presidential and vice presidential debates, and how parties should proceed with primary debates. as always, we would take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning. president obama is in germany today for the start of the seven -- d7 summit. congress is expected to debate fast-track authority. it will likely pass, but it will be close vote. if it does pass, it will give the president of victory because republicans gave it to him. live coverage on c-span. "the hill" has coverage on the $5 billion election. they think that the 2016 race

will more than double the race in 2012. to focus on how much money is being spent in these campaigns, and whether or not you think it is time to change the campaign finance laws. if so, what are your ideas to change it. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. if you are an independent, the number to call it was (202) 745-8002. send us a tweet at @cspanwj. you can send us an e-mail or join us on our facebook page facebook.com/cspan. good morning to you on the sunday, june 7. we will go to your calls in just a moment and what if anything needs to be changed. first, some headlines. the president is in germany's desert and will return to washington tomorrow, following his speech yesterday delivering the eulogy for neaubeau biden.

this headline from "the new york times" showing that a majority of americans are in favor of campaign financing. we were joined by someone on "washington journal" about why this issue is important to him. [video clip] >> the whole idea of a republican republic or democracy is that this is government of the people that is supposed to serve the people. it is an overused quote, but completely correct. does right -- right now, there is no doubt that our congress is first and foremost answering to the special interest demand. do not get anything if it is not

something that are interested in. we do not get any attention unless it is a small issue that will not cost them any money. host:. doug hughes joined us earlier in the month to talk about the issue. that is available on our website. on her facebook page, some of you already wearing them, including the saying, public funded campaigns. warren says, laws will make a difference. there is a story from "national journal" about jeb bush and how he has been able to legally avoid some of the laws. they are writing that he has been work in glove with

the super pac that will now independently back his campaign. once he formally becomes a candidate, which is expected to be made official on june 15, jeb bush and his campaign team will be barred from strategizing with super pac's. at the start, he was expected to have a treasury that dwarfs the president's coffer. bush has agitated campaign watchdogs, but the delay has allowed him to work with a super pac that he would otherwise be for a bit and from coordinating -- before bed forbidden from

coordinating with. we want to hear from you and your ideas on changing campaign finance laws. i will also share with you some headlines from "politico" as scott walker and others were available for the "roast and ride," hosted by joni ernst. on the "des moines register" website there are photos from the event. among the speakers, scott walker. [video clip] >> it is time in america that we start leading, not just here, but around the world. think about the contrast in front of us. we have barack obama and hillary clinton. we have a situation, where, in america, we have a president that draws a line in the sand. someone who calls isis the jd

squad, who calls yemen a success story, who calls iran a place where we could do business with. when i remember back in 1979, my brother and i would put yellow ribbons around a tree. my friend was a marine the youngest marine held hostage. people like him were held hostage 144 days. that country has not changed. we cannot change our position on dealing with iran. [applause] >> now, more than ever in america, we need a commander-in-chief who will tell it like it is and tell people listening around the world that radical islamic terrorism is a threat, and we will stand up and fight it. we need a leader in america who

will be a firm -- reaffirm that israel is an ally, and start treating it as such. and, we need a president in this country who will stand up and tell the american people what may be hard to say, and the threat is not like what we faced in the cold war. instead, this is like a virus. if we don't take it out, we are in trouble. i do not believe in open engagement. we need a president who will say this will take one day, one week, or in your, but i would rather take the fight to them rather than waiting for them to take the fight to us. we need to lead again. host: governor scott rocker, who also wrides harleys one of the speakers at the event in

iowa. this headline: "bikers pork, and presidential politics." speaking of elections, is it time to change campaign finance laws? if so, how would you do a? we will begin with john, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i am strictly against the money that is being spent on elections.

we need to cap it off at $1 million per candidate per state. if you spend $50 million, and can't get elected by then you don't deserve it. and, get rid of lobbyists. lobbyistss i like the mob. but the main thing, put a cap of $1 million. we will get the same effect. host: headlines also writing about free speech. harold this next from melbourne, florida. caller: good morning. my idea is that money is putting our politicians. part of the problem is that us as small individual, do not have a say in this money battle.

what i was a deceased public financing but with a twist that there is a voucher given to each voter of $50 per year. that voter can then take that voucher and apply to any politician that they want to back, this way the politician would talk to the individuals that don't have the big money. they would have the say in the things that are issues to us not just the big money. host: thank you very much for the call. frank has this point on her twitter page. no fundraising use tax money to finance a six week campaign. brian is joining us from illinois. caller: i think people are looking at it the wrong way. you know we are getting the government will deserve because most people don't pay attention.

most people don't know who their representative anything congress. that is the problem. if you care enough to watch this channel, sit down, figure out who your representative is in the house, and write them a letter. people need to realize that the president is not the king. you must know who your representative is in the house you must know who your senators are, you must write them letters all the time, and call them letters all the time -- and call them all the time. your family and friends need to do the same thing. that will negate the effect of money. right now, our politicians are sold to us like potato chips. we spend more money on potato chips that politicians. host: take a look at this. if you take a look at past campaign charts, in 2000, we spent about million dollars.

that was just 15 years ago, and we are looking at what could potentially be a $5 million -- $5 billion campaign. you see this escalation over the last decade and a half. caller: i agree with that. the stakes are very high. we have pending wars in the middle east, pending reformations of medicare medicaid, and social security. we have all kinds of issues coming to a head. billion as want to influence it. look at how much money has been made in the stock market. this is another expression of the billionaires' wealth and power. you must know who your congressmen are and write them letters. host: another viewer saying, for all campaign laws written and

passed by incumbents. "national journal" wrote last year about the end of campaign finance reform. advocates are getting increasingly nervous over the longer-term impact of a decision, bolstered by other recent rulings on the subject. experts see the possibility of a future battle on in the other subject, the decades-old long idea of a cap. good morning, suzy. republican line. caller: i called to say that if we got rid of the campaign-finance laws that the left does not like from the supreme court ruling in 2000 10, that we have to be consistent and say before that happens, the big union money is buying democrats all the time. it has to be consistent across

the board. host: thank you for the call. from "the new york times" -- a poll on whether money has too much influence, too little or just right. makes his, joining us from kansas. caller: good morning. host: how are you? caller: is about time that this subject be addressed. i have sat here and been a voter all my life. it has just gone worse, worse, and worse. the problem that i see is like a lot of people see.

there is too much money out there giving people the opportunity to buy votes. my idea is doing away with the current campaign laws period. a maximum of $25,000, and no more than $100 per donor. once they reach the limit, they are done, they cannot accept any more campaign money. what we need to add to that is the fact that we need to look at having term limits for not only the senate, but the house as well. and, we need a constitutional amendment, or term limits on the u.s. supreme court. host: thank you for the call

from kansas. if you are just turning -- tuning in, or those listening on c-span radio, we are asking about the campaign-finance laws and your ideas to change the laws. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. we want to hear from you. from "new york times" this headline -- hillary clinton traces a familiar path -- friendly path and troubling party. the story points out that when bill clinton reclaim the presidency for democrats in 1982, his road to the white house ran through southern and southern border states that were than a precious commodity, swing voters.

by the way, hillary clinton will be in new york city at fdr park next saturday. it is what is being viewed as her announcement, even though she already joined the race. joe is joining us from massachusetts, democrats line. campaign-finance laws, how would you change them? caller: good morning compass to

you. there is only one way to do it. the first thing that needs to be done is a constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united. when it comes before the state legislator, they have to contact the state legislator. i think i remember from civics class that it takes to the -- two thirds of the state to ratify. hillary clinton had it just right. until then, hillary and the republican nominees have no choice to raise a million dollars, whatever it takes. thank you. host: one of our viewers says, let's talk of hillary's foreign donations. from "new york times" a poll that we refer to earlier. we are being joined by rick from florida. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you this morning? host: five, thank you. caller: i think the first thing

we should do is what the previous caller said, we definitely need to revisit citizens united. also, we need to limit what any one person or one corporation could give to $25,000 per pop and also get rid of the super pac's that hide behind the nonprofit status. also we need to look at where all this money is being spent. it is being spent on the fatcats , advertising, and tv channels that bombard us with these political commercials that you can't get away from without turning the television off. host: thank you. from twitter, this -- follow the money, all politicians were for lobbyists, not for us. good morning.

caller: good morning. i have a little bit of a different perspective. i think the financing of the geographical problem. for instance, if you are running as mayor, i don't think people should be able to contribute money if they are not running for the position. also, if they are running for house of representatives, only those people who can vote for that person should be able to contribute money. you should not have money coming in from washington state utah into a local location. a governor, in his day, anyone in the state should contribute, but not out of the state. my basic position is that if you can't vote for a person, you should not contribute money at all. otherwise, you are a spoiler. that is where i am coming from. host: thank you for the call.

we are being joined by a caller from new york. caller: good morning. in terms of campaign finance reform, i would simply say you can contribute as much as you want, but just simply taxes. say hillary clinton got $100 from whoever -- george soros -- hillary clinton would spend 99.9% of that, and keep one penny. george soros would have to contribute 10 times that. the same thing for super pac's. if they are going to get on tv advertising -- on tv to

advertise, the same thing, 10 times to the treasury. use the money to pay off the federal deficit, and ultimately the national debt. i would say, hey contribute as much as you want. host: thank you for the call. another viewer with those point of view. there is not enough money in politics political campaigns need more money. for the first time in many years, a triple crowd winner from the belmont stakes. a look at some of the towers and buildings and sent -- in center city boston. "the chicago tribune" is looking

at college cost. while inside the "chicago tribune" more on former house speaker dennis hastert. reports from abc news on the second victim, a person who allegedly he had a relationship with in the 1970's and soon later died of aids. the story is available online. from tennessee, rich is next. good morning. independent line. caller: good sunday morning steve. i have called about this before. i know it sounds made to say that we get the government we deserve. if people are not informed and vote according to 32nd ads -- 30

second ads and flyers in the mail, we will have this problem. i have another radical idea. his political campaigns -- is advertising is so toxic, let's treat it like we do spoken ads -- smoking ads and then from the airwaves all political ads. this would force any serious voted to go to other sources to actually find out and see what the candidates propose and a little more detailed rather than simply saying what madison avenue pushes. host: you know the first advocate from any campaign is that that restricts freedom of

speech. caller: i anticipate that, but so does the cigarette advertising. the thing is that if people are so worried -- i keep hearing the term, "buying votes." if they are buying votes just by virtue of putting more advertising out there -- i mean if i decide on one ad, 10 more as is not going to make any difference. it is implying that the voters are stupid or that politicians are dishonest. neither premise is much for a good government. host: we will move on to other calls. from robert, there should be limits on all donations. david is next from indianapolis. republican line. caller: good morning. my comment is simple. i think the constitution is clear. the cause issues the -- the

constitution mentions that congress can regulate elections not campaigns. i think it is best to get rid of campaign finance laws and just let the market do what it wants to do. we have had only one good president since these jack rodeo laws came into effect. i think we need to have more freedom of speech through money or whatever they want to do. i am tired of criminalizing the political process. host: thank you for the call. barbara joining us from new york city. good morning. caller: good morning. i going to agree with richard who called from ohio. since my vote is limited by geography, i think we could limit campaign contributions to the constituents of the candidates. this would not do anything for

presidential election since the president represents all of us but at least they would do something for senate governor, representatives. as far as unions and corporations, their contributions would be limited to the geography of where their headquarters is located. for instance, if the koch brothers industry is limited to wisconsin, they could give to wisconsin candidates. each institution would be limited to one headquarters. i just wanted to call to agree with the previous caller. host: thank you for the call. we will go to daniel next. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: fine, thank you. caller: i think this whole thing is a joke. it does not matter how much they spend on the campaign. the ads don't matter. look at one candidate and

the guy who behead was outspent. but it comes down to is the candidates. it does not matter how much is spent. after the citizens united decision, all the democrats were screaming about the koch brothers. look at the last two elections be a look at who is still president, barack obama, right? endeavor matter. all that matters is what the two candidates say and how the people receive them. host: one reviewer says that money is not speech, speech is speech. let's go back to the cbs poll.

next is wrong from wilmington delaware. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i just want to say that there are a lot of good ideas that i am hearing. one thing with our current bought and paid for representatives around the country -- the only way you will get any campaign finance reform is fire all the incumbents that we have in place. the simplest way to do this is to say that no politician is allowed to accept anything of any value from anyone, except for a u.s. citizen that is eligible to vote for them. that would stop them -- i have heard a couple of people saying, there is no reason that people from new york should be able to vote for people in delaware, and elsewhere. the other thing is put a cap on

individuals. you solve the problem. none of this will happen as long as the current politicians are running the country. we are already bought and paid for. you have to fire them all first. host: thank you for the call. two stories related to the funeral services that we live here. ap says that the president was visibly distracted, staring out the window, and not paying attention.

here is a portion of what the president said yesterday. [video clip] president obama: he did in 46 years what most of us can do in 146. he was a man who led a life where the means was as important as the ends. the example he set made you want to be a better dad, or a better son, or a better brother or sister. better at your job. better soldier. he made you want to be a better person. isn't that finally the measure of a man? the way he lives stucco how he treats others?

we do not know how long we have here. we don't know when fate will intervene. we cannot discern god's plan. what we do know is that with every minute we have, we can live our lives in a way that takes nothing for granted. we can love deeply. we can help people who need help. we can teach our children what matters, and pass on empathy and compassion, and selflessness. we can teach them to have broad shoulders. host: the eulogy delivered by

the president yesterday in wilmington delaware, one of several speakers paying tribute to beau biden, the of this -- eldest son of the vice president . we have posted the entire service on our website, you can check it out at c-span.org. back to your calls on the issue of campaign finance laws. how would you change them? don from salinas, california. caller: good morning. what i want to say is i am in my 50's. as far back as i can remember, there are three things i always remember during election times. number one our roads and bridges are falling apart. number two, our schools are falling apart, we need more money to fix the schools. number three, there is too much

money and politics. this is as far back as i can remember. every election nothing changes. the schools are still no good. there is still big money in politics. the media acts like it is a brand-new idea. they will not report on it honestly. do you know that four of the top six political contributors are unions. they are not people or companies, they are unions. no one will ever say that. they want to point at the koch brothers, who are not even in the top 20 political contributors. with all this dishonesty, i am very jaded. host: all right. don from california, up early on a sunday. another viewer agreeing with you -- talk about the koch brothers

but not george soros? we said at the top of the program, the president in germany. from "washington post" a preview of what to expect.

back to your calls on the issue of campaign finance laws. dave from pennsylvania. good morning to you. democrats line. caller: good morning to you sir . my thoughts are that we should require that everyone vote. i think that would fix the strategies that each candidate has to use. i will just stop there. i think it should be a requirement to vote. host: all right, thank you.

we'll talk about the voting laws coming up here. the "new york times" sunday magazine takes a look at technology. it says that american technology is changing the world, whether the world likes it or not. and, "cq weekly" -- a look inside lobbying efforts here in washington d.c. inside the magazine, a look at where they are now. a look at former members of congress and the role -- their role outside of capitol hill. bob is joining us now. caller: good morning. this is my look on things. right now, the american people are in a better position than they ever have been in history to change the voting laws.

on social media, the telephones we have now -- it is like this -- we will not get anything done with the senators in congress. they are paid for. you get on your phone, and tell people to rally. you get them to together. you bring a few grocery stores. all of these people are take advantage of the whole population. there is treating us like toads. the fetus at -- they feed us and take advantage. host: interviewer saying, i like citizens united, but see it as the republicans trying to crush the tea party, and now i like it.

a look at the debate over the economy and john edwards. transient issues is the subject of "the new york times" sunday review -- what makes a woman? jerry is joining us from nebraska. good morning to you. caller: in 2008, we had a chance to maybe get this changed when john mccain agreed to ditch public financing. barack obama agreed to it at the start. when he found out how much money he could raise on the internet he backed out of it. we had a chance in 2008 to change this. thank you. host: a look at the book review section of "the new york times." number one this week is "the right brothers" by david

mccullough. we featured many of these books on booktv, which you can see every weekend on c-span two. also, a new book out on ronald reagan. the title is "reagan, the life." as we said this week, the house will be focusing on trade issues. speaker of the house john boehner saying that they will be a majority of republicans likely to support the trade bill. not the case for democrats. he can watch the debate on tpp fast-track authority on c-span.

pat from ohio talked about this issue in his remarks. [video clip] >> trade means new market and new customers. did you know that we have a trade surplus with the 20 nations that we have a trade agreement with? or that manufacturing jobs tied to trade a 16% more. or, employment in ohio declined, but employment in trade improved. people say that trade gets them through tough times, allowing them to hire and expand. president obama can negotiate trade agreements on his own, and in secret, he does

not have to make you or i informed. it does not make sense. it is not fair to american workers. why would we allow a system where there is no transparency o of the present? this is where trade protection authority comes in. concerned about a bad deal? tpa requires the president to follow strict objectives so that your priorities come for us, and not his. if he does not fulfill those obligations, we can vote on the agreement. it is that simple and straightforward. host: a republican from ohio with you the public in response to the presidentts weekly address. jenny as is mike lilis from "the

hill." thank you for joining us. you posted a story online that the republican leaders are expressing what you called the new confidence in the trade bill. what can you tell us this morning? guest: it is crunch time. the senate passed this thing, the president wants to sign it and only the house stands in the way. john boehner said that if they cannot get it done in june, they will probably not get it done this year. they are looking at a's short window -- a short window. liberal democrats have talked about bad trade deals, and they were assurance that history will not repeat. they do not think this deal goes

far enough to offer protections. particularly, they think this will kill jobs at home. they will not get on board. the numbers are creeping up, but very slowly. this will be a close vote. all sides know it. you are really seeing lobbying on both sides with obama and gop leaders on one side, and labor groups, environmental groups and liberal democrats on the other. it is sort of a clash of the titans. it's host: who is with think -- whipping this for the republicans? guest: paul ryan, a co-author of the tpa bill. he was five presidential candidate in 2012, and highly respected on capitol hill. he has been on the phones. boehner has been on the phones.

steve scalise, the whip, has been on the phones. there is not a lot of love between republican leaders and the white house, but both ryan and boehner have been on the phone with president obama to strategize. again, trade is a very strange issue in that it is not partisan. it is very regional, and it just does not build the same coalitions that you have seen in the past. it is one of the strange stories where gop leaders and president obama are fighting against the liberal democrats who are usually the present allies -- president's allies. host: nancy pelosi basically said that it is not her job to pass this bill because the majority of house democrats oppose the legislation. i want to ask you about some key

democrats who have, in support of the legislation. jim himes of connecticut, kill more of washington state. there are still some on the fence. who are they? guest: there are scores of them who are on the fence. they are either undecided, or just do not want to say. democrats are in a very tough spot. it is the environmentalists, the unionists, the good government groups. the list goes on. these are all political allies of the democrats and they make up their political base, and a lot of their fundraising efforts. they do not want to bite the hand that feeds them. at the same time, they want to support their i like in the white house. they are in a very tough spot. you can sense the pressure on

them. joe crowley, the vice president of the house democratic caucus said, i know where i stand. it will be a tougher all around -- a tough vote all around. purposely, they are not sitting. rice was also a democrat that came out over the weekend and support. by our count, we have 18 democrats. the president says 20. the democratic whip said 25. i think the number will be between 20 and 25, which means the republicans will need 190-200. pelosi said, not my responsibility, so the republicans better get 200 votes if they want to get this thing.

host: let me ask about nancy pelosi. democrats have been saying that she should be more vocal in her opposition to this. will that happen before the vote? guest: that is the million-dollar question. she says that she wants to give obama the time and space to make his pitch an argument, and allow members to fall where they must. we are not sure if she will come out. sort of like she did in december on the cromnibus bill. there were a couple of amendments there. liberal democrats, similar to this debate, lined up in stu aunch opposition. the lessee came out on the floor, against the bill and the amendments, and said the president should not support them, but she did not whip against the bill. she ended up voting against it but she did not whip against it.

that was a tacit and/or smith of the bill -- tacit endorsement of the bill. will she come to the floor and attacked the trade bill as hurting u.s. jobs and all the things that liberals are against it, or will she whip against it and tried to kill this thing? it is a tremendous decision for her. she has opposed fast track in the past and those have died. she has a lot of power and beverage industry. we are all anxious and eager to see what she will do. she will be influential. host: final question. will the vote be thursday? guest: we have heard as early as thursday. the sense is whatever they have the votes, they will call it. they don't want to allow anybody

the time to change their mind. the lobbying will not stop on either side. someone who is a yes now may be a mno tomorrow. we're thinking as earlier thursday, but we're hearing and maybe next week. they will call the vote and bring it up very quickly, and get this thing over with. host: mike lilis his work available at thehill.com. thank you for your time, we appreciate it. you can watch the debate on the house floor here on c-span and listen to it on c-span radio. we will take a short break, and when we come back, we will turn our attention to the issue of voting rights.

tomas lopez will be joining us from the brennan center for justice on some of the efforts to rollback republican enacted restrictions to voter access. later, an interesting story last week. you may have seen it from the national cancer institute announcing a nationwide trial of cancer treatments using dna sequencing. this is a tremendous decision affecting the fda. we were taught to james doroshow of the national cancer institute. first, we will be featuring the literary life of lincoln, nebraska, which is the state's capital. our programming will look at the story behind the unique architecture and a history of the state capitol building. here is a preview. [video clip]

>> one of the things that makes a building unique is the fact that we have this amazing collection of materials that documents the construction of the building. we have here artwork that was created during the design of the rotunda floor for the building. the designs for the rotunda floor show mother earth and the four elements of water air fire and earth. the designs sheet created, for the most part, were used as she created them, with the exception of mother earth. in the final floor, the design is very different. mother earth is seated in a throne, there are children around her. she not only created these small

pieces to show the commission when she was thinking of doing but she also created a full-scale figure to show them this is what the mosaic would look like on the floor of the rotunda. host: it is a gorgeous building. you can learn more about lincoln, nebraska and the state capitol building as part of our travels in the c-span's city tour. you can watch it today on booktv, c-span 2. the particular program you just saw will be airing on c-span 3 at 2:00 eastern time. we hope you to the -- to an area -- tune in. joining us from new york is tomas lopez from the brennan center for justice. we heard from presence of

candidate hillary clinton in houston last week calling for some changes in the way that voting balls are being put in place -- floating voting laws are being put in place. what are you calling for? caller: we hope -- guest: we hope that this is something that people across the political spectrum will embrace. this is being increasingly viewed as a partisan issue. we think that voting does not have to be partisan. we think that voting should be free, fair, and accessible to all americans. we think that laws restricting access is a step in the wrong direction. host: republicans are saying that this is to make sure it is fair and to ensure that there are no shenanigans. guest: i think you will agree that we want elections that are secure and reliable, but there are ways to do this without

shutting people out of the system. host: let me get your response to what someone said in "national review ago he will, the notion of election day is not just a tradition, it is in the constitution. it states, congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day and they set a uniform presidential date. respond to that. guest: i think one of the things that we have seen -- early voting, the ability to vote before that election that tuesday, often it is on weekends. it is something that we have seen reduce lines on election day, which was an issue in the 2012 election. we think making early voting

available to more americans would be a very good thing. campaign lawyers for both romney and obama called for early voting. we think that is one of several things that states can be doing to modernize our voting system. host: let's hear what hillary clinton said last thursday. she traveled to houston, texas to a predominantly black college to talk about voting laws. [video clip] hillary clinton: unfortunately today, there are who offer themselves to be leaders, whose actions have undercut this fundamental american principle. here in texas, former governor rick perry signed a law that a federal court said was actually written with the purpose of discriminating against minority voters. he applauded when the voting rights act was gutted and said

that the laws protections were outdated and unnecessary. governor perry is hardly alone in his crusade against voting rights. in wisconsin, governor scott walker cut back early voting and signed legislation that would make it harder for college students to vote. in new jersey, governor chris christie veto legislation to extend early voting. in florida, when jeb bush was governor, state authorities conducted a deeply flawed purge of voters before the presidential election in 2000. host: the comments of hillary clinton. she spoke last week in houston texas. tomas lopez, many republicans claim that this is just her way to gin up numbers for any democrat in 2016. guest: i think one thing that is important to know is that voting is not inherently

partisan. we are glad this is something that people are talking about. i would point to the fact that this year, there were several states that are seen and are republican controlled that passed reforms to the voting system. utah passed laws, including one that allows for free registration for people who are 16 and 17 years old so that when they turn 18, they are ready to vote. there are things that can be done across the voting system that do not have to be partisan. we would argue that this is an issue in general that folks can gather around and embrace. host: we want to get your comments on the voting laws in the country. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. you can also send us a tweet at @cspanwj. if you log on to the brennan

center, you can see some of the states that have expanded voting balls since the 2010 elections, including washington state virginia, and west virginia. there are also states with voting restrictions and new laws since 2010, including texas and florida. next is john caller: i used to be a democrat. and this is one of the reasons i don't believe in the democratic party any more. i've seen first-hand knowledge of the illegals first-hand knowledge of the illegals getting voter id cards in palm beach county for the past 25 years. i've brought this to the attention of the supervisor of elections and they say well, you know, there's really no way to enforce it. all you have to do is check off a box that says you are a citizen. there is no voter i.d. police

that go out there. so this idea that hillary clinton, whose just a dragic hag, is trying to promote is there's this mass discrimination against poor black hispanics, whichever it may be of the day, the bottom line is my vote gets disenfranchised every time someone who is ineligible to vote, votes. i don't understand what the argument is. showing i.d. to vote? we have to have i.d. to buy beer, get on a plane. this is ridiculous. for her to stand up there is just the height of hypocracy. it is just a voter drive to get illegals to vote. thank you. host: we'll get a response. guest: supervisor i think one thing that's worth noting is that there are ways in which states have tools available to them to make sure that the people who are voting are eligible to voted. i think in terms of what the caller was saying, in terms of

i.d. and the availability of i.d. i would point to the example in texas that the court found that there were 600,000 registered voters in that state. people who have already filled out the paperwork, gone ahead and are actually on the voter roles who gid not have the kind of i.d. required under that law. this is a state where an individual can use his or her consealed handgun permit to vote at a polling place but not his or her student i.d. >> talking with tomas lopez with the brennan center for justice. a graduate of duke university and yale law school. also former fellow at the southern poverty law center's immigration justice project. you can get more information by logging on. follow them on twitter. susan next from massachusetts. caller: well, there may be

government yam impediments to voter participation but i really think this is all so disingenuous. to me the real government yam travesty is we have less than a 20% voting participation, especially in municipal and mid term and off elections of the people that are eligible to vote. their participation is disgraceful. so i really put the -- i wish hillary clinton and others would advocate for the reinstitution of civic the -- i education, and courses and require courses in our public school system about the rights of citizenship and the obligation to vote. we can't complain about a situation like ferguson, missouri where the african american majority population

had a 7% voting participation rate. we can't complain about police abuse. and we certainly can't complain about wall street olgarks hijacking our political process if we don't vote. so why don't we worry about getting people to vote first and then worry about impediments. and then about i.d.'s and people not being able to vote. how lame is that? i took my elderly mother, took me all of an hour to get her a senior citizen picture i.d. after she is no longer able to drive. can't we do that for our fellow citizens who can't go out and get an i.z. on their own and need a little help? that's such a lame, pathetic argument. lets get the people who are already registered to vote to start participating in our political elderly mother process first before

we go off on this tangential his tearia about people being blocked access to the polls. >> thank you. guest: i think susan brings up a really important point about political participation. i think everybody would agree that our democracy is going to be stronger the more people that participate in it. one of the things that we hope that states will start doing that our political leaders will begin embracing is are the sets of reforms that can actually help increase participation? one thing that we saw just this year is that oregon passed a law providing for automatic voter registration for people who are in the dmv data base. so what that does is when you get a drivers' license you are automatically registered to vote and have the ability to opt out if you don't wish to do so. it also allows the state to automatically we go off on register people to vote who are already on the dmv rolls. so to get those people who

aren't already in the voting system. and we think that the state could end up adding as many as 3400 to 400 that way. by getting people into the system we are hopeful that's going to get increased participation. host: but let me get your response to how republican governors, including scott walker, responded to hillary clinton's speech this past thursday in houston, texas. this is a way to try to make sure that people don't cheat the system. guest: again, i think the way in which i would respond to that, i think it's really worth noting that there are thing that is states can do checking things against data bases, ensuring that the systems are reliable. to make sure that the system works the way it's supposed to.

that our elections aren't actually prone to fraud. if states actually move towards systems that are more modern, that move away from paper, that allow people to vote not just on election day but also throughout the process we can have a system that is both accessible and reliable. host: but what about john who basically said election day should just be one day according to the constitution? and the constitution? and then there's a tweet who says make election day a national holiday? would that be a compromise? guest: i think there are a lot of things people could consider. i don't know that i have a specific position on making election day a holiday. i think what's really important is that voting is accessible that people don't cheat the system. to people. that the thing that people really like about early voting is that they can go after work they can go on an evening they can go on a weekend, on a sunday. people are busy.

they have jobs. they have guest: i think there are a lot children. and keeping voting to one day during a certain set of hours, we've seen makes life difficult for people. and we think that more people should be voting, not less. and if we want more people to vote, if we want to increase political participation, we have to meet people halfway. host: beverly is next from montana. caller: hi. i just wanted to let everyone know that how many people are on food stamps in this country? 48 million or whatever they're saying. well now when you sign up for food stamps, the food stamp is a federal program and they're sending out applications to sign up to vote to register the vote. and they've sent me about four of them in the past year. i keep on tell them i'm already registered. but -- and there's illegal

aliens, leel aliens students. everybody is on it. all the poor are on food stamps and getting applications to sign up to register to vote. so i think the -- plus obama or the feds sent out a thing to all the town halls across america, the federal glines about voting that they aren't supposed to ask if you're a citizen or not when you sign up people. host: your response. guest: i think one thing that beverly discusses is that one of the things that governments have been trying to do is to register people or offer voter registration services to people who use government services. there's that authority under the motor voter law, the national acted. i can't speak to the specifics of how it works with the food

stamp program. more broadly i think that we do want -- i think that things like that can be very helpful for getting people engaged. but i can't speak to the mechanics of how food stamps. >> good morning. you're next. caller: did you say you're connected with the southern law poverty association? guest: i did before my current position i did work at the southern poverty law center. caller: a very left wing organization. getting back to voter fraud. every time you print a ballot in another language besides english, that's voter fraud. how in the world do we have ballots in two dozen languages? that is insane. completely insane. secondly, it should be more difficult to vote not easier. no same day registration. at least 30 days or 60 days

before voting. thirdly, we should -- i would like to go back to a poll tax. every time you even want to buy a gun, which is granted in the constitution you have to pay a tax to buy a gun. why not a tax when you vote or even a literacy test? you don't pass legislation on a motion. the so-called voting rights law was voted on emotion. and lowering the voting age? we should increase the voting age to at least 25 not 21 or 18. when you drive a car your premium is higher before you reach 25 because they say people under 25 don't have much common sense. you have any comments? host: thank you for the call. guest: i think i would say that folks obviously are entitled to their opinions but we do disagree. we think that voting should be

free, fair and accessible to everybody including people 18 and above. and the voting rights act accounts for language minorities and we think that ballots being accessible in languages other than english and people being able to receive assistance, whether for lunl assistance or other kinds of other physical disability is a very welcome thing. host: have you given any thought to the idea of internet voting? guest: online voting is a trickier question. i think it's something that a lot of people in the field are looking at right now. obviously the first really big question that comes up, especially in light of recent news is how secure it would be. i think it's something we're looking closely into. i couldn't say today whether or not we're ready for it. host: clearly with reports of hacking that continue in headlines virtually every day that's got to be one of the biggest red flags. guest: that's right.

host: nancy joining us from new jersey. caller: first i would like to say that the caller from montana and the last caller sounded ridiculous. i'm sure if somebody wanted to restrict them in any way they would raise hell. but of course they picked on the poor people or minorities or people needing public assistance. my question is why doesn't the media talk about how these new laws can be used to restrict citizens from voting? the media and these polls just ask do you think that people should be using i.d.? these -- you can't just use any i.d. they're using specific restrictive i.d.'s that actually prevent people from voting. why doesn't anybody go into how

these laws, these new laws predominantly put up by republicans actually restrict citizens from voting? host: your response. guest: i think nancy brings up an important point about the fact that we are talking in a lot of places not only i think requirements but strict i.d. requirements. i mentioned the example in texas which has the strictest laws in the books right now. which again you can use your consealed handgun permit but not a student i.d. there are 21 of these states that have passed restrictions since 2010. these take different fornls. some of them are i.d. requirements some of them are early voting. in north carolina they reduced early voting eliminated same day registration, eliminated the ability of 16 and 17-year-olds to register ahead of time before turning 18. in 14 of these states, 2016 is

the going to consealed be the first presidential election with these new laws in place. >> host: why though is requiring a photo i.d. restrictedive? guest: what we would say is having a photo i.d. itself may or may not be restrictive. we're talking about not only the requirement that people have a photo i.d. but also the fact that it's a set list. but even beyond that there are other ways to prove who you are, that you are who you say you are. i think having a photo i.d. i think we have seen that there are people who for plenty of reasons don't have it and that these people are often more poor, members of the elderly, and there are ways to make sure that we have people prove they say they are, people are voting only who are eligible without keeping people out of the system. host: what are those ways?

guest: we talked earlier about citizenship. one thing that states have at their dispostal is access to citizenship data. for instance through their drivers license data base. host: good morning. independent line. caller: i used to be for photo i.d. until my husband had a major stroke. and this was before wisconsin passed their i.d. laws. we finally went took him in to get a photo i.d. because as we were changing banks they wanted a photo i.d. so we went to the motor vehicle department to get ours. it took two trips and 2-1/2 hours total to get a voter i.d. i am no longer for it. it is hard on the disabled. i am physically not real well but at least i could drive him. but it was very difficult for us to get there.

and it did cost us $30. now, this is ridiculous that they're saying student i.d.'s don't count. nothing counts. it's absolutely ridiculous. i took enough paperwork and was turned away the first time, went home and got almost the same paperwork but added to it. haven't even had a picture i.d. from our transit system which gave him free rides. well, not free. it cost 3.25 but at least he was picked up at the door because he was going to a nursing home while i was still working. all it did was they said that didn't count. host: we'll get a response. guest: the caller brings up a really good point. in a lot of circumstances these can be really difficult to acquire. she mentioned wisconsin. wisconsin is a state that in

one of the court him free rides decisions concerning the law there was a dissent by a judge pose anywhere richard pose never one of the most prominent conservatives in the country. in issuing a opinion against wisconsin's i.d. law he talked about how difficult it was to get the birth certificate that was often needed to get the i.d. in the first place. in our texas case, we included testimony from a woman who had to get her birth certificate from mississippi where she was born over 80 years ago and pay money to make that happen in order to get the kind of i.d. that was required in that state. host: mark williams has this response to an earlier viewer.

shirley. good morning. caller: thank you to c-span. one of the things steve you're a long-time host and we appreciate your service along with brian. i'm a long-time c-span watcher. one of the things in reference to start off you started off by showing -- well, talking about mrs. clinton being at tsu which is texas southern university in texas. where she received the barbara jordan award. barbara jordan of course was one of our esteemed bares ters in the nation. and one of our first congresswomen. so that award had a resonance

in that mrs. clinton being the first honoree, texas southern university in texas. where she received the barbara jordan southern being a hist torically black college not predominantly black. you stated that it was predominantly black. it is actly historicically black. it also offers one of our first accredited universities in the nation for our country for africans for historicically black university. they often pharmacy and they have a law school. tsu of course you also spoke about david from article. trying to get in context here. david fralm spoke about the constitutionality of the voting rights act being a part of section 1. so in that phrase my question to the gentleman and also to the nation is that it would behoove us -- to remember that

voting for us in being a hist terms of the constitutionality of voting, in our constitution creation wrn it did not even give women the right to vote, it did not give -- only planters, people with property. so it seems to me that this argument is rooted in a larger historical context for us that has race and now we have the context of our future. the participation in our nation as the woman from massachusetts so aptly stated. host: thank you for adding your context and your voice to the conversation. we'll get a response. guest: i think one of the things that she points out that i think is important for all of us to remember is that over the long course of american history with fits and starts the right to vote has reached more people than it has in the past. she mentions women suffrage

the voting rights act. i think it's important to remember this year is the 50th anniversary of the passage of the voting rights act. unfortunately, two years ago the supreme court in the shelby county versus holder case took away one of the really important parts of that law, section 5, which required certain states -- jurisdictions -- with history of discriminatory practices in voting to have their voting law change is pretty cleared. i think it's important. we would agree that we hope that congress will take actions to restore those productions. host: we're talking about the voting laws in states around the country in a recent speech by hillary clinton talking to reform the system. aimed at states where republicans are putting presidents candidates in. rich joining us from new york.

good morning. caller: good morning. i was just wondering if while you were at yale studying how the forefathers established the constitution and voting rights whether you discussed whether or not it would explicitly inherent racism or sexism that resulted in the forefathers giving the voting rights only to white land on owners. or perhaps it was because they analyzed the situation and decided the best way to get the country off the ground was only to give the vote to people with a financial stake in the future. host: thank you. guest: i think one thing that we have seen is that notions about the rights of votes have changed over the years. i wouldn't be in a position to

talk in a lot of detail about what the framers were framers were thinking around 1787. one thing we have seen is that our ideas about the right to vote have continued to evolve over the years and that the franchise has reached more and more people. host: ray again has this point on our twitter page. caller: i would like to answer to evolve over the that question. i was trying to get a driver's license in connecticut. i had my birth certificate. and then i had to go back and get -- because i was divorced i had to go back and prove that -- or get my divorce papers to get an i.d. which took another two or three weeks before i got an i.d.

so i had to pay extra money. then i had to pay more money to another state to get an i.d. for connecticut. so i had to prove that i was divorced. that was two out of pocket money that i had to pay. and that's why people don't understand that how difficult it is to get a driver's license. i went twice. as a matter of fact, three times. to go get some kind of form of i.d. and also, the gentleman who said that we have poll tax again. i really don't want to go back to the 1700s. and everyone who is listening should go out and vote just because a man speaks like that. thank you. host: thank you.

did you want to respond? guest: sure. i was going to say that i think one thing the caller mentioned about how difficult it was for her to get that i.d. it's a great example of the reason why voting should be something that's responsive to people's lives. why we think voting is a good thing. why of the reason why voting should be something that's responsive to people's lives. why we think voting is a good thing. why same day registration is a good thing. people are busy. and if we want people participating, and i think we do, then we should have an election system that actually responds to the way we live. host: ron has this point. joe in alabama. caller: good morning. i'm a little confused as to why it is considered so difficult to get an i.d. to vote. i'm a naturalized u.s. citizen. i've had to produce my naturalization papers for different things i've applied for over the years. i applied for graduate school i had to get undergraduate

transcripts from other colleges. it's not that difficult if you really want to do what you need to do. people should have a vested interest and be motivated to vote. not just be allowed to vote. voting is a -- it mathe be a right in the constitution but it's really a privilege and we need to be careful about who the vote is extended to. guest: i think we would both agree that voting is both a right and responsibility. it's the most fundamental right and responsibility of citizenship, what makes our democracy what it is. but i do think that there is a way in which we could help people fulfill that responsibility by making voting more accessible to more people. host: our last caller joining us. caller: good morning. i had three questions for mr. lopez. first, do you believe that you must be an american citizen

united states citizen to vote in this country? number two, do you believe in amnesty for illegals, complete amnesty for illegals? and number three do you now or have you ever had any affiliation with laraza or any other political organization like that? i'll take my answers off the air, please. guest: what was your last point? caller: laraza. guest: i think to the first question i think citizenship is a prerequisite for voting in the united states. we're not calling for any change to that. what we want is for voting to be accessible to every eligible citizen. the brennan center does not have a position on either of those issues. i work for the brennan center. i've worked other places. but certainly here we're talking about voting rights and

we talk about voting rights talking about american citizens and making sure that as many as possible have the ability to exercise their right to vote. host: our guest is part of the democracy program at the brennan center. you can get more information by logging on to brennan center.org. thank you for being with us. we'll take a short break. we'll turn our attention to the issue of cancer and some breakthrough research that could lead to new answers by the f.d.a. dr. james dor show is going to be joining us. they announced this past monday that they are going to begin a nationwide trial based on d.n.a. sequencing. the former chair of the republican national committee and now longtime chair of the commission on presidential debates. some have called for changes to the 2016 election debate.

his perspective later in the program. but first, a reminder that "newsmakers" follows the "washington journal." senator leahy is the rarninging democrat on the the "washington journal." senator leahy is the rarninging democrat on the committee. he talked to one reporter about the debate still ahead over government and private surveillance. >> looking ahead to what surveillance reform. we know there's a major authority that's going to sunset. talk about section 702 the fisa law. is there any hope of mitch mcconnell's senate of doing some reform to that statute ahead of the sunset? or are we headed for another brinks manship cliff moment here or is it too early to

tell? >> it's probably too early to tell but i hope we don't have another brinksmanship. the country is not helped by that. you have less ability to bring parties together. and these articles have just come out in the last couple of days about how 702 is being used to backdoor way of going into americans' information. that's going to help us. there's going to be two or three major debates. 702 being one of them. without sounding took like you have to be in this. and then a major thing. frankly, i would like to start having a way for americans to know not so much -- not just what their governments collect.

but to be able to know what industry is collecting. what happens to the information when you go to a grocery store or a major chain and use your credit card? how is that being done? what happens if they are tracking your phone and you're walking near the xy zrn store and all of a sudden pops up on your phone do you know xyz store is having 12% off for those who hold such and such a credit card. that scares the hell out of me too. host: let me ask you the question straight out. what is a greater threat to americans' privacy? is it the government or private industry? guest: the government. i feel private industry is going to but you can avoid those stores. you can avoid them if you would like. i don't want my government

spying on me. host: senator patrick leahy. he is our guest on this afternoon's "newsmakers" program. you can tune in. also on c-span radio. host: serving as deputy director welcome to the program. thanks for being with us. guest: thank you. host: we are going to divide our phone lines differently. we want to hear from cancer patients and family members. the numbers are on the bottom of your screen. for all others a new study looking at how the fade is looking at approving drugs. what the "washington post" reported this past monday. we're seeing high lights. a going to divide profound shift taking place in the development of cancer drugs. researchers increasingly using

d.n.a. sequencing. you're calling this a paradigm shift. why? guest: i've been a medical oncologist for 35 years. and my focus has been on developing new drugs for patients whose usual treatments have proven ineffective. this is the first time in a large national way that we are going to be trying to focus on specific mutations in tumors and focusing on treatment for those mutations rather than where the tumor started. that's never happened in a national trial. host: why is it happening now? guest: the developments in cancer research over the past 15 years have led us to a much broader understanding of how cancer has spread, how it develops in the first place, and how we might be able to control it. now we have much broader range of place in the drugs that can affect those moleckclar alterations that actually drive the cancer. we hope to be able to use these drugs to treat patients in a much more focused way.

host: you predetermined whether or not based on your dna you are more likely to get cancer? guest: that's a different issue. that is so-called germ line mutation cancer. and some patients, for example, some women who have the brac mutation have a higher ibs dents. but that comes with your genetic background. what we're talking about is how to use the tumor once it arises and its moleckclar profile. host: more background the story is available on line. the f.d.a. has embraced an array of novel trial designs and shown a willingness to approve drugs rapidly saying this is a notable departure in which researchers try a new drug and hope for the best. a whole different approach. guest: when i started 35 years ago that's exactly what we did. we tried them based on the organ in which the zoozeo

originated. starting 15 years ago with the development of a treatment of leukemia the focus had begun to switch to the moleckclar drivers responsible for the disease and developing drugs specifically against those. host: some of the targeted drugs according to the "washington post" showing a response rated of 50% higher in these early trials. that's being called something unheard of compared to drugs in the past. host: let's take a disease like mel ma where up into 5 years ago treatments were very rigorous and not especially effective. just in the past five years there have been several drugs focusing specifically on the biology of melanoma and why it spreads and grows that have been led to dramatic eefcassies. host: when we were preparing for the segment everyone agreed that everyone has been touched by cancer directly or

indirectly yourself or know somebody or have lost a loved one. guest: no question about it. there are over 1.6 million patients expected in 2015 to develop cancer in one way or another. so this is really something that we hope will impact this trial which will be open across the country that we'll be able to provide additional treatments for individuals who really don't have a lot to look forward to. host: out of that 1.6 1.7 million patients. how much does cancer cost us in terms of not only medical dollars but treatment and surgery and care? guest: it's in the billions. maybe the hundreds of billions of dollars. it's hard to know exactly what those figures are but it just touches everyone as you say. and has the most profound impact on families.

host: is cancer on the rise? guest: there are some cancers that are decreasing in incidents and some that are increasing still. but overall the death rates from cancer are decreasing. host: for those who don't understand the research, why is this in your words such a paradigm shift? why the thinking is really 180 degrees different from what it was up until the announcement this past week? guest: for the past 50 years since systemic treatments, intravenous and oral treatments for cancers that have been spread started, the focus has been what do i treat breast cancer with? what do i treat cancer of the lungs? and now we're trying to answer the question, are there common alterations in these zeedses that can be treated with the same drug if the drug is focused on that molecular change.

host: about 40 years ago president nixon declared a war on cancer. how are we doing today? guest: we have learned because of the resource that is have been made available through the n.i.h. and other sources learned an enormous amount about the biology of cancers. so these weren't known 20 years ago. that kind of research -- we were harvesting any research done in the last 15, 20 years to make the drugs against these alterationings and tumors we didn't know existed 20 years ago. host: what excites you the most? guest: that we will learn more and more in a really exponential way about the genes, about the proteins, all facets. buy olings of cancer, that will really put us in a position be able to make a diagnose sess earlier and to focus our treatment on the changes without hopefully having major effects on other normal tissue. host: if you have been touched by cancer either as a patient or someone in your family, we

want to hear from you. 2027488000. caller: [inaudible] she had a blood disease but she contracted. all of -- smoker. she gave it up. fortunately. i firmly believe if you can go to a doctor, get a cancer drug you can survive. if you are a breast cancer you can survive if you get early treatment. unfortunately, there's still aren't enough facilities and medical programs to be expanded

to cover for preventive care so people don't die. host: thanks for the call. kind of a bad connection but i think we got the essence of it talking about preventative care and early diagnosis early treatment. guest: so clearly it is better for everyone if we can find cancers early. either find them in the precancerous stage or in fact very early in there the stage of mall igsy and remove those diseases pashtse always do better with early staged disease. attempts to expand our ability to find early lung cancers, our ability to find early breast cancers and early diseases with blood tests with other kinds of preventative treatment is really a major focus. host: deputy director at the

national cancer institute. you can follow him at dnci on twitter or go on line at cancer.gov. who qualifies for this research? guest: we are looking at -- this is also somewhat unusual because this trial that we're talking about really involves adults with officially any solid tumor, the most common forms of cancer, who no longer have standard treatment available. so this is an attempt to try to bring really the latest therapy based on these -- specific molecular alterations, individuals around the country who need a new buy opsy to confirm mutations but really by going through that have the opportunity to participate in a study that will give them basically the ability to get one of these novel drugs. host: what is cancer? guest: oh, my. it is many things because it is many diseases. but at its base, it is the development of cells that have limitless potential for growth. all of our normal tissue, your

skin, your intest yin your lungs undergo periods of repair when you have a cold when you have an infection, when you have -- like you break your arm. normal tissues repair and then they stop. a cancer is like a wound that never heals. host: covering the funeral services of beau biden. he had a stroke back in 2000, five years later he passed away as a result of brain cancer. how insidious is something like that? guest: amongst the most difficult types of cancers to actually find early are cancers of the brain. whether they occur in children or in adults. and unfortunately, in adults brain tumors affect individuals in their most productive years, from mid 40's through the mid 60's. and the symptoms can be very subtle. unfortunately, there aren't easy simple tests, no blood

tests for that disease. so they require sophisticated imaging tests. those often get done late after symptoms that are advanced. host: breast cancer common among women but also not uncommon in some men. why? guest: it occurs actually about one out of 100 cases of breast cancer occur in men. many think that the same hormonal changes or at least some of them are related to the development of breast cancer in men. that disease when it occurs most productive in the man almost always occurs in the sixth or seventh decade of life. so that there have been significant hormonal changes in those individuals that help to lead to that type of cancer in older men. host: from pennsylvania. daniel. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have -- i'm terminal. i have a lymphoma indolent

foleecklar, with stage 3 before i had my chemo. and i also have bone marrow cancer and prostate cancer. and skin cancer. is there any more? they discovered an unknown protein in england and they say that boosts the immune system to a point where like something like 95% of whatever they're testing it on cures cancer. i'm wondering if -- what you're speaking about would have any effect on someone like me who is 73 and -- i'm feeling fine though i have been experiencing minor night sweats. not like i had after chemo. i had like a total drench job.

and then the next one was minor sort of. but wet up at the top. and i'm sort of getting those again though i haven't had one for the last couple of days. so could you enlighten me on this at all? thank you. guest: one would need to know whether or not your lymphoma, when it is examined by dna sequencing, actually have a target that we could go after. it seems as though you might in fact be eligible for this trial. patients with lymphoma are eligible. but it would require that we examine a piece of your tumor to understand whether or not there is a drug that might be useful for you. host: phillip from los angeles. good morning. move on to kathy. caller: good morning. i was diagnosed with uterine cancer but only after i was

told after three different procedures that they diagnosis was inconclusive. i was wondering if this test were now available it would i have been able to been diagnosed the first time instead of having to go to three different procedures being told don't worry, the diagnosis is inconclusive? guest: what we're talking about here is actually the examination of the tumor. to pick a particular treatment. rather than for early diagnosis. although if i may, i can tell you that over the last few years there have been some remarkable changes in our understanding of the biology of uletrin cancer and that it would be my guess that in the future most cancers particularly uterine cancer might be studied by sequencing. because the types of uterine cancer have been determined are

really somewhat different than the standard digenostic subtype. host: at cancer.gov if you're diagnosed with cancer and want to get more information, your prognosis and treatment available, you can go on to cancer.gov. part of the national cancer institute. maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. my grandfather had cancer. he didn't die from the cancer. from an overdose of the chemotherapy. i just think should have more progressive ways to treat cancers as well as stop it. one of the primary ways i feel that you can prevent people from getting cancer is stop putting it in the food supply. stop putting cancer causing chemicals in the food supply. dmo's cause cancer. they have a litany of cancer causing chemicals in the food

supply. people are increasingly getting cancer. the way they make tomato paste. vegetable oil. microwave popcorn. it's in everyday food supply. then everybody is like why is everybody getting cancer? host: we'll get a response. guest: i think in a more broader way what i would like to respond is that it is quite clear that a substantial fraction of the cancers that occur actually are related one way or another to environmental causes. of course to be co-smoke is the most prominent cause. but there are other environmental exposures that play an important role in our environment and the development of cancer. and the national cancer institute has a very active program trying to detect a new environmental cause and their relationship into the development of cancer. host: according to the national

cancer institute back in 2010 the cost of cancer estimated to be about $125 billion expected to reach $156 billion over the next 5 years. by 2020. this tweet from a viewer. guest: i think the response is that all of those things can cause or be related to the development of a cancer. clearly there are hereditary causes, genetic alterations, predispose to cancer. there are equivocal. radiation exposure can increase the risk for cancer. there are many different causes. host: chemotherapy we all know that is a common treatment for cancer along with radiation. what does that do and how does that affect the body while trying to get rid of the cancer? guest: the related to the chemotherapy

that most of the viewers are familiar with, the drugs that were developed in the 06's 70's, and 80's, for example, produce a broad range of effects on both cancerous and normal cells. what we see for the most part is that they damage the cancer more than the normal cells. but that comes at a cost of toxistties to the gastro intestinal tract, to the bone marrow and other parts of the body. what we've been trying to do cells. but that comes at a cost of for the last ten years is try to focus more clearly on drugs that target specific mutetations that occur in cancers but not in normal cells 6789 i don't mean to say that those targeted agents are without toxistty but they have the different kinds of tox isty and by and large are tolerated much better. host: here's a look at the mortality rate based on rate and gender. among men it's higher among men than women.

highest in the african american community among males. lowest among asian and pacific islander women. what do you attribute that to? guest: for the most part we don't know. but actually, the understanding of the biology of cancer in underrepresented minorities is actually one of the major focuses that the nci is pursuing. we are actively in this particular trial going to try to approve patients to study who are african americans, who are hispanic, who are underrepresented. we want to understand the biology of their disease that predisposes some of those to mall igsy. host: from georgia. caller: good morning.

once your cancer is diagnosed, former treatment, surgery, then radiation, and then chemotherapy. and if you're not a candidate for surgery,, former how would -- which i am not -- i'm not a candidate for surgery. what would be -- with radiation and chemotherapy as successful or would you have to have the surgery? host: what type of cancer are you battling? caller: uterine. host: when were you diagnosed? caller: earlier this year. in january. host: good luck to you. let's get a response. guest: it's important to know exactly what type of cancer because some cancers are actually for example, cancer cells of the blood stream are

treated without radiation or surgery. for uterine cancer, standard approach would be to use surgery and radiation, and then based on the results of those treatments decide whether or not chemotherapy is appropriate. there have been many studies, however, that suggest that radiation alone may be very useful. depending on the stage of your cancer and what your doctor recommends. host: what impact does one's diet have on the chances of getting cancer? guest: there are a fairly substantial and growing amount of medical literature and papers that suggest that high fat diets contribute to the development of certain cancers. they certainly are -- if they are related to obebeesty. obebeesty has been recognized as a very important factor contributing to the development of many different types of cancer. the diet really plays a very important role. host: go back to your calls. jake from north carolina.

good morning. caller: thank you. i had a really quick question. i had two false pozztoifs before i was diagnosed with cbid. i have lymphoma and leukemia on both sides of my family. so i'm just interested on what your thoughts are in terms of looking out for warning sides and possible thing that is i should be keeping on my radar now that i know about my condition. host: before we get a response, what's your reaction to this new type of research that could lead potentially to new drugs by the f.d.a. getting approval, the d.n.a. research? caller: it's really interesting. i seem to hear something new on the cancer front every week. i'm a freelance journalist down here and i'm really interested in this because of family members who have gone through treatment cycles and what that does to their bodies, how they change and the impact emotionally. so i am guarded. because i know that these

interesting. i seem to hear something new on the cancer front every week. i'm a freelance journalist down here and trials are usually very selective in the people that they take in. and if you can illuminate some of that process of how that works that would be helpful. because i don't know what exactly to say well there was the vice report which was very popular but how much progress are we really making on the fight in terms of what cancers we can really say ok we're going to get a cure for this or not? because there seems to be a lot of heat and light right now. host: thank you for your call and good luck to you. guest: i would like to take your call in two different parts. first with respect to the development of lymphoma. you heard from a previous caller that lymphoma digenossically can be difficult. if you have night sweats, if you develop enlarged lymph

nodes. if you develop fatigue you should see your physician and you are being monitored for your other issues so that it's likely to be something that will happen for you and i'm hoping that you don't come down with lymphoma even though there's a family history. with respect to how one gets access, and this particular study where we've opened and will in july start a study at 2400 sites in every state in the union. it will require a biopsy to determine from your tumor whether or not the mutations are there at present for the drugs that we have available. but we now opened and will have agreement for with over 20 pharmaceutical companies for over 40 drugs supplied for this study. so i think the chances are good that for patients that have common types of cancer and even those who have rare types of cancers we will find a mutation

in the screening in about one out of three patients that will allow entry into this trial. host: brain cancer and cancer in general the cover story of a time magazine this past march. a photograph of two women both of these have brain tomb, one is beating the odds called closing the cancer gap. and this morning we saw this ad inside the "new york times" study magazine. one of the leading researchers when it comes to cancer that challenges to identify and attack the genetic cause of each cancer. in some cancers dana far ber has already succeeded. all part of this research. guest: exactly. host: let's go to betty from west virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a couple of -- one question or comment. i was diagnosed with this six years ago and i've been treated with -- i believe i'm currently on 400 mill or comment. i was diagnosed with grams of blevac daily. i have watched the cost of that

go from $8,000 to $13,000 for 30 pills. i would like to know why these drugs are so expensive. and what's the point in developing them if they get so expensive that the average person can't afford it? guest: an outstanding question. one of the issues that we at the national cancer institute have to deal with is if we do research, find treatments that are useful for diseases like a gast rick tumor. a disease when i was researching there was no treatment at all. and after the development of blevic and understanding now patients have long survival. i hate to use the word cure but prolonged survival. so once the research develops,

the understanding that allows those kinds of drugs to be used in practice, it becomes difficult if they are not available to patients because of their price. host: one part of this talks about a decoder that basically within 72 hours can determine what type of cancer you may potentially have. how significant? host: if i may, because this is the same kind of issue that we're dealing with with our so-called match trial. which is an acronym for molecular analysis for they werey choice. really the issue is can we understand the genes driving the cancers and do it in a relatively rapid time frame under a week, under two weeks? we can take that knowledge back and choose our treatment for patients based on those very

host: mike is next from pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. i don't know where to start. people have been giving money to the national cancer institute and charities for decades upon decades now. there doesn't seem to be very much going on with that. host: mike, stay on the line. i want to be clear that the american cancer institute is funded by the government and not a charity. caller: that's fine, well that's our tax money then that goes toward it. that's the same next thing to charity. a lot of people seem to think that they don't want cancer to go away because they make so much money. is there anyway -- is there any reason people should not think that way? host: thank you, mike.

we will get a response. guest: i can't speak for pharmaceutical companies but i can speak to the american cancer institute. at the most recent oncology meeting about 10 days ago in chicago, they are results for new targeted therapies for the treatment of melanoma and many other diseases that really are extraordinary. we have these new immune-based their pace and actually, the main work -- they work because they attack what we are measuring that lead to long-term -- again come i hate to use the word cure, but long-term periods of time of five years, 10 years without tumors. until these antibiotics came around the last couple of years it was really not something we ever saw or ever solve long-term for disease-free survival.

i think there has been major major change in which many diseases and these immunotherapies are likely to be applicable not just to these diseases but other diseases and for some diseases which we have made progress in the last few years. i think in all of those treatments are based on the research funded by it. host: i saw an article that recently said colon cancer is the most preventable type of cancer. is that accurate? guest: i think it is one of them. individuals who get into the age range of 45 or 50 years will get screening with a colonoscopy or other types of screening with blood in the stool, really, we can find early, early lesions and if they are removed it can prevent: cancer from developing. host: good morning. let's go from frigid -- let's go from virginia.

what is your story? caller: i am a kidney cancer survivor and i survive next to be on protocol. i had marvelous surgeons, peter pinto and the work being done there is amazing. i just wondered if dr. james doroshow would tackle -- we talk about that cancer database at the nci. guest: i would be happy to. the program is something that was started several decades ago and it is the database used by not just the national cancer institute but investigators worldwide to catalog, understand and the many kinds of cancer and we collect a wide range of disease information. it is what allows us to understand the trends that are occurring in one type of cancer or another. host: next is brent from

maryland near annapolis. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is -- i understand that a doctor in houston texas has been taking a genetic approach to curing cancer and this here is not defined by five years extended life. his cure is defined by no longer having cancer. what i understand, he is the only dr. that has appeared a blunt -- a brainstem in a child. here it and the child has gone on to lead a productive, normal life having his own children and it is -- and is in his 30's. also, he has been brought up for several grand jury hearings about the state of texas trying to shut him down. one of your doctors from the nci actually was a witness for his defense stating that his procedures were quite efficient and they worked. host: are you familiar with this?

guest: i am to some degree. there are many many investigators who are attempting alternative types of treatment. some of them have undergone's great scrutiny and some have not. i think we have to focus on the types of treatment that have undergone clinical trials. host: the headline from last week's "washington post" -- a paradigm change into the development of cancer drugs. we are talking to james doroshow from the national cancer institute. one quote is that it highlights the profound shift that is now taking place in the development of cancer drugs. researchers increasingly using dna sequencing, allowing them to develop drugs they hope will prove to be more effective and get the most promising drugs to market more quickly. let's go to pat from michigan. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i love c-span. my sister is facing her fourth reoccurrence of cancer and when

you talk about early detection she has had the problem of not being able to get a colonoscopy when she needed one. are you there? host: we sure are. why would she not able to get one, pat? caller: she was not old enough for medic are and had no insurance and very poor and lived in a southern state. now she has had -- she has gone through three surgeries. the last one remove direct him -- her -- removed her rectum and the cancer is back in her long. my problem is i feel is the fact that so many oncologists just play the routine, became apparent -- the chemotherapy routinely put people on. obviously, the routine she had been on did not -- did not get rid of the cancer. they came back every time.

and yet i am sure that is the protocol that they will use again. our only fear with clinical trials is the fact that you might be in the group of people that gets the placebo and therefore, nothing would be done for you. host: james doroshow? guest: i understand very clearly your concerns. one thing i would like to mention about the trial we are about to do is that there are no placebo. either a patient has one of the mutations that we are testing for and you will get a specific drug that we think may be useful taste on that mutation. there are no placebos. host: based on all of this research, where do you think we will be in terms of cancer five years from now and 25 years from now? guest: i think five years from nowguest:, maybe it will be 10 but i think in that time spent it is very likely that everyone who gets a diagnosis at surgery

or through a biopsy, they will have extensive molecular characterizations. if not just dna sequencing but additional kinds of information to derive and help physicians make the best choices for their patients. one by one. if we are talking 25 years from now, i have to hope that given the rapid pace of progress that has occurred that we will actually have a blood test that will be able to do those analyses without a biopsy, without surgery. we will be able to look at your dna that is circulating and understand what kind of cancer that you might have from a molecular characteristic. and then treat you. host: what is your background and what did you first begin researching? guest: i was trained at harvard medical school, where i received my medical degree. then i did internal medical training and massachusetts general hospital and spent the .5 years at the national cancer institute where i started by a

investigative career in california. host: do you know historically when the first cancer was diagnosed? guest: centuries ago. many, many centuries ago. there are pictures of cancers in very old materials that suggest that even though positions of that time did not know what it was, they knew that it was a growth and there have been cancers that have been diagnosed in egyptian mummies. host: let's go for -- let's go to rockford, michigan. calling is next with james doroshow of the national cancer institute. caller: good morning. i am calling for my husband. is there any connection between uc -- using testosterone spray quite a bit and then later developing prostate cancer? and then later having a heart attack? is there any connection with that testosterone spray that too much was used for too long a time? guest: as you probably know,

cancer of the prostate is a disease that is in fact altered by testosterone levels and receptors for the testosterone protein. whether or not testosterone sprays do or do not or how they might affect the development of prostate cancers is actually an area that is very active investigation. i think we will know in a relative amount of time, a few years, what the relationship is between use of testosterone sprays and the development of prostate cancer. host: you can follow us on twitter at c-span wj and we are focusing on cancer in america and the fact that we should with you at the beginning of the program, an estimated 1.7 million new cases of cancer expected to be diagnosed this year. that is according to the national cancer institute. jamie is joining us in the from mississippi. good morning. welcome to the program. caller: hi. hi. host: good morning, jamie.

caller: good morning. host: you are on there. these go ahead. caller: my question is, i happen to be one of the patients that they had to go down to the molecular -- x is me, down to the -- excuse me down to the dna level to find the type of cancer i had. i had been chronically ill and they could not figure out what was wrong with me. i knew i had rheumatoid and autoimmune in family and many of my relatives have passed away and have had forms of cancer, patriotic cancer -- pancreatic cancer, my father had ladder cancer and so on -- bladder cancer and so on. but i wanted to know is -- is there any reason that this study

is only being -- one of the questions is -- is there a reason this study is only being done on tumors? host: thank you, jamie. versus what? caller: versus like what i have -- lymphocytic leukemia? host: we will get a response. thank you. guest: i hope after we initiate the trial in july is actually we were fortunate enough to see an additional appropriation through president obama's medicine to expand the trial for patients of the variety of different types of blood cancer. we hope very much to be able to offer this molecular characterization and the new study drug to patients with malignancies at the bloodstream hopefully in the near future. host: kimberly. washington, pennsylvania. thank you for waiting period

caller: i was diagnosed with breast cancer back in 2008 and they recommended that i do the radiation which i did after the surgery. but they wanted me to do the chemotherapy and hormone treatments and i had refused that. i had a consultation with the doctor and all of that. he basically agreed with me -- why would i feed my breast cancer synthetic estrogen? i have done ok. i was wondering why -- what the deal is with the can avoid and marijuana. i'm told it helps lose the immune system and we have cannabinoids in our bodies anyhow. i was wondering if that would be an effective tool to use as well because the whole time i was going through my treatment, i smoked a joint every day. my doctor knew about it but i was able to relax, i was able to eat. i was able to sleep. you know -- it was like a

cakewalk. i was just wondering what the studies are on that. host: kimberly. thank you. a lot of tweets on that topic as well. guest: let me just say that i am delighted to hear that you are doing well and that actually the use of not smoking marijuana but if actually the active principle of marijuana for the control of nausea and fatigue has actually been something that i have used with my patients in the past because it does help alleviate many of the symptoms of chemotherapy and it is something that is in routine clinical practice for chemotherapy related symptoms and prevention thereof. host: what questions are you asking in terms of this research? guest: we're trying to understand fundamentally whether or not one can't find a specific mutation in tumors that irrespective of where the tumors started, can be targets for

their specific types of therapy. host: and can this research be used on any other medical issues that individual may be facing or primarily on cancer? guest: it really is focused on the molecular drivers of various types of cancers. host: dr. james doroshow of the national cancer institute. thank you for stopping by. we appreciate it and to offer taking calls and comments. guest: thank you very much. host: you can get more information by logging onto cancer.gov. information on the research and you dna type testing is available online at www.c-span.org. the cochair of the commission on put presidential debates. beau biden will be here to talk --will be here to talk about frank fahrenkopf will be here --frank fahrenkopf will be here to talk about the presidential debates. you are watching "washington journal." we will be back in a moment. ♪

>> today on c-span's "road to the white house," the conversation with former virginia senator and likely democratic presidential candidate jim webb who discusses growing up in a military family and his service as a marine in vietnam. american foreign-policy, congress, and what he likes about campaigning. >> i enjoy getting out in the town hall meetings and talking to people and listening to what their thoughts are and being able to clarify wjoy his campaign finance. to be very blunt about that. i actually said when i announce the exfiltrate committee that one thing -- when i announced to

the exploratory committee, one thing i said is i will never go anything to anyone if i am elected. but it is a very tough proposition to be able to raise enough funds in order to conduct a viable campaign and that really is where the decision point is. >> jim webb today at 6:35 p.m. eastern on "road to the white house 2016" on c-span. >> [indiscernible] they are different. it is made from the bark off the tree that we take from the top down. and that is made from the bark that we take from the root up. [laughter] and the only difference is that i have found between the democratic leadership and the republican leadership was that

one of them was skinny from the ankle up and the other from the ear down. [laughter] >> he was one of the great populace and that flip was a great example of appealing to the masses with a good yarn but ultimately, i think like a lot of characters, he became concerned with his own power and was consumed by that. >> he was a maverick. he gave just as much grief to his own party leadership as he did to the opposition party. the senate has always needed some mavericks because they keep institution bubbling, but if they were all mavericks that they would get done. so we were fortunate to some degree that she we had been in the distinct minority of the institution. >> senate historian and former house historian on the history of the house and senate. its leaders, characters, and

scandals tonight at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome back frank fahrenkopf, bill commissioner for presidential debates. you have been getting a lot of attention lately. guest: interesting attention let's put it that way. host: we want to talk about criteria for third-party candidates but let's talk about the commission first. why it was formed in 1987 and what your mission is. guest: you know, most people do not remember when there were not debates. we go back to 1960 where you had kennedy against nixon and then we went 16 years -- host: and is responsive other network. guest: they were sponsored by the network, but there was no way very goldwater would be getting up with lyndon johnson. then it makes him in the next two campaigns, he took such bad memories of the 1960 debates of kennedy that he said no, i am

not going to debate. it wasn't really until he got to 1976 after the pardoning governor nixon that ford was trailing in the polls emily had to go forward with the debate. in 1980, the 50% rule which we will talk about in more detail in a moment was placed by the women fleeing voters and most people, again, don't remember but there was an independent third party candidate name john anderson, and he was at 60% over the 50% limit. -- 16% over the 15% and he was invited by the league. president carter said no, i will not debate if john anderson was at that debate. it was in baltimore and it was just the two candidates and the president did not come. by the time the next scheduled debate was scheduled, anderson had fallen below the 15% criteria standard and therefore, there was only the one debate that year between president carter and governor reagan. host: in cleveland ohio.

-- in cleveland, ohio. guest: that is right. both president reagan and -- enjoyed the debates. but what occurred in 1984, and you may think back to this, the candidates were allowed to be till -- to veto moderators. about 90 people, as i recall, were vetoed by one side or the other. after the 1984 election, there were two study groups put together. one here in washington at georgetown and one at the kennedy school in hartford. they came to one conclusion independently and that was that there should be created an entity that exists for one purpose, purpose only. that is to conduct general election debates every four years. i was chairman of the republican party at that time and in 1987 we created the commission and we fund every debate since then

starting in 1988. have been 19 presidential debates and seven price presidential debates. i'm talking about general election as opposed to primary. host: according to the commissioner of presidential debates, you receive no dollars no money from political organizations, candidates, or political action committees. it is a privately funded 501(c)(3). it is not controlled by or does not have any relationship with any political party. the criteria to because of fate -- you have to be 35 years of age which is the criteria to be a u.s. president. natural born citizen and here is the sticking point -- have at least 15% support in national polls. some are saying that is unfair. guest: you also have to be on the ballot of the state to considerably get 270 electoral votes. as you know, if you do not reach the 15% of criteria that we will talk about then you can still go ahead and get on ballots. one of the proposals we now have facing us -- i should say this,

steve, it was only in 2008 where there were not cases -- where we either were super people not invited to participate in debates or hearings before the electoral omission. every other cycle, they have faced challenges. there are two challenges now before the federal election commission where their decision has to whether or not the 15% rule is fair or should be changed. and then, you may remember the libertarian candidate for president former governor of new mexico -- host: johnson. guest: he filed a litigation last time and was dismissed. he has not yet refile but we think you may refile. if king of the 15% role -- the 50% rule we put in place in 2000. the logical -- the 15% role we put in place in 2000 and the law requires as to see who put dissipates with an objective standard. we adopted, it back to look at with the league had done and we thought they had done a very

good job establishing that 15% role. it has been in place since 2000. like a challenge -- it has been challenged many time in the courts and in all of those cases, the rule has been found to be within the mandate of our doctrine, within the mandate of what we are trying to do and within the law. we always look at that role as we look at the whole question of format. we had some major changes in debates, particularly since the last 20 years. you may remember it used to be with a moderator and a panel of reporters. we are down to one moderator where you can have more follow-up. you have debates were people are seated at the table. he had done a lot of research. the nature and discourse really changes when people are at a table discussing them behind podiums. we do have debates sitting at tables. the town hall meeting kim about after -- and 9 -- the town hall meeting came about in 1992 and i thought a significant change was made three years ago when we took the 90 minute debate and

rather than one candidate getting into minutes to answer question and the other one minute, we divided the 90 minutes into 615 minute sections -- six 50 minute sections and the moderator the ability to cross examine, if you will, or drill down on issues. also, looking at those right now, we have a special committee that we have between every election cycle that are looking at, should we change any formats? she we change the 15% role? that is ongoing right now. our subcommittee is the head of the women leave voters and that committee is taking suggestions online. we will look at them, the special committee will, and once we have a chance, we will make recommendations and they will make the decisions. host: when you pick up "the wall street journal" and see this ad two men and their friends is what it looks like stonewalled and secretive guaranty dominance

of the republican parties in presidential elections and saying it is time to change the rule now. your reaction? think -- what do you think of the picture? guest: all that is missing is numbers across the front of our shirts or jackets. [laughter] people have a different approach to how they want to make change and this is an interesting one. a very expensive one i suggest but again, we have met with those people. i have met with the leader of the chain -- the change group and so is mike mccurry. they have ported it to every member of the commission, a detailed analysis of the suggestions as to what they think the change ought to be and they will be considered. we told them, along with others that we have other suggestions for changes. last week there was an order -- another organization who filed a rulemaking petition with the federal election commission actually attacking the proposal by level of playing which has to

do with whoever gets the most signatures to get on a ballot is automatically in the debate. we will consider those two and consider them very seriously and a determination will be made. host: fellow republican, had this to say last month on c-span's "washington journal." >> the point that we handle to an and many others are making is not that we are no longer republicans. i am a republican and will support the republican nominee. but we are seeing record levels of discontent with the two parties. over 40% of the public use themselves as independent and that is the largest number in the history of the gallup poll. we can't march our democracy on without giving those people who are dissatisfied with the two parties some sense that they can be represented. the presidential debates have become institutionalized over the last 30 years and that is a good thing. what it has done and the way it is being conducted is to freeze out the possibility of an independent candidate.

in other words the candidate who wants to achieve status as an independent or third party candidate today has a hurdle to overcome by the virtue of the fact that he will not be in the provincial debates. the presidential debates are an essential part of the presidential campaign, just like republican or democratic nominee convention. it well in advance we already that the third-party candidate cannot be part of those guest: debates, they will not be treated as a serious candidate by journalists, country leaders activists activist, or by average voters. so we are asking that the system be opened up now, not because i am dissatisfied with my own party but because i think the health of our political system depends on it. host: former republican congressman and he is behind the website change the rule.org. your reaction? guest: i don't really disagree that much with the basic premise that then laid out on the show and that is that the american people are raising serious questions about the two

political parties. whether washington works, etc. but to make the jump that the rules should be changed and guarantee that someone who gets the most signatures should be in -- i mean, i'm not sure i make that jump. we have not made a conclusion on that yet. we told the people at his organization that we would consider it very seriously as we will with others. they are not alone. we normally every four years get two, 3, 4 proposals for modification and we take them very seriously. we take very seriously our charge and that is to make sure that those candidates will have a realistic chance to be elected president are put before the american people so that they can watch them under different formats, answering different questions -- difficult questions from top, educated moderators will go after them so that there will be in education function. that is our role. in education function. all of us who served are not paid. we volunteer our time. we pay our own expenses.

we have two full-time employees and that is all we have ever had. we take our responsibility very seriously. i think then has pointed out the problem -- the american people are disenchanted with politics in washington. we take that very seriously. we will look at it, look at various suggestions that come before us and do the best to make the right choice. host: where's the commission in terms of identifying locations for the debate and how many will the be in 2016? guest: we have noted to 16 schools that have put in applications. we have our teams or technical people of lighting, sound, so for to go out and review these 16 physicians along with -- positions along with the secret service who is very much involved for having a campus they can close down and provide security. what we normally do is try to give the candidates, whoever they may be, at least one year advanced notice.

not only on when the debates will be, where they will be, but also what the criteria is going to be, so they have one year to know whether not it is going to be 15% or some other number after we make that determination. so they know what the target is and what they have to do to be included in the debates. we use the gallup organization and about one week before each of the debates in the fall, we sit down with gallup, come up with the five leading polls and the president of gallup who works with us and we average them. if you are at 15 you are in. if you're not 15, you are not invited. host: our phone lines are open and we are dividing them between democrats, republicans, and independent. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. would george stephanopoulos be considered as a moderator?

guest: i think he would. everyone is open. the hardest thing we have to do, i must tell you -- host: you know why i ask? guest: finally you ask. a currently, george has taken him out of the -- i'm not sure what the situation is because i'm not involved in primary debates but we look at everyone. the field this big we look for a number of things. we are talking about four people. the presidential and one vice presidential which is where i think we are going again. there are four people. he went to have diverse and we always up for diversity. we also have limited the people -- like you, who are used to working with a bug in their ear and people are talking to you off stage. that is why we have not had the -- had had any print media but we are considering to make a change. that would be one of the things we have on our agenda. we also have a question as to when we do the debates. historically, we have done them in october but i think you know that in 2012, and election date,

40% of the people have already voted. does that mean we have to move the debates earlier in the cycle? excuse me -- the parties have moved their conventions earlier so that is a number of factors that we take into consideration before we come up with that announcement this fall as to where, when, and what the criteria is. host: just to be clear about george stephanopoulos and he gave money to the clinton foundation -- does that could -- does that disqualify him? guest: you know, we take it very seriously and we look very closely at the body of work of people who we invite. we want people who are not going to be activists or either -- for either candidates or if there are three like there were in 1992 when ross was included in the debates that we produce will we want someone who is down the middle? we also want someone who has an ego that is not going to the

moderators ego and inject themselves into the debate but someone who is in a way to traffic cop and moves between the candidates fairly and is not try to bias it one way or the other. we look very, very hard but george probably should have revealed but that is for him and others at abc to be concerned about. i would not say to you that he is automatically out. we will make that decision down the road. host: don is joining us from redding, california. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call on the subject of ross, i can't think the party he was affiliated with. you are talking about changing the rules and wasn't the rules changed for independents in the debates after ross perot? host: he did run as an independent. guest: yes, no, what happened back in the late 1980's and

during the 1990's, we had a different group of criteria factors to take into consideration. the advisory committee led by professors at harvard with some academics and other parts of the country and we looked at many different things. the organization that they put together, how much money they had raised, how much space they were getting in newspapers. there was a whole number of factors and ross arrow meant those criteria and the recommendation of the advisory committee to us in 1992 and was invited to dissipate. he did not meet that criteria in 1996. we then took a hard look, we always do, we took at the criteria again and said, we want to be as objective. the law requires us to have an objective standard and therefore, we thought it was a little too much subjectivity in what we were doing previously and we thought that the 15% role in the five leading polls an average was more objective and that is what we made the change since 2000. that has been the role. host: the essay that sparked a

lot of this from ben weber is available online at politico.com this is what it looks like -- wrongful reforms for the presidential debate commission. we will go to brandy in pennsylvania. good morning. caller: two questions. do you believe one person and one vote is for the election question mark host: one person one vote. guest: yes, that's a lot. i believe it. caller: then how can the electoral polls be justified? caller: guest: i am asked that question a lot. i'm from nevada, a small western state and you find some of the smaller states always object to any attempt to change the electoral college. if you go back and read the wonderful book by the name of "the summer of 1787" and it has met the drafting of the constitution and it talks about the agreements that had to be

made to get the constitution approved and really the creation of our country. one of the compromises that was made -- the person had to do with the house and senate. every state would get two senators regardless of the population and regardless of how big the state was and that the house was going to be determined on the basis of population. that is why we have the senses every 10 years. -- that is all we have the census every 10 years. another is we wanted to put in place the electoral college for each state with the same number of votes as they have house of representatives. the feeling was, back then, -- if you go back to those days, that the power centers work boston massachusetts, new york city, and pennsylvania. the rest of the u.s. was agrarian and those other colonies did not trust new york and philadelphia and boston to the best interest of agrarian issues, farming issues and so forth.

the compromise that was reached in order to create our constitution was to create the electoral college. every four years i know there are people who are deeply concerned about it but it has been there a long time and it would take a constitutional amendment to revoke it. being from a small state like nevada we sort of like it because we think otherwise, the candidates would not pay attention to smaller states. host: this is clearly not your issue but the other complaint is how mr. did it is for third-party candidates to get on the ballot. it is a 50 state process. guest: it is. every state is different. host: as the complexity. guest: it adds to complicity but there are a lot of parties on ballots. the battalions greens, if you are starting from scratch sort of it is very difficult because you got to go state-by-state. some states require 100,000 signatures and some others 50. it is an extensive proposition. you have to hire people to go out and in effect gather those signatures and then you have the

whole question of validation of whether or not they are good. it is a difficult thing, but that is by state law. host: the complaint is that the parties have been rigged and the democrats and republicans want to make it restrictive to have competition. guest: i don't think that is the case with the commission. we want to be open. the whole question of gerrymandering and what happened with former governor gary of massachusetts creating that salamander type district outside of boston -- i mean, that goes on. that is state legislatures that do that. i think and the commission does that if a candidate independent or with another party, has a realistic chance to get reelected president -- to get elected president they ought to be on that stage. we don't care what the big -- what the democratic or republican, or any party thinks. that is our standard. host: rick is next on the republican line. caller: good morning, gentlemen.

thank you for your information. i have got the pharmacy school and law school and i would like my mom -- my mom is vice president league of women voters in baltimore. i would like to know why the democratic party and the republican party seem to have gotten together to form this commission when it was being run -- the debates very well for so many years by the league of women voters, a truly independent entity? host: we will get a response. guest: i thought i mentioned it, they were following the 19 -- following the 1984 debates which the league ran and there were great controversies. there were two independent study groups. one at georgetown of international studies and went up at harvard at the kennedy school. both of those groups were made up of politicians, journalists people from academic, basic

citizens who had no connection with either political party, but they both came to the conclusion that there needed to be a change. it was that combination of suggestions that led us to create the mission. host: any idea for expanding the debate from 90 minutes to two hours? guest: that is something we always consider, steve. how long should it be? i mean, one of the problems, for example, with primary debates is a you have gotten people on the stage and 90 minutes. i mean -- if you are one of those candidates, you are looking get five minutes to say anything. you are always having to deal with that and it may be what we look at whether or not to go to ours. we have considered it in the past and kept it at 90 minutes. we are not locked into it. host: let's go to vernon in danville, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. how are you today? guest: good, thank you. caller: well, my comment is,

number 1 -- i think that there should be independent and at least two hours of competition talk. we are a competing country. i believe independent is my choice at this time. i have voted before and i don't need to tell you who i voted for, but i plan to vote and i also want to tell you that this is a great country and i stand beside the decisions of this country more so than the state more so -- we have competed with wars, we have competed with football, we have competed and even over two hours is my idea. i don't think it should be in a timeframe, sir. guest: thank you. like i said, we have considered the question of two hours over 1.5 hours. you know, when you talk what independent candidates.

what most people don't understand is that every four years, about 200 people filed with the federal election commission and run for president . 200. clearly, we cannot have 200 people because it would not be a debate. our question and what we wrestle with is how can we fairly when -- window that 200 down so that number one, we make sure those candidates who have a realistic chance to be president will be on the stage at the same time, be fair of those independents if they reach the point when the american people think they have a realistic chance to be elected. it is difficult and we take a hard look at the two-hour suggestion. thank you. host: from pennsylvania, joy. good morning on the democrat line. caller: i will try to make this short. are you ready for me question mark guest: i am ready -- are you ready for me? guest: i am ready for you. caller: i agree with the democrat caller that we need to expand it to a third party because if 40% of us are

dissatisfied even though i would probably vote for a democrat, i think that is huge. the third person is actually shut out. i don't see how anybody could see it any other way. guest: again, that is what we wrestle. who was the third party be go to? out of the 200 you maybe filing. -- out of the 200 who may be filing. one of the groups -- the group that sponsored the ad, you ought to take the president gathers the most signatures on getting on the ballot to qualify 270 electoral votes and that person gets the most signatures and you automatically should be in the debate. the problem with that is -- was raised by another independent group that filed a complaint with the federal commission last week. wait a minute -- if you have the libertarians, green, and other parties on the ballot, they don't have to go out and gather signatures. you are forcing them, even though they are on the ballot to go out and rather signatures.

no one argues with the point that an independent or third party candidate -- if that person, he or she, has a realistic chance of getting in on the debate, they ought to be on the debate. i agree with you 100%. the question is -- how do we find out who that person is and do it in a fair way? host: your friend along with cochair mike mccurry, richard parsons, executive director of the commission, janet brown, leon panetta, mitch daniels olympia snowe, alan simpson -- who are these individuals? guest: these are members of the commission. we put on six new people in the last few years. they cover a broad sector of the united states. where they lived from a geographic standpoint. there are people from academia. we have the former president of princeton, father john,

president of the university of notre dame. we have former journalist who are on. it is a broad -- former senators and you named a couple of them. i think we have tried to create a broad spectrum of people throughout the united states who make these judgments. they are all volunteers. no one has paid. i think they take their responsibilities pretty seriously. host: you can get more information fight locking onto debates.org. our guest is cochair of the commission. paul joins us from maine. good morning. caller: good morning. two points -- i enjoy sports a lot but it seems to me that we are willing to sit in front of the tv and watch three hours of a baseball game or race or football game and this is the most important decision that an american needs to make. to be arguing over the 1.5 hours versus two, i think it would be wise to move it to two hours or

even longer if necessary. if that is what it takes to hear the information that is coming from the candidate. as far as the candidates are concerned, i don't see a problem -- i understand you do have to make a number to cut it down to -- but split it up into two if you have to. they don't all have to be on the stage at the same time. i'm not looking at them to argue back and forth, i'm looking at them to answer the questions that are asked of the moderator and to make a compelling argument why i should listen to them and vote for them. guest: i think the caller has really touched on what we are not talking about in the primary debates. as i understand it now, the republican debate which fox news is going to do, it is going to be the top 10 taking five of the leading polls averaging in the top 10 in the debate. i understand that cnn which is the second of may, is also going

to use the polling data from the five leading -- pixies me -- five leading polling firms to choose of the top 10 but those who do not make the top 10 will debate in the second debate. the difficulty is how you do this and how you work it out in a fair way. i would probably approach it a little differently where the chairman of either party and i like to use the analogy of the olympic games where in the 100 yard --, there may be 18 competitors from all over the world but what they do is a run sheets. usually, -- they run heats. usually, you need heats and move onto the next debate. to work something like that were everybody gets a fair shot because i think the problem with the polling data that they are looking at may depend on when someone gets a name and they announce and start to convert. it is a very difficult problem to deal with. host: obviously, you will have

some candidates, including george pataki, one example, three-time governor of new york will not be denied admission in the first debate. guest: if he does not change, as i understand the rules, i have nothing to do with them. but if when they apply the pole test, if he is below that and not in the top 10, he will not be in it. host: henry has this suggestion -- how about having a multitude of debates? you can show your thoughts at c-span wj. fort worth, texas. caller: expanded debates is the right idea. our current system is so corrupted by money and my suggestion is we eliminate all commercial advertising and limit advertising to t-shirts or articles of clothing, bumper stickers and that we have a series of 25 debates, one half or a collection of states and other cap ports cities and you allow the public to have part of the questions and you bring all the candidates who pole above

and qualified. including if they are democrat, republican independent and let the public get in there. the public owns berwick, so broadcast these on public airwaves and repeat them and tell the public populist over the course of the year so they have the time to here with the candidates have to say. we can all admit that advertising commercial business give us a picture of what the candidate has to say. let the public asked the questions. 25 debates and one year of a campaign period. thank you very much. host: the question is where the candidates agree to something like that? guest: that is difficult. we have to approach debates in the once the commission produces as they early-onset, our task is education of voters. that is number one. i think the fact that we get somewhere between 60 and 90 million americans who tune in to

those debates and we know from outside polling that we have done that about 60 percent to succeed 5% of the american public say the debates are important but not the only criteria they look at but an important factor in considering the candidates and who they are finally going to cast a ballot for. we feel that we are performing that educational function. again, whether or not the candidates would do 25, who knows? but if that we are concerned about -- i don't think there would be a concern if there were three people in the debate with others not participating. if you start getting to five or six as you go through the primaries, i think you really destroy the opportunity for the moderator and the candidates to really get a coherent message out to those watching on television. host: this editorial from open usa today" on the commission and presidential debates -- a third person in the general election

debates would make it harder for the major party candidates to stick to their talking points and platitudes. the proposed change in the cpd rules would also make it easier for third-party candidates to raise money and to be taken seriously earlier in the process. guest: well, i disagree with the usa editorial board with regards to that statement. i think the fact that we have changed the format to have those six divisions of 15 minutes with an experience moderator who is able to ask questions and drill down, you get away from the positives. any candidate that stands there using something they did out on what platitudes will not get far. they will be drilled down on them and they will have to come forward and other candidate can ask them questions. we are not limited to the candidates who up to spain in our debates answering only the questions of the moderators. they are free to ask each other questions and you may remember president obama and governor romney did in fact get involved

in an interchange. i disagree with that. i think a change -- that may have been true. to be fair to "usa today." in the old days when you had two minute to respond to a question and your opponent had women to respond, i don't think you could -- and your opponent had one minute to respond, i don't think you could understand and develop understanding of those issues. host: we will come back in a moment. one defining moment in all the debates. first, let's go to aubrey from anchorage, alaska. up very early on this sunday morning. good morning to you. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i am not used to calling into television programs. host: what time is it there for you? caller: it's almost 6:00 in the morning. host: relax. no one is listening. caller: i love c-span. my question requires me to use an analogy. i hope that is ok. jackson, the former head of the ncaa -- for some it is it -- on

site no waiting can help that film, if the film is good, no waiting can help that film. -- no rating can hurt that film. i feel like major candidates are like major studios and independence are like independent film studios. if the criteria for an independent candidate to be in the provincial debate is that people are aware of him, people need to know to vote for them in order for them to have the viability to be in the presidential debates. if they are not in the presence of debates, people may not be aware of that candidate in order to know to vote for them. host: thank you. guest: that's a very good question. i think one of the things has really changed it in favor of that independent candidate or third-party candidate is best -- social media today facebook, etc. if you are going to run for

president, you can communicate with millions of people without much cost. using social media. i think it is a little bit easier than it might have been back in john anderson's days or in ross perot's days to get that attention although ross perilous affair -- a feeling well known person with a profile. if you are some of the with no profile and no one has ever heard of you, i think it will be very, very hard to do that even with social media. if you are someone who has been in the business world, someone who has any kind of political profile, i think social media helps you and i think it is easier to get to 50% although it may not be 15% only make our final determination for 2016. host: from hillsboro, illinois, mark, good morning. caller: yes, i was listening to the debate and understanding that they have to decipher presidential debates the number of legitimate candidates and the 15% role. in regards to asked if we were allowed to have questions submitted from the pacific --

from the specific parties or candidates that reach a lower mark or perhaps candidates who have fewer than 50 states or a certain number the committee would determine to make questions, which would broaden the debate and the discussion the on the two ideas that are presented with the parties and allowed to frame it to present a broader idea or at least to have ideas presented would be much more educational and i'm not sure exactly how you would draw the rubric to decide without legitimacy level lies, but certainly, it would force candidates to recognize that there is is a broader spectrum. i would think that each of the different parties, whether you are talking green or libertarian, would have a large enough support to at least submit a question to the debate and could be framed as -- this question is from the libertarian party, these are the suggestions -- and they would be able to find a well-crafted question that would rot in the discussion and allow it to work rather than focus so much on the individual

because i think the presentation of ideas is the most critical part in educating and being able to make informed decisions. i think it would steer the public and thinking of these terms which are not so polar and health politics. host: thank you, mark. guest: i want to make one thing clear. the commission has no control over the questions asked by the moderator. we don't in any way intrude on their journalistic integrity. there are the ones who make the determination as to what questions. but i know that most of the moderators usually once they have been named have a website and they solicit questions to come into that website which they might answer -- excuse me, they might ask of the candidate. i think will me get around to naming the moderators, i am sure that will occur again. average citizens can send in a question or organizations political parties and so forth and hopefully those questions will get asked. the commission does not get involved in what questions are

asked. host: you have been part of the commission since 1987. the defining moment, one of those debates? guest: i don't think there is any question that occurred from the campus of ucla in 1992 when bernie shaw asked michael dukakis -- host: 1988. guest: excuse me 1988, yeah. if you would still be for or against the death penalty if his wife was raped. and michael dukakis, who is a great guy and very respectful, he caused and said, well bernard, i would rather say yeah, i would go out and do it myself. i think that was a real turning point in that election. host: frank fahrenkopf the cochair commission on

presidential debates. the website is debates.org. we appreciate it. guest: send us suggestions if you have them. we will look at them very seriously. host: by the way, we will continue the conversation tomorrow on c-span's "washington journal." the co-author of an offensive story looking into the clinton foundation. he will be with us to share his reporting on how the clintons built a $2 billion global empire. peter loftus of the wall street journal will be with us to talk about the shortage of drugs in the u.s., medicinal drugs. later, the former transportation administration security of tsa to talk about your money, tsa, and where it is spent is now at wexler and walker. tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern and four clock for those on the west coast. thank you for being with us on this sunday. "newsmakers" is next. enjoy the rest of your weekend and have a great week ahead. ♪

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> next, "newsmakers" and we will show you the announcements for presidential nominations. host: we want to welcome back senator patrick leahy democrat of vermont. the longest-serving senator in the senate right now. sir, thank you. we also have an studio with us mike debonis: and dustin volz:.