short on time. i will just add cnn is reporting that markets right now are near correction in response to the coronavirus. >> yes, i certainly agree with you that we have one of the best systems in the world to take care of a pandemic, and to prevent it, but there are still millions and millions of americans that don't have access to health care in this country. i am talking about citizens of the united states of america who can't afford it. and so we do have to do better. but in the meantime, i do want to say that we don't need to panic, but we need to prepare. we need to be ready. and the experts that are forecasting that it could be a problem here in the united states of america, we need to be ready to answer that, and to

prevent that. so i think traveling still is a good idea, within the united states of america, and we do have a great country, but our health care system still has holes in it. >> congressman shakowski, thank you for talking to our viewers this morning. >> thank you. and live today, here on c-span 3, we'll be hearing about the u.s. response to the coronavirus before a house subcommittee, with testimony from the director of the centers for disease control and prevention, and other officials. the hearing starting later than scheduled, should begin in about 40 minutes or so. that will put us at 2:45 p.m. eastern time. while we wait, we'll take a look at more details on the coronavirus outbreak from today's "washington journal." welcome to the table, congressman warren davidson, a republican of ohio. a member of the financial services committee, also the freedom caucus, let's begin with the coronavirus, and then we will talk about fisa courts as well.

the president has asked for 2.5 billion. the democrats, led by chuck schumer of new york, are saying we need more like 8.5 billion. what do you think the number should be? >> i think it's always easier to go with a low number and add more. you can't spend $2.5 billion before summer, and congress is in session plenty of times between now and then, so i think it is rationale to go with a lower number than spend more but i think the president kind of signaled sure, you want to give me more money, give me more money. and i'm sure the president will make, you know, judicious use of it, but frankly let's be clear, we're borrowing the money. >> would dehave it. >> what do you mean? >> i mean we're spending a trillion more than we have right now. the deficits actually do matter and so you're going to borrow money. it is like, why run up the full balance on the credit card when you can just pay for what you actually need right now. >> what are you hearing from your constituents about their concerns about this coronavirus outbreak? >> i think a lot of people are concerned, in our district, in ohio, we have a lot of manufacturing, so people are concerned about the supply chain, and you know, a lot of the timing on this, hit right as

the chinese new year was going in china, a lot of the supply chains, still goes back to china, and tons of people didn't come back to work, so you're going to see disruptions in the supply chain. so it is not just a supply shock. it is also a demand shock. because people are checking up on the public activities, in other parts of the world, and so what is going to be the spillover effect in the u.s. >> what kind of companies are in your district that are connected, the supply chains are connected to china? >> we have a lot of automotive, area spa space and proctor gamble in the area and ge engine, aircraft engines in the area so some of the big companies that you would recognize are there but a lot of the downstream supply chains for say the honda supply chain, and toyota supply chain, gm, and then any number of things in the aerospace. we just had nasa, jim bridenstein, out in northern kentucky, talking to the supply chain for space, everything from the earth, and uabs and how that is possibly going to transform all the way up into deep space. so strong supply chain there.

and of course, ag presence. this isn't the same kind of thing where they're used to accommodating bird flu or things like that in the past. so there's a good amount of readiness in the area, in the health care area, but people are looking at it. >> have those companies told you they have already been hurt by this? >> no just kind of early warning system. and frankly supply chains have been made more resit sillent as everyone knows, president trump has made dealing with trade a huge priority for his administration, and frankly our supply chains are more resilient because we've had this ongoing trade issue with china. so companies have started shifting, i talked with a company, who said yes, we were getting all of our forgings and castings from china and we decided, we need to dual source that, and now have actually three sources. and so they have a much more resilient supply chain to deal with shocks like this. >> could your farmers be, could your farmers see an uptick of their products to china because the chinese, you know, can't

rely on their own production of whether it be, i don't know what's in your district, but whether it's wheat or flour or hogs, et cetera. >> right, yes, so we have big corn and soybeans but we have one of the larger poultry districts in the country, and when you look at, when you look at pork, for example, china is number one source of protein is pork, and they had a huge outbreak of disease with their swine population this year, so it did help exports although the trade dispute, china didn't want to concede as much, it could help more and we look forward to seeing the progress the administration is making on the trade negotiations so we will get our ag sector back strong from the export market. >> and what have you heard from your health care provider districts and hospital. are they prepared. >> i think they are. and trying to learn everything from hhs and cdc has been responsive and i spoke to someone who said yes, we talked to cdc, we didn't know exactly how to treat the person, and it was really relaying secondhand,

not something that happened in our district, but what is the protocol. and so they get somebody that shows symptomatic, and you know, one of the things that is going in now is test kits, and we already cover nad in the previous segment, bust just making sure when someone does show symptoms this very a way to get a rapid feedback on the test. >> the other issue we wanted to talk to you this morning about is these expiring fisa provisions. could you explain what they are for our viewer hes. >> so fisa is foreign intelligence variance act, passed in 1978, but massively expanded under the patriot act, so a lot of people will think of these provisions as patriot act provisions. and so section 215 is the business records provision. so the foreign intelligence surveillance act is intended to target foreigners but a lot of americans data, the controversial part, particularly post-edward snowden, was how many americans private records were being collected and

searched frankly without even having a warrant. and the standard for the warrant, and so you've seen systematic abuse of this, so october 8th of 2019, the fisa court made public a 2018 opinion, where they found, you know, abuses kind of across the range from the intelligence agencies and the fbi, and of course they're not supposed do that, it's against the law, they have come to congress and said none of this was happening but now we know that that wasn't true. and so, not to mention all of the things with horowitz and the investigation, and president trump, and so even the biggest fans of the patriots act, are looking at this, in a different way, so yesterday, there was supposed be a markup of reauthorization and judiciary, chairman jerry nadler pulled the bill that he was planning to move forward because there was a coalition of conservatives and progressives that were backing a bill, a democratic progressive from california and i, had

safeguarding american's private records act that would have required an amicus with full access to all of the classified data, to advocate on behalf of the american citizens. and a number of other reforms that safeguard americans' private records. so going into that, it was possible that we would be marking up our bill, so that the bill the chairman wanted, and a number of amendments that if that didn't pass, a number of amendments would have surely passed, and so it was checked off. and so now we're trying to make sure that we actually did a real hearing on fisa and the reforms that a bipartisan coalition and bicameral frankly, senator dane and senator widen are sponsors in the senate side of this same bill, so a good coalition saying we have to reform the system, in light of all of the abuses that we've seen, and frankly, it rehashes a lot of the debate that did occur at the time of the patriot act. >> let me go over for our viewers the other surveillance programs that are set to expire. authorization of roving wire

taps, authority over lone wolf surveillance, and this is according to the hill newspaper, now the safeguarding americas private records act which you and zoe lofgren are introducings it would reform 215 of the patriot act and addresses problems identified by the inspector general and exposes transparency and closes loopholes. could you dig a little bit more into what you're talking about here? >> it would reauthorize roving wire taps and that is the ways that we're reintroducing a bill that just reauthorityizes wire taps and it can't move the 215 record and anything else. when you look at the 215 record for example, let's take the lone wolf, they say under testimony they have never used it and what collection would you do on a lone wolf that has no coordination with anyone. that's why they have never used it. so in theory you could have a lone actor that's going to come do some harm in america but if they were completely alone and who would they be coordinating

with, right? so under oath, they said they never abused that provision. now you go to like the call records for example, and they have said they are no longer doing the call tracking program. they said that they have spent about $100 million, tracking american citizens phone calls and searching through, it and in all of the time they have done it they have only had one case that resulted in a prosecution off of it. so it's really an assessment of the effectiveness of the protocols that they put in place. on the other hand, there are things like your emails that you might have, and some cases, just because the server happens to be located out of the united states, people don't each know, they might not be in direct connection, with the foreign power, so the standard originally was that if you're, if you were going to use fisa, instead of a traditional warrant process, and targeted american citizens, that you had to get a warrant, and the only way you could do it warrantlessly, and through the fisa court, was if you had a connection to four

criteria that, i can't say the exact four criteria off the top of my head, but four criteria that were a brightline test, and now post, i think 2015 reforms, under the usa freedom act, it made it so it has the slightest nexus to any part of a crime. so it wasn't the core piece of why you were looking for. it it was tangentially, they might have talked to a foreigner, let's check this. >> congressman warren davidson, the second term, ohio's eighth district. here to take your question, republican 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. and independents, 202-748-2002. we will go to david, first, middleton ohio, republican. >> caller: hello greta. >> good morning. >> caller: warren davidson is my congressman, and i appreciate everything he's doing. i appreciate donald trump taking

on the coronavirus. he gets so much -- >> criticism. >> it's great to talk with you, david, how are you today? >> i'm better than i deserve. >> amen. >> all right. well, do you share his concern that the president is getting criticized for this unfairly? >> well, i mean there's nothing new under the sun, right? you look at the president, who has been criticized, you go back under george w. bush, he was criticized by the media, you go back to, you know, the history of it, it is, president trump was loved by everyone and then he became president, and we will see where it goes afterwards, but in the meantime, that's what they do, they criticize the president, and first, it was, he was overreacting, and being zene foep phobic by blocking people at the airports coming directly

from china who weren't american citizens and then it's not you're not doing enough, too much, too hot, too cold. every day is a day to criticize the president for some people. >> joe in maine, independent. >> caller: yes, good morning. >> good morning. >> caller: right before i say anything, you know, you're making $174,000 to sit here, and lie to the american people, the reason i criticize donald trump is 16,000 lies, okay? he's sitting there last night, saying don't worry about nothing. you heard him. don't worry about nothing. contradicting all of the experts that are standing behind him. come on. wake up. you're on the financial committee. you just said we don't need to put more money there or here, we're $22 trillion in debt because of the tax breaks for white men only. you sat on a jury, you took an oath, and you didn't do

anything, to go after the mueller report? you ignored that. ten obstructions of justice. and not for me. not for me. >> god bless america. thank god we have free speech and appreciate your opinion. we obviously don't agree on much, but thanks for sharing. >> middleton, in ona, west virginia, democratic caller. >> caller: okay mr. representative, i want to ask you a question. >> okay. >> caller: did you watch the press conference that the president gave, or watch the clip that greta showed, when the cdc, the chief was talking, and trump standing behind them, looking at his body language, at his face expressions, what does that tell you? does that tell you that he really cares? just look at him. he wants everybody to hurry up and shut up.

that's the way you see it? that's the way i see the clip. >> apparently i didn't see the same clip you're referencing and i didn't get that from the president at all, and i don't think anyone in congress gets a sense that the president doesn't care. he is as a press conference. i think he is a looking at a shared stage and frankly the president doesn't share the stage a lot. so you know, he's, it could be just that. and they're sharing a clip here in the audience, so he's looking, i'm looking at part of that clip right now. and so yes, i can see what you're talking about, and he's definitely, you know, he is ready for his chance to come back and say something at the mic. and i think the, one of the things that people look to the president of the united states to do, is to be a steady voice, in a time of stress for the country. and when you look back at how well the united states has responded to past crises, you look at sars, ebola threat, under president obama, the bird flu, any number of things, our

system, in the united states, beginning with security at the border, beginning with the centers for disease control, the national institutes for health, and frankly, our massive private sector, that is incredibly innovative, look at the response that we've had and the track record we've had so i don't think the president is saying hey, this isn't anything to worry about, for anyone in the world, and i think he is saying for the people in the united states, look, we are taking this seriously, and we have the resources to deal with the problem. and i think when people come on and they sound alarmist, the president is like no, you're going against the message. the message here is we've got this, make sure you take your precautions, wash your hands, practice good hygiene, and if you are sick, stay home and don't get other people sick. but otherwise, go to work and get back to normal life. things are going to be fine. and i think that was the message. not that he didn't care. but when you see somebody say something that is at odds with that, he's like well, let's weigh back in and get the focus

on the right topic here. >> norfolk, virginia, regina, independent. >> caller: hello, thank you very much for taking my call. i want to ask the representative exactly why the president did not use a fy isisa warrant to g after the biden son. i don't care what anybody thinks, fisa is there for the protection of the individual citizen, from abusive government and intrusive government. it worked for carter page, and why wasn't he held to the same standard? >> well, i think the president's being clear that he believes the standard that was used to target him was wrong, and it was an abuse of law, it was an abuse of the power that people who are trusted to do the right thing abused that trust, and targeted him and others. and so you also see it, for example, when bernie sanders was warned that russia was intervening in a way that would benefit bernie sanders, you

know, i thought the protocol was you were supposed to begin a spying campaign on bernie sanders and all of his network, right? so i mean the president has said, and he is consistent, i don't believe that's the right thing, that shouldn't happen to any presidential candidate, and should t-shouldn't happen to any, if shouldn't happen to any american citizen so i do believe the president is going to be opposed to moving forward with a reauthorization of fisa with no reforms and i think the reforms are going to have to be meaningful, not just for candidates or high-elected officials but for all americans, to make sure that their privacy is respected and we follow the constitution. >> north, ohio, we will go there next, where james is watching, a democratic caller. >> caller: yes, i have a question for the congressman. did you vote for or against the right to organize the labor union bill? >> i don't know which vote you're speaking about, so, but if you're talking about do i support right to work in states, for example, in and there was a

recent effort to nationalize opposition to right to work, i believe states can have those laws, and i don't think the federal government should say we're going to undo what states have done who have passed right to work laws. if that's their -- >> do you believe that right to work lowers wages or unions, is it better to have union household or a nonunion household? >> well, in my family, we've got both. my grandpa, or papa, as i call him, a retired teamster, my father-in-law is a retired teamster, he's got a great pension, he ended up with lower wages for a lot of his career because he put a lot into the pension fund. and right now, there's a lot of concern, because central state's pension fund and some of the mine workers pension fund, i've got an you think whole is a retired mine worker caught up in underfunded pensions there. on the other side, i've got family who have worked and saved for their retirement, and they have had a different system, because they kept more take home pay all through the system, and it wasn't going into the pension

fund. so i think both can be good, and you know, even in a union situation, you can have bad outcomes, because the fund, the pension fund can be underfunded. >> mary ellen in sarasota, florida, independent, you're on the wear with congressman warren davidson. >> caller: i'd like to ask how the democrats that are complaining about the president's response to coronavirus can justify the biggest threat and risk of a vector from illegal foreign nationals coming into our country who are not investigated, are not regulated, that's where disease transmission can really take hold. italy is bottlenecked. the eu has ignored italy's cries for help. they have massive amounts of illegal foreign nationals that

have migrated into italy, and they're stuck there, because the eu will not let them, they haven't helped italy. we have the same risk at our southern border. and i'd like to know how the democrats can complain when they truly are responsible for unregulated entry into this country. >> i think it is a fair concern, you know, the president said, well, if you don't have a secure border, due real, you don't rea have a secure country and i think that's true. when you look at the response at the border, the way we are able to screen people coming in on flights, we can know where they were before, their connection, and we have a very good system of people, when they come through border checkpoint, of being able to say, and we can check and assess at the border even, are they symptomatic, at a very superficial level. but when you go across the border, in an unsecure way, obviously there aren't

safeguards there. so we do need a secure border. and i think this is just one of the, you know, a plethora of, an abundance of ways that highlights why having a secure border matters. and it can be a very important safeguard. just like the president's decision on blocking anyone coming directly from china who is not an american citizen for this time period. it was an effective safeguard, even though initially a lot of people said it was alarmist and xenophobic. and so i think you look at why, how can you do that, well, you can't do it if you don't have border security. >> huntsville, missouri, we will go there next, democratic caller, danny. >> caller: yes, i was calling about, why are you so, in congress, ever since newt gingrich and the contract with america, after clinton, you've been at odds with the democrats on almost everything, and keep trying to justify, and even saying the others can't be

justified, you don't have any way to, with respect to them and stuff, and you don't care what everybody else thinks, you got to care about somebody -- >> that's a fair concern of partisanship, and frankly when you look at the timing of this, cable news kind of came of being in the same kind of time frame, right? and you see this 24/7 news cycle coverage. and apparently what sells ads is conflict and division. the reality is there are a lot of things even on the most partisan topic, republicans and democrats agree. and i'll highlight one of those. but the other part when you look at gingrich, why do people so much associate with that gingrich, well, for 40 years prior to that, republicans were in the minority. in the house. so the democrats had a majority in the house of representatives for 40 years. so the whole thing was pretty partisan and one-sided until, until the gingrich contract with america produced a republican majority, and there has been

some back and forth since then, so now, in the consciousness of people, there's a difference between the parties. and just one thing to highlight, that i love emphasizing, health insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws, laws that would prohibit price signaling, market shaping, like hey, you're staying out of this county and we're going into that one, the efforts to block new entrants, anti-trust laws are a big deal about making markets work, actually keeping capitalism functioning correctly. but health insurance companies are exempt from this. so in 2017, in the height of controversy on reforming health care, republicans and democrats voted on this, it was hr-372, in march of 2017, and it passed 416-7. it wasn't even close. and i thought, as a new person, new member of congress, that this would be a huge national news, everyone would be talking about it, and the reality is, there was almost no mention, there was a little tiny blip buried in the "new york times" in a little tiny blip buried in

the hill. there was no national tv coverage. there was nothing else about it. and people speculate why is that. and i spoke to a long-time member and he said well, you know, they don't bring this up in the news, and they're not going to bring it up in the senate, probably because it would pass. why? because some people don't actually want it to pass. and there's no emphasis on the things we do agree on. even in may this year on maerkz again, congress voted, health care again, congress voted 420-0 to make it easier to launch generic drugs in the house. it still has to vote in the senate. and you see almost no mention of it in the press. and you have to ask yourself, why is that? >> bob in victoria, texas, a republican. >> caller: yes, thank you, ma'am. thank you, representative. my god, back up, man, because i tell you what, he out to throw us back in the democratic space, tearing the walls in and let

them come in here with the viruses and everything else, look at california. >> it is a ses poochlt and all of these illegals, how many of them are working in kitchens in new york and illinois and texas, with kind of disease, you know, and tell them about the restriction on flying people over here, all of that was all bad, bad, bad, you know, now, they're hollering, oh, we're going to die, we have to put more money into it, and you know, this is ridiculous. the democrats have come home to roost, and it's not looking good for them. and they need to be exposed. you need to tell them about this catch and release, that if they got a fever, just release them on into the country. and next time -- >> well, go ahead, congressman. >> you know, i just look at the consequences of that, and you know, while i get that presumably, you're speaking hyperbole and looking at the irony of the situation, that would be a horrible thing to do,

and frankly, even if the president wanted to do that, congress would never go along with it. >> but there is no refd that has happened. >> this president loves our country and that's not going to happen. and i think if you look at the concern, if you look at where are people with the disease, and why it is so important, public health is important, and go back to early issues in the united states of america, with typhoid mary, and how we had to quarantine her, she was a carrier, but was asymptomatic, and look at how far public health has come in the united states of america since that time. i mean we truly lead the world in our response. and for somebody who says oh, well but singapore, you're talking about a little city-state. this is a nation of 330 million people with massive borders and the world's biggest economy, and the world's most diverse population, people coming here from all over the world, and yet, our system has worked very effectively. you know, so far. and part of why it works so far is we don't take for granted it is going to work this time. so you see the president making

a big deal about it and frankly you see congress making a big deal about it. it is going to be taken seriously. and you know, we are confident that we have made the investments that give the united states of america the ability to deal with threats like this. >> how much are your state and local officials spending in your district or in your state, on preparing for the coronavirus? >> that's a question that i don't know in terms of, you know, response, and frankly it hasn't reached that level, and i mean you look at what are we spending money on, what is massively bigger than you know, fatalities, even worldwide, from coronavirus, the opioid fatality, i mean you're talking about less than 3,000 worldwide fatalities from coronavirus and granted it is early into it, but it isn't even close to the number of fatalities in the united states of america from opioids. so ohio is definitely geared up for that. it is ground zero for the opioid crisis and fatal overdoses and

frankly the trend is down by about 20% but it is far too many people dying because of drugs. >> in your district as well. >> absolutely. >> yes. >> so if you're familiar with the best selling book, jd vance wrote it from middletown ohio and wrote about the things that have gone on and what i hope he writes is a see squell of what is going on now and a lot of great trends and last year at the state of the union we brought out the middleton police chief out and having a lot of success not only with community opioids but community policing and getting the community involved and getting people involved in the broad away of things that are pushing people into drugs in the first place. >> an independent from ohio. >> thank you for all you do, representative. >> thank you. >> i just got, if you know about it, there has been dr. francis

boyle, who wrote the bio laws in the '80s, to help legislate bio laws has come out with an article pointing out five years ago that north carolina university along with the institute and the military have sold china something that looks similar to the coronavirus. now, could you comment on that, or please go find out, and another thing, is please, please get rid of all of the surveillance on american people. it has done nothing. and it never will. it's just for surveilling the people. thank you. and thank you for all you do. >> thanks for your comments. and if you look at the exports to china, one of the big laws that did get passed was a reform to export controls to china, but also chinese investment in the united states. so there is a committee on foreign investment in the united states, there was a lot of concern that, and recent prosecution, or at least charges

filed, against some professors in massachusetts, who were cooperating to build biological facilities in china, using sensitive american technology, and so these technology transfers are getting attention at the highest levels, down to the doctoral and post-doctoral students that are developing intellectual property and the buildings that the owners are buying, and in some case case, using the whole i.t. infrastructure to pull private confidential, sometimes classified, and certainly sometimes patented, or patent-pending, very early stage technology, and china has been behind a lot of that, so the united states is definitely paying a lot of attention to it. >> congressman warren davidson, thank you sir for your time this morning. >> thank you. appreciate you. >> come back again. >> thank you. the secretary of defense has indicated that protection of the force is the number one priority. regarding the coronavirus.

so u.s. northern command is with the department working very closely in support of health and human services, we're connected with them on a daily basis, frequent number of times a day. and so we're watching this very, very closely for any implications on global mobility. >> and what specific actions are you taking? inside the transportation enterprise, locations like travis air force base has become a receiver for potential folks coming out of the theater, the indo pacific, so we're not taking particular health protection measures inside of the command other than to protect the force, and in a more broad sense we're in support of health and human services and that is done through the lead of the u.s. mili-con. >> and general water does you feel you've been given the necessary resources and other tools to keep american service men and women and their families

in europe. >> yes, senator, and we have also been given the appropriate authorities as we speak in europe today, we have over 300 cases, in the nation, that is most concern is italy, with six reported deaths. we have restricted travel to certain zones and we require all mil-air arrival flights to be screened for the virus. >> are you taking any additional steps to constrain travel by service men and women or their families on their leave and so forth? >> we have. and what we feel are the affected areas in particular, two states inside of italy. >> and do you have plans to restrict travel in any other state? >> we anticipate the need may arise in germany, but that is still to be determined. >> top military officials testified about precautions being taken abroad to protect

u.s. forces and their families. as the coronavirus continues to spread. the comments came during a senate armed services committee hearing regarding the european and transportation commands fiscal year 2021 defense authorization requests. watch tonight beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. during this election season, the conditions beyond the talking points are only revealed over time. but since you can't be everywhere, there's c-span. our campaign 2020 program differs from all other political coverage for one simple reason. it's c-span. we've brought you your unfiltered view of government every day since 1979, and this year, we're bringing you an unfiltered view of people seeking to steer that government. this november. in other words, your future. so this election season, go