♪ ♪ announcer: today on c-span, "washington journal" is next live with your phone calls and live coverage of the house as they consider bills related to indian reservations and later, democratic members plan to read portions of the mueller report. announcer: in about an hour, arkansas congressman french hill on the trump administration's trade and

terror congressman john sarbanes-oxley u.s. elections and washington post washington eporter katz arzu ski -- cat zakzrewski. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ host: it is the washington journal for may 15 and there is a new probe into the origins of the mueller investigation. william barr has pointed to -- appointed john durham to look into the origins and the allegations of federal surveillance of president trump's campaign in the 2016 election. we want to get your thoughts on if you support or oppose this effort. if you support this new probe, 202-748-8000. if you oppose it, 202-748-8001. you can post on our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan and

take part in a poll. you can post on our twitter feed at @cspanwj. john durham is the u.s. attorney in connecticut and the one who has been looking into this information for the last couple of weeks after he was asked by the attorney general to conduct an investigation of these issues . joining more to talk about its jeff. jeff or doc -- guest: thank you for having me. host: you used the term investigator in your story. is that his title or is he a prosecutor or special prosecutor? guest: he is a prosecutor because that is his role in connecticut. it makes him sort of a second special counsel because he is going to have the full powers of the special counsel and he is aing to retain the power of u.s. special attorney which means he can issue subpoenas.

he has put together a team to start looking into things. this is a full-fledged investigation. host: talk about the scope of exact what he has been tasked to do. looking at thebe origins of the russia probe and all allegations republicans have raised about the fbi spying on members of the trump campaign, but it will be more expensive. we already have probes looking into the fbi-doj and he will go beyond that and look into the intelligence agencies. he will look into the intelligence agencies that -- -- cia, fbi intelligence agency. that could be really interesting to see what he uncovers. host: when it comes then to the process, you said he had a team involved. what is the timeline for this investigation and when do you

think a conclusion might be drawn to it? guest: the timeline for this investigation, we don't know. we know william barr moves fast. we know william barr moves fast. he said two weeks ago he was andg to take care of this he did by appointing john durham. he also said he was going to move forward with the mueller that.and he did he is a guy who moves pretty fast. what do we -- host: know about john durham and the role he takes in these situations and what he brings to it? guest: he is hardcharging, a full prosecutor. he does not back down, he does a lot of things with government investigations. he has done the cia investigation for casey and eric holder. he has done it for those

administrations. host: you mentioned the fact there is an inspector general investigation taking look at the matter and there is the u.s. attorney in utah. why impose this third investigation and what does it do to the other two? guest: with michael horowitz's investigation going on, he does not have the power of a former government -- formal government agency. lisa page, peter strzok, andy mccabe, no longer part of the administration, they -- he can subpoena them. then the other probe going on, nobody knows what is happening. that has been around 18 months and he has given no updates to congress, we don't know if he has updated the department of justice, we don't know anything about what he has -- he is up to . lawmakers claim to be saying

they don't know where -- what he is up to and it has them very worried. host: when it comes to looking at this probe, what has been the reaction from congress about this announcement? praisingpublicans are it. lindsey graham said yesterday he is going to back down from his own probe and let john durham do the work because he said he is a politician, who is going to believe him versus john durham, who is a prosecutor everyone can trust. other than that, democrats see this as a distraction and just a plan -- sort of politics on the part of william barr. host: it was president trump who appointed mr. durham to the office in connecticut. is that going to be a political issue for him. guest: it probably will be

because democrats will seize on everything. this does have bipartisan support. the senators from connecticut, chris murphy and richard blumenthal recommended him to president trump. when he was nominated, he issued an abusive statement talking about how great he is and how hardcharging he is and they sung high praises. host: this is jeff murdoch who has the front page story if you online,read in paper or there it is talking about this probe looking into the trump campaign and the role john durham place in it. mr. mordock, thank you for your time. guest: thank you. i appreciate it. host: we want to get your thoughts on the opening of this probe, whether you can support or oppose. it is 202-748-8000 if you support it and 202-748-8001 if you oppose.

you can post on twitter at @cspanwj. if you go to our facebook page, there is a pole you can take part in and support or oppose. you can also leave comments as well at facebook.com/cspan. the president taking a look at this investigation and being asked about it, made short comments yesterday. here is the president's response. [video clip] >> i did not ask him to do it. i did not know it, but i think it is a great thing. i saw it last night and they want to look at how that hoax got started. even mueller, not a friend of mine, even bob mueller came out, no collusion and he had 18 people who did not like donald, they were hillary clinton fans, it was the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of this country and you know what, i am so proud of our attorney

general that he is looking into it. i did not know about it, no. host: that was the president from yesterday. here is some reaction from our facebook page. this is paula saying anyone in their right mind would want to know how this coup started and the names of the corrupt people who instigated. we hear from john welch, the legal predicate for spying on the trump campaign at best questionable, the use of steele dossier as evidence is fraught -- fraudulent. also off facebook, has more to do with the corrupt fisa report than the russia probe. to you on the phone lines, penny starts us off in new york, opposes this effort. you are first up, tell us why. yes, good morning.

i oppose this because i can't understand why they want to probe into finding where it started, but they don't care about how russia has infiltrated rial system. it is like no one is doing anything to prevent this from happening. i just think this is crazy. that is all i have to say. host: when it comes to another new yorker, on our support line, michael. you are next up. point, i think at this as the first caller said, i think we do need to go forward and maybe they will find where it started and i support it. it is such a mess, let's find out where it came from and whether it was legitimate. host: what do you think is the value of this type of investigation? caller: it will tell -- i think

it is probably fair and it will tell who is full of it. at this point, the americans should know that. it will stop it from happening again and i believe they are looking at the russian probe and 2020, but wehis in are so sick of it already. at this point, let's find out where it came from, was it legitimate and if it was, guess what? everybody should zip their lips. host: one of the people commenting leading up to the announcement of this investigation was jim comey. asked about the surveillance activities of the fbi and defended it during a cnn town hall and here are the thoughts. [video clip] good evening, mr. comey. the new york times reported the fbi sent an investigator posing as an assistant to meet with george papadopoulos, does that qualify as spying? >> i am not going to comment on

a particular investigative step. that is for the bureau to do, but the fbi does not spike to begin with, the fbi investigates and you have to remember where we were. we knew the russians were engaged in a massive effort to attack our democracy and we learned from an allied ambassador that one of president-elect -- candidate trump's advisers had been talking to a russian representative long before that about dirt they had on hillary clinton the russians wanted to make available. we all should have been fired if when we learned that, we did not investigate to figure out is there a connection between americans and this russian effort and the fbi, in my view, took a and careful steps to understand, is that true. i cannot believe republicans would have wanted it any other way and we acted in a responsible, limited, and constrained way. >> why do you think attorney

general barr used the word spying? >> the only explanation i can think of is he used it because the president uses it, which is really disappointing. he knows better than that and knows the fbi conducts electronic surveillance by going to federal judges and getting warrants based on probable cause. host: alan from brooklyn, new york, opposes this. go ahead. caller: trump himself said obama was at fault for not announcing the findings that russia was tampering with the election during the election season. he blamed obama for the fact russians may have succeeded and now he is saying he does not know why the investigation started. blatantly part of the cover-up he claims is not happening that he is trying to false investigation of reasons for investigating

that were clear from the start. they are investigating russian communications and the president's people happened to be part of those communications. it is ordinary surveillance of a foreign power and the fact they were caught being involved is no fault on the part of investigators, but a fault on the part of the campaign members . moreover, this whole business of saying he approves strongly of someonections, barr is claiming to believe in the unitarian executive theory. if that is really true, the president cannot look to the actions of barr as corroboration for his own decisions. if trump is saying the executive branch is totally under control of the president, than the president cannot say, i am right because that guy says i am, that is the guy he appointed.

either he has independent discretion in judgment or he does not. host: let's go to maria in new jersey, supports this effort. caller: yes, i certainly do and i hope he has the courage to open all the doors. he has to look at five i, which is an agreement all our intelligence shared with canada and the other dominions of britain and we have to get out of that agreement because they have them do the spying and report to our government so our government can say we don't spy on our own citizens. host: when it comes to this opening domestically, why do you support it? caller: i support it because we deserve to know the truth. it is obvious there was a double standard with everything to do with hillary clinton. she was never under oath and

they did not even take her machines and look at them. until we get the truth about all the foreign involvements, we are never going to have a free country. we have a star chamber with the fisa court. i think this is a good start and i pray this man will be thankful to his oath. host: brad in london, kentucky, go ahead. caller: i agree with the previous caller. we have to get to the bottom of this and i am afraid we almost -- the american people as a whole don't have the will. when we find the answer to do what we need to do. we have known about abuses of , butntelligence agency since the 1960's, there abuses have been widely known and published and -- but the

american people will not respond . when we have a problem in our -- we have to hit the street. we have to let the people in power no and that is how we, affect theour vote, outcome and the path of this great american democratic experiment. host: what if the investigation takes place and nothing comes out of it? caller: what do you mean nothing comes out of it? host: as far as the conclusions reached and does not meet your assumption about the investigation. caller: there will be a conclusion reached because no matter what partisan way you look at it, there is a genesis. the genesis lies within either notas predicated or it was predicated, you are not going to get to a non-answer, you will

have an answer, they will reach something. r of thisoppose effort, carol from massachusetts. caller: good morning. i would like to ask a couple questions. there was a big to do about who report.g to pay for the every time you ask a republican, or $15either $10 million million, it went up by $1 million every time somebody asked. i think it ended up at $40 million. i am wondering who is going to pay for this one. i also want to know what happens if this is just a ploy for somebody to plant evidence that report --o steer this themver you call it, send

in the wrong direction, so to speak. host: austin, texas, a supporter. this is jim. you are next. caller: yes, sir. if you strike the king, you better kill him. hopefully the president will not -- may and worry about the economy and everything, kind of like nixon going to china. the beast has been exposed and they need to prosecute the likes and haven -- brennan people like john mccain getting the dossier to turn over to the fbi. who gave it to him and how much did hilary actually have to do with it. host: do you think those conclusions will be reached? do you think you are going to get the answer to those questions? caller: the president of the

united states has been struck, he needs to strike back. it is really quite simple. brutusst, including mccain, who gave the f -- dossier to the fbi, where did he get it? that dimestore novel that could not sell 30 copies until you put the president's name on it. host: dahlia is next in florida, a supporter of this effort, go ahead. caller: good morning. i agree with it because what happened here was they wanted hilary elected. they wanted to bring down trump and then when he was elected, this whole thing started because they wanted to get rid of him. now it is time for all of it to come out. the come out all the dirt, everything they did and many of

them should be prosecuted and go to jail. host: that is some of the comments taking a look at this new investigation opened up, looking at the origins of the russia investigation. if you support this new effort, 202-748-8000. if you oppose it, 202-748-8001. you can post on social media. it was last week in washington, d.c. they had the former fbi general counsel jim baker's poking -- speaking at an event taken in by c-span. we can look at more about that exchange, taking a look with the special counsel. he talks about why he was skeptical of the investigation. more of that available at c-span.org. if you go to the website and want to see more about the russia investigation overall and learn about all the events and facets, go to our website and go to the video library. type that into the box and you

can find more information. you will notice while you are there that we just crossed the milestone. 200 50,000 hours of content available to you. you can find everything about the buehler investigation, all those features, everything you want, programs taken in from 1987. it would take you 28 plus years to watch everything we have online right now. new york, this is jim on our pose line, go ahead. caller: this is jim, you will probably hang up before i get a chance to say anything. i don't know why we are covering this. towns are decimated by illegal immigration and all we do is talking about the russians, who are not invading these -- this country, but all the illegal .mmigrants all the mail that comes from the government is bilingual. i have radio stations in

spanish. everyone is worried about something that is not going to do anything. host: aside from that, the probe itself, why do you oppose it? caller: it is ridiculous. look at this. the news is consumed. if i did not buy the times and the wall street journal and read those papers, i would have no idea what is going on in the world. int: let's hear from don south carolina, also opposes this effort. over 800 exe is federal prosecutors that agree with the report, that understand what has really happened and donald trump is a fascist pig they and liar. host: when it comes to the new investigation, why do you oppose it specifically? caller: they have already got the inspector general looking , the fbi inspector

general and another investigation going to ensure for theect procedure action was deserved and it has been looked at more than just one time. they have gone back to the fisa court on three separate occasions to pass the bar on passing a warrant is huge, extremely difficult. just to cloud the issue more and it will all come out in the report. in southt is don carolina. you heard our phone interview guest telus members of congress have comments and in the light of this announcement. this is steve scully's saying the attorney general was serious

about restoring accountability, it's about time we investigate the origins of the russia probe and the illegal spying on trump's campaign. jim jordan saying the attorney general appoints don durham to investigate the beginning of the russia probe. unlawfully spied on the president and his political advisers. another tweet from mark meadows saying john durham is an outstanding choice for special prosecutor, investigating the 2016 free election activity. -- restore credibility at the top tier of the department of justice and the fbi. those are some of the comments including matt gaetz of florida. now that we know there is no collusion or obstruction, republicans need to go on offense and expose the origins of the trump investigation and highlight the activities of the

obama administration. felicia from georgia, you are next up. good morning. caller: good morning, pedro. thanks for taking my call and you are absolutely my favorite. i am calling because i am reading the mueller report and i am about halfway in and i think anybody calling before you form an opinion, read the report. our intelligence agencies have done a phenomenal job. it just so happens people associated with the trump campaign, almost all of them had ties with russia. it may not even be illegal. there was the trump tower thing and they were doing business, but one after another after another after another and these trump's ownords of

people. if you read the mueller report, it is not only that, but then on victims it says included u.s. state and local entities such as state boards of election, secretaries of state, and county governments as well as individuals who work for those entities and they also did pursued the people that software and hardware for voting machines. ofrybody that we have heard -- the trump campaign folks were talking with russians and this efforte doing to impact elections, naturally the campaign would get hung up investigation.

host: let's go to carlos in florida on the support line. hello. caller: hello. forr spending $40 million -- with nonsel results, or the results that he came up with was that there was no collusion. heard the first time we --orney general congress wants all the information on it. subpoenas.ssued 81 i think it is just a lot of .arassment by politicians

let's go ahead and let the attorney general do its job. host: you mentioned the other callers and some of the other people mentioned aside from this investigation, there is an inspector general investigation and an investigation out of utah. in light of those, we still need this other one that opened up? caller: yes, definitely. we have heard nothing from the person from utah and he was understanding,, sessions recused himself from this investigation and they talk about the trump administration people communicating with russians. all incoming administrations othericate with

countries. when obama was being elected, you will find, in my opinion, more communication between his administration and the russians. host: what about the inspector general's report? since that is away from the justice department. why not invest in that other than these other investigations? caller: primarily because the of theor general is part and his powers are limited, in my opinion. this is going to be a more thorough investigation of let whatever, out, out, but they are not plussting one million

documents like congress requested, which they would not have time to read. we will continue on with this for the next half hour. if you support this new probe, 202-748-8000. if you oppose it, 202-748-8001. the fbi general counsel, jim baker, who appeared in washington last week to talk about the inspector general's investigation of these matters, here is some of the comments he made. [video clip] >> they are coming in after the fact to look at what we did. when we were trying to do it in real time and having the pressure of dealing with these threats as they were coming. i have a great relationship with the office of the inspector general for decades. i have been investigated in matters i worked on have been investigated many times by the inspector general, it is not a pleasant process, it's just not. of the people are pleasant, but

the process is not the most enjoyable. it is what we need to have in the system. we need to have the inspector general's office to make sure the american public, the courts, the attorney general, the rest of the government, congress have confidence that the power interested to people at the fbi and department of justice is used wisely, appropriately, lawfully, efficiently. i welcome the accountability. i am sure they will find things i did not know at the time maybe that others did not know at the time and i just don't know where it will go, but i am confident at least in the judgments -- let me back up. all i can talk about is myself. i am confident in the judgments i made at the time based on the information i had available to me. i feel confident about that, that there were facts that existed in the bureau known by certain people that were known that iss, including me,

possible. i am assuming they will dig and find stuff like that and we will try to sort it out and see what mistakes were made. host: more of that available at c-span.org. on our pose line, this is norman. whatr: i would like to see the investigation would do if they win after the mercer family that initiated the program. that is what i want to hear about. they did not talk about the mercer family and i am thinking when do they start investigating them. host: why is it important? caller: because they are the ones that initiated the program steele pute of paper out. they paid him originally to start this program. why aren't they going back to that? host: on our support line from pennsylvania. good morning, go ahead, you are next up.

, pedro and c-span. i would like to know when are we going to get our uranium back from russia that obama and hillary sold. host: how that relates to this new probe that opened up? geter: i think when you down and you start digging and digging, i think it more or less, instead of blaming trump, i think the rats will come running out. opposee will go to our line and hear from fran in jacksonville, florida. you are next up, go ahead. caller: i oppose for two reasons. mueller's fruit of investigation, the indictment, the charges, the guilty pleas. they want to go back and check why did it start like it is a

hoax, we already know it is not a hoax. secondly, i oppose what they are trying to do now because i think it benefits russia. i don't want to be like those conspiracy theorists i hear all day long, but russia with putin chummy, ibeing so don't want somebody to go back there and get all the details as to how we find out what the russians were doing. what they are digging into now talking about nsa, cia, they want to get all the particulars and i feel like that would expose us to putin finding out how we operate, what we did, and try to do better next time. florida.t is fran in the editors of the new york times take a look at this new probe and write this, one of president trump's enduring beliefs about the russian

investigation is the obama administration illegally spied on him, his associates and his campaign. william barr willing to legitimize his theories, adding the good news about mr. durham's appointment is he is a government lawyer with a history of investigating impropriety across several administrations. he may well complement the work of the inspector general, michael horowitz. the u.s. attorney general at the center of this new probe opening up taking a look at the origins of the russia investigation and we heard that announcement come from the attorney general yesterday. the new york times writing about it as well and you saw that editorial. mr. durham does not strike us as the type who will answer to anyone's political agenda and may not bring indictments. appointing someone of his standing and experience is important to getting the truth about the counterintelligence probe of trump campaign officials.

the apparent misleading of foreign -- those are some of the editorials taking a look at this. line.owa on our support caller: i am a democrat and i support this. if this is what they want, let .hem go down that road it is going to prove, i believe, that they had justification for this investigation without any of the ambiguity.

new jersey, tony, we will hear from him on our oppose line. go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. i totally agree with the last caller from iowa. you already stated it earlier, there are already enough investigations. the reason for this is they want mueller -- they know mueller is going to talk and they are worried about what mueller is going to say. if they want to investigate something, they should investigate which counties were hacked by the russians in florida. host: somebody brought up the fact this morning that the inspector general only has limited powers -- he hung up, apologize for that. let's go to richard in alabama, support line. caller: yes, sir. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: yes, sir.

i appreciate you taking my call. i support the investigation and i would like to know the truth. host: when you say you would like to know the truth, what are you looking for or hoping from learning from it? caller: i would like to know if there was spying from the fbi and possibly -- most people should be accountable because they are not being held accountable. i hope donald trump has the good to notnd the courtesy charge any of those people -- pardon them if there are some criminal things going, we don't need that in this country. host: i am interested why you think that even if there was something found, why not at

least go for convictions? caller: this country is already tore apart. best just to let it go. there has been enough. host: that is richard in alabama . the previous caller mentioned issues in alabama when it comes to their election system. russian hackers gained access to voter databases in two florida counties. ron desantis said the hackers did not mill up in late -- manipulate data. they were briefed by the fbi and the department of homeland security friday. aware ofofficials are the intrusion. more of that from the associated press regarding what is going down in florida. the probe that opened up this week taking a look at the

origins of the russia investigation. louisiana next, this is jean. caller: good morning. investigation. in my opinion, this new investigation is nothing but a distraction. it was proven during the 2016 election. the justice department concluded the russians were interfering and that they were meeting with members of the trump campaign. the trump campaign was warned by the obama administration and president obama even put sanctions on russia because of this. as soon trump became president, he removed these sanctions. why did trump do this? host: this is gordon from wisconsin, hello. caller: hi, how are you doing? host: fine, thanks. go ahead. caller: i support looking into this.

i think the president has been wronged by top agencies we are supposed to have trust in and i don't think it should have started in the first place. it is because everybody thinks russia had something to do with interfering with our elections. that has been going on for years and years along with china and other countries, it does not mean trump had anything to do with it. if he had done anything crooked in his lifetime, it would have come out by now. i don't believe it i think the two men running this thing now, durham and our new attorney general are by the law, by the book and i think that is what has the other side running scared because things are going to come out. there has been a lot of crooked dirt against our president and i don't think it is right. host: let's hear from leanne in nebraska, go ahead. have been a democrat

for 41 years and i could not be happier. it is about time we get a little truth in washington. also, i wanted to say one other thing. a few years back is when i changed my way of thinking. i started listening to mark levine, people should smarten up and listen to him. they have been on trump since this and he is still doing good. i don't understand when people aren't happy when things are going good in the country and i think you should change your -cspan -- d-span instead of c-span because you take more democrats and everyone should have a clock, one minute to say. host: that is leanne in nebraska on the new probe opened up by the connecticut, u.s. attorney being asked by william barr to

take a look at the origins of the trump investigation -- mueller investigation. you can make those comments on whether you support or oppose. if you support it, 202-748-8000. if you oppose it, 202-748-8001. washington post takes a look at one of the people at the center of the issues. , the presidenty posco comments about him as far as investigations are concerned. president trump escalated long-running attacks on the fbi, by the those remarks director as ridiculous. a senior prosecutor would examine the roles of the bureau and the cia in the early stages of the investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election. the president posco public criticism of christopher wray, the man he picked to run the fbi showed how tensions between the white house and the justice department continue even after the aftermath of the special

counsel's investigation. the president posco comments mark the second time in three days he has taken a public swipe at wray. more of that in the washington post. this is tony on our oppose line in new jersey. hello. caller: good morning. i just have a question or comment on the limited powers of this new investigation. i hear a lot of people calling up saying they will get very charges or weeds investigations and i wonder how they are going to do that executiveings like -- power, which he does not have. int: we will hear from mack south carolina. caller: i support any investigation they are doing, but one of the things that bothers me most is the president that does not seem to care, he doesn't have any ethics or moyle

-- morals. host: you are supporting this new investigation that opened up? caller: yes, i am. host: specifically why? caller: i am hoping more would come out to reveal the reality of the president. i knew him when he was in new york. oft: this is to the origin the mueller investigation, you are saying you want to learn more about that? caller: yes. host: specifically what? caller: how it began and why because i think it began because of the interest the trumps had in moscow. host: on our oppose line, andre is from maryland. you are next up, good morning. caller: yes, good morning. thank you for c-span. i want to agree with the lady from florida, she hit the nail on the head. let me tell you what this is about.

they are trying to grapple control of the fbi and the justice department. they are going to drag down that giant. if they can get control of that, because they have barr in there and also, they know the ig report is coming and it is not going to reflect good for donald trump, so they are trying to get ahead of this to muddy the waters and donald trump does not talk about russia in this sense. all this collusion and things they have done. they started way back. edward snowden when they were attacking nsa and all. this goes back a long time and has a lot of people. mitch mcconnell, the guy who said he will make obama a one term president, he is involved in this. look at his face when he is talking about it, he is stonefaced. host: that is andre in maryland. a part of this stemmed from the attorney general's use of the

word "spying" changing it to "surveillance when he was in front of congress -- "surveillance" when he was in front of congress. christopher wray had an exchange with jeanne shaheen about the use of the word "spying" and whether the fbi used proper procedures in 2016. you can see the full thing at c-span.org. here is a bit of that exchange. [video clip] >> i would like to follow up on senator moran's question about the hearing with attorney general barr because i was very concerned with his use of the word "spying." it conjures a criminal connotation. i would appreciate a yes or no answer if possible, win fbi investigations against alleged mobsters, suspected terrorists, other criminals, do you believe they are engaging in spying when they

are following investigative policies and procedures? >> that is not the term i would use. >> thank you. i would say that is a note to that question. -- no to that question. >> lots of people have different colloquial phrases. i believe the fbi is involved in investigative activity and that includes surveillance of different shapes and sizes. the key question is making sure it is done by the book consistent with our lawful authorities, that is the key question. different people use different colloquial phrases. >> as part of the process, do fbi agent's secure warrants for relevant evidence? >> can you repeat the question? >> as part of an investigative process like the investigative process into the 2016 presidential campaign, do fbi agents secure warrants or relevant evidence? warrants is an

important step we take every day in the fbi in lots and lots of investigations. >> i would take that as a yes. it did fbi agent's get warrants for information as part of the counter surveillance investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election? >> i want to be careful about what i can discuss here, but i think it has been publicly disclosed there were a number of relevant warrants that were secured in the course of that investigation. >> thank you. do you believe that the fbi and its agents spied into the 2016 presidential campaign operation? be careful wanted to about how i answer that question because there is an ongoing inspector general investigation. i have my own thoughts based on limited information i have seen, but i don't think it would be right or appropriate to share those because i really do inc. it is important for everybody to

respect the independent inspector general's investigation, which i think this line of questioning starts to implicate and i think it is important for everyone to have full confidence in his review. >> at this time, do you have any evidence that any illegal surveillance into the campaigns or individuals associated with campaigns by the fbi occurred? >> i don't think i personally have ebony -- any evidence of that sort. host: that whole hearing with christopher wray is available to you when you go to our website at c-span.org. kentucky is next. in nancy, this is douglas. go ahead. caller: yes. i think donald trump is the biggest liar and the biggest crook in kentucky. not kentucky, but the united states. host: you said you support this

investigation. what do you support about it? done nothing ain't wrong, why won't he turn stuff over to the fbi and democrats and stuff? host: david is next. good morning. david in oakdale, new york? let me see if i punched -- i punched the wrong button. this is david in oakdale, new york. go ahead. apparently david has hung up. if you want to give us a call in these final minutes of the program or this first segment to take a look at the issue of the new investigation, you can do so . if you support this new effort, it is 202-748-8000. if you oppose it, 202-748-8001. to our social media sites, by the way, if you go to the facebook page particularly, there is a poll you can participate in. you can make your comments there

and your thoughts. you can go to our twitter feed, @cspanwj. this is johnny in dallas, texas, a supporter of this effort. go ahead. caller: yes. i am supporting it, but the thing about it, it is not --i cannot hear you. host: go ahead, johnny, you are on. caller: can you hear me? host: yep, go ahead. you are on. we can hear you. everybody hasure been hacking, china, japan, russia, all of them. i am sure. i beg pardon? host: i am not saying anything, you can continue with your comment. pay attention to your phone instead of looking like -- at the tv, if you are doing that. caller: i am sorry. i think when coming runs -- comey runs for president, he will get it straightened out.

host: when it comes to the mueller report, fox news reporting more than 20 house democrats are planning a grueling 12 hour public reading of the special counsel's report in its entirety except for redacted portions and that will take place on thursday. mary gay scanlon is the vice chair of the house judiciary committee and she has been rallying democrats to join her in the public reading of the report. there are 10 instances that could qualify as obstruction of justice. you can look for that as you watch c-span.org. isour support line, this darlene. she is in florida. caller: how are you this morning? host: i am fine, thank you. how about yourself? caller: i am fine, thank you. i support the investigation

because a large part of our judicial premise is we face our accusers. he has not been awarded or afforded that. i just feel like he should be given the chance, along with everybody else involved in this, should be given a chance to hear thisee who came up with and be able to answer to them. this is you think needed -- i have asked a couple people this, even as the ig and the u.s. attorney in utah also looking at these issues, too? caller: yes. host: why is that? caller: i think i caller earlier arms ofd that there are the investigative system that can allow those who are no longer in the government -- if i broke the law and moved out of

state, they are not going to not come get me. not being part of the government and at -- anymore should not afford them the free chance to just walk away. i think if there was -- host: tony -- go ahead, finish your thought. caller: i just think if there were any nefarious things going on, that we need to know that. we have been led down a path for 2.5 years and now that we are at the end of one part of the path, it only seems right for those of us who sat and listened for all now hear the larger picture of how this started. host: tony in baltimore, maryland. he opposes this effort. go ahead. caller: a few minutes ago you

went through a list of republicans both in the house and senate that are for this, but for the past two years, all these same people, all they were doing was questioning how much this was costing and it was a --chhunt and i am wondering we have not been allowed to see the entire report, so will we have other reports republicans are going to do that we will not be able to see the entire report? i am really confused as to whether they were against investigations and now they are investigations investigating the investigators. if a democrat is elected, will we investigated the investigators investigating the investigators? host: this particular report you oppose, is this a cost issue? is it a resource issue? why do you oppose it?

caller: because donald trump called for it. he wants to investigate the people investigating him. con has been doing this and he is telling his people what to think and they are right here doing his hitting. host: -- his bidding. host: you think he will have that kind of influence over the attorney general looking at this? caller: no, i believe that investigation should go on and there is another one in utah. host: that is the one we are talking about today, whether you support or oppose that. caller: there are investigations that came from the mueller investigations that are still going on and i think they should be finished. we are getting in this circular firing squad here where donald

trump calls, on tv, for investigating people. i have never heard presidents do this type of stuff before. host: this is larry in maryland, severna park, support line. caller: yes. investigation because i think we do need to get to the bottom of it. i do believe our fbi and the investigators did their job correctly. much't think there was so wrong with the investigation, i just think someone at the beginning pushed this agenda onto the investigators and put them in the forefront of trying to find out. anddossier that came out the people that were pushing in the beginning, obviously, if you theg to the fisa warrant

dossier and you tell them this is correct and a true document blah, support it, blah, blah and sell it to a judge, they will give you a fisa warrant. if you knew that information was false and you were just trying to probe into donald trump and just like they are now, the democrats trying everything even to get tax returns and everything else to dig and dig until they find something and i think it has been a big waste of taxpayer money and time, what they have done, and i think that person or the handful of people that started this witchhunt should be at minimum brought forward and let everyone know they are the ones that started this. host: we had a previous caller that said even if something came out of this, the president should not proceed to criminal convictions and the like.

would you hold that assertion? caller: i don't agree with that. it -- i think someone at is wasginning new that th incorrect. i would not even call it spying, but just start digging for trash on donald trump. i think that anything and everything they could do to try and keep him out of office -- i was not a donald trump supporter at the beginning myself. seei have come around to that he has done well for the country. now, how much of that is his doing and how much of that is just our economy coming back around, i am not sure. host: ok. we will have to leave it there, larry. this firstothers hour. we change topics and talk about trade with china and other trade related issues with french hill, republican of arkansas, republican congressman. we will talk about those as

"washington journal" continues after this. announcer: for 40 years, c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress. the white house. the supreme court, and public policy events from washington, d.c., and around the country, so you can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979. c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span -- your unfiltered view of government. this week, our online video

library works a milestone -- a quarter million hours of content. you can view them all for free at c-span.org. announcer: former vice president joe biden is in philadelphia this saturday at 1:00 p.m. eastern to officially kick off his candidacy for democratic presidential nomination watch live coverage on c-span. we have covered the campaigns of over 20 democratic candidates who have entered the race so far , from their announcement speeches to campaign events. watch any time at our website at c-span.org/campaign2020. the complete guide to congress is now available. it has lots of details about the house and senate for the current session of congress. contact and bio information

about every senator and representative. plus information about congressional committees, state governors, and the cabinet. the 2019 congressional directory is a handy, spiral-bound guide. order your copy from the c-span online store for $18.95. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: this is representative french hill, republican of arkansas, for the financial services committee. good morning. guest: thanks for having me. host: on the topic of trade, who is better positioned? guest: america is better position because we have a better trade position with them than china does come and china economy has been slowing. they have debt problems, employment challenges. i think we are slightly better in position at this moment. the: when it comes to

additional tariffs the president plans to place on china, is that something you support? support using tariffs as extensively as the president has. i opposed the steel and aluminum tariff across the board because it raises prices for americans and disrupt intermediate goods manufacturers, including in the second congressional district. but i think strategically congress on a bipartisan basis says president trump is right to be aggressively approaching china about changing their mercantilist system, and he has chosen to use tariffs as that ring them to the table effort -- that bring them to the table effort. it is working and now we have to promptly as possible get a deal that benefits both the chinese long-term economic policy as well as american. host: are you concerned that if tariffs continue and this goes on that it will ultimately affect america's economy?

guest: definitely. even the modest tariff position we have had thus far. you are raising prices in america for consumers and manufacturers. on steel and aluminum, not necessarily directly connected to china, domestic manufacturers with a domestic supply simply raise prices to the tariff level. that is why tariffs will hurt our economy. raising prices for consumers and increasing the likelihood of a higher rate of inflation and the if it was fully implemented and retaliated against by china. ino not think it is going to any way bring down gross domestic product measurably from the united states, but i am concerned about the impact on consumer budgets and family budgets and inflation if it were fully implement it. host: it was reported that nancy pelosi will meet with the trade representative to talk about the current status of the united

states/mexico/canada agreement. are you concerned about that meeting? guest: i am concerned that that meeting is being held, and there has been a negotiated good replacement for nafta. disagreement is better than our nafta agreement. good for american workers, good for american business. it opens up the dairy market in canada. i hope he will make progress with the speaker. she has read that she has raised issues on -- dramatically improved labor standards in mexico and pay in mexico, and the mexican parliament, their legislature approved those changes in the last few weeks. host: aside from the dairy --ues brought up, the u.s. 75% of an automobile must be tariff free. changes to be some nafta talks dispute settlement

system as well as other things. what do you think about enforcement when it comes to labor and pricing issues? guest: i am not a big fan on setting would've mea -- on setting minimum wages. you have to have enforcement mechanisms and you have to have -- you have to dispute rest -- you have to have dispute resolution. the digital trade and modernizing agreement for the information technology world and intellectual property world is a big step up from the old 1994 agreement. -- i think thece over is a big improvement nafta. i believe congress should move it expeditiously for approval. host: french hill, our guest. you can call us on the phone lines --202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. an independents, 202-748-8002.

you can post comments on our wj.ter feed at c-span what is the status? guest: we are waiting for the house ways and means committee, richard neal is the chairman there. kevin brady is the senior republican on that committee. they work behind the scenes to put the implementing legislation in place and bring it to the floor. that triggers about a 90 day process for up-and-down approval in the congress without amendment on the house floor. nancy pelosi needs to work with the ways and means committee, and i hope they will expeditiously bring it for consideration to commerce. host: you are on the whip team when it comes to this issue. you house reaching out to -- is the house committee reaching out to you? guest: i think the republicans have been doing educational sessions per this meeting you reference about ambassador white

house or that ambassador briefing her, bringing her up to date and making sure she does not have concerns going forward. would you describe the this treatment that republicans and democrats have on these issues as contentious, or can they be worked out in your mind? thet: i believe the team in -- the concerns that the team of the trump administration has really speaks to democrats' concerns in the past. you just cited that america's content has moved up. more manufacturing jobs, more people employed in the united , less lever shifting south of the border. secondly, environment and labor improvements in mexico to raise us to a higher standard. this is something we try to 1990 four. we were not successful. i worked for president bush 41 in those days. that is one of the things we

knew was not ideal in the original nafta. ambassador white house or -- --assador lighthouse or host: as far as canada and mexico's perspective, are they on board with these changes? guest: i think mexico negotiated in good faith and agreed to these terms earlier. canada was a little reluctant on certain aspects of diminutive trade across the border. they did agree to open their dairy market to american dairy gain.ers, which was a big we have a few dispute issues handled in a side letter. one of the things you canadians would not agree to is government contracting on balance between mexico and the u.s., where -- overall, yes.

all three countries are ready to go forward. host: our first call comes from virginia. democrats length of this is mary, and you are on with our guest, trench hill, republican of arkansas. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have two comments or questions and i thought you could address them. the first is, i was listening to cnbc, the financial channel yesterday, and they said if we have a trade war that goes on with china, the factories will move to may be or somewhere like that. wouldot know if that bring the factories back to us. it sounds like they would just go to another cheap place. the other thing, i keep hearing we are all socialists. democrats are socialists. well, what do you call bailing out the farmers, and the subsidies to the oil companies and everything like that? show me exactly what makes democrats more socialist than the republicans.

that is all i have to say. thank you. is referencing maybe a little more help for farmers. guest: on your first question about the supply chain, american manufacturing companies that have production in china, considering moving to other southeast locations -- southeast asian locations -- that is certainly a possibility, but by lowering corporate taxes here and regulatory burden, i believe a lot of those -- and importantly getting the usmca ratified -- those would be magnified getting it back to the trade area, mexico and the united states and canada. we are seeing that. barriers to entry, lack of producersat american

are reassessing, the supply chain and china. on your second point, the government is often involved in too many affects -- too many aspects in our lives. bring up a point about farmers. president trump said he would support additional support for soybean farmers, for example, that have been negatively impacted by this trade dispute with china. and i will say from having spoken to the soybean farmers in my district, that is not really good enough. they do not want additional support payments in lieu of a price decline. what they want is a good deal with american access to markets all over the world, including china. thanks for calling. host: the house agriculture committee heard from farmers last week concerning trade tariff issues, specifically from a farmer in minnesota. i want you to listen to some of his concerns and address them. .> it all comes down to markets

our community is diversified and resilient, kind of its own economic engine. if we go farther out into rural american, -- merthyr -- into rural america, that is my concern. it is about the farmers that spend money in those communities that keeps schools, the medical industry, infrastructure, even fire departments and things like that. it keeps up roads and bridges and commerce. rural communities, smaller towns, are so vital to our whole demographic and our ability to keep family farmers on farms and keep our cropland from being owned by corporations, which in turn, i feel, would turn into foreign investment in farmland and eventually possibly some of the loss of our own food supply or control of our food supply, excuse me. to answer your question and put it into numbers, i am not going to speculate or guess, but when

farmers do not have money, they cannot spend it in town. not having the markets that are check-off dollars that we negotiated in the past and go shoot it for, we need to get ships tied up to docs in foreign countries. i do not think we can accomplish that by telling customers how to act. [end video clip] good comments. i was in the arkansas river valley talking to soybean farmers. i was a banker in my pre-congress career to agriculture, so i know it has been a bad three years due to weather. too wet to plant this spring this is the third year of bad prices across our farm sector. this issue and debate about tariffs does not help, but it has been a bad farm year for the past three years or that is why the producers i talked to want a speedy result with china but they also know china is our fourth largest agricultural buyer from the united states come across all ag products.

we want a good market access deal that expands opportunity for all american agriculture. the principal objective of trade policy in the united states is to open markets for american manufacturers and american producers. that is the mission and that is what we have done at the usmca, and that is what president trump and the ambassador's goals are for china. we want to do more for american agriculture. they were benefited by the derry situation in canada. that is our -- we want a bilateral agreement with japan which will aid our producers and .ower tariffs york, our new republican line. gary, you are next up. caller: the stuff from china -- they do not go along with trade much of the junk that they

may hear is from china. wondering, if their prices go up in the stores, i was wondering about -- i am a veteran, so i am wondering if i would get a bigger total on my check next year for that. guest: thanks for your call. yes, i will say the question about your cola for the veteran-related payment, if inflation goes up, which i think is a distinct possibility if we have embedded long-term impact from tariffs. i am sure that would affect your cost-of-living adjustment. the real issue, how do we get china to behave -- to change their behavior and reduce their thingsctual property to that we have invented that we have protected, and let us have an opportunity to enter more

markets. when i worked for president bush 4125 years ago, we worked on this issue with japan where we remove nontariff barriers to product and service is to japan. as it relates to china, we have seen china grow, become the second-largest largest economy in the world, but they are still treated as an emerging economy, yet they are a real economic powerhouse. that is why these trade debates are important. it is also important that we get help from europe and japan. in pressing these changes. host: when you look at the stock market fluctuation, especially over concerns over trade, what are the concerns to you, and what would you tell people who are concerned? tost: the market is trying assess the uncertainty you find in this back and forth trade situation. they are trying to assess, will the usmca be approved properly by congress? will president trump's work with

china produce a good result, and you see the volatility. our stock market is at an all-time high. it is going to be volatile as people reassess the impact on american corporate earnings. stocks, theirna prices declined significantly more than stocks from companies in america doing business with china. their economy is being impacted , both in the stock market and the real economy. they have an interest in getting this resolved. we want to make sure it is balanced and good for both china and the united states. host: from georgia, we will hear next from the democrats line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i am a certified public accountant and i have been listening to the trade debate going on. i want to put a little bit of

perspective on it because when you're looking at trade you have to look at the trade cycle. not just one aspect of trade. what you're hearing his folks talking about the usmca, they talk about tariffs, and they talk about labor costs. those are three factors that need to be considered within the trade agreement. that is because if you were to look at just the usmca and tariffs, you would be looking at it from a protection alyssa him standpoint. protectionalism standpoint. you will have to consider the fact that if you go to minimum wage in mexico, the u.s. will less demand on immigration coming in. when we c.p.a.'s look at these things in perspective, we look at cycles and how one particular transaction would be an agreement. that needs to be looked at, instead of people considering

the fact that there is a trade agreement. you have to understand technology, how it plays into that trade agreement, as well as the labor cost that cost -- that causes people to leave the u.s. and come to the -- to leave mexico and come to the u.s. you make a good point. thehe 1992 to 1994 process, bush 40 one administration and the clinton administration, as it relates to labor, we expected the labor radar long the u.s.-mexico border would rise over the years as productivity increased and opportunities increase, both in benefits and compensation. it really did not increase like people expected. in this agreement, as you say, to manufacturing, minimum wage in mexico, it will reduce pressure on to people trying to move across the border for work, and it will make their families

better off in mexico and reduce the imbalance between production costs in mexico and the u.s., which is good for u.s. manufacturers, as you know. i agree it is a long-term process, not simply a transaction. ann, hello.lorida, independent line. caller: i am kind of nervous, so i just want to say one or two little things. i am in florida. there has been a long list of many little things that are, you know, going to be on that list that are going to be raised as far as the purchasing. things from toothpaste to eggs -- how is that integrated, on that list, in the tariffs portion policy? in other words, how does the, you know -- i loved the guy, and

i agreed with everything. the tariffs policy, not the trade policy -- how does that impact that list? it is clothing, shoes. it is very defined. can you help me with that? guest: good question and thank you for that. the tariffs that president trump has put on china, specifically talking about china, have been principally on intermediate goods, things that are put into manufacturing. they were not on consumer goods. only about 15% of items from china that have a tariff on them in these negotiations are consumer goods. however, what the president has stick, fromfinal again no sheeting -- from a negotiate and point of view, a $320 billion that he wants to but a tariff on. -- to put a tariff on.

i don't know about toothpaste or eggs, but it certainly would affect flashlights, batteries, all kinds of consumer things in the toy sector that we buy here retail, and those prices would go up as a result of the tariffs. that is why i think the president tried to press china for a deal, change their mercantilist, protectionist policy only on intermediate goods -- and put tariffs only on intermediate goods and not that final consumer item. we could haven, tariffs on consumer goods, and then it would affect all americans more immediately than it does now. that is why i am concerned if china does not come to an agreement with the united states over the near term. host: trade will be one topic, but president -- but possibly the president of tax returns as well. what do you think about the

back-and-forth over access to those records? guest: honestly, it is all politics. president trump says he is under audit. it is his decision to not release his tax returns. we would all be better off if he did release them, but i still think that is his choice, and i think this is just a distraction and a political engagement. it is not really connected to public policy. democrats in congress oh to the american people a specific current executive branch oversight responsibility and public policy on why they want to pursue those. host: they point to possible business dealings with foreign countries. are those not of value for people to know? guest: they might be if they have some aspect of impact in the responsibility the president has since he has been office -- since he has been in office. in general i would say, no, what has happened before has

happened. this is from robert in arkansas, harrison, arkansas, democrats line. hill, youngressman owe me an answer to this question. war --e nixon vietnam senator tom cotton did the ribbon cutting that welcome to come at us vietnam. we have had this deal with commonest countries. i understand that -- with communist countries. in 20, president trump put a tariff on canadian lumber out of nowhere, and he made it -- i had an invoice that was affected by -- i have called your office and, as a realist, springfield, missouri, said that tariff added $6,000 per house.

you are going to be a tariff person. my point is, if we are going to not -- andld we rated trucks are one of the biggest problems on our highways -- could you not find out how much that tariff has brought in and apply that tariff toward infrastructure as the president is suggesting that we get into a trillion dollars in infrastructure? i will listen for my answer. guest: thanks, robert, for your question. we have had a long-standing dispute between canada and the lumber.tates on agreement that was reached in the 1990's. i am aware of those concerns. as i have told you, i do not have philosophically a support for across-the-board tariffs because they do raise prices. they raise prices for home

construction, they raise prices for consumers, they raise prices for our intermediate goods manufacturers, which can impact american employees here. so i think that your suggestion about how to pay for an infrastructure plan is an interesting one, but i do not believe that tariffs would be the right way to go about that. because tariffs are typically -- we are using them as a negotiating tool to have a lower tariff arrangement on a bilateral basis between countries, so it is really not a permanent source of funding for something important like long-term infrastructure. that is something that congress has to consider, what is the best way to offset those expenses? that is something that president trump and speaker pelosi are deep in conversation with. over this i.t. -- over --s idea of tariffs, is this

guest: i think it could be, but going back to first principles, since we are trying to open markets for american goods and services. and greater access, protect our intellectual property and workers, and increased opportunity. we are doing that with japan and with usmca. we have completed the update to the korea agreement. , lastin seoul, korea month, and it is the most extensive free-trade agreement america has on a bilateral basis. they are now the largest importer of liquefied natural gas, which is improving their climate footprint, improving their economy, improving their smog and reducing the trade deficit. that is the mission. is talking primarily about china and moving the china agreement along.

of twonot make two sides important economies just turn on a dime when they are negotiating very important, long-term issues that have been neglected for two decades. alexandria,s from virginia, independent line. elle, hello. caller: hello. my concern is, as the general public, we are not aware of how much has been stolen from us. now when they came to the table, they are refusing not to steal from us. that is what makes it hard -- we understand how much has been done to us by china. our merchants are the ones who lost, the general public. we did not know. but now merchants are

complaining. they understood. to my question is, we need stand with the president. we have been screaming for 20 years about other nations taking advantage from us. we did not hear him. elle, it is a good question. how is the american public -- how do we know sort of the ramifications of 20 years of china upon mercantilist policies , reduced opportunities for american exports, have stolen american intellectual property, counterfeitingn american goods and selling them around the world. not to mention, the policies indenting the third world and producing fentanyl, which kills our kids and leads

to greater addiction. there are a lot of issues around our relationship with china, but the issues in trade are enforcement. that is what you bring up. how do you know how to project those losses from that arrangement, and how do we enforce it? haveis where these talks been stuck. how do we obtain the changes we want that we can agree to bilaterally but make sure they are enforced from intellectual property theft, counterfeiting, other aspects of that trade agreement we need to improve on. california, democrats line. you will be the last call. caller: i just wanted to call to say i am completely in agreement with the new probe that is going to be started hopefully against the new investigation. i think the whole two years was nothing but a sham where they were trying every way they could to bring our duly elected

government down any way that they can and to deter any chance of our president getting his project forward. i think there are two different sets of the laws, one for the democrats and one for republicans. the democrats get away from -- get away with everything and there is never an investigation. thanks for the call. i listened to the discussions and questions that pedro had earlier before i came on, and i think this narrow approach is, was there something that was political and misleading about the evidence used to seek probable cause, to look at the trump campaign's potential connections with russia. in other words, the opposition party, the democratic party, plays some outside, behind-the-scenes influence in influencing the justice department. their investigation and the reviews.

generald the intern he -- the attorney general, barr, is looking into it. andant to clear the air make sure there is a balanced approach. robert mueller reported no collusion with the russians. but was that investigation initiated in a fairway by our justice department. i am glad attorney general barr is going to look at that. host: representative french hill, thank you. guest: happy 40th. host: thank you very much. for the next one if five mitts, we have free events in washington. having the executive committee hearing on oversight. treasury secretary mnuchin and the i.s. commissioner, talking about the tax returns of the president and senator lindsey

graham introducing an immigration bill that continues -- that includes some aspects of migrant children and a silent those three topics we will look at and we will get your comments, too. 202-748-8000 free democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. and for independents, 202-748-8002. we will take those calls went "washington journal" continues. announcer: this week our online video library marks a milestone, a quarter million hours of content. all c-span programs since 1987 are available on our online library, and you can view them all for free at c-span.org. announcer: once tv was three simply -- was sibley three giant networks and pbs. then in 1979, a small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea.

let viewers decide on their own what is important to them. c-span opened the doors to washington policymaking for all to see, bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. in the age of power to the people, this was true people power. in the 40 yearslandscape has ch. there is no monolithic media. broadcasting has given away to -- has given way to narrowcasting. c-span's ideas are more relevant today than ever. no government money support c-span. it is non-horrible ash it is non-partisan coverage -- it is non-partisan coverage. c-span is your unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind. announcer: former vice president joe biden is in philadelphia this saturday at 1:00 p.m. eastern to officially kick off his candidacy for the democratic presidential nomination. watch live coverage on c-span there'd we have covered the

campaigns of over 20 democratic candidates who have entered the race so far, from their announcement speeches to campaign events. website, time at our at c-span.org/campaign 2020. announcer: "washington journal" continues. senator lindsey graham planning a press conference at 10:00 today, taking a look at legislation that he hopes to advocate for when it comes to issues along the southern border. this is highlighted in newsweek, saying there is a perfect storm because of broken laws. he said on a sunday interview, word was out on the street in central america that we can only hold a minor child for 20 days. we will release everybody including adults. you can only hold a minor for 20 days. we are going to 100 days. the 20-day rule, which

includes president trump officials including donald trump himself -- lindsey graham said the bill would also make other dramatic changes to the asylum system, allowing asylum-seekers to make their claims at the noder, adding that you can longer apply for asylum there. if you are from central america, you had to apply that you're leaving a conflict in your country. you can see that on the web, c-span.org. also, the senate judiciary committee taking a look at -- he is the chairman of that. other events would be the appropriations committee, featuring a hearing with the irs commissioner. in the treasury, steven mnuchin, to talk about issues supposedly when it comes to the president's tax return, among other issues. you can see that at 10:00 at c-span.org. other things as well, taking a look at the hearing on the use

the present -- if you want to comment, 202-748-8000 free democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. .n independents, 202-748-8002 chris come up first from texas. chris, first from texas peered republican line. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call, c-span. i do have a comment regarding border security. -- let'sng to find a see here -- i'm sorry, i was trying to find a comment i had spoken about earlier on facebook, but it does not look likely have it -- look that i have it right here in front of me. another agenda going on. i see where trump and lindsey

talkingre, you know, their rhetoric that is very strong on border security, talking about limiting immigration. but i think that the real agenda going on -- because let's get real, that is not what is happening for the last 20, 30 years. we have had unfettered immigration. we have had hundreds, millions and millions of people coming into the united states. i think what is going on is there is a demographic crisis, and we are in competition with china. china's economy is growing. twice the rate ours is. they have 1.3 billion people there. we have 330 million people. , a huge demographics fraction of our population retiring and aging -- host

host: when you hear senator graham talking about how asylum is done, are you on board with that or not? board with it, but i do not think it is going to be sufficient enough to deal with the crisis because, you know, i don't like the idea of children, of these people renting children to come over the border to use them as a way to seek asylum. and then the children get sent back to their home country. and the parents or the family will rent out their child again to these coyotes and kind of use them to exploit the asylum process. host: let's hear from florence and west virginia, democrats line. caller: go ahead. host: you are on, go ahead. withr: i am so frustrated

the kidnapper in chief. what has happened to these little children is abominable. he is the closest thing to a cross between jim jones and bernie made off. host: when you hear these republican efforts to make these changes when it comes to asylum and holding children, what do you think of those efforts, particularly from senator grandpa's point of view that from senator graham's point of view? i think he leaves a lot to be desired. he is what he is. i don't find any excuse for what has happened. , do not care who is in charge whether it was christian nelson or whatever.

it really doesn't matter. it is the care of these children. this is not what america signed up for. of the asylumtory that people seek when trying to that --rom countries they don't have a chance. host: 10:00 is when you can see senator grandpa's comments you can see that -- senator gr comments. james, boston, massachusetts, independent line. try this the fast way. -- they are kids, they have no idea what is happening, and you want to hold them up? why don't we put them all in guantanamo bay, because that is what they really want to do.

kids. they have no rights. but they want -- the parents are bringing them to the u.s. because we are the best country for kids. a kid innt to hold jail for something they had no control over? alreadythe child die under the trump administration with lindsey graham? why don't we put them in their houses, because we know lindsey graham makes too much money, and sotos trump. -- and so does trump. host: george, in hollywood, florida. hi. caller: how are you? host: go ahead. caller: you have a great show. i listen to it quite often. congressrences between and their power of oversight -- if that is what you can call this -- and then the executive are two different

powers of government. when you are trying to -- i'm sorry, i'm a little nervous. when you are trying to look at onrsight for what is going on our border, it has been going on for over 30 years. we have millions of people here documented,gal, not illegal aliens. that should have been taking care of by people years and years ago. not all this is donald trump. there are many oversights that should be done, with trade agreements. we have been doing this since 1946, 1947, where we have been the savior of the world. it has cost americans and many millions, hundreds of millions of dollars. none of that has been taking care of, nor will it be. int: that is george,

hollywood, florida. chicago tribune, taking a look at the boeing 737 super max that you have been hearing about in the news, saying that with congress stepping up its investigation into the troubled airliner and how it passed regulatory safety checks ahead , he is the acting the faa head, and is scheduled to testify. the house aviation subcommittee -- assessingcts key features of the plane, and the faa's role in assessing pilot training for that plane. you want to see that hearing, c-span3 is where you can do that, live at 10:00 this morning. also monitor it on c-span.org. if you want to, on your phone or tablet or other device, you can download the c-span radio app.

terry is next, akron, ohio, independent line. caller: well, thank god for c-span. i don't really understand why so many americans are surprised about how americans are treating .hese people on the border i have heard comments where people will say we are a hypocrite and we are going against what america stands for. america has always been a hypocrite nation. while we were inviting all these european immigrants into the country, according to the statue of liberty, we were still treating black people as animals. black peopleing all the way up into emmett till. host: what do you think of particularly when it comes to immigration and asylum issues? caller: he is doing what i think

something should be done at the border. you know, in a way i do applaud trump for even taking on the issue a little stronger. in missouri, salem, missouri, republican line. go ahead. caller: i am a little bit upset with the idea that we should be blamed or held accountable with children of parents from a foreign country who show up here illegally and expect us to take care of them for 100 days. i think they should be deported immediately. there should be no hearing, they should just be sent back. those countries that are continuing to allow their citizens to come up here, including mexico, they need to be held accountable because we need to start dealing with them directly to hold them accountable for the expense of putting them on the american taxpayer. host: when you hear of senator graham's effort, what do you

think? caller: the asylum issue is one i think is great, that they should apply in their own anytry where we can verify real threat they may be other -- they may be under. it is hard to deal with from america when you're dealing with third world countries. louis,athaniel, from st. democrats line. c-span, forks, allowing people to be able to speak their rights. i am calling because i think that the democrats should be not trying to run for senate instead of all the time running for president. they are just wasting time. they should be trying to get the senate so that they can do to move this world forward. thank you for my time. minutes have about 10 before this segment ends.

you can make comments --202-748-8000 free democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. .or independents, 202-748-8002 paul, from north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. i agree with senator graham. and i agree with a couple of callers. when they bring the kids over back we should force them and let them deal with them. we have too much on our plate right now. we don't know who is coming and who is going. we have enough problems anyway. host: the charlotte observer anorting this morning about issue involved with one of those races, senator dan bishop, a state senate race, who easily

won. three months later, there were fraud allegations. dan mccready and two third-party candidates. it was expected to be one of the most closely watched elections, dan mccready -- and the former mecklenburg county commissioner, matthew ridenhour. this is dan bishop saying dan mccready went through to elections without telling anybody where he stood. that ends tomorrow. voters in the ninth district deserve a clear choice and we are going to give them one. you can see more of that reporting in "the charlotte observer" when it comes to that special election in the ninth district. this is from greensboro, north carolina. independent line. donnie is up next.

good morning. i wanted to comment on the border security with children that you all are talking about this morning. there is -- senator graham is trying to make sure these children are safe. when it comes down to it, there is also the moral obligation of mexico. the united states is holding these children because of asylum laws, and they are saying that they are being mistreated or something. they can also say when mexico says, well, they are treating our children bad when they go over there. it is more the back and forth, so how can you morally be right in one country, and then the other country kind of throws that back on you? just my thought, until --

because history does repeat itself. and it does show that even in history, the spanish people, they did have the right to come to california and texas and arizona. so -- host: if i may ask, when you hear republicans like lizzie graham tackling -- like lindsey graham tackling these issues, what goes through your mind? caller: i do hope -- and this is just hope -- because it is only going to get right unless somebody stands up and they have to have one way about it. but when you have so many people with so many different ideas on how it should be, it is going to be a back and forth all the time. ,ou can only do so much especially when the kids in the united states are hurting, too. you go to orphanages -- i went to a high school where those orphanages right down the

street, these kids came to high school with us. they would talk to us, and even though we were in high school, we knew their problems. that one is being put down less than another because in the united states -- i think before you can even handle that issue, you have to make sure that the issues in the united states as far as children is current. before you go, i don't know if you are keeping track of the race going on that just got resolved in the ninth district there, if you have any thoughts on that. caller: could you refresh my -- i do watch c-span, but there is so much going on. bishop going on to challenge dan mccready, the democrat, in the ninth district. caller: in charlotte? host: i believe so, yeah.

caller: i really don't have a comment because it is more of an issue on rights. if the election was swayed one way or the other, then, yeah, they had to recount. but, i mean -- it is what it is. i don't have any comment on that. host: ok. let's hear from louise in virginia, democrats line. caller: i think holding these children even longer is traumatizing them and i think it is shameful. i think we have no right to do that. the end does not justify the means. we are going to have to get together -- republicans and democrats get together and address the problems we have had with immigration being illegal at times, people coming over here. in fact, i don't think immigration has hurt this country. i think it is who we are. back to the children. it is absolutely wrong, and the

end does not justify the means. i think it is shameful. host: that is louise in virginia, giving her thoughts on at least efforts by senator graham as he talks more about the issue of immigration. you can see that on our website, c-span.org. secretary and the irs commissioner are also expected on capitol hill today, in front of the senate appropriations committee, to talk about the president's tax returns. also a hearing taking a look at the use of executive privilege by the president versus the congressional oversight powers that congress has. if you go to our website, c-span.org, a whole listing of everything we are taking in as far as the programs we plan to show you, you can find that there. if you go to the search box at the top of the website, you can type in a lot of the issues and find out everything we have taken in. over 250,000 hours of content. we just hit that i'll stone

yesterday, on a wide variety of -- we just hit that milestone yesterday, on a wide variety of content. oregon, we hear next from dan, the republican line. caller: hi, how are you doing? i am glad that they are doing something about this, you know? it is just too any people and too many problems. i heard that woman from wyoming. it is all about the kids. i see what is going on in our state in oregon. there are times when i have to drive a certain place, and all these schools -- they are like segregated. they are all hispanic kids. is becoming -- i just cannot believe that somebody from wyoming, where it is a bunch of cowboys, that i remember, running all them people -- wanting all them people in wyoming to become like

that. i know what is going on. i watch all these other websites. the center for immigration studies -- i mean, it is all out there. i have talked to professionals. this is a scam. they want to flood this country because they think that fremont stole it from them in northern california and took it over. that is all there is to it. host: but you are saying a harder line is needed, then. caller: you better believe it. i mean, too many people, too many problems. it is just going to increase, and i think that is the problem with the climate. you get all these people coming here, make it a big mess out of everything, and it is just going to be worse. there has got to be -- host: this is from massachusetts. rick, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks a lot for c-span. i love your show. yesterday some of the people that you had on were talking

about having a trillion dollar defense budget this coming year. if i sincerely believe that some of that money were spent with our central american neighbors, helping them, we could stem some of the immigration issues. that does not even begin to beg the question of a hundred years of the u.s. exploiting central and south america. certainly going back, or at least up to the reagan years, with our efforts to defeat popular movements in el salvador and nicaragua. viousre reaping what pre generation has sown. i am afraid we will probably do the same thing in afghanistan now and iran, but that is another issue. i think for the people who would like to call themselves

religious of any order and say that they are going to turn back , it is ais just detector of history of how the u.s. has treated america. that is rick in massachusetts. i decision by alabama lawmakers taking place yesterday playing out in the newspapers today saying that lawmakers they are to challenge abortion rights nationally are one step from their goal, putting in almost total ban in the procedure. to alabama senate voted make it a felony for a doctor to perform an abortion. that it isote says resided to governor kay ivey who could sign into law. it was introduced by representative terry collins, a republican there about six weeks ago. it includes one exception,

allowing abortion in the case of serious health risks to the woman. you can read more about that at the website of al.com out of alabama where that took place. justin in georgia, republican line. yes sir. legal, theye il should be deported. i feel sorry for these countries but where is all of our money that goes to where we send them over there. apparently they are not getting i -- i ain't got the money, cannot even leave my stay and go to california. where is our money going, you know? if they are not helping their people, why don't they give their money to go and make sure the people get that money, all, but i dod

not think it is right them coming over and flooding our country. host: that is justin in georgia. we are expecting to hear from representative john saar legislation for democrats on the health side advancing when it comes to election security. he is running late, but we will wait for an update from him and when he comes, we will put him on air to talk to you about these issues. from maryland, democrats line, tony. caller: good morning. a lot of people are calling in and saying that they go to the schools and they see that there is a bunch of hispanic kids, but we have to realize, peering united states, we have not, since the great baby boom population, we have not been repopulating this country.

in fact, a study comes out and shows that we are having sex a lot less, so therefore, you are not going to have the people to replace all of the baby boomers that are retiring and dying now, which is why employment is at a 50 year high. 50 years ago, there was the baby boomers and now they are dying out and their jobs have to be replaced. we are going to need these immigrants and we cannot just start populating ourselves and cover it. people have to realize and the earth is the lord and the fullness thereof. god put these people here a long time ago before there were any immigrants coming from africa or europe. california.re in new mexico, remember the alamo whichwas built in 1750 was 20 years before there were even 13 colonies to turn into

the united states. these people have been here. host: letter from sarah in north carolina, independent line. sarah inhear from north carolina, independent line. you are on, go ahead. caller: my opinion is these children from mexico, make them legal. as far as this voting in north carolina, they need to put people over these voting polls that is honest. as far as people about the baby boomers, you think about it, roe v. wade, that is where all our babies went. the one putting out information when it comes to the birth rate in the u.s. falling to the lowest levels in 32 years. the nbc news report saying that on the upside, teen births at record lows, and more women in their late 30's and early

40's are having babies. there are other sites carrying this story as well. russell is in tennessee, independent line. yes, i would like to make a comment. kennedy's mental health act. i am a mental health clients myself, ok? i think it is a big mistake, ok? the aclu doing away with minimum wage, they work the chicken fryers at places, they have money for the commissary, and the board was already maxed. a big mistake for the aclu who backed nazis, of course, and i just wrote the united states president about it, ok? host: ashley on the new york, democrats line.

good morning. caller: good morning. i think president trump is the result of a completely unsecured election. when we lose faith in election results, and most people have chosen clinton over trump, i believe that. thosee who is chosen by who played united states general strategies. i am honored to hear your comments with the representative. york,ashley in north new calling on our line for democrats. some of the calls we have been fielding on a wide variety of issues, many being comments on the topic of immigration, in light of lindsey graham's comments. that is at 10:00 and you can see

the press conference he is planning on holding on our website, and you can find out more when you go to c-span.org. this isia is next, larry in los angeles, democrats line. caller: good morning, how are you? host: fine, thanks. moderators, they like to sell the end of the program, and they come up with little subjects and compile them and set them aside for maybe missus mcswain, you go over and say, these are the hot topics that we have for the week that concern people that are hard-hitting on our really interesting, and that is all i had to say. it ailitary, we call hogwash after inspection or exercises, and it was really helpful. host: how so? caller: we go over the issues

that, say if we had a military exercise and we had issues come gothat we had to address, we over that, we address that. host: i apologize, the connection that we are having is a really bad one. appreciate the call and comment. the next gassed joining us, representative john sarbane, an effort called the marketing reform task force. later in the program, we will talk about the role that some democratic presidential candidates are talking about when it comes to breaking up big tech. a reporter joining us for that topic later on in this all takes place after washington journal continues. ♪ >> the house will be in order. years, c-span has

provided america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from washington dc and around the country so you can make up your own mind. 1979, c-spanble in is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ our online video library marks a milestone. quarter million hours of content. all c-span program since 1987 are available and you can view them all for free at c-span.org. former vice president joe biden is in philadelphia this saturday at 1:00 p.m. eastern to officially kick off his candidacy for the democratic presidential nomination. watch our live coverage on

c-span and we have covered the campaigns of over 20 democratic candidates who have entered the race so far. from their announcement speeches to campaign events. watch anytime at our website at c-span.org/campaign2020. "washington journal" continues. host: this is representative john sarbanes, a member of the oversight and reform committee, and he is the chair of the market reform task force. good morning. guest: good morning. host: give us a status report as to if anything has really changed since the 2016 election. guest: we learned a lot from the 2016 election and obviously, the molar report details it -- the mueller report details a lot of this. that we have alert

to be looking forward to 2020 figuring out what can we do to protect our democracy. there is a lot that we can do in a number of different arenas to harden our election systems, make sure that these disinformation campaigns that we saw from russia, which is a form of war for, that we are looking at this foreign money and foreign agents getting involved in our elections and come up with measures to stop that. 20/20 is next year. the next election is right around the corner. far as we canas tell from our intelligence community, are planning to come in and meddle again. we have to do everything we can to protect our democracy from ist kind of attack and this something that democrats, independents, republicans, and american patriots should all agree on. host: it was florida's governor

and a story today saying that two counties affected when it comes to russian interference, did not affect voting but took an access -- how does this handle from congress's point? guest: the democrats put on the floor of the house, the first order of business and one of the reasons we wanted to do it first is among various reforms it included in the voting space, campaign-finance ethics were some really good measures in terms of election security. the peoplef the for act has to do with hardening our election systems. last week, we broke out that piece of hr-1 and introduced it in the house. so someone who is on the house and administration committee, bennie thompson who heads up the homeland security committee,

and myself, we introduce the election security act. things that will do is to put resources behind building more infrastructure across the country in terms of how the election operates, insisting on measures like paper ballots in every election to that we have that backup trail. making sure that there are risk audits being conducted of the various election systems across the country, and we have to put resources behind that. when wehe evidence is take this measure, you actually can achieve some pretty good across various states. we have to do this and we have to do it quickly because as i said, the 20 election is upon us. host: are guest is here to talk about those efforts and you can ask him questions.

democrats, (202) 748-8001 republicans, (202) 748-8002 for independents and you can reach on our twitter feed at @cspanwj. one of the things within the act would require testing of voting systems nine months before the election. what do you mean? guest: there are number of different folks that are a part of creating our systems. oft the actual deployment the actual registration happens, how the voting happens, how the tallying occurs, so if you do these tests, then you do not wake up the day after and say, oh my god, if we had tested that system, if we had run the traps on it, we would have been better prepared and we would have made changes. you go through a rehearsal drill nine months out from the elections so you can determine,

is it going to work on election day, is it going to work for early voting. you do not want to wait until the last minute because by then, it is too late. what we are requiring in the election security act is that there would be some audits conducted to take a backwards look as well. there is a lot that we can do systematically to make sure that when early voting arrives, win election day comes, everything is going to go smoothly. that is what we want to see and we want to make sure that we are confident that a foreign national or foreign government is not going to be able to get in there and meddle with our election that could discredit the results. every american has a stake in making sure that when they wake up, that they have to feel confident that the tally was accurate and it reflects the voters will.

host: our first call comes from the republican line bethlehem, pennsylvania. tom, you are on with our gas representative john sarbanes. caller: yes, i wanted to ask if you were taking any precautions for people who have died and were still on the rolls. is that an issue that is still happening? caller: the question about who toon the rolls, that goes basically how these election systems and administration go through the records, making sure that they are keeping them up-to-date. we want to keep supporting with resources the state's ability to of checks kinds in place so that if someone has passed away or for other reasons, they should not be on the rolls anymore, the action has been taken before you get to election day. i think states across the country actually have done a pretty good job of figuring out

what those systems are, we just have to make sure they have the resources to keep them strong, constantly updating the voter rolls in a responsible way, and we have to make sure there is not attempt to suppress the vote or knock people off of the roles for reasons that were not valid. if someone has passed away, there need to be measures in place to make sure their name does not stay on the rolls going forward. those kinds of infrastructure elements are critical. the resources have to be there so that states can put those, and local can put those systems in place, and at the same time, we have to make sure that we are protecting those systems against attack, cyberattack, other kinds of attacks that can come from outside of our democracy. all of those pieces fit together in a very critical way. the key is to stay focused on

them. andrrive at election day we have confidence that the election is going to be conducted in a valid and accredited way. host: on the line from florida, this is greg. caller: hello. i got a question. desantis hasda, said that we had two areas that , and then he in had to sign and -- an fbi waiver and not say where they are at. i don't understand, what is going on? guest: i do not know the details of some of the confidentiality requirements that might apply to that would be. i do know that florida is some attacks coming in. they have been able to withstand some of that but it raises this flair for us that those attacks

are real. we do not have to make this up, there was states across the country and 2016 for sure and again, evidenced in the 2018 these efforts to attack our election systems were coming in and that is why it is so critical that we get ready for the 2020 election because we know it will happen again. every agency and our intelligence community has testified that they expect these attacks do, and certainly from with a reals down appetite for this in the last few years. they have done it not only in just the u.s. but they have done it across the world, and you see them trying to metal and european elections, but we can also see those threats coming from other state actors like china and other nations around the world. we have to get ready for that kind of threat looking at what

happened in florida, learning the lessons from that state's experience as well as others across the country is very valuable and important in designing those protections. that is what we want to do with the election security act which we have introduced and that is a critical part of hr-1. the for the people act. host: the secretary of state in russia yesterday spoke with leaders and one of those topics coming up was meddling with elections. [video clip] >> you think that the message got through on 2020, that there would be no repercussions? >> as clearly as it could, and yes, i think so. we have another election in the middle of that in 2018 where we had some good success in making sure that we kept our election safe and secure and free from interference.

we have some data after 2016 that we can turn to to gain even more confidence, and he will do what we need to do to protect and i doions in 2020, not think that you could be mistaken of americans finding that russian interference is unacceptable. guest: it is an important message. obviously, we have to let the russians know that we are onto findingst we take the that we have seen in the mueller report and our intelligence communities'work very seriously and we intend to push back and every effort. one, you build the systems because you are not going to take anything for granted and that is what we want to do with the security act, but you also want to push back and away that the secretary just did, so you articulate directly, we are watching you. we know you tell us, we

what the game is and we are not going to let you do it again. you put them on notice and i am glad the ticker terry pompeo is doing that and he could probably do it even a little bit more vehemently than what we just heard. seenresident himself has -- seemed reluctant to go , and it at putin on this think that is because he has a blind spot, but i am glad to see pompeo doing it and frankly, other members of our andlligence community having been very vocal about russia's involvement and our need to protect ourselves. host: when he references 2018 as a positive when it comes to interference, do you buy that argument, do you agree with them? guest: i think the activities happen in 2016 did put a

lot of the state election systems on notice that they had to be particularly vigilant. i do think the department of homeland security and other parts of our intelligence infrastructure were trying to be in communication with state election systems around the country to make sure that they were on alert, that there was some attack being perceived. there was some coordination and we can make that stronger, but i expect the attacks coming in and a presidential election to be much more fierce than what we saw in the midterms and more like what we saw in 2016. that is why we have to be particularly prepared this time. host: from our democrats line from missouri, kansas city. debbie, go on. thatr: i just want to say it started with mcconnell not ,etting anything on the floor

and the house passed the paper mcconnellhink, and will not even take it to the floor. donean we get anything when mcconnell will not do anything? guest: i agree with you, actually. i think that mitch mcconnell is barring the door and some of these democracy reforms that we would like to see and as i have mentioned, we have passed the for the people act, and it was the first bill that came out of a democratic house that contained a whole set of democracy reforms not just with respect to voting or election security, but after tax reform, gerrymandering, all of these things that you out there are demanding whether it is republicans, democrats or independents. everything i mentioned holds very high in terms of what the american people want to see.

we sent that bill over to the senate and it is just sitting there because mitch mcconnell will not bring it to the floor and united states senate. on the election security talking that we are about today, we pulled that piece out of hr-1 and reintroduced that as a standalone bill. mcconnell will not have any excuse to say, i do not like other parts of the larger park -- package but i would be interested and election security. we have made that a separate bill now. so we will present it to him again. so i hope that in the interest of our elections and getting ready for 2020, making sure the russians do not come in again eddle in our democracy, i hope that mitch mcconnell will put that kind of bill on the senate floor and get it passed so we can get moving on this. time is of the essence here.

every day that goes by, we get closer and closer to the 2020 election and we have to make sure we are ready. host: as far as other senate republicans, what types of support do you think you will get? guest: if you look back at some of the proposals that are part of the election security framework that we have put forward, there have been bipartisan support. not just in the house but on the senate side as well. i am actually relatively optimistic. , do not to be too optimistic but somewhat encouraged by that. if we can get it passed in the house, which i think we well, and take it over to the senate. if mcconnell will allow that to come to the floor, he is the one that makes the decisions over there as majority leader, that you would get some bipartisan support, get that past, put it on the president's desk, and make sure we are ready for the

2020 election. host: virginia comer publican virginia, republican line, virgil. caller: good morning. i am wondering whether or not there will be protections in place for the electoral college voting process. that is my comment or question. sure: well, not exactly your question although if you are saying -- the electoral college process, the people who participate in that our electors, and each state by its vote will in a sense and the charge -- hand the charge to their electors and they will vote in the electoral college, that is a technical process. i am not aware that in the past, there has been concerned about protection for those electors, so i think that would remain in

place. these are all pieces of the overall framework of making sure that when we ultimately decide on who the next president is going to be, that every american comes away from the election feeling confident in that result. and that is a combination of things, but certainly election security is a part of that and that is what we are trying to ensure. every american should have confidence that they should register without problem, they should get to the polls and cast their ballot without running into obstacles and that when the votes are tallied up, that that represents, accurately reflects the vote that was cast at the .olling booth if we can ensure that, we have confidence in our democracy. if we start to worry about those

results because we are concerned about attacks coming in from the , that puts our democracy on shaky ground and that is why we think it is so important to get these measures in place and to do it quickly. host: one of the aspects of the act includes the president to include a national strategy for protecting institutions. what would that look like? guest: it would be assembling the best knowledge and insight of the various agencies that touch election security and there is a fair number of them at the department of homeland security, the fbi, there is an election assistance commission that was set up, and under the help of american votes act. setting up this kind of national, strategic plan to

protect our democratic institutions and protect our elections, i think it is a way of gathering up all of that information, synthesizing it, and then having a plan going forward instead of doing and after the fact approach. that is going to help our adversaries. if we do not have a strategic comprehensive approach to protecting our elections, there will be holes there and the russians and other foreign state actors will be able to get in there and cause mischief, and that is what we want to protect against. host: representative john chaires, he serves as the of the democracy reform task force. sandy is next. caller: hi, how are you. host: fine, go ahead. in the state of washington, i think it is a great idea for the whole of the united states of america, we have mail in ballots and it is

all on paper. we get the pamphlets in early in our mail and then we get our read, we doy, we them early, it has a paper trail, and really hard to mess with, and i think more people would vote this way. they make it really easy to register to vote and why don't the government decide that everyone have mail in? great question, and it is something that a lot of other states have looked at and some are beginning to implement systems. the for the people act that we it has some, provisions in it that would facilitate states being able to embrace that to mail in approach, so the best practice

that you are talking about -- pointing to an washington state statesthing that other should be able to look at. it can have confidence and and it also has other conveniences and it, the opportunity to sit at the kitchen table, deliberately go through the ballots, make their vote, have confidence that when they mail it back, it is going to be captured and everything is taken care of. those are the kinds of measures that facilitate voting in this country that i think we should take a very strong look at and there is a whole set of other thegs that we included in for the people act that would do that as well. we want people to have confidence that would as it comes to voting. we want them to feel confident that as lawmakers come to

washington, will behave ourselves. that is why we wanted to put to strong ethics and accountability reforms in place, and we want the public to feel like they are the ones that call the shots and not the big money, the insiders, and the special interest, so we have a whole set that pushes back. we would need to fight the corruption that many americans feel exists in our democracy, fix the democracy, give everyday americans their voice back -- that is the least we can do as representatives and that is what we have tried to achieve with hr-1. if we could get mitch mcconnell to take up that legislation on the senate side, i think that we could deliver something that every american would be proud of. host: from maryland, democrat line. go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. thank you for this show. i've been watching you regularly.

aboutrstand that this is russian interference in our elections. fact thatentioned the we cannot get mitch mcconnell to put anything that we want voted on on the floor of the senate for a vote. how are we going to protect ourselves from situations like governor brian kemp being the we see is early election? how do we go ahead and protect ourselves from our own bad actors that seem to not be held accountable for the tricks they are playing on the american people? it seems like there is an agenda in the republican party to just -- we are afraid of russia but i am more afraid of what is going on with our elections here at home. guest: that is a great point.

much of the discussion this protecting ourn democracy or attacks from the outside, but we also have to take the inside our own country to make people feel like our democracy is resilient and to increase the confidence in our democratic institutions. you are right. there have been many instances documented over our history, but unfortunately, increasing numbers of examples just over the last few years of efforts to suppress voter turnout, to make it more complicated and difficult for the average person to get to the ballot box, the phrase i always use is, we do not want to have an obstacle course when people are trying to go vote. you should have the confidence that you should get up on the morning on election day are on the early voting day, you should be able to go down to the polling place where you vote,

and you should be able to cast your vote without having to jump through all of these kinds of hoops. if you are an american citizen and you have the right to vote, you should be able to do that without a lot of complications. unfortunately, there are many places and the country where people have taken steps to get in the way of people's ability to vote. that is another set of reforms frankly that we put into the for act, to have severe penalties against voter suppression efforts to counter voter purges that are unwarranted, knock people off the voter rolls, and taking other measures so that there is the confidence that our own systems are protecting the right to vote. then we will be even more vigilant about the efforts of

outsiders to come in and undermine our elections. you are right, we have to protect against outside efforts to undermine as well as efforts we see coming from inside the country. host: representative john sarbanes, thank you for your time. guest: thank you. from facebookp, to google, washington is showing more eagerness to regulate big tech companies. that conversation coming up. ♪ once, tv was just three giant networks and a government supported service called pbs. small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea. let viewers decide what was important to them. c-span open the doors to washington policymaking for all to see, bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. in the age of power to the

people, this was true people power. thehe 40 years since, landscape has changed. youtube stars are a thing. big idea is more relevant today than ever. no government money support c-span, it's nonpartisan coverage of washington is funded by your cable or satellite provider. c-spanvision and online, is your unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind. >> former vice president joe biden is in philadelphia this saturday at 1:00 p.m. eastern to officially kick off his candidacy for the democratic presidential nomination. watch our live coverage on c-span and we have covered the campaigns of over 20 democratic candidates who have entered the race so far. from announcement speeches to campaign events. watch any time at our website at gn2020.org/campai

♪ our online video library marks a milestone. our quarter million hours of content. 1987-span program since are available in our online library, and you can view them all for free at c-span.org. "washington journal" continues. who: this is cat zakrzewski reports for technology matters of "the washington post.". guest: thanks for having me. host: when it comes to the general attitude of washington, what do they feel about the regulation of so-called big tech companies? guest: there is momentum picking up on capitol hill to regulate these companies. for many years, there were not a lot of rules to the road when it comes to the categories of nowal media or search, and

after repeated privacy violations and after the 2016 election shows how these elections could be abused, spread misinformation, lawmakers are getting more serious about holding these companies to account. host: what is the general consensus of how they do that? are a lot of different proposals, but one of the most immediate ideas is to pass a comprehensive federal privacy law, so that is a big focus we are seeing. a mix of republicans and democrats working together to put together legislation that would address this. being forced to the table right now for the california state law that will go into effect in 2020 that the companies are resistant to. host: the world of the internet's, especially the companies that are associated, all seem to be offhand for capitol hill for a while. what do they have to reference

considering all the other legislation? guest: i think one of the interesting things is while we have not seen a lot of activity in washington when it comes to regulating these companies, we have seen activity and other parts of the world. one of the really interesting things in the privacy debate as you can look to europe which passed the general data protection regulation several years ago, and that legislation went into effect last year and put broadening restrictions on data collection practices. it is almost a one year anniversary of that law taking effect, so how should they it domestically, they are looking at europe. host: could those be applied easily in the united states or are there issues? guest: there are definitely issues of how different laws work and the eu versus united states, but there are lessons that can be learned around what

are the most important measures around transparency for customers, what are some of the thing to have worked and don't work. atot people with gdpr look it and say, there is a lot more terms of service agreements and pop-ups. what can we do to make sure there're more transparent controls for users. host: cat zakrzewski joins us from "the washington post" and she is here to talk about the regulatory efforts on big tech companies. if you want to ask questions, democrats [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, -- for democrats, (202) 748-8000, , andlicans, (202) 748-8001 independents (202) 748-8002. so what resources do they have to push back against regulatory efforts? guest: these companies have some of the most well-funded lobbying arms in washington right now so they are very well-positioned to try to shape this conversation.

some of these companies, particularly facebook that are facing bad playlist city for privacy -- for bad public city for privacy missteps are saying, we want to work with you on this. the question will be what is the devil in the details on that. companies are in favor of broad legislation that would preempt some activity at the state level and what we will see is democrats fight really hard to ensure that we do not end up with a watered-down version of this. host: a cofounder of facebook saying, it is time to break up facebook. that change the dynamic? guest: i think it is an interesting moment right now where we are seeing these calls around antitrust up with a lot more pressure on the companies politically to come to the table on regulatory efforts. op-edok's response to the , hey, do not break us up, but we will work with you on regulation. these companies are more open to

being regulated with laws like privacy laws, potentially, even some measures around concept moderation to avoid what they see as the worst case scenario. , one of thekrzewski other dynamics in this topic is the presidential race coming up. we saw joe biden reference what he would say. if you would summarize what he and other democrats are thinking at this point. guest: we are seeing a range of ideas on the campaign trail. joe biden talked about being open to changing antitrust laws for big companies like facebook, but he said it is premature to talk about break of action that elizabeth warren has called for. on one extreme, you have elizabeth warren come out earlier this year was she said it is time to break up big tech, lay down an argument for breaking up facebook, google, amazon, and later an interview with me, she also added apple to

that list. it has become this stake in the ground on the campaign trail. we saw this weekend, senator harris supported looking into breaking up these companies as well, but on the other end, you saw cory booker kind of show a little more resistance to this idea and he kind of pushback on candidates on the campaign trail targeting specific companies and compared that to a champion dynamic -- to a trumpian dynamic. host: (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001, for republicans, (202) 748-8002 for independence. elizabeth warren had a visual ad for this idea. [video clip] companies have a vast power of our economy and democracy. risel use them but an hour to power, they bulldozed competition, use our private information for profit, and

-- take amazon. it makes it really hard to compete. it buys its competitors while the federal trade commission sits on its hands instead of enforcing laws to keep the playing field fair and even. , which selectively promotes its own products over competitors. they have mastered a very powerful business model. monopolized their platform for it and forced other companies, media platforms, and publishers out of the business. the three companies run the internet. more than 70% of all internet traffic go through facebook or google, and more than half of e-commerce go through amazon. they know they have a lot to lose if washington starts putting the interest of consumers first. it is time to break up these big

companies so they do not have so much power over everyone else. she: cat zakrzewski, mentioned and not add the federal trade commission. what role do they have any oversight and what are her concerns? guest: right now, the federal trade commission is probably the comes tohen it regulating privacy among these companies, but it has very limited authorities in terms of what it can do. right now if we see a major privacy violation, the ftc cannot fine a company the first time. they have to negotiate with the company, reach a settlement, have a consent order, and then if they violate that again, then they can bring a fine. that is what we are seeing play out with facebook right now, the agency had already taken action against them because of previous privacy concerns and after all of these repeated incidents, most notably, the cambridge scandal, these issues

have caused the ftc to investigate facebook. it is considering a multibillion-dollar fine against the company. host: what do those within the silicon valley world to feel about the prospect -- is that something that they are on board with or do they have concerns? guest: there are major concerns about these calls. the first issue is would breaking up these companies actually solve the problems you are talking about. if you split up facebook, into threenstagram separate companies, you still have the problems of social media. that change that foreign actors might still try to spread disinformation targeting voters on the services? ie jury is still out, but think there is a concern within the valley and elizabeth warren makes this point a lot -- it

is about competition. if you are a startup or a venture capitalist investing in companies, do you put money into something that is trying to directly compete with a company the size of facebook? it is a tough call. especially when we see the tactics where these companies have squashed competitors. host: with all of the issues we have seen with privacy issues, they say, let's regulate ourselves. have we seen any measurable results out of arguments from these companies? guest: there certainly have been changes and there has been a buttoning up over the last two years. facebook has changed a lot of policies around data management and it is locking down data on it service, not sharing as much with developers. seeing is ag we are broader promise to pivot toward , soler groups of messaging they are making a big commitment towards encryption which is kind

of the idea of the security that powers its whatsapp messaging service, and they are saying that they are going to be rolling this out across other messaging products as well. i think we see that they are making changes, but the question, is this too little or too late? every week they announced a new change, we have new headlines about privacy incidents. host: even a headline this morning with the whatsapp allowing security spyware to be loaded on phones, can you expand? guest: sure. whatsapp had to release an update today that it came out that there were spyware that would allow people who had access to the software to gain access to the whatsapp messages. that is a big issue. this is supposed to be facebook's premier security products. thesapp is encrypted and company says, even we cannot read the messages that you have.

they read this as one of the most secure forms available. and to see that the spyware was ,ble to gain access to whatsapp it was a big blow to the company's commitments. host: and people whose our critics -- who are critics viewed this headline, too. guest: i think so. this is adding to the drumbeat on capitol hill. every time there is another privacy incidents, i reach out to some of the senators who have been active on privacy issues and they are kind of like a, we are having this conversation yet again. it adds fuel to the fire as they are considering what our next steps on these issues. host: is it difficult for the lobby for the republican to control those committees on the senate side and the democrats control them on the house side? guest: one of the interesting things on the text debate is that there is bipartisan consensus that congress needs to act on this issue and something needs to be done on privacy.

i think there are slight differences in how they would approach this. generally, the republican party tends to have a more pro-business mindset. they are more wary of legislation that could be heavy-handed and in any way limit innovation among smaller companies. there is a bit more caution in terms of what steps republicans would like to see on this. host: of your with a question from -- a viewer with a question from virginia. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. my question is these companies have been around for a long time and i do not know what they did to warrant this so-called regulation. as a user, we openly share our information and that is something you knowingly do. if you do not want your information out there, do not share it is kind of my attitude towards it. we like to always blame other people for what is going on.

the opioid crisis, this, and a few others. what is your opinion on personal response ability? guest: i think you bring up a great point. many of the services are free and for many years, consumers love using them so i think that is a big reason why we have not seen these companies regulated in many ways in recent years. i think the attitudes are changing because there is a feeling that these companies may have misled consumers in some ways about what they were giving up when they signed up for the services. i think there is a feeling that these companies need to be a bit more transparent. people realize that when they are using facebook, google, they are handing over data that can then be used to target ads to them. this is not really a free service. what a lot of consumer advocates say is you are the product when you are using the services. i think there is a push regulation because of that

concern that there needs to be a greater conversation, a greater dialogue in the public about what you are actually giving up when you use this. i think we have seen that the services have been abused in ways that people have never expected when they first signed up. if you think about how facebook started as this network to connect you with your college friends on campus and people really did not imagine 15 years ago when this was picking up that the data that you gave to facebook could then potentially be exploited by foreign actors trying to influence an election or obtained by developers that you were not aware of, so i think there is a growing push thatation so that to point, there is a lot of responsibility on the consumer to make choices, but regulators just want to make sure that consumers are getting fair and accurate information about what they are giving up when they engage with these businesses. int: let's hear from jim

california, independent line. thatr: hi, my comment is as these companies, google, facebook, instagram, twitter are policing what is set on their platforms which is clearly and there demand to do, it is a private company, but are they risk and as such, opening themselves up to potential litigation as a publisher with litigation around libel, copyright, or things like that if they police their platform and take a stand on what is set on the platforms? guest: that is an interesting point that you bring up. a big debate right now and congress as we look at, especially after what happened in new zealand were resource how a violent video could really ricochet across the platforms. there is questions about what the platforms are doing to police content, are they doing enough, are they doing too

little, that is a big topic of debate. the issue, are they acting like , it gets back to this key communications law that really governs how many of these companies operate known as section 230 of the commune occasions decency act. this was a law passed in 1996. it has become a really contentious issue on capitol hill because it gives companies a broad immunity for the content that third parties post on their platform, but it also gives them broad immunity of when to take that content down. we have to remember that these companies as private businesses have first amendment rights, too, so they have a lot of abilities to make decisions about what they want and do not want on their platforms. i think you bring up a conversation and a question that we are going to be grappling with for years in washington. right now, these companies are publishers are

not responsible for what third parties post on their site, but as they do invest more and more in content moderation, we could see different ideas come forward. host: i want to show you a headline, this is an interview that kamala harris did on facebook. she things it is utility that needs a break up. guest: i think it is a vacant concern -- it is a big concern to be regulated right now. these companies have enjoyed a lot of freedom in the marketplace because they are viewed as these businesses that are not regulated in the same way that we regulate publishers our utilities. yes, that could certainly introduce a whole of regulatory headaches. host: in north carolina, this is timothy. hello. caller: hello. factsquestioning the same

of these third parties getting on these big tech companies and dereliction of character is also a right that we have. so we are violating one person's right to give another person's right to cause harm. zealand,video in new so the violence also spreads. sometimes, people do not even using for violating of these roles like defamation of character to make them look bad on the sites, spreading people's personal information -- that is harmful. these companies need to be held accountable, and what are we going to do to hold these companies accountable to protect the rights of smaller people? host: thank you. guest: thanks, timothy. i think you brought up some and a good ideas challenge for lawmakers because certainly, there is a broad agreement that we do not

want to harmful content on these. a community foster where people can feel comfortable and are not subject to violence or hate. it is a tricky question of what washington will do about it because of the first amendment and because people do have the rights to free speech and there is a lot of resistance to having lawmakers or the government defining what type of speech is ok online. i think we will actually see more aggressive action on this front on outside of the u.s. and countries like australia where they do not have the first amendment and they will have a different thought process about how to approach free speech. host: what should people watch for in this big topic of regulatory issues and if anything comes to these big tech companies? guest: people should be closely watching what happens with the ftc and facebook. that will have a big impact on our cut