life. in my humble opinion, i believe that developers are overdeveloping nice communities that make it -- they don't make it where it's as pleasant as it could be. >> voices from the states. on c-span. a quick reminder that coming up we'll bring you a hearing looking at education opportunities for military veterans. it's supposed to begin live at 2:00 p.m. eastern. until that starts here's a discussion on republican tax reform efforts from this morning's washington journal. eric paulson is a republican representing minnesota's third district, a member of the house's chief tax writing committee, and right now, the conference committee is ironing out the differences between the house and senate versions of

their tax reform bills. when are you expecting to see the final product of that? how different do you think it's going to be from what you voted for? >> good morning. the house moved forward pretty swiftly staying on a time line to pass the first significant tax reform in 39 years. the senate moved quickly right after and stuck to their time line as well. you don't always have these conference committees. there are significant differences both on the business side of the tax equation as well as on the individual side. my sense is that the conference committee got going right away, prior to the weekend last week and over the weekend. and i wouldn't be surprised if we are voting early next week at some point. i know we are heading into the final weeks of december. but i think it's basically going to be taking each of the bills, taking the good provisions out of both and making it a better product. so i feel good about direction it's going but probably towards next week. >> you mentioned we don't get to

see these conference committees a lot. how much time do you get the o review what they cent send back before you are expected to vote up or down on it. >> we'll have maybe an hour or hour and a half every day of just going over some of the policies, some of the discussions in the conference that are going on. we get a chance to emphasize our priorities, what the impacts are in sooner regions of the country as well as identify where some of the challenges are maybe with the senate bill or where we think the chairman should go in a different direction. >> one of the big differences between the house and senate version, the senate version including the repeal of the individual mandate. >> right. >> if that makes it into the conference committee final bill, is that something you can support? >> you you know, the house has had several separate votes already on the affordable care act and repealing that. when we put together the bill in the house we didn't include the individual mandate. we stuck to tax policy only. the senate decided to include

that i wouldn't be surprised if it stays in because it passed in the house before. it also gives some more ability to provide additional tax relief obviously, there is a dollar amount to it. it'sing interesting because even a state like minnesota, the individual mandate, the penalty on people that don't buy insurance, 79% of that penalty is falling on people with $50,000 of income or less. it has hit people with low and middle income hard. >> -- rates expire in 2025, would you okay with that? >> if you are a family or a business, you want certainty to be able to plan for the future, save dollars, say what expenses are going to be and plan accordingly. that's a big problem. whether it is the bush tax cuts that expired and set up a cliff. i would prefer not to have a guessing game of whether congress is going to renew the rates again.

can we count on that. i want to make sure there are employers who want to bring back jobs, keep quarters here, in the united states, that's one reason why the house put all those rates out on a permanent basis. >> the senate bill largely doesn't touch the mortgage interest deduction. would you be okay if the senate version of that goes through? >> i don't think that's going to be a defining differential that will hiccup the bill in the final product in any way. i mean the house limited that mortgage deduction to 500 thuds for loan. i think the senate kepd kept it at a higher dollar amount. but everyone has an existing -- you are grandfathered in. if you have a higher loan on your house, you are paying that mortgage deduction interest, you are grandfathered in. but anyone over $500,000, i think it's only 2.5% or 2% of the population. very small number.

the main thing is keep important deductions like mortgage shoo, charitable deductions, property tax deductions and other provisions. >> you talked about the conference committee combining the best of the two bills. but right now, a cbs news poll found that 53% of people nationwide disapprove of the republican tax bill. just 35% approve. why is that so low? do you think people aren't getting the message here? is that a problem? >> yeah, i think that's clearly one of the challenges we have. any time you pass major legislation there is a suspicion cast on congress, is this really going to help me? is it going to impact me? what i always remind people is that the average family of four under the house bill that passed if you are earning $59,000, you are getting a tax cut of $1200. this is clearly driven towards middle income hard working folks goating money in their pockets. it's will making wages and boosting paychecks. we went through sort of the first economic recovery post the

great recessions where we didn't have wages increase, actually median incomes fell. this is about boosting the economy and getting it moving in a positive direction. in 1986 there was a poll done there where 18% of the folks thought their taxes were going to go down and 41% thought they were going up. that was reversed when everyone saw the boom the growth the wages coming in. >> the suspicion that you talked about, callers have call on saying that some of that stems were the speed with which this moved through congress. a report written by several academic institutions said they rushed through a process and risk unintended consequences including things like companies shifting manufacturing capacity overseas, contradicting some of the express aims of this bill. the breaks could also include

some of those breaks for individuals could turn into breaks for companies and other types of businesses not intended. >> sure. >> by the original bill. >> this is always a part of tax policy. details matter and you have got to make sure you gottet this right. it's one of the witnesses i have been taking all the feedback i'm getting. i think in the house we started out with a blueprint a while ago. we have had six years of hearings, 40 hearings taking place, 12 i think this year. really focusing on the minutia and the detail of reform. whether it's international reform or individual simplicity people are looking for in their tax filing or making sure, again, that we are helping small businesses. small businesses have always been left out of the equation whenever we have done tax reform. it's always about big business or corporate relief. it's important to keep headquarters here. but small business has to be part of the equation when you know that 95% of them are filing

as small pass-through entities not big employers. >> let's go to the phone lines to give our viewers an opportunity to ask questions. janice is up first, clinton, maryland, a democrat, janice, go ahead. >> caller: good morning, gentlemen. mr. paulson i'm so disappointed. it would be wonderful to hear the truth being spoken about this particular bill. but trickle down doesn't work. it's not iz supposed to work. you all just keep remarketing it and thinking that there is a sucker born every moment and that we are going to just buy what the latest marketing strategy is on selling this boondoggle that you want to give us. my grandmother told me it didn't work. i'm 67 years old. my mother told me it doesn't work. i've seen it doesn't work. if it did, mr. brown back in kansas would have a booming economy right now and he does

not. >> congressman? >> first of all, janice, thanks for calling in. i should mention a couple things. one, i think we need to provide tax relief no matter where you live, maryland, what your age category. one of the lessons we learned from kansas which is a state that implemented pass-through tax reform and helped folks that prospect real small businesses right? in the house we put guardrails around making sure there aren't going to be those fraud and abuse provisions and abuses that folks used in the past. we have really listened intently making sure that everyone is going to get relief and also making sure there are guardrails around the small business provisions so what happened in kansas doesn't happen at a broader level. >> tom, republican, go ahead. >> caller: good morning. thank you. this is the first time i finally got through. and thanks for c-span. my question is, like with this 20% corporate tax, so all loopholes will be taken away and they will pay 20% without fail? i don't believe that they should

be doing this tax. >> go ahead tom. you don't believe they should be doing this tax? >>. >> caller: no. right now everything -- it is not the best but these are things that should be happening when we are in really bad shape. having growth of any kind, working well is fine. what you are doing right now is putting a whole bunch of stimulus money into the covers and you are going the call out growth. >> congressman. >> first of all on the corporate tax rate. the united states has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, bar none. at 35%. it's one of the reasons we have seen a lot of companies when they sell overseas and we have customers overseas, they don't get their earnings back home. we have $2.5 trillion kept overseas because we have an uncompetitive tax code. our goal is to get earnings back home in the united states. it's not just american jobs we have been losing, it's our

headquarters, our research, our innovation. and making sure we have a competitive growing economy is having employers located here. we are also targets for acquisitions by foreign companies. we have got the reverse that if we are going to be competitive in today's world. >> ray is in virginia. good morning, an independent. >> caller: can i talk? >> go ahead, ray. >> caller: hi. i'm reading in the paper about social security and medicare. i worked all my life and paid into social security and also had medicare payments deducted from my paycheck and i'm still getting medicare payments deducted now that i'm on social security. but i'm read in the paper the paul ryan and other people are wanting to say they are entitlements and take money out of it and stop paying us as much money as they have been paying and reduce the amount of money we are getting. if they cut medicare like they

want to, what are we going to do? basically, the old people are going to retire, medicare doesn't cover all of my cancer procedures that i have right now. i am very, very upset about this, seeing that i have paid into it and they are talking about cutting everything back now. >> thanks for the call. >> first of all, as ray mentioned, people should know there are no changes to social or medicare in the tax reform proposalal at all. that's not even a component. one thing i will say is though whether you are a young person who is coming out of college and needs to pay down their student loans or whether you are a senior or a baby boomer about to retire, what is very important is making sure we have a competitive, growing economy because lot of seniors like ray or others who rely on medicare, who rely on social security want to make sure we have got a competitive growing economy so those programs are going to be well funded.

we need to bring more revenue into the government, we need to have stronger economic growth. we have been sputtering at 2% growth annually for the last eight years. that's below our historic norm. if we get to 3% or better we can make sure those programs are stronger for our future generations as well. >> one thing that's not included in the tax reform bill is a repeal of the medical device tax. you have been pushing for this. why is this a big priority for you. >> this is a top priority of mine. it was put in place before the affordable care act act, 2.3% not on your profits but on your sales of devices. we literally took one of our only industries in the country, one where we have real exports around the world and added the tax on sale. we made the hurdle higher for small companies that make life saving devices. that's not in tax reform.

it's part of the obamacare discussion and i'm making sure i do everything i can to get it done by tend of the year. >> the companies would be getting millions of new customers through the increasing coverage and this would be a way to help pay for that increase in coverage. why do you disagree with that argument? >> it didn't pan out. as the numbers have shown we have lost 29,000 jobs since that took place. >> in the medical device industry. >> no the medical device industry, right. so since the tax is suspended right now. it's been suspended two years. since it has been suspended we added more projects, more tax

rate for a revenue neutral tax rate. i don't understand why you don't do that. it would stimulate growth. people would pay much less taxes. people would be falling over themselves coming to the u.s. to try to set up business here. i don't understand why you don't do that. >> well, ron, as you mentioned, making the tax code simpler has been one of our key goals. so we actually do eliminate the bulk and the majority of all the different loopholes that special interests have been a part of, whether you are here in washington or all these exemptions that only apply to the privileged or those that have access to accountants and

tax lawyers and can navigate the tax code. this is about making it so simple you will dpekt effectively be able to file your individual taxes on a postcard-sized piece of paper. and by eliminating these different special interest deductions and loopholes you get to the point where now we are lower rates for every different income bracket. where we are also making sure that our large and small employers are going to be competitive in the economy again. that's going to help hard working taxpayers across the country. that's the direction we have gone with simplisity. ronald reagan wouldn't even recognize the tax code we have today because it has gotten so complex, so costly and so tough to take down to comply with. >> we have got ten minutes left with congressman eric paulson from minnesota. speaking of minnesota, there is going to be an opening, apparently, in the minnesota senate delegation with al

franken saying he will step aside in the coming weeks. do you think it was the right thing for him to do to announce his resignation in coming weeks? >> i do. i think it's the right thing for minnesota. and i think everything that's been happening around capitol hill, around the country for that matter regarding sexual harassment and those issues in that area, there should be no tolerance for this. i think he has done the right thing. he hasn't announced a specific resignation date but i expect it's sometime in the next weeks, before the end of the year. minnesotans pride themselves on having elected representatives that are effective, who had will stan up for different issues whatever their cause on either side of the aisle. clearly he was in a position where he wasn'ting go to be effective. him stepping aside is the right thing to do. the governor it's predicted will make an announcement who that replacement will be for the next year before a special election can take place. >> do you think roy moore should

be on the senate if he wins. >> i don't think he should be on the ballot. i believe the vote is today. the senate has to deal with that if he wins. i suspect they have their own investigatory matters and they will have to handle it in their own away it's going to be challenging. >> a special election in 2018 is the time frame talked b. would you have interest in running for that senate seat? >> i don't think so. being on my committee, i'm actually making a difference not for the constituents who i serve but for the entire state and having that voice is critical. i'm going the keep focused on that. there are names surfacing that i'm excited about that may come forward. >> who? >> former govern audio tim poe lenny would be one. he has run statewide. he's well-known, well respected across the aisle. he would be a strong candidate if he threw his hat in the ring.

>> mark has been waiting in connecticut, line for republicans. mark, go ahead. >> caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. i have got a couple points about alabama. and also i would like to talk about the taxes, too. but i think america needs to realize that any time we see an ambush blind side attack with unfounded accusations which come up 30 days before an important election, it's inherently political, and it's inherently dishonest in nature. when these highly controversial and emotional issues come up at the last second, i think they are not concerned with getting to the truth, but they are concerned with the worst form of politics, kind of like a drive by political attack where you run by and call a name at somebody and they are supposed to somehow immediately defend themselves. in our judicial system we have the right to confront our

accuser. and with the just 30 days to an election, you don't have time to work out all the details of who is accusing you of, or what they are saying, formulate a proper response and get it out to all the people of alabama. >> mark, do you feel that way about specifically just sexual misconduct allegations? >> what about all the other attack adds ths that run in any election cycle leading up to election day? >> caller: yeah, every form of highly controversial emotional issue that's thrown out only at the last minute to me just reeks of something that's dishonest. it may be true, but there's not time to bear out whether or not it's true or not. and therefore, i mean, i basically think the people of alabama, if they believe in god, if they believe in a christ who is named jesus they have the

pray to god and hope that they make the right decision. >> congressman. >> i think it's hard for voters to discern. whether it is a different charge that may be levelled in a political ad or it's something that's in the news every day. i think the voters of alabama have to discern and decide that. it's no different than when i run or when one of my colleagues runs in an election and has that political ad or has to dispute it. it is a tough to do. it is up to the voters to discern. >> how do you discern the accusations against roy moore? do you believe the women? >> i think it's important to believe the women. i do. i think it's important that so many have come forward and adds credible to that argument. >> james. >> caller: i saw somewhere where y'all are trying to cut out the personal exemptions, which is --

affects adjusted gross income. and i have seen no discussion on that whatever. this looks to me like this is just to veil attempts to get a flat tax. i would like to hear your comments on that. >> thanks, jamess. >> actually so the changes that were made for those that have different exemptions to lower your taxable income were changed in this manner in the house bill. we went straight to $24,000 for a couple, $12,000 for an individual for the exemption or what you will not be taxed on right off the bat. so your first $24,000s is a couple are completely tax-free. and then we lowered the rates and al these different brackets. that's why folks are getting a tax cut. that's why nilds and low income folks will be seeing more dollars in their pocket. right away in january if this passes in a week the irs withholding tables are going to be changing for everyone who is work asking they are going to be having more dollars in their

paycheck immediately. they are going the see the dollars in january, february, march. that's going to be stimulating for the economy. >> one other potential change, highlighted by today raes "wall street journal." the house bill who allow churches and other non-profits to advance their candidates and take political opinions without jeopardizing their tax exempt status. the johnson aemd. the senate doesn't take that step. it will be one of the many items for debate as republican lawmakers make out during the final decision to send to the white house. >> i'm not sure what they are going to work out there. >> have you? >> a lot of people say this is happening already and it gives safe protection to knows in religious institutions to make sure they are not discriminated against. >> the conference committee comes back for a vote. we are expecting next week.

>> correct. >> time for one or two more calls. victor, wind mere florida, line for independents. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. >> good morning. >> caller: first of all the tax rate is not 35% for corporations. that's the official tax rate. the real tax rate is about 18%. and some of these corporations don't even pay 5% or 8%. they have also said that they will not create jobs. they will do stock buy backs and they will give their shareholders more money. so this is defeating the purpose. this bill was done hastily with no democratic support. and it has a lot of problems in it. they have already found a $300 billion mistake. the congress is moving too quickly. no democratic support. the aarp is against this bill. they have told the seniors that it's going to hurt their medicare and it's going to hurt social security. and lo and behold here comes paul ryan saying the next thing we are going after is social and

security and it's going to hurt seniors. >> is that what paul ryan is take? >> there is nothing in the tax bill that addresses social security or medicare. in reference to the 35% tax rate. it's true that corporations navigate the tax code. s that reform to change behavior of companies so they can take that and not put it in to tax compliance but into ingenuity and research and grow the economy in a better stronger direction. look, we have got retaillighters that don't get all these deductions. target or bess bye, they are paying that 35%. they don't get all the breaks and deductions. it levels the playing field for all the companies and employers and making sure we are may go attention to small businesses who don't get these deduction. we are lower their tax rates,

too. >> it brings back money you say over seas. kevin has a he request on that, why should anybody bring money back until the rate is zero. >> part of our tax proposal in the house we make the rate zero in the future. going forward if you sell overseas, selling to customers outside of the united states you are getting those earnings right back to the united states. we keep the jobs here, keep the headquarters here, keep the innovation here. that's a smart tax proposal that puts us on par with what other countries are doing around the world. >> pat, line for democrats. >> caller: hello, mr. paulson, i have to say, you are full of baloney. i can't believe with every question you say oh, we do, we do help the small business. you are full of baloney, you do do not. what was the tax rate under reagan? for the highest earners was between 70 and 90%. he knocked that down. what happened? the working people lost every

year since. now with this new proposal, oh, we are not doing it. yes, you are. at&t, ge, verizon, these corporations pay no taxes. you say oh, we bring up the highest rate, 30%. yeah, but there are tons of loopholes and they pay no taxes. look it up on the internet. they pay no taxes. >> you bring up a lot of issues. let's give the congressman a chance to jump in. >> getting rid of the loopholes are important so companies are paying the taxes. that's the design of this. even if he you go back to the reagan reforms. i was in college when he was president but i do remember graduating from college and seeing the economy growing and starting to boom again. that's what we need to return to. that is what's really critical. again if we are going to have a strong safety net for our senior population if we are going to have opportunities for my daughter's generation, we have got to make sure we have a strong, growing, competitive economy again. and we shouldn't be sputtering along at 2% and having people

think that that's the new normal. >> last call, brent ka de has been waiting a while in chico, california arc republican. brenda, go ahead with your question. >> caller: million. >> go ahead, brenda. >> good morning, brenda. >> caller: that's not my name of it's wanda. not brenda. >> want darks i apologize. go ahead, we are running out of time, what's your question. >> caller: i have a question. are you going to investigate everybody in congress when you investigate roy moore? and are you ready to exspell at least one third of all congressmen? because they've all got skeletons in their closets, and you know that's true. and enema of roy moore's acquaintances called the accusers liars. but that never gets on the media because they don't want us to hear that. but you know, i don't think that everybody that's been accused is really true. >> all right. that's wanda. >> i will say this. we have had several members of

congress resign already on both sides of the aisle given some of the allegations around sexual improprietity or harassment. we have got to have a safe workplace for employees and interns to be in. i on the would be surprised if we hear more about this in the near future. i know the ethics committee is doing other investigations which is always ongoing. it's not the last we have heard of it. and it shouldn't be. >> other allegations regarding sexual improprietities with other colleagues? >> there could be more. you just never know. >> congressman eric paulson, republican from minnesota. always appreciate the time. come back and talk to us again. >> thank you. >> coming up, the house veterans affairs economic subcommittee will hold a hearing looking at the 2017 law expanding education programs for u.s. veterans. that's at 2:00 eastern on c-span. until then, more from this

morning's washington journal. >> david is a democrat from rhode island, a member of the house judiciary committee the panel that rod rosenstein will be appearing before tomorrow with rod rosenstein overseeing bob mueller's russia probe. what are you expecting to hear from him tomorrow. >> what do you want to learn from him? >> i think it's important to say at the outset one of the frustrations about the ongoing russia investigation and the intelligence committee investigations on a white house that's embroiled in scandals is that we are not focused on the important work that the american people except us to do in terms of creating good paying jobs, raising family incomes, reducing the costs in people's lives from everything from health care to cable bills to child care. and making sure folks have the tools necessary to be successful in the 21st century. we should be focused on the economic anxiety that the american people are facing. but sadly we have had to spend a

lot of time consumed with this. i hope we hear about his commitment to protect the integrity of the investigation. we had the director of the fbi before the judiciary committee the other day. and it was really disappointing to hear so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle attack the professionalen in and women in the fbi who do not -- professional men and women in the fbi who do very important work, who protect us from danger, who are extraordinary individuals and for them to attack the fbi organization in an ongoing evident to delegitimatize the organization. many people think this is beginning to set the context for the president to take some adverse action against robert mueller or to undermine conclusions that his investigation may present. this is all kind of well planned out. so i am expecting and hoping to here from rod rosenstein his commitment to protect the integrity of this investigation. >> do you think he is committed

to that from what you have heard from him so far? >> i mean, we shouldn't forget the role he played in the firing of jim comey. so i have some concerns. you know, his appointment of the special counsel was a significant step. i think this is an opportunity for him to reaffirm his understanding that this investigation must continue and the facts need to go wherever they go, we need to follow the facts. but it matters. you know, and i think there is going to be tremendous pressure from politics on the outside to interfere with that. and i'm hoping he's going to make it clear that that's not appropriate. >> i assume you mean protection from bob mueller being fired by the president. what ways can rod rosenstein do? >> he can make a public declaration. there is legislation in place where we would prevent that from happening without just cause. there is legislation but there has been no indication that the republican colleagues would

support that it hasn't come to the floor. but rosen styne can make it clear in testimony before the committee that he intend very much to protect the integrity of the ongoing investigation to make sure that robert mueller and his team have the resources they need to complete their work and to be sure that they are protected from any inappropriate political interference at all. i think he can make those declarations tony and reassure the american people of that. >> the judiciary committee have this as part of its oversight of the justice department. i'm wondering about the russia probes on other committees in capitol hill. do they have sbreg integrity. >> committees are diplomat efforts to try to get to the bottom of this and collect the facts. i think we've seen a number of examples where efforts have been stymied where witnesses have been allowed to invoke privileges that doesn't exist. >> such as? >> well the moat recent one is

when mr. trump jr. said he wouldn't answer the content of a conversation he had with his father. that's not an attorney-client attorney general session invoked i don't want to answer not because he is invoking his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination or executive privilege but simply because i don't want to answer because the question may be embarrassing or -- there is no legal base. you can't just say i prefer not to answer it. if you are before a committee, you are sworn, you must answer truthfully. i think the intelligence committees are doing their best but they don't have the same tools that the special counsel has. also, the special counsel is an independent effort free from the politics of democrats and republicans. i think the intelligence committees are doing important work but they are very much looking at going forward how do we sort of prevent this in the future. robert mueller is looking much

more at what happened and who engaged if anyone, in misconduct. two people -- four people indicted, two of them have pled guilty to serious offenses. so this is an investigation which is making progress. again we have to be sure that we let the professionals do their work. i think there will be an effort, there is an of the underway to undermine that work. >> a member of the foreign affairs and judiciary committees on capitol hill, also the house democratic policy and communications committee co-chair. can you just explain what that role is? >> sure. we have -- i was elected by my caucus along with jeffries of new york and sherry bus toes of illinois to put together the democratic agenda about better r wages for a better shooter, raising family income, reducing the cost and people's lives and making sure they are prepared for jobs in the 21st century. we have launched specific

legislative proposals to deal with the fundamental issue facing millions of americans. legislative proposals that are designed to deal with the fundamental issue facing millions of t americans who go bed at night and just don't have enough money to pay their bills, take care of their families. put a little away for the future. so this is a real focus on how do we raise family incomes and really strengthen the middle class. >> is that why even before answering the judiciary committee question you made sure to talk about family economics and this issue that democrats focus on. do you wish democratic members focused more on that than the russian probe? >> i think democratic members are focusing on that. i think democrats are talking a lot about what our economic agenda is. sadly, we don't have the ability to control what's covered in this administration, there's a lot of coverage of the russian investigation. there's a lot coverage of conflicts off interest and the tweet of the day. democrats remain very focused on how do we address the core

economic anxiety many people feel. frankly, the tax bill that the republicans are putting forth and trying to jam through right now will undermine that -- those economic priorities. it's more of take care of the people att the very top in the hopes it's going to trickle down to the rest of us. it's a huge tax cut for big corporations and the wealthiest americans. tens of millions, 82 million middle class families will see an increase in taxes. they further incentivize shipping american jobs overseas. they get rid of important deductions for medical expenses, student loan interest. by the way, this is a proposal that is designed to gut medicare and medicaid. this is phase one, you give away $1.5 trillion we don't have. put us in debt and a year from now' you'll hear the republican say we have no money. we have to cut medicare, social security, infrastructure, we'll have nothing.

they will be right we'll have no money because they've given it away to the richest people in the country who don't need it. in order to finance that, they're going to cut programs that are essential to middle class families. >> let's hear what viewers are focused on. lines for r republicans, democrs and independents. peggy is in lynchburg, virginia, a republican. you're on. >> i like to know where he said the fbi was so marvelous when they've got all these investigations on, how many of them was saying voting hillary. they took them off. so i just like to know why he says the fbi is so straight. >> yeah, sure. happy -- thanks for calling, peggy. i've had the privilege of working with the fbi and seeing first-hand the quality of the professionals who work at the fbi. these are men and women who dedicate their lives to the work oft law enforcement and of our own security here inth this country who do important work in keeping america safe.

who are respected and really deeply respected all over the world because of their being a member of the fbi. really, the top law enforcement agency in the world. it's an agency that does really important work that keeps us safe. that investigates in a professional way. is led by director ray, who said he a continues to have tremendous pride in leading this great organization. >> rightng now, a lot of that focus in the fbi is on that attempted bombing yesterday in new york. i want to get your reaction and what we may see from congress as a result of this latest attempt. >> yeah, i mean there's no greater responsibility than we have aso members of congress, a elected officials, than to do everything we can to keep people safe. this fight against terrorism is an ongoing fight.ig i think we'll continue to be engaged for a generation.

it's why we need to support our intelligence agencies that are gathering intelligence. our law enforcementnt agencies o are on the ground fighting terrorism. we have to defeat isis and work with ourbi partners to do that. this is an important responsibility we have to defeat terrorism. >> brooklyn, democrat, allen, ge ahead. >> several yearssi ago scalia before he passed away was a writer on a major decision on gun control where they substantially shifted the notion of the second amendmentnt being collective right to being an individual right and forcible by any one would-be gun owner. today i view that distinction in the context of a congress controlled by republicans that seem so dereluctant to enforce provisions of law against this presidentel that would be for t benefitbe of all citizens

collectively andnd individually. if the right to bear arms is nod viewed as individual and not collective, why shouldn't we not view the standing to force an investigation or an impeachment or a prosecution of the president to be held by any citizen who feels -- they see a violation of the emoluments clause of this president. they see a violation of the tax laws. they see a violation of his duty to the oath of office. any individual who feels aggrieved by this president, and not await the decision of partisans in the republican congress, to decide to investigate, prosecute or impeach. >> yeah, i mean, it's an interesting legalns question. i do think there are a number of pieces of litigation brought by citizens that relate to violations of the emoluments clause and other conflicts of

interest. i think there are causes that's happening. the other question that you raise about the underlying iv ability, sort of to challenge the president as an individual rather than as a result of partisan investigations. the one thing i would say is that this special counsel is an independent counsel. who has thus far demonstrated his independence from republicans or democrats. it's one of the reasons i think you're seeing an orchestrated effort to undermine robert mueller. this is someone of extraordinary integrity. deeply respected by democrats, republicans and independents. widely praised when he was appointed. as he's making progress in my view, getting closer and closer to the white house, you know, now indicting -- getting a plea from michael floynn. it's become the strategy of many to attack his integrity. >> a strategy of individual republicans in congress or

coordinated by leadership? >> i don't knowom if it's membe of congress, although we saw a lot of it ont display. m i think you're seeing in the media outlets. a lot were attacking robert mueller and begun an sustained attack on the fbi. i think it's part because they're either trying to set the stage or trying to prepare folks so when additional actions are taken, they can say thisin is at incredible. remember we told you this is a person you can't trust. this is very dangerous. this agency has a very important role in protecting the rule of law in this country. but the last thing i'll say is, look, i believe in this country, this america remains the best country in the world. i hope that this process, our application of the rule of law, although it's taking longer than many hoped, i hope that people

havend confidence this will unfd in the right way. we have strong institutions that are going to be involved this. i'm certaink of it. >> staying in new york, al is an independent, good morning.go >> good morning, cspan, thank you for taking my call. good morning, representative. >> good morning, al. >> hi. two issues, really. one i think that robert mueller has impeccable credentials. i think that as was said during the nixon years, deep throat, follow the money. i find that very unusual that president trump, not one bank in this country would loan him money for his businesses. he had to go to foreign sources. i think it's time we find out what foreign sources. the bank of cyprus is a shell

for russian corrupt money. i think mr. mueller will find out, although you won't find fingerprints on the gun, you'll find a gun.at and i think that we should also -- you should, as em democrats, start bringing out the emoluments. everything time president trump goes to one of his resorts, we as taxpayers foot the bill. that's costing us millions of dollars every weekend. >> it's a really important point. there's great organization bo call called c.r.e.w. they do really terrific job of collecting all of the information and examples of violations of the emoluments clause, of the president or members of his family or cabinet enriching themselves.

there is -- they've led litigation on exactly this issue. i think your call is right. we expect someone who serves as president of the united states to make every single decision based on what's in the best interest of the american people. and never worried about is this good for me personally. am i going to financially gain from this. i've introduced a piece of legislation to actually require when regulations are being rolled back that might enrich a particular individual in the administration for them to disclose that. i think there's regulatory actions that are being taken that are bringing great -- therp was a great "new york times" piece that addressed this.ot we want people who are in government that are making decisions based on the best interests of the people they serve and not because they'll benefit. ifif we can't have confidence tt people think they're doing right for their country, we have something to be concerned about.

>> glen, republican, good morning. >> good morning, john, good morning david. >> good morning, glen. >> its was hearing you talk abo making america great again in your wstatements. i'dg like to talk about there s two peoplee running last election. it was hillary clinton and donald trump.nt the investigation should be going a little more into hillary clinton and the wahi brothers. you want to follow the money, how about the clinton foundation. it should be investigated like corrine brown and they should be going to jail because they're def different than her. they used the moneyan for their own interest, not for the a people's interest. god bless america and merry christmas to all american citizens.

and you guys have a nice day. >> thank you, merry christmas to you and you have a nice day, too. f look, i think this is sadly something we hear very often from my republican colleagues aa well. when you're pressed hard about the ongoing russia investigation, conflicts or interest or horrible statement or conduct by the president, they pull hillary clinton outesf the air. hillary clinton lost the election. she is not the president of the united states. she, you know, ought not be the focus of a lot of attention since she's a candidate. she's a former candidate. it's not an excuse every timetr you raise a serious issue about the conduct of this administration, or their behavior in their campaign or their foreign policy blunder or their statement that white supremacists are -- live now to capitol hill as the house veteran's affairs economicpp