he will miss when he leaves. certainly that is an interesting debate of whether you are serving the nation or the institution. overall, you have to realize that there is a resolution hanging over his head that could be brought to the floor at any point. mark meadows, who we recently interviewed, said, i'm not sure if i'm going to bring this to the floor. speakerds on how when he be able to survive the vote?
in all likelihood, yes. overall, that was an extremely moment for speaker boehner, who have gone through two coup attempts. host: what's ahead for the house and what is ahead for congress? (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 745-8002 for independents and all others. also on twitter at @cspanwj. do you think there was any sort of implicit deal, the speaker saying he would step down, as long as we pass a clean resolution without any planned parenthood attached to it. speaker boehner and mitch mcconnell said, especially mcconnell, said there would not be a government shutdown. portrecognized it as a
strategy because they did not have the votes to get a bill to the president's desk. they wanted to avoid that. certainly this has minimized the chances of a shutdown in september. you can also make the argument that congress is doing what it punting., it will be a very difficult decision for the next speaker, and arguably, increase the chances for a shutdown around christmas time. guest: remember, one of the legacies of speaker boehner is this is the lots of majority since 1930. he has built up a very impressive republican congress. interestingly, he still cannot get the vote on big fiscal
controversial issues. in the house, you have to move bills through your party. you cannot rely on the minority in many cases to increase your power and leverage. he was unable to do that. host: a bit of irony there that the people who he helped to get elected are now in a conference, or caucus, opposing his contingencies as bigger. -- as speaker. guest: that is right. without a doubt, it has been an interesting speakership. the speaker going up against president obama, and then harry reid. it is a very difficult job. speaker boehner, he liked to play golf, drink red wine. he will be enjoying life after congress. overall, i think it will be and just a what he does between now and october 30. will he moved controversial --
move controversial bills? that is the question. host: we were talking about this on friday. many tweets said that mitch needs to be the next to go. the racee factor is for the white house. many other the candidates running, not all of them, but many running for the republican nomination had been critical of mitch mcconnell and john boehner, and were celebrating the fact that john boehner resigned. mitch mcconnell is highly respected within his conference in the senate. i think his job is very safe. he will take a lot of criticism because there is a lot of frustration in washington. host: there are calls waiting for bob cusack. we go first to rob in california. caller: good morning.
a little'm getting confused as a republican because i remember back when john boehner took over as the speaker . he said, we are going to be pushed around by the tea party. the tea party is not going to push the republican party around. we will do what has to be done to get business taking care of. as he went down the road, he was not a gym right, tip o'neill, not even a newt gingrich. he could not generate enough bipartisanship to pass anything. it is time for this guy to go. he was totally ineffective, and now, we are at is not in the road, where the republican party is going nowhere fast. opinion, in a historical sense, how is the world going to look at boehner and say, that guy was maybe not the best speaker we ever had. guest: certainly, if you look at
speaker ships, he is not going to be ranked among the most powerful speakers. he will be regarded as one of the weaker speakers. it was a victory for the tea party to nudge him out before he wanted. in the press covers on friday, he said he planned to announce his resignation on his birthday in november, but moved it up. certainly, if you look at his legacy, he almost had a huge fiscal deal with president obama in 2011. that was so close to happening. it did not happen. eliminate -- something he l talk about coming up. when you eliminate earmarks -- critic ofn was a earmarks. he did not have the tool at his distance.
i heard him when he was trying herhurt these cats -- these cats. dhost: gavin on the independent line. is whatmy question and, are the positive things -- i know he has a legacy, but what are the positive things he brings? eileen democrat, by independent because i support anything intellectual for this country. the republican party has done, by their own admission, nothing. the congress has 8% favorability. we are not passing laws. congress has done the least amount of work in 2014-2015. as an independent, i'm looking for positive reasons to support the republicans, i'm not getting them. speaker boehner did a terrible job. will the tea party keep control of the republican party?
we still do not have a balanced budget. we still do not have roads and bridges being built. why are we working on things that are irrelevant to the american public, when we have so many things to do? guest: speaker boehner, he wanted to do big things. ne wanted to pass a immigration bill, and had a group working on it for years. that group never came to a compromise. he wanted to do big things, and certainly, he has gotten some things done, but not sleeping legislation. there was a medicare bill that got through this year, and also fast track on trade that speaker boehner and president obama
agreed with. it was very hard to pass, but boehner and mcconnell got it through. mccarthy isng kevin elected speaker, what type of partner with you make for mitch mcconnell? guest: i think he has a good relationship with mitch mcconnell, as i boehner does. i think it will be interesting because mccarthy has recently been critical of the senate, where he said, listen, the house has passed a lot of bills, if you want to look at gridlock, look at the senate. i do think that they have a good relationship. kevin mccarthy's challenge, if, and when, he is speaker because daniela heavy favorite -- webster has indicated he wants
an underdog.e is no one else has indicated they want to run. texas says he will make the decision early this week. i budget by tomorrow he will announce if he is running for speaker. going back to mccarthy, i think he will have to make the case, whoever he faces, how is he different from speaker boehner. he is well-liked by the house republicans. he came in in 2006, only one of 13 republicans in that wave. he helped to recruit this majority. he knows these guys personally, plays basketball with him. he will have to make the case that i am different from john boehner in this way -- 1, 2, 3. host: to new castle, delaware, jim on the republican line. think boehner just was
not the fighter that republicans needed at this time, especially with obama, who plays with his rules. the house really cannot do much with the way the senate is set up. we have to get back to a situation before we had a popular they elected senate -- a popularly elected senate. we could have a veto proof majority for republicans that could actually fight obama and pass some sensible legislation. boehner try, but did not have the fight in him. i would like to see steve king from iowa. guest: certainly republicans are frustrated with the senate. votesould love to have 60 so they could move stuff to president obama's desk, even if a lot of that work be towed. that is why some in the senate want -- some of the house what
the senate to change its filibuster rules. republicans have 54 seats in the senate right now. if you look at the map, they have double the amount from 2014. he's not looking to win themes, you looking to protect his majority. if the democrats win the majority, then good of the democratic president of a democratic senate, and changing those rules could really backfire. mitch mcconnell has been pressed to change the filibuster rules and he an institutionalist so i do not see that happening. our caller that this is the fight they needed to is this something the republican conference, particularly the freedom caucus, wants to see this now? pelosicertainly nancy indicated that this shows that
the house is in disarray. frustrated by the fact that we have had disarray in the house republican conference, the coup attempt against boehner. but democrats are in a large minority right now. they have an uphill battle to win the house. you are having this moment where speaker boehner is residing and a lot of republicans are saying let's talk about how we can do this more orderly and try to bring bills to the floor and be on the same page so we are not fighting each other and at the same time i do not know if that will be possible. it is a very difficult job to get 247 republicans on the same page for anything. host: democrat line, good morning. caller: i just call for two reasons right i want to say i am
a democrat, i'm watching republicans, i would never vote or them. the tea party is crazy and what happened to john boehner after all those years, that is disrespect. that is what they are. they are so disrespectful of everybody and everything. if it does not go their way, they close their doors. never mind what is happening to the people and effects. how they never get the majority again. in's to our independent line cleveland, georgia. good morning. caller: i got nothing against mr. weiner, but i say it is a good start. he had enough sense to get out of there. those who are voting for these people, we need to get rid of everybody who signs papers on the side, whether it is a caucus insperity, or democrats selling out to wall street. tothey do not sign up
present the american people, we need to put them out of there. ton boehner has a ability read what is going on in the wind, the rest of the need to go with him. host: any thoughts on? republican congress was one of the worst in getting legislate and done. the fun i can point their finger at the senate, and the senate point back. now the republicans have the house and the senate, so this is a concern in trying to reserve that majority. the house will probably remain redistricting unless there is a massive wave in 2016. it is a problem that republicans now on the congress. ad approval ratings are
problem for the gop. they cannot blame the democrats. it is a tough argument to make that case. they will be democratic votes for a continuing resolution. what else do you think is going to try to get done before his seat -- he resides? guest: he will be democratic votes and he will get it for the cr. --lly, a lot of these top of type of bills he has had to rely on democrats to get there is on final passage. he may also need their support on the rule that brings the bill to the floor. a lot of republicans are not going to be happy with the cr because it does continue funding for planned parenthood. i know some callers were calling in and i do not think finger boehner is going to move a lot of controversial legislation and i do not think it will move the export import bank. i think that will put him in a difficult position because mitch
mcconnell opposes it, kevin mccarthy opposes it. remember, this resolution, if he moves anything that is against what the tea party once, this resolution, seeking to oust him, could still be on the house floor. not think he is going to risk that. i would be very surprised if he moves something like export import bank or a big highway bill. we will see. our line.r, on caller: thank you. protége not put in my position, and a new phase comes in, do you think a shorter, prefer more concise bills sent up to the senate so that the public knows this is what this is about, it is not
complicated, it is easy to understand, that might force is your passing? that was the plan as far as the spending bills that they were trying to move. they were trying to move a dozen of them individually. once again the did not have the votes to have those type of bills. as far as messaging and being simple, that has been the struggle for the congress to go up against. as well as the 2016 race for the white house where donald trump and others are getting a lot of attention. it is tough to get your message through all of that. but at the same time if you look at what the republicans need and to coalesce the hind obamacare replacement, they have been talking about that for years. they do not have an obamacare replacement that leadership is behind.
they need a nominee to really champion that cause. of course they want that nominee to get into the white house. reaction on friday from ted cruz and also donald trump for the speaker. pretty well played in the political setting for those candidates. guest: yes. marco rubio champion and announcing in his speech and getting a lot of applause. it is good politics for the hopefuls. they do not want to back washington insiders. bobby jindal calling for mcconnell to step down. congressional leaders are not popular at the same time, congress is never a cut popular base. but it is especially unpopular now. is really hampering put
mitch mcconnell and john boehner have been trying to do, because they are taking so much friendly fire from the white house hopefuls. host: independent line. caller: good morning. me for theevident to last half a century that the republican party and the democratic party have been running this nation -- ruining this nation. their problem is they listen to the lobbyist more than the people who put them in office. down here in is the phoenix area we had a representative who had real good credentials. he was a cpa or something like that. and in everyhim district put him in office to go to washington dc and represent their views on how the government should be run and
budgeting. and people like boehner and the rest of the right knows took him out of his well-deserved committee and put him off as a side. the republican party, like democratic party, is mainly interested in promoting themselves instead of what is best for the country. people are getting tired of it. here is another point that everybody seems to be missing. since this is a representative government, what you see in republican party is truly indicative of the way it should be. it is not one big harmonious party where everybody goes everybody is going to vote in the same direction for the same thing, let's get along. the truth of the matter is this country is pretty well divided. what you see in the republican
party, at least, truly represents the way our representative government is supposed to be. you have one faction that wants to do one thing, and you have another faction that once something else. that wants something else. it looks very and a manageable, but the truth of the matter is that is the way this government is meant to work. you look at the democratic party, and they just vote lockstep and perfect example of that is the worst piece of desolation we have ever seen in our lifetime, and that is the -- the teaan bad mouth party if they want to come up with the truth of the matter is they really represent what is best for this country. he talks about the diversity of the republicans. that is part of the reason that the speakers that doubt is his difficulty managing all the iversion use -- divergent
views. -- theey were i caller speaks of one who was bounced from a committee because he was not in step with the others. they use the current and that use the stick. there was a rebellion from the right. they said that mark boughton meadows back on his subcommittee, and that is what happened. that is why it is so difficult because they tied persuasion -- ofed persuasion, enforcement intimate asian, and it has not worked. host: an interesting meeting the day before the public income of that jim jordan was calling to the speaker's office, other members of the republican committee, the freedom caucus,
was there any sort of last-minute attempt on the speaker side to negotiate with thee members in terms of issue immediately in front of them, the continuing resolution and planned parenthood funding? guest: i think those meetings were basically, some members want more of that communication from the speaker's office that members who knew john boehner very well had a tough time meeting with him because he became speaker because his job is very big and he cannot meet 246 republicans over time. that was an effort to say this is a strategy, we do not have the votes to defund planned parenthood, but we're going to step up that name a new committee to investigate them. we are going to put together a budget package under reconciliation rules were you only need 50 votes in the senate. that is the plan. i think it was a way of saying listen, i am bringing you into my here is the strategy. trying to minimize how much
criticism he was going to take from the jim jordan's and others in the house freedom caucus. in thispicture morning's cq weekly. it has me wondering about the role of the speaker itself. is it just an antiquated or old-fashioned notion that the speaker of the house is actually speaker of the house, or has that ever been that the speaker was not a political animal but truly the speaker of the house? role of the speakership is changing, especially in this age of social media. some people of said the john boehner would have been a good speaker in the 1990's, 1980's, 1970's. now is a different type of role you are taking. a lot more criticism. you cannot just go behind closed doors and make deals. recently there is so much reporting on what is going on at the end of the day. ability forrt the
both parties to be able to get big sweeping legislation. that is a good thing because we do not let deals made in back rooms. without a doubt this bigger ship is changing. but is probably going to be kevin mccarthy's biggest challenge, should he get it. socialn that issue of media, how challenging wasn't for your organization from your editor in chief of the hill, what was friday likely four yo? was a bit crazy. you are trying to find out what behindly happening closed doors. that is a test of our leadership reporters and we have a grate staff. but i would tell them that your goal is when speaker boehner or some other big republican is saying something behind closed doors, five minutes later, you need to figure out what that is. that means having relationships and context e-mails to find out
what is happening behind closed doors. it was a crazy day. but it is one where you are not going to forget, but this week is also going to be pretty crazy. host: republican line, myrtle beach, south carolina. caller: good morning. i saw speaker peter sitting there crying, i physically got upset. that if i was in the republican party, there would be a meeting tomorrow morning and he would be gone. show your emotions. you have to be up to keep your emotions in check. he is third in line for the presidency. anybody who showed up for work and cried all day long, they would be let go the next day i promise you. that is what happened to him. what was it behind the speakers crying? was he a very emotional guy?
-- speakerur boehner boehner, what you see is what you get. much the same behind closed doors. he is a very friendly guy, he tends to get emotional, especially when you do not expected. when he is announcing his resignation,', it is not surprising that there were tears. someone also mentioned, that male politicians can do that, but female politicians cannot. they would be viewed as weak. it is an interesting debate. contrast, ihy, by have not seen him cry. we shall see because the speakership can bring tears. host: democrat line. good morning. caller: with this issue of i am 65.on, my parents were immigrants at one time.
i sympathize a lot with immigration and that we should immigration but i also know people who are 65 and older but chose not to be u.s. citizens. the monetaryctly benefits that people have not being a u.s. citizen is and may be part of the problem that we have with immigration. we should probably take a hard look at what stops somebody from not wanting to be a u.s. citizen. host: let's talk about immigration and speaker boehner. he elected to not bring before the house the senate passed bill a couple years ago. what were some of the politics behind that? significants pushback from his conference. they did not like that senate bill, and it is something that speaker weiner wanted to pass. certainly he was eyeing passing
the bill by having the secret bipartisan group. he ordered this group of about eight lawmakers to come up with a bill. they were not able to do that. the desire was there, but too many tea party lawmakers were very critical of it. speaker weiner was critical of it. he said that was not the solution they wanted to move over. own wanted to move their solution. they were not able to come to an agreement on that, especially the thorny issues for the gop, donald trump making the case repeatedly for a wall on the southern border. mitt romney, when he ran into thousand 12, he went way right on immigration reform. i think of when you very interesting to see who the nominee is. of bush is a proponent immigration reform. marco rubio was the author of that bill. he has stepped back and said that is a mistake and he will
not reintroduce the bill. the nominee of the republican party, whether they are pro-comprehensive immigration reform or anti-, they will have to deal with it. host: texas, independent line. caller: good morning. it while ago, obama signed an executive order eliminating the amount of money that is paid to veterans planes. i think there was a deal made under the table by the speaker because i have never heard anything where the speaker came out and was opposed of it. i'm a disabled republican combat veteran, and it applies to some of these newer veterans. this war was fought, and i'm still suffering. my question about speaker weiner -- speaker john boehner is this, how much money is he
going to get when he retires? k street ando to become lobbyists, we will have to see if he goes back home. i think you will do well in his retirement. it remains to see exactly what he is going to do. he has indicated that. you may still be deciding. host: columbus, nebraska. go ahead. caller: this seems to have all been started when the female leader of the house raised her hand and said you have to vote on it first and then we will read what is in that later. that is where this all started. host: what do you mean by that?
how did that start where we are with speaker boehner? caller: the tea party. of course we all know it was nancy pelosi with the affordable care act. when she was in charge. they could have done something on immigration when obama's first took office. it was his campaign promise, if you play the videos. he was going to do something on immigration has first year. he lied. here two partiers were out . re: more afraid of us for with our bibles and our guns, or are you are afraid of isis with their koran's and their ak-47s? host: would you like to see in the speakership? caller: i would like to see someone who is not conservative, but who can work across the line. the next person in the
speakership is going to have a very difficult job. therefore had to have decisions from the get-go, whether it is moving on the senate passed highway bill, real rising import-export bank, dealing with immigration to some degree, and it leader in the year dealing with government funding measures. but overall i think that they are going to have to get house republican conference at least to have a cease-fire with all of these back and forth. that is good to be the most challenging part. host: does this politically empower the more service caucus, the tea party supporters? guest: talking to members who have been around a long time, the tea party gave her the speakership. them he would be the minority leader. when you look at it from a governing standpoint, it is good for a frustrating for people of been around this town for a long time. if you look at the tea party lawmakers they do not have a candidate for speaker.
the house freedom caucus does not have a member. that, isn, who heads widely respected by the right and in the caucus and said he will not run for speakership that he has not ruled on other leadership spots. host: a couple other calls. democrat line. caller: good morning from south florida. a brief comment and a quick question. the outgoings on speaker. he is a good man. i'm a democrat: not a democrat line, he has a good man. i hope there will not be some kind of scandal following him or accusation of a scandal because he is a good man. i did see this coming. mr. dusek, i am sure you're in the know. he was burning out. whatuestion i have is
about the lawsuit that he has against president obama? was there a potential lawsuit or a lawsuit that was actually filed? been executiveve actions that the president has taken, whether it is on obamacare and certainly immigration that we have really not seen a lot of headlines en masse because there was some delay in filing at least one of the lawsuits. i do not think anything will come out, you never know. but he said he was going to come out by now, and i think he is looking forward to his retirement. beenagree that he has not as engaged as he certainly was early in his speakership. if you get some of the videos online when he was going through this massive fight with the president, they took a toll on speaker boehner. we turned about this at the beginning of the
conversation, this is the washington post reporting that the measures have him advancing before they leave. long-termhey are budget deals, multiyear highway bills, a reauthorization of the export import bank, and extension of the federal debt ceiling. that that stuff is not likely to happen. boehner, 10 days ago office was a was not going anywhere but because you have to say that. harry reid for months and months said he was quite run for reelection, until he wasn't. you do not want to lose power. you announce your residing you lose power and leverage. he is a lame duck speaker. if he tries to movie of the controversial bills, he would have a huge fight on his hands. to the caller's point, he is tired of the five. he is looking forward to his retirement. he does not want a situation where he tries to move something
to the house floor and the speaker in waiting is ripping the speaker. i just do not see it. host: staten island, new york. republican line. caller: good morning. i just want to make a comment about the military spending. we are spending $700 billion a year on the military. nuclear powered aircraft. we have 60 nuclear powered missile carriers. in 120 1200 basis countries according to wiki leaks. and 160 billion on ef 35. we are developing new intercontinental ballistic missile. we are renewing the ballistic missiles that we have, and that is going to cost $350 billion. we are $20 trillion in debt.
the republicans are talking about lowering taxes on corporations. we have the most unbelievably inefficient health care system in the world. that is my comment. have a good day. host: pilings of issues on the plate. we aremilitary spending, seeing that in the republican race for the white house. many are saying that we need to spend more. that is a big part of the negotiations that are going to happen later this year what to do with the sequester, the white house has said we need to stop the sequester for not just military spending which republicans they want to increase, but also the one that hit social spending. a huge issue. it is interesting he mentioned the debt. you are not hearing a lot about the debt in the republican race for the white house. are you hearing huge plans by the leading candidate to curb the debt?
no. your hearing more about tax reform and cutting taxes paid a long way to go in that race. a huge issuech was for the tea party in 2010 and helped republicans get a majority in the house and senate, you do not hear about it as much. host: that is something that he has to get done before he leaves, has to be raised by early november. guest: that is a moving target. but anything that is done will be done with the blessing of the new speaker. speaker boehner was asked about moveas far as would he more bipartisan legislation, more democratic leaning largest nation in the weeks that he is remaining on the job, and he basically said i going to continue to do the same thing i have been doing. without a doubt, they may have to move some type of debt ceiling bill before he leaves, but i think he will do that in post convocation with kevin
mccarthy. if he is challenged by jeff hensley, he keeps his job. he keeps his job as majority leader, so he would be looking to work for a new speaker. same thing for the majority whip. if mccarthy becomes speaker, he will keep his job because we are in the middle of congress the beginning of congress. a lot of these races, they may not occur because people will stay in the state spot. on twitter, where are the big that would change people's lives for the better? medicare plan d just made a former richer and us for. question,ave with a should the gop passed bills that people want, not what the president wants? host: i republican congress medicare partl of
d ingratitude that bush presidency desk. hillary clinton just cannot with a proposal to curb spending. that is going to be something that you were going to hear the candidates talk about. but senate candidates, i think it is hard for the republicans to get their message out. as we seek candidates drop, i think you will see some of these issue papers come out. donald trump, the front-runner right now, has put up one or two issue papers, and he is going to be issuing a lot more in the coming weeks. host: two are for the next -- thank you for the segway. bob cusack, you can follow him on the hill and the hell.com. thanks for the update. we're going to talk about prescription drugs next. we are going to hear from a former fda commission -- deputy commissioner. we will be talking about the cost of prescription drugs. and then money and politics.
super pac's in 2016 is washington journal continues. ♪ >> president harry truman referred to his wife as the boss. she served as first lady on her own terms. she had little to say to the media, especially after some unforgettable public moments. she spent a good part of her white house years home in missouri. best truman, tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's original series first ladies, influence and image. limiting the public and private lives of the women who served the position of first meeting and their influence on the presidency. from martha washington to michelle obama, tonight at 8:00
p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span3. today a reporter for nbc four. i went back in the office, and i call him up and i said mr. mayor , i said i've just been to club 55. don't you realize that people are watching what you do, where you go, they say you said there all the time and watch naked dancing girls. there was a pause, and said it is my business. tonight, washington reporter tom sherwood on the political corruption in dce, maryland, and virginia. >> 44 attorneys general from around the country sign the letter saying they agreed with the governor that what he did was politics, not bribery. that these gifts, he should have reported them.
wedding,or a child's $70,000 loan. overroblem was he had been his head when he got to the governor's office. this is another case where you are public figure and you let your messy private life come together. >> tonight on q&a. continues.on journal is a dr. scott gottlieb former commissioner of the fda. he is also a fellow from the american enterprise institute. he is here to talk about the cost of prescription drugs and the rise in prices for some prescription drugs. we were motivated to have this for the recent news about one particular drug that rose rapidly in price. the headline from the new york
.50es, drug goes from $13 5 eight tablet over $700. what determines how drugs are priced? have a market-based pricing system, so they can to set the price of the market within a a lot of constraints. they have to negotiate with pharmacy benefit management companies. they negotiate with employers on purchasing benefits on behalf of their employees. with healthted systems. there is vigorous negotiation goes on in the marketplace and the part b drug benefit amount the drug companies negotiate to get on formulary list with the management companies. what the drug companies will privately concede is that sometimes the prices that they offer inside the drug benefits are lower than the prices they are selling their drugs overseas in europe, where europe has authority to set prices and control prices. we have such big risk, edition
here in the u.s.. host: here in the u.s. how much the u.s. government influence medicare and medicaid in the pricing of scripture drugs? guest: there is a lot of mandatory rebating. medicare demand that they be paid back under the medicaid regime policy construct. what happens oftentimes is the drug companies will come to market with a list parties that is higher than what they know the effective price is going to be in the market because they have to set the list price at a certain level as they know they're going to have to rebate off of that list price. in a lot of cases, they figure out what price is a fair market price relative to the value they are delivering, and then they back into that what they need to set the price to survive how much revenue they want to rise. the list price is always much higher than the real price in the market. you served as a deputy
commissioner of the food and drug administration. what is the role of the fda and drug pricing? guest: the fda has a big influence on the price of drugs because a lot of the pricing is tied to the risk of developing a n needs to go into pay for the development program as well as the continued manufacturing cost. we have seen in recent years the cost of drug development, quite a lot. that has the most impact on the generic drug market were manufacturing costs have been very cheap and ghana. we have seen some inflation in the drug market where one these to cost a couple of cents per 10 or $.15 to manufacture per pill. that is spread over the entire system. talking. scott gottlieb about drug prices. we would love to hear from you
.bout your experiences you can call or tweet us. the story that motivated our conversation here on these rise on this price particular drug. they arehe story, protesting a giant overnight increase in the price of the 62-year-old drug that is the standard of care for life treating -- life-threatening parasitic infection. august by ared in startup hedge fund manager. to $750 a tablet, bringing annual treatment for patients to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
priceave lowered the because of the backlash, but what would be behind raising the price like that? guest: this is a hedge fund speculated that is waiting a regulatory failure. he found a drug that has very little sales, about 12,000 sales annually. niche product that has no provision in the market. drugthough it is a that should be very cheap, there was only specialty pharmacies manufacturing it. and he knows that generic applications at the fda take so long to get a drug approved, and generic manufacturers are likely to, and with multiple applications to challenge a drug that has little sales. he knows he can enjoy monopoly before generic drug can becoming on the market. he exploited that failure.
drugis the problem with regulation. it should be much easier to bring generic drugs to the market and bring new competition to these older drugs on the market. the manufacturing cost should be lower. it has caught up in recent years. you have the situations, whether it is the very older drugs that not a lot of generic companies manufacture, and the speculators come in and they pick off these drugs and jack up the price and enjoy monopoly. host: there were no generic alternatives? guest: that is right. this is a generic drug but it bigbeing manufactured by a company. and it was not being manufactured profitably. he spotted this, he came in, and he acquired it for a pretty big price tag. he proceeded to jack up the price, and was he also did was limited the distribution of the drug. it harder for any
generic company that wants to acquire the drug to do generic testing to file an application with fda to get enough supply of the drug to do that testing. this is what i view as a regulatory failure. it can be effect, but needs a change regulatory policy. attention to the fact that the generic drug approval process in recent years has gone a lot longer and a lot more expense of that it ought to be, in my opinion. host: the issue of the hour here s prescription drug prices. first off, john from fairfax, virginia. good morning. caller: the american people are being taken for a ride by the thatacy and lobbyists check their interest. americans pay more than any other full admirals in the world. it is not fair, and we need to understand that the gop in
particular are controlled by the lobbyists. big pharma spends billions of dollars to keep their ponds , to keep their profits in their pockets. it really hurts the american people. it is really a shame that we allow our government to be bought and sold by big money. thank you. caller: it is true we have a --ket-based pricing sees the system and the united states. we have mechanisms that influence the price of drugs. it is true that we pay on the whole more for new drugs in this country and underwrite a load of the research. it is also the case that a lot of the drug research and develop as move to the united states because of our market-based pricing system. but is a misnomer to say that they do not pay for pharmaceuticals in the other parts of the world. what they're paying for his
older generic drugs as they pay much higher prices than we do here in the u.s.. that is largely because they protect local domestic so theyurers and protect those manufacturers and are willing to pay higher prices for those drugs even though they tried to drive down prices of new drugs. it is not the case necessarily that we are paying a lot more on the whole for drugs. we just paying more for the new drugs, the more innovative drugs in the united states. host: typically, what is the timeframe for development and how much money does the cost? >> and depends. some of the more targeted drugs, -- mitchnice diseases diseases can be developed quickly when you have a very good understanding about how the drug works. maybe two to five years. typically you think of drug developments that will take around 10 years. the cost of that the moment varies as well.
but seeing drugs these days that cost $1 billion or more out-of-pocket, direct money, i'm not talking about the calculations of capital, but what comes out of the pocket of the drug company, that is not unusual. we have seen phase three clinical trial programs that costs one billion dollars just for the volatile trial that is filed with the fda for a big cardiovascular drug were you have to and will or 60,000 patients. the cost has gone up quite a bit . the inflation in drug thelopment for outpaces inflation in the cost of the drug that consumers see. this is something we're going to have to address. we cannot keep increasing the cost of drug developed and see thee costs translate to drug. it is not just direct cost, but insult the cost of capital. you have to raise the money to actually do the development program. and the development programs get very expensive and risky, and investors will and demand or
money to underwrite that research. host: republican line, michigan. caller: i wanted to ask the doctor his opinion on using non-psychoactive cbd oils derived from or granik had seeds as an alternative that is often more effective and is definitely a less expensive than pharmaceutical drugs. if he does not really know about it, there are two websites. they have a lot of scientific data and analysis of that particular product. host: your response? thet: i am familiar with compound, and i would not feel comfortable driving up because it has not been proved effective by a regulatory authority. host: does the fda have a role in these regulatory authorities? guest: a limited role.
we have seen that in the past where some compounds being sold as dietary supplements actually will contain the to pharmaceutical angry man from a drug. the fda will step in and say they are being misbranded. they are marketing a pharmaceutical ingredient under a misnomer and pull it from the market. deputyhe former commissioner from the fda talking about drug pricing. we would love to hear from you and your experience. a tweet here with a chart a chart, from box.com, looking at the rise in prescription drug prices, why prescription drug prices are a big 2016 campaign issue already.
over 40% and even from the in 2015 alone second quarter. prescription drug prices taking a particular shot. the hillary clinton campaign has issued some of her plans for health care and prescription drug pricing in particular. this is becoming a fairly substantial issue on the campaign trail. what do you think the next has to do with, or even this current congress has to deal with? i have seen a lot of hard work and read it diligently. i think a lot of those analyses look at the list price of drugs, and we need to look at the effective price. defend him, but
i think their list prices are above boards of about $90,000 if you look at the analyst was put out by wall street analysts who looked into what is the actual price, it is closer to $40,000 or that does not mean that there are some a completely out-of-pocket for those higher prices, it means that it can be one at half off on that drug. going into election season, for the pharmaceutical industry they are worried about it probably -- they areate probably worried about a populist backlash to pricing. people are being exposed to much more of the cost of pharmaceutical drugs. andre seeing more expense direct intervention into pharmaceutical pricing. thatnk will majority supported investment in the life sciences is being frayed. when you swap out the late senator kennedy who supported market-based pricing in the life
science industry for senators who do not on the republican side were easy congressman generally supported market pricing generally and supported the life science industry, they have swapped out for some legislators who do not. i think consensus has changed on capitol hill. i'm not sure that the industry necessarily senses that. i sense that there is less of a consensus. i think what is going to happen in this campaign on the political left, and it remains to be seen who the candidates are greatly on the right, but you are going to see more of a populist agenda taking aim at with thetry and talking point on the left is going to be is that obamacare works to expand access to health care, but too many of these businesses made out to well and now we have to rein them in. that is effectively what clinton was saying. host: new jersey, next up. caller: hello. my concern is that politicians would rather authorize federal agencies to charge fees and
support those -- than to support those agencies with tax dollars. safety2 food and drug act that authorizes the fda to charge generic drug manufacturers a fixed fee of $247,000. if you manufacture 1 pay $247rug, you ,000. if you make 1000 generic drugs can you pay the same to you. you can wear that would have pushed out smaller makers. any thoughts? while the fee structure is very based on the size of the companies, there are a few that do not change based on the size
of the establishment. on the margin they do drive the industry towards more consolidation. there's no question that the fees have been added to the cost of generic drug manufacturing. those were intended to work off the backlog of applications that the fda had. we have started to review those applications, but there is still a huge queue inside the fda awaiting approval. the average approval time right now is 50 months. the average application, the average one will go under four cycles of review. that shows you why this is a substantial delay. we talked about the pill that went from $13.50 to $750, and that touched off a lot of the current controversy. ifould not be surprised there is application in the queue, in that backlog, for a
generic version of that drug. but the fda has been slow to evaluate this applications and get them approved. host: you said that the waiting time is moveon? 50 months? guest: yes. someone who used to head of the put out aug office good article on the estimate. some of the agency's old estimates, is anywhere between 42, 45, or 50 months. that is the most current figure that i have seen. i frankly think it is reliable. i've not seen a figure that is less than 42 months. even if i'm off a little bit, i'm not off by much. caller: good morning. experiencbes i
have had on pricing is prescription. know 200% markup because i that i cannot afford it anymore to get it. i need it. and i'm a senior citizen. plus all the companies with the doctor. fda also works for the politicians because they get the money for the companies that they allowed to work and do the medication, and then they get back and give the money to the guys who are running for congress on the house or whatever they do. so that is wrong, first of all. and also, the democrats are complaining of that is the problem against problem. when bush was here we do not have these kind of prices. host: what is the prescription that has had an increase of
100%? i need medication for my heart, force psoriasis, and i cannot afford to get it. host: any comments? guest: i see this as a position. senior citizens have difficult circumstances paying for drugs because we see the structure of insurance plans change in recent years weather is more coinsurance being applied to drugs which means consumers have to pay a fixed percentage of the cost of the drug. the co-pays have gone up so the fixed co-pays of 10 or $20 right now because the or $150 depending on where the drug appears in the formulary. the other thing that has been done which is relatively new is that the affordable care act is popularized what is cold closed formularies. they have a list of drugs that they help pay for, but if the drug you need is not on that list, is not covered at all. whatever money you spent on that
drug out-of-pocket is not count against your out-of-pocket limits for your maximum, your deductible, or your out-of-pocket maximum. you're completely on your own. to much int exist the marketplace before the affordable care act. the only place you saw them was in medicare part d. but you also saw a lot of regulations to make sure that imported drugs were on the formulary list right what is happening now, and we have done some analysis is that the formularies are not including imported drugs, but they are closed formularies. this is extremely hard for consumers to figure out. this at team working on the american enterprise institute, and i put out this data. we try to figure out which of the formularies word closed and which were not, and we had an extremely hard time going through the fine print of the contracts to figure that out. i do not think the average consumer is going to have an easy time figuring out whether drugsformulary offers the
as covered or partially covered or covered with coinsurance. it is difficult. host: dr. scott gottlieb, former fda omission or -- deputy commissioner. you can read his posting online. one of his latest pieces is how the fed discouraged prescription drug competition. here is marie from maryland, democrat line. caller: good morning. i lived overseas for a number of years, and i ended up paying a third less of the prize for over-the-counter drugs that are prescription here. i know one of the callers touched on this. i do not understand why drugs are so expensive the united days when you can cross the border and buy them at a third of the price. guest: i think the caller is referring to the ability to buy drugs that have prescriptions here in the united states over
the counter or behind the counter from a pharmacist in many countries i think she's exactly right. i think we should look at trying to make more drugs available at the point of care in the pharmacy, especially with the advent of pharmacies who have minute clinics and pharmacists who could provide counsel. i think pharmacists could play a much more active role in prescribing. should notrugs we have to go to a physician for a prescription every time. but does drive up the cost of drugs. we should look at trying to deregulate the process to make more drugs over the counter. there are a whole host of drugs that could be available over the counter or behind the counter. one of the drugs that has been talked about for years is cholesterol lowering statins. we have large portions of the public that is on cholesterol-lowering statins drugs, but we have been trying counter them over the
and we have failed in doing that. we have a very conservative or to reproach -- conservatory approach. caller: good morning. l question might have been answered, because you say he works for the american enterprise institute. that disconnect between has of -- his appeal to implicitly solve this problem yet know the american enterprise institute is in the pocket of the republican lobbyists. is there a truth to this? at where weu look get our resources from, it is largely from grassroots and individuals. that is where we derive most of our support. lobbyr felt i was in the
of a republican lobbyist or anyone else. there is very little connection between our institution and that and we are proud of the work we do. twitter, they say check out congressman and pharmaceutical investments. it speaks volumes when americans pay more. those who been rejected to market because of the anomalous reaction from regulatory violation. do you have any idea? guest: it is not unusual to see a drug that is effective for an intended application to have a rare side effect and the fda will reject the drawing on the basis of that side effect. typically that will be the case will treatre a drug what is considered a more normal condition. those were treating
life-threatening conditions have much more tolerance for risk that can be adequately defined. cancer,o treat substantial risk, but they are willing to balance those risk with the benefit. what the fda wants to do is adequately describe the risk in labeling. and they want to describe the magnitude of the benefit the drug will be providing. that theyore, we see are getting rejected or held up by the agency not on the basis of concerns around their safety, but concerns the clinical trials that were done to create their advocacy -- efficacy might have questions about the true magnitude of the drug. there are questions on effectiveness that are holding them up, not necessarily safety. especially those targeting unmet medical needs. host: lower drug prices dd asks isn twitter
it true we are not only negotiated, we subsidize europe and the rest of the world by paying guest: what we are subsidizing our pharmaceutical research and development. we do it not only with the prices we pay in the united states but with the significant investments we make to our national institutes of health. this country has made an investment in the life science sector with the most vibrant and largest sector in the world. that is not just a public health benefit that an economic boom to the country. we do have a vast industrial-based when it comes to life sciences. ant we have done from economics standpoint and public investments that we have made through the niit, -- the national institute of health, it has come through. consumers face hardships, but there was no question that the public policies that we have supported over the last decades or 50 decades or 50 years has
enabled us to build vast life-sciences industry that is highly productive. host: we go to connecticut to get from charles on the republican line. theer: i wanted to mention regard to differences in drug prices. i used to have it drug called denizyde, a skin cream, and i last time co-pay and it was ordered, it was going to be $100. that is one example of what you were talking about before. you had mentioned a couple of things such as the closed formularies and the difference in price that you pay if you're paying out-of-pocket as opposed to getting reimbursed by insurance. isthere any talk about what happening with the system a coming just so byzantine that it needs to be overhauled in a anybody hasot that
great ideas, but has that been considered at all? guest: i am not sure that there is a lot of public policy consideration on how to make the system simpler. i think some of the things we have done under the affordable care act has made it more complex because i think the insurance designed our complex for consumers because they do not know where it will be tiered and how it will form and change and how much coinsurance and there is a whole coast of considerations. the drug you mentioned is an example of a drug that there could be therapeutic alternatives. there could be drugs similar to that and i'm familiar with the drug that might deliver a close enough clinical benefit for why you are using that drug and i don't want to speculate why you are using it, but there would be cheaper. it might be generic because i think that drug is a specialty drug and even though it is old and not a lot of manufacturers of that drug, so that is an example where it might be worthwhile to go back to your position -- your physician and
basket there is a cheaper alternative. as a physician, that is not necessarily easy thing to know. a lot of doctors will not know based on your particular insurance what will be cheaper, so there might be trial and error and that is a time-consuming process for the doctor and for the patient. a lot do not want to go through it so this is where the system is difficult. it should be easy to go on to a website and type in a particular drug for position and find out exactly what it will cost the patient based on their insurance type. some insurers are better than others and provide access to that information. some doctors have a prescribing systems that will give them the feedback at the point of care but that is not ubiquitous. i think that is where it could be made easier, through technology. host: how demanding is your job? are you still a practicing physician? guest: i practiced until recently. i'll probably be going back soon. i practice as an inpatient position so i covered the wards
in the hospital but i don't do outpatient medicine. it is different because a lot of what i treat ann's up being the same medical conditions, if you will. we do a lot of admissions for heart failure and pneumonia and there is a more defined subset of drugs are prescribed but that is the case for most doctors. most specialize in certain areas where they really only know well maybe 100 drugs that they are prescribing on a regular basis. over time, they learn which drugs will cross what to which patients depending on insurance type for that information is not ubiquitous and not always as easy to obtain. as you think it would be or should be. host: you are watching live on the bbc parliamentary channel is martin in the u.k. good morning. welcome. caller: good morning. i hope you all are very well. guest: fine, thanks. caller: excellent. basically, the way i look at it sort of drugs in relation to pharmaceutical drugs is that the charges that are administered to
not just the average citizen but ,lso governments and countries they don't seem to have uniformity worldwide. in the united states, people tend to pay a lot more for drugs. is through that advertising? it is a bit like sudafed, which is used for mazo -- nasal clearing and things like that, now we know there is of the company out there that produces most of their worldwide, at least the public knowledge, and we go through it in the u.k. like a supermarket and you can buy the generic version of which does the same thing. do you think there might be a good idea to actually say to the pharmaceutical companies, you need to stop the after sizing and use the medicine what it is therefore which is to help humanity because that is the
basis of the national health service in the u.k. and many other countries around the world that have a social health care system. host: thank you for joining the conversation. the impact of pharmaceutical advertising has been studied and also by the food and drug administration. we have seen that pharmaceutical advertising helps to an consumers of diseases, treatments available percent diseases and generally educates the population. i would not want a world where the only information i get is from pharmaceutical companies and advertising because it might .ot be perfectly balanced i also would not want a world where the only information is from the government. people what a lot of would like to see. restrictions imposed on the ability of anybody else to inform consumers and physicians and the only speaker in the environment would be the federal
government. i think the federal government has its own motivations for what fromce people to take away its communications. they are different than what the pharmaceutical industry might want for people to clean, but they are no less troubling in certain situations and could be not less than one-sided. what i prefer is a vigorous debate from information from all sides and have the ability to filter it and put it into perspective on who the speaker is. reality is that commercial speech in this country, the courts have recognized this constitutionally protected speech, they could restrict or dramatically restrict or ban pharmaceutical advertising which is a form of commercial speech just as inconsistent without the courts interpreted the first amendment. host: scott gottlieb dr. scott gottlieb is our guest -- dr. scott gottlieb is our guest. (202)-784-8000 for democrats. (202)-784-8001 for republicans. (202)-748-8002 for independence. and for all others (202)-748-8003.
a question from edwin on twitter, you mentioned u.s. research and development and he asked, since most of these drugs are sold and used worldwide, why does the u.s. only pay for the r and d? guest: this is a relevant question. everybody pays for the r and d. the marginal cost of producing the pill is most cases low but biologic does have a high cost into manufacturing the drug itself as expensive. any money the pharmaceutical company can overseas from selling the drug is incremental profit and go back to supporting future r and d. if the drug is sold for $10,000 in the u.s. and 7000 in the u.k., it is not unusual differential and they are earning profits go into continued research and development. for the most part, the prices are higher, certainly the list prices. in many cases, the effective
prices but not in all cases. i used the example of the outset were a lot of drugs in the part d benefit the actual net price that is paid to the insurance company that the insurance company pays the pharmaceutical inpany as lower here than the u.k. consumers don't necessarily see that and that is a problem because in more cases, consumers are underinsured for drugs and pay more out of pocket and they see the reporting on the list price. isy see a drug like that 90,000 in the u.s. and $50,000 in a european country and they think they are paying $90,000 but they are really paying 40,000 dollars for that. in the european country, they are paying $50,000. there is no discounting beyond the list price and hard to make comparisons, not apple to apples. in large measure because the discounts that are paid in the are notprivate insurers reported and probably should not be because that creates
competition. the ability to negotiate privately around price. host: we hear from jim next insanitary new, texas. good morning. caller: and i on? host: go ahead. caller: i have been diagnosed with osteoporosis and i am 69 years old. i am on medicare and social security. i got my medication from the pharmacy. after two weeks, i had to wait for approval for my insurance company and it was a co-pay of $300. i declined to take the medication because i cannot afford it. this ation is -- is disease that is affected over the long-term for old people as opposed to younger person? is the morality of pricing such a drug for old people knowing they cannot make the pay or make money to pay for
have that ind they their hearts and minds to charge such a high price for the drug/ ? host: remind us the drug and health issue you are facing. [indiscernible] host: thank you. this is an example that might be in opportunity to go back to the provider to the position and see if there is a therapeutic alternatives. my hunch is that it sounds like it sounds like a prior authorization put on that drug by this gentleman's insurance company where they need specific approval to prescribe the drug. that is probably because they did not get a favorable price on the drug and put it on an unfavorable formula area spot where they would charge the patient or the individual higher co-pay. the approval came through but
the individual still had to pay the co-pay. this gets to insurance designed, the reason they put it in that of preferred tier is probably -- i don't know the insurance company or specific circumstances -- but they probably figured there were therapeutical frigates to the drug that were cheaper and maybe even generic. it might be an opportunity to go back and have a discussion with the position on whether there is a good enough or comparable drug that could be a lot cheaper for this individual. this will be a bigger problem for consumers and that is why i think you'll see backlash on the drug industry because the insurance designs we are seeing under the affordable care act are hollowed out. they are cheapening the insurance product so people are being left uninsured for important things. those insurance designs or not stay confined to the affordable care act. there migrating into employers sponsored insurance segment as well. just like the part d, when they
create insurance designs, we eventually saw the migrate into the rest of the commercial insurance market. what happens in obamacare will not stay in obamacare, it will migrate into the policies that other people have. host: back to the issue -- one of the issues that prompted the conversation -- the headline "the man behind the drug price increase." they say that the 32-year-old founder of to drug companies has proven to have a sharp eye for finding obscure drugs i can be turned into a lucrative moneymaker, rewarding some investors. after years of attacking drug company executives, he was vilified and became the civil for price gouging after his company raised the price of a 62-year-old drug that they acquired from $750 a pill to $1350. his company and others like it are sort of essential in keeping some of these older medications and circulation, correct?
guest: i'm not sure his company is essential. i think he was exploiting the regulatory failure and gouging consumers. i don't think there is anything appropriate about that price but the reality is drugs like this, there are only 10,000 to 12,000 prescriptions written in the united states and they cost a certain amount to produce and probably more like $20 million to produce a drug. if you are selling that for $10 and earning back $5 million or more than that, you can't produce a profit. it is a case that generic companies will produce drugs at a loss and a lot of the drugs that they produce they lose money but they produce them because it is important to offer their customers a full spectrum of generic drugs available. you will have these cases where these isolated small-market they mightup where only be one or two manufacturers where people will try to come in and push up the price to exploit what really is a failure.
in the long run, a new equilibrium will be reached. now that he has pushed up the price so high, other generic companies will try to come in and compete to market their own drugs and the price will settle down. because there is a delay to getting a generic drugs approved, it could take two or three years and the individual could enjoy perpetual monopoly for two or three years when he is able to charge a higher price in what is probably an appropriate price for this product. i don't know where it settles down but it will settle down at the $1350 price, probably somewhere around $50 and sold as a specialty product, and that could be an appropriate price across manufacturing. $750 was the couch of consumers. host: one more call, maryland, anna on the republican line. caller: good morning. how are you? guest: fine, thanks. caller: good. i take avapro and when i started taking it, i pay $20 a month and
then it went to $30 and then $50 and i cannot afford it anymore. i called caremark and i worked at a special deal what if i get up by mail-order, they would give me a 90 day supply for $125. is telling me the manufacture of that medication is not sending it out to them anymore. i have been going back and forth with caremark to get the brand because i cannot take generic because it gives me migraines. it has been two months and i have been without blood pressure medicine. this is still going on. caremark is not answering, cvs has something to do with it and in the end, i found out that cvs and caremark are two different companies. they don't talk to each other and it has been a run around. here i am without blood pressure medicine and nobody really cares. we have a doctor on the other end of the line so let's get final thoughts from dr.
scott gottlieb. guest: what is. need to substitute in the interim. it sounds at the individual specific need for the drug and this drug has reacted with patient and other drugs might not have had this in the look into other drugs, not just a generic drug but different brand drug that could not a benefit because they are similar medications are good that could potentially could but this is a problem. it like the insurance company slowly increase the co-pay of this drug and probably not a preferred spot in their formulary because they're not have preferred pricing and the think it could be gibraltar ended that are good in the -- could be cheaper alternatives that are good enough. the kobe has gone up early and it is unfortunate. there are patients who prefer the brand for legitimate reason. they might have a different reaction more bitter taste in men with different ingredients
that might react more comfortably, so -- align host: , you can gottlieb follow blogs on forbes.com and on twitter at scott gottliebmd. thank you for being with us on this morning's "washington journal." guest: thank you. host: we will look at money and politics. our guest in the next segment is szelena gray. she is a political activist and we will talk about clinical action committees and campaign 2016. "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> monday on "the communicators," the corporation for assigned names or numbers, president and ceo will talk about how the internet is
governed. >> government today has been advising role in icann. they do not directly make policy, they cannot have a seat on our board of directors. this is very much a triumph of showing how the private sector lead institution that has the government as an important advisory body but that has a broader base of decision-making that is private sector-led, including the technical community and civil society, etc. informs is advice that the policy and the board activities that are anchored in the fact that government continuing to play an advisory role to what we do. 8:00 easternht at and pacific on "the
communicators" on c-span 2. a signature feature of "the tv" is out the coverage of festivals from across the country with top nonfiction authors. here is our schedule. in october, the southern festival of books in nashville. the weekend after, live from austin for the texas book festival in your the end of the month, we will cover to book festivals on the same weekend for my nation's heartland in the wisconsin book festival in madison. that on the east coast, the boston book festival. at the start of november, we will be in portland, oregon for work stopped and followed by the national book awards from new york city. at the end of november, we are live from florida for the 18 p.m. in a row for the miami book fair international. those are a few of the fairs and festivals on c-span2's "books tv." "washington journal" continues. >> host: joining us from new
york city is szelena gray, the cofounder of run for america. to talkus to talk to us about the role of super pac's, in particular campaign 2016. szelena gray, to live for the hand with this. tell us about one for america and what makes it different. guest: thank you for having me. it is a movement to re-inspired engagement in our democracy and it is founded and motivated by young people who believe congress and government needs new leadership. people who are poor thinking, future focused and willing to take risks to improve democracy. host: is run for america actively seeking candidates and donations for those candidates? run foright now, america is in startup mode. only a few months into the cycle and thinking about how to engage, but what we seek to do is recruit and train and eventually run candidates for congress. taking people who never thought
about engaging in the political system, giving them the tools they need to succeed and the future that they were successful campaigns in 2016. host: you are also involved in the fundraising efforts of may day u.s., tell us about that. i was involved in a day pack in 2014. i was the chief operating officer when it was founded. kick startedas a super pac to end all super pac's, so an exciting moment for the democracy reform movement to fight fire with fire. to take the money and attempt to use it to curb the influence of big money. host: when people hear the words super pac or that term being used, they think of big money being used but you are using it in other directions. what is the top dollar amount somebody could contribute to your super pac to end all super pac's, as you have called it? are a specialac's
kind of committees, those who raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections independent of candidate campaigns. a super pac can have huge contributions, as big as you can imagine. i made a pack was special because it did contributions and matched it with small grassroots as well. is politicalic money, super pac's and the role in 2016. we would love to hear her music. (202)-784-8000 -- we would love to hear from you. (202)-784-8000 for democrats. (202)-784-8001 for republicans. (202)-748-8002 for independence and all others or send us between at c-spanwj. just to set the scene in the number of dollars, this is open secrets.org and the latest figure of 2016 financial 1169ity for super pac's -- is the number of registered super pac's. the amount raised so far as 300,000,600 43000 and $22
million so far spent by super pac's. to find the terms for us a little bit. -- whatd of super pac can the super pac to that the campaign funds cannot do? guest: the super pac is an independent political action committee and commonly associated with citizens united, the supreme court case in 2010, that rolled in favor of allowing corporations and unions to spend money directly from their treasuries to impact elections independent of candidate campaigns. the supreme court found that this sort of spending was protected by the first amendment. super pac's arose out of the subsequent court decision called speech now versus federal election commission. speech now opens the floodgates for limited spending and because of that first amendment protection, the corporations and unions end up operating independent candidate campaigns as in not correlating with
candidates and candidate committees and they can spend as much money as they want to impact elections. what this means practically is that the candidate could intend oruper pac fundraiser, he she could give a speech at the fundraiser, but he or she just cannot ask for money. that is essentially have a super pac works in our elections now. host: you are a senior advisor, correct? the recently announced campaign of harvard professor, right? guest: that is correct. he will be our guest. host: he will be our guest tonight at 6:35 eastern on c-span, but he has pledged to do something unusual if you are to be elected president. tell us. is runningrry lessig a campaign that puts our democracy first and in the firstt, as equal citizens and super citizens at the back of the line. he is trying to make sure that in this election cycle, we understand and have an opportunity and responsibility
to fight back against the undue influence of money in politics and to insist we put equal citizens first and foremost in the election cycle. he is running an interesting campaign for the democracy reform movement overall because he is willing to put those principles above all else. host: we have lots of calls waiting period david is a democrat line for szelena gray. caller: good morning. how are you? host: fine, go ahead. --ler: i was calling to go well, first to say that i agree that money in politics is the most important issue we are facing and that larry lessig is correct that nothing getting done in our politics, no actual -- politics doing its job which is working for people to help us solve our problems and make an environment the good place to live as a society, will never, ever, ever happen as long as we have money in politics and do
not have 100% publicly funded elections. that is the first thing. the second thing is we were just listening to half an hour of another issue of money in politics which is the back door, a smart guy who works for a think tank and gets paid by what he called grassroots, individuals but it is really just the same people buying politicians who aggregate a to doof smart people research to come up with answers that they already know, such as no such thing as global warming, or everything hunky-dory and find in the pharmaceutical industry or the banking industry or whatever industry, and they push the same thing across the board under the auspices of intelligent people doing smart research. i just wanted to say that and maybe get a reflection. host: szelena gray? guest: i think what you are
hinting that is that we live in an era of unprecedented spending, not just on elections but on the political process in general. what we are getting for this extraordinary expenditure on our democracy is not the right return on investment and not what we deserve. there is more to this problem then super pac's and the price tag of elections, there is lobbying, gerrymandering, access. i think that is why it is so important we take the action of the steps we can take and we do as you said, put public funding first. we see the remedies that are right in front of us and we start taking the steps we know we need to take to fix democracy. host: we go to pennsylvania. john is on the republican line talking about super pac's in campaign 2016. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. the reason i am calling is i like to know where this money is the final -- funneled for
democrats or republicans. i am the only one in the united states, as of today, mostly on the east coast from pennsylvania to florida to help mr. trump to throughoutelected the united states. i spoke to thousands of people and a lot were on top of the fence. they don't know if they want to vote for him for the democrats. i want to know -- here is the situation, mr. trump is not getting funneled with his campaign money, would you be willing to give -- 50th the the presidential candidate, would you give him money to try to help them become president or does that get funneled into other democrats or republicans? i would just like to know where is this money being funneled. host: thank you. we will get a response. guest: to clarify, do you mean the money for run for america? the caller is gone and i'm
not sure which one he is referring to. guest: well, let me just say quite think that we don't see or we have yet to see exactly how much money this election is going to add up to. early projections this year say we are looking at a $5 billion price tag for presidential elections, nearly twice what the 2012 elections cost us. i think when you imagine how much money is being spent and how the price tag keeps rising and rising, the question is not should i donate more money to this candidate or to that candidate, the question is which candidate will finally and the level of money? host: "usa today" looks at what super pac's are doing in terms of what they can spend on. "super pac's push campaign limits." donald trumpat carly fiorina's looks and the response was swift on an online
so fuzzy? guest: this is a great example of what we are talking about with super pac's. trump said something inappropriate about carly fiorina and rather than having to respond herself, her super pac, as you mention, came to her rescue and put out a video. not a negative video but a positive video showcasing her and other women basically doing the fight and arguing for her. about is a talking super pac, an entity that can raise and spend independent of the candidate campaigns, representing for donald trump carly fiorina's views in the debate. i think that is what the type of corruption we are talking about. if a super pac is supposed to be independent of the election increasingly we are seeing them right in the mix of things. how can we truly call them in pet's expenditures and imagine that these entities are not corrupting our process? host: let's go to florida on
independent line. anthony. good morning. caller: good morning. i would just like to make a comment on the danger of super pac's. what is to stop a foreign country from creating a shell copy in the u.s., forming a super pac and putting their entire treasury behind and getting a presidential candidate elected? thank you. guest: not very much. super pac's do have to disclose their donors and donors to have to be u.s. citizens, but i don't know as much about corporate law and how corporations are formed in the u.s., but there is nothing to stop a super pac with a corporate entity behind it or a corporation who is influencing the from having an extra new impact on the electoral process. host: (202)-784-8000 for democrats. (202)-784-8001 for republicans. and for all others, (202)-748-8002.
you can send us the tweet at c-spanwj. here's one from jody who looks to the 20 top elections and says -- romney had the larger super pac and was defeated by "a community organizer," how much more money this cycle in the 2016 cycle is being spent compared with 2012? elections isst of only arriving every cycle. as i mentioned, the 2016 presidential election is estimated to be a $5 billion presidential election and we are seeing $300 million being funneled into super pac's. for instance, jeb bush had raised $120 million for his candidate campaign and his super pac had raised almost at the same level of $100 million. this is owing to be a year of explosive growth in outside spending. host: next up is from connecticut on the independent
line. sheila, hello. caller: hello. my question is -- i have been very mad about starting this talk about the candidates running for 2016, but in a way it could work in bernie sanders's favor because i am voting for him already, but since all the cable channels have done this, what can we do to get rid of the super pac, lobbying, gerrymandering, collect were college, delegates, canopy based on the popular vote and keep the supreme court out with whoever it is the cap bush and over gore, what can be done to take care of all of this ahead of time? so weportant groundwork can get bernie sanders i am is the real deal. thank you. guest: those are some great ideas. the candidate i work for, larry piece ofas a
legislation that addresses these problems. advocate assistant with funding for public correction and ensure equal access to the ballot in and the system of gerrymandering. politicianshaving select their voters, voters had selected politicians. bottom line, or you need a response to all of those problems that handles them distinctly but sees them as a part of the larger problem of corruption in our government. host: republican line is next, tony in fort lauderdale, florida. good morning. i want to ask -- number one, i tried to research organization and its themes they are a progressive show group but the big question is, what happens if you take the money out of politics? are you going to stop the unions from putting people on the street to canvas and pass out flyers?
are you going to stop the nra from endorsing candidates? where does it stop? money is actually used as an antidote for large groups on the right and left to can put people on the ground. money is speech. it may sound cynical or stupid to people who sneer from academia, but money represents speech. if i wanted to sell everything i own and support one candidate, why can't i? this is america, please. thank you. campaign finance reform has a long and active history in this country from the first passage of presidential public funding from the 1970's to soft-money spending in the early 2000, to citizens united and the recent court case. we have long known that while we cannot stop the role of money in elections, we have to measure
and manage it for it to work effectively. right now for the amount of money we are spending on a government on the cost of elections, we are not getting the right return on the investment. this is about responsibility and making sure the role money plays in elections is not one that corrupts the democratic process. host: a couple of questions on twitter. individual tweets. shouldn't all caps a loss be stricken from books as they are written and passed by a conference to benefit incumbents, not challengers? what about the candidates right to speak for him or herself? is their right of free speech not implicated? we go to cincinnati, ohio. we are hearing from bill on the democrats side. go ahead. following your super pac's, it seems to me like all they are doing is spending as much money as they cannot there -- as they can out there to get
the people they want and not this instead of the people so they can buy their politicians. that is the way it seems to me. been focusing this morning on super pac's. i wanted to redo a headline from this morning's "washington post." clinton on the blitz to surpass fundraising by sanders -- with the growth in super pac's, like other campaigns getting up their own fundraising efforts? guest: money matters in elections no matter what, especially in the early days of the campaign. it is important candidates have
the hard money they have within their committees to make sure that campaigns remain viable and in the early competitive primary days. host: dan is in massachusetts, independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning. having a bigre push right now to stamp money out of politics. i wonder if you are coordinating it to have a multiplier and get some more results by working together? guest: there are so many groups right now working to make sure that we have democracy reform being talked about on the national stage. moveon.org is doing a fantastic job and there are several organizations within the moment trying to make sure that in the 2016 election cycle we are talking about corruption and getting the candidate to address that issue, too. host: in a perfect world, what does a presidential campaigns look like in terms of fundraising, and a moment of candidates in your eyes?
if you got everything you wanted on the wish list and you look ahead to the 2020 or 2024 election, what would that look like? is a simplenk it answer. i think the most important thing for presidential candidate to do at this point is coming to an actionable and clear plan for the public funding of elections. that is a plan that allows for small dollar contributions to be the primary stress that campaigns so that candidates are not speaking to a small fraction of citizens who are wealthy funders of big an independent expenditures but instead talking to a broad variety of citizens in the country who would otherwise be in the back seat of the campaign. host: perry said that the campaign 2016 -- stepped out of the campaign 26 and said his own fundraising and the super pac fundraising was really strong but he could not pay his own staffers, etc. another issue for scott walker who was signed one week ago who said the emergency meeting that
led to walk her to quit the left his closest supporters in the dark, even his financial backers. after a meeting, scott walker arrived at his decision and he was out and it was a shocking move that blindsided many of his closest allies through the power of super pac's into doubt and opened it opportunities for rivals to pick up patrons, staff, and supporters. to any of these lessons learned from ted cruz' experience, no scott walker's experience, are they a cautionary tale for super pac's in 2016 and beyond? guest: super pac's are relatively new entity and have only been around since 2010. we are only beginning to see how they maneuver effectively in a presidential election cycle. i think that scott walker's recent stepping down from the presidential race certainly shows the limits of what super pac's can do when they are not backed by a strong candidate campaign as well.
super pac's being such a huge, huge force on this election cycle is where our focus needs to be. host: here is from texas. rachel is on the independent line. go ahead. caller: a while back on c-span, they talked about [indiscernible] and they said that whoever raises this money, there is not a time that they have to turn in and there have been people who died still having the super pac money. and they don't have to back anybody right then, there is not the least time to hold onto the money. a while back, someone out to raise money for super pac's on the bus but she has not backed anyone. so does she just pulled onto the little -- that she just hold onto the money and to people just ask what she will do with the money she raised and she has held onto the money for three years? is there a time limit on when to give it back or do they just
keep it and do whatever they want? host: good question. what happens to the money that saved the scott walker campaign -- not the campaign -- but the pack money -- the super pac money that was raised her him or rick perry? guest: super pac's do have to it andlosed spenders -- donors we see where that money is going, but there is no requirement that that money go anywhere in particular, so it will be interesting to see what happens as super pac's close their doors and what happened to the money left in their treasuries. host: the cofounder and officer for run for america, how does your organization development candidates? on a local levels, state levels? thet: run for america uses best corporate recruiting practices in order to find really talented leaders across the country and give them an opportunity to think about what it would aim to bring leadership to congress.
have been scouring the country, reaching out to people, talking through linkedin, community organizations, and we have brought people to our offices in new york and visited people in their districts. he had an initial list of about 2500 candidates that we have narrowed down to a very short list. these are some of the most outstanding leaders that you could imagine. people who are running community driven nonprofits, executive directors of amazing change making organizations, so it is exciting to think about what it would mean for somebody who is capable of that level of logic and realism and stewart -- of entrepreneurship and to bring it to congress. host: do you find there is a push back from potential candidates in terms of will they see gridlock or dysfunctionality, in particular in washington or other state capitals? is there a hesitancy for people to run for office? guest: there has been a lot of reluctance from this candidates.
they are not really candidates yet and they won't be until they decide if they are ready. a huge for congress is commitment. it is a huge job, responsibility. run for america once the leaders to see that and the reason we are reaching out to them is because we know they will take that seriously and have some serious reluctance but also thoughtfulness on what it would mean to take on the challenge. host: are you trying to focus in developing leaders outside of washington? outside of the halls of congress from people who may have worked in offices or worked in organizations in washington? guest: absolutely. we are talking from people from small towns in the midwest, west coast, south. part of what makes run for america special is we are reaching people all across the country and not just people who work in congress for have an office before they think about this opportunity.
these are people who have never thought about this kind of leadership, but when they imagine the challenges of our democracy and we talk about what our government is facing, they get excited about the opportunity to change that. host: let's go to california. it is skip on our public in line. go ahead. ask thei was going to previous question that was already answered, but i think there could be more attention on where does the money go in a super pac after candidate caps off -- drops off? where does that money go? we have been doing this for five years and we still don't know where the money goes? that puzzles me. think we should explain why there are so many people running for president that have no chance and they know they have no chance but who would think 20
people trying to become the president. that has never happened before. -- me ask another question how did super pac's actually come about? the supreme court, they are allowed to rule on whether a law is constitutional or unconstitutional but they are not allowed to make laws, so who created the super pac and how did they get away with it? host: skip, in california, good question. the supreme court in citizens united was the first step toward the creation of super pac's. in that ruling, the supreme court found that the first amendment protected a certain kind of speech and spending and that was the ability of corporations and unions to spend money directly out of their treasuries to impact elections. speech now, a subsequent district rolling after citizens united into than 10 -- in 2010,
open the floodgates and triggered super pac's to exist. super pac's are independent expenditure so these are operations that exist outside the candidate campaigns and they cannot coordinate record candidates but they can spend unlimited sums of money independent of this candidate campaigns in order to impact elections and have been since they were formed in 2010. more minutes, the cofounder of run for america and also a senior advisor to the who was of larry lessig running for the democratic nomination. (202)-784-8000 for democrats. (202)-784-8001 for republicans. and all of theirs, (202)-748-8002 -- and all others, (202)-748-8002. also on twitter at c-spanwj. here is a comment who asks which candidates does run for america support? for america has not
recruited the final slate of candidates for 2015. we are in the process. you are talking just about congressional candidates and not looking at the 2016 presidential race at all? that is correct. for america is focused entirely on congressional elections in 2016. host: here is rob on the democrat line. caller: good morning. thank you very much. andcorruption in politics american politics is phenomenal. . just do not believe it i love this country but our system of government in many ways is just so screwed up. cap is one thing i really to give kudos -- i really have to give kudos to donald trump. he is shedding light on some of the corruption. he has bought and sold
politicians basically all his working life and he is up there --sically shed light on it basically shedding light on there and it is totally ridiculous. it is no wonder we don't get anything done. just -- i don't know. i am in nonbelief of some of the people that we have up there representing us. -- i am voting bernie sanders. he is our only hope. will go to massachusetts next and janet on the democrat line. caller: good morning. i wanted to thank you for speaking for the 99%. i am disheartened by all the money in the super pac's and the voice of money shadowing over the 99% and how can it be more
accountable? how can we accountability not just with the super pac's that in a lot of areas where there is no accountability? thank you. guest: that's a great question. foremost, i think we need robust disclosure. super pac's are required to disclose donors and file expenditures with the federal election commission, that we do need more accountability and transparency. i think more than anything, we need more people realizing that there is this huge, robust, massive explosion in money in our elections. a fraction is not being accounted and cannot be counted for. we need more people being aware of that and asking those important questions and i'm accountability from politicians and the people responsible for how they are being run. our guest,na gray caught our attention in the september issue of "flow" magazine.
your background is in you are a divinity school graduate from harvard. guest: that is correct. host: how does that education in former help you in the work you do now? to harvardved going divinity school. i think a lot of what motivates me to think about our democracy and how to do better with the same ideas that motivate everybody around this country pursuing some kind of community or nonprofit work. we see so many problems, everything from how education is run in the country to the future we are handing our children. we have to ask ourselves what we can do to make sure our government options better. i mentioned in the article that every year we are seeing a less and less active congress. congress passing fewer and fewer laws but a congress finding ways to raise more and more money. that is not the congress working for us. i think that is something that we have to address. indiana,'s hear from
should be marked on the republican line. go ahead. caller: she has mentioned several of the republican super pac's. i would like to hear her speak on the democratic super pac's and the unions on how much money they put in and whether it is wrong or unions that are employed by the government to basically try and hire their own bosses. host: before you get to the ogue" piece,hat "vo they did talk about this raising money and spend mentality.
host: to his question, it is $24 billion is for cap -- the super pack for hillary clinton. democratss affects and republicans and they are responsible for thinking about the flow of money into the government and how it corrupts our government. right, hillary clinton is right behind jeb bush in terms of fundraising with her super as on the presidential level the second-largest right now. this is a problem on both sides of the aisle. host: as people apostolate the refunds for what happened to the many after the campaign or candidate stepped down from a campaign -- here is between from robert who says that john edwards campaign refunded my donation when he withdrew, but
that was not a donation to a super pac. e -- let's hear from ed in maryland. caller: do the leaders tend to be from one party or are they mixed for all the different parties? guest: that's a great question. run for america is a bipartisan organization and we are looking for leaders who are both democrats and republicans on both sides of the aisle whose primary focus is on future focused leadership, solution-driven ideas and not on what side of the aisle or other. joining usna gray from new york city. you can follow her on twitter and on run for america and on twitter at maydayus. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you. host: just to let you know what is ahead tomorrow morning on "washington journal," the focus of congress coming back and a
possible government shutdown, and they will vote on continual resolution to keep the government. also, a look at computer breaches and financial data with the electronic transaction association. be our money segment will about united nations as we were speeches from president obama, vladimir putin, and others and the discussion on how much u.s. contributes to the annual budget. we will hear from barbara adams who is the global policy senior fellow at the global policy forum. you are for being with us on this morning's "washington journal." we will see you tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ >> next, "newsmakers" with texas
congressman and john boehner discussing why he decided to resign, followed by reaction to announcement. after that, we show you some of pope francis washington, d.c. specialme to this friday of "newsmakers" to what has turned out to be an amazing artist day. our guest is a senator of texas, the chairman of the republican study committee, in the house of representatives of fiscal and social conservatives. before, he was a 30 year energy executive harry thank you for being with us. >> thank you for inviting me back. >> have new york times congressional reporter as a after we hear from congressman about your statement, you just released a statement calling for unity in
the party, this party has been a fraction that brought us? -- how does it become unified ? >> i think today was an emotional event for the republican congress in the house. anytime you have a significant emotional event, it gives you a chance to back up and reassess where you are and what our objectives are. one of the challenges we have had is a republican congress is that even though we have had things we want to achieve, the outcomes. we had disagreements over how to get there. my hope is that now we have gone through this event today, the
speaker's resignation, this gives us a chance to look at what the in-state is. we like to address the fiscal challenges of the country. we like to limit the federal government to the constitutional limited role. we like to put the regulatory regime back in its statutory box. security. rebuild lookgives us a chance to at what those goals are and how to unify so that we can achieve those goals. we heard from the speaker today about how he announced it to the republican congress. how did you react when he announced that he would resign at the end of october? he said that when he was first elected as speaker, his plan was to serve for four years.