meadows. chair of the freedom caucus. then president trump's announcement on the iran nuclear agreement and in the confirmation hearing for gina haspel. this week, congressman mark meadows, republican of north carolina and chair of the conservative freedom caucus. thanks for being here. we also have with us our reporters, the washington post congressional water -- reporter in the chief congressional correspondent with the washington examiner. mike: congressman, thanks for being with us. you are in the middle of a whole lot of stories happening on capitol hill. now more than ever. but start with one of the biggest, you have been one of the biggest critics of the department of justice and how they are handled many aspects of their business recently.

you have gone so far as to suggest that the deputy attorney general should be impeached. you and chairman nunez of the intelligence committee have been asking for more information on their surveillance activities and their investigatory activities. can you start out by explaining broadly what is your issue with the way the doj has conducted itself? mr. rosenstein in particular and where do those issues stand at this moment? have they been allayed by some that have beengs entered into in the last few days? representative meadows: the issue is that we get more rhetoric than we get action. so for us, it is all about getting the documents, making sure that we actually get the documents we have a constitutional right to have. it is our job to actually do oversight and so we have been

requesting many of these documents since last november. so here we are six or seven months and the process, a little over 12,000 documents have been ofivered to our office out 1.2 million. way intoate we will be president trump second term before we get the majority of the documents. >> what kind of doctrines are you seeking? rep. meadows: our investigation on oversight and government reform is judiciary really deals with the department of justice and the fbi's interactions leading up to the 2016 election. so the investigations they did ,nto the hillary email scandal the investigations they were doing at that time with canada trump -- candidate trump. as we look at reaction, it would

suggest there is at least some bias going on. some improper activity going on and quite frankly i think this stonewalling of the documents coming to congress with a legitimate request even highlights even further the fact that is there something to hide. and itell you we know has been reported number of times that information started to come out, but it comes out in drips. the department of justice knew all along the director call me comey's college professor friend was a special government employee. the department of justice along the director comey shared his memos, classified memos, two people other than just that

particular friend. andwe had to find that out so when we are digging in finding out new information that has not been voluntarily given to congress, it makes us take deeper and quite frankly we are finding more and more information. i support chairman nunez and his , somes to get information of that information i am not even privy to because i'm not on the intel committee. idon't need to see it or it am not really subject to that because it is really his committee. the other part of that is there is nothing in statute that would suggest that the actions that the department of justice is taking are appropriate. you may get a counter narrative you cover this stuff and you get one side of the story from me and one from another, so let's make a little news.

i'm willing to come back and join deputy attorney general rod rosenstein, we will sit together. he can bring his talking points, i will bring my facts and we will be able to debated back and forth and you can moderate that. we will be glad to do that. i am so sure of the evidence we and the manner of which we've gone about this that there is no good excuse for the department of justice to continue this. you spoken directly to the deputy attorney general and we reported they have concerns about an intelligence source of theirs that could be compromised , has that objection been presented to you and what is your response? rep. meadows: i have spoken to the deputy attorney general not on that particular matter.

that is a common reoccurring theme. every time, these are national security secrets. we need to make sure we protect our assets. you know what, they are right. that is exactly the reason we have an intel community. it's the whole reason why we set that committee up so that they can see those types of documents have all of congress, we given that authority to some of our colleagues and so there is no plausible reason for doj to not share it with the intel committee. in that i can't speak to specifics because i don't know them. i am not part of that. i can tell you they run and hide every time. they talk about they don't want this divulged. reason they haven't been giving us documents is because they don't want to be embarrassed. they have admitted that. the last thing i want to do

isn't there us federal employees , most of which, the vast majority of which are hard-working public servants. i have seen documents and read things that if they did get out, it would be embarrassing. they have not got now. i have not share those. it's all about getting to the truth and making sure we have lady justice with a blindfold, but not picking out from one part of the blindfold. >> the public's eyes con of glaze over at these edit think are people watching right now going does this have to do with , so maybe you can explain. what is the most compelling reason why you guys are pursuing these documents, what do you think the public needs to know? rep. meadows: that's a great point. because even with me and i've been in the middle of this, there are times when i say which

investigation are you talking about, which requested talking about. there are really three different ones. there is a bucket that would be an oversight in judiciary bucket which says all the investigations with hillary clinton emails and some of the righteous of leading up to the presidential election, did -- was it all done properly? that's one bucket. there is the intel bucket which basically is chairman nunez which looks at a number of other things that gets much deeper into the russia pro and what was done with the dossier. those overlap at times. and certainly they would because we are getting documents that overlap. but they are not necessarily mutually exclusive with each other. but i would say that's a more classified bucket with intel. so there is even this third bucket which, those have nothing to do with the mueller investigation. they may have aspects that

robert mueller is looking into, but those are not really impeding on that investigation. then there is a third bucket which is where jim jordan and i came in and said the scope memo. that's the third bucket which says rod rosenstein on august the second of 2017 did a memo ,hat said we are investigating we have changed the scope of that investigation, we believe the american people need to know what the scope of the investigation. some what say you are getting involved in an ongoing criminal investigation. it is an investigation, but the scope of that investigation is not part of the investigation, it just says we will look at all of this. we believe because we are funding and that we should be able to look at that scope. that's the third bucket and it's a great question. we will making of a little bit. there will be a request for us

to audit the financial resources of this investigation. it used to be part of statute, ,t certainly within parameters it's appropriated funds from congress and we will be sending a request to the general accountability office to actually look at and audit and make sure those funds are put forth properly. so that letter will be going out. obviously any member of congress can do that, but certainly i will be doing that in at least my personal capacity, but as you know i am the chairman of the subcommittee on government operations and so gao and others are under that subcommittee and so we will be spent -- sending that out. >> to audit the spending for the mueller investigation. rep. meadows: that comes out of a dedicated fund that basically

is what we call back door appropriations. it may be the insult baseball language. making sure that what we are doing is properly spending that. there is some 3 million plus dollars that has been spent or potentially not spent in a correct manner. i'm not making any conclusion to that. i was want to back up what i have. we believe we need to look at that closer as well. >> do you know how much has been spent so far total? rep. meadows: we really don't. we have the numbers that of been given and that's why we need the audit. it used to be they would audit these every six months when you had a special counsel. out, i, that was pulled think it was part of an appropriations where that reporting language was no longer required. it does not mean that we can't ask for it as members of congress and so we are looking into that and looking into that

further. >> what are the potential irregularities are violations that you would be sensitive to hear? spending on issues outside of the scope? rep. meadows: there two things. one is spending on money outside of the scope is certainly one of those. the other is what is the scope? for most americans, they are saying is we want to make sure that president trump didn't collude with the russians. that, there beyond gets to be a real problem and you start to lose a whole lot of support by republicans and democrats and unaffiliated alike when they say there are some who just want president trump to be guilty matter what and are some who want president trump to be innocent matter what. and yet there is a large body who says if he colluded, i want to know about that, but beyond that, either have some special counsel going on this particular trail or that particular trail,

it's not really would congress envisioned and it's certainly not what most americans believe were doing. >> wasn't it set up in broad terms to allow the special counsel to investigate wherever the evidence led? rep. meadows: wherever it led. the federal judge a limited this a few days ago. when he looked at the scope of what it said was we want to look at russian collusion in -- and any matters that may derive from that. thatou can't go to matters are necessarily a matter of the investigation and start investigating that to go back the other way and that's what some have suggested. i don't know enough to make a conclusion there. but i can tell you that it is important. jim jordan and i have looked at requesting the scope. we think it is important. to close the loop on my part,

chairman nunez and chairman were set to talk to the deputy attorney general friday. have you any a chance to beat with either of them after that meeting to get a sense of where their concerns --whether their concerns have been met in that meeting? if not, is the solution of impeaching the deputy attorney general still a live issue? rep. meadows: the impeachment of the attorney general or the deputy attorney general obviously is the very last source of anything. theempt would honestly be first step in any of that. as you know, chairman nunez and chairman gowdy put out a statement related to their visit at the department of justice on friday. , i don't knowent it was very eliminating in terms of that statement, but it also

we in a direction that what are going to do is continue to press this issue. we believe we will ultimately get the documents we need. contempthose tools of and impeachment are still on the table. there is one i can handle on my own which is impeachment. contempt actually would take our leadership getting involved in it is my understanding that the speaker is willing to support the american people and the institution of congress and stand by and make sure we get the documents we deserve. does the attorney general have some answers to give with people talking about contempt citations? rep. meadows: i think part of that is because the subpoena actually technically had to go to the attorney general in that it is my understanding from some of the things i've read and not knowing fully well was requested

in the subpoena, but knowing the general scope of what i believe chairman nunez is asking for is it could very well be that that is something the attorney general had to recuse himself from it -- if it relates to the mueller investigation. that would actually move down one notch to the deputy attorney general and if he -- whomever is making the decision would certainly be the one who would in directdirect -- line of fire. >> maybe we should move on to death out so much happening on capitol hill -- so much happening on capitol hill. one of those big bills that may come up in the coming weeks. is the package from the white house, the proposal to cut $15 billion from the federal budget. it is not scheduled for the floor right now, do you support it, do you think it has a chance

of winning support on the house floor in its current form? rep. meadows: i think it has a chance, for those that are watching that don't follow it, i didn't even follow it and i was a member of congress. the rescission package is really used ford at times those unspent, unobligated funds that are left over. it's hard to believe there is $15.4 billion left over. but there was actually more than that, but as they start to focus in on that, i do believe there is enough support in the house. are some conservative members who say it should be more. i would love to have it up there in the $50 billion or $60 billion mark. i talked to director mulvaney about the package, i've talked to leader maccarthy who was leading the effort in the house. , think it the end of the day

we are seeing this as step one of several processes that may be multiple rescissions packages. >> is that what director mulvaney has relayed to you? rep. meadows: it is. maybe we've made news the third time here. >> would they be outside the scope of the recently passed fiscal 2019 budget? rep. meadows: i think right now this package was definitely tailored to say you have people making an agreement on appropriations and so the package would just was not designed to touch any of the $1.3 trillion. i did not vote for that package as you know. i did not have a problem with moving backwards, but that being said i think there was some concern that we addressed and went back on a deal made in a bipartisan matter. that's white was addressed that way. why it was addressed the wet -- that way.

there is a good chance you get appropriators on board. i think there's a good chance you get conference members on board and i think so you get tuesday group, appropriators, i think you get 218 in the house. getting to 51 in the senate obviously is a much greater challenge. i'm not interested in doing a vote to just provides cover. that's been our deal. if you voted on the omnibus, you can go back and say i'm a fiscal conservative, but it is a start. >> a big piece of legislation, the majority leader said it would be on the floor this coming week. the caucasus been keeping it powder dry on this. you guys have been pushing for big reforms to the supplemental , the rest ofgram us call food stamps. trying to put the work

requirements and some other restrictions on that. has this got into a place where you can see the freedom caucus taking official position in support of it or otherwise weighing in or do you see this passing? rep. meadows: i don't see the freedom caucus taking an official position in support of. we have tried to be honest brokers and negotiate, we are weighing in on this with a few amendments. the question is what will those amendments be. if those address some of the concerns, i can tell you for some of us it's very different. me, 76% of this farm bill has nothing to do with farms. so when you look at that, 24% of andctually is about farms supporting our farmers. it is a critical thing.

number ones my economy driver in my district so i'm probably a little bit more favorably disposed to vote for this. that being said, there are some other changes that need to be made. i can give you a couple. is the big thing. we have disadvantaged toward large scary producers. i don't want a small dairy producers. it's a farm bill. what they're telling me as they would rather see an extension of the current bill then to go with a new farm bill that does not address their concerns. i'm a representative of the people and so when i hear that from republicans and democrats alike who are out there wanting me to weigh in. i will give a shout out to secretary perdue. i met with him yesterday. he is going to make a personal phone call to some of those dairy farmers. i've never seen that happen in

an administration ever at the secretary level. a real shout out to him because we are giving him some names. not just in my state, but tennessee and pennsylvania that are feeling greatly affected and so they promise to reach out. assuming we get a resolution there, the other big item has to do with what you were indicating , the work requirement for food stamps. the way is designed right now actually creates the money that goes back into a jobs program within the usda. i have not found a jobs program and the federal government that ever works. i came from the private sector and you look at that, i would be more inclined to take a that money and say how do we make sure it goes towards job-training, but not a federal program that does it. we have got a number of federal programs that are dismal failures.

to give more money to a program that has not worked in the past is just creating a foolish mistake. , those of at that some of the ongoing negotiations happening. is this getting votes on your amendments or -- rep. meadows: i think the elections, the current elections we see, just like i'm tired of the talk from the deputy attorney general, they are tired of talk from members of congress. it's time we actually do something. vote or just saying i've got to vote on my amendment, that doesn't carry any weight back calm and that's why perhaps i become a little more difficult to negotiate with because of want to see results. i was in the private sector, i only got paid for results. in washington you sometimes get paid forever. >> we have about one minute left.

i want to ask you about leadership. are you negotiating with who becomes the next speaker? where is the freedom caucus support? rep. meadows: right now there is not a race. i know that's going to disappoint you because everybody says there is. obviously there's a race behind the scenes and it would be disingenuous to suggest otherwise. there are negotiations going on. i am not in it. , it puts me in a good place don't want a chairmanship or speakership, i don't want a position. what i do want is to make sure my members have their fair representation at the leadership table and on committees and jurisdiction. and whomever is going to emerge as the leader will be the one who best articulates that and until we get that, there won't be a new speaker. there is no one who has 218 votes today. we have a sophisticated

operation and i can assure you that no one on the republican side can get to 18 without that. stillut three dozen freedom caucus members and you guys will vote as a block i assume. >> we have 37 people who said they were willing to vote in the block right now which means we have a hard-core 32. those are numbers based on real discussions and so some who even say they will be here or there, beyond the freedom caucus we have obviously had conversations. i think there are a lot of people frustrated with the way washington, d.c. does work beyond the freedom caucus and so i'm getting moderate members who say we have to change this, the way we do things and that's what's creating the dynamic. >> a real quick follow up. have you had a substantial conversation with kevin mccarthy , the presumed front runner for

the next leader about winning the support of the freedom caucus? rep. meadows: i talked to leader mccarthy a lot, i talked to steve scalise a lot. i have not had any negotiations, discussionsi have not had in a s with leader maccarthy. to have aow we need broad section of representation. i have had those conversations with him. we have had a number of conversations and those are going well. in terms of, if you give me this, you get votes, that has not happened. >> thank you for being this week's newsmaker. >> thank you. reporterback with our at the washington post. my, why don't you start off with the -- start of the questioning and markrosenstein meadows, the freedom caucus chair. what did you learn about the efforts to learn more about rod

rosenstein and his role in the investigations that are related to the 2016 campaign? >> what mark meadows has made clear is that he wants this august, 2017 memo written by rod rosenstein laying out the precise steps of the mueller investigation, they are -- they want the whole thing. mark meadows said they are looking at every possible option to get that including now. audit that would have the effect of disclosing the scope. the implication is they cannot do the audit unless they know the scope. his suggestion is such a audit would be required and that would force this document to be really spirit -- release.

there are lawyers that might have different opinions but it is interesting. >> is it just a battle between congress and the mueller team about what is going on with this investigation? probe intoas a trump, russia, 2016. it seems to have grown all kinds of avenues and they want to see where it is going and whether it is going in the appropriate direction. they feel they have been stonewalled why the justice department on that as well as other issues including what was going on at the fbi leading up to the election. you have republicans on capitol hill trying to get more information but they are not getting what they want so they are using these tax next including this gao audit. by getting information about what it is costing, they can get information about the scope. it is not clear whether that will work but it is another tactic and it will help put

pressure on the team doing the investigation that will yield more information. >> explain what this threat of contempt and in impeachment of a deputy attorney general -- why put that out there? >> it is leverage. it is using all the tools at your disposal to get the outcome you desire. , let alone impeachment, is a rare and various move -- and serious move. the house didn't during the obama administration -- did it during the obama administration. it is about getting across how seriously these folks take this matter. letters andy pounding gorefest on the -- pounding your fist on the day of the committee hearings can only get you so far.

chairman ofhave the the oversight committee and the chairman of the intelligence committee, meeting with rod rosenstein tells you the message is getting through. they take this congressional seriously. >> more to come on this story. with the future of the republican leadership in the house. where is mark meadows in that? >> the most important thing he votess there are not 218 for a republican speaker. you need almost all republicans because it is a full vote. you have democrats voting too. not completely but mostly. there are so many people in the house freedom caucus that they have leverage on who become speaker because if they were told -- if they withhold their vote, they cannot elect a republican.

if republicans maintain a majority, and that is when their leverage increases so you will be hearing more from mark nextws about who the speaker is going to be and that will help them gain more powers on committees and leadership roles. that was the main message. >> thank you both. appreciate it. >> tonight, on q&a, university of california english pressure -- english professor yunte huang "inseparable" about the life of twins. these are two married couples who cannot be in the same bed. when they set up two separate households about a mile from each other.

they stick to this rigid schedule. , live in cheng's house for three days and during these three days, he is the master. he can do whatever he wants. and the twin will give up his free will. later, they move to eng's house and he will be the master. >> did it work? >> apparently. they had 21 children. >> q&a tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. on tuesday, president trump announced the u.s. would pull out of the iran nuclear deal. he called the agreement a