in the age of power to the people, this was true people power. in the 40 years since, the landscape has clearly changed. ,here is no monolithic media youtube stars are a thing but c-span's big idea is more relevant today than ever. money supports c-span, it's nonpartisan coverage of washington is funded as a public service on your cable or satellite provider. on television and online, c-span is your unfiltered view of government. so you can make up your own mind. this morning, molly reynolds from the brookings institution talks about attorney general william barr and the house judiciary committees scheduled vote this wednesday to hold him in contempt of congress. andrzejewski,dam founder and ceo of openthebooks.com reveals the report on fortune one -- fortune 100 companies receiving grants

and direct payments. we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter as well. "washington journal" is next. [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] ♪ host: it is the "washington journal" for may the seventh. one of the discussions leading up to the 2020 election is the idea of electability. hour, we invite you to tell us which 2020 candidate is most electable. you can tell us which of the 20 plus you would choose amongst the democratic field or if you a republican, you will discuss if you support president trump for a second term. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001.

independents, you can call at 202-748-8002. if you want to post on social media, our twitter feed is @cspanwj and facebook.com/cspan is where you can post your thoughts on this topic on our facebook page. to this idea of electability, a columnist for the washington post wrote about the democratic field as they have discussions looking at this topic. electability trap, can anyone define what it means? the best candidates tell a story, paint pictures, turn personal biography into something that connects them to the wider electorate. experience can matter, but it is not enough to argue personal readiness to serve as president. the national review has this columnist, conrad black, taking a look at president trump's chances for reelection.

he writes this. he is about where president obama was, but obama had not been successful. all he had done was obamacare and it was far -- it was being seen as far from an optimal solution. income growth. even if existing trends continue, this president will probably do better than obama winning a second term in 2012. we will talk more about this idea of electability and amongst the candidates running for the presidency in 2020, who is the most electable. for democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. and independents, 202-748-8002. you can go to our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan and our twitter feed at @cspanwj with

more on the topic of electability, here is greta. host 2: interviewers find electability by the candidate who can beat president trump. quinnipiac's april paul found 66% of democratic and leading -- leaning democratic voters said the vice president has the best chance to beat president trump and sanders followed. 44% say biden would be the best leader. a sanders and warren followed at 11% each. 23% in this quinnipiac poll say mr. biden has the best policy ideas with senator elizabeth warren following at 19%. in a recent nbc wall street journal poll, if you define electability by enthusiasm, they found some 70% of democratic leaning voters who intend to cast ballots in the democratic primary say they are enthusiastic about mr. biden or comfortable with him, that is a

higher share than that received by any other candidate tested in the poll since march. among them, bernie sanders, kamala harris, and elizabeth warren. candidates with the most work to do to energize voters included kiersten gillibrand and mr. only 3% of democratic primary voters say they are enthusiastic about mrs. gillibrand. you can find that poll if you go to the wall street journal. washington post front page story this morning has a story about who is most electable. candidates .2 themselves. -- candidates point to themselves. fairly split when asked whether the democratic nominee should be morepositioned to win over centrist independents, like those in the upper midwest. 44% said the democratic party nominee needed to attract

independents and 48% suggested the base. among self identified liberals, split with 48% independent voters and 45% to the party's base. is the person that is most electable -- need to be able to be able to attract outside the party base? the washington post has this piece by larry sabado. president,he president trump is easy to see how he could win reelection and writes with his large, solid base and a continuing good economy, it isn't hard to see how mr. trump could win again. host: if you go to our twitter feed, @cspanwj, already some response to this idea of electability. mark lassiter off twitter says

bernie, he follows that with an exclamation mark, he was the best last time and he will make it this time. anyone's electability is determined by the pr firm that does their campaign, not the candidate and jd reading says none of the above with a question mark. you can filter your thoughts as far as twitter and facebook and you can give us a call. first.om virginia is up independent line, we are talking about which candidate is most electable. you are up first, go ahead. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i think electability really comes down to avoiding the pack mentality. i see a lot of the democratic candidates running toward the left and not being really conscious of what is america really thinking about the issues . as an independent, i voted last time for trump. i am not as inclined to vote for

him this time around, even with the good economy, mostly because of the twitter rants and what i perceive as his maturity as a standing president. i am really looking hard at bernie. i don't see him running to the left, i see him standing on what he stood for last time around, i don't see flip-flopping. he is probably the best one to unseat president trump. host: when discussions of senator sanders come up, one of the sidebar discussions is the topic of age. does that concern you? caller: absolutely not. we make it illegal in the workplace for a reason and i have not seen anything that affects him. i looked up president reagan in his last years and there were no issues. i don't see any issues and to me, he remains probably, even with biden lately throwing his name in the hat, the strongest

candidate the democrats have at this point. texas,et's go to tyler, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would vote for joe biden. he needs a woman for a running mate and i think kamala harris would be good for that position and if not her, he should get a running -- younger running mate like beto o'rourke. i don't understand a lot of things going on in washington, d.c. with the investigations and things are being -- the mueller investigation seems like it is taken for a joke by republicans. host: when it comes to the former vice president, is it more of who he will choose as a running mate or is it about his personal quality and what about him personally makes him electable, in your mind? caller: i think what makes him electable is he was the vice

president, not because he was under president obama, but he was a good vice president. he sticks to his word. , but ibernie sanders would have to vote for either one of them, probably. i believe he is very electable. i believe he would stick to his word, stick to his guns. as a black woman, i would love to see a woman, period, not kamala harris, a woman, period or it i don't think we are ready for a woman president yet in america. host: why is that? , we, as womenoman -- some of us women, -- i just don't think we are ready. i don't think we are there yet for a woman.

mike int's hear from sun city, california, republican line. caller: yeah, i will be voting for trump. i think trump has the best chance of ridding -- winning. media serveseral to the left. host: when it comes to president, what specifically are you looking at when it comes to his electability? caller: he is extremely competent and has done a great job with the economy. the rebel -- liberals were talking about the new norm being 1% gdp growth. he is -- the answer for all liberals on all issues is more government. more government, more pyrrhic, higher taxes, what i was trying to finish if you had not cut me media the elite, liberal

serves to the left. host: when it comes to the president and i just want to -- because of the nature of the question, beside -- aside from the economy, what else would you elect them on? caller: besides the economy? i think he supports judeo-christian values and as a christian conservative, i align myself with that and to collate that with the left, basically all their positions are rather extreme and antithetical to judeo-christian values. that is coupled with the culture .ar the left controls the media. all those, i think, are realities americans have to grapple with. forth,cialism and so capitalism, another extreme position by the left. host: that is mike in sun city, california. we will hear from john in

warrenton, virginia. go ahead, you are on. republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am a trump supporter. i am in the and coulter camp. with trump, i am very disappointed he has not built that wall. i will still probably vote for him, 2020. just like the previous caller mentioned, all those reasons. on the democrat side, i truly think bernie is the one that can give trump the biggest run for his money versus the other candidates. biden -- even though bernie and biden are pretty much close in age, biden seems too old and out of it to me as a republican. bernie has promised all the wonderful goodies, not that he would deliver on them, but the rest of the field on the democrat side just seems to be too focused on either race or sex or whatever.

bernie has that universal almost attraction to him. furthermore, to be honest with doesthe younger generation not always get out and vote. i think people will be inspired with bernie again. regardless of who the democrats ultimately pick, the media will be on their side 100%. today will help shape that candidate and their views and get them elected for the democrats. i will hope trump pulls it off. host: if it does end up to be bernie sanders, do you think it will be close? caller: extremely close. almost an upset. i could see earnie taking it as much as -- it would be shocking and people would have a rude wake-up call just like with obamacare, everybody thought that was tremendous until they got the bill in the mail. it would be the same with bernie.

if he does pull it off, the rude awakening will occur shortly thereafter. host: that is john talking about president trump and bernie sanders and the idea of electability and what makes a candidate electable and which candidate you think is most electable. from alabama in phoenix city, michael, good morning. thanks for calling. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i believe former vice president joe biden would be the most electable because he has experience. he has already been in the white house and i believe he could pull this country back together again because trump has definitely divided this country and polarized this country with each other. what is it about joe biden that gives him the tools and ability to pull things together, as you say? caller: his experience. he already served as vice president for 8 years.

he has experience that, quite frankly, none of the other candidates have. has noas trump goes, he experience to be a president. he has just bumbled his way through two years and he wants an additional two years because he felt he was robbed. host: joe biden making his way through iowa last week as part of his pitch to potential voters on electing him in 2020 talked about who he is as a candidate versus president trump. here is part of his statement. [video clip] president trump: -- biden:vice president this is the united states of america, we can do anything. [applause] we can do anything we set our minds to.

when john kennedy made that famous speech about going to the moon, there is one line every kid integrate school even knows what it says. he said, we are doing this because we refuse to postpone any longer. i refuse to postpone any longer the ability for us to do these things. it is time for us to do them. it is within our wheelhouse. we have the capacity to do them. everybody knows who donald trump is. we have to learn who we are. we have got to know who we are. we choose hope over fear. we choose unity over division. .e choose truth overlies and we choose science over fiction. host: you can see more of that

on our website, c-span.org. massachusetts, independent line. david, hello. caller: hello. host: go ahead, you are on. caller: i would like to comment on the litany of poles just read. why would anybody believe the polls after what happened in 2017? i would not believe any poll. beyond that, i would vote for trump. he has gotten in there and try to drain the swamp. i just listened to biden say we have to go back to this, do that, go back to what? it is very disheartening to hear people, especially liberals, who want all this freedom for everybody, but yet, they are not going to give freedom to an unborn child. host: when you talk about the president and draining the swamp, what do you think is his biggest accomplish compliment on that front?

caller: his biggest accomplishment is trying to deal with the illegals coming in this country and i don't understand don't believeats things being illegal and allowing them to happen. host: that is david in massachusetts. let's hear from tyler and virginia. republican line. caller: thank you. i don't believe any of the democrats could be elected. their stance on socialism and the outrageous comments of the new, diverse congress has pretty much made them not electable. trump's strong economy ought to butter them up. host: we heard the vice president say bernie could be the one that gives the president the most challenge. what do you think of that? i don't think so.

under obama, he pretty much sat in the background. our: we will continue discussion about electability. always the topic of fundraising. define our viewers electability by money, take a look at this axios piece. donald trump leads with 30 million followed by bernie sanders with almost 21 million. elizabeth warren, a little over 16 million. kiersten gillibrand has raised 12.6 million. john delaney following with 12 million and beto o'rourke has a little over 9 million in his coffers. a name missing is joe biden, the former first president. many of you may recall he was able to raise 6 million in the first 24 hours after announcing his candidacy. vice president biden raises more dollars at a south

carolina fundraiser over the weekend. host: we go next to raymond in new york, democrats line. caller: good morning. biden.0% behind joe i honestly believe anyone could iat donald trump because don't see how anybody could increased inn has value. christ would never say he would shoot someone on fifth avenue. coward. i believe anybody, you or me. host: out of all the democratic candidates, you chose joe biden. tell me why, specifically. caller: joe biden was a great vice president. president. great

even though donald trump is , he has thebama .xperience of all the democrats, he is the man. host: do you support joe biden only because you would like to see an extension of obama era policies? caller: that is one reason, yes. that is one reason. i think he is the best bet to beat donald trump. like i said, how could anybody think donald trump is a good man? maybe the economy is better, maybe, but you are going to sacrifice your honor for the economy? that is all i have to say. host: let's go to yonkers, new york, independent line. caller: i feel we need elizabeth warren for president.

not only desirable, but that we need her for a number of reasons . not too long ago, they were worried about a global -- the global financial picture and the benefited theat very wealthy will not hold, that is according to some expert. not that much money went to the workers. they brought back stocks and -- in fact, one expert says we are not going to get into a general recession, but we will get into an earnings recession. she knows more about banking and she was the founder of the consumer financial protection bureau that gave back so much money since 2012, but they are trying to dismantle it under the trump administration. if you go to wikipedia and look at her biography, she is

probably, probably one of the most -- maybe they are all intelligence, but -- intelligent, but i think she is at the top. when her father became ill, they became poor and her mother had to go to work and she has pointed out on a minimum wage job back then, you could save your house. host: do you think she is getting the same amount of attention as the other candidates? including joe biden and the like? are getting4 b's more attention. she is getting pretty much on certain channels, but she has policy. she is coming up with policy. she is putting out what she would do and she gives the financial basis why they could succeed and there are women wearing shirts saying "we have a plan for that."

she covers every important issue. the woman is amazing and we deserve a woman president. yonkers, new york, talking about elizabeth warren. several other candidates on the democratic side not mentioned yet. you can talk about president trump when it comes to this idea of electability. 202-748-8000 for democrats. republicans, 202-748-8001. and independents, 202-748-8002. even as we talk about 2020 politics, plenty of else going on in washington, d.c.. host 2: a follow-up to yesterday's missed deadline by the justice department. if you go to the house judiciary committee website, you can find the back-and-forth between house judiciary chairman jerry nadler and the justice department. the justice department responded to mr. nadler yesterday saying we are going to go forward in this committee on wednesday morning 10:00 a.m. with contempt citation charges against the attorney general and they responded by saying let's

negotiate wednesday morning. you can find the exchange of letters if you go to the website. axios tweets out jerry nadler has agreed to meet with the justice department today, not wednesday afternoon as the justice department proposed before kicking off contempt proceedings against bill barr. that is scheduled right now for wednesday morning at 10:00 a.m. the reaction from house judiciary committee members, ted lieu is one of them, he put out on twitter dear justice department ag barr, what are you hiding from the american people? we will find out. also, you should search for inherent contempt power and read about it. we are part of a coequal branch of government and we are going to act like it. the ranking member of the committee, doug collins saying yesterday democrats have launched a proxy war, smearing

the attorney general when their anger lies with the president and the special counsel who found either conspiracy nor obstruction. what are the options for congress? isording to usa today, there inherent contempt, which the supreme court has ruled lawmakers have powers to hold an individual until the person provides testimony or documents ht for the end of the congressional session. they also have criminal contempt , that allows lawmakers to charge an individual with a crime and it would have to be passed through one of the chambers and congress, or they could go through the route of civil judgment. lawmakers can seek a civil judgment asking a judge to enforce subpoenas. according to c-span's capitol hill producer, we will hear from mitch mcconnell in the senate today about the mueller report. he tweets out the leader will speak at 10:00 a.m. from the

senate floor on his final thoughts on mueller report and will say case closed per his office. you can watch coverage of the floor on c-span 2. host: reaction off of twitter from our @cspanwj twitter feed. bidensays it appears joe is not campaigning against any democratic contender, he is all donald all the time. warren might make a great vice president. where is my free stuff democrats promised me saying the president has turned the -- him, heoard and reelect is doing a fantastic job. twitter available to you at @cspanwj and our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan. you can call us on the phone lines, too. electability in 2020 politics is the topic for the next half hour. who is most electable and why?

baton rouge, louisiana, independent line, good morning. caller: good morning. , of course, like normal, are giving everything away. everything is free. health care, college education, everything is free. if they did not give away the store, i don't know if they could get elected for dogcatcher. a lot of the people who vote free.at want something host: if that is what you feel about the democratic side, are you a supporter of president trump and reelecting him? caller: yes. , but herand paul voter didn't make it, of course. anybody running against hillary

clinton, i would have voted for guerrilla -- harambe the gorilla. host: why would you give president trump another term? caller: his foreign policy i think is very good. this year, which , i have never done anything back in 7, 8 years. host: let's go to deborah in ohio, democrats line. caller: hi, how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: anyway, we are supporting joe biden. he is a man with experience. he knows what he is doing compared to donald trump, who does not have the beginning of a concept if he ever learns to tell the truth. joe biden, we like bernie, but

it bothered us when he came up with letting people even in prison to vote. when you have done your time and you are out, sure, but not when they are still in prison. this thing about anita hill, he has nothing to apologize to her for. i remember when that was on and watched it and he seemed to be the main person that had compassion compared to the republicans and we don't need a wall. we need a lot of infrastructure. host: you were a bernie supporter fan and took that one instance of what he said about inmates to change your mind? caller: it did not totally change it, we always were more for biden, but when we heard him say that, it did take -- if he does become the nominee, i would support him, i just don't agree with that one concept he has. yeah, we have always liked joe biden. host: kamala harris working her

way through the midwest with a stop in detroit brought up the idea or the topic of electability. buzz feed news capturing that story saying it was her first visit to michigan ada -- as a sheidate mercy -- where suggested -- putting restrictions on voters a candidate can win over. here is senator harris. [video clip] >> there has been a lot of conversation by pundits about the electability and who can speak to the midwest. when they say that, they usually put the midwest in a simplistic box and a narrow narrative. too often, their definition of .he midwest leaves people out it leaves out people in this room who helped build cities

like detroit. [applause] women whoout working are on their feet all day, many of them working without equal pay. and the conversation too often suggests certain voters will only vote for certain candidates regardless of whether their ideas will lift up all of our .amilies and it is shortsighted it is wrong and the voters deserve better. next inssissippi gulfport. scott on the republican line. caller: good morning. i am glad to talk to you this morning. this is an excellent question you have and i am glad to address the democratic callers calling you this morning.

first of all, i want to say -- i have a bone to pick about the people who support biden. first of all, he is too old. windbag.e an old like stale toast. if the democrats are putting their bets against biden, they will end up being sore losers. next i want to go onto crazy bernie sanders. he is a communist, socialist without a doubt, make no mistake about it and if democrats want to get behind bernie, i suggest those democrats listen to bernie ump speeches. don't answer this question, do you know bernie sanders does not end his rallies with "god bless america?" that is impossible to believe. this guy is running for president and he never concludes with "god bless america."

all democrats need to get on the program and watch out for bernie sanders. he does have the most energy. host: your support is behind president trump, i take it. caller: absolutely. 100% behind the president. this is a fantastic president. he will go down in history with one of the great republican presidents. let me talk about the democrat side again. host: only because you brought it out -- brought it up twice, when it comes to the one thing you would reelect him on, what would that be? caller: multiple things. first of all, he is an excellent businessman. he has monuments with his name on it around the world. president trump knows how to clean up obama's mess and obama left a gigantic mess. this country was in tatters. donald trump will rebuild america's military.

president trump will complete his mission for making america great again. is jeff in port richie, florida, independent line, hi. .aller: hello, everybody i would like to state i would mainly torump again look in the past history after world war ii, we could not focus on ourselves and became a very bad country and notice the world was having trouble and tried to help out the world and then came along nafta which none of the senators read before they signed and the world became rich. now we aren't. i think trump is in there to help stabilize everything. i think, if everybody wanted to help out our president all the way from oil, groceries, rent,

reduce the price by 10%, $.10 on the dollar, and everybody in our country gets a raise instead of individuals getting a raise. i would vote for him again because he is going to make our country great again, one way or another. host: this is alan, brooklyn, new york. it democrats line. caller: good morning, thank you. i want to focus on the reasons i think joe biden is a good choice without denigrating any of the -- any of the other fine people in the field. as a regent tog an inexperienced barack obama. it was the biden experience that gave the obama presidency the ability to function. biden has been subjected to a whipsaw of changing standards. on the one hand, standards about

things like the me too movement have been imposed retroactively on what he did trying to be impartial at the hearings over clarence thomas i think that is unfair. on the other hand, standards for presidential behavior have become far more lacks and when people look back and say about biden critically he tried to win twice before and fizzled in 1988 and 2008, both of those instances involved standards that were far more stringent on a presidential candidate than they are as imposed on trump today. --mp quoted in the 1988 campaign almost every speech he gave in on one instance he forgot to quote the name of the person and they called that plagiarism. by those standards, obama would have been impeached 1000 times

.ver already we should be recognizing the reasons he had to bow out of races areandards -- standards that have been violated by this president multi-fault. brooklyn, new york, giving his defense of joe biden. you can add your thoughts or disagree if you like on the phone lines. 202-748-8000 for democrats. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. let's go to our independent line, duane is next. hello. caller: good morning, pedro. i agree with the last caller from new york on biden. i sit here and listen to the trump supporters. they disregard everything this man has done for this country. the country was already divided

when president obama was in there because they felt he was not doing enough. now that trump is in power it is like whatever he does, it is okay. it doesn't make sense to me and it will never make sense to me. all the democrats need to do right now is get joe biden is. will win back this country. ast: aside from his time vice president, what makes a most delectable? caller: he is fighting for unions. i don't hear any other democrats talking about unions and this president is trying to abolish the unions. we are and local unions, the backbone of this country. i don't hear no other democrats talking about unions. talking nothing about that. he is talking about the 1% and is that fair to us?

host: let's go to elizabeth in kansas, republican line. elizabeth from kansas, hello. caller: hello. host: hi. caller: hi. i support trump. i know he is not perfect. neither am i, neither are any of us. host: what makes him reelect a reelectable mind -- in your time? caller: he is one of the presidents in my lifetime, and i am 55, he is one of the presidents who feels like he loves this country. i felt like obama was selling us out to the united nations. host: democrats line next, patty from sterling, virginia. hello. caller: hi, good morning. kind of at a loss for words with

some of these trump supporters. let me start with biden. i went to a dinner in 2006 where biden was the speaker and it was a virginia democratic dinner in richmond and he gave one of the most -- probably one of the most brilliant speeches i have ever heard about what his political flock -- political philosophy was and how he was trying to live it in his life. i could go on and on about biden in terms of the type of person he is, personal stories of friends that were sick he sent flowers to in the hospital and lots of stories. i just really want to comment on some of these people that call in with glowing terms about trump, especially the guy that said trump inherited a mess from

obama. obama inherited -- we were on the verge of a depression. he spent 8 years trying to dig us out of a hole. he got the economy back on track, all the trends were in the right way, trump steps in, canceled some regulations, which really has no effect whatsoever on demand or stimulus in the economy, all it is -- does is strategically impact in a negative way things like the environment and important things for economic health. all these people can say is i taxes.0 back in my the lack of understanding of good government. i have been a national security expert for 35 years. this man's national security is nonexistent. host: let me take you back to joe biden.

what makes him electable in your mind, specifically. give me a specific? caller: i love the way he fights .or the working class i love how down to earth -- he loves people. he spent his entire life dedicated to this country despite having, at the beginning catastrophic, a devastating loss of his wife and baby girl. he stayed in senate and has .tuck it out for 40 years everything i know about him, he is a wonderful person. forr i attended that dinner ,he next two years every month i asked his chief of staff to put me on the mailing list, i got a very detailed policy paper

this very specific problems this country faces. you have to read the paper to understand the legislative part of it. host: thanks for the call. let's go to annapolis, maryland, republican line. tim, hello. caller: good morning, sir. i am pretty much going to go for trump. granted, he is somewhat flawed and i don't agree with 100% of his policies. a damn goodas done job. that being said, there are some policies i am against and i think he made terrible mistakes. i am for the corporate cuts he made, i am not so keen on cuts for individuals, which clearly had a benefit on the rich. right now, my chips are on

trump. that being said, my one caveat is i am very interested to see what larry hogan is going to do. i do think both trump and hogan share some economic similarities. i do think hogan is less divisive and more socially acceptable with some of his policies. host: larry hogan, the republican governor of maryland. do you speak of that because of what he has done in maryland specifically and if that is the case, what would you highlight? caller: number one is the fact he rolled back a lot of the nonsensical taxes imposed by his predecessor, which had a tremendous impact on me and most of my neighbors and the tolls and whatnot. insofar as his social policies, listener.he is a good

he is not holding to any party, per se, he listens to everybody and i think he is good at getting together people and seeing where our commonality is, whether you are liberal democrat, progressive republican libertarian, he is able to, for the most part, bring everyone together, listen, and then come up with solutions. that is one of my frustrations with trump, he doesn't listen to everybody. he has his way and no other way, which makes him his own worst enemy. annapolis,is tim in maryland, talking about larry hogan. you have about 15 minutes or so before we end this segment to talk about electability and who is most electable going into 2020. host 2: let's go back to the nbc

wall street journal poll we referenced. joe biden has early advantage in democrat field. the poll gives an early glimpse of a hypothetical matchup between the former vice president and president trump. among all registered voters, president trump produces more ardent support then does mr. biden. 25% of voters said they are enthusiastic about mr. trump as a candidate compared with 17% who said so of mr. biden. in the broader picture of enthusiasm, comfort, or unease, mr. biden is in a stronger position now than is president trump. of the president will be talking --his supporters tonight wednesday night, 8:00 p.m. eastern time in panama city, florida. he will be holding a make america great again rally. our coverage on c-span 2 at 8:00

p.m. eastern time or you can go to the website, c-span.org, or download the free c-span radio app. host: south carolina next. independent line, michael. good morning. caller: it is an interesting conversation. i suppose, at this point there are a couple of things i would like to say. i would like democrat to keep in mind in reality they need to consider teamwork. from my perspective, just from the mock draft thought playbook is i would put joe at the top primarily because he needs to come in nba stabilizing force and look at the country and everybody go let's take a breath and calm down. i would like him to have somebody on his ticket, perhaps kamala would be my and national choice, maybe mayor pete, who is

-- who he is looking consciously to and the rest of the country saying i know i am 74, same age as trump effectively, i know i am a guy who has been in this process along time. i am here to calm things down and pass the baton. if they look at this as a teamwork concept instead of an individual trying to attain the position and sprinkle the populace with his decisions, i think they have a better shot. would republican -- i take a question if you would like. from a republican perspective, the enema and like the enema and from annapolis, he seems annapolis and i would ask him respectfully why -- even though this guy supports some of his policies, there are a couple of things. it isannot stand the fact always money, money, money. as long as money good -- is

good, everything else does not matter. hisf you are ok with policies, surely there is some measure of a man you have to calibrate somewhere, some republicans have to stand up and say we are getting a lot of judges through. at what cost? whoenator, lindsey graham, i have contacted a number of times, he seems like he occasionally likes to stand up for truth, but all of a sudden he will kowtow. that is my perspective and i appreciate your letting me rant. host: that is michael in south carolina. let's hear from donald in north carolina, republican line. caller: hi, how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: first, i want to commend you all. c-span is awesome. i think you are a very respected man. i like the way you all go down the middle. i cannot hear what you are

saying. host: i am not saying anything, go ahead with your thought. caller: my thought is this. after two years of this mueller investigation and all the hurtful and hateful things they have said about trump, yes, he is not perfect. no way he is perfect, but once the information comes out about warrants and all the investigations going on now that democrats are running scared of, trump will win by a landslide. it is going to devastate them. host: when it comes to your personal support of reelecting the president, what do you base that on? is it just the investigation or are there other things you point to? caller: if you look at what trump has done in the two years -- he has the

taxes and the judges and working the mexican deal -- that will be great for america, we will get more money and the china deal. he is putting the pressure on him now and if they don't come to the table, it is going to be rough on them. they are not going to do that, they are already down in china. they are not going to let it go but so far down because they are the second-biggest people on earth as far as military and money and all that stuff. he is doing the right things on his policies. you have people that keep every day slandering and pushing him down. it is kind of hard to get things working. and the deal with the infrastructure the other day, that was a political circus. nothing is going to happen with trillion.s $2

my opinion is democrats a love to spend money. trump would have to spend a lot of money to get things back in order. host: let's hear from betty in florida, democrats line. caller: yes, my name is betty mitchell. i am an 87-year-old woman. i cannot believe the way ingsident trump is cahoot with russia and foreign countries, that these people would go on and hold him up to be the next president. i am for mr. joe biden. the anita hill lady -- we blacks have been persecuted with slavery all our lives, so i will not hold anything about -- from joe biden about what anita hill said.

when the constitution was written, the black slave supposedly had gotten -- host: what is it about joe biden you support? caller: i don't think he would sell our country out to the foreign countries. i can't think of his name, but when he came back, he is a vegetation and they want us to pay $2 million for his care when they were the ones beating him up. think joe biden would treat the family that way. trump has not apologized for nothing. our boys have to go over there and fight. if some of them got held up, russians or people were beating them -- host: let's hear from kenneth in philadelphia, independent line. caller: how are you doing this morning? i think it is the most

ridiculous, the party of con artists. they have these people believing this boy in the white house have done so much. the man before him moved it a whole yard. people -- all the swamp rats he brought with him are jumping ship. this is crazy and what has he done? he has these policies reducing restrictions. when all these companies real -- realize, they are going to line up together because this guy is a lunatic. host: we are talking about electability. who is most electable in your mind? caller: anybody is electable better than what you got. host: who is the top candidate in your mind? caller: it looks like joe is the top now, but any of them would be good than what we got. host: do you support joe biden

personally or are there others he would like to see? caller: any one of them. any one of them. host: that is kenneth. let's hear from one more candidate, bernie sanders on saturday. he talked about the liberation process when it comes to choosing a president. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> what i want to say is politics is not quite as complicated as it is made out to be. you have the media and the media will talk about somebody raised a lot of money today or somebody attacked somebody else and a poll showed this and that today and somebody said something dumb at iowa state, i hope it is not me, or somebody slipped on a banana peel, front page story. what is politics about in a real system? i want you to think about this. a number one, it is an analysis in your own mind about what is going on in your world and society. for example, front page of the

paper today says the economy is booming and unemployment is down. unemployment is down. does that mean the economy is booming for ordinary people? you have to think about that and you have to do something the media often does not do, that congress does not do, that politicians do not do. go into your hearts and minds. what is going on in my life? host: you may want to see those comments again or the comments of any of the candidates currently making their way across the country. we invite you to go to our website at c-span.org. type the name in the search box and you can see everything they have said over the last weeks, months, years depending on their length of service. all of that available at c-span.org. off of twitter, the most electable candidate is bill weld, republican running against president trump. he is the only one looking to unite, not divide. he has everything to lose and

nothing to gain. it is up to primary voters to be smart and use the vote wisely. he is making those comments off of our c-span twitter feed. tom is next, new york, republican line. caller: good morning. thank you very much to c-span. i would like everybody to know, including bernie sanders, that i suffered very badly under barack obama. i lost my company because of illegal immigration. my family got broken up. i suffered terribly. i am just crawling out of it now. thank god donald trump is our president and he will be our president for the next 6 years. this country has never done better than when donald trump took over the reins of this country. i am sorry, democrats, but the communist party of you guys is a losing proposition. it is not going to work for this country. host: jeff is next in west virginia, democrats line. good morning. caller: hello.

yeah, all right. i think elizabeth warren has the ideas because under barack obama, we doubled the national debt because they deregulated the banking system. backs for bringing frank.teagall and dodd has thesian collusion same ring to it as weapons of mass destruction. and i do not trust the government, but she is the best possibility to straighten the country out. savannah, georgia,

independent line. you will be the last call for this segment. caller: i have been a long time listener of c-span, first time caller. i am going say that -- i am in a weight-and-c mode. mode.a wait-and-see even though i voted for neither one of them, i was a republican when pat robertson tossed his hat into the ring because of his stance against abortion. but if there was a democrat president that was against abortion, i would vote for him in a heartbeat and rally for them. president because we should. a lot of people would not pray for president obama, but we should pray for those in authority. i wanted to say that i really enjoy c-span. it really breaks my heart when people call in and criticize. this is one of the most

unbiased. i watch fox, cnn, msnbc, and i prayerfully ask the lord to lead me. i encourage every true believer to do the same. be led by god. do not leave god out of people running for office, but pay for this country. it is so polarized, it breaks my heart. thank you for giving me the opportunity to share that. host: you will be the last call for the segment. news over the last couple of contempt.the idea of we will be joined by a guest to explain the process of what congress has the ability to do, molly reynolds of the brookings institution. she will join us next for that conversation after this update from greta brawner. host: the house judiciary committee has set a 10:00 a.m. wednesday hearing to move forward on a contempt citation. "the washington times" this

morning reporting that the attorney general and the house judiciary chair, jerry nadler, have agreed to negotiate today to try to avoid this contempt citation. the two sides changing letters, which you can find on the house judiciary committee website. in a letter to the house judiciary chairman, the justice "your refusalte, report the less redacted keeps us from engaging in a discussion in furthering of legitimate legislative activity." reviewts have refused to the report, saying they will not let the administration dictate the terms of congress' work. what happens next? a congresswoman from florida tweets out this. "last week i called for attorney general barr to be held in contempt of congress for a legally refusing a lawful subpoena. the ag still has time

to change his mind. otherwise, we will hold him in contempt." you can find the back and forth between the house judiciary committee and the justice department if you go to our twitter page. we tweeted those out so you can read them all for yourself. you can find them there. one of the options for congress? there is inherent contempt. according to "usa today," the supreme court has ruled that lawmakers can hold an individual until the person provides the testimony or documents sought until the end of the session. they also have the option of criminal contempt. a law that allows lawmakers to charge an individual with a crime. it would have to be passed through one of the chambers in congress. or there is civil judgment. lawmakers can seek a civil judgment, asking a judge to enforce a subpoena.

those are the options before the house, which is controlled by democrats. it would be ultimately up to the speaker of the house, as "the washington times" reports this morning. citation, nancy pelosi would instruct the u.s. attorneys of the district of columbia to prosecute william barr. over on the senate side, here is a tweet this morning from richard blumenthal. he has been in the white house along with the hawaii democratic andtor, calling on the da inspector general to determine whether the attorney general opened the door to political interference in an investigation by talking with the white house about the cases mueller referred to other offices, whether or not

he revealed defendants' names. we hopefully will be watching today, tuesday, but whether or not the attorney general and the house judiciary committee can come to an agreement on what democrats of that committee get relent on-- do they the fully redacted version in the underlying evidence? that is the story to watch today. host: molly reynolds from the brookings institution joins us to talk about this idea of contempt of congress, use of contempt by congress. good morning. guest: good morning. host: if no agreement happens today, what is the hurdle if they pull that trigger? guest: if the house judiciary committee approves a contempt citation and the full house also approves it, it goes onto the u.s. attorney of the district of columbia. the u.s. attorney can choose not to take that contempt citation

to a grand jury to pursue prosecution. indeed, we have seen in several recent high-profile cases involving congress' contempt power, that is what the u.s. for, and in some cases it is because the executive branch is claiming executive privilege in saying that the person is the subject of the contempt citation and acting at the direction of the president, and the justice department has long maintained it does not have to prosecute those cases. host: if it goes to the judge, that person decides not to go forward, does it end when it comes to the use of contempt? guest: what would most likely happen is that then we would see the house of representatives pursue civil enforcement of the attorneywith which general barr did not comply. that process also makes its way through the court.

that is a slow-moving process, so the george w. bush administration and the obama administration, we saw very high-profile instances of the house trying to use its civil in the caseoption of subpoena noncompliance, first with connection to the firing of some u.s. attorneys in the bush administration, then in connection with attorney general eric holder. both of those cases took a very long time to move through the courts. so if the criminal contempt avenue is closed off to congress, they have other options to use the courts, but those options are -- host: what does history tell us about the use of contempt, and what does it suggest about usage this time around? is onethe contempt power that congress has had available to it for quite a long time. but historically, when we see it

ofd and powerful, it is more a threat than is necessary. we see the house of representatives adopting it. it is a backstop that the house can say to an individual we will threaten to hold you in contempt as a way to force negotiation. indeed, usually that is how these end up. congress and the executive branch come to some sort of negotiated agreement that is at least somewhat mutually agreeable to both sides. that is usually what happens with the contempt power. in this case, we are seeing the executive branch take a hard line across the board. president trump has said he is going to fight, so that kind of a cross the-board digging in is unusual.bit

we will see how it turns up, the meeting, hopes that house judiciary committee -- it will be important regarding this negotiation with the attorney general. or if we end up in court. host: the topic of contempt of congress. if you want to ask questions about what you have heard and have her answer those, give us a call. 202-748-8000 for democrats, 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independents. how does it impact them? contenthe criminal power of congress is punitive, so it does -- the criminal contempt power of commerce is punitive, so it does convey punishment on the individual.

it has not used it it almost 100 years, early 20th century. that is coercive. that is meant to force someone to cooperate. the fact that the criminal contempt power is punitive is part of why we have seen it used as a threat available to congress, to try to get someone to not have to go to jail or whatever. host: one example i have heard, is that of eric holder when he was attorney general. can you fill in the blank there? guest: during the obama administration, there was an operation at the department of justice called fast and furious, involving gun smuggling along the southwestern border. the house of representatives told eric holder he was in contempt and pursued civil enforcement of a subpoena in conjunction with that case. to windk several years

through the courts. the case bore the name of loretta lynch, who was eric holder's successor as attorney general. it was in the courts for so long, it was still in the courts when president obama left office and president trump came into office. so that began as an indication into how long these things can take to resolve if congress ends up trying to pursue civil enforcement of a noncompliance subpoena. host: the issue at hand for use of this was the mueller report in its unredacted form. what do you think the arguments arehe department of justice when it comes to the underlying arguments? guest: one of the areas involves the grand jury material specifically, which the justice department has said it prohibited by law from turning over to commerce. the judiciary committee response to that is that the justice

department can go to a judge and ask a judge to waive that prohibition. one of the things the judiciary committee has tried to negotiate with the justice department in this case is an agreement to ask a judge to do that, and that is an area of contention. looking at the draft contempt citation that the committee released yesterday. that is one of the things to discuss. undersion as well, overall argument that the justice department has not been cooperative with the judiciary committee, in trying to reach a mutually acceptable agreement to go forward. host: when it comes to the crafting of the citation itself, who is involved in the crafting going forward? guest: we have seen the chair really a draft. they are scheduled to have a hearing to vote on that tomorrow. we will see if that happens. i think the outcome of this, as

these nova scotia -- as these negotiations, they still need to be undertaken with the justice department. if it comes out of the judiciary committee, if they approve it, which we would expect they would because democrats have a majority on that committee, then it would go to the full house. from there, if it is approved by the house, it would proceed to the attorney's office. host: robert on our democrats line, you are on our guest that you are on our line with our guest, -- you are on our line with our guest, molly reynolds from the brookings institution. caller: i am tired of lawyers running our country. have you noticed that most politicians are lawyers? i think that is a problem. you need somebody who can use a shovel to run our country instead of all these lawyers. have you noticed when lawyers very them deep down

instead of six feet? deep down they are pretty good people. guest: having a dispute about what the law says, what does the law require, you know, legal expertise is pretty important. again, it remains to be seen how this particular dispute will resolve itself, but it is legalnly an area, having expertise in the house of representatives, access to real high quality staff is important. line, northican carolina. carl, your next up. caller: thank you for c-span. america today is looking at what is going on, and it is a shame that our politicians who lead our country are doing the things they are doing in public. it makes me feel sad for america. and i hope these guys will get a grip and clean their act up

because it really is a discussing -- a disgusting thing to see. guest: i think a lot of what we are seeing the house try to figure out right now, particularly house democrats, what is the best course of action going forward in response to the findings of the mueller report? there is a fair amount of debate among democrats in congress, some outside of congress about whether the right course of action is to pursue a formal impeachment proceeding, whether to just continue to do more investigative work before perhaps elevating it to impeachment. that certainly is one of the questions that the house judiciary committee in the broader house democratic caucus are struggling with. host: it does not appear that the house and congress is exercising contempt power before subpoenas remove any other can -- any other obstruction before

the 1930's. can you expand on that? itst: as it is pointed out, has been since the early 20th century that commerce has used what we call its inherent contempt power, which is on alarm going out and finding the noncompliance witness and physically bringing him to the house of representatives. because of the challenges that congress has, enforcing compliance through the department of justice, with noncompliant witnesses, lots of folks have raised the question of should we bring back the inherent contempt power. i expect we will hear more calls for that. there are some folks who think -- toongress could use enforce the use of contempt power and not just imprisonment.

time congresslong has tried to use it because of all the challenges the house is likely to face in using criminal contempt, or even civil enforcement of noncompliance. the person would be how old if undertaken? -- we would unclear have to see where that would actually take place. but again, i suspect that if congress indicated it was serious about reviving its inherent contempt power, that, like the criminal contempt power, might turn it to more of a wreck, a tool that congress could use to try to force compliance. texas, our independent line. this is from rob. hello. caller: hi.

the democrats are charging headlong into a trump trap. somebody needs to tell them. i am a retired senior scientist, but my family are full of lawyers. they are demanding -- host: go ahead. thatr: the are demanding -- barr violated several laws. this is a set up trap. go to court and they can be charged with political pressure. one of my family members was a district attorney a long time. this is pretty clear, but you never know until you actually go to court. i have three lawyers all saying the democrats have been set up, and they are doing it to themselves. one last quick thing on trump being a russian agent. the econometric api models all indicate, his energy policies

are costing russians between $160 billion and 240 billion dollars each year, namely due to low energy prices. caller.t you, thanks. guest: if congress goes to court to try to enforce noncompliance subpoena, there might be an unintended outcome. but that is something we have seen happen in some of these other civil enforcement cases of the past, that when congress had court,rt to going to they do not gnosis -- they do not necessarily know what the court is going to say, and they might end up setting a precedent going forward. that is among the many moving pieces here that commerce has to figure out what to do with. they are not quite sure what the courts would actually do and what that would mean going forward. host: if it did go to the court,

who would argue for the house? guest: the house general counsel or someone from the house general counsel's office. brought in this congress by speaker pelosi. many people think in anticipation of some of these sites,gh-profile court not just subpoena, but also around the house of representative intervening in some other high-profile court cases, likely the texas challenge, the affordable care act. the house has institutional lawyers whose job it is to argue these cases. host: if it went that far, who would be likely to argue for the attorney general? guest: someone from the justice department. i am not sure who it would be, but again, we would see an executive branch lawyer. host: let's hear from

representative ted lieu. he talks about some of these contempt proceedings and what the house could do if they decide to take that route. >> let's just walk through a process of how contempt proceedings work. the attorney general has violated the law. the judiciary committee would vote. once the house voted out, it triggers a number of things. a house counsel, we go to litigate in court. but we have inherent content powers that courts have upheld to take action irrespective of the court. had a house they jail. i do not think we will go that far. the courts have upheld that as well. not beress' power will abdicated.

we will enforce it. we can start imposing fines on that person immediately upon contempt off the house floor. we will go there if he does not cooperate. pennsylvania, democrats line, nicholas. hello. caller: thank you for c-span. nation of laws under the constitution, or we are not. these people in power, the republicans, these general attorneys refusing to show up to testifies, and refusing a subpoena, congress should either implement the law -- i'm sorry, i lost my train of thought. hillary clinton, bill clinton, they were investigated multiple times with whitewater, benghazi, uranium.

donald trump has been investigated one time, and it was in relation to russians and our election. ather we are going to be country of laws where all people -- with all people, or we will have a dictatorship. my only other question -- i don't know why these republican senators are allowing this president and this general just openly break the law. host: thanks, caller. guest: i think that this house isof what the doing to uphold the rule of law is an important one. one of the challenges in orsuing contempt citations forcing individuals to comply beyondbpoenas is that the inherent contempt powers that representative lou was talking about -- that representative lew was talking

causesn that clip, it the judiciary to help enforce its position of power in this area. that presents a challenge. --t of this does have other congress does have other tools beyond contempt enforcement subpoenas that it might pursue. there is language in the senate what the outlines senate can spend money on. in the senate, they have the ability to have confirmation hearings for appointees. it is an important tool for congressional oversight and action in this area. we talk about contempt and subpoenas, but congress has other avenues it can pursue. host: what about the avenue of censure? guest: either house of congress can adopt a resolution censuring

an executive branch official. it is certainly possible that is an avenue that the house could pursue. perhaps in reference to the attorney general. unlike contempt, that does not have a sort of unitive punishment. it is just sort of very strongly worded -- a very strongly worded sentiment from the house of representatives, but it carries political value. in this case, given the current majority, it is likely we are saying this person has behaved inappropriately. host: in "the wall street journal," there is a piece by william mcgurn, "jerry nadler in contempt the judiciary chairman is right saying that -- the executive branch is coequal, meaning that for congress to get what it wants, it must exercise patience and engage in

give-and-take. what do you think about that in light of mr. barr? guest: that is what we are seeing the house judiciary committee trying to do. oflays out a whole series negotiations that have already taken place. there is further discussion that is still happening. again, this is what we generally see happen in these cases. table, guys come to the former representative tom davis was quoted last week as saying -- i think it is a good way to capture it. that is just the general way these types of disagreements are perceived and we will have to see what happens in this case or not. host: we saw the justice department turned down a house

ways and means committee request for trump plus tax returns. at hand in the case of tax returns is different because it is a specific statute that says the committee can access that information. but we are certainly likely to see that sort of dispute escalate as well. and the possibility of a contempt citation for secretary mnuchin. that is on the table as well. under housets democrats are battling with the administration over questions. the former white house counsel, todd mcgann -- there are a lot of moving parts, and we will see host: host:. this is money -- and we will see. host: this is money -- this is

molly reynolds, talking about the contempt of congress. democrats, 202-748-8000. for republicans, 202-748-8001. 2.r independents 202-748-800 3, can monitor on c-span c-span.org, and our website. from new hampshire, this is bill, republican line. >> from new hampshire, this is barrel on the republican line. caller: yes. with the trump situation and robert mueller's report, it is clear that robert mueller proved

that there was obstruction all place with trump. how can mena region block about irs commissioner from turning over his tax returns and -- how mnuchin block the irs commissioner from turning over his tax returns? it seems like he is obstructing theice and therein lies indictments for impeachment and even more so. is correct.caller the house ways and means committee has access to certain personal tax information. 'sat the administration argument in response to that request from the ways and means committee is that the request doesn't have a "legislative purpose."

this is an important dynamic when you think about it's whole picture involving congressional oversight. congress has quite broad. , but oversights has to have an underlying legislative purpose. they have read of that standard broadly and said that lots and lots of things certify the legislative purpose standard, but often at the center of these disputes is, congress asks for testimony and then the response from the executive branch is to say that whatever congress is asking for does not meet that legislative purpose threshold. host: alabama's next. if you go to twitter. , one of the things trending #lockmnuchinup.

caller: hello. my question is the following. isn't it incredible to you that at this time, with all the other problems we are facing, including the border, the democrats are spending all the efforts toward these two other things that are really insignificant, with what is going on? i don't blame them for fighting it because it is a trap. they are just like a bench of cap waiting for them -- bunch of cats waiting for the mouse to get through. come 2020, i for one, and i have been voting independent, will be looking very much at what these democrats are doing in congress. .t is a disgrace

guest: the house democrats caucus does face a challenge as to how i locate efforts, investigation versus legislation. it is important to remember that republicans control the senate. so while the house democrats have been and isis act will --tinue to pass legislation have been and i see them will continue to pass legislation that they believe is important, that many or all of those bills stall out in the senate, which control.republican i think it is also important to remember that while this and oversight of president trump is grabbing the there is other activity happening in the house low the headlines, on the substantive policy areas and how the president has been

implementing policy in the executive ranch since 2017. things like rolling back environmental rules at the e.p.a., the policy that brought up the family separation crisis at the southwestern border. while what is in the headlines houses battle between democrats and the administration over some of these high-profile witnesses and information, congress is doing other things as well. host: this is from the draft --olution being drawn on being drawn up by the house and testimonyance of witnesses and production of records, correspondence, ,, saying --apers infrared the power to authorize the ynez -- the power to authorize subpoenas may be

delegated to the committee chairman. that?n guest: house committees have had subpoena power for quite some time. we have seen in the past, beeral congresses that power increasingly delegated to individual committee chairman to allow them to issue subpoenas unilaterally if they so choose. in this case the house judiciary committee has been operating under an agreement this congress between chairman nadler and ranking member doug collins in which nadler will tell mr. collins if he intends to issue us of enough -- issued a subpoena. if collins objects, they will take it to the full committee for a vote. democrats generally will win the vote because they have the majority. but that is how the judiciary has been approaching its power to issue subpoenas. collins his point, doug

responded saying -- democrats have launched a proxy war smearing their attorney general under anger actually lies with the president and the attorney general who found no conspiracy or obstruction. guest: i think there is some , that thehat idea democrats have decided that the attorney general is the person they will go after in the most high-profile way. it will be interesting to see if and when special counsel robert mueller testifies. my understanding is there are still negotiations ongoing over that, whether that shifts the attention away from the attorney general at all. but i do think democrats have made a choice that at least for right now, the attorney general will be the specific target of a work inheir investigation. host: could the special counsel the subpoena at this point?

-- could he be subpoenaed at this point? that: i have seen suggest those conversations have been proceeding. again, as we would expect them to, with both sides coming to the table and discussing what the scope of a set of questions would the. host: to your knowledge, is he still an employee of the justice department and could the white house restrict him from testifying should he be called? guest: i don't know the answer to that question, but it is true that when someone is no longer a federal employee at the white -- thethe white house executive branch has less of an ability to control what they do. hasattorney general barr said several times that he would be fine with the special counsel testifying. the president i believe said over the weekend that he wouldn't want that to happen.

we will just have to see how that turns out. host: baltimore, maryland on the democrats line, kevin. the democrats are starting to look weak because they keep letting them get away with all this stuff they are getting away with. i went to ask a question. since the democrats hold the purse strings, could they stop funding for some things, would it do anything? the power of the purse is one of congress's most important powers, and it is true try house democrats could to restrict funding for certain activities as a way of pushing back against the executive branch. at the same time, republicans control the senate and any spending bill that contains jurisdiction of language would

have to get through the senate. but it is the case that. if democrats want to lay hardball, using or attempting to use the power of the purse is one avenue available to them that does not require going to the courts for enforcement. host: molly reynolds of the kansas edition joining us for this -- from the brookings institution joining us on this conversation on the power of the call the executive branch in contempt. republican line, this is gail from raleigh, north carolina. caller: good morning. my question is regarding the prior holder.ration and eric eric holder was held in contempt of congress for refusing to provide information and documents, for i believe it was fast and furious. these investigations continuing through the democrats, are i

believe is a result of them not being happy with the results of the election. they said that we must accept the election results. said we must accept them you the results. they basically said trump did not do anything wrong. on what went on with eric holder and how congress dealt with that issue. i think the most important thing to take away from the experience with eric particularthis episode with the current attorney general is just how long it takes for congress to use the courts to pursue civil enforcement of noncompliance of a subpoena. it is not a fast process. so if house democrats and up

going that route, they should ,xpect for it to move slowly this continual back and forth. several layers of the court to move through. with holder, the case proceeded for such a long time but there was a second attorney general and it was unresolved by the time of the president left office. that is an important lesson that we should take away from that. host: from arkansas, this is mike. caller: yes. i can't -- the people in this country are not standing by the rule of law rather than they are standing by the role of politics -- by the rule of politics. the house has oversight over the

eventive branch though they are coequal branches of the government. if a police officer writes me a ticket and i feel to comply, there is a contempt citation issued or a warrant. i go to jail if i don't honor the warrant. general hasattorney , people in laws government are different than the people they are governing in this country. when is the rule of law. will of the constitution outweigh the politics? mangled.twisted and they have got are not the ones we abide by. thank you so much. i am a c-span junkie. thank you so much.

guest: the challenge here is that in our system of separated powers and checks and balances, there are various branches and they have the ability to check the other branches but that power is not unlimited. data mentioned before, congress has the ability to oversee the executive branch, but their oversight has to have a purpose.ve the executive branch has the ability to exert executive privilege to protect that communications -- protect certain communications by the president, but that privilege is not unlimited. so all these tensions between the branches have to get worked out, and sometimes that happens in the courts, sometimes it happens quite slowly. the other thing i will say is that at the end of the day, a lot of these decisions are political, because

they are made by elected representatives who come to washington with different goals and purposes. they have to figure out. , as beingwant to do our elected representatives. host: and many cases, do these cases get settled out? guest: often what we see is that congress and the executive branch are able to come to some mutually acceptable agreement. congress will get some but not all the information it wants, the executive branch will have to give up some stuff but be able to keep some information protected, that sort of thing. whether that is what ultimately happens in this case remains to be seen, but that is how these things usually play out. host: and both sides will declare themselves winners. guest: [laughter] both sides will find a way to say that they are getting what they want. host: in indiana on the

democrats line, hello. caller: hello. i think this thing has reached the saturation point, and the byt election, 2020, will be popular vote, and not the electoral college. and i think all of this will be settled. . i think they can relax because i think the decision will be made because we are tired of this thing. it is not going on much longer. guest: i think the question of whether what is happening with the aftermath of the mueller report and the russian investigation, whether that is still an issue -- whether that is a salient issue for voters and will be in 2020, that is a good one. we have seen reporting that suggests that when i of congress go back to their districts, that kind of questions they were getting from constituents were not really about robert mueller, --y were about how square

about health care and other issues. where this takes us a year and 15 months from now when we are in the throes of the elections will be seen but that is an important thing to keep in mind. host: tom from lancaster, california. republican line. caller: good morning, molly. you guys lobby congress? that is my first question and, with eric holder, american citizens were killed with those guns that he armed the drug cartels with. when are we going to have the hearing which congress had to go to the courts with, because they are coequal branches of government? this is all just political grandstanding because they didn't accept mueller's saying. guest: so i am not a lobbyist, and i don't lobby congress.

on the question of how does congress choose what to have hearings on, that is the prerogative of whichever party is in the majority. right now we see in the house hearings happening on the mueller report. but lots and lots of other hearings are happening on other big policy problems that matter to americans. other things beyond just what is getting headlines. host: as you watch this, what is the most interesting to you about this whole process as it is playing out? guest: for me the most interesting thing will be to see does this end up like other disputes in the past, where the two sides are able to reach some agreement, or will we end up big,a number of high-profile court fights as a result of president trump really digging in and deciding that he will fight all the subpoenas? host: molly reynolds with the brookings institution, in your

fellow in government studies. think you for your time today. guest: thank you for having me. host: for the next half hour, there are several events coming today that we want to get your comments on. it and comment on what you just heard about the process laying out as house democrats meet with the attorney general today on this possible contempt citation. probability of that taking place. there is a hearing set for wednesday. also, the i.r.s. not releasing president trump's tax returns. the white this, house could raise china tariffs as soon as friday. if you want to give us a call, democrats, it is 202-748-8000, 202-748-8001 for republicans, 202-748-8002.ts,

>> also what is happening in washington this week, today, fbi director christopher wray will be testifying on the president 2020 budget request. will have live coverage of that on c-span3 at 9:30 a.m. eastern online at east c-span.org or lin app.e c-span radio also, a hearing on the role of intellectual property and the pricing of prescription drugs. coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. on c-span. also, interior secretary david thehardt testifies before house appropriations subcommittee on the 2020 budget request at 3:00 p.m. eastern c-span.org,an3, on or on the free c-span radio app. the senate judiciary committee's subcommittee on border security and immigration holds a hearing to discuss the humanitarian and

security challenges at the southern border, happening tomorrow at 2:30 p.m. eastern time on c-span three, online at c-span.org or the free c-span app. the president will be in panama city, florida for a make america great again rally wednesday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern. orerage begins on c-span2 again on the website, or on the radio app. happening on the house floor this week, c-span's producer tweeting -- house rules to set floorts guidelines on a $17.2 billion disaster aid fell and legislation to block the trump administration from letting states waive certain health care law agreements. both bills are being debated and voted on in the house floor later this week. he also tweeted -- the house returns to debate and vote on legislation reaffirming the taiwan.ommitment to

over in the senate, the president is meeting with republicans in the chamber on immigration at 3:00 p.m. eastern time. g.o.p. senators senator purdue, areo, grassley and auburn all expected to attend at the white house this afternoon. and immigration discussion happening there. ordero tweets out that is leader mitch mcconnell will speak on the senate floor at 10:00 a.m. this morning for what is being billed at his final thoughts on the view the report. according to his office, he will say, case closed. our coverage on the senate floor will be over on c-span2. leslie clark, reporter from the lexington herald out of kentucky tweets -- the majority leader made his own appearance in the mueller report, then, white house counsel them again reached out to mcconnell in an effort to convince jeff sessions not to remove himself from overseeing

their russia investigation. you can see that passage, that reference, if you go to the mueller report. host: when it comes to discussions over in the house judiciary, chairman and jerry nadler with the attorney general's office -- axios picks up the story of what we talked about in the last segment. the meeting takes place today, originally scheduled for wednesday afternoon -- quote "negotiate the democrat such a ."mand for the release that is scheduled for 10:00 tomorrow and you can find more information on the website. when it comes to the treasury department denying the judiciary sorry, the house ways and means committee over the president's tax returns, the ap reports that it was the neal, whorichard

originally demanded access to the tax returns in april under a law that says the i.r.s. shall furnish the returns of any taxpayer to a handful of top the chair ofluding the tax-writing house ways and means committee. that request was turned down yesterday. we will see what happens there. . when it comes to the potential hike of tariffs against china scheduled on friday, usa today highlights some of the things that might be affected -- it would affect nearly 6000 products and parts including furniture, clothing, electronics, handbags, luggage, eatsume, bedsheets, m and cereals. according to bank of america auto analyst john murphy, that was on monday. , if you wouldpics like to comment in the next half hour or so.

the contempt vote, the treasury department not releasing the tax returns of the president, and the tariffs on china. you can call us at 202-748-8000 for democrats, 202-748-8001 for ,epublicans, independents 202-748-8002. we start on the independent line. barbara from texas, go ahead. caller: i went to make a comment about william barr being held in contempt. i have been watching this for a while, watching what the democrats are doing. they waited on the mueller report, they didn't like the outcome. it seems to me like what they are trying to do is a law that they passed, that what he --acted cannot the released could not be released. if democrats want this information they should go to a they let thisest

out. all they are trying to do is degrade barr. he is following the law. if they want this information, they need to go in front of a judge because i do think they have a leg to stand on on this field. it is a sham and everything else. baltimore,p from maryland, democrats lie. caller: good morning. i am calling in reference to the whole scenario of the hearings. i believe deep in my heart that the president has entered a coup against the constitution of the and there should not be a president able to do that. that is treason against america. host: independent line, roger is next in michigan. caller: good morning. out of curiosity, if they want

mr. trump's tax returns, why doesn't nancy pelosi turnover her tax returns? host: what do think about the refusal of the treasury department offer the returns? caller: the treasury department is part of the government that keeps the information on individuals. mr. trump is a businessman, prior to his office. going back into his prior to the office is not really the concern of the people that are looking. host: so you're saying there is no value of the president releasing those tax returns? caller: not really. hersouldn't pelosi release ? host: democrats line, frank is next from california. good morning. caller: good morning. i just have a question on the attorney general barr.

i am an employee for the department of justice and i thought the attorney general is the people's attorney general. i hope as a government employee that i get the same rights as the president. i don't think it should be any different. i hope in the future that he is more fair and impartial because i don't think he is at this time. host: you heard him make his case for not releasing the full unredacted reports, what do you think of that argument? caller: i think the people in the house and senate should get the full report. i think it is only fair to see what is actually in it regardless of who it will hurt or who it will not hurt, they should be a literacy the unredacted report. that is just my opinion. host: woody think the value is there? caller: just to see exactly if there was law broken or not. i think it would stop a lot of the bickering going on on both sides. host: again, the request from

the judiciary committee was that unredacted report and underlying evidence at this point not turned over by the justice department. representatives from the house judiciary committee going to the d.o.j. to discuss that today, leading to a possible vote on a contempt citation tomorrow. you can see that play out on c-span and on our website at c-span.org. you can see attorney general barr talk about the reasons he gave not to release the full unredacted report. andly type "william barr," it will take you to the hearings that took place in recent weeks and you can see that there. this is gene in new orleans, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. cyprus -- gene

cyprus. i like to think i can compare the situation between the president and his relationship with the people as one that i experienced in my personal life. i have a daughter-in-law and a grandchild in my daughter-in-law , said my grandson nothing but froot loops all day long. the child loves froot loops but let's face it, a diet of nothing but froot loops might be pleasing but it is not nutritional. the president, i feel, is feeding the public froot loops. we have to have some pressure was in our diet. host: ok. we go to carol in alton, georgia. democrats line. caller: yes. i would like to say that the previous caller is absolutely correct. correct in thes

united states of america. host: correct, what do you mean by that? from thenyone can say time he came to office he has been nothing but division between all of us all the people .f america i know everyone thinks he has a good economic value slowing, but it will fall. he is not a legitimate president . i hope that the people will think and pray about this -- all it is going to these things that are happening before us right now are going to correct our country and our democracy. thank you. host: ok. from our twitter feed, -- the congress had access to the

allter unredacted report jerrold nadler had to do was walk over to the senate and there it is. this goes back to a story of that appeared about the unredacted report made available to members of congress, maybe three of them showed up to view it. that story was on political. another viewer sense of -- when it comes to barr, it is political theater, barr has a ready trump to them. let's go to charlene in clover, south carolina on the republican line. go ahead. caller: yes. i don't think anyone should be allowed to request or have anyone's tax records, that is private and should be confidential. viewe should be able to anyone's tax records other than the i.r.s.. host: we have seen other

presidential candidates voluntarily release their tax records. what do you think tax records don't offer anything as far as of the conduct of a president or examining the president? caller: because it is not a requirement. it is not a requirement to be voted into office or to stay in office. if it was a requirement before now, then, yeah, i would agree to that. host: by the think there is no value in seeing those types of records? caller: there may be some value, but it is not a requirement and it shouldn't be a requirement to be a president. and he shouldn't be asked. they are just wanting this information to try to find some fault to be a would to impeach trump. trump is one of our best presidents we have ever had. host: 15 more minutes, as we continue on with three tracks on.can comment

you can talk about the back and attorney general, the release of the president's tax returns or the lack of; or those china tariffs scheduled to take place friday. we continue with the cause after this news update. >> reaction to two of the stories. on the wall street journal -- china is accusing -- china accused of reneging on trade talks. that is the trump administration's position right now. stephen bannon, former adviser to the president in an opinion piece saying -- we are in an economic war with china and it is futile to compromise. he has six understandings he writes about -- from the fourth understanding he writes that certain trump advisors are playing on the president's well-earned pride in a rising stock market, and the fear that

he might lose the farm belt to chatterbox him into a week deal. but it is a decidedly false that failure to reach a deal would lead to a market meltdown. he writes, anything less than a great deal would subject the president to criticisms from charles schumer and bernie sanders,. in addition, senators marco rubio and ted cruz might use it to get to the right of trump on china, potentially setting up a leader primary challenge. morning.n post this on the tax returns debate and whether or not the president, the treasury department has to hand them over to congress, the hashtags on twitter -- lockmnuchinup is trending.

the reaction to capitol hill for the tax apartment missing the deadline, minority leader chuck schumer tweaking out yesterday -- secretary mnuchin, what part of "shall" don't you understand. the republican ranking member on the house ways and means committee saying -- this request from house democrats to weaponize the tax code for purely political reasons is illegitimate. this politically motivated abuse of the law violates our constitution and serves no legislative purpose. of using the tax committee -- abusing the tax committee sets a bad precedent and the administration is right not to go with it. host: from the twitter feed, the viewer says it -- barr ignoring the request is making america great again. another viewer saying -- trump is not bluffing on the china tariffs threat, i doubt china is

taking him serious. for more on this conversation. from carolina, charlene. hello. >> i agree with the tariffs on china, think it is a good thing and it would make it competitive with other companies, and trump don't bluff, he does a great job. host: even if it comes to increasing the cost of goods here in the united states, you are ok with the tariffs? caller: yes, because it would make it more competitive with our other companies in the united states. host: mary in fort washington, maryland. you are next. caller: good morning. to the lady that just spoke, why don't you put some information out here, c-span? the price of washing machine is $100of 45's tariffs added right now. the farmers. bailout is not going to last.

one former said he got his $20,000 and it went want tractor that had blown -- one farmer. host: so you don't want to see the tariffs take place? no.er: it will not compete with anything and there are not going to be in the manufacturing jobs coming back here, really. the corporations got their tax breaks, we didn't. i haven't seen any increase in anything. and another thing, the media has decided to pick joe biden as the democratic pick. not happening. his time was in 2016, although i know he was grieving,, that was his time. it is time for a woman president. i am looking at elizabeth warren, tulsi gabbard because -- the people, know that president 45 is ready to take us into a war. iran done all of a sudden?

in the venezuelan regime change, we already went through that. host: ok. brittany from missouri on the independent line. caller: the reason i am calling is because it wanted to talk about why it seems like there hasn't been any media coverage the only republican running against trump in the primaries. i feel like he needs more media coverage. i feel like republicans need to recognize him for what he is. icy like he is there safe way out. let's face it, republicans are -- they areto hate never going to hate trump as much as they hate the democrats. let's face it, people are traditional republicans and it doesn't matter -- they are going to vote for him. will be thewells way for traditional republicans

to continue with their traditional republican values and keep the republican ideas but not have to deal with the bs that they get on a constant basis from president trump. host: that was brittany from missouri. when it comes to matters of presidential politics, if you are interested in hearing the philosophy of governor wells, republican running against president trump, go to our website at c-span.org. plenty there to look at from his term as governor as well as other forums. you can look at his past and his record. enid, oklahoma, republican line. paul. caller: i wanted to say, first off, you all need to list all the channels. who owns 90% of the channels, it is the left. secondly, as far as trump's taxes goes, they just want him

reputation. there is nowhere in the constitution that he has to give up his tax returns. the democrats are going to lose in every aspect they are trying to go forward with. they never learn. host: to the tax returns, i will ask you what i have asked others you don't see any value of looking at the president's tax returns? why not? caller: doesn't i.r.s. look at everybody's tax returns? and right now it is a law that both the president and the vice president's returns are audited by the i.r.s. every year. is that not true. host: i have heard it along that line, for sure. what about the general public, why shouldn't they know? caller: because it is none of their business. what he did before he was president is none of their business. host: ok.

let's go to massachusetts on the independent line, tom. caller: i am wondering your opinion and your sense of what news deserts did to shape the last election and what you think about the fact that most people supporting william barr have any faith left in him happened to be fox products for their news diet. host: bell on the democrats line from minnesota. caller: i have a couple of questions. when theow presidential candidates first started releasing their tax returns for the public would know what their answers were? ?hen did that first start host: i don't know the exact date but i know that several leading up to their candidacies

have done that voluntarily. host: i talking about even past candidates. did it start even before ronald reagan? ?ho was the first host: i don't know. caller: it has been a long time, though, right? host: i don't know. caller: my comment basically is that trump really has deceived a lot of people. first and foremost, when he was a presidential candidate, his first comment was that he was not releasing his tax returns because he was being audited. i.r.s. regs say that you are guilty until proven innocent. so him releasing his tax returns as a presidential candidate was not really an issue.

he is the first presidential candidate over the last i would say 24 years who has not released his tax returns. host: what he think of the value of looking at the tax returns would be? caller: the value is, you know what it is. you know why he is doing legislation. he comes out and talks about a wall or does this thing with a tagline, and we don't know whether he is lending his friends' pockets, his own pockets. he has access to trillions of dollars that he can use to ingratiate himself and yet people don't seem to have any concern about it. folks have decided that they are going to blindly follow this man. host: and you think all that can be revealed from the tax returns? caller: absolutely. a tax return will show where his financial interests are.

and if he is doing things to ingratiate his friends and his supporters and his people, then people need to know that. host: if you go to the website taxnotes you can find a round of a what they have as far as the information when it comes to those presidents and candidates and their tax returns. as you see on the screen, that is a good listing of previous and passed tax returns of the candidates. you can see it at taxnotes.com, i think that is a website. so there is a roundup of the presidential tax returns. from north carolina on the republican line, randy. caller: good morning. i just want to say that i don't think it is fair to demand that the president release his tax reasons.or a couple of number one, being a businessman, i am sure he is taking advantage

of all the tax laws available to him. he has been audited year after year and the i.r.s. hasn't found anything. if you go back on anybody, anybody in political office and you examine their tax returns, you will not find one political person that will be perfectly clean. none of us need that annual exam. fair.s not i believe we should let the president stand or fall on his performance as president. host: that was randy in north carolina. by the way, the tax. website, as far as who was the first president when it comes to tax return releases, it was fdr. you can see some of the tax records there on the website. ace in virginia, centerville, independent line. morning.ood i would like to make a comment about what the last person said about the president standing or falling on what he has done so

far. and what this president -- i will not even give my personal views, i will go to what i wanted to say, which is that we are a nation of laws. and the idea that any one person can just break the law anytime they want and then use pundits to everybody to go on tv defend what the person has done is ludicrous. i used to support the republican party wholeheartedly, but i don't know who they are anymore. when is -- when did the republican party start supporting anybody breaking the law? the law is clear. it says a shall release the tax returns to whoever. i just don't get it. i don't know the republican party anymore. it is sad for me. to me, it is sad.

i wish everybody the best. thank you. host: david from north carolina on the democrats line. caller: good morning. trump says he is not required to release his tax returns or hand them over, but neither was obama required to hand over his birth certificate. he thought obama had something to hide, while i think trump has something to hide. it is strange that he will not do it. it could reveal business dealings, money that he is covering up somewhere. thank you. tot: we go to wrong -- we go , as far as full calls are concerned, one more segment is to go. joining us next, a report that looks a federal tax dollars going to fortune 100 companies and why they are doing so.

joining us for that is representative from openthebooks.com, adam andrzejewski. that will take place after this news update from greta. >> take a look at the headline from across the country. the san francisco chronicle headline at the top -- tariff threat unsettles businesses. moving on to the orlando sentinel, the story on the bottom right-hand corner -- marco rubio was aware of florida hacking by russians. that is a story of interest may be too many of you. in the news observer -- democrats target voting rights and election security. to the left of that, senator tom is drawing a challenge in the g.o.p. primary. that is something to read there as well. also another headline -- governing guns.

featuring cory booker, their submitter, and the proposal he released yesterday. you can find that in the new jersey paper this morning, veteran tony and -- the trentonian. hill newspaper with a new poll showing that form of vice president joe biden tops the arizona, in that hypothetical general election matchup. also, mark lauder, the trump 2020 communications advisor, tweeting out breaking news that gallup has a new poll showing the president's approval rating ticking up to in you high of 46%, compared to president obama at 44% in april of 2011. there is also this tweet by reuters, this picture, the moment when two of their reporters walked free outside of the myanmar prison after

receiving a presidential pardon, having been jailed for 500 days. that is from reuters this morning. host: here in our studio is adam andrzejewski of the organization openthebooks.com founder and ceo here to talk about federal money that goes to fortune 100 companies. a little bit about your organization and its purpose? guest: the purpose is to post every dime online and in real time. we have built the world's largest private database of expenditures. we have captured virtually all federal spending in the year 2000 in 49 out of 50 states. on the california is the holdout in the state's checkbook side. and 60,000 local units of government all across america, the municipal level units of government, we have captured 22 million public employee salaries. virtually every single public employee at every level of

government, federal, state and local. host: how are you financed? caller: we are funded by people. are funded by people. not only do we open the books, we audit the books. we don't take government money, it would be a conflict of interest. we are headquartered in illinois. we understand conflicts of interest and they to play and we're not going there. host: the latest report by your organization looks that is money that goes to fortune 100 companies. what was the goal? guest: the goal was to follow money. all the way back to 1961, president eisenhower warned of a military-industrial complex. and warned that the solution to that in a free society was that citizenry needed to be alert and educated. from the outset with this program, it was to quantify simply the federal flow of funds into fortune 100 companies, our most wealthy and well-connected

companies. this is the second report in a series that we have done on this. five years ago, we looked at the federal flow of funds from 2000-2012 and we found $1.2 trillion over that 13 year did flow into these companies and now we have quantify the last four years. host: the top line issue, $399 billion is federal funding going to those companies. when it comes in the form of $290 billion. $3.2 billion going in grants, lobbying expenses, $2 billion. break those figures down, why these organizations are getting the money. guest: because it is a favor factory at the federal level for the fortune 100 companies. our auditors found $2 billion of fortune 100 companies that spent on lobbying capitol hill. than they received, those companies received $3.2 billion

worth of federal grants. grants are subsidies, they are giveaways. they are funded by uni, the american taxpayer. so again, our most elite corporations. on top of that, our auditors found nearly $400 billion worth of federal contracts. in a nutshell, what we found is that the more you pay, the is your it is to play. for every dollar -- the easier it is to play. for every dollar these companies and on lobbying, it returned $200 worth of federal contracts in grants. host: so you are drawing a direct comparison between the money used in lobbying to what they get back in grants. but contracts are a way of life here in washington, d.c.. why is that a surprise? guest: i do think it is a surprise, but i think people will be surprised at the sheer amount of grantmaking to fortune 100 companies. the latest polling shows that

80% of the american people think that federal contracts and -- go 02 the most to the most well-connected corporations rather than the most qualified. our data backs that up. his fortune 100 companies have upwards of 100 lobbyists. and lobbying works. it brings home the bacon to the corporation. host: when it comes to corporations that get federal list, on top of the least located -- on top of the list, lockheed martin, followed by boeing, mckesson. five.down those top guest: in the fortune 100 companies receiving the most money, there are six defense contractors and health care providers. if you take a look at those top 10 companies, their return

on investment was large. for every single dollar the spent, it returned $1000 worth of federal contracts in grants. host: and then this is the boeing company's case, 181 -- 81.4 billion dollars between 2014 and 2017 in funding. lobbying, $2.75 billion. what does boeing do for the federal government? guest: boeing produces a number of things, many of them with legitimate purpose. the $72 million they spent on huge.ng, the return was they received three quarters of a billion dollars in terms of federal grants, subsidies for boeing products. boeing.d into they also take a tremendous amount of taxpayer-backed financing through government banks like the export-import

bank. during an eight year period that we studied, boeing received one dollar out of three dollars of total lending by export-import -- export-import bank. host: what role does the department of defense life? guest: they play a large role in this. six out of the top 10 companies are defense contractors. for instance, like lockheed martin, 84% of their entire revenue, than it has a wall street market cap of $90 billion, 84% of what they say on annual -- what they sell on an annual basis comes from federal agencies, specifically the department of defense. host:. host: our guest is with us until 10:00. if you would like to learn more about these companies that andive lobbying grants their efforts as well, adam andrzejewski. you can call us at 202-748-8000 for democrats, 202-748-8001 for republicans, independents

202-748-8002. you can also make your views known on twitter at c-span wj. had did you get involved in these efforts. guest: back in 2008, is senator coburn partnered with an illinois senator, barack obama on the left, to open the federal checkbook to transparency for the first time ever -- that was in 2006. that was the data set that we used to compile this report. host: you listed one of the health-care companies involved, mckesson, what do they do. guest: they are a pharmaceutical company and a large portion of their contracts are designed for veterans affairs, providing drugs and pharmaceuticals to veterans affairs. -- the health-care companies did not spend as much on lobbying as the defense contractors spent. as a matter of fact, their spending on lobbying was significantly less in the

.our-year period host: $30.2 billion in federal funding and when it comes to lobbying, $6.1 million from 2014-2017. we have some calls lined up for you. mike in houston texas, the republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. great topic. great scenario a for us to have a transparent tax code? wouldn't it be nice if the 74,000 page tax code was reduced to something where your next door neighbor and you was understood it to be the same thing? we have cpas all over the place would do taxes for average americans, not just the , because the president doesn't know the tax code, who does? the reason we have so much money going to corporations is because

they know how involved the government is in our lives -- for production, health-care, education, is there anything government doesn't have their fingers in? the government causes this to happen. host: might, thank you. to the caller's point, are these companies in a unique position to provide services to the government and get that money in return? guest: at talk to the complexity of the tax code. i want to cover that. right now there was no database at the federal level where if you corporation and you get the tax credit, there is not a tax credit database. that needs to be created. it is the next step in the transparency revolution at the federal level, than ever believe that legislation is being drafted right now. to his point about the size of government, that used to be not long ago, even into the early 2000's where major corporations hired lobbyists to keep government out of their

business. now what we find is that hundreds of thousands of lobbyists are being hired by the most successful companies to bring government into their companies, to partner with government. these corporations feel that government now is a giant customer of giant customer of theirs, and they cheerlead the effort on spending. host: from our republican line, ron is next. pressed the wrong button. let's go to ron in illinois, republik in line. -- republican line. caller: good morning. you have my blood boiling. just to get this right, because i can hardly believe what i am hearing -- the government is companiesr profit through grants and endowments? is that correct? guest: yes, through grants. direct payments, providing insurance subsidies as well. so lower-cost financing back the

american taxpayer. caller: so, in addition to companies that pay almost nothing, some that pay nothing, the government is, in addition, giving billions of dollars on top of that? am i correct so far? caller: -- guest: yes. so you have companies like google spending eight minus amount of money on lobbying. they received a 42's million $46ar low interest loan -- million low interest loan through one of the banks of the united states, the overseas investment bank, to do an overseas project in nigeria. that is one example of how a large corporation has gamed the regular manikins are providing financing. host: the top lobbying corporations as we can find online. it includes lockheed martin,

alphabet -- which is google -- fedex, and exxon mobil. look at theok a lobbying, broken down by industry for defense contractors spent the most, about $300 million over this four-year period. we looked at the tech companies. the five largest tech companies, amazon, apple, facebook, google, and microsoft, and a spent about $200 million on lobbying over this period. we did not find federal conscience and grants flow to those companies, but we found they were interested in a number of different issues key to their businesses. for instance, on privacy issues. apple was interested in tax issues. they had a lot of money overseas that they wanted to bring back to the country, and they wanted a lower tax rate to be able to do that. they spent about 38 million dollars lobbying the federal government for that tax rate

when they repatriated the money. data security breaches was another big issue of the tech companies. host: from the democrats line, jim in oregon. hello. caller: hello. theyestion is how is it apply or get the grants? i do not understand that part of it, if he could go into a little detail, i would appreciate it. and i appreciate this program that he is presenting for you. thank you. guest: across the entire federal continuum, at openthebooks.com, we have given oversight to federal grantmaking. it is a tremendous amount of money. in rough numbers, the federal government doles out as many grants as the entire military defense budget spent, almost a 1:! basis. 1:1 basis. cornell university took nearly $1 million for a study on where it hurts the most to be stung by

a bee. light nasa tech $1 million to repair the world's meeting after terrestrial is in -- extra terrestrial beings. -- boeing was the leader. of $1ot three quarters billion worth of grants out of federal agencies. those are subsidies. the process is supposed to be you apply for a grant -- and obviously, the big corporations have the human resources and the ability to navigate federal grantmaking and take a tremendous amount of dollars. 2017, $3992014 to .illion for funding in total from those, $3.2

billion. contracts made up the bulk of that. where can people go online to read this? guest: we have a report at openthebooks.com, right on the home pages. it is the first report up on the right side in the middle, under the report section. host: from west virginia, richard, republican line. caller: good morning. the bottom line on all of this is the government is too big, to powerful, so people have get it singing their way. my question is if i run a company and send salesman to the customer try to convince him to buy what i have to sell, and when you mentioned boeing, they have to sell their product, and the government is their customer. and some of the other things you mentioned -- guest: that is a great

perspective. not all of this is waste. there are a lot of these defense contracts, we get a ship, a nuclear warhead, that has a ablic purpose -- it has public purpose. take solaceight can in the fact that 90% of the companiesent into the , working on our most in figure problems in our nation, and you do not want to grow the federal bureaucracy. so the center-right can take solace in that. on a bipartisan basis, what gets people most upset is the federal grantmaking. those are subsidies we are paying for. and if it was really a good idea to be funded by taxpayers, these fortune 100 companies, they have the network, their stocks are traded on wall street, they have the most innovative financial products in world history, they

can get these good ideas funded on their own and lighten the load on the american taxpayer. host: what is the ability of smaller companies to get access to this money? guest: that begs the question -- this is one of the russians we bring up from our report. --ger is not always better this is one of the questions we bring up in our report. here is not always better. bigger is not always better. host: we hear from ohio next, ron on our republican line. caller: why do they take all of this money and give it away to where -- who cares about a bee stings you? it is going to hurt. we need someone to watch where this money is going, and the money we can save instead of

wasting $1 million finding out where a bee gets stung, but that back into our debt. guest: exactly. , across the entire continuum, a target rich environment of wasteful government spending. he is right. congress, the solutions -- we think it is a three-part solution. congress needs to crackdown. they need to get back to doing their job and doing oversight. it is a little more work than what they're used to doing, but this is important. the second thing is the administrative state, the federal bureaucracy, they need to start auditing these grants, these contracts, and holding these companies accountable. to metrics and performance. they can start with forensic audits. follow the money. are sure these companies actually providing value for what the hard-working american taxpayer is providing in terms of the money. the third thing we have advocated is that the president,

as commander-in-chief, should declare war on waste. we outlined a three-pronged strategy for president trump, timerong 1 is put any real-time as much as possible. for these reports, we have to wait six months for the spending to come in. it is statutory that it should go online virtually in real time here the second prong is cut 5% of the waste, fraud, corruption, and abuse. we think welfare reform should start with the fortune 100 companies. where is the republican on capitol hill armed with the legislation to kick war bucks off the dole? that the should be president should engage the bureaucracy, reward federal bureaucrats who actually cut

their budgets. host: looking at boeing's case, when it comes to grants, the top number of grants coming in during that time period from the department of defense. talk about the underclothes -- undisclosed. happensndisclosed frequently. often, federal disclosure of the data -- it is government, they make stakes, they do not fill in all the fields. far too often, the funding department has not been filled in on the grant transactions. host: from our independent line, step is margaret -- margaret from our west virginia democrats line. caller: good morning. i am wondering if you have talked to other companies that are also digging into where our tax money goes. there's a site -- i just lost the name of it now -- but there's a site that goes before how2000's, and they put up

much we have given corporations, even outside our country. look at deutsche bank -- millions of dollars . i think our country could pay our debt off if we would quit giving these tax breaks to these corporations. the problem is, as you well know, is that these corporations , through their lobbying efforts, buy off our members of congress. street'sks, it is wall -- it is just ridiculous what we give of our tax money. and i've been calling c-span about this for years now, asking people if they know how much we are giving away. so i appreciate that you are doing this, and i would suggest, though, you go online and see if you can find another so upsetion -- i am

with myself that i cannot think of the name of that organization, but has been 1990's.since the early host: all right. marjorie in west virginia. guest: it is a favor factory. the more you pay, the easier it is to play. of lobbyingn worth dollars at the fortune 100s spent lobbying capitol hill, if you break that down per member of congress, it amounts to $3.7 million over this four year period per member of congress. if you are out there and work hard and got a member of congress elected, and then you wonder why they go south on their campaign promises and their core issue so quickly once they get to capitol hill, just the fortune 100 companies, through $3.7 million on average in lobbying against every single member of congress -- that is

influence, persuasion. it affects policy. and the fortune 100 companies know it works. host: at&t is also on that list, fedex. ford motor company, why are they on there? guest: all of these copies have on regulation,ke on contracts and grants, so they feel that they need a seat at the table on public policy. ford motor company had, on average, 20 lobbyists on their payroll over the course of this four-year period. companies like lockheed martin had over 100 lobbyists on their payroll. boeing had about 112, on average , lobbyists on their payroll. there are 10 case examples in our report. if you add up the number of lobbyists for these 10 companies -- and they want the 10 companies that spent the most on lobbying. 650 lobbyistsly

employed every single year by just these 10 companies that we profiled. host: and you highlight caterpillar, the makers of combines, steamroller's. guest: right. all of these companies have domestic issues, international issues, and they feel that, by spending significantly and heavily on lobbying, they are getting a return on investment. overall, as we discussed earlier, for every dollar spent on lobbying, the fortune 100 companies, in the aggregate, received $200 worth of federal contracts and grants. spent on lobbying, the return on investment was 60% . that is not even consider the nearly $400 billion of federal contracts. host: overall, when it comes to the philosophy lobbying, is lobbying a bad thing? guest: no.

corporations are first amendment rights. they have significant interests in washington, d.c. they certainly need to get their point of view into the public discussion. i think there is a tipping point at a certain point of what lobbying tries to accomplish. and i think that tipping point is where the american people need -- we all need to know what is going on, so we can hold not only politicians accountable but also the corporations accountable for their activities. host: what is that tipping point? guest: it crosses the line when corporations view the government ask that giant customer. be anyn there can never spending cuts to the bureaucracy. when they completely cheerlead and put the largess of the corporate treasury behind a larger and bigger government that we, the people, have to pay for, that is the tipping point. host: our next call from

california, independent line, aggie. you are on with our guest. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. earlier in the conversation, pedro may 8, in response to the guest speaker. he said lobbying for contracts is done in d.c. all the time. just because it is done all the time does not make it right. if somebody is walking off a bridge into the ocean, are you going to walk off after them? there should be no federal grants to fortune 100 companies, and this is why we need term limits for our congress members. that is just my opinion. guest: i agree. i was hard on republicans earlier. now i will be hard on democrats. in the run-up to the 2018 elections, house speaker nancy pelosi, her language on ethics reform said that democrats need to break the strong bond between corporate lobbyists and the federal checkbook. now they have control in the

house. reale not seen gainful and measures put forward to execute on that campaign promise. t, inusly, the presiden 2016, ran on the promise of draining the swamp and campaigned on ethics legislation, similar to the rhetoric nancy pelosi was using in the run-up to the midterms in 2018. so maybe, the two political parties, if they are serious, maybe they can get together on some ethics reforms. host: elliott on our virginia democrats line, good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. i am a retired federal worker pete i used to work on contracts in the government. i used to see thousands of dollars ripped off of that tax pair -- the taxpayer. i tried to report these corrupt

habeas, and all it did to me was threaten me and mistreat me. i went to ncis, with the navy. i went to the naval i.g. i went to the office of the special counsel, and they ignored me. they basically threatened me, to talking.nd quit i am retired military and almost 40 years in the federal government, so i am very aware of the money that goes out. and i watch all of these thousands of dollars, these contractors would be getting these large amount of money, and -- captains, admirals, down to civilians, were getting kickbacks. i could see the money going out. i could see the corruption. i read the contracts -- they were not doing what they're supposed to do in the contracts. every time i would speak up, they would fit me.

anyway, i am retired now. host: that is elliott's perspective. that -- am troubled by and you hear that from whistleblowers. in 2016, donald trump ran on the system is rigged. from the left, bernie sanders also ran on the system is rigged. find ind like what we the federal government is it is working like a legalized money laundering scheme. traditionally, a money laundering scheme is in darkness. what is important about our report as we have dragged this into the sunshine. it is all legal, and that is the scandal. it is not right or ethical. whistleblower a provision, some avenue where they can report these things? guest: there are paid each agency has an inspector general. there is a whistleblowers protection act.

whistleblowers are supposed to have some rights. host: if you're off of twitter, adele asking what the office person can do to stop the onslaught of lobbying and cheating us out of our tax dollars? guest: we need to raise our voices. this scheme does not only include lobbying dollars for federal contracts and grants or lobbying dollars to influence regulations, it also includes fortune 100 companies providing political cash to powerful congressmen. for instance, in the state of annecticut, john larson is 11 time elected congressman. he sits on house ways and means. we looked at his campaign disclosures, and in his district is a defense contractor, united technologies. they received $11 billion in federal contracts and grants. theed technologies is number one campaign contributor to john larson and his district. they have provided, through

their employees, through their political action committee, and even giving larson campaign cash, ran 300 62 thousand dollars over the course of his congressional career. host: independent line from sue in maryland. caller: thank you for taking my call. you for doing this work on transparency. it is really important. i wanted to make a point about regulatory capture kid i've been reading a book called "the talks within us," and she about the regulatory capture of the fda, and how there was actually a group of scientists, the fda nine, who tried to come on not only anak ethical situation but bad science could because the for-profit industries and corporations are making the

decisions around what kind of studies are done. that wethe problem is spent a long campaign to convince americans that regulations are bad for business, when, in fact, regulations protect as from bad business practices. they protect our health. they set a standard that has made america a world standard, that has made us a country that other countries look to. seafood,of things like safe drugs, and hopefully safe environment, safe labor practices. when people talk about regulatory agencies, i think they forget a lot of these agencies are doing a very important job that is separate from what congress dies, and they have been highly politicized. i am not sure what the solution is, but it seems like some of these positions should not be

politically appointed positions. they need to be something where their mission statement of what a regulatory agency does is transparent and does not change thingsnot susceptible to like citizens united giving corporations speech. host: thank you. we got your point and will let our guest respond. guest: we need a balance between regulations and the free market. the determination of that balance gets worked out in the marketplace of public opinion. that is where you have the corporate lobbying dollars, like the five significant tech firms of amazon, apple, google, microsoft, and facebook, they spent nearly 2 billion -- $200 million to influence that policy. the only way to counteract that amount of influence on capital tois for we, the people, raise our voices and weigh in on these issues with our members of congress. lobbying is so pervasive in the

fortune 100 that only eight companies out of the fortune 100 did not spend any lobbying disclosed dollars. 90 2% of the fortune 100 spent lobbying. key is thent u.s. founder of openthebooks.com. you can read the findings for yourself. next from illinois, republican line. caller: good morning. other than campaign contributions, what are some of that the moneys is spent on? would you clarify that a bit please? caller: one gentleman called and politiciansthe contributions.gn

how else do they spent all of these hundreds of millions of dollars? guest: corporations, when they employ these armies of lobbyists, those armies make big money. these lobbyists, they are chewing up in a lot of money. there are ethics statutes. they have to spend within parameters p or they cannot spend outside of those parameters to influence policy. there are different gift limits and things like that. earlier, i referenced congressman john larson in connecticut, who sits on the powerful appropriations committee at house ways and means, where his number one contributor is that united technologies, defense contractor who gets a lot of grants and federal contracts. republicans have these issues, too. wasinnesota, erik paulsen it, swing, he got voted out.

cargill is in his district. even the ceo gave him tens of thousands of dollars worth of campaign cash. he received tens of thousands of dollars worth of campaign cash from cargo. -- cargill. he also sat on the powerful appropriations committee and has ways and means. host: as far as staffing of lobbyists, how large are these staffs? 10 case examples, in our report, we looked at how many lobbyists those 10 companies employed. added up those numbers this morning. 650 lobbyists just on these 10 companies. there are many companies employing over 100 lobbyists in a given year. if you think about that, if you employed 100 people in a private company, that is a significant company.

i established a publishing company with my brother, and it was 120 -- these lobbying companies are large and powerful, and they spent dollars because it works. host: new mexico is next, democrats line. caller: good morning. i appreciate it. we'll have to understand is one you say government, we are talking about democrats, women, they men, are all in this together. they are not looking out for us americans. i hate to say it. my respect and confidence in our government is down to 0. they do not care for us. otherwise, they would have taken care of this long ago. they cannot point the finger at

one person and say it is his or her fault. they are all equal. it is a sad thing. i feel bad for america. we are not counted in their thoughts or wishes for us. i appreciate you letting me call in. good luck to us, i hope. thank you. guest: thank you. this is an issue that crosses all party lines, whether you are thehe right, the left, or middle. corruption is a trans partisan issue. the latest polling shows nine out of every 10 people feel that federal government corruption is a significant issue. 53% say that it is a crisis. in corruption is the issue that leads all other issues in terms of crisis. for example, climate change was only a 39% with corruption at 53%. this is the old story. where good policy, ethics reform

at the federal level would also be good politics. host: richard is from missouri, independent line. caller: yes. colin -- what is the biggest boondoggle now? at thewe took a look billion-dollar boondoggles coming out of the fortune 100 companies. thank you for your question. contract byly the boeing. boeing is in charge of around 1200 contractors. it is a massive project. it was budgeted to the $6 million on the space launch system, the rocket launch system that is supposed to put our astronauts back on the moon and maybe eventually mars. the project is years late and way over budget, about $3 billion. arounda just green lit

350 million dollars worth of performance bonuses to boeing employees and their contractors. that begs the question in this report. millionboeing spent $72 over the course of the last four years on lobbying capitol hill, did that influence the payment of these performance bonuses on a project that is way late and way over budget? host: for the companies you list in this report, do you asked them directly what they think of the findings and do you get responses from them? guest: this story broke in the "washington times," and the reporter reached out to all 10 case studies in our report, and none of the companies would respond on the record. host: this is the headline -- taxpayers fund research for rich, powerful companies, highlights the work of openthebooks.com and some of the responses. you can be the on the "washington times" website. richard is next, republican

line. caller: i think lobbying is good. every other big industrial in this company is subsidizing. look at airbus. look at the farmers in japan, in europe. they are all subsidized so what's wrong with subsidized? they're eating our lunch. guest: i think that is chinese capitalism that is how chinese capitalism is practiced where you curry favor with the government for your business. america was fundamentally founded on a different concept, individual freedom and liberty. i disagree with the frame. host: from georgia, brad, democrats line. caller: good morning pedro, good morning adam. i don't disagree with anything that you said but it is a little one-sided. my question is about the federal

acquisition regulation. that is not specificallyacquis't to happen which i think also happen which i think also

speaks to some of thewhere thisn local governments, state governments, it is not being tried at the federal level. it has saved taxpayers up to 40% of those contracts. it's not going to work for every contract. we have a lot of contracts on research and development and those are long-term contracts paid you can't use the dutch are -- corporations bid zero just to get the business because then they make their money on the service aspect of that contract. these things are complicated but congress needs to give oversight to every facet of the contracts and grant procurement process. host: open the books.com. more on what they've uncovered.

guest: thank you for your interest in our work. host: we will take you to a hearing by the senate judiciary committee. a look at the role of intellectual property in the pricing of prescription drugs. that hearing about to get underway on c-span. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]