there will be later discussions if he is going to testify. we'll see how that goes. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. appreciate it. atcoming up, the housemates 10:00 a.m. for general speeches. at noon for work on pre-existing conditions and disaster aid funding. 9:30 the senate returns for work on judicial and executive nominations. at 7:00 p.m. we are in toronto, canada for a mock debate on china's role in the world. the house energy subcommittee takes up prescription drug prices. a house homeland security subcommittee hears from homeland security officials about the 2020 budget request for customs and border protection, ice and immigration and customs enforcement. coming up in an hour, representatives jimmy panetta

and don bacon, military veterans and cochairs of the new bipartisan four country caucus. robert daly of the wilson center talks about the state of u.s.-china trade u.s.-china trade talks and implications for the future. [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] [video clip] >> we have talked for a long time about approaching a constitutional crisis. we are now in it. ♪ host: that is jerry nadler after the committee voted to advance a contempt vote to the full house against attorney general william barr over the unredacted mueller report. the white house claiming executive privilege over those documents. democrats say they are willing to go to court over those documents so they can perform their mandate of congressional oversight of the trump administration. the tug-of-war between executive privilege and congressional oversight as you see it play out , who do you think has the better argument?

you can let us know in this first hour. 202-748-8000 for democrats. it is 202-748-8001 for republicans. and independents, 202-748-8002. you can tweet your thoughts at @cspanwj. feel free to post on our facebook page, too, at facebook.com/cspan. 24-16 was the vote advancing this citation against the attorney general. after that vote, it was the house judiciary chairman who went before cameras to talk about the action. [video clip] >> there can be no higher stakes to arrogatetempt all power to the executive branch away from congress and the american people. we have talked for a long time about approaching a constitutional crisis. we are now in it.

we are now in a constitutional crisis. benjamin franklin was asked when he exited the constitutional convention what type of government have you given us, sir? by a woman who asked the question and he said, a republic, ma'am, if you can keep it. now is the time of testing whether we can keep a republic or whether this republic is destined to change into a different more tyrannical form of government as other republics have over the centuries. we must resist this, this is far broader than a publican or democratic or even the right congress, this is whether we can put limits on the power of the president, any president and the executive branch and hold any president accountable. we cannot flinch and we will not flinch. host: that is jerry nadler talking about those actions, talking about how those documents are needed for the role of congressional oversight.

it was the president in florida talking about the actions of the committee, where he comes across as far as what his role is preserving the documents and the overall fight you see play out. [video clip] time,tead of wasting energy, taxpayer dollars on partisan stunts and hoaxes and witchhunts, democrats should be focused on building up our country. did you see what just happened, by the way? no collusion. no obstruction. no anything. two years on a witch hunt. i could have gotten anything in this audience, i could have found something on you. $40 million,most 20 trump haters. i call them angry democrats. after two years, nothing, no collusion. democrats, we have a

great attorney general and democrats are saying we want more. it is going to be like we want the mueller report. now they say mueller report? again.want to start over we have to focus on medicalucture, lowering prices and medicine. always focus on the military and done.ts, which we have and the democrats really should be focused on restoring and helping the emerald coast of florida because that is what it is. it is time to come together for the people of panama city, the people of florida, the people of our country. it is time to stop this nonsense. host: that is the president from last night. joining us on the phone to help us walk through these topics up congressional privilege is david hawking's, the editor and chief of the firewall.

topic ofrt with this executive privilege which the president put into play over these documents. what is it? guest: executive privilege is the legal term for the president or some other executive branch, generally the president or anyone in the executive branch saying to congress or to the courts, you are not entitled to get what you ask for in terms of becauseion or testimony i, the president, have a right to deliberative secrecy. being the executive requires being able to take people in confidence and have deliberations over policy and personnel that should not be open to public scrutiny. it is my privilege to keep these things secret from you and you cannot see them. host: what happens next regarding this contempt process?

guest: what happens next is the resolution that was approved on party lines in the judiciary committee goes to the full house and the full house will debate it and presumably, i think it is willr prediction, that it also be approved along party lines, all democrats voting for and all republicans voting against. host: if that does happen, what is the next step? guest: the next step is the contempt citation, so the house votes to hold mr. barr in contempt. the house does not think it currently has a way to enforce that. they are not going to send capitol police out and they are not going to lock mr. barr in an office or conference room at the capital. chiefanded over to the federal prosecutor and they say,

can you please prosecute mr. barr for criminal contempt? it is unlikely that will happen because the chief federal prosecutor for washington, d.c. is part of the trump administration justice department. host: the legal proceedings that might take place, what does that mean now that the president has enacted executive privilege over these documents? guest: i think what it means is there is a pretty high potential we are headed for one of the great separation of powers lawsuits -- supreme court decisions potentially in modern history. this notion of executive privilege has only been around administration. the constitution is not clear about whether -- it is silent on whether the question of what are the limits of the president's abilities to keep things secret and what are the limits of congress' power to investigate?

court decisions along the line have implied both have merit, that there are some cases, even in the case when the supreme court told president nixon he had to turn over things during watergate, they said executive privilege was a thing and he should be able to keep some things secret, but congress cannot do oversight work, legislative work without being able to get things from the executive branch. unless there is some negotiated settlement, which is what normally happens in these cases and what normally happens when things are working "normally in washington, the two sides get together and negotiate some compromise. history far as regarding the tempo we saw yesterday, how many attorney general's have gone through this process and how does it affect their tenure in office?

guest: the most prominent attorney general of the obama administration, eric holder, .ent through this same process he declined to cooperate with a republican house over its investigation of what was called fast and furious. some of your audience may remember this. it was essentially a botched investigation by the justice department of gunrunning along the mexican border. it was a mess. mr. holder does not want -- did not want to cooperate. the same thing happened i described before, the contempt citation was sent to the chief federal prosecutor who was part of the obama administration and in some sense worked for mr. holder and he refused to prosecute and eric holder went on to finish his term without much fuss. it is a symbolic move within the modern era without too much

teeth. we should be looking to this battle over executive privilege and the president's declaration he does not have to cooperate with turning over the mueller report. host:host: you have watched congress for a long time. what do you think about this back and forth? what would you like our viewers to walk away with in that tug-of-war between the two? guest: i would like the viewers to know both sides have skin in the game. if they force this issue all the way to the supreme court and there is a decisive supreme court decision, either it will empower the president and tilt the balance of power strongly in his favor or it will go the other way and restore a bunch of aft to a congress, to legislative branch that has really seen its powers eroded

because of presidents on both parties, democrats and republicans, there is the old adage, to a hammer, the world is a nail and to a politician, getting more power is everything and presidents of both parties have tried to take power away from congress somewhat successfully. if there is no negotiated settlement, it could lead to a restoration of oversight power to congress or a lasting claim -- host: david hawkings serves as editor in chief of the firewall. us if you want to see those publications. thanks for your time. guest: thank you. host: this idea of executive privilege the president exerted over the mueller report and the idea of congressional oversight and democrats saying they need access to the report to do that, what do you think of those two and who has the better argument? you can let us know. 202-748-8000 for democrats.

republicans, 202-748-8001. and independents, 202-748-8002. georgia starts us off on our republican line. ed, go ahead. caller: the last time we had a crisis like this was when abraham lincoln was going to free the slaves and he became the president and the democrats sumter. fort i don't think that will happen again, but it looks like democrats are completely out of control. they know damn well you cannot release grand jury testimonials and that is what they want to do. it is not going to work for them. it will end up in the supreme court and they are going to lose. host: what do you think about democrats saying they need access to these documents for oversight purposes? caller: they don't. it is all political.

what is his name -- nadler? host: jerry nadler. caller: yeah. he is just power crazy. he really is power crazy. not only that, he has his own personal problems. oft: the president's use executive privilege over these documents, is that something you support then? caller: yes. host: why so? the fact thate the grand jury testimony is not supposed to be released to nobody. host: that's here to willie in annapolis, maryland, democrats line. caller: hello. first of all, what trump is doing right now exercising executive power, i have a problem with it. hello? host: why do you have a problem with it? caller: i don't have a problem with it. when a president has to enact executive power like now, i like

chairman pelosi -- it sounds like to me he is condoning an issue like that because he brought up the stuff about the south and the civil war and that is like comparing apples to oranges. when you say the president is using executive privilege because of guilt matters, why do you say that? caller: if he was exonerated, he would not be trying to use it like that. if he is so gung ho he was innocent, he would not be exercising executive power. extend that to all presidents who use executive privilege? caller: it depends what the situation is. example, they try to compare bill clinton's impeachment with donald trump. bill clinton got caught doing

something improper. this is more serious, this is espionage. this two perspectives on idea of congressional oversight and executive privilege. here with more information on this front is greta. host 2: right before the house judiciary committee voted to hold the attorney general in an attempt, the white house invoked executive privilege. this, inarr wrote these circumstances, you may properly exert executive privilege with respect to the entirety up justice department materials the kitty demand -- the committee demanded. as with president clinton's assertion in 1996, you would be making only a preliminary protective assertion of executive privilege to ensure your ability to make a final assertion if necessary over some

or all of the subpoenaed materials. the reaction on capitol hill, this debate over executive privilege versus congressional oversight, mark meadows tweeting yesterday, again, it cannot be stated enough, bill barr is following the law and democrats political temper tantrum masquerading as oversight. represented of matt gaetz who serves on the judiciary committee tweeting this hearing is not about the ag, it is not about the mueller report, this is about impeaching the president. jump tot dems just impeachment like their liberal media overlords are telling them to? the problem is the american people do not support impeachment. kevin mccarthy, the leader of the minorities in the house, dear democrats, the mueller report is done, let's move forward. now is the time to work together to solve actual problems.

sheldon whitehouse, democratic senator tweeted out at least with democratic house we have a formal privilege assertion to deal with which can be tested in wouldknowing republicans never press, trump administration got away with bogus non-assertions of executive privilege for too long. richard blumenthal from connecticut, this unprecedented sweeping invocation of executive privilege is nothing more than a desperate and transparent attempt at depriving the american people of the truth. the speaker of the house tweeting is this what it looks like when you have nothing to hide? iowa, cedarin rapids, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: yes. i stand behind the president's use of executive privilege in this case . investigations4

. this has been over two years and you have not come up with crime or collusion. it was stated in the mueller report that not one american citizen colluded with russia. the use of executive privilege in this case is warranted. enough is enough. shieldt is warranted to those documents because of the things you listed, then? caller: the mueller report is available. the only thing left out of that is grand jury material, which is protected by law. host: unredacted report is what democrats are looking for, and last redacted report over to certain members of congress for their perusal. independent line, charlie, you are next. caller: good morning. good morning, america. host: charlie, you are on, go ahead. what do you think of this idea

of executive privilege versus congressional oversight? caller: it is a coequal part of the constitution. host: are you saying both sides are right? caller: both sides are right. host: how so? caller: congressional -- congressional oversight. get on it, impeach the swamp. host: if you are saying both sides are right, the president is right in exerting executive privilege over the document? caller: yes. host: why is that? caller: he is right. the constitution rule of law states it. do you want to amend the constitution? more power to the congress. int: walt is next pittsburgh, democrats line. caller: how are you doing? good morning, everybody. i have a couple questions i have to ask make sure i am on the right track. is it legal for attorney general divulgedive all --

testimony from grand jury? host: that is the argument from the justice apartment, that it would go against certain laws. go ahead. caller: okay, that is illegal. has he not offered this to anybody in congress to come and look at it? host: a lesser redacted report to certain members of congress, yes. caller: right. i do believe the reason he is doing this and they can see everything they have to see, but then they cannot leak it. that is what is trying to be --vented, from leaking out taking bits and pieces and spinning it the way it has been spun for two years. trump-russia, trump-russia. host: what did you feel about the president using executive privilege over these documents? caller: i don't blame him.

i am not an attorney, so i don't understand -- i don't know the law. if it is available, they ran against the smartest ran in the room, this guy has beat them at every corner and they cannot take it. host: bill king says the mueller report already -- is not the property of the executive branch, they belong to us, the people of the united states, and the courts must rule the same. tj saying congress is demanding barr break the law and if he does not, they will have contempt of congress. insanity of it all. that is some -- on our twitter feed. jeb from north carolina, republican line. caller: thank god. donald trump is perfectly within his rights. i find it kind of obvious that when eric holder was caught

giving funds to mexico, the executive privilege was not scrutinized by these media liars and now that donald trump -- there is not even a crime. eric holder committed a crime in the name of the united states. host: what did you think about the president using the power in the first place to do that? caller: in the first place, he did not use it until after the mueller report. all these people complaining, obama never let no report or investigation go down. he let eric holder get away with it and nobody said nothing, including you. host: the holder report played out over many months before conclusions were made. the president acted last night when it comes to executive privilege. caller: donald trump has given so much leeway. now we are approaching double

jeopardy where you cannot be tried for something that you have been found innocent of and that really applies here. host: that judiciary committee action when it comes to that vote that took place now goes to the full house. what happens next with that and more, here is retta. host 2: following on the previous caller who talked about grand jury information and testimony, he is referencing section 6e of the federal rules of criminal procedures and it reads individuals involved in criminal proceedings must not disclose a matter occurring between -- before a grand jury with some exceptions. a judge can disclose grand jury information when there is a threat from a hostile foreign power or terror attack to prevent or respond to activities and the judge can order a disclosure of grand jury material that is preliminary to a hearing.

democrats are arguing they wanted to negotiate with the attorney general before a judge about what type -- which part of the grand jury information could be disclosed. they say they were willing to negotiate with a judge, they just wanted the attorney general to work with them on that. what happens next now that the house judiciary committee has held them in contempt? the washington post is reporting the speaker of the house is likely to take up this contempt resolution next week. if that happens and if it passes, they note that would then allow the white house barr to civile court and try to force a judge to force him to release the report. -- democratsn would have to pass a separate resolution in order to trigger the house counsel.

passed a separate resolution to authorize going to court with barr and get the courts to decide the subpoena request and citation. who would be arguing for house democrats? letterelosi hired doug and there is this piece on law and crime -- lawandcrime.com and they write this about his bio, that he has worked for several administrations, including the clinton administration and others. you can read more if you go to lawandcrime.com. host: gaithersburg, maryland, democrats line. adam. good morning. caller: good morning. a previous caller said jerry nadler is power-hungry. i think that person should look in the mirror at his own party. you had mo brooks from alabama

saying if hillary clinton had won the 2016 election, he was going to introduce articles of impeachment on day 1 and you have a current president who decided he is not going to comply with any congressional subpoena one way or the other. i really don't see how they don't believe there is a double standard going on. host: some of the callers have brought up the fact democrats had access to not only a lesser redacted report, why go even further especially when it comes to the role of oversight? caller: the redacted report is not everything. they need the full information and there is no reason why members of that committee, at least, cannot see the full report. i understand wanting to have certain parts not released, grand jury testimony, things like that. when you have a blanket i am not going to cooperate, what you have is the executive branch,

the president of the united states throwing a temper tantrum. he is not going to cooperate on anything, it would not matter what they asked for. from west is next virginia, republican line. caller: the media is going to drag this thing on because it is good for the ratings. the democrats are trying to disparage mr. barr because they know he is going to come after strzok, page,abe, and dirty cops in the justice department. when they used the dossier, took a to the fisa court and got wiretap on mr. carter, they destroyed that man's life and he is suing right now and i hope he wins a bundle. host: when you hear

congressional democrats say they need access to the full report, what is your reaction? caller: i think it is over. let's drop this thing and move , the mane mr. barr that investigated it, he had 13 staunch democrats to investigate this thing and they found no collusion. what you people in the media are doing, you are destroying the country by dragging this thing on, pitting one branch against the other. host: if that is the case, what do you think of the president's actions with executive privilege and shielding the mueller report? usedr: every president has that executive privilege. every one i can remember. i am 80 years old and i have seen a lot of them, they all do

.t if the inspector general is coming out with his report pretty soon. host: lexington, kentucky, democrats line. hi. caller: hi, how are you? host: i am fine, thanks. go ahead. caller: i would like to remind all the callers and the viewers that the eula report was a twofold investigation. withussians interfering our elections. you cannot do oversight with some of that information being redacted. it is a core part of our democracy and i would like to everyone that the mueller report is available for us to read. if you don't read it, you will

be following false narratives for the rest of your life. i have not completed reading it, but i am astonished at what i have read so far. as far as barr, the contempt, i think what i am understanding is that barr is not working with the committee as far as going to the grand jury to see what information can be released as far as the oversight. whatever for them to lead -- read less redacted parts those members but could not discuss with anyone else. what is the use of me going to read something and having

knowledge of something, but i cannot discuss where do i go? what is my next step? that is all i have to say. to her point that she made, the washington times highlights a bit of that back and forth and said mr. nadler said it was mr. barr who soured negotiations refusing to budge, but he made a major concession. his subpoena was not intended to improve -- include grand jury information. "the subpoena was never in cover is why wee, which asked the attorney general to go to court to get permission to review the material." -- carve out grand jury information that was rejected and the committee accepted that amendment on wednesday. that vote that took place yesterday -- if you go to c-span.org, you can view that as

it played out before the vote took place and everything over the last few weeks over the mueller report at c-span.org. independence, missouri, michael. independent line. caller: first time caller, avid listener and watcher. this presidentg has done so much wrong for the country and he has done it on purpose. what he did here is ridiculous. host: just to clarify, do you mean exerting executive privilege, is that what you are saying? caller: yes. host: okay, go ahead. caller: all these republicans have been enabling this president to do what he wants. if this was a democratic president, they would be throwing witchhunts after

themselves. to me, being an independent voter, it is like watching a crackhead of a president being enabled by republicans. host: as far as the president's action, in your mind, what was wrong with it? lied so manys times. it is like listening to my sister begging for money saying she will pay me back and never does. it is the same thing the president has been doing with people in the united states. he lies in everything he does. host: what was wrong with the executive privilege action, that is what i am asking. blocking equal houses. it is blocking them, trying to tell them they cannot do their

job. their job is checks and balances. do their job, how is this country going to be led? is it going to be a dictatorship? host: this idea we have been taking on of executive privilege on the president's side, congressional privilege -- we will continue your calls, 202-748-8000 for democrats. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. the president's son in the news. host 2: senate panel subpoenas him, coming from the senate intelligence committee, bringing you back several key witnesses for interviews to give lawmakers byhance to question people committee staffers. the reaction to that, republican of new york, "weak and ridiculous for senate to

continuing to harass donald trump, jr.. they should not be taking orders from unhinged resistance dems. let's work together to help potus move the u.s. forward." several people are read tweeting out representative tenney's tweet from -- jerry nadler's tweet from 2012 when he tweeted "join the walk out to protest the shameful, politically voteated geo t -- gop holding holder in contempt." host: bill, good morning, go ahead. bill in new jersey, hello? caller: hello? host: you are on, go ahead. caller: go ahead. yeah, good morning, c-span. i believe donald trump could -- have taken executive privileges read all jerry nadler wants to do is look at people's names on the mueller report that are

probably private citizens to keep bringing them in with them.nas to trash that is my opinion. host: what would be the value in bringing those people before congress? caller: the value? going fors circus months and months and maybe a year and keep this cloud over .rump's head and they have the people of the united states believing this. if you call a person a liar enough times, people will think you are a liar. host: donna on facebook saying congress held eric holder in contempt in 2012, nothing happened to him read diana says congress has the power to exercise -- national security of our elections and rule of law at stake. if potus was not president, he would be guilty of obstruction

of justice, that is what the mueller report said. ruben in fort lauderdale, democrats line. hello. you are on, go ahead. caller: trump is in a lot of trouble. he knows he is in a lot of trouble. if it had been anybody else it would have improved a long time ago and now it is coming up again. he is going down. host: you are with congressional democrats on that one, why is that? caller: the man is a crook. int: let's go to then sell north carolina, independent line. caller: hi, how are you doing? host: fine, thanks. caller: i will try to stay true to the independent part. i personally think trump is

being smart how he is playing it. i don't agree with that is a ash the way that is allowed to happen because democrats and republicans have both set in -- the mainstream media cannot be trusted by other party . basically they have created this privilegesecutive and allowed it where a president is no longer considered like the average citizen. he has more rights. this conversation we are having right now about who is right and who is wrong is important because it is showing all the flaws we allowed to get through s.e crack scre host: why do you think the president is playing it right? caller: because he is using the law. at one point you had to report

runaway slaves. the law does not stand for moral sense. isis using the law, which moral, but it is not. in northt is denzell carolina. of all these things happening in the news, when it comes to the president, his taxes coming into focus. host 2: house democrats are trying to decide do they continue pursuing the president's tax returns? ways and means chairman richard kneels deciding today whether to go support over the president's tax returns proved he plants to huddle with house lawyers on thursday and will make the final decision then. he and other senior democrats have already raised the prospect of skipping a subpoena and going directly to courts after being repeatedly rebuffed by steve mnuchin. the internal revenue code titled is whaton 6103

democrats .2 when they say they have the legal right to see the president's tax returns. committee ofof the finance of the senate or the chairman on joint committee of return or- with any return information specified in such request except that any return or return information which can be associated with or identified directly or indirectly a particular taxpayer shall be furnished only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer consents in writing to such disclosure. host: chrissy in michigan, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. my family and i have supported trump, it is the first time we reported -- we voted republican because we thought he was a is

nice man. i completely regret it. i actually read the molar report and -- the eula report and i encourage all the people who voted for donald trump to read it. he did break the law, he did obstruct justice. host: what do you think about the president exerting executive privilege over that report? caller: i think he already waved executive privilege when he let mcgahn testify and all of this is in the mueller report. these people have already told what they are going to tell and there has to be oversight. he did do what was in the report . he asked people to live, to make false documents. i am a shamed i voted for the man. host: what about the attorney general's a solution -- assertion that it would violate law? understandotally that that is the law.

i don't know how it works, but may the committee -- the judiciary committee can see the full report and be trusted not to leak it. to do oversight, i guess they have to. i wish they could be saying positive things about donald trump because we did support him. after reading that report, my mind is completely changed. host: kevin, democrats line. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. host: you are on. go ahead. caller: yes, sir. thank you. i have a few things to say, but i will try to keep it quick. trump is an obvious liar. never before has the president went on tv in front of a national audience and asked a foreign hostile government to help him win. that right there should tell all of his voters and supporters what type of person he is. he has bankrupted every single

business he has ventured in. executivehe idea of privilege and congressional oversight, what do you think of the actions yesterday? caller: i think it is absolutely a joke. how is the person who is the subject of investigation, who has been proven to obstruct justice and the mueller report, the very report that questions it, able to control what is happening in his case? that is hypocrisy, that is not the way the founding fathers intended for our laws to be carried out. the president is not above the law. host: washington, d.c., mike is next, independent line. caller: i am so happy mueller disagreed with your last two callers. i am so happy he disagreed with the lady who voted for trump and the president now who cited trump mentioning russia, if you

have the emails, release them. everybody knows that was a joke. that was in the mueller report, mueller did not pursue it. people that are listening and don't like donald trump, they don't care that he donates his salary, they don't care that he released millions of documents, allowed his white house counsel to testify for 30 hours. he has been so cooperative. host: to the actions of yesterday regarding the report, what do you think about this idea of executive privilege versus the oversight arguments? caller: everything i am telling you now about how he has cooperated, $35 million, 2.5 years of investigation, the report is complete, mueller did his job, i don't blame the president because people don't care if the president cooperates as well as he did releasing one million plus documents, et cetera, et cetera.

he could have fired mueller, but he did not. you cannot impeach somebody for a thought. i am in 100% agreement with what he is doing because now it is harassment. host: let's go to barbara in arkansas, republican line. caller: yes. i actually watched the hearing yesterday and it was such a joke. mr. henry johnson from guam -- not from guam, the one that said guam was going to capsize if too many people were on one side of it, if you listened, you knew what was going on yesterday. it had nothing to do with donald trump exercising his right for executive privilege, it had nothing to do with mueller. mr. johnson plainly stated, we cannot impeach if we don't get these papers.

reason democrats have their little panties in a w are scared ofthey what is in that redacted part under the grand jury testimony that is being played out with the investigations, the 14 investigations going on right now and if anyone thinks barr does not already know what he needs to know, they really are living in a fantasy world. that man is smart, he has been working on this, sessions was working on this, people need to wake up and start paying attention to what people are saying. host: that is barbara in arkansas. that committee hearing she referenced, you can watch it on our website at c-span.org and get the perspective of both sides, democrats and republicans as they were going back and forth before the party line vote that took place.

in brooklyn, janice, democrats line. caller: good morning. there is a separation of government for our reason. there are different branches of government for our reason. up inhould not have stood front of the american people and no collusion, that trump did not obstruct justice, that was wrong. in the report, trump said weeks ago release the report and now he is saying don't release it. let the american people see. there are separated branches of government. i know think -- trump thinks the courts are going to rule in his favor. he thinks he is an emperor, that he is the only rule and the only law and that should not happen. host: bill off of our facebook page has this to say when it comes to reaction, they have no

basis for the charge and it will drop. donald needs to understand you cannot always get what you want. facebook and twitter available as well as the phone lines. about 12 minutes left and you can make your thoughts on the line. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. and independence, -- independents, 202-748-8002. carol is next, hello. caller: good morning. been paying attention. i have a little comparison. i find it funny that when mr. was under. clinton investigation, he gets in front of the american people, takes and steps into the ag's lane, so to speak, and basically states

to the american people that this is what happened, this is what happened, this is what she had done. she destroyed evidence, she did this, but we did not know her intent. if you read the whole mueller report, they are so much alike. this is what he does -- this is what he has done, this is what he has done, but there was no intent. host: how does that relate to the actions of yesterday? -- i don't have a problem with the president doing executive privileges, he ago.d have done it long he should have never let that many people cooperate with mueller. the only thing we are doing, is my opinion, is once again the american taxpayers are paying

for opposition research to take people gant -- down and do character assassination. host: what about the idea democrats present as far as actions for congressional oversight? caller: they do have access to -- report except for host: the redacted report and underlying evidence. caller: that is it. you can't -- they can read the evidence. they choose not to. thoughtst is carol's from west virginia. we are back to greta with more on the president's side of this issue. host 2: the president, the trump organization, along with other entities of trump businesses cummings.elijah the new york times has a profile piece on him and they note oral

arguments for this case begin next week in the united states district court for the district of columbia in washington, d.c. from the court case filed by , they aremp's lawyers representing the president at 1600 pennsylvania avenue, the trumporganization, the organization llc, the trump corporation, the donald j. trump revocable trust, and the trump post office llc. the lawyers are representing all those organizations including the president and elijah cummings wants to get a look at 10 years of financial records. as a lawyers for the president -- declared all-out political war against president donald j. trump. subpoenas are there weapon of

choice. they go on to write that --irman cummings' subpoenas ignore the limits on congress' power to investigate. article 1 does not contain an oversight clause. it gives congress to enact certain legislation. investigations are legitimate only insofar as they further some legitimate legislative purpose. host: from connecticut, republican line, diane. caller: yes, sir, i was wanting to call and say number one, i am a proud supporter of this president and i think he is doing a wonderful job. i am absolutely disturbed at what is going on. this president is using the powers that he has, and he president has and i think it is clear that if they said there is no collusion, there is no collusion.

the obstruction, what i feel mueller has done is left of this open so we can basically continue this cloud to keep this going. if there was, in fact, concrete proof that there was obstruction, he would have been charged with it. as a previous lifelong democrat whose family emigrated to this country and always voted democrat, we will never vote democrat again. i am so disappointed in their behavior and their lack of ability to work for the people. your part of that, to point, they say they are working for the people as far as access to the reports for their role of congressional oversight. caller: they are not working for the people, they are working for their political party. party before country, that is what they are doing. there are people that elected a duly elected president and his support is getting stronger and

i don't think they realize that. host: matthew in michigan, democrats line. hi. caller: hi. i personally just want to extend a branch out to those who say the president has the right to executive privilege. what congress is doing is essentially their job. i am personally a democrat, but if republicans -- if this were happening to a democratic president, there is no doubt in my mind we should have checks and balances and this is what it comes down to. host: the democrats will say because of their job you say they are doing, they need access to this full set of information even though the justice department cites concerns over breaking laws to do that. what do you think about that argument? caller: i believe it is the duty

above all else for all branches of governments to use checks and balances. you had mentioned the report thatins some information is believed to absolutely not be able to -- for example, ongoing cases. what that comes down to is essentially those parts will not be released, like you mentioned, but it should still go to the alsoligence community and the one we were talking about today, the congressional oversight. essentially, these people, we need to make sure they have the ability as congresspeople to move forward and later move on to the public viewing that. for now, it is essential to our democracy that we make sure congress is able to see the report to their liking and obey their subpoenas because i

believe we would do this under a democrat president. host: let's hear from joe in willow spring, independent line. thinking,at i was does the president have the ability to see that full report? if he has seen the full report, maybe that is why he is blocking it, there may be something in there. host: dana in florida, republican line. caller: yes, good morning. this is a joke. to indictd the right anyone. trump junior, anyone, he did not do that. he did not. i don't understand where this is all going. the democrats, i watched it yesterday, that was sickening. trump has the right to do that

and everyone is forgetting, that is calling in, the attorney general agreed to go in front of every single one of them, but they wanted extra lawyers to question him. would you do that? no. they don't have the right to do that. host: what was wrong with the democrats' argument? caller: none of them has read anything. i am telling you, this is a show, they have not read anything. if you could get one on your show right now before they can go and say they read something, they cannot tell you what is in there, they cannot read it. host: when you say they need the information for oversight purposes, you don't buy that argument. caller: i do not. they are going to find one little piece there treat i think it has something to do with the democrats. they are going to go after str

zok and page and they don't want that in there. host: gloria, you are next up, hi. caller: i called about this executive order. i think the president is trying to hide something and i think the republicans that are calling in our being willfully ignorant because anybody can understand that the president cannot be indicted, it has to be left up to congress. of course, trump does not want that and his republican do not want it, they have to remember trump is not going to always be the president and they are setting a dangerous precedent because they don't want to see this happening in the future. right now, all they can see is trump is doing this and trump is doing that and the economy. we won't need the economy if russia takes over.

host: previous presidents have used executive privilege. why do you think, in this case, the president is hiding something? caller: because he even told people not to go before the congress. the point of it is if he is innocent, why wouldn't he want people to see it? justnk the republicans are being willfully aigner rent. host: let's hear from -- willfully ignorant. host: let's hear from linda. caller: i was calling in because i have been listening to all of opinion onon and my , how wouldemocrats you say -- they are trying to pick a of trump's side when they have a log in their own. if they're going to spend these millions of dollars doing all of

these papers and investigations, then they should do it to every single president that is elected. if they are setting a precedent and this is what we are going to do, then this is how they should continue with every future president. host: what about their actions against this president? what do you find wrong about that? caller: it is so offensive. squareelected fair and and they have not let up on him. when obama was elected, not everyone was for obama. they were a lot of people who were really against him, but at the bottom of the line, he was our president and as president, you respect that and you respect the office of the president. what they are trying to do is trash the office of the president so nobody in the

united states is going to respect our government. host: that is linda in wyoming. let's hear from jerry in illinois, democrats line. caller: i want to make a comment about the executive privilege. i don't believe it should be claimed because i read the mueller report two times and i purchased the book. i read every detail of it and i think executive privilege has been waived already. i think the democrats should go to court and have a judge make that decision. host: why do you think executive privilege has been waived? caller: whatever they are asking for, other than the materials they are not going to get, most of it is in the mueller report. if you purchase the book, it is 730 pages because all of the attachments are in the book. yesterday you did a beautiful

job announcing that the report in its entirety is going to be read tonight and c-span is going to cover it. it is going to be read from front to back by democrats on the floor. don't have the ability to read that many pages so i wish she would announce it so people can watch it tonight. host: you have read the book yourself and you heard our viewers. paul from line, kentucky. caller: yes. i think this whole thing is a farce. it is all about the 2020 election. they don't want to see this happen. if there is anything more corrupt in washington, d.c., i want you to prove it to me. host: what do you think about the presidents action on

shielding the report by executive privilege? something's got to do because all he is dealing with is obstruction from the time he was elected. it is obstruction just to hinder his presidency. ,ost: that is paul in kentucky the last call for this segment. coming up, you will meet to members of congress. they are cochairs of the newly formed for country caucus. their representatives jimmy panetta and don bacon. they will talk about the things they are interested in doing under that caucus. testifying inr front of the senate appropriations committee over the 2020 defense budget. part of that exchange between the senate and general dunford dealt with threats posed by iran. [video clip] iraqcretary pompeo went to

to discuss a new threat from iran. glanceed to me at first to be a completely separate bucket of threats from the isis threat and counterterrorism threat that our current military mission is addressing under the 2001 aumf. can you say anything about this new threat stream from iran and whether you would view it in the same bucket, if you will, that would cover? that threatiew stream as the same as isis but our posture in the region has backto deter iran, going to 1979. secretary pompeo raise the

visibility of the threat streams we have seen intensified last week, what we were attempting to do with the movement of force element was to deter any ran -- byaction by a iran as a whole. topic and theis you consulted prior to the administration designating the irgc as a terrorist organization? >> i had an opportunity to provide military advice. >> did you agree with this designation? >> it is military advice i provided. i would be happy to provide that to you but maybe not in an open venue. congress members of joining us this morning to talk about their newly formed caucus and the role that veterans play. this is representative jimmy

panetta, democrat from california and represented of don bacon from nebraska, a republican from that state. both serve as cochairs for the four country caucus. talk about the formation of the caucus. during my -- rep. panetta: during my last term, it got to a point where the only bipartisanship you were seeing was when you would turn on the statesmen be it john mccain, george w. bush or john dingell recently. we wanted to change that. we wanted to make sure that there were members in congress who were not just here to make a point. we are here to make a difference. those are the types of people, those qualities come from veterans, because they understand what it means to get the job done.

donng into this congress, and i came together and decided, let's make sure that there is a venue for us to sit down at the table, republicans and democrats, those of us who have served and have civil discussions and try to get things done on areas where we can come together and move forward. that was the creation of the for country caucus. it is a real honor to have don bacon as the cochair. i come from california, he comes from nebraska. i am a democrat and he is a republican. we have not only served, but we served together in congress and we actually like each other. host: what do veterans bring to the table when it comes to this idea of working together? rep. bacon: i served 30 years in the air force, i don't remember

ever hearing are you republican or democrat. when you try to get something done in iraq or wherever, we get the job done. in congress we have so much gridlock and vitriol. the leadership once to pass the perfect bill for their leadership in the party and there is no chance in the senate. we need to be sitting down and finding consensus. we may but heads over the immigration issue but we can do 40% when we find an agreement now. let's pass that now. largek veterans by and can solve a lot of problems in our country. we can move our country forward. halfway, two thirds, more than what we are doing now, gridlocked and there is no compromise.

we know how to compromise and get stuff done. rep. panetta: back in december, there was an article, saying bush and mccain were linked by a fading concept, duty and honor. the article ended with quote, and inspired me to be part of this caucus. the question was whether there will be a generation of ambitious if more diverse politicians bonded by common purpose and a sense of duty that military and other forms of service can inspire. some in the capital to cope in the swelling ranks in congress of those who fought in afghanistan and iraq, a bipartisan group that includes 16 new members and may feel devotion to a more unified because and may be more willing to resist the temptations of today's partisan wars. i believe that is what the for country is about -- caucus is about. host: if you want to ask these two questions, (202)-748-8000

for democrats. (202)-748-8001 for republicans and for independents, (202)-748-8002. 96 total veterans serving in this congress. 21 served in the military in the 1960's or earlier. panetta, what did you do? rep. panetta: i served in 2003, in the navy reserve. i deployed in afghanistan and served as an intelligence officer. host: as far as the issues you would like to conquer in this caucus, what is top among them? rep. panetta: based on our experience and knowledge, it is making sure we serve those who serve us, working with issues dealing with veterans and military status. at the same time, it is also inspiring other young women --

other young men and women to serve. we are looking for a national service legislation. host: which would comprise of what? rep. bacon: providing people opportunities to serve their country in different ways. not necessarily military. it could be work in rural areas, whether it is teaching or medical. they are options. people have a lot of education back, for things they owe to the banks or government. there may be opportunities to use that, have people serve the country in different ways. one of the things i am interested in is physical fitness. 71% of our youth would not qualify to get into the military. i would like to add more physical fitness requirements in high school and jr. hi and bring back the presidential fitness award. school -- junior

high and bring back the presidential fitness award. there were lots of things we can do to improve the situation for goldstar kids and spouses. we have initiatives we are working on. host: our first call for them comes from keith in florida, republican line. you are joined by two members of congress from the for country caucus. go-ahead. -- go ahead. caller: thank you. it is a noble cause you are going after. i see a lot of problems. if it is going to be solved, the military is one of the best places. onre are some problems going that i see in society. the country seems to be illiterate. years, ithrough the is funny that politicians,

mainstream media are the biggest , because of disability these wordsmiths have changed the definitions of words. we are now to undocumented immigrants. what this does is both sides have different definitions of words. when you debate and have a conversation and the definition of the words are different, it ins frustrating and results -- social media has amplified this situation. let me give you two examples. when liberals talk to conservatives, in their mind, conservative is an older white guy, a white nationalists, a racist, a nazi.

on the conservative side, when you talk to a liberal, already in your mind, they want everything free from other people to pay for it through taxes. civility has a long way to go to come back. we will leave that point and let our guests respond. rep. bacon: that is exactly what this caucus is about. we would love to get something done. ideally some home runs on big pieces of legislation. we are looking at some base hits , smaller pieces that we can agree on. one of the biggest benefits of this type of caucus is something i experienced last year on the problem solvers caucus. this is a venue for us to sit down and talk with one another. if there are any misunderstandings in regards to the vernacular we use, we can get through that and understand not just the words we use, we can understand each other but more importantly i can

understand that representative's constituency. don may vote a certain way, not he is voting for his constituency, his district, as he should. we need to be understanding of that on both sides of the aisle. that is how it is going to benefit us going forward. rep. bacon: he is absolutely right. i would go further and say it is content. folks are holding each other in contempt and it is hard to compromise. i see the promise of this caucus twofold. we are going to work together. instead of passing perfect political bills, we will sit down and figure out where we have consensus. if we get to 40% on an issue, fair enough, let's move that forward and get it done. three or four steps, a full

mile, it's progress. we want to model civility and mutual respect. that is part of our pledge being in this caucus, we will treat each other respectfully and we won't campaign against each other. we will work together and get things done. there are a number of veterans right now in congress, 18%. it used to be 77%. there are 20 of us in the caucus. we want to grow this. congressess -- our needs to figure out how to work together. host: how many members are currently part of the caucus? rep. bacon: 10 republicans and 10 democrats. we would like to add more. host: what is the reason you can't get more? rep. panetta: we have interest from people who have not served. despite what you see when you

isn on fox or cnn, the fact there are members who come here and they want to get things done. they understand that in order to do that, you have to be able to have the conversation. that is what this caucus is about and that is the problem. as keith said, social media has prevented us from getting to know one another. it is easier to text and email. we understand that nowadays it is about looking each other in the eye, getting to know one another, not just the outside but the inside. that is why not only having this type of caucus but in my last term, i went out into a republican district in illinois and we did a civility tour where wherento the high schools there was this civics illiteracy. there was more understanding about what our democracy does,

but democracy is about civility and getting along and to show these young high schoolers, here is a democrat and republican who not just get along but we like each other. rep. bacon: i traveled to california to a district that neighbored jimmy's. is reallyis for -- it building friendships. when you have a problem, you sit down and can solve it. a give you a chance to work on a problem. we do too little talking together. we have to start finding areas of consensus. rep. panetta: you have been here longer than i have, pedro but this is my third year, second term. what i have found, especially during my time on the ag committee, relationships are a

cornerstone of being a congressman. it's abouton, d.c., relationships with other members. host: let me get in al from missouri, democrats line. [indiscernible] host: you are going to have to clarify that for our viewers and guests. [indiscernible] host: if you want to go ahead.

rep. panetta: i did not understand all of it but it seems like that was an issue that we get all the time in our district office, dealing with people coming into the office, people who have served and are having a hard time with the v.a. or the government. that is a perfect example of what casework is all about. that is one of the best parts about this job, when we can help our constituents with these issues. we get that all the time. but is how our seat -- that is how i see our role, being that branch from constituents in our district to the federal bureaucracy and fighting through it for them. i would recommend for al that you go see your congress member if this is an issue you are having, dealing with the v.a. go see your congress member and explain to his or her staff what is going on and hopefully they

will help you. if you are on the central coast of california, my staff will help you. rep. bacon: that is one of the biggest areas we have to help out constituents. the other one is immigration. every day we get these calls and we are glad to help work through that bureaucracy. the two areas in congress that have the most consensus is veterans issues. we want to make life better for our veterans and give them the care we have promised, republican and democrat a life -- alike. the other is nih, research and diseases has a lot of consensus across the aisle. those are two areas where we have done a good job working together but we need to replicate that in other areas. in,: let me roll (202)-748-8003 is the number to call if you are a veteran.

let me roll in the president from last night at a rally where he talked about veterans issues and we will get your responses. [video clip] >> as for the veterans, we passed v.a. choice. [cheering] now if they wait in line for two weeks, three weeks, 10 days, two months, people that were not even very sick, terminally ill before they get to see a doctor, they go outside, find a good local doctor, get themselves fixed up and we pay the bill and it is a great thing for our veterans. they have been trying to get it passed for 44 years. we got a pas -- we got it passed. host: could there be changes to it? rep. bacon: it is a positive step forward. we need a choice. the problem is i find a lot of our doctors that are out of the v.a. and part of the choice

program are not getting paid fast enough. we have to work on the bureaucracy. it is not fair to a doctor or small business to do that business and not get paid for one year. we have to speed that up. the older veterans i have talked to like going to the v.a. a lot of the younger ones like going to the local doctor. i think it is important to support both. the bureaucracy needs to become more agile. rep. panetta: i completely agree with don. we are fortunate on the central coast of california. we have an amazing va hospital. we have a brand-new state-of-the-art facility, dod and v.a. health clinic where veterans are going and receiving proper service. there are areas in this country where they don't have access to these types of facilities, so the need to go to private doctors. the thing we have to be careful of is we don't want to completely outsource all of the

services that the v.a. has two private care. we want to make sure that there is the v.a. and they are doing their job and we continue with proper oversight. with the president chickie remarks last night, the one area of bipartisanship and a willingness by the administration to work with us on and congress was when it came to our veterans. not only in the clear choice act. we made it easier in the appeals process when he came to issues with being denied veterans benefits. we made it easier to hire and fire v.a. employees who were not doing their job. we also passed the global war on terrorism memorial bill. a member of the for country caucus, a memorial for those who served in iraq and afghanistan. these are the types of issues that let only have we worked on the 115th, these were issues the for country caucus is going to continue working on in the 116th. host: from california,

independent line. caller: how are you doing? talking about the playing with words. bipartisanship, where does the ship come from? the carcass of veterans and he makes me think what henry kissinger said, he called veterans animals. that is why they say vet and carcass. host: what would you like to address with our guests? do ask jimmy going panetta about the fema camp. rep. panetta: what camp? there is the former fort we have where there is a number of facilities like the dod -- a number of facilities for veterans.

we have the veterans transition center and we have the new unit -- the new callison -- the new cal city university. the former fort is continuing to be in transition and benefit the people of that area but we also hope to benefit people who have served. host: this is from new york, republican line. caller: good morning. as a member of the sons of the american legion, i would like to thank you for your service. i think what you are doing is a great idea. i would like to urge all americans to remember these words, for god and country. i want to thank all the veterans out there and current servicemembers. host: representative bacon. rep. bacon: you are absolutely right. that should be our priorities. god, country, family. down should be somewhere lower on the pecking order.

our country has issues. immigration, prescription drug prices -- drug prices. we will not get a totally democrat or republican answer. in the house and the senate you have to get a bill through both and the senate -- and the president. it takes consensus. there is too much my way or the highway thinking right now and it gets us nowhere. we are in -- we are idle but need to be moving forward. host: there are a couple incidents in foreign affairs to highlight. a reported launch from north sanctionsincreased and tensions with iran. the four country approach when it comes to foreign affairs? rep. bacon: we want to work and dor as we talk about it in a civil way but my perspective on this is two years ago we were close to war with

north korea. i'm glad we are not in that spot now but we cannot forget kim jong-un is a tyrant, a dictator, a murderer. he is not someone we can do business with. this problem is not going away. north korea has roughly 60 nuclear weapons and is a threat to its neighbors. we have to keep the economic pressure on. we cannot let the foot off. i have aomes to iran, strong background on that. i did four deployments. we lost about 600 americans through the shiite militias in iraq that were armed and trained by iran. i won't forget that. know those moles in a ran killed roughly 600 of our sons and daughters. ran -- in iran killed

roughly 600 of our sons and daughters. we need to make it clear to them that that is an acceptable. we are looking to be more aggressive. i think the administration was right to move the aircraft carrier into the area. let them know if you step out of line, you will pay the price. rep. panetta: when it comes to north korea, we went from the rhetoric of rocket man to an actual meeting, a couple meetings between the president and kim jong-un. now i think we are at a stalemate, unfortunately. it does not mean we should stop negotiating. i hope the president has a strategy when it comes to these negotiations and maybe he should look towards people who have had more experience with these types of negotiations. you can't look at these high-level types of talks as a new york real estate deal, you have to have people come in with a plan as to what is going to happen and i don't think that occurred in the last two negotiations.

iran, i think there was intelligence that i have not been privy to that prompted the united states to move a carrier team there. the lincoln group is on its way. the jcpoa,wal from don most likely thinks that that was a good decision. i think that was a bad decision based on the fact that it not only hurts us with iran but it hurts in dealing with these types of negotiations at that level. we lose credibility. now you are seeing, with the announcement by the leaders of iran that they are going to full out of the agreement unless europe provides them with more benefits. than they will start enriching above that 3.6%.

this is what happens when you don't have a plan. this is discussions that will happen in the for country caucus , more talk about how we can go forward and what the strategy should be. rep. bacon: we have to keep the pressure on. my one concern with the iran agreement was in 10 years, it allows them to go into a nuclear program. it would become legitimized. it is hard to have a plan now because we have to build the coalition again and put pressure on. we did not have a plan for 10 years from now when they can have a legitimate nuclear program. the day that iran gets nuclear weapons is a bad day for the world because israel will not stand for it and that is what scares me the most. rep. panetta: there is no doubt

there were false in the agreement but it gave us time to work through those faults -- faults in the agreement but i -- but it gave us time to work through those faults. caller: thank you for taking my call. congressmen, good morning. civility starts at the top and when you have the leader of the free world attacking the character of a man like john mccain, you become a laughingstock, not only laughingstock a to all of our allies around the globe. it is hard to be taken seriously when you have a lack of respect for such a great person. 6 i will take a crack -- rep. bacon: i will take a crack at it. agree with some of the decisions mccain made but i agree. starting at the top, we need to be more civil and set the

example. i believe i should set the example as well. it starts with the president, jimmy and i, all of us need to be a better example. i may disagree with senator mccain, but we do not need to do character assassination. rep. panetta: i think don is spot on. this was the purpose of this this is noty, top-down, this is bottom up. you see members of congress coming together to show the president and the people that there are men and women in washington, d.c. who are willing to work in a civil manner and willing to -- sure we are going to call out people when they make wrong decisions but we will do it in a way that is civil and appropriate and respectful. that is one of the purposes of this caucus. rep. bacon: we need to be able to disagree on issues and not

attack the person or the character. we see too much of the latter. rep. panetta: you understand that our democracy, it's about discussion, it is about dialogue. all too often you get this ideological rigidity that people expect. either our constituents or other members. our democracy is not perfect. it is not rigid, it is fluid. that is why you have to have this type of discussion. host: (202)-748-8000 free democrats. -- for democrats. for republicans. (202)-748-8002 for independents. if you are active military, (202 )-748-8003. caller: good morning. i got excellent care at the v.a. in the bronx.

there will be no civility and there hasn't been for about 30 years, mainly because of rush limbaugh and his vitriol and divisiveness. it continues with sean hannity and these people who are dividing the country, who are taking no prisoners and they see nothing good about the other side. i am a recovering republican. reagan.r the republican party not what it was. back to civility, there won't be these commentators, these talking head are promoting divisiveness. host: that is mark in new york. rep. bacon: thanks for your service in the navy in vietnam.

i think commentators on both sides get there following and their money from having very divisive programs. i get commentary from folks in the district after watching whether it is msnbc or fox news, and they are angry. i think it helps create more followers when they have these kinds of shows but it is not healthy for a country in the long run. it's important to look at different tv stations to get a more broad balance of what is going on, not just one perspective. i agree with you, our media is exacerbating the partisanship out there. i don't put all the blame their but it is just exacerbating it. how do we change it? we start with ourselves. i can't change another person but i can sure be a better person myself. my job is to try and be as

respectful as i can, and do things our country needs and solve our problems in a way that my mom and dad and my neighbors and my kids would be proud of. rep. panetta: thank you for your service and thank you for taking the time to watch something else besides fox or msnbc, and you are watching c-span. i thanked c-span for having don and myself on, where we are able to tell you that there isn't just divisiveness in washington, d.c. you are seeing an example of civility. it is more examples like this that need to get out there. we need more venues upon which people like you can see that there are members, republicans and democrats, who are here to not just make a point but make a difference. we start doing that by being civil to one another and working with one another. we do that with understanding one another. that is what these types of carcasses are for.

that is why i am proud to be ash caucuses -- caucuses are for. that is why i am proud to be a cofounder of the for country caucus. host: louisiana, republican line. cornelius hello. caller: god bless you all. i am a 15 year military police from 79 to i served 94. i salute your service. my couple of questions for you. the president pardoning this fellow that killed a terrorist. i have been trying to get a presidential pardon. i hope he will have people on about getting pardons as a thing for c-span to do. what i wanted to say, we have a problem with our v.a. and nobody is doing anything. they are killing people and stuff.

hamilton is dead, he died out there. is there anyway way we can contact you through your network and see if you can get something done for the alexandria v.a.? issueanetta: that is an where i would ask you to look who the local representative, your local federal representative is, your congress member. who is that in that area? you pick up the phone, you write in email or you go into his or her office and let them know your concerns. i know veterans come into my office all the time with issues, with the v.a. or issues with their service, that they are not getting from the v.a. and that is what we try to help them do. , explain thatase to your congress member.

we asked congress members are that bridge from the district, we bring your issues to washington, d.c. i hope you go see him or her. rep. bacon: one other thing in addition. this is why we are so blessed to live in this country. we have first amendment rights, the right to petition, and this is what we are seeing. if there is a problem, we get the stories out and that is what i love about this country, our freedoms to speak out. if the media sees a problem, we have a chance to redress those problems. we have the opportunity to speak up when we see something wrong. host: on the topic of immigration, what is the for country caucus approach? rep. panetta: just like i saw in the problem solvers caucus, it starts with conversation.

one of the biggest learning experiences i had was dealing with immigration on the problem solvers caucus. we not only learned how complex of an issue that is, i got to understand other constituencies. from california, the grandson of immigrants, from an area that relies heavily on agriculture and labor to come and work in that number one industry on the central coast, it is important to us. when we understand immigration reform and what it can bring to our community and country and culture, it is that type of conversation where i have to explain how a portent immigration reform is to our country and why it needs to be done and then having the feedback i got from other members on the others, trying to get to that compromise. issue, i hope that the for country caucus, that is

something we can talk about because it is a very important issue for me. hopefully those types of conversations will continue to be had. host: representative bacon? rep. bacon: we have not gotten there yet on this issue but i hope we do. it is the number one issue in our district that we should tackle and this is an opportunity to give and take and put a plan together. we need more security at the border, we need more judges and scanning devices. visas, more h1 and h2 like jimmy was talking about for his agricultural needs. we need a path forward for dhaka. unfortunately what i have found is -- in the last three years, both parties want a 98% solution that is theirs. they are not willing to get -- give what the other side wants.

host: that is your leadership though. don't you have to make these cases to them? how do you do that? rep. bacon: speak up more. as we become a more forceful group, we can say i am to give more of what jimmy and the democrats need and i support the dock away forward but i also know that in our district, security at the border is a top issue. we have to get both. have too many people voting no if it is not the perfect bill. rep. panetta: what is frustrating is what don says makes completely -- makes complete sense. that option was put out there but unfortunately we are dealing with the administration that has not nailed down what exactly it once when it comes to policy. definitely when it comes to politics. you hear that all the time but when it comes to actually having reasonable and sensible border

security, which we all agree we need, when it comes to providing , whenway for our dreamers it deals with providing not just protecting our current ag workers but making sure there is a future flow program, that type of discussions are few and far between in this administration. that is why we hope in congress that we can have those conversations and it does start with a caucus like this. the gridlock is resulting in a broken border right now and it is getting worse. we have to stop putting the my way or the highway mindset in. it is unsustainable. dhs cannot handle it. the president, if he saw a compromise that came from the leadership of the republicans and democrats, i think he would

likely support it, if it involves security. i think it is incumbent upon us and the president, we all have to step forward. host: let's go to florida, democrats line. caller: thank you gentlemen. this is a fascinating conversation. i am an 83-year-old lifelong democrat. i have a question for both of your guests. how do you feel about a one party or one person rule in the united states? i will hang up and listen to your answers. rep. bacon: i absolutely oppose that. that is why we have a great republic, a senate and house. no one person can actually run our country. there are checks and balances. that is the brilliance of our

founding fathers. i embrace the checks and balances and the separation of powers. our state and local governments should be carrying a broader load. we need to protect it. rep. panetta: we are not an autocracy. we are a democracy. that means it is left up to we the people to serve. thank goodness this country is so diverse and therefore you are going to have a lot of -- a wide range of political interests. that is what makes our country so unique and special. we will have a wide range of political parties as we should. ofre needs to be more types forums where these parties can come forward and have the types of discussions that are necessary in our democracy. these discussions are the basis of why don and i are here.

they need to be civil. p,need to stop the into the the aversion to one another. it starts when you can see one another and talk to one another. host: republican line from arizona. hello. caller: hi. i was home with a sick friend yesterday and we watched the congress, and the absolute zoo that took place. i was disgusted with what was happening. panetta, you're using a soft tone but the barbs you are using against the president are exactly the same as what was going on. you have these talking points. this president is the first president in my life, i am 66 years old, who is not selling

out the country. i am from arizona. person who ass a time goes on, we are going to find out more and more about him , as the investigation of how this election came about. is, how is the president going to continue to build this country with this onslaught? host: that is melinda in arizona. rep. panetta: you have to realize that this is not a country about the president. this is about we the people. what you saw yesterday was our system of checks and balances. although it may not be something that people like to watch or need to see, the fact is there needs to be a process like that in order to be that check in our

system of checks and balances. that is what congress is trying to do. under article one, section one of our constitution, it says that congress has all legislative authority. therefore we have investigative authority. we are going to investigate certain issues that have come up that we have seen in the past two years. at the same time we are going to legislate. i am on the ways and means committee. we are dealing with infrastructure, trade, health care. those of the types of issues we are going to continue to talk about. at the same time, it is not one or the other. we are going to walk and chew gum at the same time. it is unfortunate that the press continues to show those committees focused on the investigations. i can tell you if you are at the ways and means committee heardday, you would have about the family leave care that is needed.

that was almost agreed upon unanimously by republicans and democrats. if he wants today, you will hear about the tax gap -- if you watch today, you will hear about the tax gap. you can watch committees that are actually legislating but at the same time we have to investigate as well. rep. bacon: i love tucson. i was assigned as a commander there and i appreciate your comments but i want to echo jimmy. on policy and defending our country and making sure we have a good farm policy and i don't like what i saw yesterday, the yelling, the accusations going back and forth. i don't think it is very becoming of us but there is that investigative authority the congress of have. butn't like it either

senator mccain was a hero in vietnam. when he was in that pow camp, he was given the opportunity to be released early as the commander of pacific command at the time and he said no. he said i will not leave unless my peers were also let out at the same time. i think that is a courageous act. and think it is something to remember. i don't agree with what he did with the dossier. we can criticize specific actions of any individual but we should not attack the person or the character and besmirch a person's reputation. host: while i've got you both, should a contempt vote head to the full house? rep. bacon: i would be a no vote on that. the attorney general bylaw upnot -- by law cannot give

grand jury testimony. to ask him would be inappropriate and i think that is part of the issue. rep. panetta: this is one of the things we are going to disagree on. i am a former prosecutor. i understand the power of the subpoena and the courts. it is the same type of power our congress has in doing these investigations. when you are just going to say no, it basically is subverting our constitution and it is going after our system of checks and balances. that is something i will consider and will most likely vote yes on. host: both of our guests are members of the for country caucus. they served as cochairs. representative panetta in his second term. if i did notmiss mention you were the son of leon

panetta. a great department of defense. host: don bacon, agriculture and armed services. did your father say anything to workingt this idea of with this caucus? rep. panetta: if you look back at when my father served, you saw democrats and republicans who worked together on issues. it was a different time and we understand that. i had my life, not his life. just like i want my children to have their lives, not mine. i would come and visit and i would see my father with members, democrats and republicans, forming relationships, the type that were necessary to get things done.

my father is a big proponent of bipartisanship. i am a big proponent because i have seen firsthand what it can lead to. that is why i am involved with the for country caucus. that is why i am part of the problem solvers caucus. it is these types of relationships is how we get things done. i know i'm repeating myself but i can't stress that enough, especially what i saw when it comes to the farm bill. the farm bill was important to don takei district and my district but that was one of my proudest accomplishments, despite the partisanship you saw early on in dealing with nutrition programs. but ended up happening was seeing relationships take president and when you saw debbie from michigan and pat brings come together and it four corners come away --

is about these types of relationships, emigrants and republicans coming together and that is what i hope to continue to do. secretary: i admire of defense panetta, i think he ran a great cia. i think he was trusted by republicans and democrats alike and i was not in congress when he was a congressman but he had a reputation of working across the aisle. you could see it in his desire --work but i would say two of my best friends in congress are jimmy -- both from california. we want to build on that. host: from michael in

schenectady, independent line. caller: thank you both for your service. as the grandfather of a disabled veteran, i appreciate your service. it is a noble effort you have going but i believe the media is the main part of the problem and i will lay out an example. we've got all of this media, month after month, two years now about collusion in russia. there was no collusion with russia. it amazes me because i had been after this and watching for so long, there was no interest in fast and furious where there was no -- where there was proof where our federal government armed mexican cartel members and those arms are still being used to smuggle people across the border. i think the media needs to cover these things better. we have gone on and on about collusion when there is no collusion.

we have proof the obama administration in fast and furious but those things get thrown under the rug. host: that is michael in schenectady. we had fox news reporting on it. we are blessed in our country because we have competitive news media. you may not hear it on msnbc but you will hear it on fox. that is one of the benefits we have in our country. just like here at c-span, it is an added voice to that. going back to a previous phone call, our media is also exacerbating media -- bipartisan -- is also exacerbating partisanship, depending on what channel you are watching. you have to go beyond that and watch a variety of sources to form your opinion. that fox did some

good reporting on fast and furious and the lois lerner incident. otherwise we would have known very little about it. it shows the benefit of our competitive media. rep. panetta: let me give you a story. there was one weekend earlier this year i went home and people were asking me, why weren't you in that hearing with michael cohen? my response was i'm sorry that is all the media was showing but let me show you what i was doing at the exact same time. i am on three committees and i had three hearings at the exact same time. in ways and means, we had ambassador lighthizer talking about trade with china. and the budget committee we were having a hearing on the effects of the 2017 tax bill. in the agriculture committee, we had secretary perdue talking to us about the state of agriculture. you have to realize there are a lot of other things going on in washington, d.c. beside what the

mainstream medium -- media is showing. i'm glad you tuned into c-span because you see the other things going on. host: richard in california, democrats line. caller: i want to thank you guys for being on the show because we need much more of this. everything should be a compromise with both parties coming to an agreement. some of that has been subverted by the 51 vote in the senate and that should never have happened, like for a supreme court sitting judge, it should have been 60. want to give a shout out to of appreciation. in terms of what is going on with the investigation, it is the obligation of congress to oversee abuse of power, obstruction of justice and the

guy said there was no collusion but the mother report said there was no provable conspiracy repot there was no provable conspiracy. 251 contacts by trump surrogates and people in the administration. this oversight thing is very important. obstruction, possible collusion with a foreign enemy. the emoluments clause, money and influence because of his businesses with 25 countries around the world. or you can talk about faster furious or whatever, but they didn't impeach reagan on iran contra. host: since you already addressed that issue, what is the first effort you are going to make? guest: there are a couple of pieces of legislation -- let me back up a bit -- this is a great

example of how we can work together. we have military housing issues and things iuntry have heard from military members and family members who are living in definitely subpar conditions. what i did was i wrote a letter to the head of the service members and i wanted the support of four country caucus members. iran it by them and to his said i have military housing and i have to tell you that these are pretty good and let me make the tweaks in the letter. it was the type of relationship and coordination that we need to have. he signed onto it because there is always concerned with military housing and we sent the letter, but i think it's those types of issues that we will continue to work on in that bipartisan manner where -- listen, it benefited me, it made the letter stronger, getting input from general bacon. those are the types of issues,

military venture issues and national service issues. aest: last week we work on gold star issue. in the tax bill there was bipartisan support to make a change to trust fund loopholes for their kids in a trust fund. we raise the tax rate on those trust funds but it had the unintended consequence of hitting the goldstar kids and instead of making a goldstar issue, we say that this is something that will be affected. republicans and democrats on the caucus, let's come together to support a bill that fixes the loophole. there was legitimate concern about changing the law. we didn't mean to impact goldstar kids are now way. we worked together and will probably -- we are grateful to have you on the committee and we will likely have a near unanimous a vote out of the house on that. hopefully we will get the senate

on it, too. the bigger issue that we are working on his more national service. how do we get folks more tied to their country. we have to get back. there are ways to connect that to education and help the folks who are working in communities that need support. representative jimmy panetta, representative don bacon, thank you both for joining us today. up, we will have a discussion on u.s. china trade talks and joining us for that .iscussion is robert daly to give you a sense of what else is going on in washington, here's greta brawner. host: yesterday the health secretary announcing that any television ad for prescription drugs will have to include pricing. the house energy and commerce subcommittee on health is holding a hearing on the topic ways to lowern

prescription drug prices. live coverage begins at 10 a.m. eastern time on c-span3. you can watch on our website, c-span.org, or you can download the free c-span radio app. out of iowa, a story from the local fox television station there, the republican senators stand by president trump and his trade fight, asking farmers to do the same. it says here that one of the senators, chuck grassley, republican, despite what he hears from some frustrated farmers, he says that there are plenty more who are rooting mr. trump on. from farmers who say that they voted for trump and are done with him and haven't heard that yet, i think they have patience, that's what he told the local station there. from jodi ernst, she said that she too has patient -- patients with the president supporting -- the president, supporting him as

of now. a state of the economy that you can watch on her website, c-span.org. also starting at 10 a.m. this , the emergency preparedness response subcommittee of oversight, management, and accountability will have a joint hearing on fema contracts, reviewing lessons learned from past disasters to improve preparedness. headlines out of the omaha newspapers this morning, mid land lawmakers question the white house bid to add border funding to stalled disaster aid relief. one more complication to the story reads that capitol hill negotiations over federal disaster relief for drenched states like iowa and nebraska, the white house is looking to roll $4.5 billion in emergency funding for the border into the final package in a move that even some fellow republicans are questioning. also today, out of the arizona newspaper, this is their

headline -- u.s. boarder patrol agent took more than 1500 migrants into custody in three days. there is a hearing this afternoon, 2 p.m. eastern time on the president's 20 budget thatfor the agencies oversee border security. watch that if you go to c-span3. the website, c-span.org, or listen along with the free radio app. four road to the white house coverage, kiersten gillibrand is holding an event in new hampshire on friday, 1 p.m. eastern time. we will have coverage on that on .-span 2 we have more road events for you. john delaney will be in new hampshire live on friday night, 7 p.m. eastern time on c-span, the website and the radio app. also, beto o'rourke in new

live, saturday, 11 a.m. eastern time on c-span, c-span.org or on the free c-span radio app. you can had there to see all of our road to the white house coverage. of thehis is robert daly wilson center here to talk about the ongoing u.s. china talks over trade. what can we expect? guest: they are working under a very tight clock. if they haven't come up with an agreement by 12:0 one friday morning, midnight, the united states is going to propose much heavier tickets. beingbrinksmanship, delayed one more time? or are we going to deepen and broaden what will undoubtedly be a trade war tomorrow morning? what are the sticking points?

guest: making changes to the aspects of the economy that the u.s. has been looking for for decades. in beijing china started to walk some of them back and we have since seen a version of that agreement that read acts many chinese promises. the question really is whether china is prepared to walk back some of its walk wax to give us the deal that we thought we had a week ago. i think that they are probably willing to do some of that, they have dispatched their vice theier to talk with americans today and they wouldn't do that unless they had some thing to say. both sides want a deal. so the u.s. side is willing to concede on some of those previous arrangements? guest: that is indeed the question. president trump has been talking tough since his sunday tweets, when he said no to the chinese

attempts to walk that back. is that negotiation theater? president from clearly wants a deal. but he also knows that a weak deal based on chinese promises to purchase more american goods to chinese vague promises change some of these structural issues involving intellectual property theft and subsidies to ,hinese state-owned enterprises involving a relatively closed chinese economy. will he settle for the the that what his predecessors did questioner he will be heavily criticized by his own party if he does that. so at the same time, you can't doubt his will to do this if he thinks the chinese will come through. what's the largest sector in the u.s. likely to be affected? two -- two more tranches of tariffs. 200 billion dollars in chinese imports of have had elevated

tariffs at 10%, those will go to fruits,they will hit vegetables, consumer products. it will start to affect the prices that american consumers pay at walmart. he has also threatened to impose 25% tariffs on the remaining $325 billion in american imports from china that haven't had terrorists so far and that hits everything, everything. host: our guest is with us to talk about these ongoing talks between the united states and china. (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. furniture, leather products, machinery, metal, it goes on from there. those will all potentially go up. we have been careful to put tariffs on intermediate goods that are part of manufacturing processes.

we haven't hit apparel, clothing . we have been careful to have carveouts for things like iphones. but if we put tariffs on everything, most of the tech hardware that we have is made in china. this is going to hurt both the chinese and the american economies. the question for negotiators is who thinks they get hit more heavily by prolonged tariff increases? host: by the way, we added a line for farmers this morning, 202-748-8003. what does it look like for china? guest: lawson gdp. the problem with the china -- for the chinese is that they export more than the import from the united states, meaning that in its hair if war they cannot tariffsose it for tap because they run out of american imports for terrorists. they are more exposed to our

market in that sense. they have to look for other ways to retaliate. they could go for a much higher level or individual american countries and industries, general motors, apple, they make most of their profits in china and they have various ways to make that business far harder for specific american corporations. china has been hesitant to do so so far because it hurts them as well. making it seem like it's a bad place for business. china could go after your companies for geostrategic reasons. china is in a bind, but frankly so is the united states. president trump wants to see a healthy stock market. and he would like to get these signs off the table going into the 2020 election. both sides would like to wrap things up, but neither of them can afford to look weak or make on acceptable compromises.

guest: our first guest is from florida. susan, go ahead, you are on with our guest. thank you for taking my call. i'm not an economist, but i'm wondering, no one seems to mention the impact that the chinese belt and road initiative has on the economy. also, are the chinese prepared to open the arctic silk road once things get going? i haven't heard anyone speak about that. thank you. host: you may also have to explain those things. guest: sure, what china called the loan initiative program was a series of chinese loans in eurasia and africa that are infrastructure connectivity of eurasia and africa, sort of creating a china centric trading regime within that very, very vast area.

making loans everywhere from western europe to central asia and africa to build railroads, ports, airports, highways. these loans have had a very mixed record to date. there is no great shining success yet from these loans. there are one or two stark failures. but china is also adjusting its lending. if you mean -- what affected due chinese loans have on the american domestic economy right now? the answer is that it's not a big factor. the longer-term question for the united states is -- if china's lending program succeeds, and if we see a far more integrated what is sometimes called the world africa asia eurasia and china plays a major role in that , where is the united states in that very important process? thein 20 or 30 years 80% of world's middle-class consumers will be in eurasia and africa and if china is the leader

there, they become the world leader. that's a geostrategic question more than a question for the american economy right now. you also mentioned the arctic and their ambitions to create what is called an arctic silk road. they have announced this, you're quite correct, publishing what is called a white paper that lays out their ambitions. people are talking about this. secretary of state pompeo just made a real stemwinder of the china of wanting to use arctic transport to build this power. he made that speech in finland. member of the arctic council, it's not an arctic nation. it can only carry out some of those things if arctic council nations, like the united states and canada, agree for them to do so. host: texas, good morning, you are up next.

good morning, hi. i want to touch on the international affairs budget on this topic. the international affairs budget is relevant to programs of diplomacy and development and what i just heard from you talking about the crucial geostrategic implications of , chinese trade ambitions, i would like to know how the international affairs budget, diplomacy and diplomatic programs could be of use to solve this kind of issue. .uest: sure the white house in its budget proposals under the trump administration has been cutting back on the state department budget, diplomacy, and the which hassaid budget, to do with foreign aid programs. there has been pressure from the white house to cut down on

official means of diplomacy and aid. however, on capitol hill congress has been fighting back fairly hard against that, including republicans in the senate and the house, who feel that diplomacy is very important. there is constantly a struggle on the budget side. the administration, while it has been curbing traditional diplomacy, has been taking some encouraging actions. the previous caller talked about the chinese belt and road initiative. congress has passed a build act that is going to make up to $60 billion in additional funds available through u.s. government agencies or, we hope, high-quality loans for infrastructure and other development projects that will be competing in some ways with chinese loans in the area. been tryinguse has to cut back on traditional diplomacy, but is increasingly other actions to strengthen the united states geostrategic leave vis-a-vis

china. this is developing very rapidly and is hard to characterize in terms of what's adequate or inadequate, but we know that china is able to bring far more lending capacity to global development than the united states. so really to date, it's a competition between what america calls quality lending, loans that can actually be paid back because they are based on bankable projects that will have a profit, american quality for transparent government, environmental sensitivities, protecting labor rights, versus chinese quantity. china has far more dollars in the bank, but is critiqued for low quality lending. watch this quality versus quantity competition. eddie in indiana. eddie, good morning. good morning,er: guys. i got a comment on all of this. every time i hear about the trade war deals it's about the cost of things going up for the

american consumer. three weeks ago i believe -- i care a member which channel they were talking about the united states exporting more oil than it ever has in the last probably three weeks, the price of gasoline here in indiana or in my area went up the sense. so i don't see any problem with putting tariffs on chinese goods and pbs run a deal the other night on what you all should be talking about. this has been going on for a long time, guys. it's a good thing our president is going to fix all this. thank you guys very much for hearing my call. you are referring to the pbs frontline program that they did together with npr, the story on trade friction to date. there's one sense in which you are right, when we speak of trade war, using these martial metaphors, it sounds very dire,

but for most american consumers to date is means that the prices of some of the stuff that we buy and sell to each other goes up a little bit. but it could get considerably worse. for example, oil and liquefied natural gas sales from the u.s. to china have been going down slightly. if we impose all the terrorist that president trump is talking about posing, this will impact the global economy and global suspect natural gas sales are going to continue to go down. does that mean he would be wrong to impose those tariffs? no, economic friction is part of a much larger long-term competition between the united states and china. highlighting one of those issues that americans relate to, washing machines. .uest: sure washing machines, white goods more broadly, all kinds of technology, clothing, and

apparel. the chinese will be very tactical in imposing further tariffs. in the previous rounds they went after soybeans and american agricultural goods and things because they knew that voters in kentucky and iowa tend to support president trump, so they are going to go after the industry in the northern industrial belt and agricultural areas precisely to put pressure on president trump. that will be even more true in the coming days if we escalate the terrace. they are very tactical and political in their implementation of pain on consumers. of thehis is robert daly wilson center joining us. washington, d.c., you are up next. caller: yes? you mentioned a very -- you mentioned the soybeans. i was wondering -- how is that

outcome -- we heard a lot about it when the chinese -- when the president i think used the soybean industry to punish, i , but how is that affecting us? much about it. are they just rotting in barns or what? china usess not that soybeans to punish china, it's that china puts terrace on soybeans to punish the united states. china had been a lot -- the largest market for soybeans. now they are coming into them from brazil, meaning and or miss america agricultural has lost their major market. the price of soybeans dropped, sitting unsold or marketed at prices that are not viable for manufacturers in the midwest. you are right, you're going from

in d.c. you don't plan many soybeans and don't it's anso much, but industry for entire states and regions in much of the united states. it's a case of china punishing us and for that reason, farmers have been encouraging the white house to try to settle this an open their markets back up because they have become dependent. host: today in "the wall street journal," there were comments taking a look at this issue from mick mulvaney, saying that they were close to getting something done but at some point you go and throw up your hands and say that this is never going anywhere. what happens at the later part happens? what is the long-term after that? if all of the new tariffs 25%, it gets, 10%, much harder for president trump to say that despite all this,

she's an thing is when you're in your friend and we respect each other. it really throws down the gauntlet and makes it hard for beijing or washington to paper over the fact that this is a long-term comprehensive competition between two nations, toh of which are seeking maximize their own interests and eastng privacy in the asia-pacific and globally. we are entering in, no matter where these talks go, even if there is a resolution today, what most americans and chinese have not yet realized is that this is going to change many aspects of their nation. i think we can avoid this becoming a cold war, but if you think back to that time where the friction with the soviet union was part of the air that we breathed in the united states , some viewers will remember that, many will. this will affect many aspects of american chinese life and it is something a lot of other nations

will be caught up in. the question is, can we manage it and contain it within the economic sphere? can we have reasonable discussions over the global rules and norms? can we avoid conflict? should.nd we whether we will remains to be seen. host: china, a major holder of u.s. debt, is guest: this coming into it at all? guest:i think that is overplayed. most american debt is held by americans. things like pension funds here in the united states. china hovers around 7% of our total debt. this notion that they are -- they are our banker, that we can't offend them and they will cease to be our banker, this is somewhat exaggerated. they also don't purchase the debt as a favor to us. they do it for themselves because of their trade surplus in the united states, they need somewhere to park those u.s.

dollars. they are purchasing american debt and treasury, that's a vote of confidence in the united states, they think it's the most reliable place to park their of. dollars at a rate interest that makes sense for them. if they sold it all off immediately as a means of retaliating against the united states, the value of those chinese assets would plummet and they hurt themselves, so i don't think it's a major issue. connecticut, up next, linda, hi. caller: yes, i'm fascinated with your touch on the topic of quality lending versus quantity lending. my question on the lending is -- the united states or china, are , whererojects in china they are for instance lending money to afford to build a plant there? or are they lending projects here in the united states where chinese assets are being used to build american infrastructure

and providing american jobs? i find the whole thing fascinating, could you touch on that a bit further, sir? talkingure, we are about lending projects that are neither in china or the united states. these are projects in central asia, which is very undeveloped, southeast asia, africa, and eastern europe. and indeed, western europe. some of these are construction projects. some of them are chinese management projects. it may be that the big picture is what we may be seeing in this century is the integration of eurasia and africa through infrastructure. eurasia has never really been integrated. we have had europe and different parts of asia, asia not being a terribly useful phrase for us to use, but now we have the technical and perhaps financial capability to really have transcontinental networks that

link up markets, producers and consumers, throughout africa and eurasia. the question is, who is going to finance the construction? who is going to set the rules? it's not just a question of building roads and railways, you integratede standards for the use of technology that will be the backbone of these networks. is that going to be china? which plays a leading role? or will it be a gradual more organic process in which the united states can play a role in setting standards? call speaks of what they belt and road investments like the caribbean. the previous caller mentioned the arctic. this is neither in china nor in the united states. for the most what we are talking about a global network of global lending.

this is a viewer from twitter -- guest: right, so what i think this probably refers to is the trump administration pulling out of the transpacific partnership agreement. pulling out of the iran nuclear agreement. this is a question that is often asked, given the relatively ease with which this administration has pulled out of prior commitments, why would china not taken seriously? they are under pressure from these tariffs. china finds these somewhere between annoying and threatening the pending on the aspect of the tariffs that we are talking about. china faces a really daunting domestic agenda, even without the agenda -- without the trade war. i would very much like to take , understanding well competition with the united states not going their way. if they can get tariff relief it

helps to carry out the domestic agenda. they are not going to reach a deal in the next few days because if they do they think it solves every problem. it doesn't. it takes annoying top the table and in the short term there will be others. and we see the president saying that we should extended a week or two. and he has done that several times in terms of imposing tariffs. it delayed the american escalation of tariffs. patch much -- passed march 1, they are very good at playing , better at for time that than we are. and they can see with the renegotiation of nafta and other negotiations with this administration that they have entered into, we tend to take a maximalist position with a lot of bluster and at the end of the day we settle for minor

improvements. we threaten to knock the chessboard off the table and in the end we pushed upon one's face forward. they are trying to calculate the least that they can offer to get the trump administration to call it a day. knoxville, goe, ahead, you are on with our guest, michael. i'm curious how they are going to close trade deficits in asia and africa if we are cutting the international trade administration budget. from what i understand, the brings backervice 200 $98 for every dollar invested in the agency. they do that through stimulating. how are we going to close those gaps? guest: their plan would seem to

be to force them to purchase more american goods and through these, bring more a manufacturing that has gone overseas in several -- the last several decades. in 2001, bringing more of that manufacturing back to the united states. that seems a to be the plan. we already have a global supply chain that is very deeply entrenched and not accounted for in the current plans. does this, it's complicated but, but the company gets the put made in china, made in taiwan, made in the usa on that product. that's very misleading. a lot of the stuff that you see that says made in china, the high tech stuff like an iphone, most of those components are

made in places like taiwan or south korea. these are american allies. or in the united states, a global supply chain, they go to china that does and do final assembly unsay iphones and get to say made in china but most of the value of the product, most of the prophet is not made in china. when we put tariffs on a lot of these goods, we are imposing additional cost on our allies and ourselves. those made in china iphones, most of that profit is made by those who design it. getting most of the profits from the made in china iphones. when we put the tariffs there, we are hurting allies and ourselves. we balance is how do trade while addressing the global supply chain? host: california, go ahead. caller: the tactic of using

isiffs for economic equity counterproductive. i think that we should focus on aid in the developing world. on getting people out of extreme profit -- extreme poverty. if they are out of it through things like food assistance or security-based assistance, they will be more likely to be able to come to the consumers of american products. this is a better way to get a foothold on the world economy and compete with china without hurting our own internal economy with tariffs. that sounds reasonable, it's not the direction that we are taking right now. the question on these, when they were first imposed in june of 2018, most american mainstream economists globally said that tariffs were the wrong tool for the wrong reason. our big issues with china, economically, really isn't the

trade deficit. tariffs are aimed at that. it has been interesting to watch however over the past eight months or so even many critics of the trump administration who said that tariffs were the wrong tool for the wrong reason have come to acknowledge at least that's terrorists finally got the attention of china and there is now a focus on these issues and we are having intensive negotiations about these issues. previous administrations it's true really didn't bring much attention or make is a high priority. the trump administration through have beenhich may not appropriate, have brought attention to the issue, the question is whether we are going to keep that up or whether we are about to settle for an agreement that doesn't stress core issues. what's the worst case scenario today? question,s is a big what should we wish for? most i have spoken to have said

that we should get an agreement that takes these tariffs off the table because they are not the main issue, but we need to find other ways to keep rascher on china and make some of the structural changes that we should be more concerned about. however, there is also a concern that if we get a trade deal the president may declare it the greatest trade deal after, moveon, losing interest in the issue, giving china a chance to deepen these practices and make it worse for the united states, in which case the moment of leverage would have passed and we will just have the same old cycle we have become accustomed to. is from thedaly wilson center, you can find his research on those topics on their website. thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: house democrats filing a contempt charge against william barr and you saw president trump

's executive privilege over the report itself. for the next remainder of our time until 10:00, we want to get your thoughts on those actions, whether you have signed on with , a dozen one for republicans. -- (202) 748-8000 four democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8002 four independents , give us a call to give us your thoughts. jerry nadler went to camera to talk about the action. [video clip] >> there could be no higher stakes them this attempt to abrogate all power to the executive branch away from congress and, more importantly, away from the american people. we have talked for a long time about approaching a constitutional crisis. we are now in it.

benjamin franklin in 1787 was asked when he exited the constitutional convention what type of government have you given us, sir. asked by a woman who asked the question he said -- a republic, ma'am, if you can keep it. now is the time of testing us a whether we can keep a republic or if this republic is destined to change into a different more to radical form of government, as so many others have over the we must resist this. this is about whether we can put limits on the power of the president and the executive branch and hold any president accountable. that is what is at stake here. host: that's a topic this morning.

with more on yesterday's actions, here's a greta brawner. there was a vote to hold the attorney general in contempt. the attorney general asked the president to invoke executive privilege, mr. barr wrote -- host: as with president clinton and his assertion host: reuters reports that --

host: the reaction capitol hill? mark meadows tweeting out -- host: our first call on this topic, drexel bill, pennsylvania. kent, go ahead. >> i had a question regarding the subpoenas they are doing. it's my understanding that when people fail to show up or decide

they are not going to show up, it's an option to have the masters at arms arrest them. i understand that that is an unprecedented thing. but in this time of unprecedented things, why is ?hat such a far-fetched notion why is that not something that they are considering? host: why do you think it's a necessary move? caller: i didn't say it's necessary, i said why are they not considering it. host: then let me rephrase, why should they consider it? caller: well, don't they have oversight? don't they have the authority to have these people come to have their questions answered? and if they won't, if they flat out say i'm not coming, that's like a police officer stopping me and saying -- you know, give me an up -- a lawful order and i

will decide not to do it. doesn't he have certain things at his disposal to make sure i follow the lawful order? john --thing that is done generally speaking, these folks that should be held to a higher standard, why are they not subject to the same thing? if you are listening on the radio, stay put, we have some information that might answer that question. house holdsf the bar in camp -- in contempt, the justice department likely won't .and over the complete report inherent contempt is a long dormant power that allows congress to ally -- allow it on its own constitutional authority to contain and imprison members until they comply with current -- congressional demand.

the jail that people could be imprisoned that? nancy pelosi referred to it yesterday, here is the rollcall article -- there is no jail inside the capital. they talked to police on capitol that police officers from multiple divisions told rollcall that no house jail exist, though capitol police headquarters does have a holding facility. one officer joked that if they don't know where the alledge for loseyll is, but does, the speaker might have to ask about any speaker personally. theso much confusion about location or existence of such a jail? the answer is that there once was a cell in the capital basement to hold those in contempt, but it is long gone. from maryland, connie, you

are on. i agree with the caller from pennsylvania, we need to do everything possible to get the report out. i think that the time for the democrats to continue to play softball is over. as mr. nadler said, it's a constitutional crisis right now. law.ly, it's in the i'm hoping to actually see them get to that cell ready, whether it's something makeshift in the building or if they get a holding cell together. we need to get this, get this caller moving and i don't want

the democrats to come from a place of fear regarding repercussions. the justice department offered a redacted report to many congressional members. not many took advantage of that, and if that's the case what's the point in terms of what the democrats want in underlying evidence? my understanding is that there were only several members able to reveal -- review the less redacted report and they were not able to share the information with their colleagues. that if they read it, that would somehow make it more difficult to follow through with getting the full report, which is their right. host: john, from chantilly, virginia, democratic line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm thinking that the issue won't end right now. i'm worried about having a

democratic president next time, it will happen the same way. the law is very clear. congress is asking for something you need to provide, if that something, it's already out there. i don't understand why the attorney general is playing this dirty game. if he doesn't like the questions, that's fine. but when they want to ask questions, you should be ready for that. our country cannot allow that these are tribal issues, democratic and republican, we need to set the tone. uss president is dividing more than before. host: doug collins is the ranking member, republican of georgia.

it was in those proceedings yesterday that he gave those thoughts. [video clip] >> this is a completes his report on how the rush investigation began. multiple news reports have suggested the conclusions could be to criminal prosecution. this is a first step. what a cynical, mean-spirited, counterproductive and irresponsible step it is. our economy is urging lowployment at historic among minority groups and a recent poll shows cratering support for impeachment. the democrats have no plans, no purpose, no legislative agenda beyond attacking the administration. four months into the majority, how many bills by this committee have been signed into law? mr. chairman, i implore you to see reason.

i asked that you recognize the craven and insincere politics that seem to be yielding no dividends for the american people. last week's pharmaceutical markup showed that i was standing ready to provide this bystander in the committee. host: republican line, staten island, new york, hello. number one, i'm a veteran. i'm not a republican, i'm not a democrat, i'm not an independent. i'm just a regular old american. i didn't like a lot of the things that president obama did, but i respected the man because who was the president of the united states. people should help him, but they are not helping him. host: what did you think about

the executive privilege yesterday with the mother report? caller: it's ridiculous. he's not lying, he's doing his job. host: you agree with the action? i don't agree with the action. i don't agree with what they are doing to the attorney general. it's ridiculous. the guy is well-known, well-liked, honest. you know what? the democrats are scared. host: missouri, hello. caller: when it comes to this whole business with the mueller report, everybody within the sound of my voice, think about it. what are they hiding? who is involved in this report? why are they fighting so hard

that the congress isn't going to be able to see it? why isn't he declaring executive privilege? there must be something really filthy in the report and i've got a strong feeling it involves a lot of the republicans right in the congress and a lot of people with some big names. otherwise, you wouldn't care. but they are fighting tooth and nail that the american people never see what's in this room work and they are going to use every means they can. that's a merry robert off the twitter says -- h

oft: with more on the topic contempt, here's a greta brawner. host: it's defined as a law that allows lawmakers to charge an individual with a crime. in would have to be passed through one of the chambers of congress -- chambers of congress. according to "the washington post," the speaker of the house could bring this up next week. the other option for democrats is to pass another resolution for simple judgment. this allows lawmakers to seek a civil judgment asking a judge to enforce a subpoena. who would argue that for the house democrats? hired by the speaker when they won the majority. beast,"g to "the daily --

het: in a september op-ed, argued that executive privilege does not apply to the forthcoming mother report. under the legal regime in which mueller and rod rosenstein operate, he said the special counsel is a creature of the justice department, cautioning that the decision of whether or not it is hidden from the public is a choice for the president to make. you can read that if you go to justice security. host: clark, virginia. the mueller report and the representatives from texas, the democratic representatives

from texas and florida reminded the republicans of their oath of office. reminding them that they are supposed to protect our constitution from foreign interference. member of georgia has read the report and he was not supposed to tell his other party members what was in the report. i feel he has somehow told them that there is something really in march the republicans were very much wanting to release the full and unredacted report. there must be something that they don't want out. i'm against executive privilege. i feel that we need to threatand that this is a to the constitution. that the republican party is all right with foreign interference

as long as a republican gets in the office. host: foster, new york, republican line. toler: i'm a new listeners c-span, thank you, i really appreciate the conversations you are having. one thing i wanted to say is, i thek this mullah report, republicans waited, even though i thought from the beginning it should not have been investigated, i think it's ridiculous, those are separate issues. whether it be the russian involvement, the trump campaign thereracy of involvement, is no conspiracy. fbi agents, anti-trump lawyers, expose hopefully a conspiracy and what they were doing, but they found nothing. they just have to get over the fact that they lost the

election, elections have consequences. host: since you brought it up, the report itself, the president's use of executive privilege, you are ok with that step and if that's the step -- the case, why? caller: the separation of branches have powers and the utilize those powers. nothing's wrong with utilizing the power you have been given. that's what he's doing. some were corrupt like nixon and such, but what's happening here is he utilized the power to diminish this investigation. it's all an ongoing slog to discredit the president. host: morgan, pennsylvania, go ahead. you for c-span. first of all, let me just say that no one is above the law, including donald trump. let's get that out. the people that supported bill clinton had to go through five years of him being just absolutely humiliated by his

land deal and then monica lewinsky. democrats have suffered through that. two years and the republicans are like whoa, whoa, whoa. host: how does that relate to yesterday's actions? caller: it just goes showed -- goes to show that donald is corrupt and will do anything to do whatever he wants to do if it benefits him and it doesn't matter. he is not above the law, i'm sorry, he's not. morgan in reading, pennsylvania. other views concerning the president over the last day, here's the update on that. tweeting outupree that donald trump, jr. refused to testify in the mueller investigation and faces a surprise new subpoena from the gop panel in the senate. referencing the part of the mueller report where they know that he did not volunteer -- did

not voluntarily put down with the special counsel. the reaction from rand paul for that subpoena, apparently the republican chair of the tenet intel committee didn't get the memo from the majority leader that the case was closed. on the president's tax returns, chris van hollen tweeting out -- remember when trump said he was going to run the country like his businesses? it makes sense now, making it clear why they cannot skirt ,ongressional oversight referring to that "new york times" story. politico reports that democrats will decide today whether they are going to court for trump taxes. one more story, a profile piece this morning on elijah cummings and the court case against a elijah cummings rocked by the trump organization, trump is mrs.. oral arguments for that case in the u.s.eek district court of appeals in the

district of columbia. host: a viewer off of twitter says that getting this is weaponizing grand jury material and it should be resisted to the end. another viewer, it supposed to be -- trump is throwing a wrench into the works to prevent donley and from testifying even though they made no claim of executive privilege when he talked to mueller. charles, go ahead. caller: thank you for having me. i one hundred percent agree with the executive order. this has gone on for how long now? it has just become a show. i don't know what american could turn on the news and not see right through this whole democratic scenario. i just don't know where we could go from here.

this is from brian, pottstown, pennsylvania. caller: thank you for listening to my call. everybody forgets that holder was held in contempt. happened in the previous administration. the attorney general of pennsylvania is in jail for revealing grand jury information for political purposes. host: how does that relate to the actions of yesterday? caller: if the democrats think that -- if i was william barr i would issue all of the grand jury information with little tags on it, charging everyone that reveals it. different information from each person, everyone should go to ja