bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. in the age of power to the people, this was true people power. in the 40 years since, the landscape has clearly changed. there is no monolithic meeta. broadcasting has given way to narrow casting. c-span's big idea is morel vant today than ever. no government money supports c. span. it's nonpartisan coverage of washington is funded as a public service by your exable or satellite provider. on television and online. c-span is your unfiltered view of government so you can make p your own mind. >> congressman gerry connolly is our guest on newsmakers this week. sixth term in the house of represents. virginia 11 fairfax county anti-washington metro area a member of the foreign affairs committee and the house of representatives and also oversight and government reform chairing its subcommittee on government operations.

thanks for being at our desk. >> the committee has just asked president trump for 10 years of his financial records. what do you expect to see in those records? what are you looking for? mr. connolly: this is a follow-up to the public hearing we had with michael cohen, the president's personal attorney, in which cohen testified under oath that the president falsified records, financial records, in order to qualify for loans and other kinds of financing. that he inflated the value of his properties, and we just saw yesterday a story in "the washington post" that corroborates that and documents it. he also underestimated the

value of properties for tax purposes in the state of new york and elsewhere. this is a follow-up to that testimony. just how bad was that and were, flange, laws violated? >> why do you think this is relevant? this is conduct that occurred before he became president. mr. connolly: this is a president who has not put his assets in a blind trust as was recommended. he continues through his family to run the trump organization. he continues to draw profits from various elements of the trump organization. golf courses, hotel properties, apartment buildings with his name on it. so i think it's very relevant. he continues to benefit. >> given the report you mentioned in "the washington post," it does have documents that appear to corroborate identity dethat the president did inflate his network -- net

worth. what is the next step from there? i imagine you'll be seeking those same documents. what happens next after that? mr. connolly: i think it depends what we find. as "the washington post" story documents, we have to separate promotional brochures which he exaggerated worth and value of properties, even to the point where he added 10 stories to the trump tower, which is a strange thing to do because presumably everyone can look up and count. it's not 68 stories, it's 58. nonetheless, he printed 68. that is distasteful and dishonest and a marketing practice that is false. it may not violate a law. on the other hand, if you provided formal documents to a financial institution to justify huge financing for his enterprise, that then can cross the line into bank braud. so we want -- bank fraud.

so we want to know what happened, what did do you? given the fact we don't have his tax returns, don't think we have any alternative but to seek these documents. frankly, if we think that a law may have been violated, hopefully we'll refer that to officials in new york state. >> are there other parts of michael cohen's testimony that you are pursuing, other leads? mr. connolly: there was, as you know, a lot of testimony involving rather obscure figure who, however, has been with the trump organization for something like 40 years. he's the chief financial officer for the trump organization. and he, i think, has the he key to the lock box. so -- his testimony will be something that will be sought. >> we have had a lot of talk about impeachment and the wake of the mueller report. and speaker pelosi had said now is not the time. i'm wondering if you think this

inquiry you are conducting might possibly lead to articles of impeachment. mr. connolly: we can always speculate. i think we need to put that discussion aside. that's not what we're -- that's not what's driving this. we're deeply concerned and have been since before the president was inaugurated with issues of conflict of interest. and the emoluments claus klaus the conflict of interest clause, the conflict of interest are about entangling relationships overseas. so he has properties in the philippines. the auto contractic president of the philippines named right after donald trump was elected, donald trump's business partner in the philippines is a special envoy to the united states. what could go wrong with that? we know that despite what the president said, he, according to michael cohen, continued to

pursuit the possibility of building a trump tower in moscow during the campaign. he didn't put it on ice, as i said he did. again could that have influenced how he views putin and the statements he made about russia and the rejection that he engaged in in terms of his own intelligence community with respect to russian interference in the election. those are all very relevant topics. this isn't some narrow gotcha investigation. this is a much broader look at this picture and trying to fill in lots of blanks. >> here's a yes or no question. if you find that he violated the emoluements clause, is that an impeachable offense? mr. connolly: yes. it's a different question, how and when and will congress pursue impeachment if that's the full issue in front of us. it is concerning because emoluements is a matter of the constitution not a matter of

new york statute. it was written by our founders in some ways to deal with situations such as what we face with donald trump. >> with all these investigations going on, not just the oversight committee, but the other five committees that have some role in investigating the president, the public opinion right now is hearing from president trump saying he was exoriginal rated. saying he was declared completely free by the mueller report. we haven't seen that full report. are you concerned that if democrats continue to pursue these investigations full force that there will be some in the public who see it as overreaching, as democrats grasping for strauss? how do you prevent that? mr. connolly: i don't want to be pursuing these issues and ve the public think it's a phishing expetition. on the other hand, i took an oath when i got elected to defend and protect the constitution of the united states, not to protect the president of the united states.

not to protect my party or public opinion. and i have a constitutional obligation to pursue these r ers and the gravity they let's take where we're right now. i think the media is guilty, frankly, of very brettlessly deciding this is over, why are you doing it? this is overreach, come on, it's over. all based on a four-page summary of what we now know is a 300-page plus report. the idea that there is no collusion, what apparently he concluded is there was no criminal conspiracy with the trump campaign to collude actively with the russians. that isn't the same as saying there wasn't some collusion. that isn't the same saying there wasn't lots of could be tact -- contact and lets of russian overtures to provide intelligence. we know there were contacts involving wiki leaks.

we know that there was that meeting at the trump tower with russian operatives who claim to have dirt on hillary clinton. we know that there were at least 17 campaign or administration official who is had over 100 contacts with russia and they lied about it. let's not forget the reason robert mueller was appointed was because the attorney general at that time, jeff sessions, did not tell the truth in his confirmation hearing as attorney general about his own russian contacts, and therefore he was required by d.o.j. procedures to recuse himself from the entire russia investigation. i think there is lots more to learn. i think if you look at polling data, the more that sets in, the more people realize this is a four-page summary, written not by robert mueller, written by the attorney general, an appointee of donald trump, somebody who wrote a memo questioning the underpinnings of the mueller investigation, not a disinterested party.

>> there are some in your party hat house majority whip, jim clyburn, says it's time to move on after seeing that summary. there are some members who say they want to get on with the agenda, especially those who won districts won by the preds. there are many people loyal to him in their districts. they want to get going on health care and the agenda. how do you balance that? mr. connolly: frankly we have been working on the agenda since we took over on january 3. and that's not going to stop. i think -- i suppose there is a silver lining in this four-page summary in that it moves that agenda to the front burner and moves some of these investigations from a public perspective point of view to the back burner but very much simmering. my view is we can walk and chew gum at the same time. we can can do both, and we will. >> that's a great lead in to the agenda. wanted to turn your attention

to health care. we have just come off a week in which health care made a lot of news. the democrats introduced -- you introduced your plan to lower premium costs and protect people with pre-existing conditions. but democrats are very divided over health care. you have 100 members, plus a number of presidential candidates who have signed on to medicare for all, a single payer government plan. how likely is it that we will see medicare for all pass this house? mr. connolly: i think we have to distinguish between pragmatic programs that can be implemented and aspirational oals toward which we move. i think medicare for all is in a lot of categories, it hasn't been flushed out, it hasn't been costed. we don't know the implications in terms of the health insurance industry. e don't have, i think, clarity to provide 180 million

americans who receive their health coverage through private insurance largely their employers. so medicare for all remains an aspirational goal for a lot of my colleagues. i'm going to spend my time defending and improving the affordable care act. i voted for that when i was a freshman in congress. i spent buckets of political blood defending it. and i haven't given up on that at all. from my point of view despite all of the attempts to derail it by the trump administration and by my friends on the other side of the aisle, in fact it's working. it has expanded coverage for tens of millions of people through medicaid and through the exchanges. overall the health care cost curve is coming down. we have protected consumers in terms of lots of reforms, chief among which is banning, making it illegalle for insurance companies to deny you coverage

based on a pre-existing condition. we saw how resident that issue alone was in the last elections in the mid terms. so that's a very important issue for us. frankly, we're very grateful for donald trump this week deciding to challenge the entire affordable care act in court yet again. that's a winning argument for us. >> i was going to ask you about that. can congress intervene in that lawsuit in any way? is there any plan for you to do so? mr. connolly: i don't know that we have discussed yet filing an amicus brief. yeah, there is a vehicle for congress to be heard. hopefully we will be. >> do you think a brief should be filed? mr. connolly: i do. especially given the fact that the trump has directed the department of justice to enter into litigation on the side of epealing the entire act. >> with republicans directing

their attacks on obamacare, that's an issue the democrats helped them win in the mid terms it's an issue you feel confident talking about. there is a lot of pressure to come up with legislation to strengthen the existing law, address some of the debt. how do you that with a republican controlled senate, a white house intent on dismantling it? of course are you going to have to come up with some sort of bipartisan legislation. what would that look like? how do you find common ground? mr. connolly: given the fact that we have republican senate, it is very difficult to try to make improvements and additions to the underlying legal framework of the affordable care act. but i think there are things that can be done, nonetheless, where we can try -- we can can strive for some bipartisan support. will i say this, there is nothing like the results of an election to clarify your thinking. the thumping my friends on the other side of the aisle took

last november are largely credited to economic issues and the health care issue. i think may give them pause. we to know that a lot of them are very uncomfortable with the decision made by the administration this week to challenge the full law in court. to resurrect that issue was not a welcome political development on the republican side of the aisle. so they may look, especially those senators and vulnerable members of the house, who are up for election next year, they may look for some opportunities to separate themselves from that activity, that is to say the legal challenge to the bill, and to show they do care about consumer issues -- health care consumer issues. i will add but here we're nine years after enactment of the affordable care act, the republicans have yet to put on the table an alternative. i think that speaks volumes about how completely vampid their rhetoric is about the subject.

>> do you think the onus is on democrats to come up with something that republicans can can support? do you need to work across the aisle to find something on the affordable care act that they can agree to, there's been some movement or compromise in the senate that never went all the way. alexander-murray deal, for example. do democrats need to find a way to get the there? mr. connolly: i don't know that the burden is just on democrats. good ideas can come from both sides of the aisle if people are willing to put aside ideological preconceptions and try to work together. i'll give you an example, not related to legislation anymore, but increasingly across the country as republican legislatures have seen the benefits of the medicaid expansion, in other states, including states led by republican governors and republican legislatures, such as my own in virginia, i think they have come to accept that that is a good thing for their consumers, their voters, and

for their states and their budgets. i think that there are things we can do to further expand the affordable care act, maybe not always legislatively, but perhaps pragmatically. >> congressman, we have just come off a week in which apack, the earn israel public affairs committee, met here in washington. it's very clear that republicans are trying to paint democrats as the party that harbors anti-semites. you yourself have called out the president for making, i think you called them, hateful remarks. i'm wondering do democratic leaders need to do more to push back? what should they do? -- connolly: this is really as somebody who has been involved in middle east issues for 40 years, as a young staffer in the senate foreign relations committee for 10 years of my career, and now as a member of the house foreign affairs committee for the last 11 years here in the house, it

to have the usting president say what he has said, especially coming out of the mouth of a man who even after hearing white supremacists say get the jews in charlottesville, nonetheless said there were good people on both sides. i don't know who the good people were on that side. and he didn't condemn anti-semitism when we actually saw it in action in charlottesville two years ago. so i don't think he's somebody, frankly, to turn to as a moral arbiter. the democratic party has always been a strong home for american jews because we share liberal values. i don't think that's going to change because a stray individual makes remarks that are anti-semitic in nature or

just down right stupid. i don't think that somehow changes history. it was, after all, a democratic president, harry truman, who against the advice of george marshall and other advisors at the time, recognized the state of israel. and we have had a solid, important relationship ever since. don't think that will change. are there different points of view about israel and netanyahu government? yes, of course. but there are within the jewish community as well. we're all having debates of that nature. but to characterize americans who may be jewish as to their patriotism, i can tell you as a young catholic boy in 1960, when that happened to us because john kennedy was a catholic and our loyalty and patriotism was questioned and maybe we had dual loyalties to the pope in rome, i instantly went in a defensive posture about those kinds of comments. i don't think that's going to

stick at all. i think it's a very cynical move about a very important topic. >> you spoke about being in a defensive posture, and that's in a way where democrats have been -- mr. connolly: i didn't mean it that way. i meant emotionally. i instantly went back to my memories of 1960 when the headlines in "time" magazine and "u.s. news and world report" were can can a catholic be president? meaning by implication maybe they couldn't. >> should democrats go more on offense. should the leadership go on offense and what should they do? mr. connolly: you saw steny hoyer gave an impassioned speech that was roundly received positively at the apac conference stating what i just said but more eloquently in terms of who we're as democrats and what our relationship is to the state of israel. american brace of

jews as partners in the enterprise. that message of inclues sift -- inclue sift is an important statement for steny hoyer to make and i applaud it. >> i want to pivot to budget and aappropriations. one of the most crucial tasks. your district was hit hard by the 35-day shutdown. looking ahead does the looming sequestration battle, a debt ceiling battle that needs to be done, of course next year's funding bills. how anxious do you feel looking ahead to all these tasks that need to be done given the dysfunction we saw over the five-week shut down where the president couldn't seem to agree with congressional leaders of either party about what to do and ended up having this stalemate. none of that was resolved. the border funding fight is still out there. wells these new battles on sequestration and debt ceiling.

mr. connolly: it's important to remember a little bit recent history. we sometimes cover the 35-day shut down the longest in american history, and correctly, awe sigh yes generous, it wasn't. the republicans have shut down government or threatened over their favorite issue of the year for a number of years now. remember they want to shut down government over the funding of planned parenthood. shut down government over president obama's executive orders protecting dreamers and other executive orders they objected to. ironically they have no problem with executive orders from a republican president. so this year was their latest. this one was about the wall. it didn't work out nor them -- for them a 35-day shut down produced nothing but damage to the economy. damage to people's lives who couldn't pay bills. and a profound embarrassment worldwide in terms of the image of the united states not being able to fund its own government.

if they want to go there again, that's their choice, but it's not something we're going to welcome or deliver to this president or to our friends on the other side of the aisle. >> given -- trump hasn't taken serious the risk to federal employees to the federal government. he doesn't seem to have an issue with it being shut down. what happens when the debt ceiling is involved, the markets at risk, where there could be financial implication force the rest of the country? mr. connolly: we have a republican administration. and the burden is on them to decide how they want to handle that. ongress will dispose of this -- dispose of their purpose. there are enough economists in the administration who understand the power of playing with the national debt. you got to pay your bills. you have to be good for your credit. and this is a very, very serious matter. the republicans are going to have to step up to the plate,

both in the u.s. senate which they control, and the white house and treasury department, which they can control. -- which they control. >> you mentioned the wall. congress can cannot overlied ride the president's veet -- congress can cannot override the president's veto. is it inevitable that the president is going to get his money and start building that wall? mr. connolly: i think having failed to override the president's veto, but having put together a bipartisan coalition in both the house and senate clearly disapproving of his proposed action, on two fronts, we took issue with the underlying logic of there is a crisis at the border, period. secondly, no, you can't raid the treasury unless congress appropriates those funds. that's a constitutional role for congress. we failed to override the veto, so now the action moves to the courts. i think there is going to be active litigation, already is.

entered into my states and others, to object to his actions. we'll see what the courts have to say. >> will congress enter into that litigation? mr. connolly: i hope so. >> if you talked about it? mr. connolly: we have not had that conversation as a caucus. i'm sure individual conversations are going on. host: last question. one minute left. big topic. i wanted to ask you about congressman adam schiff and the intelligence committee and watching the committee caused by the republicans for him to step down. that's a very important committee in congress. do you think it can function with the level of acrimony between the parties? mr. connolly: prior to adam schiff's chairmanship, since january this year, devin nunes was equally controversial. and had to step aside, actually, if you recall, for the entirety of the russian investigation undertakeon by that committee because of his own controversial actions. i will say this, i think adam schiff is a very honorable man. i think he has been prophetic

in pointing us toward misdeeds and serious lapses of ethical judgment in this administration. i don't believe the four-page barr summary eviscerates that. i also -- i think he's going to be facing some vindication when the full 300-page mueller report is released. i think he's an honorable man. and we're not going to go down the road of having the minority party decide for the majority party who chairs our committees. host: thank you for your time. come back to newsmakers. >> my pleasure. host: newsmakers continues after our conversation with gerald connolly, democrat of fairfax county, virginia. i wanted to start with the tone in congress and washington this week post mueller report. what are you seeing? how do you see the politics playing out with this new reality? >> democrats, of course, a big

part of their majority comes from lawmakers from freshmen democrats who came from districts that had been won by president trump. any conversation about investigating the president has made them uncomfortable for the first three months of their tenure here. with the decision to release the summary and to -- for the attorney general to say that this president was cleared and not release any new charges against him, this is very freeing for those democrats. they are eager to move the agenda. they say they don't receive questions about this back home. they receive questions about health care. they want to get started on that. because the department of justice had this obamacare lawsuit and ended up filing that and saying they wanted to dismantle the law, this gives democrats months of talking points and opportunities to pursue that legislation that the new democrats, new members have been so interested ining to. >> that's a good synopsis of democrats. on the other side, republicans are really feeling emboldened.

president trump came to the capitol this week against the advice of some of his advisors i'm told, to take kind of a victory lap and have lunch with senate republicans. republicans are clearly feeling relieved and aggrieved, i would say. and also they are going on offense. we saw this in the intelligence committee which you referenced with the congressman. republicans, including the republican leader, kevin mccarthy, are now attacking adam schiff, the chairman of the intelligence committee, likening him to senator joe mccarthy saying he lied to the american people. so they are really using these four pages as a way to say, we have been vindicated. the president was right. there was no collusion. you dims have lied to the american people. host: what's the reality of the politics of attacks like this on a member? for example on twitter, chairman schiff is using it as a fundraising tool.

>> right. that is the reality of it. as you heard the congressman say, adam schiff isn't going anywhere. they are not going to let the republicans dictate who will be in charge of their committee. so they will use it as fundraising much the same way ilhan omar and other progressives are using the attacks on them to raise money. host: what do you both think of the way that nancy pelosi and steny hoyer handling the freshmen progressives who have been getting so much press coverage and good thoughts spoken on issues? how are you watching them as the leaders approach them within the larger caucus? >> the atact they are saying they will pursue regular order for legislation that. means big bold ideas like the green new deal, medicare for all, are not going to immediately go to the floor for a vote. there are not interested in big symbolic votes. they'll send it to committee. medicare for all had his first budget hearing ever in the next

few weeks. the green new deal is not something that's being pursued by a specific committee, however the speaker did agree to create a climate change panel. that's something that appeases a lot of progressives who have been asking for this. she has, speaker nancy pelosi and steny hoyer, the majority, have ways of defusing the tension because there are a lot of progressives who want to move quickly on this. their base is very interested in seeing something on this. they want to see fireworks. they want to see republicans put on defense on this. and for the democratic leaders to say we're going to give you this space in committee rooms, that's the way that democratic leaders are trying to move on from this conversation without completely shutting it down. .

the green new deal, as sarah just said, is not going anywhere in the house. speaker pelosi believed these centrists delivered them the majority. it's important to keep the majority, to keep the majority

they have to win districts that are swing districts or trump districts so they are not going to let the democratic party go too far to the left. host: mr. connolly, as a moderate, expresses interests in pursuing government, the oversight committee on mr. trump's finances even if it leads possible to an impeachment sense. did that answer surprise you? sheryl: it's a surprise that he said this. he didn't dance around it. he did exert a little caution. it doesn't mean we will impeach him. it surprised me. did it surprise you? sarah: yeah. when mike cohen, the president's former fixer, came in for his testimony and said he had proof that the president committed campaign finance -- that he had broken campaign finance laws, there were many democrats who agreed that was an impeachable sense in a way that mr. connolly said but would refrain from pursuing it

because they made the argument over and over again that's a political decision and for them to pursue that they need to have bipartisan support. they need to believe there will be some trump supporters out there who support them in that -- at risk of deciding the country on this. the president has committed impeachable offenses and yet they did not sign on with the bill from rashida talib and al green. it would take the house a little closer to impeachment and it was just the two of them. no more democrats. host: all right. thank you for the time. appreciate your questions for mr. connolly. we appreciate it. sheryl: thank you. [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] >> and the house taking a required break before they return briefly at 2:00 p.m. eastern for legislative speeches. legislative work will begin at 4:00 with measures dealing with homeland security. later in the week the house

will consider re-authorization of the violence against women act which expired in february. that legislation aims at preventing abuse and provide additional resources for victims. also a provision concerning domestic abusers and firearms. members will also likely take up a senate-passed resolution to end u.s. military involvement in the civil war in yemen. over in the senate, work continues on a bill that would provide nearly $13 billion in aid to areas affected by natural disasters. also on the senate's agenda, a resolution that would shorten the amount of time the senate has to consider certain nominations from 30 hours to two. and you can watch live house coverage on c-span, see the senate live on c-span2. join c-span3 right now for a series of discussions on health care, climate change and digital privacy. the group, new dem action fund, is the host. it got under way at 1:00 p.m. eastern time and also watch online at c-span.org or listen live with the free c-span radio app.

this week on "the communicators," ncte president, michael poul. interviewed by "washington post" reporter cat. >> i think the cato institute is in transition but the talk of demise is dramatically premature. i think the industry has nicely transitioned to the significance of broadband that helps compensate for the market competitive pressures on video. i think they managed video better than people would have imagined so i think they are thriving as businesses, as consumer delivery systems. they recently announced a really bold initiative called 10-g in which they attempt to dramatically increase broadband speeds to the american home to 10 gigabits per second over the next several years. >> watch "the communicators"

tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> once tv was simply three giant networks and a government-supported service called pbs. then, in 1979, a small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea. let viewers decide all on their own what was important to them. c-span opened the doors to washington policymaking for all to see, bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. in the age of power to the people, this was true people power. in the 40 years since the landscape has clearly changed. there's no monolithic media, broadcasting has given way to narrowcasting, youtube stars are a thing but cripe's big idea is morrell vant today than -- c-span's big idea is more relevant today than ever. the nonpartisan coverage of washington is funded as a public service by your cable or satellite provider on tferings and online, c-span is your unfiltered view of -- tv and online, c-span is your

unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind. >> the speaker of the council of representatives of iraq visited washington, d.c., recently for several meetings with lawmakers, including vice president pence. he also stopped by the u.s. institute of peace to talk about the new parliament's priorities. here's a portion of the event where he's answering questions from the moderator and the audience. nancy: mr. speaker, thank you very much. thank you for your comments. you had a very busy visit here in washington, d.c., so far. i understand you had