>> [indiscernible] >> thursday on c-span, live coverage of the house begins at 10:00 eastern as the work on the annual intelligence authorization bill begins. live coverage -- u.s. senate judicial and executive branch nominations live on c-span2. on c-span3, the fbi and justice department. and about one hour we talk about president trump's foreign-policy agenda with steven clemons of the atlantic magazine.

then i look at trump administration trade policy with new york times reporter. later, congressman john curtis on the nato summit taking place today in brussels. ♪ host: did i just concluded press conference from the nato summit, president trump going before reporters and talking about victories he has claimed when it comes to getting nato allies to express just does increase defense spending -- increased defense spending. some criticizing the message, some criticizing the tone he has taken. all of those are up for discussion in our first hour, talking about the allies increasing defense spending. (202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 748-8001, republicans. and independents, (202) 748-8002

. if you want to post thoughts on ontter, you can do so, and facebook.com/c-span. place justence took after 6:00 eastern time. this out of brussels, saying it was the president saying thursday that nato members have agreed to increase their defense spending after he told them he was "extremely unhappy," saying everyone has agreed to substantially up their commitment. this conference just concluding, but here is a bit from the president's statements this morning talking about nato allies and issues of spending. >> i would be very unhappy if they did not up their commitments substantially, because the united states has been paying a tremendous amount, probably 90% of the cost of nato.

now countries are going to start upping their commitment. i let them know yesterday, i am surprised you did not pick it up until today, that i let them know yesterday that i was extremely unhappy with what was happening, and they have substantially opt their commitment -- upped their commitment. we have a very powerful and strong nato, stronger than two days ago. host: that is just a bit of the president's statement on that press conference. we want to get your thoughts on the end result as far as allies offering to increase spending. nato, thehts about tone he has taken, all up for consideration in this hour. (202) 748-8000, democrats. for republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002.

you can post to our social media. the washington examiner in the lead up to today's conference wrote about this in their editorial. rails,. is off the giving credibility and authority to gross abusers of human rights. nato has an accountability problem as most of its members are allies and failed to contribute enough. to gross abusers of humanthey af the target of spending 2% of their economy on defense. chastisesresident european countries for this free -- all, the chattering while americans protect germany from russia. that is just the editorial from the washington examiner, coming out after that meeting and those direct comments the president

made toward german chancellor angela merkel. we will show you more from the press conference this morning. the phone lines are open to you as well as social media. in wisconsin, bob starts us off, republican line. what do you think about his trip to nato? caller: i support president trump about 97%. i have never been so impressed of a -- with a president who thinks of me, america. -- did noty country support the country to let illegals in, to have nato stepped all over us. we have been ripped off so much and americans just sit back and take it, so thank you very much, president trump. you may particularly to the nato spending the president addressed? caller: yes. i believe very much that

especially germany, germany has backed off on its support of nato. we are not a bank. we are not the police of the world. and i ams to step up, sure glad to hear a president who says, do your part. what can you argue about that? flushing, new to york on the independent line, tesla. caller: we all agree on the substantial discussions. everybody has to share the burden and finally europeans agreed to 2% of the gdp. the media is upset because donald trump tried to use bullying. that is who donald trump is. that,mes, he asked like but the bottom line is, america is not a bank. america itself is a country who

needs money for their own legal infrastructure. germany is a rich company -- country. many of them have cash up and down. we should not target the president or disrespect him. influence do you think the president directly had in this agreement from the nato countries? would this have happened anyways , or is it the tone and message that influence this? caller: former presidents were afraid of saying that. he really twisted arms, maybe a little bit hard, but he delivers. without him to come up and say, wake up, you have to do your part, he really exposed it. they feel embarrassed by his action yet they finally did it. others would have not done this thing. host: from "the washington post," this is how their editorial reads.

they write -- mr. trump is poisoning nato, saying the president is consistently describing nato spending and accurately, reflecting blatant ignorance. -- something that ought to be celebrated. he has repeated his critiques without offering some. -- support for nato and leads toy european officials believe that he is trying to destroy an alliance he does not believe in. western europe could be more dependent on russia energy supplies and which previous had concernons have about. ms. merkel has been tougher on vladimir putin then mr. trump has, and never suggested acceptance of the forcible

annexation of crimea. jared is next from minnesota. caller: president trump is no good for the u.s. or the world. for the people who said, thank god for trump, what has he done for you, the small potato in america, even white america? host: what do you think about these results that he claims from nato? what do you think about his influence? caller: these people do not respect him. they just have to kiss his butt for the fact for money and power, and to be real honest, america, how did they get that money and power? they stole it through ,olonization, through slavery through terrorism, and war crimes. host: anderson, california, republican line. caller: how are you doing? host: fine, thanks. caller: thanks for the

opportunity. i am disappointed that the amount of hatred we are starting to see from people, and the lack of just common decency and understanding. we have a president who is trying to make things happen, trying to make things better. he is doing it in so many ways, but yet we have comments like, donald trump is claiming that he has done this or done that. he isn't claiming anything. he has done it. hawaii whopeople in are freaking out because they think there is a missile coming their way? the coverage we are getting from c-span is really disappointing. and try tostep back get a handle on what we are doing. host: one of the things we are to do is ask about the president's trip to nato. what do you think? caller: it is pretty impressive

that he has got these people who have refused for how long, to put the money in. they has said, we will do it in 2020, 2030, or 2040, but it always ended up being a game and it does not happen. the last president did not get their money -- did not get them to put their money in, but he said they needed to. --t: let's go to her bit herbert in georgia, democrats line. caller: let's look at the facts. fromuropean government 2007 has been spending more money than the united states on defense. we cannot let donald trump play me, me, i it is me, am better than the rest of the president's. think about this.

states got more wealth than two thirds of the world and benefits off of the world. you are the head of the household and you have all the money and take care of the household. whatever you say, they are going to listen to that. you are going to tell the rest of your members of your household. host: are you saying the decision by these nato countries are only because the united states is the economic powerhouse when it comes to nato? states is the economic powerhouse when it comes to nato? caller: yes, and that is why they get more respect and attention. if you make people invest more than you are paying in, guess what they are going to be? post""the washington highlights the fact that it is only eight of 29 nato countries who are on track for 2% of spending -- gdp spending.

after wednesday's meeting, the president tweeted with demands of countries to make the 2% target, president trump wants to see allies share more of the burden and at the very minimum meet there are really stated obligations. if you take a look also at that story, there is the picture that took from the one-on-one meeting between president trump and angela merkel, the president speaking about those direct conversations with the german chancellor. here is more of the president from this morning. >> i think it has been a very effective way of negotiating, but i am not negotiating. i want fairness for the united states. we are paying for far too much of nato. nato is helping europe more than it is helping us. at the same time, it is very good for us. we have got it to a point where

people are paying a lot more money, and that is starting really last year. you were there last year, and last year we had a big impact. more andn $33 billion the u.s. secretary-general gives us total credit, meaning me in this case, total credit. host: that is the president talking about the and for once he thinks he has had on this whole process. on the agree or disagree process that has played out over the last few days. (202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 748-8001, republicans. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 you can tweet us or post on our facebook page. from new york on the democrats line, gary, go ahead. caller: good morning. i am not sure most americans understand the history of nato.

it was originally formed because of the fear of soviet expansion. then the soviet union imploded. ran aroundountries frantically trying to come up with some reason to exist. so nato continued. what did it do? history showed that the country , a sovereign nation made up of croatia, bosnia, serbia, and so forth, nato got involved in that to assist with arms, including bombing of serbia, sarajevo, to break up yugoslavia. host: with all that historic context, what do you make of these events? thatr: i am trying to say the billions we have put into nato as well as other european

nations, what have the results been? if you have to look at history to determine that. bring it up to the common day of our involvement in nato, what do you think -- if you bring it up to the common in nato,r involvement what do you think we have gotten out of it? caller: i would say virtually nothing. let me give one more example. host: no, only because you have given a couple already. georgia, independent line. caller: thank you for your fairness. a lot of callers, when you are really fair they want you to be one-sided. you are a very fair channel. my thing is, our president is going on a tour throwing our allies under the bus. meetingving a private

-- how private will this meeting being with vladimir putin? he has no shame in his game. if you check out the history, who built the trump towers, paul castellani now. host: let's bring it back to nato. what do you think about these results? caller: the thing about it is war is a racket. all it is is about getting our defense contracts contracted. war is a racket. roswell, georgia, republican line, carlos, hello. you, the am telling results are excellent. i am so proud of my president. thank you. host: why are the results excellent? caller: because we got nato paying its fair share. think that would've happened anyway or is it because

of the president's directed -- direct influence? caller: because of his influence. host: what makes you say that? caller: these are the results. three generals from britain say that trump is right. host: that is carlos from roswell, georgia. the new york times" highlighting some issues that came out of this meeting. they say it was president emmanuel macron of france who tried to curry favor with president trump, playing the role of devoted minty. ms. merkel kept her distance. becomes aggressive or mocking as he did in the private sessions, ms. merkel simply did not react, perhaps to avoid setting him off further. by charging that germany is in thrall to moscow, mr. trump appears to be trying to deflect criticism he is too

accommodating toward president vladimir putin. mr. trump and mr. putin are scheduled to meet monday in health -- helsinki, finland. the president will travel to the united kingdom, spend the night in scotland at his golf club through the weekend, and head to that summit this coming monday. jay in nevada, democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. listening to some of your callers, it shows they do not know history. 2006, bush with nato got them to raise their percentages of participation. since 2006, the money participation has gone up. , it waser obama reconfirmed and they have increased. now, we are at 3.7% participation and trump is wanting these people to go to

4.0%, which the way things are decreasing, we are going to be by next year and a 2.7% participation. obama, next year, four countries will be at the 2% they said they would be at. next year, eight countries will be at 2%. credits trying to take for something that has already been laid out, and that is exactly what he already does. he does this all the time. he also -- i do not know if you notice -- russian newscasters say trump is doing exactly what putin has wanted done, putting a wedge between nato. host: let's hear from amy in richmond, virginia, democrats line. caller: hello.

the first thing i want to say is that i think it is very strange that republicans often call in and say, i wish that people would be more civil. when --understand that how can they not see that donald trump is the least civil person in the world? he only goes around bullying people. do they expect everyone to just wonderfuland say, president, you are doing great? host: are you taking that from his presence at nato particularly? caller: yes. i am including that. i feel that he is bullying all of these countries to do whatever it is a wants them to do. he says he is a great negotiator. i have not seen that. korea, what has

he negotiated? what are the results of that? north korea, according to the satellite, is not giving up their nuclear weapons. , the secretaryeo of state, was also at the nato summit back from north korea, which the president referenced this morning. it was on the hill they talked about the role that u.s. lawmakers in washington, d.c. have taken in light of president trump's trip. it was overwhelmingly voted in a motion supporting nato as the president continues to criticize the alliance in a nonbinding motion to reconcile its version -- it expresses the senate support for nato and calls on negotiators to reaffirm the u.s. commitment to it. the vote comes as the president heading to brussels. president trump was asked about his commitment to nato overall,

including that of the united states and whether it would continue to be a part of that. here is some of the comments. >> meeting with president on monday,-- putin we go into that meeting not looking for so much. we want to find out about syria and we will ask your favorite question about meddling. we will also be talking about other things, ukraine. ukraine was here today, by the way. it is very interesting to hear what they had to say. excuse me? [indiscernible] all i can say it is, did you do it and don't do it again. host: we have been talking about in president's trip to nato light of this conference that took place this morning, with the president making the announcements you have seen.

to make comments on that, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. on our independent line, tricia from libertyville. caller: i am appalled by what i see going on right now, and anybody who is watching this should understand this is confirmation of russian meddling in the 2016 election. obviously, mr. putin would like to see nato dissolved. it was originated for the sole purpose of standing up against russian aggression. anyone who does not understand that mr. trump's attacks on nato allies is a matter of great concern for america, does not understand the whole nature of nato and what has been going on

even most recently with russia that would beons part of russia. way, iputin had his imagine the ussr would be realigned and put back together. mr. trump is obviously doing what he can to assist mr. pruden in his -- mr. pruden in his -- putin. host: from bedford, joseph. caller: it is great to have a president that will stand up and say, you have to pay your fair share. it is long overdue. these countries treat america like a doormat in a welfare office when our country is in debt.

they cannot expect us to pay the lion's share for their problems. of londonhe times website, trump claims success after nato cash flow ultimatum. the deadline for defense spending must "hit target by january or we will do our own thing." the president said in an unscheduled press conference on the second day of the two-day summit, speaking after members held a meeting on defense spending, president trump said significant progress had been made. connie is in illinois, democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am continually amazed at the consistency in trump's lies. at this news conference this morning, it was just appalling that he stood there once again

and stayed true to form with his transparent lies. it was really increasingly clear that he blurred the lines and thethe nato budget united states contributions for military spending. and then he said something to the effect that he just read ago,on a report a few days when it is clear to everybody in america, the man does not read. to stand up and say that we are contributing 90% to nato and everybody else is just riding on our coattails is a blatant lie. we contribute 22% toward nato 66% on theabout military spending. he doesn't get that. all he did today was highlight

his continued ignorance. host: the associated press raking off on their twitter feed, saying the french president is denying the president's claim, saying that nato powers agreed to increase defense spending beyond previous targets. hickory hills, illinois, independent line, we will hear from rich. caller: this gives me the feeling is some kind of a used car pressure salesman. he is pushing these people into this kind of a deal, forcing them into what. the backside of this is if you did that to me, i do not want to buy another car from you, and i have an attitude about that kind of stuff that if i have to deal with this country, i'm going to try to stick them on the back end. countries, he is talking about going to england

and these people are talking about making mass protests to our president because of what he is doing. if you think that selling in this way is a good thing, and yet we are seeing our gas prices going up, we are seeing the effects that the american people will pay for this kind of rhetoric and the salesmanship. like, say, it is sort of you want to get thrown out of these countries, you want people way, why do that you want that? i do not think how this is working shows me it is going any other direction than, why to you want to make it that way? , two two newspapers pictures, two perspectives. this is a photo op during the meeting. a flyby of a nato aircraft took place.

if you look at the same photo and a different perspective, all of the leaders are generally looking in the same direction. that is some of the media coverage taking place. the president heads to the united kingdom after that, then to scotland, and to a meeting with russian president vladimir putin. but thee talk at nato president has discussed this morning, increasing spending, and claims a victory. (202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 748-8001, republicans. .202) 748-8002, independents stephen is next on the democrats line. caller: there is more to this than money. do,ce gives over 2% like we but after 9/11 they did not send one troop to help us.

other countries such as france sent soldiers over that lost their lives. what is more important? host: from michigan, this is michelle. hi. caller: hello. i am just saying that in general , i don't think the united states needs to be the world piggy bank. i think what president trump has done is fantastic. i would go a step further and say that if these countries do not make their commitment, which i have little doubt they will follow through and pay their fair share, then the united states should pull back and we pay 2%. why should we pay one cent more of our gdp than they are willing to pay? they get more benefit than we do from this. if they are not going to pay, we do not pay, end of subject. doug is next on

our republican line. caller: i thought it would be easier for the socialist democrats that love the eu so convertd still try to our republic to a socialist, globalist country, when it just be easy if they moved to the eu? host: what do you think about the president's trip? caller: i think the people need to pay. if you do not pay, what happens to you? host: do you think the president had a direct involvement in the end result or what that happen anyway? caller: i think it should go up immediately, just do it and get it over with. host: how much influence do you think the president has had directly? caller: i cannot really say. it depends on how bad they are hurt financially, i would imagine, and that is what it is all about. host: democrats line, eleanor

from williamsburg, virginia. caller: i am calling and i'm simply amazed that nobody remarks that this morning, the audience at the meeting was irate because the president was 30 minutes late. secondly, when we went to war in iraq, who came to help us? nato. host: that is some of the comments this morning on the president's trip to nato, and you can continue on. if you want to call us on the phone lines, (202) 748-8000. .epublicans, (202) 748-8001 independents, (202) 748-8002. you can post your comments on our twitter feed at c-span wj and on our facebook page at facebook.com/c-span. we are on the washington journal, going to check in with

journalists in the home states of key senators involved in the confirmation process of brett kavanaugh. phone out of the indiana, the political reporter talking about senator joe donnelly. guest: good morning. how are you? host: i am well, thank you. talking about joe donnelly, particularly in light of the nomination, it just says joe donnelly has his work cut out for him. can you tell us why? easy for has not been donnelly to navigate the stennett -- senate in a state where president trump one by 19 percentage points. he is constantly having to try to appease his democratic base,

but also recognize that his constituents largely support trump. thisis no different -- really could not come at a worse time for him, this decision on whether to support brett kavanaugh, with his election coming up in less than four months. he seems to expected to be a pretty tight race with the wealthy republican businessman. everything he does is being even more closely examined. host: initially, what has aboutr donnelly expressed the nominee? anything significant or can you tell us? week: he was in town last for a campaign event and he said when he met with president trump recently about a range of issues that included who he would be nominated to the supreme court, donnelly urged him to nominate

someone who was "moderate and common sense." he said if the president would nominate somebody who would very evenly divide the senate and force vice president mike pence to come in and break the tie, that would be a disastrous thing for the country. what is not clear is whether cavanaugh asws someone who is moderate and common sense. host: have we seen any forces throughout the state, groups or special interest groups making comments about what pressure they might put on the senator? guest: on tuesday morning after the nomination was announced by the president, a group called , a nationalony pro-life group, staged a rally outside joe donnelly's office in downtown south bend. they made it very clear they are

going to be putting a lot of pressure on him to support kar anaugh. we are also seeing news reports of various right-wing and pro-life groups preparing to launch tv ad campaigns targeting donnelly and urging hoosiers to press donnelly to vote for ka vanaugh. host: you write this is not the first time senator donnelly has been involved in a confirmation process. he was involved with neil gorsuch. guest: he did vote for neil gorsuch. he was one of only three democrats in the senate that did so. he is considered a moderate democrat from a red state. i will note that he kind of weighted fairly late -- waited fairly late in the process. it was march 30 last year when

heidi heitkamp, the moderate democrat from north dakota and joe manchin, the moderate democrat from west virginia, it was march 30 last year they announced they would be voting for neil gorsuch. three days later, joe donnelly came out and announced that he would also. at that point, his vote was sort of symbolic. gorsuch already had the votes he needed. some republicans here are teasing donnelly with that now. hopefully they do not do the same thing in this situation. he will wait until it is really not a question of whether his vote is needed, before he ultimately comes out and votes for kavanaugh. host: jeff parrott reports about joe donnelly, the democrat from indiana. thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: if you want to give your

comments on the president's trip to nato, you can do so for the remaining 20 minutes or so of this segment. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 on twitter it is at c-span wj and on facebook.com/c-span. here's more from the present. -- president. , butere might be protests i believe the people in the u.k., scotland, ireland -- i have property in ireland and property all over -- i think those people like me a lot and they agree with me on immigration. i think that is why you have brexit in the first place, because of immigration. taking a stop over the weekend at his golf club in scotland and then without summit with vladimir putin on monday.

from that in the week, -- matt in bali, maryland. -- bowie, maryland. caller: i am not a big trump fan at all. . do like a lot of his policies he is kind of a maniac sometimes. nato,is trying to destroy why would he encourage the other member nations to increase their spending? it does not make sense. another thing, to my fellow c-span viewers, a good thing to do is go to real clear politics and read some things, maybe rates and things you do not agree with that might broaden your horizons. host: what do you think about the president's present at nato? caller: i think the best thing i can say is it is very interesting. i will look to see what the results are from it. host: when you say

"interesting," what do you mean? caller: i am interested to see if this will be effective in the strongman role he has taken on. some other international news, "the wall street journal" talks about iran's president, saying during a visit to switzerland last week he responded to u.s. plans to enforce a global freeze on iranian oil well exports by threatening to disrupt the flow of middle eastern oil to the persian gulf. iraq could block the strait of -- iran's militarily -- where praising the moderate president.

ray is next from new hampshire, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. they are not about paying their fair share, and they really are not. germany has the fourth-largest economy in the world, over $4 trillion, and they should be around $80 billion in defense spending and they are about $45 billion. are shortfall is money they using for their free health care and education, even though they are running a budget surplus. yesterday i was reading an interesting article on how in recent nato training exercises, the military had to use broomsticks painted black to simulate guns because they do not have enough supplies. they say that none of their transport aircraft are flyable.

have four out of 128 fighters that are flyable because of shortages. russia is the greatest threat to europe. to us, it is nuclear and cyber security that they pose a threat to us. in europe, it is nuclear, cyber security, and the 22,000 tanks russia has that they can invade eastern and western europe with. here is germany, they are using simulate theiro personnel carriers because they are not working. germany can defend themselves. host: the atlantic council's david wilson on a tweet this morning stemming from nato, saying with that report of the president's warning the u.s. could go it alone, tom tillis reminded him that the american president cannot take a decision

as momentous as withdrawing from an alliance. uss coequal branches of government. those are just some of the tweets coming out. next,ats line, devon is temple, georgia. caller: my question is to trump's base -- how do they believe a president who says that he just got our nato allies to increase their spending and then turns right around and the first president says, no, we did not actually agree to that, he is lying. how do we believe that? how do they spin that off? host: "the new york times" this morning saying it was the president strongly recommitting america's support for nato thursday, saying he had one great concessions from allies on military spending, adding the united states was not being treated fairly but now we are.

the president adding "i believe in nato." briefed, to a person mr. trump said if other countries did not meet the 2% standard by january, the united states "would go it alone." warren is on the republican line from georgia. ofler: i have noticed a lot people called in and do not have a clear, as to the effect from eight have fish might have, and the effect his words and actions -- might have, and the effect his words and actions might have on the spending of nations. i have an opinion so i would be willing to answer. host: what is your opinion? caller: if we had somebody like obama or hillary clinton in office, we would not be getting

the respect and admiration out of international reporters talking to a u.s. president. cipalnk that as the prin military member of nato, like trump said, we have the military technology that is far advanced, far more efficient. i think we deserve to be taken with a little more respect, so as for the actual results, like many of said, time will tell. i can tell you for sure that nobody obama wanted to be president would be able to get up there and stand up in front of those reporters and speak the way an american leader should speak. host: "the wall street journal" sending out a tweet with comments of angela merkel, saying the u.s. president demand and what has been discussed for months. we are on this path and this is our interest, and it reinforces us mutually.

on the independent line, we with your next from ken. go ahead. caller: good morning. hypocritical, the last caller, i guess he became a proud american when trump took office, which shows the hypocrisy of america and people like himself. someone who has claimed to know the art of the deal and how to manipulate and deal with money claimed a number of bankruptcies and still has yet to release his taxes. host: how does that relate to the decisions that nato and the output at nato? caller: it relates to his personality. andtimes people have an mo it is their national inclination, but he is clueless. our question is judgment. at some point, when someone brings up obama or talks about somebody else, they are shirking

responsibility. why would we be afraid of these other countries if we are superior? we have nothing to be afraid of. host: when he takes credit for the increases in spending, what is your reaction? caller: i do not believe a word he is saying. host: because? caller: he has proved to be a liar. someone that lives in the desert probably does not believe in snow because they have never dealt with that, but that does not mean it does not exist. int: let's hear from don tennessee, republican line. caller: it is about time that we have a president standing for the united states. host: go ahead, you are on. he hung up.

countriesng, nato increasing their spending because they no longer see the u.s. as a reliable partner. chancellor merkel saying that publicly a year ago, adding the president's sideshow is irrelevant. ace on the republican line, centreville, virginia. caller: can you hear me? host: yes. caller: i do not believe for one second anything mr. trump says. -- i shameful to me that am a u.s. army veteran, and i have seen germans, the french, and every single last country that our president goes out of his way to criticize, siding on our side. when i hear our president go out of his way to demean these countries, and he has never served one day in the military, one day, so please, i hear all

these people defending this man. mistake about what is going on. he went to nato to embarrass nato. putin and his 4000 nuclear rebuild like he wanted when he was in kgb. host: one of the sources that came out of nato aside from president trump is out of canada, with their prime minister, justin trudeau, announcing that canadian led missions in iraq will take place as the president complains about defense spending, saying the federal government has committed candidates to a new military mission where european allies are under fire. kennedy-wilson assume command -- canada will assume command of a

new nato training mission in iraq for one year. not selected as canadian major general. here is justin trudeau announcing this effort. >> we will be looking with great interest this afternoon as nato announces that we are going to engage in iraq as an alliance, capacity building, training, that next step in the challenge in iraq which was first and now we have to build a democracy and strengthen it. nato will take a significant role in canada will commit to hundred 50 troops. we are offering to command that mission for the first year. from joe,s hear woodbridge, virginia, republican line. caller: thanks for taking my

call. two quick points. based on the calls, the american people seem to be suffering from historical amnesia because my recollection of history is that we have had to intervene in two world wars on the european confidence, what the loss of thousands and thousands of american lives. i support completely what president trump is doing because in each time in world war i and world war ii, those wars were started because of a weak europe and decreased defense spending. what president trump is trying to do is prevent another world war where we have to intervene and save europe again at the cost of thousands of american lives. it is up to europe to increase their defense spending as a .eterrent to putin and russia the second point i wanted to make was, everything trump is doing is against putin.

i do not know what people are talking about. they are trying to pull the old switcheroo on president trump. he wants to increase defense spending, once germany weaned off of russian oil. those are things that putin hates and that is detrimental to the strength of russia. all this fake news about president trump being input and -- being in putin's pocket is fake. host: an op-ed by kentucky senator rand paul, they highlight the fact that he was one of two senators who opposed a nonbinding motion to support and extend nato. he says -- we should be aware of russia's perspective. whether or not to expand nato is a question that deserves debate. does adding countries like albania and montenegro increase our security a dish security or

-- security? understood -- understand what nato expansion does to our relationship with russia, we must at least be aware of russia's perspective. daniel davis with the defense priorities, saying extending nato membership to georgia or ukraine but in no way strengthening u.s. security, increases america's strategic risk. he finishes by saying this -- i preferred that we think about our interests first and the anate returned to being delivered of body on foreign

policy where ideas are considered an dissent is heard and debated. caller: it is interesting how europeans cooked the box when it comes to their own finances, particularly when it comes to united states which is nothing more than an atm machine and funding apparatus for nato, which is in fact a european army paid for by the american people. -- on ourremove this treasury. all the american people have to do is look under operation gla purpose ofhe major nato, a government underwritten with tyranny. this is a fabricated lie. host: the president has called for more spending then? caller: i am a democrat. i think the president is brilliant. it is about time a president

went over and laid out the reality of what the american people are underwriting. host: republican line, from silver spring, maryland, lewis is next. caller: how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: two quick points. i think it is good idea to push the europeans to spend more, at least to cover their own basic security. there is two cautions i have with the aggressive way in which he is doing it. europe's collective security is of tremendous benefit to american national security, and will also eventually affect us if europeans doubt we support them. europeans spend more money on their own defense is not necessarily good thing. a couple of callers ago talked about the two wild boars and a more militaristic -- two world

wars and a more militaristic europe. should we necessarily consider that? host: that is lewis in silver spring, maryland. all this talk of international affairs, one domestic event, a hearing on capitol hill. "and fbi agent censured for sending anti-trump messages while leading an investigation into hillary clinton, donald trump, he will break his silence. he will appear for a joint meeting at 10:00 on thursday. this testimony comes a month after a report by the justice department's inspector general on the handling of the hillary clinton email scandal -- probe. if you want to see that hearing, that takes place before those joint committees.

that is on c-span3 at 10:00. you can also go to c-span.org and our c-span radio app. website, youour can find out more about peter zok's text messages. page learned, south carolina, republican line, jimmy. caller: i think president trump has done a fantastic job considering all the opposition he faces daily, coming from the media and democrats and some republicans. i think he is doing a good job. host: how would you rate the job he has done at nato? caller: actually, it is hard to say that because we will not know what he has done over there until after he returns home and things are rolling on the ball. seen, i thinkve

he could be politically a little better at his approach to getting things done. he is getting things done, but i think he could use a more -- how do i say this -- host: are you talking about the tone he takes when he meets with leaders? caller: yes. obama was great at talking. he was the smoothest talking president i have ever seen. he was graded that. use hisneeds to approach a little bit different, but he is getting the job done and that is the bottom line. there was one of your callers who called in and said they did not know anything about the military. that is not true. he graduated from a military college. host: on our independent line from hillman, michigan, gary is next. caller: nato has been for the

past four years, has been increasing what they spend for their own protection. it is not just because of trump. you cannot believe a word this guy says. just like he says he was the only president that wisconsin has voted for, and that wasn't an and out lie -- that was out and out lie. they voted for republicans other than him. you cannot believe a word he says. host: on our independent line, jack from scottsdale, arizona. caller: thank you for taking my call. host: jack, could you adjust your handset a little? you are getting a lot of interference and we can barely make you out. caller: is it better now?

host: it is a little better, but go ahead. caller: what the gentleman just said -- host: jack, go ahead. caller: i write here. -- i am right here. host: go on. spendinge may have 3% host: we are going to have to leave it there, but we will continue discussing issues of nato and president's upcoming and his summit with vladimir putin as well. steve clemons will be joining us for that discussion next. threats, more terrorist iff threats overallchina, and the

trade philosophy of the trump administration, coming up on "washington journal." ♪ sunday night on "after words," cnn political commentator amanda carpenter discusses her book, "gas lighting america: why we love it when trump lies to us. that's lies to us -- lies to us." i have investigators >> going to hawaii -- >> i have investigators going to hawaii. there's a report coming soon. i have a tape coming. that generates more media attention. guess what? it never comes out. >> then he selects a detractor to attack. >> yes. at this point people start to say, we think donald trump is

lying. while other people are just talking about this. i'm just looking into it. anybody that pops up, loser, crazy, hack. if you can find a target to start state going in best to start scapegoating -- to start scapegoating, that creates that dynamic. like you did at the press conference at the trump hotel dc.-- hotel in barack obamasaid, as a citizen, i flirted up -- i cleared it up, that hillary clinton started it. watch "after words," sunday at 9 p.m. eastern on booktv. she's been similar

c-span,unfolds daily -- where history unfolds daily. by cable andeated satellite companies. "washington journal" continues. host: "the atlantic's" washington editor at large steve clemons joins us now. good morning. what do you think about the end results the president talked about this morning, and how much influence does he have a net? -- have in that? guest: i am mixed in my view about what president trump is accomplished. so much of what he is taking credit for, these governments want him to take credit for it, want him to buy into nato and feel good about the process. this has been based in for a long time. of most of the nato

member nations have been increasing. there's no doubt he has treated this as one of his goals, to get our allies to spend more than they are presently doing. he looks at it as a drag on what the united states is able to do militarily. he has another connection which will have to cut some of the he is -- which people haven't caught, that he is obsessed with trade. he's bothered by the fact that we are spending a lot to defend --ies with him with have with whom we have significant trade deficits. he is tying these together in ways other presidents haven't. i think he gets credit for doing that. i've given president trump credit for shocking allies and nato, anyway. that is not necessarily a bad thing. to maketrategy is people fight for what matters,

to combat together and say and are shut should not be guiding our decisions, but smart all of the choices, you can get him credit for that. what i don't give him credit for is creating doubts among our allies about america's willingness to be with them in their dark days as an alliance joined at the hip. there is a big question mark that these countries have about the solvency of that alliance and the dependability of donald trump and his government in times of stress as they see him -- i think this is why, when you look at nato, we are not going to go one way or another whether this was successful or not until we see the putin meeting. if he goes in seemingly sycophantic, as we see him before with putin, this will send the greatest shockwave through nato and undo any potential gains. we just signed onto a joint communique with other nato nations which is very forward-looking. you could say we checked off the box and did things well despite creating a storm. but right now i think it is a

mixed result. but weod was done, haven't undone the doubt other nations have about american and ability -- america's dependability. host: what do you think about the german pipeline and his connectionability to dependencyn russia? hast: i think donald trump been angling and pushing for the germans to buy more u.s. natural gas. looking at the transactional dimension of how this guy works and what he thinks about. i'm sure he looked at something that really bothered him of why aren't they part -- why aren't they buying american and they are buying russian. donald trump is prone to overstatement for effect. it is typical of his relationship with angela merkel. she is sort of stonefaced and doesn't react to him. i think you just try to poke her. i remember talking to someone

who was in the room for one of their first meetings. he took a piece of paper and said an invoice, germany owed us $2 trillion but said he could get a better deal for her. she was just frozen and refused to react to that. ofon't want to make light the comment, and i think people were astounded and shocked by the comment. macron was asked about it, did he think germany was the holding to russia and run by russia, and he said no. this was donald trump in a kind of recklessness with his words that i think ends up, as many people said, there's a big gap between the substance of policy and the theater and flourish of donald trump's performance is that sometimes seems reckless. our guest is joining us into a delivered if you want to ask him about the native trip or other foreign-policy matters.

fors (202) 748-8000 democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, an independents (202) 748-8002. you can also tweak s -- you can @cspanwj. us would you think of the benefits of thing with nato? guest: first of all 9/11, our allies came right alongside us to fight against al qaeda and the taliban that were a real threat to the united states. there are intelligence threats and problems throughout the world. nato are our closest allies. the roots of nato, it is an interesting shorthand of why nato was created. it was created to keep america in europe, to keep russia out of europe, and to keep germany down because germany had been part of the troublemaking equation within the region. i think for c-span

the other day someone made the comment that if you begin checking germany's defense spendingp best defense up -- defense spending up, the neighbors get very twitchy. it is vital to america's global strategy on so many fronts. it is not just military security. it is dealing with natural disasters, questions of climate change. that relationship has been core and vital to allow other things to happen. it is a controversial issue for me, we fought the cold war with russia. the soviet union came undone. i think there was a question at that time, then during the bush administration, whether to create a pathway to membership for russia in nato or not. the president of the council on foreign relations wrote a secret white paper is the employee of the bush ministration advocating that maybe we need to attract russian membership in nato

because if not, we would be back in an us vs. them mentality one day. i think that is what has happened. a nationved from being after the soviet union fell, now coming back to feeling its muscularity in the world and a sense of empire they once had with a leader like vladimir putin. that has now created eight near and present danger to many in the balkans, part of eastern europe. we have seen it in the taking of crimea, the first taking of -- movingl mines territorial lines. russia is now back as a threat and a rival. donald trump this morning said is a competitor. it is a threat. it is a rival. it is harassing u.s. diplomats, u.s. military forces around the world. it has meddled in and ravine

u.s. elections and across european elections. president has a different view of that, clearly, but nato is ticking on that challenge which we chose by not having created a different track, in my view, for russia. host: our first call is from minnesota, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i keep listening to this, and i just keep shaking my head about why is the media always trying to sow deception and doubt? it is pretty apparent that this is really what it looks like after you lose $1.3 billion on hillary. but the most important thing, until a democratic party can get back on its feet, the best thing they can do is throw the media out because they have already screwed over the party. ok, only because we are about international affairs and the trip overseas, do you have any comments or questions

about that for our guest? guest: i don't get what he does not about the 67% we already paid to fund the nato part of the military side of it. do you think that is not our fair share? host: thanks. spent united states has 22% of nato expenditures, not 67%. this morning donald trump said 90% in the press conference. a lot of numbers flying around. there is a difference between what the number nations -- the member nations of nato have spent and what others have wanted the defense spending of these nations to rise to a level of 2% of gdp. they have pledged to do that by 2024. those numbers are rising. that is different than their native contribution. there are -- there nato contributions. there are two things going on here.

both of those things have been rising substantially. case, weited states' have been increasing. we pay about 22% of nato's defense spending bill. if you look at aggregate spending of nato nations under security, it is not insignificant. senatore second-largest -- second-largest expenditure in average in the world. it is very substantial. we need to keep that in mind that while i do think donald trump is raising and pushing an issue that is legitimate, i would have a difference with the way in which he was pursuing that. but nonetheless, we are not talking about nations derelict in the responsibility that are running the other direction. we need to be careful about how we frame the numbers. host: mickey is next, florida, and an online. caller: hello -- independent line. caller: hello mr. clemens. the point i want to make was

that this all started with president bush when he started that weapons of destruction, ok? then he got all the other smaller countries in nato to back them up. in the end, they never found any weapons of destruction. cheney with halliburton and all the money they made, i think they should be the ones to pay for that war going on over there and causing all the problems with nato. host: got you, caller. guest: the issue raised, which is the u.s. invasion of iraq and the attack against saddam hussein, is one of the big strategic question marks. we are going to be studying this for decades, whether that move enhanced our security or was the punctuation point of the collapse of trust in american leadership in the world. , was a critic of the iraq war

like president trump said he was, although he tweeted both support and resistance. at the time, the issue is how did you look at the broader middle east, and what did the u.s. need to do in a time of stress and threat after 9/11? we had invaded afghanistan to knock out the caliban. a lot of people were -- the taliban. thet of people were making comments that saddam hussein and iraq were nefarious players in the region and needed to be defeated. i thought it would test the power of the u.s. both strategically and militarily. other countries don't know the limits of our abilities. once you begin to show limits, as i think we did in the iraq war and later in the 2008-to nine financial crisis, the rest 2008-2009 financial crisis, the rest of the world says they cannot operate in many theaters at once their economy is beleaguered so they would not

be able to do things they once were. showing limits if you are a superpower is a deadly and dangerous thing because your allies are the first to abandon you. they begin to make different decisions. forget your foes for a minute. if you look at japan, israel, saudi arabia germany, all of them begin to behave differently because they thought america would not be quite with them as much. that has been more and more so. your basic point that iraq was an inflection point i agree with. i would disagree with some of your other characterizations. but it is not wrong to go back beforek in the period donald trump came in and some of the trends of doubt in america's place in the world. i would put iraq as one of those key infection points. host: rob is in missouri, democrat line. caller: good morning. disagree. totally every time president trump said that he nato table, he reminds me of the grandpa who speaks on to present facts and 98% -- on

2% facts and 98% bad memory. my question is, germany is a leader in renewal energy in europe. i think the reliance on russian oil is basically a smaller percentage than what donald trump made it sound like, that they are 100% on russian oil. people want to believe whatever comes out of his mouth, but the facts never, ever matchup. would you please comment on that? guest: i love to be clear on your first point that i am not an advocate in any way of donald trump's behavior and the theater of his behavior toward allies. i do think -- and i remember when i was at the new america foundation years ago after the fall of the soviet union, we began to ask questions that were legitimate. what is nato for? that is not an illegitimate question to ask. what purpose does it serve?

otherwise, what we saw as a lot of people who loved the alliance, love the spending, love what we are doing, what is a definable threat for it at that time? it took 9/11 and some other things to give definition and cause to what the alliance should be about as we moved forward into the future. a lot of global decision-making, honestly -- and maybe we disagree on this -- is led by ownership. you do what you do tomorrow by what you did yesterday. that is when i say to give the president a little bit of doubt that it is ok to shock the system now and then, but it is vital that you have a strategy and that you replace that shock with a sense of purpose and what are we now about. g20 i see after the hamburg meeting, the g-7 meeting in canada, nevis nato summit -- now this nato summit, is ongoing set of confrontations that don't seem to be about anything other than the confrontations. that is that worries me, so we would agree. on germany, i would simply say

that germany has been trying to come as you said, moving to renewables and all sorts of cleaner fuels for a long time. part of that process was offloading and undoing its dependence on nuclear power. that changed the energy profile of germany, and in that particular case, opened up a dependency of russia. the broadside is that when donald trump made that comment we liveat you're doing, in a world where we both challenge each other and trade each other. i remember at the height of the cold war when i worked for the rent corporation, the soviet union was a nation that mattered. everyited states, foreign-policy decision went through a frame on how it would tilt soviet competition the world. we would have 13, 14, 15 different avenues of negotiation with the soviets on everything. if one of those blew up, we would have another area where we could talk to them.

even with adversaries, you have different openings, trading relationships, economic relationships. donald trump, people said that leaders in nato were aghast when they saw and heard the comments challenging angela merkel and germany so boldly and overtly about that because we all trade with each other, including the united states with russia. that was part of the plan to bring them out of that and use liberal trade and economic activity to try to make russia more modern and decrease the threat. sayear someone so starkly you are trading and getting gas and energy from a nation that you are organizing your security to defend yourself, look at my donald trump has a frame that, too many people in the world, makes no sense. i wouldn't even call it archaic. it is very simple. is very binary. i can tell you john bull, jim mattis, mike pompeo do not share bolton,imple -- john

jim mattis, mike pompeo do not share such a simple framework. i am not the biggest john bolton fan in the world, but he would not buy that framing for the president at all. host: still looking ahead to the helsinki infant -- to the summit in helsinki. the security issues, or donald trump says to the russians that what we want is to see is a change in behavior toward rest of european democracies and that's toward western european democracies and other nations around the world -- toward western european democracies and other nations around the world. right now we are not responding. the former head of the national security agency and u.s. cyber command said he had not received orders to begin. threatns to look like a and a bit of an invasion, if you

will. we use war language for it, that the russians need to be pushed back on it. the russians across the board is not something that is in the media, but on the military front, in terms of harassing planes, nato right of passage, there's a lot of problem on the eastern european side of things. >> we've also had an ongoing problem of harassment of u.s. diplomats. we've also exported both russian diplomats and russia has thrown out u.s. diplomats. part of that is can donald trump not only find a way to be buddy buddy with vladimir putin, but can he exactly kind of promise or process where russian behavior becomes more responsible and less destabilizing and threatening? that can then lead to something new and different. but it needs to be serious, cordial, and sober. host: steve clemons of "the atlantic" joining us for this conversation. john, you are up. caller: in the post-world war ii

period when the u.s. was extremely powerful, etc. these alliances. the soviet union had just fought the world's most horrible war, and most of it was fought in the soviet union. they were devastated. u.s.iberal forces of the come henry b wallace and is kind of guys, when you do get along with russia. but the far right wing, as soon as fdr died, took over and set up his confrontational empire not only in europe, but in asia and all over the place. now after 70, 75 years, the toll is coming due. the u.s. is debilitated. what used to be a good, solid middle-class is now april terry proletarian-ized, resentful for people. lost resiliency in a lot of areas. there is no easy answer here.

the u.s. is not the great power it was after world war ii. the best thing for our internal population would be to end the empire, walk away from it back in the resentful, trumpian manner, but in a peaceful manner and try to find a path where we are not in military circles and competition with these other countries. host: thank you. guest: i agree that there is no easy path here. i think where i disagree with regards to russia is i think russia is a concern, but i don't -- when i think about what the major challenges are for the united states and where we are going in the future, and i look at america has a great power with extraordinary assets and capabilities, it always should be testing itself and rethinking and reshaping what it doesn't world, but i look at china as the primary challenge to the united states right now. china is investing in education, infrastructure, science and technology, nanotechnology, genetics.

the forward facing industries of the future. united states is doing that, but not to the degree, and my view of things, that it should be. that is where economic power in the kind of ability to invent the magic of the future is what makes nations powerful. remember, power is a function of future expectations. it is a lot like the stock market. be big and sprawling and have a lot of capacity, but look at ge stock. it is a big, sprawling companies with a lot of -- sprawling company with a lot of assets. like that and have the rest of the world emulate you and want to be like us? donald trump, i think, is speeding up history that may have happened anyway. on a relative basis, america is basising, but on a real america is not declining. there are other major

stakeholders. you see the rise of india, brazil, china. russia matters, but not on the par of those other countries. we need something to go back to the 1950's and look at the way in which a global social contract between stakeholder nations was written. what can we do today? that would be something that would be extraordinary, even if you have a trumpian america first notion. what could be the new social contract between the resignations and stakeholders in the world? that would be an extra ordinary moment. i have a lot of criticism of president trump, but people something out of the hat like that, you would see me signing up. host: out of the conference this morning, he was asked about that meeting with russia and russian meddling. , "what am i going to do? he may deny it. all i can say is don't do it again." guest: donald trump trivializes this question at an extramarital. it is consistent -- at an

extraordinary level. with his ownent doubts, i think, about russia. for whatever reason, despite u.s. intelligence agencies and every senior major national security voice around him in his employ in the white house, and those in congress believe that russia penetrated the election system of 21 states and engaged in very nefarious ways in the 2016 election, for whatever reasons i do not understand, donald trump does not want to make that a centerpiece of discussion with russia in compelling them in a serious way. he trivializes it, and it is a mistake for him to do that. host: don is next in virginia on the democrat line. caller: in my viewpoint, trump is a hypocrite and a liar. he will not be reelected. he's trying to do it must and i does can likely still in office.

u.s. much damage as he was. while he was still in office he met with 13. -- damage as he can while he is still in office. he met with 13 russian oligarchs. [indiscernible] trump claims i have new dealings with the russians -- no dealings with the russians. everyone is talking about no collusion. they don't know what mueller has. when the hammer drops, we are going to find out what's what. guest: i would say that where i is theith the caller fact that during the campaign, donald trump said he had nothing going with russia. that clearly wasn't the case. whether that is illegal, whether the shades of gray in that response, the many overlapping layers of russian connection which his own family members have admitted during the process, that is a different question than what the mueller investigation is about, which is not only about collusion, but about the russian intelligence operation to destabilize

american democracy. i think in that process, we don't know where that will go. -- don't know where that will go , and they want handicap where i think that will go. but there are legitimate question as to why the president and others around him, mike and chargeddicted with lying about relationships to russia, there's just no doubt that has become a kind of box of uncertainty. we don't know what all of that means. we are going to have to wait and see what plays out. host: a lot going on in the u.k.. what do you think is the purpose of this joint meeting between theresa may and the president, and him meeting the queen? guest: i think it is to get it out of the way. i don't think there is enthusiasm on either side for this meeting. it was sort of canceled before because the trump was so

critical and dismissive of the mayor of london. i think theresa may, who is not , andorite of donald trump there was a time when they met together and it was sort of an meeting.g -- an icy i joked when donald trump said that theresa may is a people person that that is fake news. she is just not of that ilk. the u.k. relationship is vital to the united states. it is important that the president of the united states and the prime minister of the u.k. meet together. government, i won't call it collapsing, but it is incredibly fragile. you have the exit of various minister, including the foreign minister and brexit negotiation minister. we don't know how long she will be there. what donald trump should do -- what donald trump does is not

support a, but praises boris johnson. today his -- support theresa may, but praises boris johnson. today his response was very different. we have different donald trumps on different days. natos throwing bombs on and all about quid pro quo. today he is all about nato being a vital alliance to the u.s. and angela merkel is a great friend. we get different dimensions of donald trump on different day. i think he uses this shock to keep allies on edge. i don't know what to expect when donald trump goes there, but i would say that when you had him coming in and basically praising ministers coming out of government, it becomes a real problem for an ally and a question of whether they adamantly trust the president. there have been trust problems before. it was teresa may in the british government who shared vital information with the u.s. government that got passed off

publicly by the president. there are all sorts of doubts they have. host: one more call from dave in maryland, democrats line. caller: thank you for your comment. i was interested in hearing words like confrontational and hand grenades. i think a lot of people are concerned about these kinds of comments. one thing you need in society is some kind of stabilization. when i hear other people saying is that neither of these men have the temperament or basic intelligence -- i don't mean basic intelligence, you know what i'm getting at -- that you put these two people together with their temperament -- guest: which two people? caller: -- i think i'm concerned about what is going to happen. host: do you mean president trump and president putin? caller: yes. host: ok, thank you. guest: i think the interesting thing is that president

putin, despite engaging in disturbing and destabilizing behavior in various places we care about around the world, is nonetheless a very reserved and controlled guy. everything was vladimir putin is highly scripted and done in advance. he is a very controlled critter in terms of how he looks at things. i think donald trump does riff a lot. he does behave extemporaneously and does things on the fly, and winging it in ways we haven't seen other presidents do. 20 talk about donald trump's authenticity, it is a true statement. what you see is what you get with him. what you used to see with president obama, bush, clinton, were highly scripted and controlled things. donald trump is kind of saying i am not that guy. whether people like it or not, whether i look at it as reckless or constructive, nonetheless that is the way trump behaves.

with it problems sometimes because of the world is complex. it is not a real estate deal. you can't just offend someone and hope they are going to bounce back because they want to invest in the real estate project. global affairs are much more delicate and have much longer-term consequences. i am a critic of the president's style and direction in this, but i don't think b -- i don't think vladimir putin behaves in the same way. he has an agenda. he has a strategy. he know what -- he knows what i want -- what he wants to achieve . we do not have a strategy, and that is a problem. host: thank you for your time, sir. guest: what a pleasure. thank you. host: coming up, we will talk about the trump administration making new threats on tariffs against china. later in the program, republican representative john curtis will talk about nato and the upcoming

meeting with the russian president. all of those coming up on "washington journal." ♪ announcer: sunday night on "q&a" -- >> she physically tossed it at me and said, no change. i decided right they i am going to get that a minute ratified. announcer: gregory watson, the man responsible for getting the 27th amendment ratified. >> i will never forget, i was in the library in downtown austin, texas. i came across a book that had an entire chapter devoted to a amendments that had passed congress, but not enough state legislatures had approved. this one jumped out right at me. law of the very in

compensation for the service of senators and representatives shall take effect until an election of representatives shall have intervened." i can remember standing in the aisle holding that book in my hand, and it was as if lightning had struck. i could feel the pulsating electricity of it all. i thought, you know what? instead of writing about the in theights amendment disputed extension in its ratification deadline, why don't write about this amendment that says when members of congress want to adjust their salary, they have to wait until the next election? announcer: sunday night at eight upon eastern on c-span's "q&a -- at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." announcer: brett kavanaugh of the united states court of

appeals of the district of columbia is president trump's nominee for the supreme court. follow the confirmation process on c-span as judge kavanagh meet with key senators on capitol hill, followed by confirmation hearings and the vote. onch on c-span, follow www.c-span.org, or listen on the free c-span radio app. announcer: "washington journal" continues. for: ana swanson reports "the new york times" about economics. earlier this week, the trump administration announced that it would be moving forward $200tariff on about billion of imports into the united states. it was kind of a surprising -- action coming

now. china answered with tariffs of its own on the same value of products. additional $200 billion, in my opinion, is kind of a sharp escalation of that trade fight. it shows that the trump administration really has no intention of backing down when it comes to china, that they are very serious about these potential tariffs going into effect, that they would like the chinese to change their trade practices as a result. that is what this whole tariff battle is about. the trump administration has a criticism about china's trade practices, including the theft of intellectual property. host: what would it target, and how does it ultimately target the american consumer, or with the consumer feel these effects? guest: the list is very long.

there's over 1000 different items. some of them are quite random, including horsehair, furniture. there are a few things that do impact american consumers. with that initial round of tariffs, the trump administration was trying to design them so that they would have as little impact on american consumers as possible. but now when you expand the list to $200 billion in riots -- billion of products, you start incorporating things that americans by at things like home depot, best buy, walmart. some of those are things like fabric or furniture or computers , some electronic parts on the list. while i would expect consumers to see very sharp price increases, those tariffs are going to filter into our economy and end up raising prices for both consumers and manufacturers.

host: our guest joining us until 9:00 to talk about these efforts by the chubb administration on tariffs and trade. if you want to ask her questions, it is (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, and (202) 748-8002 for independents. you can also tweet responses or questions @cspanwj. have you seen major effect in the corporate or industry world on how this plays out? guest: we are starting to see companies announced different measures. a lot of them are realizing that with these tariffs, it is more expensive to export from the united states or into the united states from abroad. if companies are trying to serve foreign markets, their incentive may not be to pick up and moving factory already in production because those are huge investments with long lifespans. about ahey are think

new factory or production line, they definitely could take these tariffs into account. this was an example of the steel and aluminum tariffs. recently we saw harley-davidson make an announcement, saying it did not want to pay this tariff that the eu put onto its bikes in response to president trump steel and aluminum tariffs and would be shifting production out of the united states for bikes it provides to the eu. host: this is from a union at hyundai, saying their alabama plant could be the first to shut down under the president's tariff plant. that could endanger 20,000 jobs. guest: that is a huge number of jobs. the president has celebrated every job he has brought into the united states. that has been a big focus for him, to bring factories back and the united states. this idea that his trade measures are now causing jobs to leave i think will be pretty distressing for a lot of americans. host: is this an idea of who

blinks first? particularly that the president was china to blink first in his trade practices? what are the chances that china will do exactly that? guest: i really think it is. argument isration's that past negotiations with china really haven't worked. either the chinese continue to have these unfair trade practices despite decades of negotiations by american presidents, and i think there are a lot of people in washington sympathetic to that argument in both parties. but his use of tariffs has been quite controversial. i think the strategy really is that he sees the american market as kind of the essential market, a very big and important global market, so he is trained to use that might of the american economy to convince china to change its ways. will definitely hurt the chinese economy. economists are saying that china's economy does look somewhat fragile in terms of its dependence on debt, on exports,

but at the same time they heard the american economy, too. you're going to be seeing many structures and consumers that feel these price increases come adhering more complaints from business groups and workers in the united states who are going to be hurt by the. them.uy them -- hurt by @cspanwj,witter it is and on facebook.com/cspan. , florida, on the independent line, you are up with our guest. caller: hello. i am in florida in the u.s. we have a lot of opportunities here to take advantage of tax holidays. i bought a generator as soon as i heard about the trade policy

because i thought that steel was going to be a factor in that, so i did get a deal. the other thing i wanted to ask you about is if you think canada -- we have a lot of canadians who come here -- are going to retaliate or how that is going to work. i am not a fan of the president of canada in terms of how he is reacting to trade issues. when it comes to alcohol and other kinds of things having to do with their government bringing tourists to our border, can you tell me what are the things they might be trying to do from the canadian side? and i like canadians, the saying. guest: thank you so much. i think many consumers are like you. they are changing some of their behavior in response to tariffs or in anticipation of them. businesses are doing the same thing.

we have been hearing reports of stockpiling, both of steel and aluminum before that when into effect. consumers have noted that the price of lumber from canada have increased. the various things you see on the shelves at the big box stores. there is definitely a little bit of stockpiling. there is a story out today about how the rush to purchase soybeans ahead of the tariffs may have boosted the economy in the second quarter because people are trying to move forward those purchases, but we are going to see that fall off again after the tariffs go into effect. with regard to your second havent with canada, there been quite a lot of trade tensions with canada, which is quite surprising because they are typically what our closest neighbors. we have been hearing accounts of boycotts of american products from canada.

those are typically hitting just the most high profile american brands, and obviously there are a lot of american products on the shelves in canada that are probably not going to suffer from some of that. but there is kind of a surprising backlash to american largepolicy there, in part prompted by this very public sparring between president trump and prime minister justin judo just -- prime minister justin trudeau when there was a clash over trade. host: this is connie in south carolina, independent line. caller: hi. i watched y'all a lot of mornings. i want to say if this trade -- well,es into effect i suppose it has already gone into effect -- but i live in south carolina. i live in the upstate of south carolina.

near north carolina, georgia, alabama. all of our companies are foreign companies from europe. i have never -- i have only worked for one american company, and i am 77 years old. in my lifetime. if they decide that they want to shut their plants down and take their jobs away, there's already that islabama, i think going to lose about 20,000 jobs. it is a car, where they make cars. we make toyotas in tennessee. we make b&w where i live in self-care -- bmw where i live in south carolina. host: that you, caller. guest: absolutely. by sunday thaty

has 20,000 jobs which are being lost, and in your home state bmw , it is quite interesting that that plant in spartanburg is the biggest exporting car plant in the united states, and bmw is the biggest american car exporter by value, not an american brand. when you think of american exports cars, a lot of them are these foreign brands coming from foreign investment. that is a really vital part of the u.s. economy. tariffs do bring some of that into question because a lot of these companies are bringing in parts from abroad and trying to sell the finished product overseas. many of those things will now be taxed going both directions. the trump administration is also thinking about some restrictions on investment, particularly from china. i was recently in michigan visiting the auto industry there. support fromt of

chinese investment now in that state, and some fears that trade tensions with china could cut some of that off, to the detriment of workers and companies. host: our next caller is from michigan on the republican line. alan, you are up. hello? caller: yes, hi. i had a comment about the tariffs. i own my own construction business. i install rain gutters on houses and businesses, so my materials all went way up once this started. the thing is, i am willing to deal with it to make this right down the road. you know? we have to deal with it now to get it right later. whileut up with it for a and get over it, you know? guest: i have heard that same sentiment from many of president trump's supporters. they say that he's taking this

really unprecedented step two right american trade -- a step to right american trade. it has been many decades that american presidents have not been a deal with all sourcing and globalization and the loss of american manufacturing jobs. i do hear that argument quite a bit, including from farmers in the midwest who are also being .it by these tariffs but a lot of farmers have said we are willing to give the president some leeway. we think that this is a negotiating tactic, and if he is able to fix trade with china and some of these big foreign markets, it will be worth it. i think the question is how long does this take to resolve? is there a resolution at the end , and what are the goals of the trump administration? how quickly can they wrap this up and get the pain over with for ordinary manufacturers and

farmers? host: one group may be not giving president leeway on this, some republican senators. a symbolic vote yesterday on the president's trade practices. one of the people who spoke was pat toomey of pennsylvania, republican. here is some of the argument leading up to that vote from pat toomey. sen. toomey: first and president -- first and foremost commandment mr. president -- first and foremost, mr. president, this is a misuse of american trade law. this is supposed to be used when there is a threat to national security. the united states produces domestically 95% of all the .teel we consume

how can one possibly make the case that we don't have plentiful abundance of them ethically produced steel to satisfy our defense needs? it is not only that. 25%, we're the biggest sources for steel, but we don't produce ourselves? that would be mexico and canada. those of the countries that provide most steel. with both of those countries, we have a surplus of trade in steel. moreanadians actually buy steel from us them would buy from them. so to the mexicans. where is the security threat to america when my constituents choose to buy some portion of the steel that we consume from canada? swanson, let's start with this section 232 senator spoke about. guest: it is actually a different measure than the china tariffs we have been talking about.

section 232 revolves around national security. laws a portion of the trade that gives the president really broad powers to take trade actions to protect national security. the trump administration has made the unique argument in ofent years that imports steel and aluminum and other products are threatening american national security by degrading the american defense industrial base. in a time of war, they argue we would not have the factories necessary to pump out the metals to make tanks and weapons and other products. the main criticism to that, which you saw from senator toomey, is a lot of these metals actually come from close allies, in particular canada. canada supplies a huge portion of steel and aluminum would bring into the country. that has definitely been a pressure point, and other countries including canada, the

european union, other allies are challenging this measure now at the world trade organization, saying that the united states measure is unlawful. from southis wade carolina, independent line. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i couldn't agree more with the guy from michigan. i think in the long-term we could maybe get north carolina back to being the furniture capital of the world, and maybe going and walmart and seeing made in america like sam wall would do, going around to give these small manufacturers to make stuff to put in walmart. in the long-term, these tariffs i think maybe a good thing. i would like to think that, anyway. we've got to stay positive. we can't keep buying from all countries and not

making products here in the country. host: thank you. what is the likelihood of those reversals the viewer would like to see? guest: i think that is a really persuasive countries and not making products here in the argument that a lot of the president's supporters feel similarly, that american manufacturing has left american shores and it would be really great to get that back. i would caution i think some of that could definitely come back, ,nd you seen that in the south particularly with a revival in some kinds of manufacturing, including automobile manufacturing, as we were talking about with our previous color. but for some types -- our previous caller. but for sometimes of manufacturing lower down on the value chain, less expensive products, it is just a more globalized world today. american workers face a lot more competition from places like china, malaysia, india,

indonesia, countries that were necessarily manufacturing powerhouses two decades ago. it is a bit of a tricky balance. there is potential to get some manufacturing jobs back, and there are definitely things the administration or any administration could do to promote that. at the same time, american workers are really competing with a lot of new sources of labor today that they weren't necessarily competing with several decades ago. those people are making lower wages, so the incentive is for companies to try to find ways to use that. host: our guest reports for "the new york times," previously "the plus was thest," editor-in-chief for "the chinese economic review." caller: with all of these trade policies, how does a really affect day-to-day americans, especially poor and middle class who are looking for jobs to

sustain their likelihood? guest: it is a great question. i think there are two primary ways it might affect you. the first is through consumer prices. with the tariffs, they are a tax. they do increase the cost of products. those don't necessarily all fall to the consumer, but somebody , whethery that tariff it is 25% or 10%. it could be a chinese company, american manufacturer, or consumer. said they are going to try to pass those costs along to consumers. pricey see increases from 10% to 25% on the. things you are purchasing on something small that might not be a big deal, but if we get -- but if we get into

bigger things that could be a big deal. it is going to be a small percentage of americans, but for that small percentage, that pain could be pretty acute. some farmers are starting to see the potential impact of tariffs. also small and medium-size manufacturers, many automakers, and others. primary ways iwo think it would affect americans. host: from texas, miriam on the democrats line. caller: yes. i am just calling because i get a little bit annoyed when people call and they asked why donald trump is doing this. when he was running, he was nafta. most farmers work in that

system. why are they all of a sudden so upset? obama would have with --lt [indiscernible] so why are the red state farmers now complaining? they should have known what they were going to get when donald trump was running because he was and nafta.inst tpp host: thank you. guest: that's right, the president did run against tpp harshly and criticized nafta on the campaign trail, and promised to do something really very different an unprecedented on trade. i think we are seeing those promises come true. he meant what he said, and he is carrying out those trade policy actions, which not everybody in washington really expected into. during the tax cuts there were a

lot of more mainstream republicans who got the president would not follow through with these promises on trade. i would point out a couple of things. the democratic candidates were well although i thinkpp the president criticisms have been much harsher. i think he really has followed through on those promises to take trade in a very new direction. past presidents like president obama actually had some similar trade policies. president obama for example protected american tires. and put a tariff on foreign tires. something that raised the cost of tires in the united states. but there hasn't been any president that has launched so many different trade measures on so many different fronts. facing countries including china, japan, europe, canada, mexico and so many different industries as well. swanson, the president

fors in his united kingdom his talk was to resubmit. where do we stand as far as trade relations with the european union? what's the current attitude of this administration toward the eu? guest: i think it's really up in the air right now. the president has been very critical of the european union. think his criticisms are quite notable because past presidents have much more stressed our alliance and closeness with europe. focused onnt is very his metric of the trade deficit and sees the united states is having a big trade deficit with the european union and has picked that out as something history critical of. also some high terrorist that they have on foreign products including cars. right now it seems like there's quite a lot of and forth with the european union to try and resolve these trade disputes. leaders have been floating the

idea of some kind of trade deal for lowering tariffs on cars. there's also quite a lot of tension. i think the possibility for that very long-held close alliance to be disrupted. hear from david in michigan. independent line as we look at air force one landing with the president of the united states. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. nafta was a way of opening up the borders to trade. it also was a way of outsourcing labor. to say that trade war is going to bring back manufacturing is a lie. because american manufacturers do not want to pay the american worker what they are worth. stuff that has happened and all of these people that are complaining, you voted for donald trump. you are getting what you got. guest: so the president right now is renegotiating nafta.

big issue is the off shoring outsourcing of jobs and the trump administration trying to figure out ways to bring those jobs back in the united states including new requirements for to have a certain proportion of workers making a certain wage. to be sold for 0% tariffs in north america. some interesting proposals. --gree with you in that to the difficulty in bringing those manufacturing jobs back to the united states when the economic incentives for companies is often to produce in cheaper locations. host: ana swanson reports for the new york times on trade and other matters. nytimes is the website to talk about the trump administration. we thank you for your time. where --d kingdom's is kingdom is where the president is headed next.

there visiting with the prime minister theresa may as well as the queen of england and other events as well. air force one landing and can refer the president to disembark from air force one. we will look at that and then we will continue on with our guest republican john curtis of utah. talking about the president's trip to nato coming up next on washington journal. >> the c-span buses traveling across the country on our 50 capitals torpid the bus stopped in anchorage alaska asking folks what the most important issue in >> the economy is at the heart of all of the struggles we are having right now. the state of alaska has been in a hole for several years now. we experience just like most of the west coast of homelessness issue like as not been seen before. we have poverty reaching out and

people camping in our parks and people struggling. we have neighbors trying to figure out how to coexist. the state and the feds aren't investing in critical public resources that we need to ensure the lowest among us are taken care of. >> the most important issue to arcticrotecting the national wildlife refuge. i was there last week with friends. beautifulnbelievably place that is iconic in the same way that yellowstone national park in the grand canyon is. unfortunately the tax law of 2016 -- 2017 snuck in a provision to allow drilling on the coastal plain of the refuge. we are doing everything we can to stop that drilling. are workingatives to stop that. those who live on the land and subsist and embrace the fact

that the caribou help them survive and are an important part of their way of life are active in this movement and we would like to do what we can to protect this iconic place. cracks alaska has among the highest health care costs in the country. if the federal government could fundamentally restructure american health care that would go a long way to helping the state. cracks the most pressing issue i hear about has to do with concerns about crime. i believe efforts to increase the police force have been yielding gains in this area but people are still very worried and as the mother of three kids that's an issue for our family and one of the reasons why i chose to run for office. >> be sure to join us july 21 and 22nd when we feature our visit to alaska. c-span,aska we can on

c-span.org or listen on the c-span radio app. the president and the first lady arriving in the united kingdom as part of an extended trip for the president started -- which started in nato. a couple days in scotland and later on early next week a visit with the russian president vladimir putin. we are joined here in our studio in washington, d.c. with representative john curtis who serves the third district and a member of the foreign affairs committee. good morning to you. you wrote an op-ed leading up to this trip. what i hope the president accomplishes during his historic trip in europe. paint a picture of what you are hoping to see. i wrote this before the visit and i say that because the way the visit has played out it's almost as if i had a playbook of the visit.

me thatery important to we solidify for the world that these are our friends in nato and that there's things we need to work on in our relationship. them to doe we need better. as in any good relationship the relationship trumps those problems. that i was make sure sending the signal that those relationships were important to me and important to utah and it was my hope that the president would build those relationships. >> do you think you have done that? >> certainly there have been some bumps. i have been married 36 years. there's a list of things my wife would likely to do better. it's how we handle those differences. if i had had my preference some of them would have been more private conversations. we would have come away with a

stronger relationship with these allies who have with us through thick and thin. in many important ways throughout our country's history. >> when you see the president having sharp words for germany over the russian pipeline are you talking about those instances? >> i think so. has his style. it may be different from my style. i'm trying to emphasize if it were me this is how i would hope that it would hope the president would accomplish. host: as far as when it comes to germany and the russian pipeline do you think that's a viable issue for the president to bring up? he's the president of the united states. he can bring up anything he wants. i think it's important to put things in perspective. there's about a third of the natural gas that germany gets from russia. that means 2/3 is not coming from russia.

what options germany has. host: do think that would have happened anyway or do you think there's influence in this end result? guest: that's one of the things in the relationship that needs to be improved. they need to step up financially and have that skin in the game so i'm pleased to hear the commitment. overlook we should contributions that they have made. just because we want them to --e more host:host: do you think there's value in being a native? >> absolutely. as we are doing our work around the world becomes more difficult.

>> john curtis taking a look at foreign-policy matters is the president is in europe. if you want to ask him questions, (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8002 independents. you can also tweak us. republican line. up first this is tonya in tampa florida. you are up with john curtis of utah. go ahead. i had originally called in on the earlier segments. it pretty much all applies. is a horrible time to institute tariffs because the world is changing. andre a global community with artificial intelligence coming we only have a small window to make money and start trade wars right now is awful. going into nato i think what i'm trying to say because my mind

was set on the other segment from trying to say is what the president knows and what he puts so there is so important they had until 2020 or 2024 to get the 2% and they are almost at that. and then he just offhandedly says let's make it 4%. that's what it is so important to be engaged. because the economy is changing drastically. it's like they started pterosaur when we are going into artificial intelligence and the whole job scenario everybody knows it's being changed. first of all i'm envious of your location in florida. it's a beautiful place. i'm not a fan of tariffs. with that being said we need to render the president start this trade war. it started decades ago by the

practices of china. he brought to a head. that's fair to say. you can question the timing of that. i think it's important for all to realize struggle this isn't a new war. it has been going on for a very long time. >> we will show folks the basics. why do support the bill? >> i am an original cosponsor. this responsibility belongs in congress. we are feeling like we need to be engaged and involved in this and feel like this is our responsibility in the bill gives us that control. host: you would rather see congress make decision about when tariffs are opposed rather than the president's strategy? guest: i think that decision was made long ago. we're just trying to get back to

that decision that has always been there. host: new york is next. independent line. this is dominic. caller: good morning. we got 30,000 troops in germany. germany is buying their oil from russia. i remember when bill clinton signed nafta agreement. and all the uaw's were out of work. this president was telling oprah winfrey when he was going to do 25 years ago. i think he's doing a great job. we can't let people take it vantage of us. we've got to live. i've got grandchildren who can't get work. it's ridiculous. we've got to take care of america. guest: i would agree with you that there is a lot that president trump has accomplished and i think that too often we get caught in the latest turmoil

and don't reflect on the things that are happening. i know for my district in utah we are very pleased with the supreme court nominations both of them. we love tax reform. the deregulation that happening has been very good for utah. click off a lot of things the president has done and that doesn't mean we have to agree with him on every single issue. rarely is there going to be one person or we always agree. where iis one example do depart from the president. but i am very quick to knowledge the many things he has accomplished. about the criticism about the president being harder on allies than on vladimir putin who he will meet with next week? think this is not unusual in our personal relationships. we are often hardest on those that we love the most. it doesn't mean it is right to or good. -- right or good.

i think our allies in nato our strong enough to enter some criticism. i hope it just makes us stronger. what do think about even just the summit as a whole taking place and what would you like to see come out of it once it's done? guest: munication is always good. there's a lot of good that comes out of it. we are fooling ourselves if we think russia is a friend. you look around the world and there's hardly a place that they are not causing us and our friends problems. in a serious way. borders, then cyber attacks, the elections. you can spent a long time listing the things that are offenses to the united states. it would be my hope and as i mentioned in the letter that you have in front of you that we are clear with this that we have problems and we need to see those corrected?

>> as far as the problems what our chief among them in your mind? >> especially with elections coming up again that's huge. the encroachment and borders. armenia,ently in azerbaijan, saudi arabia, georgia. you can hardly find a border that they are not encroaching either directly or indirect and in a hostile way and that is of great concern to me. >> from the democrat line, harold. about paying our fair share let you know the president has spent a total of 69 days in mar-a-lago. we speakypocrisy when of respecting someone else and

ignoring our very own. i think i president should pony up. >> i suspect if we calculate what we were paying the president per hour we would have to say we are getting a bargain. i think part of being president is the opportunity to get away from time to time. but i don't think president trump is different than any other president that they don't spend almost every waking minute and really almost every minute working hard on behalf of the united states. consumed with the problems of being president. from west virginia on the independent line. james. hello. you are on. go ahead. i would like to comment that i think the president is doing a good job and i don't take he's getting much help from the republican party. and none from the democrats. still we got all these congress and senators that knows everything that's going on, what to do and everything.

look at what a mess we are in. that's why we got him. they do nothing. when you say the mess we are in what do you think is topping the list and how do you think the president is fixing that? caller: well the border. no one did nothing about immigration or very little about it. they talked but they don't do anything. tariff -- letting these companies bring stuff over and it's not equal. ojones has had enough c about them to do anything about it. when someone does we've got senators on both sides that think it's horrible that they don't know what to do themselves. host: one of the things that has been coming up is the reunification question for children along the border. what have you made of the

process? guest: in utah in my district nothing trumps families and there has been a tremendous from myf concern constituents about the situation. i have made a commitment to my constituent that not only that i put my entire staff would be to makein this issue sure that we do all that we need to do at the border to keep our country safe but do it keeping families together. i was pleased with the executive order but i understand very clearly that this is not over and we have a lot of work ahead of us to do. i was disappointed that the house was unable to get legislation through. a week and half ago that would have dealt with not only this issue but with 40 security and the dreamers. i'm very committed to find answers to this in a way that is in harmony with the values of

keeping families together but also protecting our country. host: do you think the larger issue of zero tolerance has to be revisited? guest: i think the larger issue of immigration has to be confronted. we are just putting her head in the sand on immigration. i fear that our ideological bunkers are keeping us what's doing best for the country and we need to make progress on immigration. we got some serious issues that are hurting us all around. look no further than our agricultural community in the state of utah or those who rely on seasonal workers who are being devastated by our current policies. i would love to see us make policy -- progress on immigration on all fronts. editorial in the salt lake tribune says our treatment of refugee children is a national disgrace. what's going on

at the border with the rescue of children in thailand. would you describe that as a disgrace and if so what would you like to see done to reverse those things? guest: i think you have to go much deeper. we've got child trafficking. of course that's a disgrace. we've got using our asylum system unfairly and clogging up the way for those who do genuinely need asylum. we've got people taking advantage of children to get across the border. that's why this is far more complicated than let's just keep families together. until we start changing all of our polys to deal with this and putting the financial resources down there we are going to struggle. this is sam in tampa florida. democrat line. caller: good morning. i have a question and a comment to my question is how will this affect supply and demand that we once had in our favor and my

comment also to representative curtis. i used to live in clearfield. and i did travel to provo some years ago. so could you please address that and thank you and have a good day. host: when you say the supply and demand specifically what are you talking about? caller: since we have terrorists going on how would that affect the bottom line for consumers in the near future? guest: thank you for giving a shout out to my city provo. if you haven't been there is a beautiful city. about supplyried and demand. from this perspective. one of the things that hurt in businesses is the uncertainty that tariffs spring. not knowing what products will cost in two or three months or six months in a year makes it very difficult for companies to buy. to its aing prices up

large disruption to the marketplace. i know businesses in utah. i hear from them almost daily are really struggling with what tariffs are doing to them. linda in williams, pennsylvania. independent line. caller: good morning. i just think there's a lot of hypocrisy going on with these tariffs that trumpet is imposing. donald j. trump collection of clothing and ivanka's line of clothing will be exempt from these tariffs and i think there's a lot of hypocrisy there. how can he be angry at harley davidson taking some of their products over there to be manufactured when he's doing the same thing you can thank you. can't comment because i

don't know what you are referring to. thisit comes to china trade war started decades ago. and there are some imbalances that must the interest and our those to as bring head in a very uncomfortable way. i will be the very first to it that. in a very disruptive way which is his style. we need to figure out how to navigate this to get to a better trade balance with china and i think we can get there. and i think we also talked with knowledge that the tariffs are not the only way to college this goal. our guest serves on the small business committee. iteris affect small businesses in a more harsh manner than larger business is yucca -- is? anything we do with regulation disproportionately

affects all businesses. they don't have the resources to deal with these things. they don't have the network to find other suppliers the way the large businesses do. in 90% of the businesses in my district are small businesses. this is disproportionately impact them. host: our guest also serves on the national resources committee. when it comes to environmental issues what do you think scott pruitt's legacy is going to be? guest: i don't know him or his tenure well enough. one of the things we haven't talked about this morning is i have been in my seat seven months. i came in in a special election. the republicans are far more supportive of environmental issues and we get credit for. there's not a utah on that i know if it doesn't love planet, the environment. just come out to utah and see what we have are.

that is not if one concerned that we do the right things. when we overregulated or when we regulate an agenda i think that causes concern in my district. host: so when the decision came down how did you weigh in on that? guest: bears is is in my district. i had only been in my district announceds when trump that he was going to rescind that. we kind of all know what the right thing is to do. end of thee on the we are very dysfunctional in taking side in this. and kind of making everybody a victim. i don't know anybody that doesn't want to preserve and protect that beautiful area. a lot of the question comes down those should be making decisions. we are big advocates for local control and local people want to be more involved in the decisions in my experience is that they would preserve and protect that land. getting to that answer is very

difficult. our guest served two terms as the mayor of provo city. target of bill's, designs and installs shooting the world mostly for law enforcement and military. this give me a chance to understand firearms and firearms related issues at a very deep level. i've been on hundreds maybe thousands of shooting ranges all over the world. from illinois, republican line. this is jane. hello there. caller: good morning. with the president be in violation of his oath of office or the clause meeting privately with prudent to make deals to build real estate or borrow money for his personal business? i believe this is what he's doing. it is misuse of power.

we need to remove this unfit president. stop using his name. call him potus, president, white house, donald or dt. he loves to hear his name. suppose there aren't many of us that don't love to hear our name and to me he is the president of the united states and he is president trump and just as president obama had my respect even though i disagreed with him frequently i'm happy to give him to weespect as president live in a world right now where there is a lot of angst about the president and there's a lot of misinformation to throw out allegations so readily is easy to do that we have to be very careful and really drill down to substance. park,derek from oak illinois. caller: good morning. i think the president is keeping his word except on inner-city.

he said he was going to help build data. congressman, when are you guys going to do something about that. help heldent made to especially black americans. i'm sick of the liberal and white liberals concerned about broken families and not black broken families. so, is that when are you guys going to get to that promise that the president made about rebuilding help in the inner cities? i'm happy to say that that is a perpetual goal. we don't ever feel like we have arrived or accomplish that. out the lowest black unemployment rate in many years if not in history and think that's just incredibly important. creating opportunities for people of all races and all colors. that is one indicator that we are making progress but i'm happy to acknowledge that we have a lot of work left to do. , republican ofis

utah. thank you for joining us. a set of open phones until 10:00. (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8002 independents. we will be right back. this weekend on american history tv on c-span3. onurday at 8:00 p.m. eastern lectures in history. university of connecticut professor on the reconstruction era after the civil war. and at 10:00 on railamerica the 1918 silent french film dedicated to america's efforts in world war i. at 2:00 p.m. eastern the national world war ii museum symposium marking the 20th anniversary of the film "saving p.m. theyan." at 6:00

u.s. army heritage and education center annual living history featuring french world war i soldiers. watch american history tv this weekend on c-span3. c-span river history unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress. the white house. the supreme court and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. you by yourought to cable or satellite provider. washington journal continues. on twitter you can make your thoughts on open phones. you can also post your thoughts on our facebook page at

facebook.com/c-span. peter struck is set to appear before a joint hearing of the house today to talk about issues the 2016 actions in campaign. you can see that hearing live on , c-span.org and the c-span radio app. several tweets about brett kavanaugh. this is talking about timing of the hearing saying that senate judiciary committee chairman chuck bradley has been noncommittal on how closely he can move to handle millions of documents across the desk of the nominee when he was a white house staff secretary for the former president george w. bush. california senator dianne said she anticipated the hearings would occur in september after labor day. soonert could be done but there are a lot of records we need to look at. the prospect that the volume of bush papers could hold up -- was

a late concern. now allies of the white house say mr. grassley much -- must set a more conservative stance to get judge kavanagh seated by october. if you go to the pages of the washington post this morning amy sayingn with the story that the supreme court nominee incurred tens of thousands of dollars buying baseball tickets over the past decade and at times reported liabilities that could have exceeded the value of his cash accounts and investment assets. the spokesman for the white house told the washington post that kavanagh builds up the dead by buying washington national season tickets and tickets for playoff games for himself and handful of friends. reported having between 60000 and 200,000 debt

accrued. each credit card help between 15000 and 50,000 in debt and the savings plans between 15000 and 50,000. the credit card debt were either paid off fell below the reporting requirements. colorado is up first on this open phones. this is the line for democrats. kathleen. go ahead. you are on. callingi'm actually from dayton ohio where i take care of my 90-year-old mother who goes back and forth with me from colorado to dayton ohio where she has lived most of her life. she worked for 40 some years. she was on united health care medicare coverage for years and then a local agency, the dayton ona on aging put her governor kasich buckeye plan.

there was also its of criteria that she fit into and she didn't but she was dropped off at united. limboe is in health care at 90 years old. the, kasich plan has dropped her. so i'm trying to get through to make an appointment with governor kasich because i literally have spent 20 to 25 hours on the phone with social security, medicare, different health care office numbers that and governor kasich scheduler has yet to call me back. i have left five messages. i want to meet with governor kasich about health care in ohio and ask him why a 90-year-old woman who worked 40 some years of her life and paid into the system is now in health care limbo. that's kathleen in ohio.

let's go to maryland independent line. hello. the last person you had from utah, the caller asked about how trump is helping. he brought that old tired line about the lowest black employment rate ever. said that the employment rate was low during obama's time because people stopped looking for jobs. it should be shameful to america. 14% unemployment rate is a good result? problema perpetual would suggest that it's not really a problem he plans to solve. that's not really what i was calling about. i was calling about the tariffs

and the fact that we are going to see an even more loss of jobs. people forget that when president obama took office we lost a thousand jobs a month. and the growth of new jobs has actually decreased. host: ok. robert in kentucky. republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i was one of the most proudest kids growing up in the united states. always going up in the front united states military jets always fly over. it would make me so proud and stuff to see united states jets fly over us. this sunday evening me

and my mom was cooking out on the front porch. out of the blue just right out of nowhere there was two planes redped out of the sky with pointy noses and solid white and had a red star on the front of them. and this is the first time i had seen this and i am 39 years old and they was not united states military jets. and they was no united states military jets on these guys reruns. i don't know if there's military exercises or what. if those was not united states military jets i wanted you to know about it and it was on a sunday evening and i can give more information about that but i just wanted the people to know about it. and thank you. gloria in upper marlboro, maryland. in crestline. good morning. god bless america and god bless c-span.

in this age of so much repression it is wonderful to have a conduit for the american people can raise their voice. michelle obama got it right when right after the election she said now america would experience with like not to have hope. and ipelessly optimistic want to share about the movement to overturn citizens united because we've got to get dirty money out of politics. we've got to have leaders who are the best to serve, not the best that money can buy. i'm inviting people to go to american promise.net and figure out whether you'd like to become a part of taking back america. we've got 19 states on board. we only need two thirds to challenge the fact that the supreme court got it wrong. manafort is a vip in jail. that's a headline from the washington journal -- wall

street journal this morning. as his lawyers skirmish with the office of robert mueller seeking to relocate and postpone his trial schedule for july 25 in alexandria virginia. and in order made public wednesday that u.s. district judge ordered him removed from to one int jail alexandria in response to his attorney's it was taking a long time to get their client. warsaw is about 100 miles from alexandria. at the jail he enjoys unique privileges including a private self-contained living unit which is larger than other inmates units, his own bathroom and shower facility, his own personal telephone and his own space to prepare for trial. prosecutors wrote wednesday in a filing arguing against any delay in the trial. he also doesn't have to wear prison uniform for the filing didn't elaborate on why. an official officer at the northern neck didn't return our request for comment. linda, florida.

jim is next on the independent line. caller: i was so proud of president trump yesterday. some of the callers don't realize that first of all the united states set of nato to protect europe. whole thing of them not paying has been going on for decades. one caller said in 2014 they cheaperomething to give sentences. this has been going on for decades. he just finally stood up as president of the united states and president obama complained about it but that's all he did. president trump did the same thing. he complained about it or give them a little lecture and then he just walked away from it. stuck by his assessment since last year when he first went down there and even in the campaign he talked about it. i just felt so proud as an american that he told them quit

robbing the piggy bank, start paying your share. and germany is a rich country. this is the publication stars and stripes reporting out of south korea that north korean officials skipped plans talks on repatriating remains of american war dead on thursday in the latest snub of a u.s. administration eager to show progress on efforts to rid the communist state of nuclear weapons. the no-show fuels growing expect this is a -- growing skepticism over the north's commitment to the complete denuclearization of the peninsula as promised during the june 12 summit. mike pompeo at the caveat that it could move -- added the caveat that it could move by one day or two.

, washington state. republican line. caller: good morning treat i have a quick few statements to make. the color just talked about tariffs. i agree and i would also like to point out that when you talk about percentages it's not the overall percentages the country is paying to nato. but the percentage of gdp. when the u.s. pays 1% or 2% look at that amount of money compared to other nations. that everyone needs to consider. when democrats talk about allies in terms of tariffs they keep complaining like for instance that canada is one of our allies and even the canadian prime minister complained how we are a good ally. business and trade have nothing to do with whether or not these our allies are not. that's not in question so i wish the democrats would be more sincere. i wanted to also ship weekly wet in this information age

are not pigeonholed by the media. you can go out and do your research. an important video that is 22 youtube and, go on search for hillary clinton: the true monster. it just enumerates all the things she has done to the people around her while she has been in power. reporting that a democrat in texas has raised more than 10.4 million in the past three months. he is challenging incumbent ted cruz. he told his followers in a video that his campaign raised the individual15,714th contributions. the average donation was $33 over the past three months. ted cruz will reportedly announced raising 4 million over the same period of time. is greg from florida.

no ahead. good morning. two things on tariffs. car across ther border in mexico. if you are there three months they will assist you in a tax just for taking it there. having lived in mexico for three years in the release you could not bring in a vehicle without 100% tariff. 100%. when these people talk about tariffs you will notice they never tell you here's a can of corn. this is how much a tariff costs us to import it in this is how much it cost them to import it. because if they did that it would simplify the process and we would see how much america is being ripped off by the countries. idiocy, pedro, they have been interfering in

our collections since 1917. is anybody listening out there? host: brian is in pennsylvania. republican line. caller: they're talking about the funding of data -- nato. you had a clip from angela sheel on and in that clip basically said that they are going to really try hard to get gdpr spending up to 1.6% of in 2026. promised that they they are not working towards. host: the associated press reporting that the united states government saying that reunification of the youngest migrant children is complete according to them. aretill found ineligible still separated from families. that's a tweet from the associated press.

independent line. lisa. good morning. hello. >> does anyone wonder about why president trump is going to be meeting with putin by himself today? thatere a reason for that he's going to meet by himself? shouldn't we be concerned about this and realize he has been working with the russians for decades laundering their money? is that ever going to be brought up? host: what is your concern about the meeting by themselves personally? caller: no other president has ever done that. how are we supposed to know what they are saying and what they are planning. it seems like he is colluding with russia on a daily basis. his views are becoming more russian and less democratic. host: it was in the early morning hours just after 6:00

this morning that the president a the nato summit took up press conference. russian president vladimir putin. here are some of those thoughts from this morning. meeting with president putin on monday and i think we go into sot meeting not looking for much. we want to find out about syria. we will of course ask your favorite question about meddling. i will be asking that question again. we will also be talking about other things. we will be talking about ukraine. ukraine was here today by the way. it's very interesting to hear what they have to say. well, he may. what am i going to do. you may deny it. it's one of those things. all i can do is say did you and don't do it again. he may deny it. you will be the first to know.

that's president trump from the meeting earlier this morning. if you want to see more of what the lastat nato over couple of days we invite you to our website at c-span.org. peterhat hearing with struck that take place today. the joint committee is asking him questions about activities during the 2016 election. to testify before legislators on that front. you can see that on c-span3. also courtesy at c-span.org and the radio app. . good morning. -- caller: good morning. what i want to say about is how come you hear people talking and that is ino someone washington and is a pathological .iar, someone that is corrupt

you can look at minimum wage in this country. you have all the kids are going to college. you have kids in high school and teenagers who don't have -- people who work they don't make thousand dollars a month. you have people who are retired who don't have any savings. you have people that work in washington for four years and they get complete retirement. years andking for 30 they still live in poverty. you have all these people that are retired. they don't have no savings. people talking about economy in this country doing good at 3%, you have or people earning nine dollars, $10, $11. when i was working we had civil rights. doing, more are

people in property. -- poverty. host: ok. this is alan from thousand palms, california. republican line. caller: hello. first-time caller. i wanted to make a couple comments on the trade wars. like remember back when richard nixon started the trading with china. they were still a third world nation. next in was saying, they've got a billion people. they turned out to be better traders than we did. and the europeans that started after world war ii. we were the top industrialized country in the world. and then after world war ii they had to rebuild so we gave them favorable trade deals to help rebuild. that's a time ago. i think it's about time to readjust the trade issues.

that's alan from thousand palms, california. first-time caller. you can also post on twitter if you want. facebook.com/c-span is our facebook page. and as always the phone lines available to you for the next couple of minutes. democrats.000 (202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8002 independents. the washington times talking about the debate over obamacare saying the ways and means committee debated bills that would let americans use cheaper an escapecreating hatch for helping people who can't afford robust coverage that is getting more expensive. feel worseamericans off under obamacare than before. that was kevin brady. pushed bills that expand

the use of tax advantage health savings accounts giving people more incentive to save for their own care. that bill would waive past violations. reactions to that from democrats and capitol hill saying it was chuck schumer saying the --inistration's decision obamacare comes on top of moose to cut off critical insurance reimbursements and repeal the codes healthy people into the marketplace. yesterday's news should remind us president trump remains ruthlessly committed to tearing down our health care system. that his rallies but that probably is the most important thing he is doing in terms of effect on the american people and we are not going to let him hide it. that's in the washington times. democrat line in new york. caller: how are you today.

my comment as to the lady that just was on tv who made a comment about and i'm a democrat , i don't know that i would vote democratic anymore. that's how disappointed i am in my party. this is getting crazy with this resistance and almost calling for riots. to me is not a protest. these are mobs. first of all she repeated something that was on tv about mr. trump meeting with putin by himself because is he really an agent or maybe he's making a deal with prudent and accusing him of money laundering. on a were talking points major network. that's not affect and i wish we would all stop this nonsense. that's propaganda.

let her know that's true. that's not fair. it's not fair to anyone in any party. host: the associated press reporting that the federal government has reopened its investigation into the slaying the blacktill, teenager whose lynching in mississippi helped inspire the civil rights morning more than 60 years ago. reallytice department is investigating his lynching after receiving new information. the case was closed in 2007 with authority saying the suspects were dead. a state grand jury didn't file any new charges. deborah watts said she was unaware the case had then reopened until contacted by the associated press and the federal report said it did not indicate new -- might be. a book that says a key figure in the case of knowledge lying about events preceding the

slaying of the youth from chicago. joanne is next in illinois. democrat line. >> good morning. thank you for c-span. people have been calling in about all the other countries don't pay their fair share into nato. they have to know that these countries even if they're not paying the money they are giving to come and treasure and fight with us in afghanistan probablyand that is more than their fair share. i just wish people would think about that. caller: good morning. presidentt to say the has been doing a pretty good job honestly. we have been having a trade

deficit with all of these nations for the past 50 years or so. now it's time that they are paying their fair share. i think meeting with kim jong-un you have to meet with their enemies to make any progress. the past three or four presidents never met with any adversaries and that we are finally taking a different stance. host: from gainesville, virginia. democrat line. caller: good morning. i just wanted to follow up on the passionate comments made by the colors before. about the people who are retiring are not saving and people making a minimum wage of eight or nine dollars and hour and he was spot on on the current condition of the economy of this country. [indiscernible] ground -- going

to college and getting a night job. money and oldno people have to pick between their prescription medication and their meals today. the only politician who is really talking about this issue is bernie sanders. and elizabeth warren. host: let's hear from sean in benton, north carolina. democrat line. about: i want to talk anybody saying how trump is doing a great job but at the same time yesterday the u.s. house of representatives is fiting to see if they can in anything that will slow him down from making of these outlandish decisions. yesterday he was saying everybody's got to pay this money and all that.