-- roy: how good is the science or, lynn? a paper came out of johns hopkins, suggesting or indicating that sometimes when we do these profiles and a tumor in a particular patient that we are not actually getting good data because if you do not benchmark that to the baseline genetic profile of that patient, maybe you are not getting accurate information about how that tumor is distinctive. there is a lot of commentary out there that, ok, yes, it sounds great in theory to do this genomic work and biomarker work, but at the very basic analytical level, are we at the right level? are we mature enough with those analytical tools that we can actually say, ok, we are actually measuring accurately the genetic profile of the patient and being able to make the decisions on that basis? lynn: it comes down to don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. it comes down to the research component of it and the practical patient treatment component of it.

right now, yes, it is not what hundred percent certain that it will respond to a receptor like pancreatic cancer. i have no evidence of that, but i have seen it work in other cancers. this patient has very little options. i see no reason to say, well, i really have got to check their genomic dna and they should that this is right. you know, it is the perfect standing in the way of the good and moving forward. in a research setting, yes, we should be doing that. in a research setting, you should be sequencing both the tumor as well as the normal dna, looking at the difference, understanding what is specific for that tumor versus what is normal background for that person. that is all absolutely true in the research setting, but -- and that will eventually inform the

initial -- the patient treatment setting. give us a little bit of time to move things from the research lab into the clinic, but for right now, the thing that would scare me about that kind of the statement is that people would throw up their hands and say, well, we should not be doing any of this because it is not good enough. it is a whole lot better than shutting your eyes and treating the patient exactly like you treat every other pancreatic cancer patient, and you know you are only giving them a couple months to live. it is a whole lot better than that. avil: once you have clear -- paul:, the industry once you have clear standards of that, the industry has a biomarker with their product because they see, i know how the process works, we know what to expect. if there is clear evidentiary standards for the qualification of biomarkers and the industry will suddenly say, we can reduce

the cost of development, the time it takes to bring new products to market, and they can invest in bringing academic research and other tours up to the level needed to meet that, so i think that is another half. when there is a clear pathway as there is for approval of cancer and hiv and some other drugs that have basically 90% of the --rovals which use surrogate are three classes of drugs for cancer, hiv, and anthrax. we need to move beyond that empire part of that is setting up a path that drives investment rather than raising the levels of going away. avil: we are going to go to questions. there is a microphone circulating around. debbie's got it in the back there. when you get the microphone, give your name and your creation -- name and your affiliation, because this is going to be on c-span, i believe. while the get the microphone

moved around and deadly hands it to other raises their hands, let me ask one question to the floor -- there is something going on in congress right now, called call the 21st century cures initiative. it is through the house, energy and conference committee led by chairman upton. they are trying to develop some of these ideas into a concrete congressional bill that would push the fda in the right direction. i opened it up to the floor, have you all been following that process, how do you feel that is going, are they doing the right thing? are the things you want them to do that they are not currently thinking about? emil: my foundation is working on one part of it, the open act, which is an exclusivity provision which allows companies to repurpose them for rare diseases as an incentive to get more of our signed that we have already created for rare disease patients. the goal is extremely long. i think it is more than 400 pages and a lot of sections. it is a very ambitious effort

and i think what fred upton was trying to do was get all the best ideas he could put them in, , looked through them to come up with something that would really change the way things get done. on in the house side there is something about patient input together that will be comparable, but i think there are things with patient input into the drugs process. there are incentives and a number of other aspects of it that i think could improve. i think it is a good discussion to have because it gets different stakeholders outside of the fda to start talking about fixing and improving things as we need to. paul: i think we would not be having this conversation without chairman upton and the commerce meant for leadership. we are focusing on the biomarker piece of it and i think that is a good direction because it is recognizing that evidentiary stands for particular context for use of a particular biomarker and that would incentivize investment and bringing in those other expert

bodies to convene those groups and make each of the patients are at the table, industry at the table, to develop standards that ensures everybody the science is done correctly and the fda will recognize it. peter: i might add it is quite stunning how bipartisan this has been. in the house they have equal , numbers of democrats and republicans and i might add taking obama's count through technology two years ago which gets all this right through, as far as i can tell. a lot of people believe that this stuff is science about saving lives. there is a lot of political attitude. i think this is politically wonderful about this. washington has an actual agency that works really well on this, and the responder project that

paul and i wrote about several weeks ago, as far as i can tell, they are doing retrospective studies of clinical trials of cancer drugs that fails on fda standards and going back to re-analyzing the tissues involved -- for drugs that can in fact work well. i think it is truly wonderful. lynn: 21st century cures is a step in the right direction, getting perspectives at the table, the devil is in the details, and there will be an awful lot of working through the details as we go forward, but it is certainly -- it is delightful to see the effort being put into that. avil: let's go to queue and &a.let's go to queue and remember your name and affiliation. yes, sir? >> i'm a lawyer in new york city. i just would like to ask the panel, listening to the discussion, i have read complement about darfur and nih, but i have to ask, to what

extent has fda outlived its usefulness? they do some things that remain useful, but are we better off limiting the jurisdiction at a macro level? and permitting the market to take this on and move with it? lynn: to me i would assume that is a step or could be a step backwards in terms of safety. i think we rely on somebody to determine the things that we can buy and get prescribed for us. that we understand what those safety parameters are anyway. in my mind, it is a matter of dialing in the flexibility. believe that we need in the specific situation as opposed -- the flexibility we do in situation as opposed all. emil: if you ask any of the

biotech investors that i know, pretty much everyone, they would say that getting rid of the fda would be a disaster. the fact is, comnies are i -- the fact is companies sometimes lie. sometimes they do studies are of a time not disclose what went wrong with the patient or a be the base like your district for patients with different. the journal of medicine does not have the regulatory authority to audits those patient records. they have to rely on the on the honesty of people who submit those instead to the new england journal of medicine, let's say, where the fda goes through with a fine tooth comb. maybe they go too far, but they are able to do things in terms of the rigor in which they analyze clinical trial data that civilian institutions are not able to do. for me personally, and a lot of people in the investment community would say, there is an appropriate role for the fda but should the fda role be modernized? i think that is why we're convening this meeting. paul: the fda is actually necessary. emil: i think they need to help recruit more people that are

connected to the academic world as they were when they had more people which would help them be more creative, connected to the science than they are now. the easiest thing to do to help them get better, i do think they need more funding. i think they need to figure out how to better organize and look for people that can keep connected to what is going on, drive the science down to the review level. i think they need fewer political initiatives on programs where they hire people , and need to get more money into their drug review and the quality of people involved and appropriate as for biomarkers and other things. i think there are ways to make it work and i definitely think it would not work well without them. peter: i don't think there is a single major drug company that would say yes. it would be a stockholm syndrome problem. [laughter] they are well aware that a lot

depends on confidence and social ness. i will add that the rise in medicine is progressively moving power away from the fda. i do know if obama was aware of this when he endorsed medicine in the state of the union address, but it darfa can do it, and awfully the world, the fda has not said it is ok to prescribed is canceled drugs off label, but they will be prescribed off label. the problem is getting them to market. once it is in market, that they lost grip on it. avik: let's say you have a drug identity has approved for breast-cancer, once the drug has actually been approved by the fda for any disease, a doctor has the liberty to prescribe it for anything. the dark that has

been approved for breast-cancer, your doctor can prescribe it to you for high cholesterol. that would be stupid and super malpractice, but he has the legal authority to do that. what happens a lot is what peter refers to, doctors actually have a certain amount of liberty once the evidence is out there in the public domain to say, yes, this is out there. there is evidence that it may work for your pancreatic cancer or your lung cancer or your high cholesterol, so i'm just going to prescribe it to you for that. that is where the fda, once it approves a drug, loses the story which is light has become more conservative in cases of approving drugs because they are worried. they know that once the cat is out of the barn, they do not have the complete control anymore. peter: they have more than you are suggesting. six incredible courage, i assume you know about the drug from the 1960 that caused birth defects across europe and australia, it was a licensed drug in the united states but they put on a lot of conditions.

they have a certain amount of power to limit what doctors can do. i might add it scare them even more. [indiscernible] and looked at your genes and said it predisposes you to this, that, and other things. people are being alyssa to do the diagnostics and they are doing it on the huge scale of much more data and specific recommendations. i am sorry, the federal drug law is written so broadly that everything google sets up in the country is a technical and medical device, telling doctors to treat patients with that. technically, they are within the fda jurisdiction. they have not dared to hold their fire. if they do, [indiscernible] avik: let's get to another question. >> i'm recently retired oncologist.

i want to second what paul howard said, this goes back to the very -- 1969 when we had the combination of approved ticket -- approved to cure hodgkin's disease, to cure 62% of the people, the single drug that we used was assisting nine-month remission. we discussed it at that day never approved combinations of drugs but we went ahead and did it. we never got bothered, and we still laugh about it years later. it was well discussed the mutations caused by other diseases, but the key issue that has to be addressed is that when we went down to the american society of clinical oncology toronto congress, they told us -- to lobby congress. they told us that just get some patients, put it in front and said it around, they cannot

argue with cancer patients. when you come down here, they think your budget money grabbing has you want to make a lot of money and i'm sure the same goes for biotech people. my question is -- i'm so glad to see you, what more can we do to get patients involved because it is very difficult to do, especially with pancreatic cancer, but the people who have gotten involved, the breast-cancer patients, people listening to them, we need a patient approach because congress people think one way and it was sad to see john dingell sitting next to president obama. he was one of the people must against it. he went after david and that is sitting next to the president when he approve something for health care. we need patients involved and please, tell me what you guys are doing? emil: almost everyone is going to be a patient at some point.

with these new technologies that's as the delivering these to about $1000 now, but the price is prevalent to the program that it will get at the clinic and at some point, they will get pricked, and look at it and say, we see predisposition for heart disease, diabetes, or potentially colon cancer. that level at which everyone suddenly becomes a patient advocate or potential patient advocate, i think is a game changer. lynn: the advocacy organizations have a very important moral and exactly what you are talking about. using the power of the people, the power of the patient in order to influence change. i know for specific example that cancer research act was passed into law of january 2013 as a result of the efforts that started out as pancreatic cancer research act.

we could get 600 patients, not usually patients but family members of patients of families who had lost someone to the disease, all dressed in purple on capitol hill year after year, saying this is important to us. the end result was asking the nci to come up with a scientific framework for the deadliest cancers which are the major cancers with five-year survival rates of 50% or less. that is something the nci is acting on in terms of looking at that from a more strategic viewpoint as to what can be done with what disease. i think those are the types of things that take a long time. you need a lot of organization in terms of making sure the message is consistent. that you know that what you are asking for is what you want. a lot of those things, but that is really one way to affect the kind of change. emil: we actually organize the

rare disease community and we have about 180 rare disease groups that are behind our campaign what we call the cure the process campaign. every year, we bring about 200 patients, go through a conference to tell them what is going on. we have lobbies, and train them to know how to talk to congress and staffers and we set up meetings with their particular congressman or staffers. we send them out on the hill. we put ads in "politico," and we make it a big rare disease week, and we have a premier movie where we do a rare disease caucus and you make a big event out of it and we do it every year now. they know we are coming. actually, congressman with rare disease issues feel like these are good events for them. we work both sides of the aisle. they are very aware and some of the 21st century cure said is

basically where disease focused work. it is not just the company. it definitely has to be the patients that are affected by these rare diseases telling their stories on the capitol hill and we do it in an organized way with enough firepower so that they can feel the presence of those groups by having them contact the hill on one day every year in february. avik: any of the questions? amy: my name is amy and i teach at the university of pennsylvania. i am wondering if one possible way for the whole ind thicket and it is a slow thicket would be for the fda to have something like a recalcitrant disease program geoff hart about specific diseases with dismal diagnoses. a lot of them would be cancer and create a much freer, much looser regime for treatment protocols. i can see one obstacle to that

is this kind of conceit that existing treatments work and everything has to be compared to existing treatments. i think that is probably pernicious for diseases like pancreatic cancer and lung cancer -- but it might create some tension to say that the -- say that nothing really works, so we should try anything. lynn: i think that is exactly along the lines of trying to open it up, so it isn't one-size-fits-all. even if they have to lope some diseases into those that are particularly difficult and really recalcitrant and nothing to do for them. that might be easier for them to do than to really think about it each disease individually, although it -- at some level, that needs to come to play. avik: next question.

jonathan: i'm jonathan, network for excellence and help innovation, can you comment on if you are doing any work or have any feelings about the payment side of this? certainly in another reason why do has not been a lot of activity in the biomarker space is i do not think you could even get something approved by the fda. you have to go through another three-year to five year odyssey before you determine what you are going to get paid. it tends to be very depressing for number of projects that get financed. with the exception of a drug company that is absolutely positive that it will get its drug approved and has an essential requirement for a test go along with the drug. have you looked at all what the incentives are for product developers once they get through the fda?

peter: i think it is a major economic problem for reasons slightly that you suggested. i know there are only two ways to monetize that can serve in an point. first of all, let's put it this, if you come up to an end point for alzheimer's, a good one that fda approves, it would be $1 billion discovery at least. definite all summer drugs with drugefinite alzheimer's jog with conventional fda trials would be [indiscernible] it is too slow of the disease. it is interesting in response to an earlier question, people across the united states and huge debt of gratitude to the gay community with their activism in the late 1990's and 1980's which is physically the primary military -- primary way of introducing from logical and molecular stuff. but the two tools for monetizing these discoveries are the diagnostic devices. if you're going to have a targeted drug that is prescribed in these conditions, and you will have to have a diagnostic look. i'm not sure if they still do it

but the fda required a companion licensing of the device. the problem is that if you are good pioneer and you find a new target and you find a way to accelerate the approval, so now you have a pathway for rapid approval by the fda, it is easy to follow up and someone to steal your invention. they work out the mechanism of actions of your drug, the conduct of studies, and they arrived on it. the classic story are statins. the japanese researcher worked at the basic chemistry and discovered the first but did not work out the chemistry but his grandfather looked at the wonders of nature that produce all these medicines and he figured, they be some microbes might have found a way to disrupt cholesterol because , cholesterol is also used in nature, so meanwhile, in the united states, they were working out the molecular cluster -- molecular cholesterol pathway

-- they caught the most decorated molecule in history, anyway, -- [laughter] these people did incredibly valuable work. the whole staffing industry sort of hinged on what they did. one british company came out with another patent but it did not go far. so pfizer ends up with about three or four drugs later doing lipitor which is a $14 billion drug. we have no way to monetize this expensive research into chemistry. we need some kind of intellectual property and researchers want everything shared with everybody, but this stuff is expensive and you have to have some incentives. paul: you could say like .5% of

revenues that would be any product that is approved using a validated biomarker would flow money back into diagnostics industries, back into the academic medical community and would encourage companies to share data. if they say, we could pull our data and pulled revenues and that would allow us to get biomarkers validated that much faster, so much the better. avik: any other questions? one more? we done? let's do one more. i am getting mixed signals from my governors over here. >> sorry told everyone up. i am from the parkinson's disease foundation and i really enjoyed your discussion today and it focused a lot on cancer. i represent urological -- i represent neurological space with parkinson's disease and other diseases like ms and alzheimer's. i think it is important to recognize that this is a rising tide which can raise both, and we focus on the genomic area and how it helps people to recognize that something as simple as mri scans or pet scans can really help these other neurological

conditions which currently represent barriers for drug approval. there is a scanned for parkinson's to indicate whether someone has or does not have parkinson's, but people who are negative for the scan still have to be included in clinical trials even though they do not have parkinson's disease. the fda won't allow it, so how do we increase this in order to get fda to say, we recognize these people do not have parkinson's disease, you connect with them from your tiles, -- from your trials, therefore, in short that drugs which can help will actually get to approval to help people living with the disease they have today? paul: a big chunk that we did not discuss is actually located -- locating the starting points. i mean, is there profile that tells us hopefully well in susceptible you are to this disease.

that profile is crystal clear. you can scan and a number of other things. from what i have read, a lot of -- would you call parkinson's neurological disease? they are very complex from molecular perspective because you have complex change propelling the signals and numerous signals and so on and be multiple molecules in those chain and variations in any number can lead to the same disruption that causes the same clinical symptoms. the national institute for mental health recently tossed out standard definitions of neurological disease as we are setting that anymore, we are not funding that. they use the analogy for neurological medicine that we will isolate the pathways in the brain that affect cognition and

pain, emotion, and some finite numbers and they will work on those as much as possible. the use of biomarkers, it was the fda and the city is tooting its own name, [indiscernible] of course, we should not be testing someone who does not have the disease. the second problem is that there are quite a few people with the genes but they happen to be really good and not succumbing to a disease even if they have been affected. there is a certain fraction of people that get infected with hiv but it never progresses. a rather small number but they have control. there are other markers like this for prostate cancers and so on. you do not want to test drugs on people who are not sick because it stacks the deck wrong and makes the medical trials incomplete. that's the best i can give you on that one. avik: i think we have covered a lot of ground here and i want to thank all of our panel for being here. the particular emil. [applause]

i want to thank the reporters at the manhattan institute for helping us invest in this important and neglected area of policy, so thank you very much. [applause] [indistinct chatter] ♪ >> on the next washington , head ofand a gallant moveon.org will discuss the 2016 presidential candidate -- campaign. -- her group's plans for the 2016 election. city,l talk to adam the trade reporter. wasson journal, like each morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span.

-- washington journal, live each morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. three days of politics, books and american history. on a full day, special programs on c-span. here are a few of the features on labor day monday. here are a few features for labor day monday. a town hall event in seattle discusses the pros and cons of big data and civil liberties. at 6:30, a debate on how to reduce poverty between president obama and the president of the american enterprise institute, arthur brooks. at 8:00, mark cuban, and bill bush on and george w. leadership skills. tv. bookn c-span we are alive from the 15th annual national book festival. it is your opportunity to talk to david mcculloch, bowles aldrin -- buzz aldrin, and

others. we are in-depth with the former lynne cheney who will take your phone calls and tweets. on afterwards, catherine hedin talks about how families from chicago, appalachia, and the mississippi delta are surviving on no income. beginning at 11:45 on monday, authors share their thoughts on social and political issues. on american history tv on c-span 3, on saturday evening at 8:00 boisetures in history, state university professor explains how to fully asian chemical agents use during the korean and vietnam war created long-term damage to the environment and the people. on railamerica, the 1958 national education association kroeber crowded

schools following the post-world war ii baby boom. and david rubenstein. get our complete schedule at c-span.org. announcer: yesterday donald trump announced his pledge to republican presidential nominee and not run as a third-party candidate. he made the announcement at a press briefing at trumps towers -- from towers in new york. this is a half hour. mr. trump: thank you very much, everybody. thank you for being here. my great honor. the chairman just left, as you probably know. he has been extremely fair. the rnc has been terrific over the last two month period.

that is what i have wanted. i wanted fairness. i do not have to be treated in a differently than anybody else. i just wanted to fairness from the republican party. we are leading in every single poll. a new poll came out today where we are over 30%. ashave hit numbers as high 35% and 40%. i felt that the absolute best way to win and to be the easily, i think, beat the democrats, no matter who it may be, whether it is hillary or anybody else, i think maybe hillary will have a very hard time with what is happening getting to the starting gate -- the best way for the republicans to win is if i win the nomination and go directly against whoever they happen to put up. for that reason, i have signed the pledge.

[applause] so, i will be totally pledging my allegiance to the republican and the conservative principles for which it stands. we will go out, fight hard, and we will win. we will win. makeimportantly, we will our country great again. that is what it is all about. we have to make our country great again. with that, are there any questions? >> [inaudible] this is a self funded campaign. we have our heart and soul in it.

i do not need money, i do not want money. this will be a campaign like, i think, no other. i'm not controlled by lobbyists to read and not controlled by anybody. i'm controlled by the people in the country in order to make our country great again. yes sir? >> you are a great negotiator. [inaudible] i have nothing. the question was what did i get for signing the pledge? absolutely nothing, other than the assurance i would be treated fairly. i've seen that over the last two months. they have been very fair. i have no intention of changing my mind. >> [inaudible] mr. trump: i think that the big thing that has changed, it has been obvious to all, after i announced we went up like a rocket ship. no one thought i would run.

they thought i would run, and not put in my papers. i did that, the papers in terms of the company turned out to be spectacular. i built a great company. all of the other papers have turned out to be there he well received. i think that the thing that changed is the fact that i went to the number one place very quickly after i signed and in this building notified everybody that i would be running for president. i think that the biggest thing is that i went early to number one, and the rnc has treated me with great respect. that was very important. yes? >> [inaudible] mr. trump: i see no circumstances under which i would tear up that pledge. >> [inaudible] mr. trump: you do not have to be met when you are at 2%. [laughter] mr. trump: it is one of those things, that is how life works.

i like governor christie, by the way. >> [inaudible] mr. trump: the chairman asked if he could come up. he was here little while ago. i was greatly honored that he did come up, frankly. >> [inaudible] mr. trump: i think that when you get right down to it, we are a nation that speaks english. while we are in this nation we should be speaking english. kicks. how assimilation whether or not people like it, that is how we assimilate and go on to that next phase and stage. that is how people who do not speak the -- and i'm not only speaking about spanish, i'm talking about different parts of the world, that is how they will become successful. to enter great. i think it is more important to be speaking english. -- two in a great -- to integ

rate. i think it is more important to be speaking english. >> [inaudible] mr. trump: one of the things i want to do, and i feel strongly, it is a country based on borders. our country is based on laws. when people come into the country illegally, we should not allow that. this is not from south america, this is not from mexico, this is from all over the world. when people come illegally, we cannot allow that. i want people to come legally. i want very much to take care of our border, because the southern border is a total mess. that has been proven. interestingly, a couple of months ago, when i announced, i made very strong statements about the crime and problems that were happening, and i have been proven right. many of the people in this audience have actually apologized to me, which i appreciate. they have not done it publicly, but these are minor details,

someday they will. the fact that we are a nation that wants and needs borders, we are a nation that wants and needs, and is based on, walls. we will make sure -- based on laws. we will make sure that takes place. i want people to come in to our country legally. i want to have a big, fat, beautiful open door. i want people of great talent to come in for silicon valley. i want engineers, businesses, people with great talent to come into the united states. from the bow graduate from college, you could be number one in your class in harvard, or number one in yell, or the wharton school of finance, princeton, stanford, and if you are not a citizen of the united states, you get thrown out of the country. we want those people to stay. we want people of great talent to be in the united states to work here. ultimately, to become a citizen.

>> [inaudible] i do not know enough about it to comment on it. was she jailed? i do not know much about it. go ahead. >> [inaudible] it is absolutely false. , went at -- i win at golf that i can tell you. yes? >> [inaudible] thetrump: i understand how system works better than anybody. i understand the political system and also very much, a illegalf coming in for immigrants. do not forget, if i did not bring up the subject of illegal immigration, you would not be asking the question, nobody would even be talking about immigration. immigration, and in particular, illegal immigration, has become

a big factor. a lot about things has happened in respect of crime since i brought it up, but if i did not bring it up, immigration would not be a subject that we are talking about. it happens to be a very important subject. i will say this, it can also be a very positive subject. i believe so strongly in we have to stop illegal immigration. we have to look forward to great immigration done in a legal manner. if i did not bring it up, no one would be talking about it. go ahead? . >> [inaudible] mr. trump: there is gridlock in congress because there is no leadership at the top. you have to be able to lead. you have to be able to get people into your office, get people -- go to them -- anywhere

you want to do it. you have to be able to lead. there is no leadership at the top. signing executive orders is not the way our country was supposed to be run. go ahead. >> [inaudible] i do not want to talk about that here, it is inappropriate. yes, sir. go ahead. >> [inaudible] mr. trump: tom brady? brady is a very good friend of mine. he is a great guy. for those of you who do not know him, he is a very honorable and honest guy, and a truly great athlete. he is very good friend of mine. i spoke to him a while ago, he so thrilled and happy. tom brady, i think what they have done is terrible. he has been exonerated as i understand it, i just heard about it. i'm very happy for tom. as far as the commissioner is concerned, they are having a

rough year, let's face it. a very rough year. go ahead. >> [inaudible] mr. trump: in europe they have tremendous problems with people going in. it is a huge humanitarian problem. i will say this, the united states has tremendous problems of their own. we have infrastructure we have to fix. bridges, roads, tunnels, everything is falling apart. the nation is in such trouble. that is why being a builder, a very successful and older will help. we have many of our own problems, including the border, and the wall, which we will get built. including health care, which is a mess. if you look at obamacare, the 45%, 55 have gone up percent. people are saying that this is turning out to be a disaster. deductibles or through the. deductibles on obamacare are through the roof. problems.lot of we have to take care of our

veterans, build up our military. just the other day, the general said that the army is in the worst shape in its history in terms of preparedness. for them to be in bad shape with the way that we are, and with the world hating us, and you look at hillary clinton, and i have said she is the worst secretary of state in the history of this country -- in all fairness, because of the agreement that is about to be john kerryith iran, may very well take her place. i think that that agreement is a disaster for this country, for israel, for the middle east. it will lead to nuclear day clause,n, to 24 we do not even get our prisoners back. you say, who negotiates a thing like that? that will not happen, i can guarantee you, with a president trump. one or two more questions. yeah? >> [inaudible]

mr. trump: you will see it later, you do not want to hear it. go ahead. >> [inaudible] mr. trump: did you stand up, please? >> [inaudible] mr. trump: all i want for them to do, and say hello to rosanna and greg. great people. i would say, very simply, i want to be treated like everybody else. you see, i was always the fair-haired boy. a big contributor. i was on the other side. i was the elite. i was the fair-haired person. when i ran i was an outsider. i became an outsider because i was running. i was not supposed to run. i'm a businessman. people have given me great credit of being a great businessman, but i'm not supposed to be running or office. the fact is that my country is being killed on trade by china,

japan, mexico, both at the border and international trade. i'm not knocking those countries, their leaders are much, much smarter than our leaders. they are absolutely killing us. china, taking our jobs, our money, our base. we know china $1.4 trillion. one point $4na trillion, and we are paying them interest. japan, with all of the cars, 1.4 -- they send in the cars, take our jobs, they do everything and we owed them money. that will not happen to me. it has been a long time. >> [inaudible] mr. trump: jeb bush is a very nice man. i think he is a very nice person. i think he is a very low energy person, and i do not think that is what the country needs. i hear he will pay a lot of

money for negative ads on me. he is getting the money from special interests. he is getting the money from lobbyists and donors. they're making him do it. he is crashing in the polls. i do not know what will happen. he spends $20 million on negative ads, i know my life will continue. no one has ever spent money on ads against me. he probably has to do that. one of the things that i most honored about is that so far, everybody that has attacked me has gone down the tubes. you have lindsey graham, he was at 3%, now he is at 0%. perry attacked me, he is now getting out of the race. every one, rand paul attacked me. in the last poll, the monmouth leading by double figures and rand paul is down to less than 2% and he attacked me. jeb bush also just went down in

the monmouth poll, very big. i do not know. lobbyists' to spend 'oney and special interest money. they have total control over jeb and hillary and anyone else who takes the money. no one else knows the system better than me. they have total control. you understand it because you have been covering it for a long time. those people putting up those millions of dollars have total control over your candidate. i will tell you this, no one is putting up millions of dollars for me. i'm putting up my own money. [applause] in fact, i feel a little bit bullish. people are offering me millions and millions of dollars -- a little bit for wish, people are offering me millions and millions of dollars. i keep turning them down. i feel very foolish. when i was and i were, i

thought, what you think? a lobbyist offered me $5 million for my campaign. i said to the crowd in iowa, 4000 people, i said, can i take it? will you believe i'm not going to do anything? i swear, i will not to do anything. they all said no, no, do not take it. i'm the only health funder. i'm putting on my own money. i know there have been five or six super pac's where people are warming super pac's for trump. i have nothing to do with them. you're not allowed to have anything to do with them. i do not know what they are going to do. i hope if they do anything it will be nice, but i do not know anything about them. i'm funding my own campaign. no one else is purely with people advertise, and a hope the voters can see, every negative ad is paid for by lobbyists and special interests. believe that and remember that. go ahead. >> [inaudible]

mr. trump: our country can be doing much better. we have deficits that are enormous. we have all bad trade agreements. we have an army that the head said is not prepared. we have a military that needs help. times.lly in these we have nuclear weapons that, you look at 60 minutes, they do not even work. thenyone saw that report, phones do not work. there are 40 years old. they have wires that are no good. nothing works. our country does not work. everybody wins except for us. we need victories in this country. we do not have victories anymore. will be great again. right now, our country has major problems. yes, ma'am. [inaudible] mr. trump: who is?

carly fiorina. i think she should be in the debate. i do not like the fact that there are 11 people. they're not getting rid of rand , and they should, because there are too many people. when you have 11, you will not share me or other people talking. i think that is too bad. i think 11 is a lot, but i'm happy she got into the debate, because she deserved to be in the debate. >> [inaudible] i think that maybe he is inclined not to go into the race. it will depend on what happens with hillary clinton. a lot of people think that she will not be able to make it legally from a criminal standpoint to the starting gate, i do not know that to be true. it depends on what happens with her. if she gets out he will get in. if she stays in, he might not. who knows. >> [inaudible]

mr. trump: he is not supposed to be here. he was in my office, he got the pledge, and we are happy. we do not want anything. i told him, i do not know if it is appropriate for you to be here, but i do not want anything. you guys will end up saying he is endorsing trump, and that is an appropriate. i suggested, frankly, i am fine with him not being here. i do not want anyone to think that he is endorsing us. as far as to jeb is concerned, i watched him on television. a little sad. he was supposed to win. he does not have the energy. what he does have is a lot of money that was given to him, again, by special interest, donors, and lobbyists. i hope that a few spins money on

ads, which he may not, i would spend money on positive ads about himself. if you knocks me, assuming people -- may be there at a point when they will not because they are fed up with what is happening in the country, but i think they will go to people other than jeb. go ahead. >> [inaudible] mr. trump: i don't know. right now, i'm interested in jobs. one of the groups that was actually cnn, i shouldn't say that, but they did a very massive pole. i cannot number one in leadership, the economy, jobs producing. i do not made by -- i do not mean by number one, i mean number one by many, many times. i am so intent on putting people back to work in this country. we have 93 million people that are not in the workforce right

now. 93 million. when they give up looking for a job, they take them off of the statistics. .e have 93 million people we have 50 million people between poverty levels and welfare. our country can be great again, we have to put people back to work. one or two more. >> [inaudible] mr. trump: ok, what i bring my children into the administration? i will tell you that they are very capable. the answer is, probably not. be veryhem in would good. they're very capable children. the second part, i will not bother answering because it is no longer pertinent. go ahead. >> [inaudible] kanye west?

i will never say bad about him. he loves trump. he goes around saying trump is my all-time hero, he says it to everyone. kanye west, i love him. maybe in a few years i will have to run against them, so i take that back. he has been so nice to me. you people have seen, i have been a counter punch her. i only hit people when they hit me, only. .- i may counterpuncher i only had people when they hit me, only. i would never say anything bad about kanye west. >> [inaudible] mr. trump: no, my supporters are really supporting me because i very competent. because they know that i will not let china rip us off. i will not let japan rip us off. yen. is devaluing their that is hard for caterpillar and

other companies to compete andnst their tractor maker others. we will not let this happen anymore. you talk about a trade imbalance. they have, in japan, the biggest ships you have ever seen pouring cars into los angeles. pouring the men. i've never seen anything like it. and they do beef, not even wanted. it will end, and they will like us. in this building at of the largest bank in the world in these elevators. it's a bank from china, the biggest bank in the world. i get along great with china. i get along great with japan. i get along great with mexico. i love the people of mexico, i love the hispanics. i have thousands of hispanics right now working for me. over the years i have employed tens of thousands of hispanics, many for mexico. -- many from mexico. i have unbelievably great relationships and in the package we gave you, you will see there is a poll. i'm number one with hispanics.

number one with hispanics. for our country to be great, we have to be able to make great deals. we are going to be great to the vets. we are going to be terrific. our military is going to be unbelievable. we are going to get rid of obamacare and come up with something that is much better and less expensive. we are going to repeal it. it should have been out a long time ago, but it should have never happened. we are going to take care of our country and bring back jobs and we're going to bring back wealth to the united states so we can afford to save social security, which i will save without cuts, so we can afford to do the kind of things we have to do to make america great again. ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. here is your pledge. [applause]

>> [inaudible] mr. trump: they put it here, yeah. somebody else wrote it. >> [inaudible] mr. trump: it is a bubble waiting to explode. i have said that for a long time. i've been saying what they are doing in china is a bubble waiting to explode. remember, when it is a bubble we cannot be brought down by the bubble. they have done things that caused it. we cannot be brought down by that bubble. thank you, everybody. thank you. [applause] mr. trump: ladies and gentlemen, this is an amazing man.

he is, as you know, speaker of the house of indonesia. he is here to see me. one of the most powerful man and a great man and his whole group is here to see me today and we will do great things for the united states. is that correct? >> yes. mr. trump: do they like me in indonesia? >> yes. mr. trump: speaker of the house in indonesia. thank you very much. [applause] announcer: we are having technical problems with "washington journal". while we were to resolve them [no audio]

♪ we have big political news and a question for you. should he have done it? should donald trump outside the republican loyalty pledge? some say that this brings mr. trump more legitimacy as part of the republican field. at least one writer says that esther trump may have just signed his own political death warrant. we would like to know what you think. they can this edition of "the washington journal." here are the numbers.