>> coming up friday, our coverage of the conservative political action conference in known as cpac continues with acting what has chief of staff mick mulvaney speaking at events at will ronald reagan dinner 7:45 p.m. eastern. and before that, live coverage of the conference throughout the day on c-span two with vice president hence and senators ted cruz and joni ernst among the speakers. that is followed later in the day by supreme court justice sonia sotomayor discussing her life and career with actress eva ongoria at george washington university. coming up on "washington journal," concert health news talks about this week's senate senate finance hearing on prescription drug crisis which includes

testimony of top executives of pharmaceutical companies. after that, we discussed the -- futurethemueller of the mueller probe with paul resins like -- paul rosenweig. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ist: good morning, it friday, march 1, 2019. neither chamber of commerce -- congress is in today. it was the second major gun measure moved by house democrats this week. this morning on the "washington aurnal," we want to have conversation with american gun owners about your openness to new gun control measures. would you support stricter gun laws? if you own one gun, it is 202-748-8000. if you own two to five guns,

202-748-8001. if you own six to 15 guns, it is 202-748-8002. if you own more than 15 guns, it is 202-748-8003. on twitter it is @cspanwj. on facebook it is facebook.com/cspan. a very good friday morning to you, you can start calling in now. to give you a sense of the universe of americans that could call in on phone lines for gun lot -- gun owners only. about three in 10 americans personally own a gun. the pew research center asked to those americans whether they would be open to stronger gun laws. according to republican gun owners, just 13% said gun owners should be more strict. andsaying it's about rights 26% saying they should be less strict breed among democrats, 64% say gun laws should be more

strict. a 10% saying they should be less strict. yesterday the house moved a new gun measure to block firearm purchases until fbi background checks are complete. this is the washington times' wrap up of that. if all questions cannot be resolved, the fbi cannot legally deny the purchase and the firearm must be allowed to be sold. house democrats crafted a bill that would extend the time for fbi to complete checks with 10 days. supporters of that bill point two the 2015 shooting at the church in charleston, south carolina, as evidence of what can happen under the current system. the congressman from the 6th district is the house majority whip jim clyburn. he spoke on the floor of the house in support of that legislation. [video clip] >> we just had a gunman go into

in rural illinois. he was ineligible to have a gun, but he was allowed to purchase a gun and when they found out he was ineligible to have a gun, they sent him a letter and said please bring us the gun back, you are not eligible to have a gun. give me a break. he did not return the gun because he had no redeeming value in having a gun. coworkers.ered his and you are telling me we should not inconvenience him. my colleague, the chair of the committee, has laid out the procedure in this bill. a procedure that makes it a of 20 working days,

business days that one would have in order to purchase a gun. i would hope as we move forward here today, we would think about those poor souls of emmanuel ame church and think about those 4000 people -- 4200 people who guns in 2016 using this loophole. the 4008 hundred people who purchased guns in the -- in 2017 using this loophole. think about their families, think about their children. host: opponents of that legislation say it cuts into second amendment rights and could leave americans with unneeded protection. among those who spoke against the bill, tom mcclintock. [video clip] mourn thedeplore and

monstrous and despicable act. if, underreventable current law, it was a failure of the fbi and not of law. this bill is not about public safety. most gun creditors already get their firearms illegally. a recent johns hopkins study found california's universal background check had no effect on gun violence. their true objective is to make gun ownership by law-abiding people so legally hazardous and bureaucratically time-consuming that people simply give up. this bill cleverly and insidiously sets up a potential never ending bureaucratic review process. a background check is only good

for 30 calendar days from the day you apply, but this bill sets up a 20 business day delay process. that means if a single holiday falls within that window, or the store is closed on weekends or you slip a single day on that timetable, your background check is no longer valid and you have to start all over again in a ueotectable cycle of kafka-esq proportions. host: that bill passed on the house floor. three republicans supporting that legislation. they include brian fitzpatrick, peter king, chris smith. seven democrats voting against that legislation and that legislation coming a day after the house voted to approve a bill to expand background checks to nearly all sales and transfers of firearms. under current law, only sales by federally licensed dealers

require a check of the fbi system. private sales or gifts whether through classified ads or private gun shows are not checked. we are asking whether you support stricter gun laws. if you own one gun, 202-748-8000 . if you own two to five guns, 202-748-8001. guns, own six to 15 202-748-8002. if you own more than 15 guns, 202-748-8003. richard is up first from philadelphia, that line for those who own one gun. .aller: yes i would like to say didn't the aclu say it was against your rights or that to go to a themiatric doctor and ask

if you had mental problems? so, therefore, when you do a background check, you cannot go to a doctor and find out if someone is mentally ill. -- dotwo you think that you think that should happen in a background check process? caller: yes. i own one. i have a concealed carry permit. i had to wait three months for them to do a background check on me. aey weren't allowed to go to psyche --psychiatric doctor. host: talk to me about that three-month waiting process. why did it take that long? caller: i paid $75 to the police department. they went in and went through to see if i had any kind of criminal record for whatever where i should not be able to

know.gun, you they did not go -- they can't go to, because of the aclu saying it is against my rights for being insane or whatever. host: do you think three months is a fair amount of time to wait? caller: yes, if you are going to go and apply for a handgun, period. three months, sure. you need to pay for your background check to make sure you are responsible, not a criminal or anything like that. that is fine. for a long gun like hunting or something like that, no. host: thanks for the call. somewheretimore owns between 10 and 15 guns. what is the number? caller: i don't have a count acause i have, not only usable gun, but a gun collection

of antique guns. these are capable of firing, but i only keep them for collecting value. on the other hand, i have fought member of the maryland rifle team and pistol team. nra instructor. since none of these shooters belong to the nra, how about making that mandatory? -- what theis gentleman that preceded me said atright on, they don't look the problem that get people to do this, the psychiatric problem. they are looking at the tool. the next thing we will have a

knife registration. those are ludicrous and they do nothing to help the problem. host: if it takes three months to get that process done, do you think that is fair? alas caller said he would be ok with that? caller: the lat -- the process, like any other bureaucracy, is a disease. as soon as you make that process law, you increase the number of bureaucrats you have by an order of magnitude. just91 years old and i am appalled at the horrible increase in democracy. the schoolint is does not reflect the crime. a piece of dynamite is wonderful -- to mine coal and do many

things, it doesn't reflect the people who want to crack a safe or kill people with dynamite. host: mike in pennsylvania owns seven guns. talk about your background check process. caller: it is really easy, it takes all of about an hour. you go to the gun store, fill in your paperwork without calling in and it is an automatic system here in pennsylvania. the only takes them -- reason it takes them a while in philadelphia is because of the carry permit. that's not the actual time it takes to buy the gun. that hour-long process, is that for all seven of the guns you purchased? did any of them take longer? i have no record and never committed a crime. that's all they check for. they check to make sure you never committed any type of crime. that is all in a database in pennsylvania.

it takes about an hour and you can walk out with your gun. host: to the question about how long this process should go on, whether three days or extended statesays, for those that aren't as, perhaps as fast as doing it as pennsylvania is, would you be ok with extending that time period? caller: i am ok with whatever a state decides to do. i don't want the federal government involved in any way. they should not be involved in it read if a state wants to control guns, as long as they stay within what the constitution allows, i am fine with it. i don't mind having to take that our or -- three days. that is what it did take at one time in pennsylvania because it wasn't as automated. the three days -- it isn't a problem to me because it is my state. my state should know what is

going on. the federal government doesn't need to know. we mentioned about three in 10 americans personally owned a gun. it some more stats on guns in homes in america. this is from gallup and their polling. about 43% of americans live in a home where there is a gun. that is down from 51% in the mid-90's, as low as 34% right around the year 2000. in general, gallup has asked do you feel laws covering the sales of firearms could be made more strict, less strict, or kept how they are now. 61% saying they should be more strict. 30% saying they should be kept as they are and 8% saying they should be less strict. we are talking with gun owners only in this first segment. morris owns a gun in california. what do you own a gun for?

caller: what do i own a gun for? host: what do you do with your gun? caller: that is a good question. i have owned it about five years and i have not even had live ammunition in it yet. i bought it initially to see if i could buy one. i did a couple of stents in county jail. it was off my record by then. it took me six months to get approved. it was a 10 day waiting period. i got it and it is a nice gun, still brand-new. one thing i wanted to mention. legally allowed to own a gun right now? caller: yeah. i have one. i have had it for five years. i have not had any live ammunition in it. host: i hear about -- got it. caller: i hear about gun show loopholes. we don't have gun show

loopholes. it takes even longer to get it if you get it at a gun show. the latest thing in california is the ammunition. they are telling us if you are online buying ammunition, you cannot have it delivered to your house, you have to have it delivered to the gun store. we are going about as far as you to theto the ridiculous gun-control enthusiast. i don't want to see anymore strict laws. already.strict enough next thing they will be knocking on the door trying to take them away from us. i am going to report my gun stolen if it gets to that point. host: why would you do that? caller: so they won't come and take it from me. host: mike in clearwater, florida, owns more than 15 guns. what do you use your guns for? caller: they are mainly

collection guns, antiques and things like that. i have got the modern guns and i just want to say, we need stricter laws on government people that sell -- they actually approve a guy that should not be approved, those guys should go to jail. you are approving a guy that is a felon. your computer system is so bad. we ought to arrest some of the people who work for the government and put them in jail. host: do you think that will make the system work better? caller: overnight, it will change. no more guns for felons. let's make it work the way it is supposed to work. the people should not have to owninghey are worthy of a gun. i mean, we have an inlet -- inalienable right to keep and bear arms. we don't need the government to

start restricting us. we should restrict the government. what are they doing selling guns to felons? host: you say you have more than 15 guns. do you mind saying how many you have? caller: oh geez. 60.ably 50 or then probably in my parts gun section. justues are sometimes parts guns. not a gun for the government,. i shoot the modern guns. twice in my life i have had a loaded gun pointed at a human being and both times, they work cops and both times, nothing bad happened. just because you have a gun doesn't mean bad things happen. host: were they pointing their gun at you or were you pointing a gun at them?

caller: i was pointing a gun at them. host: why? caller: at one, we had a pitbull rampage in the neighborhood and i had the pitbull, my neighbor trapped it in my shed and i had the shotgun and i went out to the shed and opened the door and the pit will is wagging its tail. of course, i am not going to walksit and the cop around the corner and i had to drop on him and he walked into the barrel of a 12 gauge. he put his hands up. i open the breach and showed him and he came over and pulled the shell out and goes, a slug. bad things don't have to happen with guns and cops. everybody is thinking it is in the movies. there are real-life situations where you need a gun, rampaging wild dog that has been killing cats and breaking into people's porches. the dogs were out of control, no

doubt. host: thanks for sharing your story. ken in maryland owns two to five guns. good morning, go ahead. caller: primarily i enjoy target shooting at home protection. i am a member of the nra. i have a concealed carry permit. the stateirst of all, of maryland, you have to be qualified to even purchase a handgun. that takes anywhere from 10 to maybe 30 days. after you get the qualification license, if you wanted to purchase a firearm, you go into yourun store and pick out firearm and then you have to go to another background check. i had to go through a background

check to get the handgun qualification license and then i had to go through another background check to purchase the firearm. 7, 10 days or longer depending on the backlog of the fbi. i personally think that is restrictive. i also think that having these gun laws really -- doesn't really do anything. of side note -- a side note. i had a cousin who owned over 15 guns of sound mind. he eventually suffered alzheimer's or dementia and then past away. there is no way you can ascertain someone mental capacity or the propensity or the possibility of their mental capacity changing when they are going through this process.

to think these gun laws are make to make things -- people and society safer, i truly believe is a fallacy and there is no way you can guarantee that by going through this process, you are not going to have mass shootings, not going to have problems. criminals will always find a way to get a gun. host: here is a few comments from social media. this user right on my gun owner and i asked -- i support expanded background checks. instead of me giving up my rights, let's focus on the criminals. this would include politicians. nate saying he doesn't support anything that infringes on my right or makes it harder or more inconvenient to get a firearm. other than that, sure. taking your questions -- your

comments on this question. do you support stricter gun laws? talking to gun owners only. having this conversation in a week after which house democrats moved two major gun control bills. neither is expected to have much momentum in the senate or be signed by president trump. on the floor yesterday during that effort to move the second gun control bill, debbie dingell spoke out in support of that measure. [video clip] >> i have spent more time thinking about how you keep guns out of the hands of abusers more probably than anybody in this chamber. i know better than most the dangers they pose. it's not easy for me to talk about it this week. more than once -- i think of the abuser and i will be honest on this floor, my father was mentally ill. i had to hide in that closet

with my siblings, wondering if we would live or die. one night, i kept my father from killing mine other. he should not have had a gun. [applause] and my mother -- this is what i remember as a child, my mother went out and bought a gun. then all of us work scared to death about her gun and my father's gun. we had two guns to worry about. no child, no woman, no man should ever have to go that. [applause] the additional time provided by

us prevent --elp host: debbie dingell speaking during a last-minute motion by republicans on the house floor yesterday to exempt victims of domestic abuse from the 10 day waiting period rule. it is a motion that republicans lost on yesterday, but the timing of it is known as the motion to recommit and it has got a lot of -- a lot of attention because republicans a few of those motions to recommit. here is a story about that procedural tactic in the washington times. on wednesday, democrats suffered an embarrassing defeat on the house floor when republicans won a vote report illegal immigrants

who try to buy guns to deportation officers. that was the motion to recommit that republicans moved on wednesday. that motion to recommit is usually the last action taken before a bill passes, almost always a tool for the minority party to try to force one more amendment. democrats have now lost two such votes. the other motion to recommit that republicans succeeded on came on a bill about u.s. policy in yemen. republicans added an amendment condemning anti-semitism at a time when such an accusation was aimed at a freshman democratic lawmaker. debate that only intensified this week within democratic circles about whether to change the rules to restrict motions to recommit. that story in today possible washington times. back to your calls with gun owners only this morning asking whether you support stricter gun laws. jose owns one gun.

go ahead. caller: hello? host: go ahead, sir. i, from puerto rico. home protection. my wife is constantly alone and we wanted to protect the house. i wanted her to be able to defend herself. think -- will stop guns in the street are dreaming or absolutely wrong. -- it is one of the most difficult places for you to get a legal gun. when it comes to illegal guns, street find them in the in about a week. why? restrictnion, when you

something, it opens the huge door in the underworld. it to give an example, what do we think would happen with cigarettes if tomorrow they make cigarettes illegal? there will be thousands of people trying to find ways to smuggle a cigarette. hire the price creed in new york has one of the most expensive cigarettes in the country. places --to other -- it won't change anything when it comes to stopping killings and stopping people from having guns. wyoming,s is mike in owns more than 15 guns. what do you use your guns for?

just looking now, at them. i used to hunt some years back. now i don't. andst mainly have them stuff. some of them have passed down from my father's -- my father and other ones, i bought. i just have them. host: how do you feel about universal background checks? caller: excuse me? host: what about universal background checks? caller: i think the laws we have now are enough. the universal deal, that gets into most people don't mention anything about it. it sounds good like the gun show loophole and all this other stuff, that is just private people that may be at the gun show that art dealers. there is a few private people that can pay $25 and get a table and then they sell their own stuff and buy stuff.

that's no different than looking in the newspaper in the sporting goods section, someone has a deer rifle for sale and you buy it from him. if you want to start doing this stuff where you wanted to sell to bunt -- somebody, you have to go to a gun dealer and they charge 30, 40, $50 to sell your -- so it is legal, i can see trying to get federal dollars out of that deal. host: it is just after 7:30 on the east coast having this conversation about stricter gun laws. certainly a topic that is expected to come up in the 2020 presidential campaign and some news this morning on that front from the political story. washington governor announcing he is running for president, pledging to put the environment at the heart of his campaign for the democratic nomination.

"i am the only candidate who will make defeating climate change our nation's number one priority. he is the first governor to join the 2020 democratic presidential field that has been building a climate focused campaign for months. the governor chaired the governors association in 2018 when he traveled the country raising money and campaigning for other democrats. he has amassed cash in federal tax since the end of last year and now officially running for president. back to your phone calls on the issue of stricter gun laws. frank in florida owns five guns. go ahead. caller: good morning. guns, three rifles and two handguns. in my opinion, i think the current laws we have on the books are working. i have seen them work. i have seen people been denied gun sales at gun dealers because

of their background check not coming out clean. that is a good thing. i don't want criminals to have guns. host: what happens to those people denied guns? do you know if they have tried to buy guns in another way? a way not connected in the background check system? caller: i don't have any information on that. i do believe we could use better back end laws. for instance, if you murder shouldy with a gun, we take you out and hang you in front of the courthouse and not lock you up for 20 years and execute you in a hidden room. i think it should be more public.e and very much that would be a deterrent for

.eople murdering host: a few more comments from twitter and facebook worried stu writes on facebook saying the second amended is clear, our government reaches too far into every aspect of our lives. kathy saying the background check expansion should help a bit. i prefer to rest with that for now and kim saying i support enforcing laws already on the books. as we said, this debate happened on the house floor this week on wednesday and thursday. here is a bit more from yesterday's debate. ben cline. [video clip] >> reminding us it is california where michael bloomberg and gun control advocates have established their utopia of a land without guns and what has it led us to? with some of the

strictest gun control laws in the land, we have some of the worst incidents of gun violence in the country. gun control measures do not address the problems of gun violence and this bill will not address gun violence. high-rise in strong opposition to hr-8. it is an attempt to take away our second amendment rights hidden under the guise that we will see a reduction of crime. nothing in this bill would have stopped any of the recent mass casualty shootings that occurred in our country. the only thing this bill does is limit the second amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. they will tell you this bill closes loopholes. however, the loophole they believe exists is private gun ownership and what they really want is to regulate the private transfers of firearms. if my neighbor is in trouble and wants to aro a firearm to protect his family, i should be able to loan that firearm to my neighbor so he can protect himself and his family.

this should not be something we need to go to the federal government to get permission to do. a second government -- the government does not say your keep and bear arms shall be infringed. our founding fathers wrote the -- gavetion to protect individuals the second amendment to protect themselves. i carry this constitution every day on the campaign trail and i carry it with me every day to remind myself of the protections given to us not by government, but by god. host: if you want to watch any of that debate on the house floor, you can do so. go to our website. we are having this conversation this morning in this first segment of the washington journal with gun owners only asking if you support stricter gun laws. some of the action on the senate floor yesterday on a different thet, this stemming from nomination by president trump of

andrew wheeler to serve as epa. he had been acting administrator. no more after the senate vote yesterday making him the official head of the environmental protection agency. the senate confirmed wheeler largely along party lines. republicans in support and democrats opposed. susan collins was the lone republican to oppose the confirmation while calling him "certainly qualified for the position. he said some policies he proposed as acting administrator are not in the best interest of the environment and public health, particularly given the threat of climate change. this from the story in the usa today. wheeler also served as an influential capitol hill staff or energy lobbyist that had been acting administrator since july when he replaced scott pruitt. back to your phone calls this morning. steve has been waiting in ohio on the line for those who own two to five guns.

go ahead. caller: i think there should be a national registry. every time you transfer a gun, just like you transfer a vehicle, you have to register it. as the man set about loaning the neighbor's gun. if you loan your gun out and he does something with it, you are responsible. ohio, wonder if like in if you use a gun in a crime, you are supposed to get an additional three to five years. i wonder if they do that. host: on the issue of the national registry, why are you comfortable with that? some of the other callers are concerned about the government getting too involved or knowing where the guns are? caller: you are going to take my guns. the secondbelieve in amendment -- that is the militia, but still, register your guns.

i don't know why anybody needs an ar-15 or a military weapon. that is host: just a joke. host:what kind of guns do you own? caller: hey shotgun and a handgun. host: what do you use them for? caller: shooting. [laughter] host: is it mostly for hunting? caller: i used to hunt. with theun i picked up ccw. host: what is the ccw? caller: conceal carry weapon. host: how long did it take you to get your guns? caller: same day. host: thanks for the call from ohio. jeff in spring hill, florida, owns a gun. what do you use it for? caller: thank you for my call. i do own a gun and i have it for protection. i have had it for 50 years. i fully support any type of gun

control that gives the police the opportunity to take firearms away from criminals. this is the problem they have whenever -- they are taking my guns, they are taking my guns. if they made it illegal to own an ar or whatever and you are found with one, today, the police just hand it back to you and go, have a nice day. that is ridiculous. nobody needs an ar-15. they just don't need military style weapons. the other thing i have had a thought about. i don't know how that would work out, but i think it would be a good idea if every so often a person who wants to have a conceal carry or even own a firearm, they maybe take a polygraph test that says do you desire to go out and kill

anybody? that would help undiagnosed mental people be find out -- found out as well as maybe if you were found to have dementia or something like that, it is turned in and if you have a gun and own it, you have to turn it in and transfer to someone else. the right for owning a firearm was meant to protect the people against or for them to have the ability to overthrow a government that has gone corrupt. possibilitiesthe of that more and more every day were to if something happen, if we were overtaken by another government or within ourselves, how are you going to fight the military the way it is today? host: jeff in florida. we mentioned the pew research center survey from last year on

various gun control policies. they did find while many policy proposers -- proposals are politically devices, -- a divisive, there are some democrats and republicans agree on. according to the fall 2019 survey, 89% said people with mental illnesses should be prevented from buying guns, 86% of democrats, 86% of republicans say people on federal no-fly or watchlist should be barred from purchasing firearms in the majority of both democrats and republicans, 91% democrats and 71% of republicans favor background checks for private republicanshecks -- being far more likely to favor allowing teachers and school officials to carry guns than elementary and high schools and allowing people to carry concealed weapons in more places. it democrats are much more likely than republicans to favor banning assault style weapons

and high-capacity magazines. dean in north carolina owns more than 15 guns. good morning. yes.r: i have guns and i have guns all my life. i will have guns as long as i live and i have been giving them to my grandchildren. -- one of myay grandsons that turned 13 years old. people, take guns from you are taking their rights from them. you take that dumb woman on their a while ago talking about -- the parents have not raised all io handle guns and a dependentfor is on their income tax so they get

more money back. they don't learn them about guns or anything or to get out here and work for a living like we have always had to. and all these people are getting that is more money wasted on junk when we have laws to is not us and the laws enforced. host: this is homer in louisiana. what do you use your guns for? caller: mainly protection and i was raised with guns. gun and -- all of my guns are shotguns -- i have 13030 -- one 30-30. these rapidfire guns, we don't need all of that for protection.

i have been in the military. shoot 50-11ns that times, we don't need all that. host: mark in new york owns one gun. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to say we should focus on the real issue and the real issue really is all about bad people, criminals who, of course, commit crimes. good people don't. whether it is guns or anything. that is the real focus of the issue, what law can we possibly make that is going to make criminals follow it? they just don't. that is the whole contents of the vocabulary. they are criminals. it's already illegal to shoot people. you cannot do these things anyway.

but they do and there will always be bad people and good people. what law can we make that will make criminals not commit crimes? that is the real issue, it's not about the second amendment, not about gun ownership, not about anything. even if you made them all illegal, the black market would bring them in for criminals anyway, just like there is heroin on every corner in this country. you don't think there would be illegal guns on every corner? host: how do you feel about fully automatic weapons? is that something that should be available to everyone? caller: the ar-15 controversy. host: i am talking about fully automatic, not some automatic. caller: to me it is simple. it's a military issue. i cannot own a walk it onto -- rocket launcher. if it's a military type gun, it should be classified that and i really do think the ar-15 should be classified as a military-type

people which the common have no reason for. host: where do you draw the line on military-type weapons? caller: high draw the line on things they use for that. the thing i would like to really stick to is the focus. a criminal people are going to commit crimes. what law can you make that is going to make criminals follow it? they don't. good people follow the laws. in waterford,don michigan, owns 10 guns. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am for stricter laws. i think these good biting americans have no problem with showing the intent to own a gun .r that you have a gun i think the couple clips you had from the dingell rep and the

klein rep was total grandstanding. most of your callers have called in and said the problem is with the criminals and that is the problem then. if we are letting criminals own theyal guns and get them, should be accountable for their actions allowing such things as that. i don't think anybody needs an illegal gun for any purpose. measures moved this week to try to make the background check system universal to expand to a lot more gun purchases and then to allow federal authorities more time to complete background checks, you are ok with both of those? think: yeah, i don't there are any issues pressuring me to have a gun today. i think i can wait a little bit of time to use my gun for the purpose i want.

which is -- right now, i have guns for hunting. i have a couple handguns, which have been loaded maybe wants. for target shooting. host: one of the concerns brought up by opponents is it can leave people who need protection without protection. somebody say n/a domestic abuse -- in a domestic abuse situation, they feel like they need a weapon to protect themselves that perhaps the 20 day weighting process could leave them vulnerable. caller: if you are in that dire strait of protection within the 20 day period, you need to get away from that environment or get the help from your local police force. that is what they are therefore, to protect the innocent from anybody that is threatening you. all you have to do is go tell

that to your local police department. mr. frank is attacking me verbally and i would like to file a complaint and have some type of protection. if i cannot protect myself from him at my house, then go away for 20 days. host: thanks for the call from michigan. mark in pennsylvania owns 12 guns. go ahead. caller: i want to say one thing. thank you for c-span. i was able to see some of that floor debate yesterday, firsthand, which let me know more about these bills i might not have got from the other news outlets. the point i wanted to make and in seeing that is i think there is a couple of things. what is being proposed right now expands these background checks, to fix it, you have to fix --

grant money to participation in nix. otherwise, if you are doing background checks, you will get and overresults over again. on the others, i think 20 days is probably way too long. three days is also probably too short. we have to be realistic about how long it takes bureaucracy to do one of these background checks. i would love that medium to be five working days. who knows what congress will end up at. 20 days i think invites inefficiency. host: there was a caller earlier in the program who said he had several guns and none of them took more than an hour to run that check on him. how long have background checks taken for your guns you purchased? the firearms i have

purchased -- my firearms are from -- go all the way back in the family from the spanish-american war up until a very modern distal i purchased foristol i purchased concealed carry. some of those are family documents. once i purchased in pennsylvania, they don't have a record. they take anywhere from an hour to a couple hours. if i purchase out-of-state, those take longer and i expect that and that is because that is the way the system goes. it has taken a couple of days to get that through. this you said you followed debate. what would be one or two things congress could do to make the national instant criminal background check system work faster? caller: we need better reporting nics and more frequent reporting. the federal government may not

nicsbe able to mandate reporting. if they can tie it to grant money. there is a bunch of grants that go to police money. if they say you can have this grant, but you need to report every month your database. even every quarter is better than some of these states are reporting. some states are doing it pretty well. some, there is nothing getting in. host: joe in crown seville, maryland, owns more than 15 guns. how many, joe? caller: good morning. discussing this issue. i have been following the firearms laws debate for the better part of 20 years now. several issuesly i think are being conflated in this conversation. first and foremost, we are talking about extending the period whereby the delay of a

background check is acceptable, which is not the same as a .andatory cooling-off period permitting the delay of the background check system. on its face could potentially delay because we are talking about -- i believe it is a 10 working day delay. if that is the case, we have a 10 working day delay or a 20 working day delay, there's a possibility we can delay this throughout several months by merely delaying it a couple of times. any holiday period, a person could seriously have the ability to purchase a gun delayed for several months. that is one issue. the previous caller discussed and reporting.cs the federal government does mandate estate reporting and there are a number of states, including maryland, which are

not compliant with nics reporting and do not adequately update the databases the fbi uses for background checks. a nics background check in best case scenarios takes seconds to perform, it's a very short background check. i tend to be relatively liberalist when it comes to amendments of the -- interpretations of the second amendment and i don't want to enter into that debate. a lot of what we are discussing is a right delayed. we have agreed there are certain individuals in our country that should not have their hands on guns. we do not want those who are likely to cause violence, we certainly don't want felons to gunsguns and we don't want to be used in an illegal manner. the number one issue and what

obviates the need for any kind of background check at all is those crimes that we are trying to make more illegal or to eliminate from occurring because of this background check bill or through these enhanced background checks are occurring outside of the background check system to begin with. tweet -- anrecent individual who murdered his girlfriend and girlfriend's child who was a felon. crimess guy -- multiple that purchased a handgun on the black market, was not few 8 -- through a federal firearms agency and murdered his child. none of the laws -- there is no additional law we could make to make that series of events more illegal. thanks for the call from

marilyn. robert in virginia, owns three guns. go ahead. caller: how are you doing? host: doing well. caller: i have three guns. i am an army veteran and i have carry permits for the guns. my way i purchased two of three guns was through a gun show and the gun show purchased literally took -- i think it was 40 minutes for the background check to go through and for me to complete the purchase. the background check for the carry permit took roughly three months. i think that is a legitimate waiting period. the point i want to make here is the way we do driver's licenses in all 50 states plus the -- plus district of columbia and outlying territories is we allow the states to talk to each other. dmv's talk to each other. i would like to see the law enforcement talk to each other and nationalize this.

if i have a drivers license in virginia, i can move to hawaii and turn my drivers license in and get a hawaiian driver's license that allows me to drive the 18 wheeler. that is how connected our states are. i would like to see that same thing with guns. we can minimize this if you have someone coming across the border -- across a state border to buy a gun here. host: what do you say to the caller who called earlier and said i don't want the federal government knowing where all the guns are? caller: that is if you think the federal government is going to come and take your guns and i don't believe that. as a veteran, that is going to be impossible for them to do, literally. we have more illegals to the country and we cannot find them and take them out. if you are looking at something that is practical to do, the federal government is not going to confiscate all weapons. that is not possible, they are everywhere. host: sean, last caller,

buffalo, new york. owns three guns. caller: i don't live in buffalo, but i live close to it. i live in niagara county. my concealed carry permit for my pistol took almost a year and that was because of a bad blood with the local to -- police department. i think it is standard in new york state where the local police department comes in interviews you and your family, which i think in my situation was plenty of time for them to do the background check and have the interview. i own also two rifles which took roughly an hour and a half, i believe, for the background check for those. host: do you think the system is working? caller: yes, i would say so. like some previous collars have said, i think the main thing is to get the illegal guns "off the street." most legal gun owners are responsible. host: thanks for the call from

new york, our last caller in this first segment of the "washington journal." let's stick around, plenty more to come. we will be joined by emmarie huetteman to discuss this week's senate finance committee on drug prices which include several ceos from pharmaceutical companies and later, we will be joined by paul rosenzweig, senior fellow at the r street institute to discuss the future of the robert mueller probe. we will be right back. ♪ this weekend, heather make fbi deputyformer

director andrew mccabe, sunday at noon eastern on in-depth with our live conversation with have their mcdonald. she will take your questions and tweets on several of your books including the burden of bad ideas, the war on cops, and the diversity died -- delusion. sunday, at 9:00 p.m.. andrew mccabe discussing his book, the threat. how the fbi protects america in the age of terror and trump. he is interviewed by adam goldman. >> i spent a lot of time thinking about the decisions we made and the reasons behind them, and how we talked about those issues. with the benefit of hindsight, i tried to be honest in my reassessment of did we get it right or not. the two biggest issues are jim comey's announcement in july about our conclusion of the case in a public way that departed from president, and jim's

decision to notify congress about the reopening of the case, because the emails on the laptop. i agreed with his decision to announce the case as we did in july, in retrospect, i think we got that wrong. >> watch book tv this weekend on c-span two. morning, american history tv has all-day coverage of the american civil war museum annual symposium from the library of virginia in richmond. starting at 9:30 a.m. featured speakers will include john meacham discussing america then and now. on southerneir unionist. looks at shively military history. war studiesh civil professor paul quigley questions why the war took place.

followed by closing remarks by the board president of the american civil war museum. live the annual symposium, , saturday morning on american history tv on c-span3. washington journal continues. week on thea high-profile hearing on the cost of prescription drugs, we are drug -- we are joined by emmarie huetteman of kaiser health news. talk about putting the increase of drug prices into perspective. guest: the increase, we have seen it not just in recent years, but over decades. analysisgues did an that showed the numbers were, in 1960, the spending was about $90. in 2017, it was $1025. obviously, a stark increase.

it has been going up. we see some confusion because drug prices slowed in 2017. that was the growth of spending that slowed. it was due to a few other factors that i can elaborate on. host: we will get to them. this increase, do drug companies see this as a problem? guest: they see it as a problem in that people are concerned about it. customers they want to be able to afford the medications, or so they said. they expressed concern, and the question is what will they will do to address it. host: the hearing, you can check it out at www.c-span.org. seven ceos from drug companies there. did they come in with proposals for lowering the cost? guest: congress made it clear that they were looking with answers. their proposals were modest. they say, we propose that you

eliminate rebates, which is something that patients do not see the result of. they said that they would support more transparency and how they set their prices, and expressed support for value-based pricing, means that they would pay more to outcomes. guest: we will -- host: we want to get viewers a sense of the hearing. we will hear some of the conversation around that topic. [video clip] >> you have voiced report -- support for the recent rebate rule proposed by the administration. should the administration finalize this rule, will you commit to lowering your drug prices? chairman, we are supported of the rule, and we would like to see it in the final form before making a decision. we are supportive of taking the discount to the patients. i would go one step further

if the rebates were removed and the commercial sector, we would reduce prices. >> we have the same position. >> we are supportive and that would be my goal. we would just need to see the final legislation provided that they are not additional fees that are added to compensate. i would expect that our prices would go down if we change the system on the commercial side as well as the medicare side. that we will clear keep a single dollar from these rebates and try to remove every penny to the patients. it will be better for more patients. lowering this price has to be linked to better access and affordability at the counter for the patients. [video clip] host: dig into this a little bit

more, and explain a pbm. guest: they are the intermediary between those who pay for prescription drugs, usually large employers or insurance companies and the drugmakers themselves. the clip that we saw was talking about a rule on rebates that was proposed last month. what the rule would do is try and take the rebates that are fored as payment negotiations and pass that onto to the patient at the counter. the ones patients are not seeing those rebates. the senators had asked the executives if this rule were to pass, or do you reduce your list prices by the amount of these rebates? said is, this rule applies to government programs,

but we would want to see before we agree to anything is that it would apply to the commercial sector or as a whole, not just medicare and medicaid. host: the cost of prescription drug prices are a topic. if you are in the eastern or central time zones and have a question,1. if you and the mountain or pacific time zones, 202-748-8001 . klobuchar -- emmarie huetteman will be here until about 8:45. ceos fromned what the these companies are amenable to, what are they not amenable to? guest: reducing list prices. they said they would look at this if you were to make a broad policy change, which congress would have to make. took a lot of questions about can you reduce your list prices because this is really what you guys have control over.

the most senior democrat on the committee said this is the problem, this is what is causing pain for a lot of people. host: how are they set? guest: in a way that we do not know much about, and that was one of the goals of the hearing, to get more information. there is still a lot we do not know. the drugmakers set them, and they say they do it in consideration of things like how , and thetes go pharmacy benefit manager -- managers say that drugmakers set prices by themselves. to go arounde some in these cases. host: they said that they set these prices to pay for the research that needs to go finding into the next big here. this is one of the cost drivers. what do members of congress think about that? guest: this is a long time argument, they need to make sure that they keep costs to pay for research and development.

innovation is the buzz word. hear wastors wanted to how much are you actually spending versus how much are you spending on other aspects such as marketing? marketing is a huge part of the budget. that drugmakers say that it is hard to make drugs, we develop them over 10 years, and it can cost 2.6 billion dollars to develop a single drug, and that number was produced by an academic center that sought criticism of their work. that is the one that drugmakers like to cite. host: what about the practice of buying up companies that develop a new drug, that it is not necessarily coming internally, they can buy the next big drug. guest: that has become more common. we have seen big examples in recent years. the one that sticks out to me is the one that became known as the

$1000 hepatitis c drug. that was discovered by a smaller pharmaceutical company that was purchased by a larger one. they bought it for $11 billion in 2011. they acquired that miracle drug. that is the way a lot of drugmakers and up acquiring the -- end up acquiring the drug. and -- khn,org. michael is in california. go ahead. caller: good morning. i was hoping you could answer this question, and it has been in the news about the sackler family who made billions of dollars off of the pain and misery of tens of thousands of americans by creating oxycontin, and then they have the gall to create a new drug to combat the

family hashe sackler inflicted on our society. how does that tie into the price of prescription drugs, the sackler family who is destroying america and making millions -- billions of dollars off of that? guest: i appreciate that question. you are right that the sackler family and opioids have been a big part of this debate. it came up during the hearing on tuesday. as i recall, the main focus of the part of the debate was senator from new hampshire, who state has a lot a problems with opioids, wanted to nail johnson saw asnson for what she problematic behavior with regards of marketing of opioids. i cannot tell you precisely how this will weave into the overall debate, but what i can tell you is that it is an important part

of it and senators are concerned. host: some of the previews of these -- of the securing, using ands like expect fireworks expecting to grill the ceos. how heated was a? guest: it was relatively subdued, and partially because we are used to seeing martins correctly -- martins correctly -- a man pleading the fifth, and that was dynamic and there were a lot of lawmakers shouting at him. on tuesday, we saw a measured tone, especially from the drugmakers. lawmakers had strong words, but it did not come to waving props. host: what did it get the ceos there. guest: it involved negotiating in the press.

the heads of the senate finance committee had said that they invited many of these lawmakers to come to the hearing held last month and they declined. this time they announced that they would have another hearing and announced that they invited seven executive and hope that they will show up. saying, you between are invited, and you must come. we will make it clear to people if you decline the invitation. host: john, good morning. caller: she touched on the drug that i am -- i was prescribed in the august of 1994. medicare, and it is close to $890 a pill. it is impossible for me to buy. not only that, it is rationed.

medicare will not pay for it. promised that there would not be rationing with the aca. i would like her comment on that, and is there an alternative or way to go about this. host: are there any generics tot apply to what you can -- what will help you? caller: that is what i would like your guest to tell me. host: thank you for the call. guest: unfortunately, i do not know much about the specific generics and drugs available. what i do know about hepatitis c is that that drug has created a lot of problems. i am sorry to hear that you are having trouble paying for yours. one of the issues that this goes into is the question of how brand name drug companies block generic competition.

this is a big thing that was talked about at the hearing. a lot of senators think this is the way to get at lowering costs out-of-pocket. hear is that we lawmakers think that the way to address increasing generic competition is to stop rand made companies from withholding samples from competitive -- brand name companies from withholding samples from generic competitors. their other proposals that include speeding generics to market. act --he affordable care was one of its goals to reduce prescription drug prices. guest: it was. host: did it work? guest: not fast enough. brian -- tod -- two brian. caller: kind of a

question/comment. i am retired and on medicare. through my entire career, when i had in she went -- when i had companies,hrough my i never paid separately for drugs, now i do. plan d. drug wass working, no ever not covered. now, there are drugs that are outrageously priced, and it really is all about the money. maybe i am wrong, but the drugs are separate because the drug companies lobbied congress, and made huge contributions, and separated it because of that. i am not against anyone making money, but this is ridiculous. it needs to be under control.

i am not for medicare for all, i think it would bankrupt the country. it is kind of insane when i get a prescription from my doctor, and my wife gets more than i do, that some of them are just celebrex. they were goodness -- they were going to charge me $70 for an ibuprofen substitute. that is the way they work this thing. it is crazy. control,to be under but follow the money. host: on the topic of medicare for all, stick around for our program on tuesday from 8:00 until 9:00, we are having a roundtable discussion on that next week. to the caller's comments. guest: one thing that stuck out to me is that you pointed to follow the money, that is an

important thing. one thing i have been looking at is that there is a lot of support in congress for doing something about lowering drug prices. you see republicans and democrats who say it. the trump administration has made it clear that it is a priority. there is a lot of skepticism about what can get done, because the pharmaceutical companies give a lot of money to members of congress. most members of congress have received money from political action committees in recent meet -- recent years. my colleagues have done some good analysis of this. h.org\campaigns. you can search yourself to see what your member of congress has received. just to give you a taste of those numbers, we found that chairman grassley, the chairman of the senate judiciary committee has received about

$97,000 since 2007, whereas senator -- senator wyden had received $163 since 2007. it is not nothing, but it is relatively low compared to a lot of members. there is another member on the committee who in the past election cycle got $154,000. that was senator menendez of new jersey. it also happens to be the headquarters of a number of those pharmaceutical companies. we are seeing a lot of money going to congress, a lot of lobbyists funded to argue in favor of drugmakers. -- you mentioned ron ryden. here is him, bringing up the issue of list prices. [video clip] >> is it correct that your

company and nobody else sets the starting pot -- price for all drugs, yes or no? >> it is a no negotiation. >> you still set the list price? >> the list price and the rebate. >> is correct when a hypothetical patient goes to pay for her drug at the pharmacy counter, her insurance is based on the price of the drug you set. >> it is correct in many cases. >> i just want you all to know that the number one reason consumers are getting hammered is because these list prices, ,hich you have the last words with respect, to where they are, are unaffordable, and the high prices are tied to what the consumer pays at the pharmacy counter. all of this other stuff you talked about, the rebates, the

discounts, and the coupons, all this other stuff is windowdressing. , 40% of is, on part d the drugs do not have a rebate. i wanted understood, because i asked you, i think you and others in the industry are stonewalling on the key issue, which is actually lowering list prices. pricesducing those list are the easiest way for american consumers pay less at the pharmacy counter. [video clip] host: you can watch that hearing .n [no audio] -- www.c-span.org if you want to talk about drug eastern and748-8000 central time zones and 202-748-8001 in the mountain or pacific time zone. bill is in florida. caller: good morning.

chave gotten hepatitis medication, and its many thousand dollars. i cannot ascertain whether or not medicare paid for it, or empire plans from new york state the retirement fund paid for it. $1000, and i took it for three months. i have to go and get the results to see whether or not it has been arrested after three months. i went to a contagious disease sebastian, and i had the medication within three days, orlando from am company called bio plus specialty pharmacy. that is located in altamonte springs.

the trauma that it creates is unbelievable. you do not know who is going to pay for it, and for the longest time, i did not know what to do until i found this doctor. host: thank you for the call. guest: i hope your testing goes well. you hear the anguish of a lot of people like you who are dealing with horrible diseases and trying to find ways to treat them. we have treatments available, but the pills are expensive, and it is hard to tell what your prescription drug plan will cover. is one of say is this the things that is being looked at. host: wallace, california. good morning. pendanti am an insulin diabetic, and i am on medicare. i have a medicare advantage $440 for, and i take

and it just keeps going up. insulin, it got on was $40 a vial. now it is $301. like i keepw, it is looking for alternatives, i'm going to try walmart, human as the ones i am using. it does not look like there is any relief in sight. a lot ofat they have advances out there for insulin, but i do not know -- i could never afford that. host: how much of your monthly budget is drug costs? caller: i never figured it out.

the price keeps skyrocketing. i never figured it out. $440 was for three months. of thosesulin is one issues, and this has gotten a lot of attention. there have been three investigations launched into the availability and affordability of insulin in the past couple of months that hopefully will get answers. arere seeing that there three pharmaceutical companies that make insulin in the united states. one of them were at this hearing on tuesday and they got asked about it. lawmakers are saying, you have a drug that millions of people rely on for -- to survive every day, and this is a drug that started out and was discovered by researchers who gave the patent away for one dollar

because they recognized that it would be important to people that they did not want it to be barred because people cannot afford it. now we are seeing that there are many people who cannot afford insulin or having trouble accessing it. i am saying that members of congress are looking into it. host: you mentioned three different investigations. why three? guest: three different committees and sets of lawmakers decided that they would launch investigations. there are many committees in congress that it -- that address health care issues. there was at least one on the actuallye, at least -- chairman grassley launched his own investigation. but itults are similar, allows lawmakers to get that information and they will try and make solutions based on the information they get. host: gary, good morning. guest: you have made my day.

i want to give my professional conduct -- credentials first. i am 80 years old. i have a bs in pharmacy, and a retired pharmacist who spent my career in clinical research. i am the editor of the text in a the clinicalng, " research in the pharmaceutical industry." clinicalfounder of research practices. i write many articles on this issue and have spoken on this issue for 40 years. i have good news. raped by theeen pharmaceutical companies. i am in good health even though i have a pacemaker and use a walker because i have a spat stick left leg. astick left leg.

the politicians will not do anything. i will tell you who will do something and is on the internet. kaiser, kaiser permanente develop the first comprehensive health plan and are providing health care and hospital care in one package. atas an assistant director two major hospitals and associate who helped with cancer and stroke medical society, and i spent 40 years in clinical research in the pharmaceutical industry working in major drug companies and as a consultant. i know what i am talking about. i wrote a paper called "drug toxicity" because one of the drugs made by merck because my stroke, and it should have been taken off the market. host: thank you for sharing.

gary, i appreciate your conventional -- her credentials. this story is further testament to the fact that everyone is having trouble figuring out how to pay for pharmaceuticals, even people in the industry for decades. i will mention that you said kaiser permanente, and kaiser health news is not affiliated with them. just for clarity, kaiser health news is independent of the kaiser family foundation, which is a trusted source of policy and policy analysis. host: we are away -- we always appreciated. they are knh.org online. host: pam, good morning. guest: what i am calling about is my son and wife have found out that they will have a baby. she has been throwing up. her doctor gave her a prescription.

they went to pick it up and the insurance would not pay for it. it was $1000. they said nevermind. now she is throwing up and going to work every day. my sister went to get her crohn's disease, and it was like 600. she tried to pull out one of those extra cards, but it went up. her immigrant came in with two children, got their medicine for free, and she says i guess i paid for theirs. this is dividing america when other people from other countries, and and can get their medication for free, but hard-working people who have worked hard all their lives and have insurance cannot afford to pay for their prescription drugs are not at that low level that they cant speak english and cannot pay. host: how did you know that she

was an immigrant? guest: you can tell. -- caller: you can tell. host: how? caller: two mexican kids and her. and i needa my medicine. immigrant to spot an when they do not meld into society. host: that is pam in arkansas. this issue comes up often on immigrants in this country, especially concerning illegal immigrants. what sort of health access they have when they have access to public health systems. guest: this goes into one issue that has been in the news, called the public charge issue. andic charge is complicated i will try to explain briefly. essentially, it is a way that

folks who are legal immigrants can get benefits from the government. the trump administration has proposed on cracking down on folks who use public charge to get health care. they are getting it legally. the trump administration is looking into trying to take that away to some extent, because they are going to penalize people for using those benefits available to them. to speak more specifically to what pam was bringing up, it is spotty. your plan may charge you one thing for one drug, and the person may pay a totally different amount for the same drug. this reminded me that this morning the kaiser family foundation came out with a pole, and raise the fact that three in 10 respondents said that they had not taken medicine because of the cost. folks like her daughter-in-law

looking at that $1000 prescription for morning sickness and saying i cannot afford that, so i do not care if my doctor said i will have to take that, i will have to deal with morning sickness. taking your questions for the next 10 minutes or so on this issue of the cost of prescription drugs and having this conversation in a week in which there was a high profile featuring seven ceos. robert, in pennsylvania. caller: thank you. why our lawmakers, or maybe they have, ever took a look at regulating the advertising. i am lucky enough not to be on prescriptions, but what i do know is that at least two out of every five commercials are for medications. they want people to self prescribe or inquire from their doctors medicines that they may

not need. thementioned how much spending is on advertising. our lawmakers already regulate how they advertise tobacco, and alcohol. regulateswe not prescription drugs? guest: you are absolutely right. this is unusual that the united states allows marketing directly to patients. i believe there is only two countries who allow this. as i recall, it was in the 1990's that we loosened the restrictions, or maybe the late 80's. do not quote me on that. somewhere in the late 80's and 1990's, they risk -- they loosened restrictions. as you said, you are urged to call your doctor and ask if you need the medication. you are right to point out that that marketing is a large

portion of the budget. potentially, it could be an issue as far as raising prices higher. the trump administration came out with a plan that would require our mystical companies to put list prices in their advertising. therefore, if you saw one of those ads for a drug that you had to ask your doctor about, you would have a sense that the list prices in the tens of thousands of dollars, and that might give you pause, or it might make you ask for the generic version. radio viewers and listeners did not see on screen, this from the polling from their tracking poll in february asking the public what they believe is the largest contributor to prescription drug prices. advertising, 52 percent sees that as a major factor. made bynclude profits

companies that manage prescription drugs benefits. 63% say that is a major factor. the cost of research and development is 69%. public seeing profits made by pharmaceutical companies, 80% see that as a major factor. caller: -- guest: this is a testament of how good the messaging has been. the drugmaker trade group known as pharma have been spending millions of dollars to try and shift the blame onto these pharmacy benefit managers, and it sounds like about six in 10 folks six -- think this is a major factor. host: good morning. caller: good morning, and thank you for having seized. -- having c-span. if you can get into the pbm issue deeper, because it is my

contention that they are a big factor in increasing price of drugs because of the rebates that they get. if you can identify the top three pbm's. guest: i wish i could identify the top three, i do not have their names. i can talk about this issue. negotiations that pharmacy benefit managers do between payers, usually insurance companies and employers, and drugmakers are conducted in secret. we do not know much about what happens and how much money they get. what we do know is that patients are not seeing those rebates when they come to the pharmacy counter. one of the arguments we have heard is in particular, the they ares have argued an intermediary. they are not creating their

drugs, they are getting you the drug in the middle. that has been a potent talking point. pharmacy benefit managers are trying to fight back and argued that they are not the ones to blame. pbm's were not present, although chairman grassley said that there could be a hearing that will be on pharmacy benefit managers, although it is unclear if some of these companies will appear. host: an article from "becker's hospital review" the five most influential pbm's. american source burgan, and cardinal health are listed on those. greg in ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. , recently retired pharmacist.

i would like to give a little perspective on a provider viewpoint. the pbm's are killing us. , through the mercy of the rebate program -- i will give you an example of what is happening in ohio. ohio medicaid, if i fill a prescription that is presented to me, we do everything online. a lot of generics are kicked out that rebates are coming through the drug manufacturers. the pharmacies are subsidizing. i was an independent pharmacist. it makes no difference if you are a chain or independent. still with are you us? caller: finish your comment

before -- yes. host: finisher comment, you are going in and out. caller: got me now? ok. the retail pharmacies are sought -- are subsidizing health care as regarding prescriptions. that until something is makethe 1.i would like to is that the vast majority -- the one point i would like to make is that the vast majority of people in this country getting prescription drugs, very few are paying retail. your point.e got guest: very few people are paying list prices. this is an argument that the executive made. they saying that most people are

not paying list prices. there are people paying list prices. people with high deductible insurance plans, and people without insurance. this is a meaningful number for a lot of people who have their copayments based on a percentage of the list price. if the list price on the drug you take goes higher, then your co-pay will go higher because of the percentage. host: i did want to ask, this was the most high-profile hearing this week on prescription drugs and health care in general. what are you looking at next week? are there going to be follow-up earrings? guest: we should hear from at least the pharmacy benefit manager side, if not them themselves in the coming weeks on the senate side. host: has a date for that been set? guest: not unless they have set it this morning. what i can tell you is that

there are other committees also doing investigations into this particular issue. the house oversight committee is a notable one. they have launched their own committee and chairman cummings sees this as a big issue. host: in new jersey, good morning. caller: thank you for the show. i have been in the pharma industry for 30 years and have led new product development. we all benefit from drugs deeply. i think the problem that the boundaries, and when the government gets involved. our caller said that he was appreciative of his medicare, shouldsaid -- he said it not be available to everyone. that is not true and selfish. medicareis the largest -- medical provider. one woman came in and made a racial slur about immigrants making -- getting free drugs.

who do you think is negotiating on behalf of the immigrants? it is the u.s. government. the prices are low. instead of pitting people against each other, called representatives and demand that there is a single administrator to negotiate the prices. price negotiations are the big thing that has been proposed to address lowering drug costs. you are astute student to point that out. there are downsides that have been pointed out in regards to negotiations. the two primary ones are that if the government -- if we end -- if we empower medicare to negotiate drug prices then some drugs will not be covered anymore. i making sure i get my notes right. forill also just be harder people to get access to those

drugs. government negotiations is a big one that people are talking about. there are a lot of got -- republican skeptical about that one. it sounds like kate in 10 republican respondents said that they would support -- eight in 10 republican respondents said that they would support giving the government the power. if you tell people that it could lead to a care covering all drugs or cuts in federal research spending, at that point, two thirds of people are opposed. we are seeing a lot of support for empowering the government to negotiate, when you put it into practice, it remains to be seen how it works and what the drawbacks are. host: the kaiser family org and youis kff. can see their tracking polls that they do on a monthly basis. peter in virginia, go ahead. caller: good morning morning to

everybody. i wanted to start out with the caller that was saying the comments that came across as racist against what she perceived as illegal immigrants. i like how you guys were saying how do you know if it was immigrant -- it was an immigrant. that could've been a legal immigrant. 75% of the republican callers, and have this point of view, and they come across as a extremely limited intelligence, and ability to fairly grasp how the world is. time we are running out of , and i want to give you a chance to ask a question. caller: my question is, why i -- what i do not understand, my father is 72. he has an issue with his hearing and needs a hearing aid. he has medicare, but they will 500 dollars, and they have

to take 4000 out of pocket. neuroscientist, and i almost had to pay $1500 for the test, even though it is related to my mental health. those kind of things shocked me. it is true that the on pharmaceuticals, we are seeing a lot of unpredictable pricing in the health care sector there. this broader -- health care sector. this broader issue is something that lawmakers and the president is going to tackle. there is legislation to deal with surprise billing that would affect people who go to the emergency room and discover that it is actually an out-of-network emergency room or they saw an out-of-network doctor in the emergency room. it is amazing that there are so

many options in health care where -- some he places where the prices are unpredictable. we do not know a whole lot. transparency is one of the goals that congress is trying to really forward. host: a topic from another discussion down the road. knh.org from kaiser health news. future ofon about the the robert mueller probe, and we will be joined by paul -- a former senior counsel in the whitewater investigation. ♪ this weekend on c-span. president trump will speak at the nhl -- at the annual conservative political action conference. bernie sanders announcing his candidacy for president.

9:45, corying at booker will speak in selma, alabama on the anniversary of the clash between demonstrators and police in 1965 known as bloody sunday. watch on c-span, www.c-span.org or on the free app. q&a,-span's eileen rivers on her book about women who went beyond the regular duties to help women in afghanistan. there experience was that was a time when she felt like there were men trying to break her, and see if women could hack it. ,hey had this heavy gear weapons, and they were carrying it on this road march. she pulled women aside and said, no matter what happens to -- do

not start crying and keep up. she said i have a feeling that they will test us. the women kept up step for step. >> eileen rivers, sunday night at 8:00 eastern on q and a. weekend, tv will be live from the tucson festival of books from the grounds of the university of arizona. starting saturday at noon, featuring rick wilson with his book "everything trump touches dies." and then shane bauer with his , ak "american prison reporter's undercover journey into punishment." and the 50 year fight to exonerate -- theg brandon with his book " end of myth, from the frontier

to the border wall." on sunday our coverage continues starting at 3:00 p.m. with dave colin and his book "heartland." and then nina burley with her book "golden handcuffs." girl'sen piper with "a guide to missiles." watch our live coverage of the tucson festival of books on book tv on c-span two. washington journal continues. caller: paul rosendahl host: paul rosenzweig is a former senior counsel in the whitewater probe. when robert mueller wraps up his investigation, explain what happens with his findings. who gets them. guest: according to the regulations that were passed by

janet reno back in 1999, and have govern special counsel since then, mueller's job is to file not to congress or the public, but to the attorney general, now bill barr. job to determine what portions of that report he will make public and what portions of that report he will communicate in private to congress. discretion,limited but it is a great deal of discretion in deciding what aspects of mueller's formal report will become matters of public record. host: do you think that report should be made public? guest: probably not, for a couple of reasons. in us back up and say that general, prosecutors are not in

the business of accusing people conduct, immorality, unethical behavior. what mother is supposed to do is determine whether or not there are -- what mueller is supposed to do is determine whether or not people should go to jail. there is a good reason, because we do not want to set prosecutors up as moral authority for an entire nation. they are lawyers, and some lawyers are good. not anot a priest, he is moral ethicist. that is the first hurdle. the second part is that there is a more important secrecy, and anthony -- anti-trans percent -- transparency proceeding. we keep grand jury proceedings secret for many reasons.

secrecy encourages people to come forward, and they knew that they can do so in speak -- in secret. wereof the mafioso dons not -- would not have been taken down if grand jury testimony was public. it is a way to protect the sources and methodologies of indictments. -- that might reveal how the nsa has were has not penetrated russian systems. i think that there is a reasonable argument that not the entire report can or should be made public. that having been said, much of it can and should be. host: you mentioned your work with the whitewater investigation. remind people what happened with ken starr's report. guest: that one was fully made public by congress.

arr was operating under a different loss, it was not regulations -- host: the law was changed after his report. guest: he was under a mandate provide anyl substantial information that might justify impeachment. he felt himself obliged to provide a really complete and extended report on bill clinton's conduct. there are people he made a mistake in his interpretation, but that is what he thought. he provided it to congress in confidence. i know mistakingly thinking that congress would exercise judgment in determining what portions of that should be made public and be cart -- and

become part of the record. it turns out that congress had almost no capacity to keep things quiet, and voted to release the entire report, live on the internet back in the first early days of the internet . , almost atincluded the drop of a hat. host: we are talking with paul rosenzweig with the r street institute. we are taking your calls on the future of the mueller investigation. the phone lines are usual, my kratz 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001 and independenta 202-748-8002. , his up to william barr decision on what happens. here is what the code of federal regulations have to say. the attorney general may determine that the public

release would be in the public interest the extent that the release would apply with the applicable legal restrictions. by other releases justice employees shall be covered by the generally applicable government jet -- guidelines and laws. how do you define public interest? guest: we have been dancing around that question for hundreds of years. ambiguousliberately and capacious phrase. add to that the phrase begins may and not shall. amount ofn immense discretion to find for himself and for us what the public interest is. if you take him at his word, as he said in his confirmations hearings, he is going to undertake that analysis with an

public,aking some of it and he will not override any of the existing laws which he cannot override, or, it seems like any of the existing guidelines. he could override if he wanted to in the public's interest. for example, it is not a law that says that a prosecutor cannot publicly disclose the reasons for his conclusion not to indict someone. we saw jim comey make that type of declaration to great condemnation and criticism and he closed the investigation of hillary clinton during the presidential campaign. it is not a law that bars him, and tony made that public made that- comey public interest judgment. or, barr will reflect on the criticisms of comey and go the other way.

host: kim from florida, a republican. good morning. thing i would like to make a comment on is i think most of this is apolitical. to me, it is about politics, and that is what is wrong with what goes on in washington. i do have two questions i would like to ask the guest here. do you find it kind of disingenuous for adam schiff to be threatening the attorney general with taking them to court to release the whole report? i would like to know, if he is supposed to be investigating the russian collusion, if people really follow politics, russia has been interfering with our elections for god knows how many years. i would also like to know where the not manafort on

registering on a foreign agent for lobbyists. why are they not doing the same thing with the others? it is not evenhanded, it seems like it is political vendettas. are two really good questions in there. the first is whether or not what to think of mr. schiff's threat to take bill barr to court to get the report completely released. it is not for me to say whether he was being disingenuous or not, but what i think it is fair to say is that, given the state of law and regulations, a lawsuit to compel the complete disclosure of the report is not likely to be fully successful. the court will be most reluctant to sit in judgment on attorney general barr's determination of

what is in the public interest, especially when the regulations explicitly give him that charge, unless they will find those regulations themselves unconstitutional, which is highly unlikely is unlikely since they seem reasonable in most respects. i could see maybe a partial victory for him to get a little more or negotiating compromise that results in a little more, which is the most likely, but that is not going to be a full success. agent chargeseign against manafort, and why they have not been brought against --, my understanding is that those are under investigation. i know the law firm just entered an agreement to a sponge -- to esponge it's

knowledge. firms, craig, who was a partner, has been named in some of the investigative materials. i don't think it is necessarily a done deal that there won't be charges related. democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. the american people pay taxes to our government. we have the right to see the whole mueller investigative report because we pay their salaries. that is an interesting

example. what was televised in watergate was the hearing in front of congress in the house of representatives and the senate. very famously, senator jim baker -- howard baker -- was talking about that. that was what the grand jury investigation, that was conducted, was never made public. was justt to congress publicly released in the past six months, some 40 years after the event. it was finally released because the judge found that the grand -- seall gnome no longer mattered. it is true that the investigation is paid for with federal dollars, but our representatives have passed laws and regulations in the past that govern when, and if, they can be made public.

not everything that we find gets made public. host: asking who pays for the mueller report? if we have paid for it, why shouldn't we have the investigation? if you are going to have secrets, get someone else to pay for it. i want to read every word. 'sest: i appreciate jody feeling. i anticipate the actual report will not be worth the read. the regulations call for a report of his activities, not his findings. mueller has frankly given us his public report. ofhas put it in a number extensive indictments. there was the indictment of the internet research agency about russian social media activity. the indictment of 13 russian military officials from the gr

u about the hacking of the dnc. there was the indictment of manafort about the payment from apparently awere the of the change in republican platform on ukraine. there may be more coming. i forgot roger stone as well. mueller has already given us something on the order of 160 pages. if jody wants to know what her money has bought, that is the right place to start. host: democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. paul rosenzweig is with us until the bottom of the hour. you brought up the internet research agency. hat, cyber other

security is a topic you study. what happened with the internet research agency this week, and why is it important? that is one ofnd the biggest untold stories of the last week because we have been rightly focusing on michael cohen and the president in north korea. the internet research agency is an organization headquartered in at petersburg, russia that the direction of the russian government conducted an information operation against the american election in 2016 by creating fake facebook and twitter accounts and driving division in the electorate. that they would do the same with the 2018 midterm elections just completed in november. what we learned this week from a washington post story is the

u.s. cybercommand, command of the u.s. government, conducted an offense of cyber operation against the internet research agency in russia in november 2018 to take it so itne and suppress it could not interfere with the 2018 election. what is remarkable about that -- think of what i just said. a military arm of the united states took action inside russia. right? bs,it had been guns and bom we would be at war. happily, we are not. but it was a very strong and important response from the u.s. government that was in effect a warning to russia, and also in a declaration of it least

u.s. cyber command to protect the integrity of the american elections. host: this might be a good time to promote "cyber warfare." with thenzweig is institute that studies cyber security. with us as we talk about the future of the mueller report. in kansas, a republican, good morning. are you with us? caller: i am. i was watching tv. host: turn down your tv and go ahead with your question. caller: i did have it turned down. i don't know if i have a question. i did not know it was supposed to be a question. it seems like president trump has been doing this since he has been in there. i have been watching this

-attorneywhat is his ex 's name? whatever, telling how bad he was. i just -- host: thank you for your thoughts. she started with concern about the length of the investigation. can you compare it to previous investigations? guest: this one is moving at land speed records. that criticism is unfair. typical white-collar crime investigations involving complex facts often take three or four years. the investigation of clinton went four years. of onegest was 5000 days of the independent counsels. the investigation of reagan went longer. if mr. mueller is going to wrap

up his final report sometime e, four,k, or two, thre be one of this will the most rapid investigations in recent memory. host: independent. good morning. caller: i would like to ask points.o one with ethics and another with procedure. i want to concur with the gentleman that the russians have been trying to influence our systems since i can remember under the kennedy administration. first, with the steele dossier it seems so polluted. i don't see how that doesn't get a lot of evidence tossed out. americans were being surveilled under the obama administration, that blew my mind. thirdly, when they used pfizer to obtain warrants when they

were handled improperly, it blows my mind ethically that none of those people were taken to task. was beingry's team interrogated by the fbi they got immunity agreements, and their lawyer was able to attend the session. that seemed weird. host: you bring up a lot of topics. which do you want to focus on? guest: there are too many to focus on on any detail. i will pick the first and the last. the steele dossier and the investigation of hillary clinton. i assume that the listener is referring to the email investigation, though i am not 100% sure. with respect to the steele dossier, i think that that has been mischaracterized in the press and public's mind. it was what we would

characterize, what i would historically characterize, as raw intelligence. it was designed to report what has been said without assessing its truth or falsity. if i wrote down the discussion between you and i without saying if i thought you were an honest person or not. you are, by the way. and shouldeen taken not be taken as determinative. it also came historically after the fbi had initiated its investigation of george papadopoulos and russian connections to the trout umppaign. -- tr campaign. the timing doesn't work out for those who want to blame the steele dossier for everything. the last is evidence. we don't have the fruits of the poisonous tree of evidence.

even if you think the evidence in the steele dossier is bad, we do not throw out the good evidence that was subsequently found as a result of the investigation. if i give you back tip, but you find a gun in the house that you search, we don't turn a blind eye to the gun and say "sorry, our bad." with respect to the procedures in the clinton investigation, it people toommon for ask for and request immunity in interviews, and to have lawyers present in non-grand jury interviews. it is not common for the lawyers to go into the grand jury, but i do not believe that happened in the clinton case either. the procedures are not totally abnormal. they are a little solicitous, but not totally out of bounds. host: i want to circle back to where we started about who will become the point person when

robert mueller submits his report. barr.s william i want to take you back to january 15 in his confirmation hearing when he was asked if he would release the mueller report. [video clip] >> as the rules stand, i think the rules stand that the special counsel will prepare a summary prosecutive or declaration decisions, and that shall be confidential and declinationny other or prosecutive material within the department. in addition, the attorney general is responsible for notifying and reporting certain information upon the conclusion of the investigation. how these will fit together, and what can be gotten out there, i

would have to wait. i would want to talk to rod rosenstein and see what he has discussed with mueller. >> you would like to make as much of the original report -- >> all that i can say right now tent is to and in get as much as for mission out as i can consistent with regulations. host: what did you think watching that? guest: it is cautious. it is not leaning forward saying i am eager to make sure this gets in front of the public. answer.very reasonable i'm going to release as much as possible consistent with regulation. i'm not going to overturn regulations, make new ones, or break policy pre-existing, but i am going to do whatever i can to make some of this public. people in the exact same

position faced with the same question could come out in different places without one being evil and the other being good. they would just have different perspectives. i think barr is leaning backward. someone else might lean forward. host: republican, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you paul. i am a registered republican. my question has to do with the individual that resides as president. it seems a shame that we are so divided over an individual and we take so many sides. what are theis, possibilities -- this is all in the public interest. how much can we get out to the public? you have done a very good job covering a lot of that already, but this is all in the public

interest. whether it is democrat or republican. what can we do to see what is really happening? what has happened? this individual has been this way for many years before all of a sudden he became president. guest: we have already talked about barr's role and whether or not the house democrats could succeed in a lawsuit to get a copy of the report. there is one other avenue we have not talked about which is a potential avenue of getting more information out, getting mr. mueller to come in personally and testify. i suspect that would not be as successful as the democrats would like it to be. first, the department would probably resist overall. if he did come they would direct him not to talk about anything that had not been publicly released. we would not get any further along.

i guess that the last answer that would really solve the whole thing is if president trump told attorney general barr to release it all. the government works for him in the end. barr reports directly to president trump. law,uld not override the but he could tell barr to release everything that is not grand jury, and that would increase the public's awareness. i don't think he will do that, but he could. host: what is executive privilege, and who defines what falls under that? guest: that is a great question with a long answer. i will give you the short one. executive privilege is the idea that discussions with the president about policy should remain confidential and not be publicly exposed. there is number of reasons why that is with respect to

maintaining diplomatic and military secrecy to ensuring candor. that people talking to the president will give him the straight skinny, including telling him he is wrong to his face, as long as they don't have to tell the public that as wel l. it is part of the idea that by giving people confidentiality, like you and your doctor or you and your priest, you encourage people to be truthful because they do not think what they say will see the light of day and embarrass them. the president has that privilege and may assert it. presidents have asserted it since george washington with various degrees of success. sometimes they assert it for good reasons, sometimes bad reasons. sometimes the court doesn't like it, sometimes congress succeeds. the most famous of these was thatrd nixon, who asserted

the tapes of his confidential candid conversations in the white house were subject to executive privilege. that was rejected 9-0 by the supreme court, but not completely. they said that these tapes relate to potential criminal activity, that is not privileged. if they had diplomatic or military secrets, we would revisit this and maybe you would win. this is all about crime, so you do not get that privilege to conceal your criminal activity. host: independent, good morning. caller: good morning to you. i love this show. i wish that i could watch more often. me, i am that bothers 70 years old and a vietnam vet, iam looking at watching --

listen on youtube to a lot of the house judiciary with trey gowdy and others asking pertinent questions. there is a lot of evidence in front of us. one of the many things is the text messages that have been obliterated i that mueller investigation, which i find willct, about how trump not be president no matter what we do and we will have a secret weapon to stop that from happening. i believe that is the mueller investigation, which is absolute crap. he is going around trying to find something. manafort does not have anything to do with the investigation. he is going to jail for crimes he committed personally, but nothing to do with trump. i find it maddening and terrifying what is going on in our country, because we are not having proper oversight on america, or we will look at all of the things that came out in the judiciary proceedings and go

"what?" and the dossier paid by the democratic party, bam, that is a big one. too.: i love this show, this is my first time on and it is one of my lifetime dreams. thank you for having me. ae, the listener, has viewpoint of some of the stuff that has come out of the house judiciary. some of the things aren't actually exactly how it happened. for example, the text messages the deleted by the fbi, not mueller investigation. i guess my instinct in responding is to say, we did have a public hearing. trey gowdy asked a lot of questions about it. extensive hearings in the house judiciary, house oversight committee.

most of this is on the public record, which is why the listener has been able to form an opinion and reach his own conclusions. i think what will happen going forward is we will see the same sorts of public exposure in the new congress. host: in bakersfield, california, a democrat, good morning. caller: i appreciate letting me talk today. question regarding the mueller report that will be given to bill barr. my question is, is it not the the congress to act on, rather good or bad. and also, does this not, if they gave the full report, wouldn't

that clear president trump of any wrongdoing if found to be so? and would it be better for him to have it in an open way that way? my other question is this, they keep saying about this -- would you want to call it -- report that someone made that democrats made to report on some kind of report from england. i don't understand the name of that. i understand that report, for first brought on by the republicans to find dirt on hillary clinton. host: thanks for that, freddie. thepoint of clarification, cart regulations do not provide

for muellerrr -- to report directly to congress. mueller reports to barr, and barr reports directly to congress if he wants to. that is a change to the law that ken starr was under which required him to go directly to congress. fortunately or unfortunately, it does not matter if you like it or do not like it, that is the law that will go directly to barr, not directly to congress. there is one exception. disagreend mueller about a particular course of conduct, and barr refuses to let mueller do something -- say subpoena the president or subpoena the president's family. barr says you can't do that.

that dispute must be reported to congress so that congress is aware of the fact that the attorney general has stopped the special counsel from doing something the special counsel thinks is necessary. that is unlikely. i do not think that will happen because mueller and barr are well-positioned. host: i don't know if there's anything you want to chat about but the president is tweeting this morning and is interested in an upcoming new book from his former personal attorney michael cohen. "congress must demand the transcript of michael cohen's new book given to publishers a short time ago. your head will spend when you see-- will spin when you the lies, misrepresentations and contradictions against his thursday testimony, like a different person. he is totally discredited.

he must have forgot about his book when he testified. is he being paid by crooked hillary using her lawyer?" guest: i am confused. how does the president know if congress has not gotten the manuscript yet? it sounds like he has got it, so he should just give it to congress. i don't understand where that is coming from. host: in over a, colorado, republican. andhave to turn on your tv talk through your phone. democrat, good morning. caller: i just have a comment. the tape ofshow in newtrump when he was york where he said if he ran

for president he would run as a republican, because republicans believe everything you see. donald trump lied coming into the election, and he is still lying. and he is calling other people liars. they are tape of him, interviewing him. forhe says if he ever ran president he would run as a republican, because the republicans -- host: got your point. paul rosenzweig on howard stern and donald trump. guest: the president has said it a lot of things in the past that are different from what he is saying now. that video, i guess you probably do not have it queued up now, but that video has made the evocative.is kind of

i assume he was joking, but maybe he wasn't. host: new jersey, democrat, good morning. caller: i would like to talk dossier. steele it was originally funded by a republican hedge fund leader on behalf of marco rubio who was running against trump and had nothing to do with hillary clinton in the beginning. it was financed through washington free becon. after marco rubio dropped out of the race, it was offered to the clinton campaign. i wish that people would get their facts straight. people like sean hannity lie about these things every day. trump is just a lying piece of garbage. thank you. guest: we did not get to respond to that earlier, but the caller

is right that the initial genesis of the steele dossier was in a republican opposition research campaign. to be fair, a did morph into a democratic research campaign. a longtimeleaders is investigative journalist who generally has an excellent reputation for digging facts out . i have known his work for 20 years and generally find it reliable. sometimes it is not, but that is the nature of investigative journalism as a general matter. host: to do stick around for the end of the whitewater investigation? guest: i was involved all the way to the end. i joined a law firm, but did work for the company. host: what was the end of the investigation like? think of that investigation as some of the most exciting and intellectually

engaging work i ever did, and also the most exhausting. honest answer from me, a feeling of relief to have made it to the finish line. more than anything else. host: if the mueller probe is in its final weeks, what is happening inside of the mueller team? guest: they are doing it differently than we did. when the starr investigation was over, it was over. send it to the archives and be done with it. for the mueller team, they are ending in the middle. they have done the investigative work but will leave the prosecutorial work to other people. york, here in the district of columbia, in virginia. they are putting it together and passing it along to the next set of prosecutors who will finish

the prosecution of roger stone, finish the prosecution and sentencing of paul manafort, etc. etc. they are more in transition then close down -- than close down mode. host: republican, go ahead. caller: good morning. you're doing great. i like you are programming. -- your programming. my question, when it comes to hillary, he just has to continue the investigation on that woman. people were dying because she was doing what she was doing. that is why there was an investigation done over and over, and they just dodge it. there are a lot of wrong stuff being done by people investigating our president. they use the taxpayers hedge fund forit -- hush

it. i want to know why they can have dirty hands like that and nothing happens. guest: i'm not sure which aspects of misconduct you are talking about. to my mind, much of what mueller has done has been aboveboard and absent controversy. with respect to the earlier misconduct i agents of the fbi, like peter strzok, he lost his job. so things were done. i am impressed that you are up this early in washington state. it is too early for me. host: also early in california. democrat, good morning. caller: let's use some common sense. the attorney general is appointed by the president. this president unfortunately believes it must be his attorney

general. he cannot be in power without the approval of the elected body. has anorney general obligation to congress to give the report and let them decide what they can see and what they cannot see. so, i think the people which need to see the report and everything is done for the people by the people. back where we started. i will give you the final minute. eva's point is politically well taken. the american people, a large majority, want to see as much of the mueller report as they can. as i explained at the outset of

discussion,f this there are often good reasons why parts of the report don't make public. ranging from not wanting to give prosecutors that job, to maintaining confidentiality of the grand jury, which is to maintaining, the sanctity of sources and methods of intelligence gathering so we can continue to use it. if it were me and i were the attorney general, i would be making as much public as is possible because i share eva's concerns. that does not mean that people who would make it less public are mean-spirited. quite to the contrary. bill barr, the attorney general, has served this country for most of his career in public service and has an admirable record. honestly, i trust him to use his

best judgment. it may be judgment i disagree with, but i do not think he will cheat. host: r street institute. thank you so much for your time. minutes, we will turn our attention to president trump's efforts to make a deal china, thekorea, ongoing discussions on the usmca . we want to know what you think about the president's negotiating style. let us know if you think it is effective or not effective. this weekend our c-span city continues traveling to pasadena, california to feature the city's history and literary life. here the pasadena mayor talks about some of the most well-known aspects of that city, including the rose bowl and rose parade. citysadena is a midsized

of the in the foothills san gabriel mountains in southern california, immediately angeles.to los people know pasadena because of the historic neighborhoods unusual to southern california. and because of the natural terrain features. bowllso because of th rose which isse bowl, america's stadium, the granddaddy of them all. people know pasadena for those features. they are very surprised when i travel and i identify myself as the mayor of pasadena. they all assume it is a larger city. it is a small city but plays big because of the rose bowl and the parade on january 1, and because we have institutions like

caltech and the art center college of design. these are world-renowned institutions. and we have the jet propulsion laboratory. people assume that it is a larger city. what i think of in terms of pasadena is something the world would not necessarily know. pasadena has more nonprofit organizations per capita than any city in the world. we have 1100 nonprofit organizations in pasadena in a city of 140,000 people. are absolutely willing and have a tradition of giving of their time, treasurer, and karma to give to the causes they support. "washington journal" continues. we are asking what you think of president trump as an international negotiator.

phone lines for those who think that he is effective, (202) 748-8000. if you think that he is not effective, (202) 748-8001. be ready to tell us why you think so. here are headlines stemming from the president's second summit with kim jong-un of north korea. trump show strength by walking away from the washington times. shatters fears of desperation plaudits even from critics. wins mixeddeal reviews is what they went with in the lead editorial. the headline, failure in hanoi. diplomacyrump's week is what the at -- weak diplomacy is what the editorial board thought. what do you think? isler: my opinion literally

as a businessman he can do whatever he wants. our nation,eader of and i am completely independent, i did not vote for him or her. i think he is completely not effective. he is thinking of a business perspective from a company he has not been running for eight to 10 years. at diplomacy, he is moving towards in my opinion, people who are extremely powerful but tyrannical. anybody can have their opinion on these people, but i have not seen anything come out of it except for putting his chest and saying america first. it seems it is only america only, not america first. it is like eating the kid in the classroom walking in saying i'm a god and you don't do anything to prove it.

to prove it in the classroom you came into not that you came from, no one will work with you. i have not seen the united states be a big part of the dow and s&p 500 and nasdaq in the last couple of years based on our oval office. n in texas thinks that the president is effective on the international stage. why is that? go ahead. caller: good morning. ron in texas. i believe donald trump is without a doubt the best negotiator we have had in the last 100 years. withhow he has negotiated all these businesses. he is a businessman. he is used to dealing with tough people. people that know how to get what they want.

he knows how to get what he wants. host: has he done that on the international stage? caller: on the international stage? i think he is doing a fantastic job. i think he has all kinds of obstacles and washington, d.c. against him because he is a businessman. politicians are trying to get votes. to stay inying power. donald trump is a businessman. i will take a businessman that has built a business, done business, knows how to do business any time over a politician. host: the president over twitter, "great to be back from vietnam. an amazing place. a substantive negotiation with kim jong-un. we know it they want, they know what we must have. the relationship is very good. let's see what happens." boardshington editorial picking up the topic of the president on the international

stage. give him credit for not accepting less than denuclearization. perhaps it will help his negotiations with china on trade. no doubt he was tempted to accept a deal that he could call a victory while running for reelection, but a continuing nuclear capacity in the north would have made that victory as hollow as president obama's victory in iran. we want to know you think about the president on the international stage as a negotiator. caller: ima 71-year-old woman who came up through the vietnam era. my stepfather was 101st airborne special forces ranger in vietnam. he volunteered twice to go back in vietnam because what was going on with his comrades. the fact that this president is

over they are trying to push his weight around in such a manner that he honestly thinks that a man like kim jong-un is going to give up power with a handshake is outrageous. what i want to say about the last program is that mueller is a republican, people. he is not a democrat. i am obviously a democrat, but i'm scared for my kids, my grandchildren, because this man is trying to business do cahoots with someone dangerous. he has built his arsenal since this man has become president. in my view he sees trump as being weak. has built his arsenal because he thinks -- i cannot use the word. he can fool around with trump's brain because trump knows nothing about foreign policy. i'm outraged and scared to death. host: michael in kokomo, indiana. thinks that the president is

effective. caller: he is doing the best he can. he is showing that the buck stops with him. our politicians, congressman, senators, and people on the left, are trying to set him up for failure. it is a mockery. here he is trying to negotiate the biggest treaty probably ever, and here in america we are slamming him. ism sure president un sitting there saying people in america are as disruptive as our people. we are setting the man up for failure. i want to say mr. president donald trump, you are my president as long as you put god first, country and family. you have my unwaver support, sir. whereot believe america is headed today. last time i talked on here i 't burning.in

inside.rning, from the we were built a fundamentalist christian nation and we have people destroying us on the inside. they sit in political power. shame on you. host: fort wayne, indiana. mike. good morning. listen, it is simple. i get it. i will make this short. a black man who grew up in segregation. i just retired. i will get to the point. listen to the people that call in. hillary clinton was totally right. a big percentage of them are deplorables. it is all about one thing. black and white.

it always will be. how does someone say that this country is built on christian principles. ancestors,ives, my my 99-year-old ought in alabama -- aunt in alabama. howlieve in jesus christ, can you say it is built on christian principles if people were held against their will? host: what you say about the president on the international stage representing america? caller: he is a flimflam man. it is simple. he doesn't know what he is doing, but that's ok. he never thought he would be president. he is doing just like any other person, you or i, who doesn't know a lick about what he is doing. have a great date. host: washington journal tditorial board's commen

about the president in vietnam. the washington times with a different take. the failure of the north korea talks is the headline. the outcome in hanoi demonstrates the hazards of personal diplomacy with authoritarian leaders that has become president trump's stock and trade. protestsident putin's of innocence, president trump has shown that he trusts despots over his own government. dictators liker mr. ken continues to erode the forl foundation that generation supported american diplomacy. mr. kim denied knowing about the condition of auto warm beer, and i will take him at his word. armbier, and i will

take him at his word. one-on-one discussions can be the failure in hanoi demonstrates the administration's unwillingness to prepare adequately for high-stakes meetings. caller: but he has done in the past and what his business is coming knows what is good and what is not good. he knows what is good for america as far as paying money to other countries for no reason at all while we are protecting them. we have to give them money? why are we giving these other countries money when we could use the money and our country? host: you think the president has been strong enough on that issue of foreign aid? caller: i think he has done a handle on it, yes. host: what do you want to see next from the president? iller: from the president, would like to see our country unite together and get behind

our president instead of trying to take him down all the time. that havepresidents been elected that i was not happy with, but i have to accept the fact that he is my president. that is the way i feel being an american. host: richard think that the president -- thinks that the president is ineffective on the international stage. why is that? good morning, sir. if he had annk airplane full of money he could have gotten someone to sign off on this and everyone would have thought he was as smart as kerry and obama. host: this is just good in florida. -- jessica in florida. isler: i believe he effective. besides the fact that mr. trump, or whoever, i think that it

illuminates the fact that china is in charge and north korea is china's attack dog. they starve the attack dog so it does what they want. it has nothing to do with mr. kuim. shots.is calling the that is what this is showing, no is.er who the president when he transparency on what is happening between china and north korea, and how the process works. to me, it is effective to see exactly what can and cannot happen between china, north korea, and the rest of the world . host: here's the latest on what is happening between the united states and china in the effort to negotiate a new trade deal. donald trump warned that he could walk away from a trade

deal with china if it was not good enough even as his economic advisers touted "fantastic progress" towards an agreement. from the president yesterday, "i am always prepared to walk. i would do that with china too if it did not work out." reuters story. thinking the president is ineffective on the international stage. why is that? caller: i feel he needs to spend more time working with his f advisors and listen to them instead of listening to himself.

wars not experienced in things. he has representatives to advise him with long-term longevity in their advice. sk, what are the american people supposed to give themoreans in exchange for irt building anymore of the weapons and doing away with them for peace for both korea and the united states? what are we giving them? what are we trading them? host: what is too much in your mind, barbara? caller: what is too much in my mind is too much of what is going on in the united states. barbara in arizona.

mike in houston texas on the line for those who think that the president is effective. caller: president trump does not give away things, and is not desperate for a deal in north korea. whereas i think president obama demonstrated a frantic desire to iran.deal with he even shipped $150 billion overnight by cargo loads of money to iran. to the nation's largest exporter of terrorism. he also did not do the deal clinton did in 1994 with kim .ong-il' kim jong-un's father. it doesn't seem he is getting the most objective treatment on

msnbc and cnn where they are trying to put trait -- trying to portray trump as being an idiot and a fool. i think he is being guarded and measured and not giving away things. this deal has to go through china. let's make it clear that trump is the one president who is theftnging china on their of intellectual property. every president before that promised to do something and never did. host: on the president walking walkeddrop walk -- trump . i remember in a car dealership i got up and the salesman chased me down. walking out works." caller: i'm a disabled vietnam vet. fight in vietnam to stop communism to see my

president now associating with the president of russia, vladimir putin, who is a tyrant. fight tot stop to go see the president of our country associated with the murderous north koreans. trump is in this for one thing, to make money. i feel sorry for all of those supporters that think he thinks about them. he is in it for the money, and god is starting to put his thumb on things. check out the weather. thank you. host: brian says i am not a trump person, but i see reaching out to north korea as a necessary evil. keeps the millions

of suffering north koreans closed off from any hope. writing, trump is literally laughed at on the world stage. he is a buffoon. your thoughts on president trump on the world stage? caller: i don't think that the president has been effective at negotiating on the world stage. he lackes even the basic vocabulary. this idea that he has letters from kim jong-un, and they are having some sort of love affair, they fell in love, you'd be hard-pressed to find another whenry's people negotiating to use similar language. he does not study, so he does not really understand the position of the united states with north and south korea. he has some

instincts occasionally, which are good for the united states are america, but i don't think that he can implement them. who -- heneed someone lacks the basic skills of diplomat. he dismisses his diplomats. with verying in there little leverage as he would like to think about it. i would like to think he would start gathering around 10 people who knew something about peoplecy -- around him who knew something about diplomacy. host: go ahead. caller: i think that the president has been very effective. thats been doing things congress, the senate, and presidents have talked about for three decades. good trade deals.

getting closer with china. i personally think he deserves ronald reagan's peace prize. have a good day, now. host: hagerstown, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. i think actually that the president is being effective. host: why is that? he is at least trying. when i say that, i have been looking upon this country since i was probably five years old or six years old. life with a very intelligent individual.

the ability to look how ings and determine was going to handle myself in that situation. host: we are running out of time. tyler in new hampshire. caller: good morning. how's it going? host: doing well. caller: i think donald trump is pretty effective because you have to look at where the money is coming from and the fact that trump is doing the things that other presidents are scared to touch. he is meeting with north korea. he is meeting with china. he is doing the things that other presidents were afraid to do. host: our last caller. discussiontinue the on this program tomorrow morning a.m.00 a.m. eastern, 4:00

pacific. in the meantime, have a great friday. ♪ acting white house chief of staff mick mulvaney, just back from vietnam, where he accompanied the president to the north korean summit, is the keynote speaker at the conservative political action conference ronald reagan dinner. live coverage begins at 7:45 c-span, online at c-span.org, or on the free c-span radio app. more cpac coverage tomorrow, when president trump speaks to be gathering at 11:30 a.m.

eastern. the democratic field of presidential candidates is growing. this weekend, senator bernie sanders will announce his campaign to be the 2020 nominee. he will speak on the campus of brooklyn college in new york city, where he was a student, saturday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern. senator cory booker speaks sunday at the brown chapel african methodist episcopal church in selma, alabama. the service commemorates the 1965 selma movement for voting rights, and the watershed bloody sunday march or demonstrators, including current congressman john lewis, were beaten by alabama state troopers on the edmund pettus bridge. my sunday at 9:45 a.m. eastern on c-span. federal reserve chair jerome powell testifies next on the economy and monetary policy. he discusses federal reserve independence, financial

regulations, labor force participation, student loan debt , and the state of the labor and housing markets. that house financial services committee hearing is about three hours. >> how are you? rep. waters: the committee will come to order. the chair may call recess at any time. this year and is entitled monetary policy and the state of the economy, and i will now recognize myself for four minutes to give an opening statement. chairman powell, welcome back to the committee. about some of the actions of president trump and his administration, and perhaps you maybe have some questions toda