if you talk video consumption globally there's more video consumption going on in the world or domestically than at any other time in history of the world and the investments that companies sitting on this stage have made. cloud-based d.v.r.'s or multiple tuners. we made a reference here about over 90 tv everywhere apps. huge libraries. we ourselves have given our customers more places, more devices to use the content and one of them is the broadband network. .

julia: thanks to the new periscope and merekat technology, people found a new way to get around paying for sports content. obviously it's a very new technology. and been around for a long

time not an internet problem -- internet problem not a periscope problem. sports has been such an integral part of holding everything together. are you worried about all these new technological threats, and breaking apart the content bundle, whether that's one sold via the internet or paid tv, over cable? tom: buying content is probably less expensive for us from buying it in packages from large content companies. the big issue going forward what you are referencing is security is a huge problem in the digital age. and we have very fast high-speed networks. storage that you can buy is getting keeper every day. so people can keep content and move it arne the world instantly.

the security of content and how content companies sell their products and whether they are secure or not ultimately -- we are paying for is a real issue. if they don't secure their content, it won't be worth much. that's the lesson of what we just saw this weekend. >> there's another dimension to it which is the thing that was exploited in the case of the reprance trans-mission of the fight this weekend was the analog. rob: there is no way to close that. if the eye can see it, a digital device can see it, and the real issue arose out of the mass transmission of something that was otherwise simply seen by another person. i'm not sure how to solve the problem securitywise but certainly i think for all of us who live in this ecosystem protecting intellectual property is critical. julia: looking down the road as consumer demands change, you-all seem to say you want to give consumers as you want, how

are you as companies going to have to adapt to these changing consumer needs? there are nanls going on here -- panels going on here about new mi lenials and the expectations they have -- millennials and the expectations they have. how does that change your business? pat? pat: they want access, they want plecksibility, they want different size packages, they want to use technology they want it on multiple screens. the industry has demonstrated we are trying to do that. at the same time, a conversation there about periscope or merekat these are real. that's the world we now do business in. if we don't manage it properly, they are still going to exist. there is good reasons those apps are getting used. it's our new world. we have had these -- one thing i do agree with with the chairman is, we have had a number of moments in our history where we reinvented ourselves. i think we are going to still have those moments in my career going forward.

the future is very bright. can i take cox, look at our company, man, look what's going on. we rolled out ghiga net services in multiple markets. -- giganet services in multiple markets. business services is on the cusp of hitting $2 billion in growth. customer relationships. i found most of the results, we are growing customer relations. there is a lot of great indications in this industry that the future is very, very bright and we should be excited. we have technological change to deal with. we are going to grapple with that as we go along. we are going to take a couple steps forward and back as we go through this process. >> we have amazing networks, we'll all know that. powerful networks over time becoming more powerful. mike: we have great content relationships. together we spend billions every year with great content providers. what we missed is, to use an overused term, is the app. the app that allows that

content to be accessed easily, seamlessly on multiple devices by kids, consumers who want it simple. as we invest, all of us, we are for sure, in that app experience, if we saw the big series of issues that were -- good conversation, millennials, kids don't like cable. put the bill aside the experience can and should be incredible. and will be. we are finding our customers with verizon go, they don't go anywhere. they keep using infinity. it didn't go anywhere. if it works well it's beautiful, simple, we aspire to be like the great consumer companies we know exist in this industry, we got it. julia: we are out of time. jim, you are nodding. i know you have been working outside the traditional cable system with your new introductions. do you care about selling traditional cable tv or is it all about broadband? jim: we look at traditional tv, we look at it like a

convenience store. it's the milk and eggs. you have to have it. for the future of cable vision, the -- we'll continue to innovate in that space and continue to offer those products in multiple ways including to millennials who only watch an hour of tv a day. what we know is most important to them is connectivity. that's where we are going to focus. we are going -- in a highly competitive market and we want to be the dominant provider. we are going to focus on what people want the most. julia: unfortunately we are out of time. certainly fascinating tipping point for the industry. in terms of all the new products and interfaces you are offering consumers. thank you so much for joining us today. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> now, ladies and gentlemen please welcome our next panel which will also be moderated by julia. first, the chairman and c.e.o. of showtime networks, matt blank. next the chief executive officer of f.x. networks and f.x. productions, john landgraf. the president and c.e.o. of a.m.c. networks incorporated, josh sapan.

julia: thank you guys. i'm sure you were listening backstage and there's all talk about over the top and how the cable carriers aren't worried about board cutting because they sell broadband. for you you have to think about cable, carriage of your charges. both for retransmission fees, also for advertising. how worried are you about this? matt: we need to grow our business. the traditional distribution business is very mature right now. i think one of the key sound bites of this past week was in the comcast earnings where they announced that they now had more broadband subscribers than video subscribers. there is a very clear message there. for us new distribute is -- distribution is all critical. we intend to grow households. we need new way foss do that. -- ways to do that. i wouldn't say we are worried

about core cutting. there is a lot of opportunity in a lot of different corners in the marketplace to grow showtime. julia: what do you think? john: we need to get to the consumer. i think cord out cut something a terrific catchy term. i think it's not as ubiquitous as people think it is. what is true and reflected on the previous panel is the interface by which people find and consume great stories and great content is shifting over time. and essentially what we are all working towards is having interface that's comparable to the best interfaces anybody could feel. julia: you must be watching a lot of hbo now. what do you think? josh: i think the previous panel who was encouraging to me because i think the changes that are being made are intended to sort of free up

consumers from filling obligation, and i think when they do that it's a more pleasurable experience it's more fun. i think a lot of that stuff which sounds disruptive and different can recapture the imminimum wagination of the consumer and he or she can feel better about what they buy and have more flexibility. and i think focus on the app i think interfaces are not really faceless. they are fundamental. when you get a great one, you just love it to death. and if you combine that with the feeling that you can get what you want, and i think cable vision is doing that, when you want it, i think your motivation increases. i think you actually consume potentially even more. i find it very encouraging. julia: the question for showtime f.x., and a.m.c. is whether you want to go directly to consumer. showtime is working on an app.

can you give us updates? matt: we have been talking to everybody. most importantly i spent a good part of the past two years talking to the heads of every cable company about the math of bringing showtime to the current distribution universe via broadband. that's a good place to start. we think there's a lot of opportunity out there. we are going to take advantage of it. the question is when is the right time? who are the right players? and that's something i think we'll be talking about shortly. julia: hbo has been in the market for about a month. we don't know exact numbers, but it sounds like it's off to a good start. do you think there are any lessons to be learned from how that's been lodged? matt: to finish on that. the one tremendous advantage we see, we have begun to see it with showtime any time is consumers are getting used to buy all sorts of products, whether it's an uber ride, movie ticket, dinner delivered with really excellent consumer

interface. that's something as an industry we haven't really experienced until in our case we have been able to bring an application like showtime anytime out there. you see what the difference is when you can present your product with an interface that is consistent with the types of products that are being consumed due to all the changes in technology. and that's a big deal. josh: the number of broadband only customers wasdy min must, and now it's a large enough share of the market that each of us who has a national consumer band and these are three great consumer brands, have to pay attention to that smaller segment of the market that's still -- that is now only broadband. john: we have to figure out a methodology. i don't want to discount the pathway through our existing relationships with cable operators, who are also in the broadband business. the truth is the sim pea kwlotic relationship between --

symbiotic relationship between us has served well for a long time. we have a problem. we have a group of 10 million homes and it's going to grow to 20 million by 2020. and we got to figure out how to get there. certainly direct to them is one path. there's also a path that goes through broadband and just as an evolution of our existing relationships. julia: i can also watch, i watch all of your shows, can i watch them on your networks, also sometimes, on netflix or amazon. there are all these new ways one can consume this content. do you see that leading into your core subscriber number? john: i think you can see there is a lot of consumption of the very best content. i think that our three brands have a significant percentage of the very best content. unfortunately for us we also own a lot of that content so we benefit from the consumption

that's happening after our market. we have been focused very aggressively at preserving the first window for our cable partners, and providing really good -- we have the stacking rights, in season, full episode rights of all our shows. 20 original series. we are focused on providing them through apps, as well as our own apps. on the other hand, there's tremendous value in that back-end marketplace. it's largely replacing syndication. julia: it sounds like for you ownership of that content is really integral to your strategy. john: we started f.x. productions more than a decade ago. if we were in the business of renting programs as opposed to programming, licensing as opposed to owning it, i don't think we could make the numbers work. but the ownership turns out to be a great business on a domestic and global basis. we have businesses very good at marketing and launching those shows and owning them is a

boom. i would have no objection to seeing the back end rights of our shows captured by our own programming service, our brand, in the way hbogo captures the back end rights of its programming. i would have no objection to recapturing those rights inside the system if there was an economic pathway to doing it. ultimately, we are in business -- partnership with content creators. and they are going to go whether they are going -- where they are going to get the most creative freedom and marketing. the bottom line is those syndication revenues, are absolutely critical to compensate. julia: a.m.c. is unique in that you have this "walking dead" behe mooth. -- behemoth. this has been a real driver of live programming. "walking dead" has been very unique in that live programming. how do you encourage that or drive it or keep that show

live? what is that value of that live event? josh: in the current advertising regime, and may further undergo modification, it's how the money flows. the underlying phenomenon of watching when something is scheduled, when there is all these opportunities to watch at your own choice on various different machines, is a curious one and i think we are seeing this effect that's both in "empire" at the moment and "walking dead" which is increased ratings at 10:00 p.m. every sunday. a thing seemingly of the past. it's occurring now. i think it is -- i think it's to some degree in response to a greater -- growing trend of people watching alone on a machine and bingeing and taking

advantage of all sorts of improvements, but it does miss out on community. so there's a big lot of fun, of course when you watch the super bowl live, or the academy awards, but there is an awful lot of fun when you watch "the walking dead," and the show after it and you tweet. and i think you're seeing that experience in "empire." of course you are seeing certain broadcast networks trying to take advantage of literal live with theatrical productions. we saw with "sound of music" and "peter pan." i think there is an oddly bright future that will be defined with greater specificity about what wins at a time slot. but there is a totally cool time slot win thing because it's in service of people being together. you got to hit it right.

it zigs against zag of on-demand. i think it's a pretty rich opportunity. julia: relationship? matt: first, go back to your question with john. looking at this environment with netflix and the competition in the home, we see something it's the pore things change the more they stay the same. we have seen this heavy user dynamic in our business for the better part of 30 years in multipay. certain households just want everything. now when we look at hulu, netflix, amazon prime we see they index very high in our homes. so you can take a glass half empty or glass halfful. the half empty would be gee how are you going to compete? the halfful, which i prefer, we are seeing these heavy users and we are fortunate to exist in that very precious space where that audience is saying, give us more. give us more of this great

serialized dramatic content. as much of it as we can get. the advantage we have in particular not being in advertising driven environment, is that we don't care how somebody watches something. and the example i always use is "dexter" which has been off the air for about a year or so but 10 years ago we launched "dexter," 2/3 of the viewing was live on sunday night and a third was delayed through other vehicles. when "dexter" went into the final season a year and a half ago, it was a complete reverse. a third of the viewing was live on sunday night and 2/3 of the viewing came on demand, d.v.r., other places. yet in that final season we had three times the viewing we had in season one. so that says our ability to use this technology to manage through these platforms creates tremendous value for a showtime subscriber. julia: do you think there needs

to be a shift in measurement when you are trying to negotiate with advertisers? how broken is the measurement system? john: it's different. it's more difficult than that in the sense than the fundamental advertising model is due for massive reinvention. i think ultimately what the consumer is telling us is that they are not willing to give us 15 minutes of their time to watch a -- 45 minutes of our content. i think they are willing to give us quality time for a relevant ad and also i'm actually very bullish and excited about the advertising business' ability to reinvent itself over time. but that said the viewership of our shows has gone up. when you count all those various different streams. and ultimately while we have an advertising issue that's, i think, going to be very dynamic, very transformative marketplace, it's going to be different five years from now

than it is now, i think the business of making great stories that engage consumers and being paid for those could stories is as good as it's ever been. i don't see it going anywhere. ultimately i think all this comes back to creativity and storytelling. i think that the mode of interaction is vital to the consumer, but no one is going to be able to corner the market on great storytelling. it refuses to be corralled into one single bucket. i trust that you could come back here in a decade and these three brands will still be very healthy and there will be other brands that are very healthy today that will also be healthy in 10 years. julia: i want to hear about the content, decisionmaking topics. on the ad topic what's your outlook this year? how is it going to handle the fact there are these other competitors like netflix?

josh: there is an evolution under way. it is an evolution. there is the appeal of digital, which has notwithstanding some measurement issues associated with it, i think it has some precision that's advantageous. some of which is actually coming into the cable television advertising organization. and it is getting much more specific. and the data opportunities for being able to sell someone who wants to sell a product are improving dramatically. and so it won't be like it was. it will actually be tremendously more efficient for people who spend their money. that's really occurring as a consequence of all the data that's being collected and now organized and seen most specifically through settop boxes of cable systems. i think that's really a great tailwind. i think i'll echo what john

said. i 24i there are certain shows that -- i think there are certain shows that are so popular and have so much inherent appeal, they really do have high engagement. if you think about what your favorites are, and you think how much you're like your favorites, i weighted with phenomenal -- waited with phenomenal anticipation for the comedians, watch the first episode of the affair and fell in love. i value those. i'm watching with rant attention when that stuff -- rapt attention when that stuff is on. that's not lost on people who spend money. when you have things that are favorite, i think you have something that's unique and premium. when you combine that with improving analytics, you have a pretty good proposition for someone who spends money because they want to move a product. john: i think you have an odd imbalance in the marketplace right now that josh alluded to.

the standard for viewer ability for a 30-second commercial is a full view 30 seconds of the commercial with audio. and the standard in digitally delivered internet video is 50% of the pixels for two seconds. that's creating an artificial perception of ubiquity in the marketplace. but that standard is insufficient. talking about the video internet standard. it cannot continue. once that standard is sharpened up supply will contract and i think the marketplace will normalize. julia: when you look at the changing ways people are used to consumer and drive stords watching on netflix or itunes or amazon, do you see where showtime releases all its episodes at once? matt: we still like the model of premiering a show, seeing our viewership build over a 12-week period in our four seasons of the year. seeing the social activity

behind the show from week to week. we could switch that tomorrow if we we saw it made sense. at the moment we don't. we watch the consumer very carefully. we watch all these things. we are very happy with our current model. but we are also 100% flexible. again, we don't have to wonder about what impact that has on the tying environment. so we have perhaps a lot more flexibility to move more quickly if we had to. it's also unreasonable to assume that alt different demos that we address are going to behave similarly. you know you can wait 12 weeks and watch "homeland" all at once if you want to. we see in the season of "homeland" we see tremendous uptick in people watching the previous season on demand. we want to stay flexible and

make sure we take most advantage of the marketplace. julia: all these must impact the way you make programming decisions when you try to figure out what new show to add to your lineup or what show to give an extra season, how are all these content decisions impacted by all the changes to the landscape? all the changes to the consumer? matt: it's a very good question. what it does is it puts more pressure on us as programmers to look at all the information, look how people are using our service, and i'll tell you john talked about it at length. we own most of our programming now. that's incredibly important not just in terms of the really significant incremental revenue we have generated in the last year in particular from ownership, but also the flexibility it gives you to make decisions about how this programming is going to be distributed. how we are going to use it. we don't have to worry about what a studio is going to permit us to do.

all that figures into the mix. josh: all this makes good of a better chance and great of a best chance. in the old world when it was 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 you had fragmented attention, young kids, you either caught it or didn't. if it was good, and if it was a little nuanced and you missed it, and it was a story that unfolded over time, you were or the -- sort of out of luck. there is a huge bias toward good and great. julia: is that different now because of what -- john: i couldn't agree nor with what josh said. television was disposeable. it was made for some level on the night it went on the air and week it went on the air. now we make television, we make stories and evaluating will this story be relevant 10 years from now or 20 years from now.

it's more like film and an an asset that will continue to return for a long time. what that does is raise the creative bar. you might -- whereas you might ask yourself the question, will people watch this on a sunday night, now you ask yourself a question can we imagine two people sitting in a room talking about this show 10 years after it's off our air? that's a much better question to ask in terms of the quality. john: we, too, own increasingly the shows we make. josh: when you combine that with ownership, it really is just treated conversationally. you wait for your friends to either save electronically or directly, you ought to watch blank. you haven't seen it. you really ought to catch it. if it's somewhere available through some pretty good point of access in the reservoir of ding tal stuff -- digital stuff, you want to watch the best stuff, i'll find it. it creates life expectancy a

whole lot longer than it used to be. it's not the old sinnedation of i'm traveling, can i watch a comedy at 10:00 p.m. when i'm exhausted. i think in this world it's a fairly big up side for the business we are in. julia: people talking over the water cooler, it's people telling their friends on facebook and twitter. that has an exponential effect? josh: tremendously. there is oodle of leverage in good -- oodles of leverage in good. i might ask rhetoricically how many times the show you checked out was referred to you by a friend who made a suggestion that you should watch it but you weren't quite sure. and how many times when you finally got to it you either sometimes you said not to me sometimes you said this is good i'll get into it. i think the system is a new system, but it's quite a functional system.

john: if you think about movie marketing, you could make a mediocre movie, but market it well, you could get three times the box office. now marketing doesn't mean very much because essentially figure out whether the movie is any good. and we are facing the same thing. you got to make a good television series because the best marketing for your series is word of mouth. you don't get that unless the tv show is great. josh: it's true for movies. we a movie called "boyhood" which at some point will turn up on show time. it was very quiet and very small. it hardly had what you would call a big opening weekend. and i do think it built and built because of its quality and i think it was tremendously enhanced by social. what john is saying is true for television pointedly and new but is also true for movies and all forms of media. julia: we are out of time. when am i going to be able to

buy a showtime app? matt: right now you can use showtime anytime. julia: give it a last plug. we are looking for all the different ways you are prig bringing your product directly to the consumer. thank you for joining us. we appreciate it. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> members will be back to offer general speeches at 2:00 p.m. eastern and recess until 4:00. on the legislative agenda today is debate on anti-human trafficking legislation and funding for the u.s. coast guard. we'll have the house live at 2:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. a look at congressional ethics investigations from today's "washington journal." >> "washington journal" continues. host: paul singer is "usa

today"'s politics editor. he comes to talk to us about an issue that has garnered the attention of the house ethics committee. please explain what the house committee on ethics is and how it is different from the similarly named ethics committee. guest: there are two different bodies. the ethics committee is the body that polices the behavior of members of congress. they can punish members of congress. they can give advice on ethical matters. they can even suggest the expulsion of a member of congress for a real violation. problem is that for years, the ethics committee did nothing. prefer to not actually punish, or mock, or investigate other members of congress. in 2007-2008 congress can great

-- created this group called the office on congressional ethics. it is a board. whenever they see something that is maybe an ethical violation the review at first. then, they pass their review on to the ethics committee, with a suggestion either, this is nothing, dismiss it, or, this is something, you should investigate it. host: that is how the process is supposed to work. paul singer tweeted out last week amid the news headlines about the 2013 trip to azerbaijan that this story is really about how the house ethics process is still a mess. what is this trip the garnered so much attention? guest: the trip itself is unremarkable. members of congress are not allowed to take travel, free travel, to places from other

governments or lobbyists or corporations that have lobbyists . the rules are clear. again, they do not want big corporations paid to take it to las vegas for $10,000 and party it up for the weekend. this trip -- it was a nonprofit group paying for travel to azerbaijan -- a couple of nonprofit groups actually. members of congress submitted their nose to the ethics committee saying, we would like to take the stress to azerbaijan, and also turkey. the ethics committee said ok go ahead. the problem is that those nonprofits were basically fake. they were created by the government controlled oil companies of azerbaijan, largely to pay for this trip. it was over $100,000 of travel free gifts -- again, posing as an educational trip, paid for by

a nonprofit, when in fact, it was a lobbying trip paid for by a government who wanted help with their oil pipeline. host: we should tell viewers, if you want to ask any questions on this. paul singer is the person to ask. we will put the numbers on the string for you. republicans, democrats independents can all call in. first, why is the showing a divide between the ethics committee and the office on congressional ethics? guest: there was a story last year, i think in particular the "houston chronicle" digging up the oddities of these nonprofits. they began to investigate these members of congress and said, something is wrong. somewhere in the process, the ethics committee contacted the office of congressional ethics and said, we are doing our own investigation. you can stop now. host: and the ethics committee

-- we should remind viewers -- is controlled by congress itself. guest: that is correct. and they are the ones who can punish members. the office of congressional ethics cannot punish anyone, they can only make recommendations. at some point, they stepped in and said, we have this, you can back off. the ethics committee said, no, we will not back off, we will continue investigating. no one knows what happens in these meetings, but what it looks like is the ethics committee approves this trip in the first place. now, members of congress are mad because they are getting in trouble for taking the trip. at this committee says, we will straighten this out. the office of congressional ethics is saying no, let us straighten this out, you did it wrong. host: we can show our viewers the names of the 10 members who

have been identified in those documents. those who took the trip. one of those is yvette clarke also a member of the congressional ethics committee. we should say, what has been the response from these 10 members? guest: almost unanimously the ones who have spoken have said we did not know. we got an invitation to go on a chair, we ask the ethics committee for approval, we did the trick, and we had no idea that it was improperly funded. i do not judge that answer. i do not know the case well enough. the office of congressional ethics appears to say, there were oil company logos everywhere, you should have known this was being sponsored by somebody. you got carpets and other gifts worth thousands of dollars. "we thought they were cheap

carpets" -- that kind of stuff. host: how do we know that this investigation? how do we know all the details that are in the report? guest: that is the best part of the story. the office of congressional ethics, like i said, they were created in 2007-2008. this is the first time one of the reports has leaked. the wash -- "the washington post" got a draft report. normally the report is received in confidence, that the community deliveries, and have 90 days before it is publicly released to make a public determination. in this case, the thing leaked. no one had ever seen a leaked report before. it is fun for people like me. host: if you have questions for paul singer, again democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001.

independents, (202) 745-8002. we will start on a line for democrats, thomas is calling from illinois. good morning. caller: i appreciate you taking my call. this is a very interesting program. you are talking with the congressional ethics investigation. i understand it is operated by congress, or that office. the problem i have here -- being the fact that it was mentioned that something recently leaked out. if you consider the fact that this just leaked, then congress itself needs to be investigated because there are a whole lot of other things that have not been leaked that should have been leaked. these people need to be prosecuted and take out of office. not voted out, kicked out. immediately. not 90 days. immediately. not just congress, but there is a lot of stuff going on in

washington, d.c., that needs to be cleaned out. what they really need to do is repent get baptized. host: that was thomas in illinois, bringing up a number of issues. guest: thomas is right about how this is supposed to work. we are supposed to find something that looks suspicious it is supposed to be investigated, fully vetted, and returned with some sort of verdict so that the public can no whether or not something went wrong here. i think the danger of an ethics progress with something leaks out, people lose faith in the process. members of congress said it will not take part in a process if it will become a public issue in which they are in the middle. the reason the office of congressional ethics exists in the first place is because the

ethics committee never did anything. as thomas said, where they kicked out for -- will they became doubt for doing wrong things are not? it looks like no one can be accused of doing anything wrong. host: on the house i, that office created by the house on march 11, 2008. it is governed by eight members on a board of directors. they can not work for the federal government. there 2015 budget, 1.5 million dollars. what happened before 2008 that led to the creation of the office of congressional ethics? guest: this was part of the democratic takeover of the house of representatives in the 2006 election. you will remember, because of course, we were working at "roll call" around that time. it were a series of scandals in

the house. nancy pelosi and the democrats ran their campaign around a "drain the swamp" theme -- to get rid of corruption in the house of representatives. i think the most famous one was the fully scandal where a member of congress was exchanging lewd text messages with an intern, a page, i think it was. pelosi is running on this "drain the swamp" platform. she wins. democrats take control of the house, and they created this panel. they created a task force to determine how to reform the ethics process. before that, literally, the ethics committee had rules that said eventually, no one can file a complaint, except for a

member of congress, and the two parties had agreed to never file a complaint. so, you had this process where the ethics cops were handcuffed to their own deathesks. host: that leads to rogers question, can the ethics committee be brought before the ethics committee? guest: that is a very good question. a member of the ethics committee can be brought before the ethics committee. in theory, that person would simply be excused from the ethics committee fora period of time. it is members of congress policing themselves, essentially. there is no other place where we would see that, and expect that kind of behavior. host: leaders of that committee -- charlie dent is the chairman. linda sanchez of california, the ranking member on that committee.

let's go to lucas, line for independents. caller: good morning. quick question. did the members of congress after this trip get money -- give money to this oil company in azerbaijan, or has it been at any actual effect of the trip? was a just an enjoyable trip? guest: that is a good question. we have not found any effort by any memory of congress to help this oil company after the trip. and, we have not see any money or campaign donations going back and forth. this looks like a trip where they took a gift they were not entitled to take. they may have excepted some token gifts. the process did not work the way it was supposed to work. a fake nonprofit paid for your

travel. there is no evidence that any member of congress was swayed by this trip to take some kind of action. host: you think this changes things in the future? guest: i do not know. there are several ongoing cases in congress that have led two questions about whether the rules need to change. i am sure your viewers remember the conversation about the lawmaker from illinois. several news outfits were investigating this guy. there has been a response on capitol hill. we should -- change the way. there was a conflict of interest

problem. a member was voting in favor of their own companies they owned. and member of congress was not punished. "we will change the rules," but the rules have never changed. should we fix the process? maybe. we will see. host: paul singer of "usa today ." kobe with us for the next half-hour -- he will be with us for the next half-hour. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is, why are the congressmen or women traveling to azerbaijan when we have all these problems here at home? didn't we hire our

representatives to represent us and to get america well again? guest: right. this is a fundamental question with all foreign travel we explore. you would like members of congress, particularly if they are involved with foreign policy, to be traveling to countries and getting an idea of what the world is like on the ground. we have members of congress going to iraq and iran all the time. ir aaq and afghanistan had been a huge policy problem for the past decade and a half. so it makes sense that a member would go. you don't want to say a congressman doesn't go where

important policies are going on. azerbaijan might be a fairly thin issue brief to attract that many members of congress. it is basically our closest alley near iran. they have oil. it is a former soviet republic. there is a lot to learn. i leave it up to the voters to ask the question. is this where we should be having members of congress spending their time, or should they be spending it in baltimore or san diego or someplace in the united states were things matter. host: again the phone numbers 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independents. interesting suggestion from

twitter. guest: right. this is again, i cannot give you an opinion about this because i do not have an opinion. american politics is still privately funded. american politics is privately funded. that means when a congressman wants to run f reelectionor, he has to ask for private donors for their money. that leads to ethics questions. busy just trying to satisfy the people who run for office? i do not make a judgment that

that is inherently corrupt asking private sources for money. it opens the door to questions. if anybody gives you money, it is fair to say, what did that person get back? did the congressman do something he shouldn't have done. host: rick, good morning. caller: good morning. long time watcher. a question about the so-called lined trust fund -- blind trust fund. i would bet you will find tens of thousands of halliburton stock in the chene householdy. why is it that question asked during debates? do you have a blind trust? do you plan on having a blind

trust? i find it hard to believe that anybody, that they are going to invest their money and don't have a clue as to where it is going. guest: every member of congress and every politician running for a federal office have to fill out every year a financial disclosure form. on that form there is a check talks that says, do you have a blind trust. if so, hasn't been approved? at think it is the ethics committee that improves these blind trusts. you have to be saying, i take all my money and stake it into this account and i don't know how it is invested. all your allowed to know is whether it performs. you write in how much it earned

and with the investments were. there are blind trusts and they are publicly declared. the safest place to have your money is in a blind trust or you can say with a piece of paper that someone has certified, i don't take control of those decisions. host: we talk about the house ethics process. guest: in the senate, there is no office of congressional ethics or secondary panel. it is just a committee which does with the house ethics committee used to do. they look into things they find interesting and never publicized the enormous bulk of them.

host: good morning, blind for democrats. caller: good morning. listen, i remember al gore and bush, the younger one, when he was running in florida. they had a lot of people not able to vote in the democratic areas. they came out with computer systems. when obama ran for president the second time, it would go for mitt romney. should we go back to the old machines to stop gerrymandering on that area? guest: there is an interesting discussion. some people believe a paper

ballot is a more reliable ballot. there has been a lot of work done. electronic voting issues are now aging out. the first round came up after the 2000 presidential election. if your software is old, is there a new machine we can buy? it is an interesting conversation. more and more jurisdictions are going to all electronic online voting. it is a never ending question. elections for president are all carried out at the local level. it is the state that controls the election and how you vote. the rules are different in florida than they are in oregon.

host: the house administration committee looks into these issue. guest: that is correct. congress is responsible to make sure upgrades are being approved. the proper policies are in place and that states are making sure they have the most modern equipment. host: florida line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. a long time watcher. public approval of congress is around 20%. i want to know if the expert can answer this question. how many members of congress have been disciplined in the last 50 or 60 years by the so-called ethics committee? guest: that is a really good question.

it is hard to count. i have gone back -- jim traficant was expelled in probably 2002 or 2003. he was a congressman from ohio convicted of taking kickbacks. went to jail and was expelled from the congress. there was a fairly dramatic moment. the house had to vote to expel him. it came through the justice department first. there has been several dozen cases over the past seven or eight years since the new process has been in place. members have gotten various punishments. they may not be what you consider to be proper punishments. sometimes they get a letter

saying you shouldn't have done that. the trip to azerbaijan. a similar case some years ago. members of congress took a trip overseas. they shouldn't have accepted this gift. that trip had been approved by the ethics committee. members of congress were part -- required to pay back part of the trip. they could use campaign funds to pay for that. so how much punishment was that? charlie wrangle got a letter saying yeah, well, you still did something wrong because your staff new this was improperly paid and you should have known. so, that kind of punishment.

how about the ones got a report saying you did something you should not have done, what we're not going to issue a punish ment against you. there are several dozen of these. you can see a list of 45 or 50 reports. host: the question of how many have been expelled. >> we will leave the final few minutes of this discussion to bring you live coverage of the u.s. house on this monday. general speeches for this part of today's session. we are expecting members to then recess until 4:00 p.m. at which time they'll begin their legislative agenda for the week which includes debate on anti-human trafficking legislation and funding for the u.s. coast guard. votes after 6:30. now to live coverage of the u.s. house here on c-span.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. almighty god of the universe, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we pray for the gift of wisdom to all with great responsibility in this house for the leadership of our nation. and that the members return from the various districts in our nation -- as our nation enters a week which ends with memorial day may we all be mindful in the busy-ness of life to remember our citizen ancestors who served our nation in the armed services. grant that their sacrifices -- sacrifice of self and for so many of life, will inspire all of american