from jamie diamond, chairman and c.e.o. of jp morgan chase and rejoin the festival with interviews of hillary clinton and jeffrey rosen and former new jersey governor chris christie. on c-span 2 the senate continues its consideration of judge brett kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court. at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 3, the senate finance committee hold a confirmation hearing from andrew saul to be the next social security commissioner. and at 1:00 p.m. the national press club hears from the director general of al jazeera. . >> coming up in an hour, c-span's 50 capitals tour is in ohio. the ohio senate president discusses the top issues facing the ohio legislature. at 8:30 a.m., robert wiseman on legal action against president a mp on the constitution and

clause which prevents officers from receiving gifts. and then we talk about pac spending in election 2018. . >> good morning. it's tuesday, october 2. 2018. the senate is in at 10:00 a.m. with weekly party strategy lunches set for 12:30. house members are away but the chamber will convene briefly in pro forma session also at 12:30. and we're with you for the next three hours this morning on the "washington journal." we begin today discussing the new trade deal to replace the 24-year-old north american free trade agreement. president trump and his top trade representatives took a victory lap at the white house yesterday african da agreed to join what's now being -- after canada agreed to join what's now being called the new agreement.

give us a call if you support. it 202-748-8,000. -8001. oppose it, 202-748 and those outside the u.s., 202-748-8002. you can also reach us on twitter and facebook. very good tuesday morning to you. you can start calling in now. want to hear your thoughts on u.s.-m.c.a. that's what is what it's being called. the u.s.-mexico-canada agreement. president trump hailed the revise trade deal as a campaign promise kept. there he is surrounded by his top trade advisors, including robert lighthizer, sonny purdue, the secretary of agriculture, in that picture. steve mnuchin, secretary of the treasury. and jared kushner, of course president trump's son-in-law and

senior advisor. here's the president speaking from the rose garden yesterday. president trump: i'm thrilled to speak to the american people, to hare truly historic news for our nation. and indeed for the world. i want to thank vice president pence for joining us this morning. it's my great honor to announce that we have successfully completed negotiations on a brand new deal to terminate and replace nafta. and the nafta trade agreements with an incredible new u.s.-mexico-canada agreement called u.s.-m.c.a. sort of just works. m.c.a. [applause] u.s.-m.c.a. that will be the name i guess that 99% of the time we'll be hearing. has a good ring to it. i have long contended that nafta

was perhaps the worst trade deal ever made. since nafta's adoption, the united states racked up trade deficits totaling more than $2 trillion. and it's a much higher number than that. with canada and mexico, it lost vast amounts of money. and lost 4.1 million mmping jobs and -- manufacturing jobs and one in four auto jobs. lost about 25% of our auto jobs, even more than that. throughout the campaign i promised to renegotiate nafta and today we have kept that promise. host: that was the president yesterday at the white house. a lot to chew on on what's in that new us-mca deal with the help of the washington times, here's a breakdown of some of the key components. canada will open its markets to u.s. dairy, which had been subject to tariffs as high as 270%. there's a 16-year sunset clause included in the new agreement. although reviews every six years can extend that sunset another

16 years. when this was going to be renegotiated, again, was a big part of these discussions. automobiles must have 40% to 45% of their content made by workers earning at least $16 an hour. the agreement stipulates that the minimum level of north american components in an automobile to ballify -- to qualify for tariff-free treatment rises to 75%. also protections for intellectual property that will include farm suit cap -- pharmaceutical and agricultural inowevaters. a lot to go through in this new agreement but we're asking you to call in as you're hearing about it, as you're learning about it. do you support it, do you oppose it? 02-748-8000 if you support it. 202-748-8001 if you don't support it. also want to hear your respectacularives from outside the u.s., 202-748-8002. eric is up first in virginia

beach. on the line for those who oppose the new agreement. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you. this deal is a sham like everything trump is doing. the iran nuclear deal was no good. so democrats opposed everything that trump does. he's talking about a deal with north korea. there is no deal. my main opposition to this deal is this. those countries had no ways, they're paying workers 50 cents an hour. fleece way the united states can compete with -- there's no way the united states can compete with that. we're on race to the bottom. we dropped automobile employees' ages to the united states. he always talks about the unemployment rate among blacks and how low it is. the lowest it was was during slavery, we all had jobs but we didn't have no benefits, nothing else. trump is a fraud and everything that he does. this bill is also a republican bill, which obama actually

litigated before he left office. all trump did was change the name to nafta. host: that's eric in virginia beach this morning. bill is in erie, pennsylvania. that line for those who support the u.s. mac. go ahead -- u.s. mack. go ahead -- us-mac. go ahead. caller: yes, i support this deal. i'm so proud of this president. he ran on this. he said he was going to do this. i'm proud of this president. coip richard also supports the -- host: richard also supports the deal. caller: yes, i support it 100%. anything to help the american people and their pocketbooks. think about it. everything he's doing, our 401 k's, the market -- 401-k's, the market. this just actually works. and he is working for us.

the american people. thank you very much. host: scott this morning from colorado, also on that line for those who support it. go ahead. caller: i support it. i think anything will help. we've got to just set our sights for anything that will help the american people. jobs, jobs, jobs. host: a few tweets coming in as we've been having this discussion with you this morning. host: a lot of discussion about the name of this. there's also a lot in this deal.

here's more from president trump from the rose garden yesterday, breaking down some of the key provisions of this new deal. president trump: this is a very, very big deal for our farmers. mexico and canada will be opened up a lot more than they are now. and i think they'll be -- there will be a better spirit between the three countries which is important for our farmers. the agreement will give our farmers and ranchers far greater access to sell american-grown produce in mexico. and in canada. the deal includes a substantial increase in our farmers' opportunities to export american wheat, poultry, eggs and dairy, including milk, butter, cheese, yogurt and ice cream, to name a few. i want to be very specific. [applause] i want to be very specific. right? and many other products but those products were not really

being treated fairly as far as those who work so hard to produce them. and now they're going to be treated fairly. host: reaction this morning from the editorial pages of national papers. the wall street dtordial's board has been focused on this. they call it the new nafta release. the new deal is worse than the status quo but disaster was avoided, they write.

host: this will add costs and complexity to building cars on the continent. host: that's the editorial board of the "wall street journal" today. one more piece from the financial times today, calling it nafta salvage from president trump's recking ball. that's the headline on their lead editorial today if you want to read it. we want to hear from you this morning. james, pittsburgh, pennsylvania. that line for those who oppose the new deal. go ahead. caller: hi, john. hi, c-span. my name is james rack. i'm an independent. with the deal with the tariffs, alcohol screwed up america. when they made it illegal. so all this tariff stuff, so i guess we don't need a wall no

more. ok. mr. trump, i'll take him on an i.q. test. i'm a politician. we what debate here in pennsylvania between our two candidates for governor, both very dumb individuals. we had alex tre beck run the debate. very smart man. the whole system screwed up. tariffs are screwed up. tariffs are bad. trump's bad. ok. trump is not what people think he is. he's a brilliant nothing. you have to care -- you better know history, if you want to be a history, you better know about the civil war, about world war i, world war ii, why we lost vietnam, it's called hoe chi among city. -- ho chi minh city. host: the announcement yesterday. want to get viewers' thoughts on those who support or oppose the new agreement. also a special line for those outside the u.s., as we said, still learning a lot of the details of this agreement and whether it will be passed by congress is still up in the air. likely to go before the new

congress that gets seated next year and that is of course after the elections that are taking place in 35 days. we're not sure what the new congress will look like and whether they will support president trump's new trade agreement. want to hear your thoughts, though. that is next. white mills, pennsylvania. that line for those who support the agreement. caller: hi, i support it and i'll tell you what. no matter what trump does, and i think he's doing a great job, if people don't like him, no matter what he's done, what he does, or what he's going to do service going to be good enough for these people. so i support him. it's great. he's doing a wonderful job. he's keeping to his promises and i say go trump. host: how did you feel about nafta? caller: i think it's a good deal. host: how did you feel about the original nafta from 24 years ago and what it's done to this country over the past 20 years? has it been a good thing? caller: no, no, it hasn't. and when obama was in, he didn't

do anything to the economy. he made it worse. droppedp has ma, -- has the unemployment rate. when obama did not. he did not. he did nothing except bad for this country. host: would you have liked to see the nafta deal destroyed completely? are you concerned that this keeps too many parts of the original deal? caller: i think i would have liked to have seen more to it, yes. yeah. i would have liked to have seen more. but he's doing a good job. and he's doing -- there's still more time. he is keeping to his promises. i watched what you were reading. what was part of the deal. and that sounds all great. host: all right. cornell waiting in waterford works, new jersey. the line for those who oppose this new agreement.

go ahead. caller: good morning. as rebuttal to your last caller. she stated that president obama didn't do anything, forgetting that it was 750,000 jobs being lost a month, the unemployment rate was skyrocketing. we had eight years of constant growth. but getting onto the topic that you said. i oppose this agreement because i don't know what's in it. and anything that donald trump has done, he said this was this and it didn't exist. even with his tax plan. he said that more people, more people were going to -- his people were going to be mad at him because the wealthy were not going to benefit. and that was just a total lie. condly, as far as anything that donald trump or the republicans have done, they said that they were going to have

better health care, hundreds of thousands of people are losing their health care because of republican policies and it's indicative of the last caller. that spoke with such ignorance. and that's why i oppose it. because i don't know what's in it and anybody that calls up doesn't know what's in it. host: we're still learning about that agreement. it was agreed to very late on sunday night, as we said. the white house yesterday taking quite a bit of time to talk about this issue and it will continue to be debated in congress because it probably won't get a vote until next year in the new congress. here's some of the reaction yesterday from capitol hill, starting with nancy pelosi. interestingly enough in her statement she doesn't say she opposes the new agreement. here's what she did have to say. any trade agreement proposal must be judged by whether it

improves the wages, working conditions and well-being of american workers and farmers. fixing nafta means increasing the paychecks of american workers, delivering real, enforceable labor standards, ensuring fairness for american agriculture and recognizing the connection between economic growth and environmental protections. democrats will closely scrutinize the text of the trump administration's nafta proposal and look forward to further analysis and conversations with stakeholders. a tweet from paul ryan --

host: your thoughts this morning. robert, san diego, california. you're on the line for those who support it. what do you like about it? what are you hearing that you like? caller: yeah. hi. good morning. i don't know a whole lot about it. but i just heard the nancy pelosi supports -- well, she kind of sports it -- supports it. host: she doesn't oppose it i guess is the best way at this point to say it. caller: exactly. what she said was, i'll offer one of her own lines back at her, just pass it so we'll all

see what's in it. [laughter] so anyway. no, i think it's a welcome change. nafta was not good. the reason i say nafta wasn't the greatest we had trucks coming up from mexico that didn't pass standards. it was a nightmare for customs and for immigration to check all the trucks. in fact, you couldn't even dough it -- do it. i trust trump to say that things will be better. maybe we'll get some better deals. the dairy thing. i'm surprised canada joined. that was a good thing that canada came at the last minute and we'll get those terrible 270% tariffs that canada had, they're going to come down on those. i thought they had the canadian prime minister on the spot up in canada. he's having to answer to his people over these dairy things. but yeah. in general i don't want to get too long-winded here, i support it. i'm glad to see nafta go down the road, good-bye.

so thanks for letting me speak this morning. have a good day. host: you mentioned justin trudeau, here's some of his comments yesterday about this new trade deal. >> canada got here because we kept our focus and our collective resolve. even when some were recommending we capitulate. a word of caution, we're not yet at the finish line. this agreement still needs to be ratified in mexico, in the united states and in canada. but what i can say is that free and fair trade in north america, a trading zone that accounts for more than 1/4 of the world's economy, which is 7% of its population, is in a much more stable place than it was yesterday. e now have a path forward. this is an extraordinarily complex agreement, just as the original nafta was. but let me sum up what it means. it means that when this

agreement is enacted, nafta will be preserved, updated, modernized and stabilized for the 21st century. as we set out to do. it means canadian workers and their families will enjoy greater opportunities than ever before. and more prosperity means more resources to invest in things like housing, health care and a more secure retirement for our seniors. alongside our new european and trans-pacific trade agreements, today we are securing a higher standard of living, long into the future for the people of canada. host: we'll talk more about in a little bit about how this deal is being received north of the border. but we want to hear how it's being received across the united states. our phone lines are open to you on lines for those who oppose the new agreement, who support the new agreement, and do have a special line for those outside the u.s., that one, 202-748-8002. sean, waiting in nashville, for

those who oppose. go ahead. caller: i oppose it, just from hearing the man from canada speak. all i heard was canada. what about the u.s.a.? when they made the nafta agreement 24 years ago with clinton, it seemed like to me that the democrats and the republicans voted on it, took jobs out of the united states, broke the united states' people and yet they got a person like bush afterwards who took and broke two blank checks. i'd like to have some of his money and where he got. it then you get obama who tries to do something about it and recover. now you get trump in there, he gave, what, three tax cuts to the rich. and then on top of that he wants kavanaugh in there to reverse roe vs. wade. then these people still want to vote for him? i want trump to ruin this country and he's doing a damn

good job. thank you. host: also on tennessee for those who support the new agreement. raymond, go ahead. raymond, are you with us? caller: i'm with you. can you hear me? i think the world is doing better than what he was when he first started in here. he started a lot of racial things going on in the united states. hurting the younger people and stuff. but now trump's done a lot better and now he's got the mexican border -- i think he's going to do a lot better now since he's got that going and everything. i really appreciate what he's doing. at first i was against him but now i'm for him. host: is it because of his trade policies? has that been one of the reasons? caller: yes. i think he's doing good with the trade policies. i'm glad that he's done it for china and all of them and all the other places. he's trying to keep us out of

war and away. and i feel that he's doing a lot better. he's brought people back into the united states, he did bring us a lot of jobs here in chattanooga. he brought it in. now we got it going good. a lot of our people here are doing a lot better than what they were. and i do appreciate what he has done. host: that's raymond in tennessee this morning. for more on the view on how this deal is being received north of the border, in canada, we're joined on the phone now by a reporter with toronto star's ottawa bureau. here's the front page of the "toronto star" today. trudeau calls new trade deal a win. promises compensation for dairy farmers. how much of a departure is this new us-mca from the old nafta agreement, from canada's viewpoint? reporter: well from canada's view point, i think a lot of canadians are saying, at least

canada has secured market access with the united states and done away with some of the uncertainty surrounding president trump's commitment to free trade with canada. but i think what's fair to say is experts are really pouring over a lot of this to see in fact how much give canada gave up here. how deep are the concessions? there were concerns across the country yesterday around the steel and aluminum tariffs which are not part of the agreement but as you know are a huge issue for the canadian mfing and automotive sector -- manufacturing and automotive sector. canadians expected if they did secure a deal with the u.s. on 1/2 tarks re-writing a modernized 1/2 tarks these tariffs wouldn't be part of the deal. so in the deal or as part of the agreement, sure, the u.s. has agreed to effectively not impose

in the future tariffs on canadian autos for all intents and purposes. but the steel and aluminum tariffs are a huge part of it. they were never part of any agreement to set up free trade rules between the two countries and canadians are very -- i think it's fair to say across the political, labor and industry perspectives, that's still a huge deal here. host: going forward, was there any agreement to continue to discuss those? or do they stay in place for the foreseeable future? reporter: they stay in place. this is the thing. now, the canadian government, as part of its political pitch to canadians, that this was a win for them, said that the u.s. has agreed to continue to engage with canada on that. but bottom line is, you know, those tariffs haven't been lifted. i think that now this becomes a bit of -- it's a bit of a political marketing job for the

government in canada. because among the other concessions that were made in the deal, the canadian government gave what dairy farmers in this country see as a big concession. combined with what part of the dairy market in canada was given over in european and trans-pacific trade deals, and now with the u.s., there's about 10% of canada's dairy market that's opened up to foreign competition. and while that's only a small part of bilateral trade with the u.s., it's a big issue here. because dairy farmers have a lot of political clout in two of canada's biggest provinces. ontario and quebec. from a consumer perspective, a lot of consumers aren't sure this is going to bring them, that more foreign competition is going to bring them lower price and there's concerns the u.s. allows growth hormone in some of its milk products, canada does not. so this is a big political issue

for the government in selling this deal. there are other concerns around the deal. the government agreed to effectively longer patent protections for brand name drug producers. what that means in canada, generic drug producers have to wait a lot longer before they can get their product to market. and this is a country which is contemplating a nationally funded pharma care program. in other words, a nationally funded public drug insurance program. it's something that a federal liberal government is looking at and would love this put in the window for the election next year. the new nafta deal changes those equations. it's going to make drugs more expensive for consumers. the political opposition on the left here says it's going to make drugs more expensive for employer and government-funded pharma care plans. and the political opposition to this deal isn't only at this point on the left. it's also on the right. the conservatives in this

country are playing a political card. they know that the dairy issue is big for voters in those two provinces that i mentioned. and so they're saying, maybe the government gave up too much. they didn't get the steel, aluminum tariffs lifted. they're now going to incur big costs as a result of dairy. and what do we get for it? do we really get stability with the u.s. president who seems sems to be able to change trade deals at whim? host: we know that this deal now goes to congress here in the united states for an up or down vote. likely not going to take place until next year. what is the path up in canada on this deal? reporter: the deal will be studied by parliament. there are two chambers in the parliament here. it will be studied and ratified by a vote. it doesn't look like that would be a problem in the elected chamber. the liberal government has a majority there. it would pass easily, it seems. the senate may be a little bit more of an issue. but i think overall, look, big

business here and a lot of -- across the spectrum, a lot of people say represents stability in some -- and some predictability. so i think that it would pass the senate here as well. because many, even the independent -- many of even the independent senators have been appointed by justin trudeau. this is a window piece he's going to mr. putnam: out there for the -- he's going to put out there for the next election. host: i do appreciate your time this morning. thank you for joining us. reporter: thanks. host: we're taking your calls this morning. want to hear how this deal is being received around the country. we've got phone lines for those who support the deal. 202-748-8000 is that number. lines for those who oppose the deal, 202-748-8001. and we are keeping that line open for those outside the u.s., if you're listening, watching, want to hear your perspective, 202-748-8002. bill's up next, redding, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: doing well. do you support the deal?

caller: i'm so glad to talk to you every time i talk to you. listen, i talked to two people in canada the other day. yesterday. and what she says, i have to go along with her. almost 100% right. what she says. but what i'm say something about donald trump now, ok? we have a president, he doesn't get paid. he works 24 hours. he works very hard for this country. because he has three things. fear, love and respect. it's beautiful of he doesn't have that power, money and killing. we have to get rid of them three things. he wants to make love to everybody. he wants everybody to be in love in the world. he wants everybody to communicate and live like human beings instead of like animals. that's what this whole thing is all about. and approve of him 100%, everything he does, because he's a businessman. he's not a lawyer or a politician.

host: that's bill this morning in pennsylvania. a few more tweets this morning -- host: just a few of the tweets this morning. getting your thoughts from around the country on lines for those who support or oppose the deal. barbara is in lawrenceburg, indiana. supports the deal. good morning. caller: hello. host: good morning.

go ahead. aller: it's like this is the pact that obama started. it was on his desk when he became president. he just threw it out like he does everything else. revamps little and takes credit for everything. i cannot stand it. host: you're saying that's what president trump did? we lost barbara. vivian. pine bluff, arkansas. a line for those who oppose the deal. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i just i guess wanted to say that at this point i'm opposed. i'm not automatically opposed. i just don't think that there's what information to say it is and what it isn't. sadly i don't think that we can the comments now,

that trump makes in a press conference. host: what does it need to be to get your support? caller: i think that -- let me say this. i would agree that while nafta as provided a lot of opportunity for trade, for global trade, and has meant that there has been tariff-free pportunity for business in providing entrepreneurial opportunity, there's still -- there still has been a great deal of job loss. and i think that the united states has at the end of the day lost. and i wouldn't argue with that. but i think saying whether or not we oppose or support sort of exacerbates this -- like when

you're listening to people calling in. there's such vitriol . you're asking about opposition to a policy that trump is proposing, when we don't know the terms, and people are calling saying that they oppose president obama, who is no longer the president. so i just want to say that it's not about -- at this point for me -- opposing the deal. i think we don't know what the al is and for me the word of trump has not proved to be reliable when he says, we're going to do something. and then he does the opposite. host: do you think that knee jerk reaction is unique to just trade discussions or has it seeped into every part of our political discourse? caller: oh, absolutely the knee jerk reaction. i think the country is following his lead.

i think his reaction is knee jerk and so our reaction is knee jerk. and it's divisive. and it's not accountable. he's not accountable. and it's unfortunate. host: vivian, appreciate the call from arkansas. tom is in conaway, south carolina. that line for those who support the new us-mca. tom, go ahead, why? what do you like about it? caller: i support the agreement. we have to see it in writing, nothing's perfect. but the last caller, i disagree with her. i agree with the previous caller. he said he just wants to get people to love each other and work together. that's all we've been trying to do. i'm 63 years old. i've worked for a lot of years. military, teamsters, and i just try to get family working together and people working together and that's all he's trying to do. and what they're doing in congress today is -- i can't believe what they're doing. the democrats are doing with

kavanaugh. i can't believe. it's despicable. we need people to work together and it's teamwork, military always talk group effort, division of labor. you have everybody working doing their specialty and coming together. and all we're doing is dividing the country. this country's got to stop doing that. if you understand me. host: appreciate the call this morning. you mentioned kavanaugh. likely, certainly will be more discussion about the nomination of brett kavanaugh in the senate today. the senate comes in at 12:00. the party lunch, the weekly party strategy session, set to take place at 12:30. the f.b.i. investigation into the claims of sexual misconduct by brett kavanaugh continues this week. although mitch mcconnell, the majority leader in the senate, setting a vote this week on brett kavanaugh's nomination saying that it will happen by the end of the week. we'll talk more about that a little later in our program today. also, a little later in our program today, and about 25

minutes, we'll continue c-span's 50 capitals tour. the c-span bus is in ohio's capital of columbus. we're going to be joined on the busby state senate president larry obhof. he'll join us for a 30-minute discussion and want to get calls from viewers from the buckeye state. so stick around for that discussion in about 25 minutes. one other story to keep you updated on, if you missed it yesterday, a medal of horn ceremony also taking place -- honor ceremony also taking place at the white house. it was a busy day at the white house. president trump awarding the nation's highest military honor to a former army medic who braved heavy gun fire and saved ives in afghanistan. he served with the combined joint special operations task force in afghanistan. there's a picture there of president trump putting the meld al of honor around his neck -- medal of honor around his neck. he's now in the secret service.

if you want to watch that vernings you can do that at c-span library. we took in that event as well yesterday. but this discussion continues this morning. the event at the white house in the rose garden yesterday. president trump talking about s new u.s.-mac, the u.s. us-mca, the u.s.-mexico-canada agreement. here's a little bit more from the president. president trump: formed a great partnership with mexico and with canada. and plan to sign the agreement by the end of november. by then we'll submit it for approval to congress, where in theory there should be no trouble. but anything you submit to congress is trouble. no matter what. the single greatest agreement ever signed, they'll say, well, you know, trump likes it thrmbings we're not going to approve it. because that would be good for the republicans. so therefore we can't approve it.

but it will be sent to congress pursuant to the trade promotion authority act. this agreement follows on the heels of our successful completion of a new and balanced trade deal with south korea, tremendous difference in that deal from what it was. it was a disaster, as i said. to improve the old deal, that it killed so many jobs. it also follows on our announcement last week of a new trade negotiation with japan. japan would never negotiate with the united states. they said, we're not going negotiate. they told the previous administration, we're not going to negotiate. i said, you don't have to negotiate. but we're going to put a very, very substantial tax on your cars if you don't. by the way, without tariffs we wouldn't be talking about a deal. just for those babies out there that keep talking about tariffs. that includes congress. oh, please don't charge tariffs. without tariffs you wouldn't be -- we wouldn't be standing here. i can tell you bob and all of

these folks would not be standing here right now. and we're totally prepared to do that, if they don't negotiate. but japan is wanting to negotiate. they called about three weeks ago and he's a terrific man. a terrific -- just had a tremendous victory. and they said, he would like to start negotiations immediately -- we'd like to start negotiations immediately. india, which is the tariff king, they called us and they say, we want to start negotiations immediately. en bob lighthizer said, what happened, he would never do this, they said, no, we want to keep your president happy. isn't that nice? isn't that nice? it's true. they have to keep us happy. host: that was the president in the rose garden yesterday from the white house. here's one of the other editorials in today's paper about this new agreement. "the washington post" editorial board calling nafta by any other name, mr. trump's new north american trade deal is barely different, saying that's a good thing.

we want to hear your thoughts this morning. chris is in michigan on that line for those who support this new deal. chris, why? host: i like the trade deal. although i have toed a -- caller: i like the trade deal. although i have to admit, i don't know all the details. i heard milk was being taxed by canada for like 200%. i'm wondering what trump got that down to. i'm not sure if he said that in his press conference. also, i think trump's doing a great job with everything. i don't know how anybody could be against him, if you just look at everything he's done. but canada legalizes recreational marijuana on october 17. so i'm wondering how the monetary financial aspects of that are going to effect a trade deal at all. are their banks going to be dealing with our banks on a federal level? a lot of people have problems with like the money made from marijuana. so i wonder how that's going to effect the trade deal. host: i can't help you on that

last part. but on the dairy farmers issue, here's how the "wall street journal" puts it in their wrap-up on that spic provision. u.s. dairy farmers got what they asked for in the new version. canada conceded to drop its complex class seven quota in pricing system which limited imports of certain dairy products from the united states, preliminary details of the pact indicates u.s. producers will be able to supply up to 3.6% of canada's dairy market. that's similar to the access european union dairy producers have been granted in canada and that's slightly higher than the level that canada had agreed to under the 12-nation trans-pacific partnership act which the trump administration abandoned last year. caleb in ohio. that line for those who oppose. what don't you like, caleb? caller: just like -- there was a woman on there who spoke before me saying we didn't have enough information. and i kind of agree with that.

i remember seeing something that may nobt good information. but it was about -- that may nobt good information. but it was about -- that may not be good information. but it was about a currency. it reminds me of that. that's the thing i think we could be going into. the main thing i just don't really go for is the agenda really is kind of shaky. i feel like. he may be setting it up and kind of veiling it with america's going to be doing so good, but the end of the day, even if -- he's trying to become this imperial president, i think he's trying to set himself up. the next president is going to have a lot to clean up. host: mary is in louisiana. that line for those who support. good morning. caller: am i on?

host: yes, ma'am. aller: ok. it's french. bosueur.ly pronounsd let me tell you. it's sad what the democrats party has done to this country. ok. now trump is a businessman. he's not a politician. and he didn't get where he is by not knowing what he's doing. he's been making deals for years. bill clinton, barack obama had no idea how to make deals. and not only that, all those nations that trump -- making, you know, try to be fair to this country since he's been in office, bill clinton and barack obama, they were in that see the

. because once you reach the -- seat. because once you reach the president circumstances you can write your own ticket from then on. but trump don't even get paid. and he's fighting every day for this country. because he loves his country. and you know, it's sad. i know -- i notice this all the time. whatever the democrats -- democrat politicians say, all the democrats, they just repeat the same thing. they don't know if it's right or wrong or don't care. but let me tell you something. host: do you think that happens with republicans too sometimes? or no? caller: what? host: that they repeat the same lines? caller: i used to be a democrat until i found out the truth about them. and you know what, most republicans think for themselves. yeah. most think for themselves. but anyway. i just wish -- i'm going to say this.

people that hate, they got all that hate in them. hate is just like acid. it eats up the container that it's in. and people don't realize, i dn't care for barack obama's policies, but i never called in hating on him. i didn't hate him. i just didn't care for his policy. host: that's mary in louisiana this morning. a few comments from some republicans, concerned specifically about that provision, the 16-year sunset clause on this new deal, for republicans, having a firm end written into that agreement was a source of concern for businesses that need to make long-term decisions on where to build their plants or make their investments.

host: just a few of the comments from republicans on capitol hill. john is in new york city, a line for those who oppose this new agreement. why is that, john? caller: hey. hello? host: go ahead. why do you oppose it? caller: thank you for giving me this opportunity. i completely disagree with this because this might take our economy to turmoil. but i want to add something here. a ve news about iran and military parade and what some of our officials told saudi arabia support the attacker. it's shameful for us as an american nation that -- [inaudible] -- host: you're going a little in and out but we'll stick to a trade discussion this morning. having this discussion in the wake of president trump's announcement yesterday.

the agreement being reached very late on sunday. as viewers have pointed out. we're still learning the details of the final agreement. but the trump administration talking about it quite a bit yesterday. president trump at that rose garden ceremony was asked what concessions he made during the negotiations with canada and mexico as well. here's what he had to say -- he had to say. president trump: my biggest concession would be making the deal. because we are the one that people come and want to take from. i'm talking about every country. and that gives us a tremendous advantage in negotiating that we never used before with past administrations. we never used it. every deal we have is a loser. every deal. you can look at almost every country in the world, almost every country. we have trade deficits. we lose with everybody. so i think my biggest concession was making the deal. because we could have done it a different way. but it would have been nasty and

it wouldn't have been nice and i don't want to have. that we have a great relationship with canada -- have that. we have a great relationship with canada. i think now it will be better than ever. the only problem with justin is he loves his people and he's fighting hard for his people. i think we've always had actually a very good relationship. it got a little bit testy in the last couple of months. but that was over this agreement. and i understand that. but i think justin's a good person who is doing a good job. he felt very committed to his people. that's what he did. and again, this is good for everybody. this is good for canada, good for mexico also. host: the president yesterday in the rose garden. one more chart from today's papers. this from the "washington times." looking at the percentage of countries' total exports going to the neighboring nations that are part of this three-nation agreement.

host: michael, colorado springs, colorado, that line for those who support this agreement. go ahead. caller: yeah. i didn't mean to call on the disagreement line. i agree with a lot of things that trump is trying to do as far as trade. i think he's trying to do a good job in that respect. but callers like that lady that called up a few calls ago, talking about the republicans vote like sheep, she doesn't remember when bush was president , between 2000 and 2008, all of the republicans voted with bush of the just like sheep. if she can't remember that, shame on her. and shame on anybody that can't remember. but i do agree with trump on a lot of things.

and i hope he does continue to try to do a good job. host: jonathan, new york city, supports the new agreement. why is that? caller: hi. host: go ahead. why do you support it? caller: hi. i agree with this agreement because president trump is making so many -- [inaudible] -- with enemies, needs some allies to protect him in this situation. [inaudible] -- people around the world are making fun of us and making videos and laughing at us. i think this is not really, really appropriate and this bill could be useful for him to gain more friends. host: that's john in new york city. getting your calls this morning, about 10 minutes left in this discussion. or those who support the new

u.s.-mexico-canada trade agreement it's 202-748-8000. for those who oppose it, it's 202-748-8001. do have that line open for those outside the u.s., looking for your perspective as well, 202-748-8002. we've been talking a lot about the events at the white house. should note that the first lady is not going to be at the white house for a while now. she's on a trip to africa. tweeting yesterday about her visit, that she's looking forward to trips to stops in begana, to malawi, to kenya and bypt, saying she's taking the -- be best movement international. that's the first lady already on the first leg of that trip around africa. from the pages of today's papers, as we continue to talk about this trade agreement, some reporting on how it was received on wall street. u.s. stocks rose in the first day of the fourth quarter after u.s. and canada reached that deal late on sunday. investors had been watching that

trade development closely for weeks. the dow jones industrial average rose 192 points or .7%. the s&p 500 climbed 10.6 points or 4%. relief over nafta helped lift shares of automobile makers and industrial conglomerates, which analysts have said look particularly vulnerable to a global trade conflict. ford motor was one of the ompanies they cited jumped 7 cents to 9.32 on their shares. general motors rose 1.6%. want to hear how it was aase -- received across the united states by you, our viewers. ross lynn in wisconsin -- rosalin in wisconsin. what did you think about it? caller: good morning. i'm not calling to say i support or pose because i just haven't read the deal -- or oppose because i just haven't read the deal. i have to read the deal. but i am calling up in response to the lady from louisiana who made the comment about the president and not taking a salary.

the president does take a salary and he donates that to a charitable organization, which actually costs american people more money than if he was taking a salary. so it's a difference between john kennedy, who did not take the salary, and president trump, who is taking the salary and then donating it. so he's not going salary-free. and people need to understand that. thank you and good morning. host: a lot of concern that the trump organization has benefited from president trump sitting in the oval office. democrats moving forward with their suit last week on the constitution's emoluments clause. we're going to break down that lawsuit that's moving in federal courts against the president a little later in our program. about 8:30, robert weissmann of public citizen is going to be joining us to talk about that lawsuit. so stick around for that discussion. william, houston, texas, up

next. good morning. your thoughts on this new trade deal. caller: good morning, c-span. thanks for all you're doing and good morning, america. first of all, anyone here has to be neutral on a deal like this. i'm a contractor. there's no way you can determine whether the pros or cons or the deal's in favor or one or another. at this point from what i've seen and heard and read, right now this deal is about 98% the same as it was before. the only thing it changed was the name. which could be good or bad. as far as pay not being negotiated, the plan did negotiate. they've built new plants here in the united states. any tariffs on japan are going to have two types of impacts on the u.s. on u.s. market and also on everybody else who buys the foreign cars. it's a sad move of the automotive industry -- [inaudible] -- it's all about the dollar. but no one, especially anyone that don't have a clue about

contract negotiations or contracts within itself, are like trump. that's not bad thing. he has people who do it. you put a piece of paper in front of trump and said read it, that's what he's going to do. thank you, have a great day. god bless, america. host: your point that it's not too much different from nafta. catherine in the pages of today's "the washington post" d would agree. for the most part, she writes -- host: getting your thoughts. a few more minutes this morning on lines for those who support or oppose nut deal. greg is on that line for those who support in florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i support because i majored in

international relations and i went to school in mexico. so i did see the original nafta's intention was to raise the salaries and economy of mexico to be equivalent to the united states. this did not occur and would not have occurred under the current nafta deal. the support that we should give president trump is the support we should give all of our presidents. we are a nation composed of individuals, but we should support our president while he conducts new deals, which are modern, reflect the current times, rather than the times in which nafta was created. so this does solve some issues. it does allow mexican economy to improve, to become equivalent to the united states, which is what we all want. thank you. host: before you go, what do you think about how the sausage was made here and what that means for future negotiations and international relations? the financial times d puts it

this way. the toxic atmosphere that permeated the negotiations has already inflicted what could be lasting damage on economic relations on the continent and may evens for a rethink of the ties that bine the countries together. they quote the canadian chamber of commerce say, we must remember the lessons of this turbulent period. we must never allowselves to be overly dependent on one trading partner we must continue to diversify our markets, to protect ourselves from the can precious and unfair -- capricious and unfair actions of the future. what do you think? caller: whenever you get a politician trying to make a deal with the businessman, you're going to have this kind of friction. what's going to happen is canada and mexico will bring business people to the floor rather than politicians. because that's the way it should be done. thank you. host: that's greg in florida. robert is in illinois. also on that line for those who support this deal. go ahead. caller: yes, i support president

trump and i saw a report this morning that the leader of the democrats, chuck schumer, praised the president for making the deal. so hopefully the democrats and republicans can work together and it is a good deal. thank you very much. host: before you go, what do you specifically like about it? when this negotiation was happening, what were you most concerned about nafta? caller: i think before it wasn't as fair to the united states and i think it's a better deal for the united states and that's what trump wanted to do. host: you mentioned chuck schumer. i'll read you his statement as reported in the "washington times." as somebody who voted against nafta and opposed it for many years, i knew it needed fixing. the president deserves praise for taking large steps to improve it. he went on to say that any final agreement must be judged on how it benefits and protects middle class families and the working people in our country. senate minority leader chuck schumer yesterday.

that's our last call in today's first segment of the "washington journal" but stick around because it's stop number 43 on c-span's capitals tour. the c-span bus is in columbus today. we'll be joined onboard by state senate president larry obhof. later, robert weissman will be here to discuss a federal judge's ruling that congressional dentals can move forward with their -- democrats can move forward with their emoluments lawsuit against president trump. we'll discuss that in a little sunday night, on q historian onersity her book the field of blood, violence in congress and the road to civil war. >> you went up with scores of congressman in a mass brawl. it is dramatic. guys throwing punches. it is a massive encounter. what was interesting to me was

people at the time looked at it and what they saw was a group of ,ortherners and southerners armed running at each other in the house of representatives and several said, this does not look like a normal fight. this looks like north against south. this looks like a battle. that is striking. it did look like a battle and it is not that long before the civil war. announcer: sunday night, on c-span's q and day. --una. live call-inr program on sunday, at noon eastern with her most recent book. march:oks novels include crossing. and the year of wonders. watch in-depth fix in addition

with geraldine brooks. be sure to watch in-depth fiction edition with other jodey picot and brad meltzer in december. announcer: the c-span 50 capitals tour bringing -- brings the bus to columbus, ohio, now the largest city in the state. joining us is the president of the ohio senate. that is larry up toss. thanks for being with us. we spent the last hour talking with our viewers about the new trade agreement. between the three north american countries. from the perspective of a manufacturing and agriculture state like ohio, what is your view on trade? i support free trade and fair trade that makes sense,

that is mutually beneficial to the countries involved. the new agreement does that. i serve on the intergovernmental policy advisory for the trade representative so i have helped represent the viewpoint of the people of ohio through this process. i believe that where we ended up is a very good place, not just for the united states but for our partners, mexico and canada. if you look at specifics of what was announced, there are good things in there for people in the midwest and across the country. some of the things that i think will be beneficial to ohio includes expanding access to some agricultural markets, being able to sell products in our partners' countries and also policies that will incentivize investment in manufacturing in ohio and other was domestically

back in the united states. including things that help workers in other countries as well, efforts to increase wages, and -- in mexico. and efforts to increase labor protections in mexico. it is a win-win for all the countries involved. or you wouldagree not have seen mexico and canada come on board with this. a big step in the right direction for our state and for people who were worried that we would be going too much in a protectionist direction or people who did not like the original nafta agreement to begin with, this is good common ground. host: senator, over the years we have heard from ohioans who meant -- lament the loss of manufacturing jobs and they blame nafta.

guest: sure. the overall decline in manufacturing has a lot of causes and nafta was something that coincided with that. you also have improvements in , increases in productivity because of improvements, which end up having the result of shrinking the overall workforce in those sectors. i think this agreement is a big step in the right direction to the extent trade policy was playing a role in that. i believe the new agreement will help incentivize investments here so we have domestic production instead of large numbers of those jobs going to our southern neighbor. host: let's talk about local issues you face. the ohio state budget is a desperate about $67 billion. how much is state money?

how much is depended on the fed's? guest: a substantial amount is federal money. at any given year, it could be up to half. that 67 but dollars per year, so the overall budget is substantial and one of the larger budgets of any of the states across the country. i feel good about where we are now. when we began this cycle at the beginning of 2017, we had been missing revenue projections for a number of months, back to back. it might have been as high as eight times as -- out of 12 months where we missed revenue productions -- projections and the economy seemed like it was starting to slow down so revenues were not hitting what we were expecting. we tightened our belts and in the state senate, we focused on

closing a substantial gap in the original version of the budget. we worked to make sure that would work. we saw anlanced that, improvement in the economy. we have seen the state at jobs at a faster rate than before. that coincides with policies you see at the federal level as we had tax reform, as we had regulatory reform, we have seen nationally gdp growing at a faster rate than before. jobs growing at a faster rate than before area that has affected our bottom line in ohio. both in terms of having more people working, which is the most important goal related to the economy, but also the side benefit for the state is our tax revenues have grown up so we are running a surplus this fiscal year. surplus for a

several months in a row. as we head into the next state budget process, as long as we continue to see the sound economic policies of the federal level that we have for the last two years, things look pretty good overall for our budget process. the ohio unemployment rate is higher than the national average, 4.5%. has that come down? guest: that has been creeping up. a curious situation because we have been adding month over month new jobs. ohio is this year on pace for the most new jobs of any year since 2000 -- probably since 2007, 2008. i believe we are on pace for the most new jobs since john kasich became governor and the four years before that we were losing 100,000 jobs per year.

you have got to go back far to find a year where we are adding more jobs and more new jobs in the private sector than what we have done in ohio this year. we are headed in the right direction. unemployment is not inaccurate measure of things. it is a good yardstick month over month or year over year. but if more people are feeling better about their opportunities and entering the workforce, you might see unemployment as a percentage go up even though the overall number of jobs is increasing. that is what we are experiencing. host: if you're one of the nearly 12 million ohioans who would like to talk with your state senate president, here is the number. democrats: 202-748-8000 u.s.,r the rest of the

202-748-8001. pushed by rich people in california, who think they know better how to run ohio than ohioans do, what is issue one? attemptssue one is an to amend the ohio constitution. it purports to be about helping people who are drug addicts so instead of going to prison, they can get treatments and frankly, rebuild their lives. i support the policy. if you go back for the last eight years i have been in the legislature, we have done more with respect to reforms than any other state i am aware of. the actual language in issue one does not do what it says it is going to do. it is funded exclusively by powerful out-of-state interests. responsible for more than a million dollars in contribution. the founders of facebook were

involved. where a filing recently over $4 million was spent on this effort and less than $20,000 of that had come from in the state of ohio. i do not think the ohio constitution should be amended by wealthy people from outside our state who think they know better what the policies ought to be than the people of ohio. i do not think it is accurate to run the campaign they are running and say they are doing the things they want to do. ohio's population is in my view to high that we passed major sentencing reforms, going back to 2011. it is already in our state. challenging i would say to end up in prison if you are a drug user. we have a presumption against deal time for fourth degree felonies. we have increased the opportunities for invention --

intervention for community control sanctions. we delved into sentencing reform issues and give courts the opportunity to get people in the treatment to have them in local jails for shorter period's of time instead of state prisons so you don't break up people's families, ruin their lives, make it so they do not have job opportunities and make it more difficult for them to rebuild their lives. we have drug courts that are working in getting people off these substances. the language in issue one would reverse all of that. it would make it so you could only get probation for any possession related offenses and those would be for large quantities of drugs, not small amounts for your personal use. you could carry 19 grams of fentanyl, which is enough for

10,000 lethal doses. -- the most you would faces probation. you would have people with this to be some level quantities of hard drugs who do not face jail time or even the opportunity for jail time and at the same time, judges are opposed to this issue because they want at x to get clean. sendwant people to treatment and they have expressed concerns to me and across ohio that without any opportunity for jail time and without being able to require people to go to treatment, this will result in fewer people actually going to treatment. if your perspective is you want we are to get clean, passing major sentencing reforms. we have been for years. they are having the desired effect. ohio's rate since we started

down this path has fallen below the national average. the recent numbers i have suggest the national average is 49% and in ohio, 28%. we are making progress in the , a policy that would result in drug dealers feeling like they can flood the state without potential penalties is not the way to go. kasich,ur governor john has talked about the effect of deal be a crisis on ohio. do you agree? guest: it is one of the most important issues facing our state. i know that is true for a number of states, not just in the midwest. it is a multifaceted problem that requires a multifaceted approach to solve it. we have stepped up enforcement efforts and the highway patrol in particular but also local inice have done a great job

trying to seize drugs before they get into the hands of users. -- fortunately they have done a good job but unfortunately we have seen that number of seizures go up every year because the market has been flooded. you have to hit this from all different angles. you need to improve education and prevention on the front end. the kids need to know that opioids in particular but also -- other hard drugs are not something you can double with. this is not the same as thinking alcohol or even smoking marijuana. oxycodone,taking vicodin, heroine, you are putting your life in danger. this is dangerous. it is addictive and it cannot be trifled with and cannot be used recreationally. if it is, you're headed down a dangerous path. with sentencing reforms, we are trying and having success at

moving people out of the state prison system and do community control sanctions where they get treatment where they can become productive members of society to turn the lights around. our citizens him rate is a rate lower than the national average because of efforts. we have stepped up funding for addiction treatment and some of those things. in the last state budget, we added more than $180 million in new money for addiction treatment and prevention and social services that go along with that like child protective services in this capital budget process we have this year. we added $220 million in additional new money for treatment efforts and for mental health efforts. and social services that go along with that. we recognize it is more than

just a law enforcement problem and ratcheting up penalties is not going to be effective. what we are trying to do is ratchet up penalties in some areas for people who are traffickers, preying on communities. are userseople who the opportunity to clean themselves up and turned the lights around. host: let's hear from our callers. first is miriam calling in from virginia. caller: thank you for taking my call. ifould like to ask the guest -- have you actually read the new trade deal? host: what is your second question? caller: my second question is it sounds to me from bits and pieces, because obviously we do not know everything, it sounds to me you could turn off the top page and put nafta with a little

bit of tpt in it and then they put a caveat that says, $60 for workers but there are all kinds of loopholes in mexico. they do not have to pay $16 so for ourress wages workers. they talked about the lady from saida that spoke, who pharmaceutical prices will get higher. they get higher here as well? there is a lot of do not know. host: thank you. have you had a chance to delve into the agreement? guest: sure. before i served on the intergovernmental advisory committee for the trade representative, i am familiar i want togreement and say i do not have strong opinions about things i have not

delved into myself. about some people worry party politics and if it is a republican idea they have got to be supportive or if it is a republican idea and they are democrat they have got to be opposed. that is not power operate -- not how i operate. i am familiar with the provisions. it is a good deal for ohio. and good deal for the country. , the fact mexico and canada are also sharing that view is significant. it is not one country out of the , here is a take it or leave it plant and this is good for us but not for you. i think it will be mutually beneficial for our countries -- all countries involved. ofwill see an expansion agricultural markets. we will see a number of policies coming out of this that incentivize manufacturing at

for that raise wages workers in mexico in particular but perhaps in all three countries. we see labor protections as well. we see environmental protections and agreements to have a coordinated effort at environmental protection. i think this is a good deal. i would encourage anybody who has questions to look for a copy of the agreement but also to get some of the points that have been put online by the white house and trade representative, they have thorough analysis of this that is publicly available for people and i think you will be pleasantly surprised. host: go ahead. guest: i wanted to add, i think the reaction you have seen from

across the political spectrum yesterday is indicative of the quality of this agreement. you did not have as near as i can tell from reading this right-left divide or republican-democrat divide. everybody is taking a wait and see approach but i have seen positive comments from people across the political spectrum. in dayton ohio, west of now, go now, go ahead mason. caller: i appreciated. -- appreciate it. i was listening to you how ohio was making progress on the opioid crisis and i do not know how you can claim that to be true especially since so much has been done via executive action that has made it worse. let me try this. the example i am talking about

his drug testing. drug testing specifically pain patients. some folks are getting kicked out of treatment. some are losing medication and they are going to the black market. that is why our opioid abuses going up. also, the other executive action making things worse: even though he passed medical marijuana, there was executive actions taken to outlaw cbd oil which has no thc content. as long as we continue to not let ohio have voices and treat pain patients like criminals, it is going to get worse. you're making it worse. you need to talk to the people who know about it and not just assume you can do all these things on behalf of ohioans without getting a vote on the floor are -- or by ohioans themselves. host: it sounds like an issue that has been hotly debated. guest: well there was a lot

packed into their so first i want to say in response to the last point that the caller was making about executive actions and how we are to have a vote on the floor, i agree. the legislature has done more to push back on the last two years than we have in the last decades. we have overwritten the governor. we have broken a record for overrides of the governor. who we it along with and agree on policy with because legislators have kicked the can down the road for decades, giving up gradually their own authority to administrative agencies, to the governor's office and the last few years, we tried to reset the vision our founders intended and take that back so legislators of the ones making tough decisions and setting the policy agenda for the state of ohio and not administrative agencies. ordersas the executive

related to opioids, i think they have notwithstanding i just said about the legislature trying to reclaim its authority, i think the policy is the john kasich assigned have been better once for the state of ohio. we have seen a substantial decrease in the number of overdose deaths stemming from mills from people getting prescription drugs in large quantities they should not be. governor kasich has instituted requirements on that on the length and scope of prescriptions so you do not go home with 80 pills. you get a seven-day supply. those things have had a positive effect but as i said before the fact is this problem is growing and we have done a bit to tackle this from all sides on

education, on prevention, on increasing opportunities for addiction treatment, on sentencing reforms so we can help people turn their lives around instead of branding them as a criminal and putting them in prison for a couple years at a time, and in stepping up enforcement. it is a significant problem and one that requires being tackled on all sides and that is what we are trying to do. .y no means are we done by no means are -- is anyone saying this encompassed. that is not the case. we have seen an increase in overdose deaths and despite the policy we have enacted, in many cases having the desired effects, the problem continues to outpace not just ohio but a lot of states' ability to stem the tide. we are doing an awful lot on this front. we are committed to doing more with respect to the sentencing reform issue.

i have been working with local prosecutors. the franklin county prosecutor, who is a democrat, the city attorney for the city of columbus, i am sorry robert is a republican. that climate -- zach klein is a democrat. they ran against each other. the three of us recognize and many colleagues this is not a republican or democrat issue. it is the most important issue facing ohio. to protectolution our families, our communities. and we are working together to get that. host: the republicans in ohio control the governor's mansion and house and senate. ryan, ohio. joyce, you're on with larry up close -- a path. obhof.

caller: my son passed away. i could not get him help because he had no insurance, nobody cared. he was over 21. he could do what he wanted. when he went to jail, i tried to talk to people and get him help while he was in jail. they said they could not do that. they could not do anything. the inmates do not have to take the medication that has been prescribed to them before they went to jail because if they do not want to take it, they do not have to. they are not taught skills while they are in jail. they are allowed to sit there and satisfy the state of ohio as to what they owe them. three years before my son passed away, we discovered he was

bipolar. nobody found that out until he fromo bad that he got help the state in which he lived. when he was on medication, he was totally a different person. he did not want drugs. he was holding down a job. he was happy. joyce, we are going to have to leave it there but let's get a comment from the senator. joyce, thank you for sharing that story. my heart goes out to you. that is exactly the kind of wrongheaded policies we used to have in our justice system we have been working to reverse over the last eight years. key to our goal, michael certainly as a slip -- as a

legislative leader. it is not to simply mete out some measure of punishment from the state for whatever wrongdoing somebody has participated in. livesto turn people's around to give them the opportunity for rehabilitation and the opportunity to be a productive member of society, who without enjoying life to the full. we have passed a lot of the reforms we have. we do have worker training programs in our state presence now. he retired but gary moore, the former chairman of the department of rehabilitation and correction, i cannot say enough good things about. that is the view he took as well. it was not just his job to incarcerate people. it was his job to get as many as possible back on their feet with

the ability to earn a living on the outside and become productive members of society again and that is what we have tried to focus on. i would appreciate it if you called my office and shared your personal story. into where the problems were and breakdowns were so if there are additional issues we need to address in the legislature, so those circumstances do not happen again, i would be happy to take a look. host: thank you for your story -- guest: thank you for your story. host: donnas in ohio. caller: thank you. the republicans control the senate. the republicans control the house. it is not close. the governor is also republican. state for 20s a

years west virginia had gambling before we got it. do you know anything happening on the sports betting that the states are not allowed to have? guest: that is a good question. we have a bill pending in the senate that was recently introduced. we will have hearings about that this fall. i think there are disagreements about what the ohio constitution allows for does not and questions about whether or not there would need to be a constitutional amendment to allow it. i view the issue this way. we have a constitutional question. can we legislate in this area? does the ohio constitution to be gambling and there are a lot of people who take the view that is the case. i think we need to answer that and will have hearings where people with opposing views can

theess that concern and second question is -- is this the right policy for ohio? there is a lot of different questions that need to be answered. do we think it is the right policy -- right policy? do think it is something that should be constrained to some kind of gambling? or is that something that should be more broadly used through ohio. we need to unpack that. we will have a lot of testimony this year and in the next general assembly. it is an issue people are working on. larry obhof has been our guest on the c-span bus. we want to thank our cable partners in columbus for their help in setting this up. next stop is hartford,

connecticut on our 50 capitals toward. coming up next, it is a president of public citizen, robert weissman will be here to discuss the federal judge ruling that congressional democrats stand to sue president trump. it is a look at super pac's spending. the c-span bus was in honolulu for the 39th stop of our 50 capitals tour. this weekend, we feature our visit to hawaii. book tv and american history tv. exploring hawaiian's history and culture as well as public policy issues, saturday on c-span at 7:00 a.m. eastern on washington journal. the director of a lie -- hawaii's planning will talk about homelessness and lack of affordable housing.

on his book,n eddie would go on the life of a hawaiian surfer. a visit to the university of hawaii for west of -- west a while who for the extensive book collector for the senator. hawaii weekend continues on c-span. on washington journal. directorynn, executive a renewable energy efforts in history tvamerican on c-span3 at 2:00 p.m. eastern, we visit the valley of the valley on the north shore of a wall and the polonaise in voyaging society in honolulu. at 4:00 p.m. eastern, three documentaries about hawaii. the film soldier in hawaii, the 1924 silent him, the hawaiian islands and the 1952 film come along jane's premise go.

watch hawaiian weekend this weekend on c-span and american history tv. listen to hawaiian weekend on the free c-span radio up. mayorfeaturing honolulu kirk carbo -- caldwell. washington journal continues. host: robert weissman is with us. he served joins us this morning. this centers around the constitution foreign emolument clause. remind us what that is. it is hard to remind because most people never knew. the clause says the president and officers of the government cannot take gifts from foreign governments or entities unless they get approval in advance from congress. it is intended to be an

antibribery provision to make sure a new country was not influenced by outside powers. it is renamed since the founding. host: less concern since the trump administration started about what is happening with the organization? the key last week was this lawsuit filed by 200 democratic members of congress. they are alleging president trump violated the monument's -- emoluments clause how? host: you have got -- guest: you have got this governments business in washington, d.c. governments have held parties and big events and diplomats staying at the hotel. at the trump tower in new york city, china and the united arab emirates are renting from the trump counter -- tower and he has co-investments. china, hours.rom

host: what happened with this case last week? guest: the constitution says you cannot do this. inwant the court to order violation of the cut tuition. the first question they bring is do they have standing? do they have a real injury that permits them to bring the case forward? the judge decided yes they do. host: guest: is a test host: is a public setting involved? guest: we are not the lawyers for them. host: which public citizen's interest in this case? guest: we are worried about this emolument's issue. we are worrying about how his business dealings domestically are influencing policy. there is no precedent for a

president to maintain the kind of business interest while he is president and president trump has done. there is reason we should be worried. when he has co-investments with china and getting rent from china, we have to worry about favors being given to chinese companies is that could -- being done at a good policy making because some of -- kind of arrangement being exercised, when he passes a tax plan and puts forward a tax plan, the benefits his business interests and lowers the tax rate on the particular kind of structure he has, we have to worry about whether that was a good policy or done out of offense. host: republicans were involved in a separate case, correct? cocounsel for members of congress who were seeking information, the government agency that runs the hotel in washington to trump

organization. guest: remind viewers what public citizen's. pro-democracy realization, almost 50 years old now. and all theountry, power and congress, but we litigate as well. the next 20about minutes, we're talking the emoluments clause. we are talking conflicts of interest. welcome to call in. republicans 202-748-8001 : 202-748-8000 : independents: 202-748-8002 . is if you tradition become elected to the presidency, you thought your business that is by and large the most numbers congress do. president trump did not want to

do that. he said i can keep this business. people knew i had the business when i was elected and i do not see any problem. although he a trust is presumably supposedly not involved in the day-to-day operations of the business but he knows what is going on and nose with the business interests are. the trump it comes to hotel, the explanation for the trump administration concern has been brought up over the pasture. this from one of the president's lawyers. when the constitution was written, paying your hotel bill was an emolument. it would have been a value for value exchange. not a title. no one imagines the president owning hotel while he was president. the idea was are you going to be giving something? the agenda you might have a business and except him it from

a foreign governments. that was not part of the deal. is ans case, there instrument argument. we do not know if it is i-4 value. we have no way of knowing. they choosing to go there specifically to ingratiate themselves with the president? we have a lot of reasons to think the answer is yes. the washington post said of course they would stay in the trump hotel. it would be stupid not to. so you could tell him when you saw him what a great hotel he had. saudi arabia chooses to have celebrations of the trump hotel. they be they made it a determination. they just happen to settle in the trump hotel? maybe but maybe not. something the court shall be looking at. host: have emolument spend defined legally through the years? is there a precedent these cases are going to look back to? guest: the issues go back to the

founding. the issues have not come up. obamaample, when barack received the nobel peace prize come he sought an opinion of what that would be. it has never been anything like this. the questions are pretty novel of the last 200 years. host: when president obama was speaking about opinions, who did he go to for that? usually thets, but office of legal counsel. host: has that office weighed in on this issue? guest: this was president trump deciding for himself. case and whatthis could happen going forward. republican, go ahead. caller: how about china? did you have a deal with china?

howhow so? people stay at here. i was like that is ok. state told me i had the at a hotel. host: you are ok with it. caller: yes. is a fair point about china but there have been specific favors done for china, including for one particular company called zte with the trump administration overrode of things otherwise doing for reasons that are unclear except it seemed to be a priority of the leader of china. there is reason to worry about whether that decision was influenced by how many business relationships president trump has with china. and the point about las vegas, when you look for a hotel,

you're looking for the best place to stay for the best value . when you are a foreign government deciding where to stay or hold a big party and the hotel,nt owns the different factors are starting to weigh in. theomats have been telling media of course this is how they think about things. host: what is the path for this case going forward? when expected decision? -- do you expect a decision? host: -- guest: there is no way to predict. just be a next phase in the next few months. host: brian is in michigan. caller: you do not like drum. people stay were they want to stay, for what reason?

they make their choices like we do. uraniumse concerning water which the inspector general are looking at now and all the money they came into the clinton foundation. guest: in terms of where you stay, it is a different calculation you make is an individual and we -- where foreign governments are willing to stay, knowing the president owns a hotel or other businesses around the world's. as with the clinton foundation, issues are not the same so they do not implicate the emoluments clause because they were not payments to president clinton as president or hillary clinton when she was in office. think there are huge divisions around the clinton foundation and can be worried about that. does public citizen not like president trump? guest: policy has huge concern

about president trump but we are worried about government processes being open and all that -- and not being influenced by outside interests. the reason we are about emolument and business interest of president trump is it opens them up to be influenced by things other than good policymaking. were you involved in legal cases against the obama administration over similar terms? host: we litigate. we sued every president since coming into being. we were not involved in cases like this, because there were no issues. guest: georgia, republican. host: good morning. i would like to ask mr. robert weissman, if visitors come up here and they happen to work in

their government, whatever. shouldn't they be allowed to stay at any hotel they want to? are you telling everybody they cannot stay at trump hotel because of you? i do not get it. you are accusing rusty of doing something that he has not -- you do not have any proof you did anything wrong. him to stay in his hotel so what are you to go to your room. mr. wiseman does not want you to stay at this hotel. guest: it is not about what i want but what the constitution says and why the custody since says it. it is not just about the hotel. the hotel is the least of it. there are big events hundreds of thousands of dollars that are

held at the hotel. if you are throwing it out like that, you have choices where to go. the president owns the hotel. you are going to communicate that. that is a big problem. the reason you're doing it is trying to gain improper influence with the president. we know the president appreciates this kind of things. he says so himself. there is reason to know -- worry it is having an impact. complicated alliances on saudi arabia and changes from where our policy has been in the past. you have to look whether these dealings involving president trump as well as involving his son-in-law are influencing how policy making is going wrong. host: the collar brings up the constitution. let's go to the clause. no person holding any office of profit or trust shall about them title of any kind

whatever from any king, prince, or foreign state. congress clear this issue up today if they wanted to? guest: yes. that is with the lawsuit is about. if president trump wants to do this, he needs to in advance, seek permission from congress congressional vote. that is what that constitution is. it is not a flat prohibition. it is permitted if congress offers. has president trump asked for that republicans say we would give that position. guest: he is not asking. host: and democrats are moving forward in this lawsuit? guest: we have a constitutional duty to be asked and vote on an emolument if it is going to be affected. that is why we have an actual controversy that should move forward in courts. host: nick is an illinois,

republican. caller: thanks for taking my call. i got a big problem with what robert weissman is talking about. my problem is president trump before he was president had stacks of papers on the table in front of him, had everybody around him at all these agencies around him and the side of his businesses. i have not heard wiseman say one thing about that. a problem with barack obama taking billions of dollars in using that. here is the bigger thing. you have sued all the presidents. you do not make money off the people of liberals so you have to sue somebody. you cannot make money off the federal government, you are an idiot. have a good day. guest: i am not sure about the lawsuit question. we are not doing it to make money. president trump as an aside is famous for filing lawsuits so i think he is comfortable doing that.

issue is not about what i think. it is about what the constitution requires. when president trump stood with , it turnedf papers out most of those stacks of papers were blank. there was not anything there. he was purportedly doing is a sunny control of his companies to a trust so he would have no influence or information about what the businesses are or are doing. givel blind trust would control over an independent trustee who then would sell off the business and manage the money however he or she would decide is in the best interest of the trustee. in this arrangement, president trump signed off on this trust which you can break anytime you want and said i'm not going to pay attention to what is going on now but i on this stuff and i'm getting it back when i get out of the presidency. he did not distance himself from the businesses in any way. that is what i was referencing.

it makes no difference for this ongoing lawsuit. republicans -- host: how have republicans been funded? democrat, ohio. good morning. caller: is there a way you can properties contact before he became president. best president? >> the short answer is no because we do not have his income tax returns so we do not know what he has been making in any year. if we could get that information, i think would -- it would reveal a lot about business operations. and what it is like now that he is president. the comparison about whether he is making more money are not is

a determinative question for whether he is in violation of the emoluments clause because that is intended to prohibit him from taking gifts or presence or things of value from foreign -- he hass so i will approval first. host: with the case going forward, are we going to be able to see the president tax returns previous years to the discovery process? guest: it is possible but we will see. the president is guarded. it is possible the democrats take control of the house. it is possible it comes through. there's no way to know. florida,,i is in democrat. caller: the president is supposed to enrich the country. not himself and his family. he sells a $40 million mansion

to $9 million to the russians. bpd he has this deal with and there is 500 billion dollars towards property in indonesia. his son-in-law goes from country to country trying to get money from them. give me a break. it is hard to teach -- keep track of business operations. the second when you mentioned, you are right. it is important. president trump was involved in a major resort developments on partiallyin indonesia branded as a trump resort. the huge amount of co-funding has come in from chinese affiliated interests. favors,ame time he did the zte. we do not know if they are connected. they are close in time and reason to about it. we should not worry at all.

the constitution has a solution for this, which is do not take gifts or emoluments from foreign governments so we do not have to worry about it unless you get written from congress. if it had, it would of hundreds did the terms of the deal and what is going on. host: can you talk about conflicting conflict of interest? guest: way our word about how this information -- administers pursued. it starts with president trump and his decision not to sell his business interests, but attracts throughout the ministers and your cabinet that is drawn to the leads of billionaires and ceos. every agency, the second and third tier positions are held by people who come from the industries they are now in charge of regulating.

they are doing favors for their old industries at the expense of public, just take one example among dozens. if the department of education is rolled back, protections for predatory --. people who ran the trade associations industry, but it is not just there. look anywhere from drug policy think our standards to call rules or pesticides, whatever you look in the trump administration, the people making policy on behalf of making companies they used to work for. host: jesse, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i listen to this end i am wondering if couple of things. brought suit against donald trump, you

bringing suit against him himself? are you suing his personal team or suing the government in the sense that his white house counsel have to defend him. the reason i am sad is most americans will listen to what you are saying and they will thisthis is more like -- is a way to impede the president they are wanting to know best president. they are wanting to know how much tax dollars are going to defend the president against a frivolous lawsuit like what you are bringing. when it comes down to it, what is an emoluments? entity ore country or bribes theasically some inner or fashion and for some reason, i cannot believe that donald trump

is going to be swayed by a oreign dictator or president the member of the cabinet having a soiree at his hotel. for the first part of the question, this is not our lawsuit that it is good question. against the is president as president not in a personal capacity. this lawsuit is brought by congress would be defended by the white house and department of congress most of the lawsuits we bring when we say we are suing the president are not orinst the president himself in his personal capacity, the reports of the administration. as to the underlying issue, you're right. the question is going to turn on -- what is an emoluments? that is an issue for the court to decide. your mistaken.

-- you are mistaken. it does not require he agrees to do something in exchange for checking a gift. ae emoluments close is preventative antibribery provision. it is not a criminal antibribery position. it does not say there had to have been a deal when i gave you , -- didlate golf putter not promise i would get back from you. host: ike in arkansas, republican. caller: good morning. guest: do you remember the fella, rand paul said we could do away with departmental education. i have been teaching for 40 years. we could give the money to the state. the department of education is never educated. i called. our daughter.

it reminds me of a fire, a lightbulb in which there are a bunch of insects. you turn on the light, and you see cockroaches running for cover. that is what you sound like the i'm sad for you -- sound like. i'm sad for you. you just appear to be such a liar. i will give you a chance to respond. i'm not sure what to say to that. i am not lying. things not saying how might seem to you, most americans are worried about these issues. most americans don't think the president should be maintaining his business interests. by overwhelming numbers, americans are worried about the rigging of the government that is far worse under this administration that anytime in our lifetime. on twitter, republican

congress won't touch it with a 10 foot pole. care to speculate what might happen with this issue if democrats take over one or both houses? clause is emoluments a strange issue. it is not exactly clear what exactly congress can do if the president does not submit a request for approval. he is just taking ongoing payments. it is not clear what the remedy is other than impeachment. they could pass resolutions saying that is that, but it does bad, but it does not stop him from taking the emoluments. if they take the house or senate, we will see much more intensive investigations and learn a lot more about this issue. this issue and corruption is pervasive in this administration i believe. host: the president -- caller: the president of the

united states knew exactly what he needed to do to become president. the emoluments issue was in the constitution. he should have abided by those rules. it is like they asked him to show his taxes, and he did not do it. he seems to be a person that believes he is above the law. if he did not want to follow these rules, he should not have run for president. thank you. great i think that is a point, as regards to this and other important matters. i think the president tends to think he is above the law, and rules don't apply to him. the disclosure of tax returns has been a historic practice. i think it is a problem he is not doing it. he is not legally obligated however. the emoluments issue is in the constitution. nobody sprung this on him. it has been in the constitution for 250 years. it is part of the job of being president. if you want to keep your

business, don't run for president. if you do, be ready to sell your business if you win. that is part of the deal of running for president and taking the oath of office. from youngstown, ohio. rebecca. good morning. go ahead. caller: hello? hello? host: go ahead with your,. i will like to know why there is always someone on criticizing the president of the united states. the constitution does not say he has to sell all his property or businesses before he became president. it just says he has to put them in trust. why does this gentleman think he has the right to sue? guest: again, we are not suing. we are talking about a lawsuit that has been filed by 200 members of congress.

you are right that the constitution does not say that he has to sell his businesses. that has been historic practice. what the constitution does say is the president may not accept gifts or benefits or other emoluments from foreign governments or foreign sources while he is president unless he gets approval from congress. sincehas been doing that he has been president. host: we will leave it there. robert weissman, appreciate your time. guest: thank you. host: next on "washington journal," with 35 days to election 2018, we will discuss super pac spending with cq roll call's kate ackley. we will be right back.

>> friday night, yale university historian joanne freeman on her book, the road to civil war. >> we end up with scores of congressman in a mass brawl. it is dramatic. guys are throwing punches. encounter.sive what was interesting to me was people at the time looked at it and saw a group of northerners and southerners, lots of them armed, running at each other in the house of representatives, and several of them said this does not look like a normal congressional fight. this looks like north versus south. battle.ks like a that is striking. it is not that long before the civil war. >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a.

authortzer prize-winning geraldine brooks is our guest on in-depth, fiction edition. she will be with her most recent book, the secret court. peopleer novels include of the book, the year of wonders. watch in-depth fiction edition with geraldine brooks sunday on booktv. be sure to watch in-depth fiction edition next month with picou- author jodi lt. c-span2. >> washington journal continues. host: kate ackley covers lobbying and campaign finance issues for cq roll call. to answer your questions about spending by outside groups in the 2018 cycle, kate ackley.

there are a lot of different ways that outside groups can influence an election. explain the difference between the terms with are going to be using, super pac, pac, party committee, and even 501(c) organizations. guest: thank you. it is great to be on with you. we will start with super pac. that has gotten a lot of attention since they were created eight years ago. those are independent of any candidate. they are independent expenditure of funds. you can get any amount of money you want to super pacs. that is why they are called super. my mentor who coined that phrase ,ame up with the term super pac so thank you, eliza. if you are a wealthy individual, a company, you can give any amount of money you want to a super pac. as right's are running

now for or against -- ads for or against candidates. you are not supposed to coordinate, it is illegal to coordinate with a candidate. these are independent outside voices trying to influence the outcome of an election or policy issue. that hasype of pac gotten a lot of attention are known as corporate pac. these are the political action committees of companies, businesses, trade associations. these are not necessarily big money. these are not like a super pac. i looked up the biggest spending corporate pac this cycle, it is $2.3 million this cycle. you contrast that with the super pacs bringing in $100 million

this cycle. host: we also hear about 501(c) organizations. guest: that is sort of dark money. lumped in with dark money, but they are more big money. they have to disclose their donors. insight into where that money comes from and where does. pacs andfor corporate union and business pacs. they disclose where their money is going. organizations are social welfare groups. they are focused on less politics, more policy or something in the debate of the country. we don't know who their donors are. they don't have to disclose that. ads.are often running we are seeing ads from groups

that are trying to influence the debate over judge kavanaugh. we are seeing organization spending money related to that. host: if your questions about super pacs and outside money in the 2018 election, now is the time to call. kate ackley covers lobbying and finance issues. is the number if you are a democrat. (202) 748-8001 four republicans. for independents. one chart i want to show to help viewers understand why we are focusing on super pacs. this is the total by type of spending in the 2018 election. 127 super pac's have

spent well over $260 million so far this election. for compares to $48 million (4) groups. is it safe to say this will be the most spending by super pacs by any midterm election since they have been created? guest: it is tough to say. it is tough to compare to a nonpresidential election year. what we are finding in terms of congressional races and outside spending toward the midterms, every cycle seems to outdo the previous one. are on track to see more spending from these big-money groups aimed at

influencing congressional elections. host: let's talk about the big-money groups. they have names that don't necessarily explain where they are spending the money. the top is the congressional leadership fund having spent $52 million so far this cycle. caller: -- guest: and they have raised about $100 million. this final month before the election, they have 20 of money to spend. host: who are they? guest: they back republican candidates for the house primarily. that is what they do. host: are these set up by speaker ryan? who controls them? guest: these are supposed to be independent of the candidates. that is why super pac is a great term, but i think it leads to misunderstanding. people think these are regular

political action committees, like corporate pacs. these are independent expenditure only funds. these are operating independently. the chart you have a minute ago -- had a minute ago showing how super pac's have eclipsed what the parties are spending. reasonable people can disagree whatrgue about effect that has on political debates, but the numbers are clear. these are really a dominant force in our national conversation. pac, the senate majority $42 million in independent expenditure this cycle. guest: there was news this morning that they have spent more money. againstattack ads

people like senator dean heller in nevada. you see attack ads this week against josh holly, who is challenging claire mccaskill in missouri. organized toer pac try to elect senate democrats. natalie is in washington, d.c. democrat. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you. citizens united is clearly the worst thing the united states supreme court has done to americans. what we need to do in my opinion, just take the money out. taxpayers can pay for it. we can have limitations. i suggest people look at what happened in nebraska when they tried, and 22 other states tried to get them to stop putting in this money.

running thisis place. we have become the corporate united states. that is outrageous. people should look at mr. mcconnell. who made mr. mcconnell the dictator of the united states congress? he has done nothing but bring problems, keeping the united states, keeping the ninth person off for almost a year from the supreme court. why? host: we will try to focus on super pac's. i'm sure that topic will come up during open funds. kate ackley to bring more sunlight into the dark money spending. is reflectingler what polling shows a majority of americans feel, even in a bipartisan way. you see republicans and democrats and independents, this backlash against big money. you saw that amongst trump

voters. obviously, we know president trump carried the message on the campaign trail of draining the swamp, criticizing money and politics. this is something that resonates the voters across the political aisle. you see that, obviously, in our divided country. the way people want to see a policy response to their concerns about too much money in politics or undue influence in politics is different. some republicans would like to see even fewer regulations. the caller noted she would like to see a completely taxpayer overhaul so that there was no private money in elections. there are proposals on capitol hill right now to basically do that, to overhaul campaign

finance system. taxpayercentivize more financing or completely overhaul the system so it is taxpayer financed. i think we are a ways off from those proposals being enacted. host: you mentioned the congressional leadership fund, for senate republicans. $26 million in spending for that group. the house majority pac, that is the same on the democratic side. 12 ninete! has spent dollars on independent expenditures this cycle. who are they? guest: that is a liberal leaning pac. they support democratic candidates. i think it is a

interesting because one of the things i have chronicled at cq roll call this cycle is not just the rise of women running for congress as you have documented well, but also through funding campaigns. we are seeing using some of the open secrets data, about a year ago, i wrote a story of this extreme rise of women donating to federal campaigns. i think this is largely on the liberal or democratic side. a lot of it is fueled in opposition to the republican congress and certainly president trump. whatever the reason, you are seeing a huge mobilization of women, not just to run for office but to give money to those who are running for office. host: maria is in new jersey, independent. caller: good morning. i am so grateful to have this topic. i have four questions. my first question, how much of

the dark money problem comes from the fact that there is no audit of pentagon spending? how much of it comes from foreign countries? act, the major part of it was not going to be enforced so that emily and friends could benefit from inside knowledge. host: let's take those two questions first because those are two big questions that we have talked about before on this program. guest: as far as the dark money and pentagon spending, i am not sure i completely understand the question. host: i think the question was the fact that no audit has been done on the pentagon. would that help clear up some of the concerns or questions or add more sunlight to the issue? would addtainly that more sunlight to the issue of pentagon spending. i don't know that that would necessarily shed light on dark

money in our political spending. that is two separate issues. host: and then the stock act. remind us of what that is. guest: the just is that lawmakers cannot use the information they gain in elected des, theyd therir ai cannot use that for insider trading. if you are a member of congress, and you know you are going to be bringing a bunch of corporate executives before a hostile committee to ask tough questions, you might be able to glean that the stock of that company could tank. let's say you own stock in a company, you might sell it in advance of the hearing. that is a really egregious example, but the idea is you cannot trade on the knowledge you gain from your position of being a member of congress or

staff person. is in california, democrat. good morning. caller: citizens united was passed. how much dark money is coming from multinational corporations, things like ge that used to be american but are now run by multinationals? guest: that is a great question. this is something that since the 2016 election has exposed this scandal about the ford influence on our -- foreign influence on our elections. this is left as a big question mark. especially 501 c 4 organizations, we don't know where their money is coming from. it is not permitted for foreign nationals to donate money to

candidates or parties, but if it is not disclosed, it is hard to say. this is something that remains mysterious to us. the more this gets looked at, whether it is in the special counsel investigation or other situations, i think this remains a very puzzling and potentially troubling question. cyclecandidates this saying they will not take corporate money or at an al l-time high. guest: yes. this has been a trend on the campaign trail among democrats. there have been maybe a couple republicans here and there. this has taken off among the democratic party. peoplere currently 127 running for congress who have pledged not to take corporate pack money.

some of them have gone farther. beto o'rourke who is running against senator ted cruz has said he will take no kind of pac money, unions, trade associations, corporate pacs, he will not take that money. you look at his campaign website, it says something like powered by people, not pacs. points that his key he is making. he is not going to be swayed by corporate pacs and other types of pacs. this has really caught on among democrats. any of the people we have talked about, you see the as being potential -- them as being potential contenders for 2020 in the presidential race, they have all taken no pac pledges. some have been tailored, saying

haverporate money, some been very broad. you see this as a way of democrats speaking to voters who are disillusioned with the role of money in politics. this is not the most painful or for, especially challengers, to take on the role of big money in politics. top, talked about at the corporate pacs are really not big money. we look at northrop grumman, $2.3 million, that is a lot of money, but mostly it is going to incumbents. these challengers would not necessarily be in the pool of candidates to receive corporate pac money. you mentioned earlier,

$268 million in money spent by super pacs this cycle. $792 million raised by super pacs this cycle. that is 2100 super pacs. expectation that we will see all $792 million of that spent over the next 35 days? it is hard to believe that there could be more political advertisements running then there are now. but yes, there will be more running in the next coming weeks. some of that is just going to irritate voters. they are going to get tired of these super pac ads, big money in politics. one thing to follow up on no corporate money pledges, one thing that has really unleash the campaign finance system for democrats this cycle is that by

taking a pledge like that, and they are all kind of different, but by taking the pledge, it seems to unleash a large amount ,f grassroots contributions $20,e who might be getting $100, a couple hundred dollars, that has been a big phenomenon this election cycle. you trade out the corporate money, if you will, although they still take money from corporate executives and people .ho work for the company it is not treasury money that shey can give with super pac by taking. this pledge, it has really

allowed and energized grassroots donors. host: from missouri, nate, a republican. caller: good morning. i want to know is the majority of the money going to republicans or democrats because obama got more funding than all the dlc candidates combined, hillary's pac raise more money ads any pac ads and ran tv for free on shows such as fox and friends. guest: you have to look at the end of the election cycle and run all the numbers, but as far you see every other super pac is a republican super pac, and undemocratic and then republican and then democratic. at this point in the cycle, it is still fairly equitable.

is that what is your finding -- what you are finding in the chart? host: the chart breaks it down by spending by recipient party. you can see these four different pieces of the pie. 16% of the spending is against democrats, $97 million. spending million in against republicans. 3$39 million for democrats. for republicans. it breaks down almost exactly even if we are talking about percentages. guest: i think that will hold up at the end of the cycle. jeff, bronx, democrat. caller: it is kind of a coincidence that you would be talking about this because last night on the pbs station they

had a documentary on the pac money and the effect it has on some communities. they were focusing on the state and toxic water there. just a coincidence, dark money, people not being accountable for the contributions they make to people who do want to take a stand for issues in their community. host: do you want to talk about your effort to track down dark money and what that involves as a reporter? guest: if money is not disclosed, you rely on your sources and other news reports.

there is not a portal for on.losure that you rely the dark money film, i did not see it lasting. i watched it earlier this summer. we did a podcast at cq roll call with my colleague, and he had the filmmaker on to discuss that. very interesting story. i think one of the things , andrats are trying to do this is what the film was looking at, how to start money affect -- does dark money affect public policy? that is what voters really want to know more about. host: two kansas city, democrat, good morning. caller: thank you for the program. it is very interesting. i am a 74-year-old veteran. i wanted to put a little perspective and go back a bit. we used to have equal time. i don't support equal time.

i think we need more of a panel of qualified republicans and democrats to get together and truly evaluate some of those claims that are made because this thing with the fact, liar makes a pants on fire joke out of what is a terrible tragedy in our country. so much money is been spent, but it is that the propaganda has taken over on both sides. i am a democrat. i see it on both sides. 10 or 20 years ago, i would put a yard sign in my yard. i am afraid to put a yard sign in my yard because of the hostility of the opposition on both sides has grown to the point where this isn't the america that i know and love. the other thing i want to mention is there is not enough of the news they have a tough

job. they are not following up on critical points. i will make one point and then shut up. this thing with the irs. poor irsoried these workers when they were trying to investigate those political action committees that were trying to pass themselves off as charities. according to the law, it is the job of those people to determine -- just like a church cannot go too far. i support the church. nobody --uestion is, i have heard it on various programs, but it is such a minor point that they sweep under the rug -- these people that work for the irs should have been given medals, not hillary. they did not have anything to do with -- pilloried. they do not have anything to do

with freedom of speech. they had nothing to do with tax exempt. host: thank you for the call. we take your point. guest: there is a lot to unpack there. roles thatated their was really controversial on both sides of the isle. that is something that continues. , and that was really controversial on both sides of the aisle. that is something that continues. the johnson amendment prevents them from coming out for or against a specific candidate. the law remains what it is. host: it is something that is of debate. are there other super pac's that caught your eye on the list? guest: that last caller was a veteran, so he might find this interesting.

is of the few pacs that bipartisan is the with honor fund. they give to both republicans and democrats. that is unique for a super pac. they support candidates who have served in the military. this is the pac that jeff bezos announced he recently gave $10 billion to. there are some super pacs that are trying to get out of the partisan gridlock and try to take it from a totally different perspective. obviously, the partisanship mostly reigns. spent to theve tune of $6 million this cycle. you have time to talk about one other one. is also citizens for strong america. you don't necessarily understand from the name what they are. they primarily support

republican candidates, also some democrats. you cannot know much about these groups just from their names. we were looking at the top. if you look at corporate pacs, who is on top so far this cycle. we mentioned northrop grumman, and also the national beer association is up there. not as much as a super pac, but these are direct donations to candidates and parties. host: kate ackley from cq roll call. appreciate your time. come back again. next on "washington journal," it is open phones. any public policy issue you want to talk about, we will end with you. you can start calling you now. we will be right back.

ow.ou can start calling in we will be right back . >> we are asking folks which party should control congress and why? >> i think the party that should control congress after the midterms is the democrats because it is obviously need checks and balances in washington. there is so much that is contrary to what i believe is best for the electorate in the united states. i think that with the democrats controlled congress, that will checks andbring balances to the process, which is much needed. >> i would like to see the republicans retain control of congress in both chambers after this election because, as a supporter of donald trump, i think the republican party is going to do a better job of advancing his agenda, where as

the democratic party is going to obstruct him. keep it read. -- red. >> i want women to control congress. i am tired of people who don't live my life telling me what to do. we need more women in all positions of power in congress, in the senate, state and federal. >> i think it would be bad for the country if impeachment proceedings failed because they will initiate if the democrats control the house. i think we would either like to see a sweeping democratic victory where they pick up enough seats in the senate to get a guilty impeachment or to fall below that threshold in the house where the republicans hold the house of representatives so there is no impeachment at all. if they are hanging that albatross over the country with

unsuccessful impeachment, that would be bad for the country. >> was is from the states, part of c-span's 50 capitals tour. washington journal continues. our programl end today with open phones. we're letting you lead the conversation. what do you want to talk about? republicans (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. independents (202) 748-8002. expect some of the conversation to focus on the midterm elections, now just 35 days away. we could also talk about 2020. this is the front page of the charlotte observer, focusing on that election two years and 35 days away. the 2020 republican national convention will be held in charlotte according to the announcement from officials yesterday.

that gives organizers less than two years to raise the $70 million for that event and prepare the city for the tens of thousands of visitors expected. it will take place at the spectrum center in uptown charlotte, where the republican party is expected to nominate donald trump for a second term. c-span will be there covering it for conventions over the past several decades. pat is in north carolina, a republican. go ahead. caller: good morning. i just want for the democrats to come out and tell the republican party why are they so divisive towards republicans, like we are racist and that we don't have any kind of empathy for anybody? the republicans that i know, and i am a self-made business owner

ofh a lot of years experience, and all that we want taxes everybody pay their ter get a job and bet themselves. we are not racists. we don't try to control anybody's lives. we are self thinkers and self makers. we don't need a party telling us what we need to do. we are responsible people. we are not after anybody who doesn't have anything. spot iny gets in a hard life. you cannot expect the government to uplift you every time that you stumble. you have to do it by yourself. in northt is pat carolina. margie is next, republican.

caller: good morning. my all this stuff going on since my 30 day call. before the congressional break, i tried to find out what the congress had accomplished. i admit it is hard for me to navigate my phone. all i saw were bills such as the aretha franklin congressional gold medal act or endearing lasting smiles act. i wonder if you could have a program with a guest before the elections, midterm elections to 3, what has the congress done so far this year? host: thank you for the call. i will tell you what the senate is working on this week. the senate is still in session. house members are away until after the election.

takeenate is expected to up the long-term reauthorization of the federal aviation administration. they have until october 20 72 to pass that27 legislation. that provides $1.68 billion for disaster relief for areas impacted by hurricane florence. that is the vehicle that is being chosen to move that disaster assistance that the house passed last week. we will see what the senate does with it this way. virginia,west democrat. good morning. caller: i am calling from west virginia. we are at the bottom of every list in america. one we are at its in americay people

live in west virginia. our state is controlled by either democrats or republicans on a regular basis. even though we carried the united states forward in the industrial revolution from the coal industry and timber and oil and gas, we are at the bottom of every list in america. betteras to be a way. these people have to get out and vote and stop allowing these issues to use wedge against us, especially the abortion issue, especially racism. we need a change in america. we will either have a political change, or we will have a revolutionary change. every day our country becomes more divided. , one ofwest virginia the richest states in the u.s., and where are the bottom of every list in america because of corporate money because our

politicians do not represent the people of west virginia. a perfect example is our congressman just resigned so he appointed to abe supreme court justice in the state of west virginia. , please vote for change. we need less politicians less peopleople working class . i am ready for some socialism, like medicare and the right to form a union. that is why we were so great in the 1950's. host: thank you for the call. jim has a suggestion on how to fix the senate, the only way to

restore respectability in the senate is to repeal the 17th amendment so the selection of senators is returned to state legislators. the founding fathers had it right. john in texas, good morning. caller: when people make statements, as the gentleman did, about the use of hotels, if you go back 10 years and find out what embassy events were held at which hotels and were they being held at the election since down chop has met him, you could make -- donald trump has been in, you could make a lot more sense. host: talking about our segment earlier with the emoluments clause, the case moving forward through the courts, some 200 congressional democrats signed

onto that case. hurdlered a key last week. caller: hi. i will speak about donald trump and about education. since donald trump , racism our president level that i have not seen since i was a young man growing up in louisiana. i am a black man. things that became so at the locali was coney island in michigan. i have been going there for years. . am a black guy the owners are white or eastern .uropean

the only other couple there is white. i am eating my hot dog. suddenly, the guy starts yelling, why don't you people go back where you came from. why don't you people go back where you came from. startled. the owner did not say a word. i paid my bill and left. the other quickie i want to hit on is education. i think we need to use the modern technology to teach our inner-city kids all the basic for the parent to assist to work with or the government to provide so that can get a very

proficient education portrayed to make our american society the greatest society. host: thank you. more of your calls in just a second. president trump was rallying .oters in tennessee yesterday what should we know about that rally last night? guest: he was really hoping to get voters to rally around blackburn. marsha blackburn is going to need eased

tennessee to rely -- east tennessee to rely on momentum to get her over the hurdle. the race is really tight. the president touched on the news of the day, including kavanaugh and the latest trade deal and looking to potential opponents in 2020. host: focusing on the senate race, this was president trump's second visit there. does that give you some concern about how concerned they are to hold onto bob corker's seat? guest: absolutely. of president said control throughte goes tennessee. this is one of the key states. the other thing arizona, nevada. tennessee is a place where democrats are through

tennessee. excited to have a candidate who can actually make this a competitive race. twicerse he ran statewide successfully. he is the last democrat to win all 95 counties in the state. this is a crucial race to decide the balance of control in the senate. of course, the president is keeping a close eye and try to get people to vote. if there is democratic control, things could drastically change in washington. viewers understand the dynamics of tennessee. there are open house seats in the second district and sixth district and the seventh district as well. all those open seats are considered safe republican seats. why is this open senate seat such a tossup? brettisontestament to as a candidate for the support

of marsha blackburn in the state? >it is a combination of both. it is a combination of both. blackburn is somebody who has not run statewide before. he has. she is tried to get her name recognition and move beyond her base. she has been in congress since 2002. support amongr conservatives, but it is not overwhelming. our most popular republican by far in tennessee is the governor. marsha is a little more skeptical. her negatives are almost as high as her positives. this is kind of the perfect confluence for democrats that son'sare seeing bretti

support and popularity against a candidate like blackburn, who is controversial at times. marcia blackburn took the stage last night. what issues did she focus on? what should viewers expect to see on their television screens in political ads? guest: she only had a couple minutes to talk. she stressed the importance of the president's tax cut efforts, the economy, the supreme court nomination of judge brett kavanaugh, and also immigration. those are the issues that have been an issue throughout this campaign. iticent is trying to make more about the dysfunction in washington, d.c., and why would you want to send someone like blackburn there when so little has gotten done. he also wants to talk about the health care system given his background in the health care industry. host: joe ebert, appreciate your

time this morning. guest: thank you for having me on. host: it is open phones until at 10:00.m ends the phone lines are split between democrats, republicans, and independents as usual. it is under way. you can see jeffrey rosen, president and ceo of the national constitution center participating in the discussion. one of the key events today is expected to be a discussion between senator jeff flake and senator chris coons about dysfunction in washington. y players weekat decision last

around supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. we will be heading there when "washington journal" ends. darrell in new jersey, independent. caller: good morning. and kavanaugh supporters. i want to speak to missouri out claireeys will mccaskill and get rid of any democrats possible because they want to destroy our constitution, the rule of law, and especially the second amendment. thank you. host: darrell says she is a kavanaugh supporter. yesterday in the senate, mitch mcconnell insisting a final senate vote on brett kavanaugh's nomination will take place this week. that is the headline from the washington post. their story about the investigation and the scope of that investigation. that is one of the key topics in

all the major papers today. jennifer in hawaii, democrat. caller: good morning. good morning. how are you? aloha. host: aloha. doing well. you?re caller: good. i want to state one thing, i do find a democracy sort of way. i don't regularly vote. i have not in the past. i am a sovereign hawaiian. i am a native. i am so happy to see that the isernment, the senate actually doing what it is supposed to do right now. for senator booker to have said harris said, for kamala to have done what she has done, and for our senator hirona to

have stood up for women's rights, the disparity of people of color going to prison, health care, these sorts of things can i am really excited for america. i really am. it has been hard because i don't me -- why -- excuse the president doesn't come here to address us. we don't exist at all. host: when is the last time you were excited for america before now? [laughter] caller: i'm a rogue person. i've been a paralegal for 17 years. i have not seen the government working properly for the people. that is my take on it. i understand the law. i understand the processes.

i am not understanding brett kavanaugh. i'm not understanding the mccarthyism statements. understanding why they keep going to these places, we are changing the blue goalposts -- the goalposts in favor of democracy. are you kidding me? this is what the senate is supposed to do. they should be grilling this person. host: barbara is next in tennessee, republican. good morning. we were just talking about the marsha blackburn race in your state against democrat bill bryson. what the you think? caller: i think it was an awesome rally. i am 100% for marsha blackburn. host: why is that? caller: she stands for the same principles that president trump

does in the same that i did. my comment real quick was on the senator from hawaii's quote about men need to shut up and stand up. my response to that is democrats need to shut up and sit down. say.s all i have to host: alex is in michigan, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i say. host: wanted to talk about -- yu had a guy on there talking about the trump economy and all that. if the american people really needed a republican presidential, they should have chosen to cinch. -- kacinich. this guy pushing this book about the trunk economy, i asked him to tell me specifically what donald trump had done to cause

the economy to turn around, and he came back with this spin about optimism. d that i was never able to get back with him because you guys shut me down. i asked him specifically to tell me exactly what donald trump had put into effect to cause the economy to turn around because the economy was already turning coming from depression for four years, and then it started to uptick. everybody was listening to the opposing team, fox news or whatever, and they were always talking about the economy is slow, sluggish, not doing anything. ink dries, all of a sudden the economy took off.

all the pundits on fox saying it just took off because of optimism. i was like, what a sham? optimismeven explain when the economy turned around. regulations take forever to go into effect. you can't just sign a paper and suddenly everything starts to move. it takes paperwork and decision-making for companies to deregulate government comparing what they are going to mcclory referring to assist even more talking about his upcoming book? the caller you

referring to stephen moore about his upcoming book? guide was was a always on fox news. i know that for a fact. you can always go back into the archives and check previous segment. i appreciate you calling in. josephine is on the call, and independent. weeks ago come all the republican governors got together and they are in the court system. why are they there? they are getting rid of the insurance coverage for conditions. i don't get it. that is why people worry about health care. but pressure is a pre-existing condition if it goes up. that means almost everybody. you happen to mention tennessee and black burn. i find that interesting. last year, 60 minutes at a program on about the opioid

epidemic. how did it come about? in congress, there are two people and i forgot the gentleman's name because he was going to be appointed by trump because they had to get them out of it because he was associated with the law. the other one was black burned here and she and the other gentlemen were single-handedly involved in passing the law to allow these opiates to be pushed out there. when they say they are for blackburn, they are voting for the opiates. today'sr last color in ""washington journal." will be back tomorrow morning. we now take you live to the atlantic festival taking place here in washington, d.c. it is hosted by the atlantic in partnership with the aspen institute. it is a discussion about trust in government taking place. it is already underway. you'll see senator jeff flake

and senator chris coons address the gathering coming up in about 25 minutes. they are the senators who negotiated compromise that begind the fbi to brettigations into kavanaugh. >> and has been for decades to try to understand what people are thinking and feeling. that is relevant to what i will say in a few moments. trust in government is low. let's get that out of the way. if i had a traditional powerpoint i could go on for 30 minutes showing you slides. the perceived honesty and ethics ,f members of congress are down close to used car salesman in lobbyists. if there are lobbyists in the but there areize, about 37% or 38% of americans are satisfied with the nation is governed.