homelessness conducted in los angeles conducted by maxine waters. and live coverage later today with acting army secretary ryan mccarthy on u.s. military readiness and modernization. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018]] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ host: good morning. it's tuesday, august 20, 2019. we begin this morning on the proxly $50 billion the united states spend each year on foreign aid. the white house is reportedly readying a plan that would cut around $4 billion from this year's foreign aid budget. we're asking for your thoughts on u.s. foreign assistance spending and whether you support the white house's plan to cut back. if you would, the phone number to call in, 202-748-8000. you would not, 202-748-8001 is the number. you can also catch up with us on social media on twitter, it's at

twitter.com/cspanwj, on c-span, it's facebook.com/cspan. you can start calling in now. the united states is currently the largest foreign aid donor in the world, accounting for some $25% of worldwide assistance spending in 2017, but president trump wants to cut back. here's the president from sunday. president trump: i support many of those that were negotiated out but i've cut back a lot on countries we give billions of dollars to countries that don't even like us and i've been cutting back a lot. we get billions and billions of dollars to countries that don't like us, don't like us even a little bit and i've been cutting that and we've jut put a package of about $4 billion additional dollars in. and in some case, i could see it both ways. in some case, these are countries that we should not be giving to. reporter: how do you see cutting aids as helping the united states though?

does it make it safer? president trump: i don't think so. no, i don't think so. and if i thalled it would, i would probably do it. i cut back $1.3 ball year in pakistan. when i cut back, vi a better relationship, with as you know, the president came in and we have a great relationship, prime minister came in, we have a great relationship with pakistan now. we had a really good meeting. so what happened, i cut back $1.3 billion. we have a better relationship now. i also can it back on the palestinians because they speak very badly about our country. so i cut it back on the palestinians. we were paying $500 mall year. now we're paying nothing. but i think we're going to get further because i could see opening that up again. i think we're going to do much better the way i'm doing it. host: that was the president on sunday in new jersey on his way back to washington, d.c.

the president at the white house today. one of the recent headlines on this from the "associated press," trump allies push back on proposed foreign aid cut. the byline on that story is matthew leyland, he joins us on the phone with the associated press. it's about $4 billion that we're hearing that the trump administration is looking to cut. what programs would be on the chopping block there? guest: well, there's quite a wide array of programs front running from the development since program to support -- assistance to like peacekeeping forces and that kind of thing. nd there's also military involved and it really runs the gamut. one thing that the president mentions and he talked about these as we're giving money to countries that don't like us. well, in a lot of cases, with

certain exceptions, including the foreign military financing aspect of it, this is not money that goes to government. this is money that it goes to support people. it goes to, you know, intended to improve people's lives and in some cases, to promote the idea of american friendship with or support for the people of a particular country and not a particular government. host: your story points out that the white house is looking to cut funding that croning -- congress has already approved. how does that process work? how can the white house cut something that congress has already green lighted? guest: if this went ahead, it would be done under a process of rescission, which means that the executive branch in this case, in this case, the office of management and budget would take money that previously appropriated money that had not

yet been spent and return it to the treasury. and there are requirements of the law that if money for a certain fiscal year isn't spent by the end of the fiscal year in which the money has been appropriated for that it will be eturned to the treasurery. ut this hasn't happened. there is a great deal of opposition to this on capitol hill including from republicans. and what it has done is really kind of set up a showdown between congress and the executive branch over this congress says that this could be unconstitutional because of the timing by

slipping it through just before the end of the fiscal year this is september 30 without enough time for congress to weigh in. host: that showdown that you're talking about, who are the key players on each side if who's pushing for it inside the white house and who specifically is pushing back on capitol hill? guest: the people who are pushing for it other than the president although i think he indicated in the comments you played is willing to be somewhat flexible on this but it is the office of management who is leading the charge on this, the people who have lined up against it are really the chairman and ranking members of republicans and democrats, the leaders of both the house and senate foreign affairs committee. you have one key person who is opposed to it was senator lindsey graham who is the chairman of the senate appropriations subcommittee hich oversees this foreign

assistance aid and you have speaker pelosi who is opposed to it. but there is bipartisan opposition to this, not necessarily from republicans because they disagree that -- because they don't think that foreign aid should be revisited or looked at, but because they see it as an attempt to usurp congress's power of the purse. so in the last weeks of august and start to head toward the end of the fiscal year is this showdown that has been set up and we'll just to see if there us a way that these lawmakers, including some very close allies of the president like senator graham, are able to make their case. host: and take us through the time line here. are we expecting something today? i saw reports yesterday that

rescission package had not been sent to capitol hill, at least as of yesterday. guest: no, it had not been sent as of yesterday, as far as i'm aware. it is likely that if it does come, if it is sent to the hill, that it will happen today or by the end of this week. but what the lawmakers from both sides again, from both parties are trying to do is to stop the package from being sent. at least until they can weigh in and as the president suggested negotiate this outs. -- out host: matthew lee is diplomatic writer for the associated press. has been covering these issues at ap.org. thanks for your time today. guest: thank you. host: and we're talking to you, our viewers for this first hour of the "washington journal." your thoughts on foreign aid spending and whether you would support the white house in its push to trim $4 billion from what is usually about a $50

billion foreign aid budget. the phone line, it's 202-748-8000 is the number. if you would support the white house in that effort, 02-748-8001. just a little bit more on foreign aid spending from usaid. they're tracking an app of total u.s. foreign aid spending. you can see in 2017, they came out to about $49 billion for some 13,000 activities in 209 different countries around the world. the more spending in those countries, the darker those countries appear on that map there. usaid.gov is where you can find their dashboard. but your phone call, ray is up first in new york. would support that effort. why? caller: yes. i agree with trump. let's cut the support for these

allies and enemy that criticize the united states. that's our taxes. he could use that money here for ourselves. host: ray, would you give foreign aid to allies that don't criticize us? is that the -- what you would allow and not allow when it comes to foreign aid spending as long as they say nice things? caller: yes, if they go along with u.s. policies, yes, i would. host: this is lynn in victoria, texas. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. yes, definitely cut foreign aid and the welfare that we're spending here for the illegal aliens coming over. if you look at one america news, they have a money clock on how much is costing us. since january 1 of this year till now, it's over $174 billion

, billion dollars. you pull up america, one america news and pull up the money clock over there, which nobody talks since ver $174 billion january 1. that's money that is killing us. so we need to look at that very closely. i just wish y'all would pull up the money clock on one america news and show it to the public because nobody will. host: and we have shown that clock before, olin. we're concentrating though on the foreign aid budget and it's about $50 ball year in 2017 as we said. it was $49 billion going to things like national security and foreign aid commercial interests, humanitarian concerns. do you think the trump administration is cutting back enough? would you like to see more than $4 billion cut considering your

concerns? caller: yes, sir. because a lot of it, it just goes into pockets of tyrants that run them countries and also maybe some of the politicians, you know? we need to look into that, all of it, real, real close because we're broke. there is no money there. we owe so much it is unbelievable and until people wake up and, you know, like free health insurance and free this and free that, where is it going to come from, you know? people's got to get smart instead of dumb. host: that's olin in texas this morning. this is diane in chelsea, michigan, opposes those cuts. why is that, diane? caller: thank you. i oppose the cuts because helping other countries creates stability in the world. and we're the richest country in the world. we can afford it consistently. it's a curious thing that $4 billion is just about what

president trump needs for his wall, the wall that mexico is going to pay for but ultimately, we all know that we're paying for it. thank you. host: a chart showing the ups and downs of foreign aid spending over the years. in the late 1940's, that's where this chart begins. you can see the heights of it, year.to $70 billion a you can seem of the lows back in the mid to late 1990's just over $20 billion range. these numbers coming from the congressional research service. their recent research about foreign aid spending over the years. ryan in houston, texas, would support those cuts in foreign aid spending. why is that, ryan? caller: i'm not a trump supporter but do you know how much $4 billion can help training of guys that's coming

out of prison that's america? do you how much $4 billion can help people go to trucking school or air conditioning or refrigeration schools? i'm from new orleans and that's so much training, even people that's my age can get re-trained with $4 billion. host: so ryan, if $4 billion can do a lot, $50 billion could probably do a lot too. would you want to cut all foreign aid spending? caller: you have to -- i mean, i'm always hearing republicans and democrats always saying that , you know, always telling us that people are not doing enough in america. people that have to start being -- they got to start, you know, doing the right thing in their own country first, you know? we have people here that $4 billion, do you know how much training that can be for people that's just in america? host: ryan, at what point for

you would it be all right to start providing foreign aid again? what would be the line you draw that everything is ok in america, then now we can start spending overseas? caller: man, as soon as everybody's taken care of. anybody that's -- that wants training and wants to work in america. we have to think about america first, man. i'm sorry. i'm seeing a lot of these foreigners and mexicans once they get on jobs, they practice nepotism. you can't get on the highways and work. and you can't get on construction and work. they practice nepotism as soon as they get you. so right here in houston. so i just sit back and listen, man. thank you. host: that's ryan from houston, texas. you mention democrats and republicans. here's a few from capitol hill in response to the white house's effort to cut $4 billion in foreign said. this is -- aid. this is the democrat from new jersey. trump's continued effort to gut

oreign aid is detrimental in particular to freeze on health assistance makes no sense. fighting programs that fights ebola puts america at risk. and here's another one. it is reckless and dangerous. congress appropriated this money for a reason, the same reason military officials consistently urge investment and development and diplomacy. it makes america safer. and one more from republican congressman mo brooks. the u.s.a. debt is $24 trillion by 2021. per cnn, the president trump may cancel it. all foreign aid is money that we don't have and have to borrow to get and can't afford to pay back. the debt junkies go wide. say president, way to go. if you want to read more of the congressional tweets go tour

twitter page at c-span. if you subscribe to that list, you can get a running review of all member tweets throughout each day. taking your phone calls in this first hour of the "washington journal." i want to get your thoughts on cuts to foreign aid spending. carlen is waiting in beliveau, washington, opposes those cuts. why is that? caller: well, i oppose -- i just opposed. that's needed so much and i want to see the palestinians get some money. olive of families, orchards that were just bulldozed down. you know, with no warning so far . d taken over it's just not fair. so no, i want to see them get

money. -- just be there for united nations need it. like you say, ebola you never know what there is. host: so carlen, let me run through for you at least the top recipients of foreign aid in 2017 and fiscal 2017. it was afghanistan, some $5.7 billion in foreign aid. iraq next with $3.7 billion. israel, $3.2 billion. jordan, $1.5 billion. egypt, about $1.5 billion as well. kenya at $1 billion. south sudan, $924 million in that fiscal year and syria, $891 million. and nigeria, $852 million. those being our top 10 places where we spent money in fiscal 2017. do you agree with that allotment?

caller: i agree with that. there's more i would add to it, actually. i'm opposed to having any of that taken away. that's carlen in that's carlen washington this morning. brad in eaton, new york, is next. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well. caller: so i'm definitely in the support of the tax cut and the foreign aid. host: so it's just cuts and foreign aid although we can talk about tax cuts a little bit later. but go ahead on foreign aid. caller: well with the foreign aid, we're giving money to other countries that -- as president trump says, absolutely hate us. you know, they don't support, you know, the united states in any matter at all. we're helping them, their

people. who's helping us? you know, we have volunteer services across the united states that have to close the doors daily because there's no money for new equipment, there's no money for training for them. if we use so much this money -- in new york train these people, we would be able to help the american citizens. host: that's brad in eaton, new york. when you say tax cuts, perhaps this was the story that was on your mind making the rounds yesterday and on the front pages of several of today's national papers. the white house is weighing a tax roll pay cut. they are discussing whether to push for a temporary tax cut as a way to arrest the economic slowdown quarg to three people familiar with those discussions according to the washington post. they report and included a range breaks. tax

the white house dispute the idea was under consideration. this is the statement put out. -- more tax cuts for the american people are certainly on the table by cutting payroll taxes is shotgun not something under consideration at this time. that story again, the front pages of most more newspapers this morning. woodrow is next out of colton, california, talking about foreign aid cuts he would oppose those cuts. why is that, woodrow? caller: hi. i want to ask how you are. i'm sure you're going hear it 50 more times this morning. so i oppose the foreign aid because -- oppose cutting it because it's cheaper in the long run. and take, for example, h.i.v. we had been using our foreign aid to stop the spread of h.i.v. back in the 1980's, it never

would have reached our shores. that's what people don't understand. a lot of this foreign aid, it's keeping you safe because preventing these diseases from spreading throughout the globe. and the other thing about foreign aid, it's frankly uses bribes. it keeps ports on the the u.s. -- usingyou from doing bribes. and it's used by our intelligence services. the c.i.a. actually was found that there was an article about this that in cuba, usaid created a fake sort of twitter like website that they were using in cuba to try and topple the cuban government and that was under usaid. so that was basically foreign aid going to the c.i.a. to do, you know, essentially covert

military undermining of another government. so if you're cutting foreign aid, you're reducing our tactical abilities and you're also making americans less safe because you're not helping to stop spread of diseases and things like that. host: woodrow, how worried are you about ebola right now? the second largest ebola outbreak in history entering its second year right now, taking more than 1,900 lives so far? caller: i am worried about it. it's a blood borne disease and, you know, it just seems to be spreading more and more. and these -- diseases like ebola, they can mutate very quickly. and in the long run, it's cheaper to pay $4 billion to eliminate ebola than to wait for it to come to u.s. like it did

with aids. when h.i.v. came to the u.s., reagan actually defunded the c.d.c., causing the death of millions of gay people because he had a religious view that it was -- h.i.v. was a curse from god and that c.d.c. shouldn't get funding to help out gay people. and that ended up affecting the entire country. now everybody worries about aids. it's not just gay people anymore. and so it's just dangerous think going on here, i think. host: that's woodrow in california. we showed our television viewer the headline from the column today in "the washington post," america first won't stop ebola. he where is about that outbreak in the congo that it demands redefinition of america first when it comes to disease. the frontier of the country's curity can't be drawn --

host: all this would depend on the type of presidential leadership, he where is, that we haven't seen but desperately need. by the way, when it comes to that $49 billion spent on foreign aid in 2017, about a quarter was targeted specifically to countries in africa. jerry is next in avon, indiana, supports cutting back the foreign aid spending. jerry, go ahead. jerry, are you with us? and we'll go to maggie, springfield, virginia. good morning. you oppose it. caller: good morning. so i do not support cutting foreign aid. i used to work at international development.

i think a lot of people have a misconception about what that money's used for. and if you look at top republican issues like stopping immigration, foreign aid helps with that. it's strategic diplomacy to bring stability to places like guatemala to prevent more refugees and immigration -- immigrants coming through mexico. it's to bring economic stability to ukraine, to give them more independence against russia and this is a long-term relief that affect the bottom line of americans. so i think that while it's easy to say let's -- in the long running, it brings more instability to the world and doesn't help issues that americans care about. host: maggie, talk about your work in international development. where did you work? what kind of work did you do? caller: yeah. so i worked for a large contractor for u.s. government predominantly supporting a portfolio in ukraine and a lot

of that work was to bring economic stability and viability to underserved and marginalized community within that country and it was to do exactly what i said. it was to give them more independence and to continue economic and to gain more independence from russia and recover from essentially, you know, being part of the soviet union union. and that was only five or six years ago. so it's a long journey. i think obviously the circumstances are changing. ukraine since -- underscores all the more reason why we need to continue to work in those places because the work isn't done yet. host: when would you say to the caller earlier who said that foreign aid might be great but there's people in the united states that need help first and we should worry about them? caller: i agree, but we need to take care of americans as well.

but foreign aid ultimately is what need these. not even 1%. so my question is how are we spending the other 99% of our budget? are we using that as effectively as we can be? because i think that we are at least in my observation in working that state very efficient and -- with the dollars going into foreign aid and i don't think that we're as efficient and effective as what we're spending. host: thank you for your call, maggie. the foreign aid in 2017, $49.87 billion, accounting for 1.2% of the total federal budget that year. barbara is in fort myers, florida, supports cutting back the foreign aid budget. why is that? caller: because i think americans do need help. i think a lot of us are tired of helping and everyone who does

come here and really does hate us, ok? we need make better. i lived in new york. i've seen what president trump has done many years ago, ok? my parents lived here in florida for 33 years. i have family that lived here for 40 years, ok? to me, the people here, they don't understand a lot of things that are different from other states. but let me tell you something. america needs to reconstruct themselves. american kids really need to be educated better, to just be with people, ok? people are important. i realize that. too much foreign aid has brought people here that do not respect us. host: barbara, how much is too much? would you spend any money on foreign aid? caller: i would spend some, yes, yes. it's not that i want to stop it

all. but do you know what? there's a limit. host: what's the limit from your mind? caller: we need to educate the children, ok? we will not have a good country if our kids are not educated properly. and if the people here that really need help, they'll get it. nd i mean, american people whose parents and grand partners and whatever came here years ago and respected places. the people that are coming today, they don't care about us. they laugh in our face. see f you're not here to it, you don't know it. i see it every day. host: more on the u.s. foreign aid budget that approximately $50 billion buys when it comes to military and security aid, that accounts for about 35% of the total u.s. foreign aid budget. 37% is spent on bilateral

multi-lateral development plans. human yaren aid accounts for about 18% of that $50 billion. and then political and strategic assistance accounts for about 11%. those numbers from the congressional research service in the center for foreign relations marilyn's next in new jersey. opposes cut the foreign aid budget. why is that? caller: it's approximately 1%. secondly, people assume that if we saved the $50 billion, it's going to be used to help americans. look at the one major piece of legislation that this administration passed. it went to help people who don't need help, the richest people, the richest corporations, very little went to people. if you assume that this government is going to help people who need help, then

you're living in a dream world. we gave a greater percentage of foreign aid after world war ii and we reconstructed europe. we gave aid -- i don't know if people remember it a generation ago, colombia and south america was a terrible state. criminals can ruled the states and with american aid and assistance, we changed colombia, south america. we should be helping congressional america so that $a billion ocolly that we $a billion that we spend, a portion should go there. so immigrants don't come here because they're safe at home. it won't be spent on things that we need here. if we want to improve education, we better get rid of betsy devos. she's terrible for education. so don't think that money saved is going to help the people you

want to help. it will go to the rich and the powerful and not to help americans. thank you very much. host: mike is next, out of lake villa, illinois. good morning. you support the cuts. caller: hello? host: go ahead, mike. caller: did i lose it? host: nope. caller: oh, yeah, i'm opposed to foreign aid. the person just before me made a lot of good points, especially just because you cut foreign aid, you cut $50 billion doesn't mean especially with mitch mcconnell and republicans in there, they wouldn't spend a dime on the people in this country. they'll spend it on tax cuts or anything else but the people in this country. that is the only argument i've heard that's for foreign aid that i agree with. but i disagree with helping central america. more money you dump into central american governments, the worse it's going to get for people. they're not coming here because

their country can't take care of them. they don't want to take care of them. host: so mike what, about giving money to aid organizations that work in central american countries? caller: no. welling we already have foundations and tax cuts for that. bill gates is a good example. we should be spending money like the guy from houston said. heating and air-conditioning, nursing schools, truck driver schools also, more great passing in -- grid passing in this ountry, solar power pike the mojave desert, jobs, infrastructure. the guys from the news made a good point. mexicans come here and practice 100% nepotism. it's how it is here in chicago. it's like that. the jobs are taken by foreigners and no americans get hired and

the ones that own the company and that's it. so yeah, i'm against it and that's for those reasons expect that's why trump was re-elecked -- elected, i think he'll probably win even though i'm not that big of a fan for those reasons. host: that's mike from illinois this morning. two republican members of congress who hold powerful seats on the appropriations committee overseeing foreign affairs issue is senator lindsey graham of south carolina and hal rogers of kentucky. a joint letter from president trump from late last week about these potential cuts to foreign aid spending. they write not only do these rights have the potential to undermine national security and anti-terrorism efforts of our diplomats and international partners overseas but we fear such a package could complicate the ability of the republican and congress to work constructly on future appropriations deals.

host: randy, millington, michigan, is next, supports cutting back the foreign aid spending by the united states. why is that? caller: good morning, jon. i'd like to start by thanking you and all the other men and women it takes to bring us this program. it's a great service to this nation. host: appreciate that. caller: you're welcome. i support cutting the aid -- i'll use your chart, as a matter of fact, that you put up. host: which one do you want me to put up? the country's? caller: yeah, the top three countries that we spend money in. host: i'll give you the top five go. ahead. -- go ahead. caller: you could almost eliminate $12 billion in spending in the top three and i

mean on the war part. afghanistan, iraq, israel, i guess let me put it this way so it doesn't sound so bad. i want to cut the foreign aid on the military part of the foreign aid because those right there, that's war. host: about 35% of the foreign aid budget goes to military and security issues. caller: well. and then that bilateral development that other 37% you had earlier. actually, what is that? i mean, i guess i don't understand that. is that humanitarian said? i'm for the humanitarian aid. i don't want ebola coming across the borders. i don't want to see people starving when we could send our agricultural guys over there, the ones that have all that education and maybe help them

grow their crops better. you know, spend the money on that. host: so randy, let me explain that since you asked the question. the foreign relations breaks down the terms and percentage of spending. when it comes to bilateral development aid, funding for projects to promote brood-based economic growth and general prosperity in the world's pierce countries, more than half of that goes to bilateral health programs including treatment of h.i.v./aids, maternal family health and support for family health care systems mostly in africa and includes funding to multi-lateral institutions such as the world bank and the u.n. development program. caller: well, i don't want to cut that one either. host: ok. caller: so that will help in the long run. so i guess i'm going to stay with the military part. afghan, especially and iraq. that's just plain war. israel, you still got to help them. but i don't believe they need that much help. israel is not doing that bad.

souked cut half of their budget i'm not against them or anybody else. i want to see us healthy. because that's the -- that's what it will spread through this world is some little disease. it's not going to be a worldwide world. but it will be some little disease. that is how i feel. but that's why i support cutting it for the military and put it towards humanitarian and health because yes, i agree with some of your other callers. you can cut $50 billion. it'll just disappear. you know what i mean? it's a nice round number. but just -- it still can be used for good. it just needs to be used for the good part of more for your health and humanitarian is my belief. host: randy, since you mentioned that charts the top five, and it's actually the top 10 in 2017 where u.s. foreign aid went to let me take you back 20 years and tell you where it went back in 1997. and that fiscal year, israel was the topry sep yenlt of u.s.

foreign aid. over $3 billion. egypt second at over $2 billion. and russia, jordan, bosnia, turkey, peru, bolivia, india and greece, round out the top 10 from 20 years ago. caller: what a difference, huh? hey, now, that 20 years ago, you look at all the bottom -- well, most of them, greece, india, blister ya, those people were poor, peru, turkey, yeah, that's where the money that went to help people. israel was still building up. that was military defense on israel being the number one 20 years ago when we were trying to protect them. but look at how many of them were real poor countries on that list 20 years ago compared to what we had that we're working with now, not you, sorry, jon. but the chart now on 20 years. that's quite a difference when ou look at them countries.

i believe you need to put it towards the health and humanitarian. thanks, jon. i'm babbling and have a good day. host: thank you, randy. andrew, fort worth, texas, is next, opposes cuts in foreign aid or at least this $4 billion. why is that, andrew? caller: well, hi, jon. thanks for taking my call. you know, foreign aid, you know, it's all about global, peace, development throughout this world. humanitarian relief when it's needed. and all of callers ago who talked about world war ii, yeah, that's the marshall plan that rebuilt the whole continent, you now? and i would like you to put up a chart of the 20 u.s. government agencies that support foreign aid. there's other things. there's the peace corps.

there's the full bright grand. there's the pickering fellowships. there's the wrangle fellowships. all these programs are so important in the united states, you know, to have throughout the world. host: i think i have that chart for you that you're talking about. this, again, from that congressional research service report on u.s. foreign aid. the usaid and the department of state and the department of defense are the main governmental organizations where foreign aid flows from. the department of agriculture also in there but much smaller. you can see their piece of the pie. the department of treasury, health and human service pass and few others. but there are several other agencies. department state and the top ones for moving that money. caller: correct. and the state department is so important in this.

and so when people say, you know, i don't know if they just don't understand or they just hear things that our foreign aid is not sent to terrorist organizations to come back here and hurt us. our foreign aid is actually for our national security and just to help them marginalize and help throughout the world. i mean, we're the most powerful country in the world. i don't know how anybody could support the cuts. i just don't understand. but that's how we have this divide in this country. and it's kind of sad to see it. host: that's andrew in texas this morning. brandon is in wisconsin. brandon, tell me the name of your town in wisconsin. caller: i live in manitowoc, wisconsin. exactly 31 blocks from lake michigan. support the cuts in that my

theory, my concept is to take care of the backyard first. you look at so many veterans and so many homeless people across the country, not to mention the people -- the homeless people in california. it's a huge thing to take care of the backyard first. but once we do that, then we can worry about health and humility across the world. --s a huge thing -- humility i served this country for 18 years. wouldn't trade it for nothing. and it's all about america first. host: brandon, when do we know that the backyard is taken care of? at what point is it ok to start spending money and helping folks that are overseas? caller: once -- once the homeless population's taken care of. i mean, there are people that go

year-round through the wintertime. they're homeless. cardboard cutouts. they're living under tents and, you know, and we see this on the news constantly and that it's all about the backyard first. and i appreciate your time. i won't take much of it but once you get the backyard taken care of, then we can worry about, you know, other countries like south america, central america, you know, europe. i mean, it seems like the united states has throughout our history been the big brother of the world. and i got that. it's all about fair trade and compliance so that we're not just a country in debt, that we're a country that's rofitable. host: russell is next from quincy, illinois.

caller: i think any place you can save some money, you should. and in washington, it's not that way. and one thing i don't understand your figures, exactly, when you say foreign aid. you take last year. i think israel took off with $50 billion and $35's. they're probably about $170 million apiece. that's $55 billion to $7 billion right there. and there was a program and they pointed out the year between 1973 and 2003, that's 30 years, with foreign aid and the military stuff, israel received a very conservative figure. israel received $1.6 trillion. and that's about if you divide it out, that's about $56 billion a year, which is over $1 ball month. so that $3 billion there doesn't make sense to me. host: so russell, the question

is about the definition of what falls under foreign aid and that category of military and security spending. it's about 35% of the foreign aid budget each year. let me just read you how the council on foreign relations their definition or how that fits into foreign aid. military and security aid goes towards helping allies purchase u.s. military equipment and training for military personnel and funding peacekeeping commissions, a smaller slice goes to non-military security assistance which includes counternarcotics program in afghanistan, colombia, peru and elsewhere as well as non-proliferation and counter-terrorism efforts. again, going to mostly to agencies that work inside these countries on these issues. caller: i don't know but when you say purchase, i think we give israel the money to purchase this stuff. if you look into it very closely. there's a lot of cuts that could be done right there like tom -- oh, what's his name?

freedman says israel's in good financial shape and we're not. so that's something that could really be checked out. thank you, jon. host: that's russell in illinois on israel. israel came up yesterday a couple of members of congress holding a press conference yesterday in minnesota. saying that continued u.s. aid should be made dependent on prime minister netanyahu and improving conditions for the palestinian people. they are barred from entering israel based on their support for the boycott and the sanctions movement holding that press conference to denounce their treatment of -- by israel and prime minister netanyahu. they said members of congress should be able to see what israel does with billions of dollars of aid and urged their colleagues to consider curtailing that assistance. here's a little bit of the congressman's comments from that press conference. >> we give israel more than $3

million in aid every year. this is predicated on their being an important ally in the region and the only democracy in the middle east. but denying visit to duly elected members of congress is not consistent with being an ally and denying millions of people freedom of movement or expression or self-determination is not consistent with being a democracy. we must be asking as israel's ally the netanyahu government stop the expansion of settlements on palestinian land and insure full rights for planes if we are to give them aid.

host: having this conversation about u.s. foreign aid, asking you whether you would support a white house plan that we're expecting in the next perhaps days or weeks or so to cut maybe $4 billion in the foreign aid budget. that budget about $50 billion a year. phone lines, you would support those cuts, 202-748-8000 is the number. if you oppose those cuts, 202-748-8001. lawrence, out of holbrook, pennsylvania, on the line for those who support. go ahead. caller: thank you. thanks for taking my call. i don't generally oppose to foreign aid but i would like to see it in context of a balanced budget. we have so much of budget deficits and debt in this country that i think that's part of it and it's the place to look. host: lawrence, how certain are you that we can get to a balanced budget? is that possible in this day and age? caller: we'll never get there if we don't start somewhere. foreign aid would be one of the

places i would look as the previous caller said. you know, i believe there's a lot of nations to go -- that go into the political leadership and the nations to get this money and so -- we balance our budget. otherwise, at some point, we are going to crash. host: that's lawrence in pennsylvania. ome 209 nations were the recipients of some amount of u.s. foreign aid in 2017. you can see the map there from usaid. the darker the countries on that map, the more foreign assistance they received in the fiscal year. we hear from bridget from brentwood, tennessee, on the lines for those who oppose the cuts. good morning. caller: i oppose them for several reasons because when we talk about the amount that president trump wants to take away, it sounds like a we have

all these extra fundings but what programs is he actually going to use that will benefit americans? and another point is when you think of foreign aid, foreign aid is not just giving countries that don't like us money. the money is broken up into like 20 different government agencies that distribute that funding. some more for economic development that promotes corporations, being able to go into these countries so they make money that way. they also help in certain countries that say are perhaps have a negative image of us. when we go in there and let's say help with certain things, we help them build water. we clean up their education system. that gives them a positive view of america. it's a lot easier doing that than spending millions and billions of dollars and sending our own armed sources over there to handle the problem.

and i saw ike the top three countries that you were saying like iraq, afghanistan and israel. afghanistan and iraq, we went into, we completely decimated their economic system. and so we left them with nothing. not saying it wasn't justified, but we still did that. and they had no way of rebuilding. so we have gotten stuck there. and that was a choice that we made. so we're stuck there now, having to rebuild in these countries. and one third -- the third country that is israel. israel is a friend and it's v.j.ically very important to us but in israel, if you are a citizen and you are living in israel, you get free health care, ok? you are automatically get free housing, free health care. when in our own country, the people who live here can't get health care. so we're giving a country that is economically developed, is still a great friend of us and

we need to support but yet we're giving money to support individuals and citizens when our own individuals can't get the health care. so those are just some of the things. i think foreign aid is extremely important if used in the appropriate manner to benefit our country. so that's all i very well to say. host: that's bridget in tennessee. you mentioned afghanistan. the focus of a story today in "the washington post" alongside a graphic on the latest death toll in the afghanistan war. -- 2,428 deaths in that country. the story today talking about the poet si of the islamic state in afghanistan. the number of the state i affiliated fighters grown 2,500 and 4,000. carl is next out of inwood, west virginia. you support cutting back the

foreign aid budget. why is that? caller: hello. because of the fact that they are talking about cutting social ecurity and during the iraqi war, my brother was in the war. he's in the military for 26 years, and he said that israel wouldn't let them land their planes there during the iraqi war. so how are they allies to the american government? host: that's carl from west virginia. this is john from beaverton, oregon. good morning. caller: good morning, jon. in terms of i oppose it for a number of reasons. one, to whoever much is given, much is rider. wear prosperous nation and we have a moral responsibility. then in terms of when we talk about development, there's economic development, societal

development, health and education. so i would say definitely cut in the military arena, but support humanitarian aid that contributes to true development in developing countries. and as the other callers have pointed out, israel and certain other countries, they are prosperous. they don't need a lot of this money. thank you. host: john, before you go, on the types of u.s. foreign aid, i want to focus on the military and security component about 35% of total u.s. foreign aid. that's where you would cut back on the foreign aid budget on helping allies purchase military equipment? caller: yes. what you -- or what you could do is potentially let's say if you need to have that to stabilize the country or counter-terrorism

. but in terms of just selling arms, no. host: john in oregon. it's about 37% of the total foreign aid budget that goes to development projects. 18% goes to humanitarian projects. political and strategic assistance accounts for about 11%. and again, military and security accounts for about 35% of that foreign aid budget. again, it's about $50 billion a year. it's close to that in fiscal 2017. and we keep saying fiscal 2017 because that's the year with the most recent complete numbers that are available. so that's why we keep coming back to that fiscal year. lewis in norwalk, connecticut. you're next. caller: thank you for taking my call. as most of the people call in, i agree with them. ever since world war ii, we've been funding these countries. i mean, we had the war in plant

for europe and the creation of israel. these countries are prosperous. you can get free health care and free college tuitions. we in our own country can't get neither. so i mean, i can't figure out why are we funding these countries when we got people here who can't afford to pay for their college fwigss and don't have health care? that's all i could say. thank you very much. host: cleveland, ohio, jane is next. caller: thanks for c-span. disagreeay disagree -- with more of the -- many of the callers. they seem to think that what we are always sold here is that after the guys up top takes the profits that they need, then when we're in trouble, of course, and then there has to be

budget cuts and all the little guys below, we never talk about poverty in this country but a hell of a lot of us are way under the line there. and there's a heck of a lot of poverty all over the world that we never talk about either. ourselves having caused a lot of it. but when we cram it all up to the top, the solution is never take away or reduce what the top gets but just giddy-up and fight over what remains. and so either we -- when we're in trouble now or we're expecting a recession, i guess we have to cut foreign aid which is such a little dribble anyhow and such a tiny percentage. much country gives much more of a percentage than we do and it's mostly shrill tool well pay israel to be our leverage nan the middle east. so, i don't know. i just hate that theme of now

that we're in trouble and we think of too much at the top, you guys just have to be cut back some more. poor people in this country and poor people all over the world, how much poorer can they get? it's really bad and that never seems to be pointed out. and we're no big -- we don't give wonderfully. we give as a political school? the u.s. not a big wonderful provider to the world. wethanks. last call on this segment, joe in pennsylvania. caller: yes. i want to talk about this. we have a way to foreign countries is a small part of a budget. --t we need to look at is 1 $1.5 trillion in this tax package.

i saw the news this morning. the are looking at some of money coming back from payroll taxes. they are in a frenzy. they give us money away and now they want to give it back because they are running out of money. we are already out of money. as far as 18 to his real, look at what they are doing to the palestinians. abortion, abortion, abortion. abortion is free in israel. all over the world. centralpeople in america. look at what this country did to these countries, these manner republics. we slaughtered these people under the reagan administration. how about the jocks? -- drugs? the finance illegal arms?

it is stuff going on with this. the republicans do not know how to govern. they run this country into the ditch. it took a four term president and 25 years to get it out of the ditch so they run it back in the ditch again. host: that is joe, our last caller. let's stick around. 20 more today. next, we will be joined by jim greenwood, now president and ceo of the biotechnology innovation organization to talk about the cost of prescription jocks in the u.s. later, we will talk about jeff payne 2020 and the fight of the -- control of the house. we will be back. ♪

announcer: sunday night on q&a, a physicist of the future of humanity talks about our destiny beyond earth and achieving digital immortality. takesital immortality everything known about you on the internet, your digital rent, your credit card records, what countries you visit, your videos, pictures, audio tapes and profile desiccated profile that is digitized that will last forever. when you go to the library of the future, you're not together a book about winston churchill. you will talk to winston churchill. >> watch book tv for live coverage of the national book

festival. saturday, august 31 starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern our coverage includes ruth bader ginsburg. david troyer, his book of the of the wounded knee. rick and can sin, the british are coming and thomas malone, sounding the record for the m.i.t. center of intelligence. liveational book festival saturday, august 31. c-span2. announcer: washington journal continues. host: we are joined by former congressman james greenwood, who served as president and ceo of the biotech organization. what is the mission? we represent 1000

biotechnology companies. most of them are the small theanies that are on cutting edge of the science. what we do is two things. we hold meetings and conferences over the world. we bring investors together with small companies, sometimes large companies and they make deals and decide whether to invest in companies are not. we do public policy advocates. federal level both before congress and regulatory agencies. how -- much does your organization fund? caller: -- guest: one thing i try to do is meet the freshman members of congress. begin by 100 and introducing technology and -- what are the policy issues that are conducive to the success of ?nnovation how much of the

conversation have you focused on the cost of ascription drugs? caller: most of them. host: do you think prescription docs cost too much? caller: there is a group of patients who have diseases for which we have already developed cures. there might not one of them should never be a -- without the medicine they need. we believe in that imperative and makes her that does not happen. the second group of patients is a larger group and that is the patience for which we have not yet developed. hope, wents that have have to make sure the scientists working day and night around the country have been -- the resources necessary to develop treatments. i start there. to answer question -- do i think docs are too expensive?

on the main, no. let's talk about why. some of them are. they are only expensive until they become generic. might start out appear and in its patent expires. basicrives the price is economics. 90% of everything we do, all of the trials we get involved in, fail. most companies fail. the biggest economics a high risk, high reward. we have investors in our companies and those capitalists listen the companies and to the data. they might treat this in -- disease or other. the capitalist says i am going to lose my shirt nine times out of 10. if i can make my money back on works.h, this system

i will continue to invest. high risk, high reward. host: why did the drugs american spy cost two to six times as much as docs cost overseas? caller: we are dust guest: -- guest: your the only market-based left in the world. in every other country -- canada, new york another -- elsewhere. --r someone said you are in the u.k.. we have a six -- fixed budget. he had this much money to spend on drugs so i will give you $300. the company will take that because it is better than nothing. are sufficientns

at driving into the sector. if we go down to their levels come up as investors will say i cannot get my money back so i will invest in the new app or other places they can invest their mind. host: prescription drug prices is the top of our conversation. james greenwood with us, a republican from pennsylvania served from 1993 2005. (202) 748-8001. immigrants (202) 748-8000 -- democrats (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002. can you explain how the price of a drug is set? the nih, thank god is well-funded by the congress. basiconey goes to

research. not trying to create a drug but find out why a seal works in this way. or how the genetics of this system worked. a startup company might lease or intellectual property and the mr. to develop and process. it could take 12 years. .bout $2 billion they take the data to the clinical trials. it, theya approves said price. whether it is in medicare, they negotiate the prices. what happens is the negotiating with a pharmaceutical benefits -- the idea of a pbm was a good initially. there are three companies that make this duck. i represent 50 million people. from insurance companies or

employers. whoever gives me the best price, we are going to take that drug and give to those patients. now they say three companies, i am going to buy one of your drugs. who will give me the biggest rebate to put in my pocket? coachesult of that, the have to raise their list places to give the pbm. the patient does not get the business. the patient and the paying on the list price. is time to do away with pdfs? host: it is time to radically change that symbol. middlemen are extracting 106,000 dollars a year. caller: what is a better system look like? (202) 748-8000 if there is going to be a rebate given. patient does not have to pay

a high price. thatould not be the case countries are forced to raise the list prices. the country has many cases, including insulin or they receive less than before. at of illinois, a democrat. caller: i am at -- $1600 at my excellent. i could not pay for it. i had to call the manufacturer and ask if they with throw a hardship in front of me directly. they said they would send maybe my doctor and call -- and go past. insulin hasg on is been around. what this guy does is the given those back rooms and changes that patent a little bit.

.nd it becomes the new pet it -- $1600. six host: thank you both. i should not happen to you. that goes to the first moral imperative i mentioned. no one in this country should ever do without a drug that they need because they cannot afford what is required to come from their pocket. there are 45 million people like you on medicare part d. and part b. and one million a year pay more $10,000 ournd some organization went to congress copiers ago and sent, you need to put an out-of-pocket cap -- on medicare part d. know what to be more than $200 a

month for the drugs that they need. it is not expensive to do that. it is $1.2 billion year. like millions of people like you. and i said we will help you for it. we will come to the table and the money up to pay for it. no one should be in the position you are now, mike. host: what happened? thankfully, senator grassley and the ranking member senator wyden included that in their package. . went it is in there. we do not think that the weight it should be. the total cap is a hit in a situation like mike's. would rather the see that stretched out so the patient does not have to pay more than $200 per year. month, excuse me. we are committed to that.

know if that is scheduled for a floor vote or where that is in the process? guest: i think it will end up in the end of the year on this package. everything gets props to the ends. and clearly, the congress, the president wants to do something to protect patients. i am hoping at the end of the year, we will get that done. host:? at the end of the fiscal year guest: minimum would probably be saturday. this will be a endless present. rocco, maryland, independent, good morning. caller: thanks for c-span. i want to make a comment about the guest. the demo comment is our health care system is a wreck. worsepublicans to make it

. that is the general comments. he talksfic comment is about why it was change so much more. .he answer was we have a market economy and health care and nobody is does. subsidizing metal and the rest of the world but also all the profits of drug makers. that was my point. host: let me agree with your first point -- guest: let me agree with your first point that the health system is in tatters. no one in this country should be without health care. i agree the congress has failed. i will even agree the who have said they are going to repeal and replace have-nots and that. i want a republican. i am still a registered republican.

to your other point, i will agree with you there. we are subsidizing much of the rest of the world. true, and iwere not suggested to this administration that they take this up as a matter of trade issues rather than making deals strong. they elevate the prices. we are not shouldering all of the burden. -- if they come down to our levels, the problem is there were not enough revenues coming into the small bites. the middle sized bites. was we haveentioned to develop. the alzheimer's parking signs -- many people waiting for those, we have to have the resources to

do that we do not benefit in the past that we pay more. we meets the world in this. we have one million jobs come out of this industry so a lot of people are working. our patience have access to more drugs and clinical trials. there is the benefit. i won't tonight the rest of the world is getting a benefit we are paying for. the solution is to make them pay more, not to bring the levels down so we can no longer afford innovation. host: the president's proposed place -- what is that? caller: one of the president's themes is we are getting taken advantage of by the rest of the world. he looks at this issue and says i do not think we should pay more than the rest of the world. you take the average price of drugs. isn't injectable drugs. look at the average price over 16 nations.

canada, japan. countries like greece which are very low. thane will pay nowhere 126% of what they're paying. it is an african good idea, except those companies look at our prices and that is how they said there's. we was set are slower and there was that there's lower and as a result of that, the investors will look at that and say i cannot get my money back. to invest ing medical innovation because the reimbursements are too low. host: is that the same as controls? guest: it is the government setting the prices. we negotiate our prices. you will hear people say all the rest of the world may negotiate prices but in medicare, the government says you cannot negotiate. the meta-fish -- medicare benefits is ministered by

insurance companies. those companies negotiate. the solution to this problem is largely fixing the out-of-pocket cost. if we can lower the out-of-pocket cost, it does not matter what they are paying canada and england. what matters is -- what are the american people paying? caller: we want to take you to a on the issue of drug prices. this is senator john kennedy, republican of louisiana talking. do not want to go to price controls. i do not believe him. the american people are being played for chumps. just chumps. forng four times the cost the same drug in another country?

and it has got to stop. i do not mean to be overly critical. i am a member. i am criticizing myself. some people say we were born tired and raised lazy. we never compass anything. we have not on this issue. just yada.s, the american people are going to demand it. if you did not make concrete suggestions that are helpful so we can both prosper, the american consumer and your clients? we end up with price controls. that is a fact. host: what would your response have been? senator kenny does not want the american people to be chumps and pay more than they can afford, senator kennedy should get behind a bill that cap's out-of-pocket in a

medicare program. that is the solution. meet both moral imperatives. they make sure that they can afford the mental to make sure they have the resources we can at best -- invest. the science is galloping now. we have immunotherapy. the hope that patients have has never been marked today. if we neglect dime this system, all of the science will go down the chain as with the hoax of all of those patients. guest: james green -- host: james greenwood with us for about another 20 minutes. wisconsin, independence, good morning. caller: yes. know what is going on, but they are not replacing any pain medication whatsoever. nobodye is making sure

is on any kind of narcotic pain medication and i am sorry. if you are in a program, and you have been -- i worked for 37 years after the same company i got hurt there. i had to retire early. have been on payment occasion for so many years, now they have company completely off and i am right back to where i cannot do things anymore. what they are cutting off, is it opioid pain medication? caller: yes. i do not understand. it's a gephardt where people could get high on it. they did that over three years ago. they did that part of her three years ago. i do not know what the problem is.

why they are making it where you cannot have any pain medication. host: congressman? guest: your story is like that of many americans who face injuries at workplace recreation and whatever. and as a result, surgeries need pain medication. opioid is a very effective medicine to block pain. as you know, we have suffered and are continuing to suffer from an epidemic that began with opioids being overly prescribed with corrupt pharmacists who were prescribing, selling, making ridiculous amounts of opioid drugs and that led to her when crisis, a fence no crisis. we have thousands of deaths in the country as a result of that.

the response should be to fix what is wrong with the system and model limit your opportunity to take the medicine that your doctor prescribes, to treat the pain you're suffering from. i would suggest and i'm sure you're talking to your doctor but talked your member of congress to see what it is that is having an effect. one thing i can tell the companies are acutely aware of this phenomenon. we took a trip to ohio just to look at addicts, treatment officials, judges, to get a sense of the opioid crisis. and 13 of our studios went up to do that. we are trying to innovate solutions to this problem. innovate new treatments to people who are addicted so they can get off of the jugs they're taking illicitly. and also innovating new drugs that are pain relievers that are

not addictive. there is a company called era. a nonaddictive drug used for surgeries. that is the kind of innovation we need to help people who need pain relief but do not want become addicted. guest: the biotechnology -- the biotechnology information's bio.org. jesse is a republican out of florida. good morning. caller: good morning. host: jesse, you are on. caller: i heard your speaker talk about innovation in medicine. the reason we need to have fireplaces is so that we can have innovation in medicine. the problem is innovation in medicine, they go on a formula that has a level five. even with medicare, we do not get any reimbursement.

we are praying for innovation that is using the money that we paid to support people overseas and get that innovation supported by us. we do not get to benefit from the innovation. this innovation is to be controlled by the government. companies that develop new products should be getting grants from government and those should be passed directly to the american people, not to foreigners. jesse come away you said about medicare and a high tier -- the solution to your problem pass aress needs to limit, a cap on how to -- on out-of-pocket so you were not strapped with payments you cannot afford. as far as the government taking over the whole process, trust me

if you can. you tell me that will be the end of innovation. have bureaucrats deciding what we are going to invest in. we will invest number of dollars into this product -- why don't we do -- if the first trial fails, we go back to the drawing boards. professions, ceos who have a lot of experience losing money and starting again -- these are the decisions that have to be made by those folks. if you look at how we have succeeded, leading the world in biotech innovations, you understand why that is the system that works. they are not innovating drugs and other systems around the world. most of the drugs -- many of the to go.re innovated

this is the only place to get a return on investment. if we dumbed down our system and make it a government run system, you will never get the innovation we are producing now. nor the kind of innovation we are poised in the near future. host: coming up, about 10 more minutes if you want to join the conversation. republicans,1 four (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8002 for independence. elias is on in maryland. independence. caller: quick comment. behind the market, it is a little long. companies pass without any kind bribe.

the only solution would be keeping the free market the way it is now. not know why it doesn't make sense. that took a lot of time to review this kind of drug. that is ok. it is third world countries. case, we can preserve the free market. [indiscernible] guest: so, the reality is that -- you mentioned the companies set prices however they want. they cannot. they negotiate prices. when a company is fortunate

enough to have a new drug approved that patients are waiting for, they go to the insurers and say we have a new drug. this is what it does. where are you willing to pay? a negotiation occurs. if that was the case, we would be paying $1 million for every prescription. there are negotiations and the price can be high for a while and it belongs to society for a long time at a low price. that is not the answer. it is not also the answer that it will impact drugs from playing countries. .hat is not safe it toseen jugs and put this country from around the world. i was in an airport one-time and the folks at the airport, the

customs people opened the package and it looked like the x-ray machine indicated drugs. there is poison. there are people around the world to make fake stocks. they are very good at making labels look exactly like the real thing. what i found that that would .edicine that can be poisonous in reporting products from around the world is not safe. what you're doing when you do that is undercutting our system that drives investment into an novation and produces new treatments and yours. .e cannot have it both ways we cannot say we want all the drugs at rock bottom cost and asked the judge industry to make magnificent products. to do is makeve sure the patient does not pay or shepocket what he

said should. insurance should become a weather medicare or private insurance -- insurance should be like this. we pay when we are of -- well. and when we are sick, we are covered. it should not be that when we are sick, we get hit with medical bills we cannot afford. that is morally wrong. with you are familiar different mitchell. he was on this program last week. here is what what -- what he had to say. >> there is no correlation -- many's that he's between the cost of research and development . done companies have monopoly pricing power in our country and so they set the prices as high as they can. the fact is that all 210 drugs approved by the da from 2010 to 2016 are based on science, paid .or by taxpayers to the nih

the national institutes of health of the single largest funder of biomedical research in the world. we are paying for that. with thedoes the dust wonderful drugs is use them for drug that connect any price. we believe we need to restore balance. let's get that innovation but make sure especially with taxpayer drugs that we are getting the prices. i might add one more thing. that is that drug companies do not spend as much as i want you to believe. advertising and marketing been research and development. and: start at the end concerns about advertising and marketing. guest: it is a fallacy that drug companies spend more time on marketing than they do in r&d.

all of the expenses that has to do with sales forces, it is not advertising. their sales forces distribute over.products the biopharmaceutical industry invests or my back in the r&d than any other sector in the country. more than high-tech, more than anything we put back. the first thing he said was absurd. what he said was nih develop stocks and gives them the companies and the company -- companies charge whatever they want. that is a silly thing to say. what the nih does is it gives money to university researchers. they develop new knowledge and then how biology works. producessometimes information. and sometimes they are encouraged by federal law to license those.

that is not the only place where companies get their ideas. that is the first mile. run by the miles is companies. we fundnd way more then the nih. it can take 12 years to get a product to market. and more times, they fail. saying that is not how to we reimburse the companies brought the money they have spent? look at alzheimer's. alzheimer's is costing $250 billion a year now. our failure in finding a treatment for alzheimer's is 100%. our companies have spent billions of dollars to find a treatment for this terribly punishing, brutal disease that might only punishes the patients

but their entire family. we failed every time. we suck it up, absorb losses and back at it trying to find new treatments for all slammers. if we kill that process, look at what we have lost in terms of reduce suffering. will chat with a few more colors before you go. woody, michigan, democrat. caller: i agree with david. i keep hearing james talk about investors. a lot of the investors are the american taxpayers. we are not getting a return on our investments. if -- cannot make it 10 of money on something, they will just not bring it to market. host: that is jesse? caller: woody.

-- guest: that is jesse? host: woody. guest: the nih is good. it is important. of thehe smaller part investment. the investment is made by people . i wouldave a 401(k), imagine some of your dollars are invested in pharmaceutical companies. investments are made by venture capitalists who take high risks in some had of her ward of the end of the process. what -- would up -- without investors, they have no way to take scientists to develop docs. in system is working well terms of our ability to lead the world in innovative products, or atece that is broken

least one is people like you are paying out-of-pocket more than they should and that is the moral imperative we have. we have to make sure no one is paying more from their pockets for the drugs that they need. denver from colorado, republican, good morning. caller: good morning c-span2 mr. greenwich. i have a question. i am coming from a different slant on the job problem, which i am paying enough. i pay for a request. my aetna helps with that. then i was hit with a doughnut hole yesterday. i pay 129 dollars to get that prescription and ida would -- i would like to ask, when is the donut hole going to phase out? when is this penalty? i am stuck with a penalty that medicare has stuck me with.

they said i did not have a valid .nsurance coverage i was covered with that for a few years. , they slappedrred me with a penalty for life so i am paying $50 plus premium on my aetna job -- drug coverage and already pay enough for medicare. if i should have another , i couldy come along not afford another medication. host: let me adjust the donut hole problem. what does that mean? when we created medicare part b program. i worked very hard to make that possible so seniors would have access. before that, there was no payment system, for the elderly and disabled.

the patient has to have skin in the game. 25% in theve to pay initial period. then you hit the donut hole. the beneficiary pays 30%. in payingt results thousands of dollars out of pocket. the bill we supported does away with the donut hole. it changes the structure of the benefit and puts a heart cap on what people like you will have to pay in the course of the year. ,e think it should be something like $200 a month so you do not get hit with all of your months and we are going to work now through the end of the year but we want to make sure every single person who was on

medicare is not strapped with unaffordable costs. they paid into the system other lives. they live on fixed incomes, average income of a medicare beneficiary households $29,000. for the government to touch them thousands of dollars, it did -- the stores appearance. people cannot take their jugs because they do not. host: the group is the biotechnology innovation organization. it is bio.org on the internet. thanks so much for your time. guest: thank you for having me. host: later, we will spend an hour talking about the house race in 2020. for the next 20 minutes, our foes are open to you talk about your top public policy issue. screen. your you can start now and we will be back.

♪ announcer: saturday, at 7:00 -- on the ground, >> all of the officers were able to push through and open up honestly about struggles. one of the essays that comes to is an honest account of loss. this is not an uplifting book. announcer: and sunday, princeton university professor has not been there a money. on race, gender and class in america. her recent book is brief, a letter to my sense -- sons. >> i have to arm them not simply

a set of skills and intellectual tools that allow them to flourish in school and ethics and values. they encounter every day from seople at times who responsibility is to treat them as committee members. host: founder and president sent roselle on his big on -- book on math. >> all decency has been cast his opponents to him, things.l him far worse what they accuse of throwing watch book tv every weekend on c-span2.

washington journal continues. host: we are setting aside time is money to talk about any .ublic policy issue phone numbers, (202) 748-8001 republicans. democrats (202) 748-8000. independence (202) 748-8002. a few headlines from today's when house weighing the idea of a tax cut. several senior officials had begun discussions about whether to push for a temporary payroll thecut as a way to arrest economic slowdown according to three people familiar with those discussions that talk to the washington post. their early stages included a range of other tax breaks.

we are held on monday. the white house released a statement disputing the idea that it was under consideration. here's a statement from the white house as they recover the said, more tax cuts from the american people are on the table, but cutting he will pass as something that is -- under consideration at this time. that is the front of the washington post. one of the inside pages of the wall street journal. the acting chief. the bureau of prisons has been ousted from his job according to william barr, continuing the fallout over jeffrey epstein's suicide in a new york detention facility. reassigned to a public . we will march from retirement to serve as its director.

you have previously served in that position. known ift immediately -- will be nominated to the top of the post. she will encounter a number of across the filling country. the president's budget has increased. -- positions since 2017. systems have increased in recent years. 27 federal inmates killed themselves in the fiscal year that ended in september. some of the headlines -- we want issues.what the top reason, -- marie is from independent, up first. caller: why don't they have a

policy telling insurance companies that going to the doctor is taking care of you and -- they want to -- mri. and my daughter was denied insurance. because it she had pre-existing conditions. guess what?

wanted to gively her, with a certain amount of care she passed away. her getting insurance. one month. host: marie in pennsylvania. tom is in connecticut, a democrat. -- my comment is for -- hello? host: for what? caller: it is about the a bolo crisis. it has been going on for what -- a year. was going when obama against romney. you must lost the election because of his responsive ending the military. it is almost too late for that and we need more military help this time. the media does not seem to get on it. the president is not doing anything about it.

that is my concern. people look at me like, why worry about it? host: america first won't stop ebola now that the outbreak has entered its second year in more than 1900 lives, shows no signs of abating. 2014 to 2015 spread like wildfire. .his one is more of a slow burn discovered 10 new infections per day. republican, what's your top public policy issue. probably the death penalty. did not kill people. host: why is that important to you? caller: i have never killed anyone with a gun. i have guns but never killed

anyone with a gun. sometime.led host: why do you say that? why vcu might have to? well i might have to -- caller: what i might have to defend myself or someone else. host: this is rudolph, florida, democrat. caller: good morning. my main concern is the environment of our world and we are in serious trouble. jump to call the restrictions of coal burning. you have more plastic floating in the edition been fish. our policy should be to clean up the planet. we are not going to have a place to live.

he keeps getting hotter and hotter and the republicans say, this is great. it is in the past. accustomed tot long change. this is fast change. especially in the ocean. they told the beach and everywhere else. and greenland,s there will be a 20 foot fire water. concern and politicians speak about environment issues, that is the one i will vote for. host: thanks. yesterday on this program, we talked about climate change and .onservation issues

we talked with the host of the pbs series earth. some of the issues i just talked -- if you want to go back and watch a comedic and it on our website. you can type of at the top. also, speaking of yesterday's program are questions for viewers in the first hour of that program. as the u.s. winning or losing the trade war with china? today there is an opinion piece bythe wall street journal jason furman, the former chair of the white house council of economic advisers under rights trumpma and is losing the trade war with china. knowapproach has you did chinese confessions but it is damaging the united states economy. if you want to read more, here is the wall street journal. john, and -- virginia next.

independent. i wanted to ask esther greenwood. i do not believe a word he said. he needs to respond to that at some point. the comment about water levels -- the last time i checked, i had higher volume of water. i do not get that. that is my comment. host: we will go to silver spring maryland, democrat. caller: i agree with the previous caller. my greatest concern is the preservation of the planet. driven everything is so -- i thought i had it on mute.

this is so damn unfair. this madness has to stop. it is going to be because of you. thank you. a reminder when you call in, turned on your television set. you'll be able to share the program through your phone and you can listen to the program that way and watch the program but do it on mute while you are waiting on mine. it makes the conversation a little bit easier. mel.r: my name is we have a statue in new york state. it is legally better to kill people than into them. if you injure, they have two types of damages -- financial walk and injury. the affected population would be

children, seniors and disabled. the new york state has been up at the state capital for 25 years. democrat --the government has failed to act. sometimes criminal behavior important to you? caller: to family members are victimized by this. i went all through the corrupt system and i went through 18 years now with no satisfaction. we have no disclosure laws. we have mandatory vaccines and late-term abortions. the government is preying on the people for profit. that is mail out of new york. the new york city police officer whose took old but eric garner's death fired, stripped of his pension benefits ending what is called a bitter battle the casts

a shadow. the firing of the officer on the front page, it is also talked about on the op-ed. one of the lead editorial board of the new york times calling the decision a manager of justice. kelly is next at of alexandria virginia. what is the top issue? caller: housing, for everyone. host: why is that? caller: everyone needs a place to live. our kids need jobs. build houses. host: how is affordable housing in alexandria, virginia, not far from here? shown -- i am from

charlottesville now. i used to live in alexandria. it was really bad. some.virginia -- -- and we mean houses. we need a house to live in. remain thing. housing, food and clothing. host: to sam in pennsylvania, democrat. good morning. caller: i have two comments. one is about the global warming. , 65 mainhave to say years of flag proof. proof.s of scientific

on the average, the whole plan should be at the level of 97 degrees. that is what the plant was, just change we came to life cannot adopt we change. is not matter how much pollution or whatever we do. .e should wait more responsible my main concern though is with the discourse of this country and the ability of not following the laws that the congress has made. it has made our country completely lawless and there was more balance on the streets every day. i do military veterans radio. the military and the people that live in support our freedoms that we enjoy

so much. the rosen people are not choosing to follow or choose to migrationat is the for society. caller: right. host: go for it. what is your top public policy issue? caller: there's lots of folks saying the government can't do anything right. developed the atom bomb and the damswer, think of they built in the 1930's. they rescued the country in the 1930's from the biggest depression we ever had.

they also run the armed forces. if you don't believe the government can do anything right, they shouldn't be running the armed forces and sending our boys to death. host: you're optimistic about the government's ability to solve big problems now and in the future? caller: they can do it as good as anybody else. remember enron? host: yes, sir. caller: what happened to them? host: that is david in maine, our last caller in this segment of "washington journal." about one hour left today and we will spend it talking about the battle for control of the house in 2020. we will be joined next by david wasserman from "cook political report." we will be right back. ♪

>> watch book tv for live coverage of the national book festival saturday, august 31, starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern. our coverage includes ruth bader ginsburg on "my own words," david troyer on "the heart of wounded knee," cheryl robinson on "childhood of the dream," the author of "the british are coming" in the founding director for the m.i.t. center for collective intelligence discussing his book, "super minds." august 31 at 10:00 a.m. eastern on sisi and -- on book tv on c-span2. ♪ >> the house will be in order. has been years, c-span

providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white court andreme public-policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country so you can make up your own mind. 1979, c-spanble in is brought to you by your local sale i -- satellite or cable provider. c-span. your unfiltered view of america. >> "washington journal" continues. host: 441 days to go until election 2020. we are joined now by david wasserman, the house editor of "cook political report." let's start with what the playing field looks like right now. how many seats the republicans need to take back to regain control of the house and how many seats you think are in play this cycle. here's the basic math -- there's 235 democrats in the house, 197 republicans, one independent who left the

republican party and there's two republican vacancies, one in north carolina. we expect one of them will stay in republican hands. the other will be very competitive, the ninth district. depending on the results of that special, republicans could need to pick up 19 or 20 seats to retake the majority in 2020. host: when it comes to the house map, we saw the house flip in 2018. what is the likelihood or how often hasn't happened in history that the house has flipped in one election and then flipped back the following election? guest: in 1952 and 1954. the house majority has not flipped twice since then. it has not flipped in a presidential cycle since 1952. there are some historical precedents working in democrat'' favor.

the democrats have picked up house seats in seven of the last eight presidential cycles. the ship has been in the single digits. republicans need 19 or 22 shift back. in the republicans' favor is the geography of the house. we are still working with a set of lines, boundaries that republicans largely drew in 2011. we are still looking at a map where there are 31 democrats representing seats that .resident trump carried in 2017 there are enough winnable seats out there for republicans to plausibly take back the majority. i do see democrats as the modest favorites for now. host: one of the nice things about "cook political report" is the map of competitive races. those races rated by what you

think they are right now, whether they are a tossup or whether they lean one way or the other. especially in a presidential election year, how many of these are simply dependent on presidential coattails, as goes the presidential race so does the most competitive races? guest: what does the presidential race look like, what do president trump's coattails do for republicans? it could be a drag on the ticket, it's possible that a democratic nominee could be a drag for democrats. we don't know a lot about the electability of the field quite yet. there's also the unknown of republican retirement and how many republicans will head for the exit. we are at 11 republican open seats right now, nine retirements, two running for other offices. the more republicans that retire

-- keep in mind, this is something that tends to happen after a party loses its majority, you see a bit of an exit this -- exodus. host: we are talking with david wasserman from "cook political report," the house editor. if you have questions about your house member's 2020 race, you can call in. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. david wasserman will be with us until the end of our program today at 10:00 a.m. happy to answer your questions about any house races this cycle. you mentioned an exodus. you also mentioned a term, a "texodus." guest: we've had a lot of

turnover in texas recently. we've seen a number of republicans and democrats retire. we saw democrats defeat two republican incumbents in 2018. right now, we are seeing quite a phenomenon in terms of republicans in texas leaving. are mike conaway, who used to chair the ag committee/ these threelem, retirees from districts that are majority minority. they have become more diverse over the past 10 years. pete olson in the 22nd district outside houston, will heard outside san antonio, that district goes to el paso, and that when he fourth district --

24th district, the dallas-fort worth suburbs. herd is the only african-american republican remaining in the house -- will hurd is the only african-american republican remaining in the house. jean ortiz jones was gearing up to run again. she's now the favorite to take control of that seat. any one retirement hurt the party more than another one? hurd's in texas. that is the one that hurts the most because he's one of those three republicans in the house from clinton districts. rob woodall in the atlanta those safe republican

seats are no longer safe republican because of demographic changes and what trump has done to alienate a number of suburban republicans in the past several years. trump has done some positive things for republicans in rural areas of the country. in these southern melting pot suburbs, that's where the democrats have an opportunity to gain some ground. host: is texas a purple state at this point? is it still a red state? guest: it is a red state that is trending purple/ it is really republican policies that have made texas a more redable -- purple shade of the last 12 years. if you think of rick perry and george w. bush and greg abbott, they lowered the corporate tax rate to where you have all these corporate relocations from blue states like california and

illinois, millions of professionals going from coastal states, blue states, to suburbs of san antonio and austin and now, those suburbs are behaving a whole lot differently than they used to. williamson county, bette o'rourke won. democrats have been won -- haven't won these places in years. in 2018, even though democrats only picked up two seats out of the 26 that republicans held, there were six more republicans in the delegation who won by five points or less. they of them are retiring, will have competitive races. it's no wonder why the democratic congressional campaign committee has made texas ground zero. host: we will focus on some of those other races.

carol out of new york. a democrat. you are up first. good morning. caller: i would like to ask your guest about cp 22 in new york, anthony brindisi, who is a freshman and beat a team party member -- tea party member. i would like any insights you may have about the upcoming congressional race. thank you. guest: that is a fascinating district. there was no district in the country that democrats picked up that gave trump more than 55% of the vote in 2016, but this one came close. trump won this district by 15 points, but a democrat did manage to win this seat. one of the reasons he was successful, claudia tenney was really unpopular as an incumbent. she made controversial comments,

she had gone out of her way to alienate some republicans in the district. there had long been a divide between more moderate republicans behind richard hanna and more conservative republicans who fell into the tenney camp. there is likely to be a competitive race in the republican camp. this is one of the most vulnerable seats for democrats in the country. do republicans nominate tenney or do they nominate someone who is a more conventional republican like steve cornwell? if republicans can get a mainstream candidate as their nominee, i think their odds of winning this seat back are pretty good. host: you ranked the 22nd district as a tossup.

there are some incumbents you put in that category of being a tossup race. are they mostly freshman members? guest: they are mostly freshmen. the democrats who are most vulnerable are in seats where the democrat margin in 2016 was smaller than trump's margin. in the same category as brenda si, kendra horn in oklahoma city, ben mcadams in salt lake city, utah. one thing that was noticed in 2018, democrats broke through in a lot of southern suburbs. they picked up seats in places where democrats never would have expected 10 years ago. charleston, south carolina, oklahoma city, dallas suburbs and suburbs in houston. we will see if democrats can hold those seats or if they will

flip. host: we can talk about any of the congressional races coming up and pick david wasserman's brain about it. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. massachusetts, matt is a democrat. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. david, i am a fan of the ratings. i follow you on twitter. i sometimes bug you about particular ratings but i keep it polite. i want to ask you about two particular seats i find very interesting. one is minnesota's first freshmanwhere a republican is running for his first reelection bid after one of only year,

two blue to red flips in the house. if jason lewis runs for senate in minnesota, the republican be three men who have a history of controversial remarks, some rightly considered racist,some considered certainly inflammatory. if that's an area where that may nice.issue in minnesota the democratif makes a second try for a rematch with hedge doran -- host: what is the other race? first: california's district where doug lamalfa may

be heading for the exits. he's used to winning by 18-23 points. last year, that was cut to single digits by audrey, who is running again and is out fundraising him. issues are leaning democrats' direction. guest: i love the callers this morning. the callera 1, raised the possibility that three republicans with a history of inflammatory comments could be on the ballot. minnesota's first district by over 10 points. that nearly caused the incumbent democrat's reelection that year. he later went on to become

governor in 2018 and they republican -- a republican won that seat. there are only a handful of democrats left from early rural -- rural -- really rural districts. ag is the chair of the house committee. even though he is a powerful long-term member of congress with high popularity back home, he saw his margin cut to just about five points in 2018. original member of the blue dog coalition still in the house is like trying to spot a leopard in a thick forest somewhere. there aren't too many of them left to see. in ruralemocrats minnesota are an endangered

species. california's first, doug lamalfa, the incumbent, who is a rancher in the northern rural reaches of california, we saw his lead cut to single digits in 2018, a high watermark for emma democrats. even though republicans are just down to seven members of 53 in california, this probably isn't one that democrats will get in years.t for years -- few host: who might be more vulnerable on the republican side? guest: of the seven republicans left in california. all but one mccarthy, saw their single -- saw their lead cut to single digits.

republicans -- a saw republicans became the third california. republicans will try to get the four seats they lost in orange county back. democrats will be going after duncan hunter's seat in san diego county. he's facing a trial, he's under indictment. democrats will be trying to protect a lot of the gains they made. one of the reasons why democrats there'sell in 2018, still a lot of republicans from blue states left. that's not the case anymore. host: dolores, a republican. caller: good morning. i'm a little nervous. -- why there is no penalty for what politicians

say, especially in this presidential race. they can say whatever they want. i guess an example -- there doesn't seem to be any -- for instance -- i'm getting a little nervous here -- host: do you think a penalty is not being elected or being voted out of office? caller: some penalty. they can say whatever they want. i watched the debate. afterwards, they were saying this wasn't true, that was true, that wasn't true. they should tell the truth. if you don't and they can't prove it, there should be some sort of penalty. i don't know if a financial fine -- it seems really hard for me

to know what to believe when they can say what they want and two days later, they print out that they made a mistake and it wasn't true. host: let's take up that topic with david wasserman. guest: let's be clear -- if a candidate does something patently false and and add -- in an ad, the stations take those down. --they say something untrue a big problem lately has been the closed information loops in the country, the decline of local media that once provided voters the opportunity to size up candidates based on their backgrounds and qualifications on who they were as people. we've seen a rise in straight ticket voting, a decline in

split ticket voting. if i had to give advice to local news outlets, outlets i interact with quite a lot, it's probably past time to stop endorsing candidates for office. i think when voters perceive that a media outlet has a force in the game -- that is why c-span is so trusted -- it thers the credibility of hard news in that outlet. that explains a bit of the decline in trust we've seen the news media when it comes to holding candidates accountable. ist: your twitter handle redistrict, a source for redistricting analysis. can you explain the june supreme court decision on gerrymandering and what its actual impacts will

be on the ground going ahead in 2020? guest: the supreme court decision in june essentially to overturnnot sue maps in federal court on the basis that they are partisan gerrymandered. fightnded a decades long over whether the court was going to impose a standard by which the judge maps is going too far. although this is regarded as a setback for reformers, it sets the status quo. we have not seen a map overturned on a partisan basis in federal court. going into the next round of redistricting, there was already hope that we would see less aggressive gerrymandering. there are a number of developments at the state level that are going to change the game without supreme court

intervention. for example, a new commission in place in states such as michigan, colorado, utah, ohio. whether those commissions actually work to stop aggressive gerrymandering in those states is to be determined. some reformers believe those reforms are more cosmetic than anything else. it's an open question of how they will turn out. additionallso won governorships in 2018. inare also likely to see states where republicans do control the process in 2021 a re-examination of their strategies. they are looking at the maps they drew in 2011, a number of states that were intended to be safe seats fell by the wayside in 2018 because of the changing voting patterns in the suburbs.

republicans need to be more careful in terms of the maps they draw, particularly in texas and georgia. host: in texas, judy. good morning. go ahead, judy. caller: hello. i want to discuss abortions. it seems to be a big deal in a lot of these races. i have personal knowledge of it. don't know who's going to take those crackhead babies, alcoholic babies, babies with lots of problems, if these women don't have abortions. host: judy in texas. abortions in the 2020 house campaign as an issue. guest: it could come up as a big issue in the presidential campaign. one of the reasons trump was able to break through as a

republican candidate where others have not been able to break through in the past was because he emphasized issues where he had commonalities with working class democrats. the social read issues that had plagued republicans for some time, especially gay marriage and abortion. he did not embrace socially positions.e positions. he tried to bring religious and social conservatives into his coalition by nominating mike pence for president -- for vice president. to the extent that there is a big debate next fall over the future of roe v. wade, that could split trump's coalition somewhat. it does include a number of working-class voters, particularly women who are a leadice, but presents coastal politic. democrats were able

to do well by portraying republicans as the party of the wealthy and the party of bible thumper's who wanted to impose their religious values on everyone else. trump is the opposite of a bible thumper. can make the case that republicans are once again pushing tax cuts for the wealthy and trying to impose religious they stand tors, gain back some of the ground they've lost. host: about 30 minutes left with david wasserman of "cook political report." it is cookpolitical.com. roger back in michigan. an independent. good morning. caller: good morning. we have a beautiful morning here in the 60's. host: sounds lovely, roger. it's a lot higher in d.c.

go ahead with your question for david wasserman. caller: i was raised a democrat. this past election changed my whole mind. i grew up seen as a democrat. i've completely reversed. for the election judge republican party because i couldn't get to be one as a democrat. michigan, this is god's country. i don't understand why are congresswoman from michigan, that tlaib and that omar from minnesota and a ocasio-cortez ofm new york, that group four of them, i don't understand it and i don't understand anybody with brains in their head would have anything to do with those people.

they think they are above the president of the united states. as far as i'm concerned, they are a disgrace to this country. host: that block and their impact outside of their own races. guest: republicans tried to run against nancy pelosi and 2018. now, they are squarely running against the squad. their message going into 2020 is that the squad, aoc, rashida tlaib, ayanna pressley leading the party off a socialist cliff. that is dangerous for some democratic candidates and it provides an opportunity for a lot of the freshman democrats who don't fall into the and don'te caucus fall into their political viewpoints to separate themselves from the most liberal parts of the party.

woninia's seventh district a very close race in 2018, ran a very impressive campaign. she is running as more of a formatic democrat who voted $4.6 billion in emergency funding for the border, differentiating herself from the squad, did not call for impeaching the president. there are some opportunities for these democrats to show independence from their party as a result of the squad notoriety. there are 62 democratic freshman and three of them are getting 90% of the attention. host: a ocasio-cortez winning her primary, a bit of a surprise two years ago. any of those members of the squad facing a tough primary

challenge or are they likely to cruise to a nomination? aret: the two to watch rashida to leave -- rashida tl aib in detroit. she did fairly well in the suburbs but did not win the city of detroit itself. then ill hanno mark -- alana omar.- ilhan this is one of the most liberal districts in the country. the squad represents four of the five most democratic districts among the 62 democratic freshmen in the house. host: highland, new york. michael, a republican. go ahead. caller: my question for david,

i'm here from new york, the leadership here is atrocious. i think that's why people drink so much. what do you think about -- running for senator? guest: i don't think republicans are all that competitive at the statewide level in new york, at least when it comes to federal office. would be wise to keep his house seat and become more influential in the republican party in the house. ofo think his chances staying there are pretty good after surviving 2018. host: new orleans, joe, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is what influence does the political right organization called the family -- what influence will they have

on the upcoming election? a documentary about this group and how they are behind the scenes really running the country. enlightening and headbulbs went off in my to explain what is really going on in our country. host: that is jo in louisiana. that documentary running on netflix these days. guest: i haven't watched it, myself. leadingblican party's image problem is a lack of diversity. out of the 13 women remaining in the republican conference in the house, two are not running for reelection in 2020, one from alabama and susan brooks, the recruitment chair for the nrc seat -- nrcc.

on the positive side for republicans, there are a number of impressive women who have launched candidacies against incumbent democratic freshmen. rich is running for an open seat in georgia. ashley hinson is running against -- abby inn our iowa. 90% of house republicans are white men. they know that's an image problem. host: what was the reaction in republican circles when susan brooks announced she wasn't running? guest: it was demoralizing for republicans. i think republicans are the favorites to hold onto their -- onto her seat.

it's the retirement of non-trump republicans in the house, the people who were there before hold thatand took have more mainstream republicans worried. the republican party in congress has become more trump centric. terry, astone state, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question for david. ta 10 district where scott perry is running -- he had george scott run against him last time. democrats already lost by 10,000 votes. now, you have this to briar and on -- toming him

briar and eugene taking him on. what does he think about that? a primary between these two democrats? thank you. host: thanks, terry. guest: there will be a primary between tom briar and eugene. eugene is the favorite at the outset. he was at the top of democrats' wish list. he's the incumbent state auditor, he ran statewide in 2016 and carried his district. this is an interesting district. four years, the republican -- for years, the republican --umbent ran the district the court decided to overturn the map that republicans had gerrymandered in 2011 and imposed a map with a more

harrisburg centric seat. it is a swing district now. we expect this to be one of the most competitive races of 2020. host: we are in the heart of the august recess as members of congress often hold town halls with constituents. what are the key themes you hear emerging at town halls this august recess? guest: there's a lot of conversation right now about a lot of the issues being discussed at the presidential level. certainly immigration is at the forefront as well as health care. carefuls have to be heading into 2020 to remember why they won their majority in 2018. i interviewed dozens of democrats who ran in the most competitive districts in the country. they weren't talking about trump

very much. they were talking about russia or the prospects of impeachment -- they were talking about votes to replace the aca, they were talking about the republican tax bill, particularly the changes it made to the solid deduction. republicans are still paying attention to pocketbook issues. to the extent the democrats get caught up in some of the issues that have moved the party to the --t in the presidential race you've heard presidential candidates talking about decriminalizing border crossings or demolishing private insurance, that could put a lot of these freshman democrats in a bind. host: what about the issue of gun control? guest: democrats are going to be talking a lot about background

checks, particularly in suburban districts in 2020. that's one issue where i think republicans have a problem. isanding background checks still not a winning message in a republican primary. and yet, it is something that inoys strong public support marginal and competitive districts. a lot of the freshman democrats even in seats that trump won narrowly are campaigning on expanded background checks. thatmocrats can keep it to rather than talking about an assault weapons ban, i think they stand to gain. host: this is tim from spring lake, michigan. a republican. morning. caller: my question has to do with justin amash. i live in a district located west of him.

all of our local news comes from grand rapids. he has declared that he is running as an independent. there are quite a few republicans who are going to run in the republican primary and of course a democrat. what would be the impact of a three-way race like that in an area that is traditionally amashican but justin seems to be pretty popular and i'm wondering if a democrat might slide in under those circumstances? i will take my answer off the air. host: thanks, tim. guest: this is one of the districts that democrats didn't compete in an 2018. justin amash now has challenges from his left and right. as an independent, it is

difficult to win a house race unless you have the lion's share of one side of the vote. the problem for amash, there is not a big market in the electorate for a pro-life, pro-impeachment member of congress. there is a crowded field of republicans running against him, , theding peter meijer heir to a local grocery chain. on the democratic side, hillary nickn and nicole been -- colven are running. we don't have much precedent for this type of race. it will be interesting to see whether amash takes away more democratic boats or more

republican votes. moremocratic votes or republican votes. host: republican. good morning. caller: we have an interesting race coming up in charlotte, the ninth district. dan bishop and dan mccready. unabashedly a trump backer. won'tou have mccready who answer anything. are you for open borders? he has no response. will you run for senate if you get into the house? no response. i wonder what david's take on this race was. guest: it is a competitive do over election. this race came down to a couple hundred votes in 2018.

it was found that absentee ballot fraud was prevalent enough that it warranted another election, which is why the seat has been vacant. we have it in our tossup column. i think republicans have a slight edge here. dan bishop, the republican state portion ofpresents a the ninth congressional district where democrats typically have done well. if bishop can neutralize the election in his own backyard, it's hard to see how dan margin inakes up that the more conservative outlying regions. dan mccready has a lot more money. he will be using that money to attack dan bishop for giving a donation to a social media later became a

hotbed for white nationalists. bishop is denying that he knew that cite was headed that direction and that he regrets was headed that direction and that he regrets that. it probably won't be a high turnout. i give dan bishop a tiny edge. host: if democrats do win that the, what does that do for hopes of republicans taking back the house in 2020? guest: it would be icing on the cupcake for democrats after gaining 40 seats in 2018. there's less urgency for democrats now that they've already taken back the house. maybe there won't be the same rocket fuel dynamic in the democratic base to turn out and vote in a late-summer special election. host: which we've seen in previous cycles. massive amounts of money that went into these special elections.

guest: right. nice for democrats, it would be more demoralizing for republicans after 2018 and another setback in their drive to take back control of the house. republicans'think odds look decent. cookpolitical.com and @ redistrict to follow david wasserman. fort lauderdale. an independent. caller: this is a bit of a complicated question. i'm a new party affiliate voter. have been since i started voting in 1988. i'm noticing things have changed.

not saying my support for anyone, but i'm noticing something very odd. i've been contacted by independent polls seeing where eileen as an independent. there going over the democratic and republican field. -- where i lean as an independent. i'm feeling they are not addressing bernie sanders in the democratic field because he was not a democrat up until the election. i'm wondering whether or not you feel the polls are being manipulated based on other ideologies and that we are not of how a true snapshot the american people feel because they are not adding him in or dissuading me from

mentioning him? are the american people being misguided in some way, shape or form? guest: there's a lot of questions about the reliability of pulling, particularly after 2016. polls got 2016 right for the most part. they showed hillary clinton with a lead of 3-4 points. won the popular vote by 2.1. there's a lot of skepticism on the part of bernie sanders that the voters primary elections were rigged in hillary clinton's favor. she didn't need the superdelegates to put her over the top. racee seeing in the 2020 this interesting dynamic of elizabeth warren and bernie sanders splitting the left.

they are taking from different segments of the democratic electorate. ppeal of bernie sanders' a is that he is an independent still, this insurgent. ardentth is now an democrat. many democrats believe their best way of sending a message is sending a woman. 2018 whent dynamic in you had at least one man, one woman and no incumbent on the ballot, a woman prevailed 70% of the time, which is why i was skeptical of early polling this men that showed four white combining for 64% of the vote. host: americans are about to be inundated with pulling numbers from now until election day

2020. what should they look for in a ?oll to trust that poll guest: who took it? was it an immediate organization? was it a poll taken for one side or another? candidates take a lot of polls and release the one that puts them in the best light. wethe presidential race, prefer to take an aggregate of the gold standard polls. polls that are conducted by major news organizations, cnn,er abc, nbc, fox, which use a combination of live telephone interviews and cell phones. we are seeing more polls with online samples and we are comparing those. we are still in the early phase

of online polling. clearly, we are headed there. we are looking to see how well-known the candidates are. polltimes, we will see a in the house race where one candidate has a lead in the mid 40's, but they are better known and if a district leans the other way fundamentally, the other candidate could have an advantage. there are a lot of data points below the top line that you have to take into account if you really want to know what a poll is saying. host: less than 10 minutes left in our program today. stephen massachusetts. independent. massachusetts. caller: the so-called republican , i want to the house know if they should term limit

the amount of time someone can serve as chair -- that is an incentive to leave the house. the democrats can stay on as long as they are reelected, which is one reason you have the old bulls in the democratic columns. i wonder what the effect would be if the democrats had six-year limits on being the chair or ranking member. aret: one of the reasons we seeing so many republican retirements is that there is this six-year limit on making members and chairs on the republican side. mike conaway was the ag chair. he is retiring. we are looking at historical data. saws going back to 2008, we six democratic retirements and 27 republican tyrants. -- republican retirements. at three, we are

democrats leaving and 11 republicans leaving. we are on pace for something similar to 2008. i don't expect democrats to win as many of those open seats because we have a more polarized landscape. another side effect of this, a areof those old bulls getting primary challenges from the left. engel on foreign affairs, richard neal for massachusetts, jerry nadler on judiciary, one of the most liberal democrats in the house as a primary primaryer -- has a challenger saying he hasn't been progressive enough in pursuing impeachment proceedings. host: with younger members of congress endorsing primary

candidates against older members -- we see that happening at all? guest: there are cases of awkward alliances where some younger members of the squad have gotten behind primary challengers. there's a young woman in texas' running against one of the more conservative democrats in the house. that is an overwhelmingly hispanic seat in south texas. we will see if that message resonates with voters there. these races are notoriously hard to forecast. every situation is unique. we don't see much of a baseline for evaluating the strength of a candidate in a low turnout primary. host: democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i believe democrats hold all but

three districts that hillary clinton won in 2016. thinkdoes mr. wasserman democrats are most at risk of losing? texas --ll hurd from democrats are the slight favor to take his seat. fitzpatrick won in 2018, he was able to survive the way because democrats nominated a wealthy philanthropist with houses in africa, easysouth to portray as out of touch with voters. in 2020, democrats will be going after him. one of john's advantages in syracuse, that is a small media arc. -- media market. when you are an incumbent in the

his reputation has allowed him to perform a lot better in that seat. he is the toughest one to defeat. host: on the flipside of that coin, 31 democrats represent districts carried by president trump in 2016. you have 17 democrats in the top subcategory. -- tossup category. guest: that is correct. host: cheryl next out of iowa. a republican. caller: good morning, c-span i just love your program. i would like to ask mr. wasserman from "cook political about the fourth district in iowa, steve king's district. it doesn't look good for him in

the primary. i'm wondering if the democrats could possibly take that area. i will hang up and listen to his response. thank you again. guest: steve king has done just about everything he can to try to lose his district but still hasn't been able to. a pretty small margin in a district that voted for trump by 25 points in 2016. just about everything was going right for democrats in 2018. was imploding in terms of his image, democrats had a young former baseball pitcher who outspent king massively, king wasn't even on the air until the final two days of this race but still managed to win because of the highly partisan straight ticket nature

of voting these days. i he couldn't lose in 2018, don't know that democrats will be able to beat him in 2020. challengeve a primary , probably the most formidable republican running against him, but if there are multiple primary challengers, king gets nominated with a plurality of the vote. there is a path to reelection for king. host: bob in brunswick, maine. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, bob. in maine, we had an interesting situation. our two senators, my good friend, angus king, is an independent who caucuses with

collins,, and susan and revered byed many democrats as the second , who famouslyh took on mccarthy, but she was losing a lot of her support among democrats and independents for what is perceived to be a independenther .nstincts i think her seat has been compromised substantially. she will be running against a woman who is the speaker of the

maine house and is a democrat. i want to know how mr. wasserman feels about susan collins' chances. maine, it is an interesting situation. toan collins has managed alienate some republicans by refusing to endorse president trump. she usually wins with 70%. it will be much more competitive. that could have some impact on the second congressional district in maine, which is held by jared golden, who held that seat because of ranked choice voting. he's a former susan collins staffer, even though he's a democrat.

on a personal note, one of the reasons i became so interested in data was actually my grandfather, a weatherman for and a climatologist in massachusetts. to say hi to my grandfather who is in hospice care right now. letter that he gave between himpondence and his brother talking about the 1936 presidential election, the first election he ever voted in. he is 103. the reader's digest poll that have been released weeks earlier in the race between fdr and landon. political family in history. i wanted to say thank you to him for passing on a passion for data.