healthcare and then a member of the house oversight and reform committee on the latest on the mueller report and mueller repod efforts to hear from key trump administration figures. [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] importantelieve it is to follow the facts. we believe no one is above the law, including the president of the united states and we believe the president of the united states is engaged in a cover-up. >> instead of walking in happily to a meeting, i walk into look at people who have just said i was doing a cover-up. i don't do coverups. ♪ host: it is the "washington journal" for may 23. those comments yesterday from speaker pelosi and president trump represent what this latest clash could produce when it comes to passing other legislative efforts.

your comments are welcome on the back and forth between the two and what you think it means for passing legislation. 202-748-8000 for democrats. .epublicans, 202-748-8001 and independents, 202-748-8002. or you can post on social media. on twitter it is @cspanwj. and our facebook page, facebook.com/cspan. comesday, speaker pelosi out of a meeting with democrats to talk about impeachment inquiries. she went before cameras and said this leading up to the meeting at the white house. [video clip] >> we let a very productive meeting from five of our chairs of oversight activities of the trump administration presented to the caucus. mr. cummings talked about the major decision, which was . maxine waterss

talked about in court today. mr. schiff talked about the documents the justice department is willing to convey -- present to the intelligence committee. three current within the last 72 hour examples were made to get the truth and the facts for the american people we had other presentation from richie neil about what is happening. it is clear it is the law of the land. it is very clear it is the law of the land. of course, jerry nadler spoke in the beginning to give us context for all of this. right now, the judiciary committee -- we have our legislative agenda we are moving forward on. it was a very positive meeting

about a respectful sharing of ideas and a very impressive presentation by our chairs. we believe it is important to follow the facts. we believe no one is above the law, including the president of the united states and we believe the president of the united states is engaged in a cover-up. that was the nature of the meeting. host: that was before house democratic leaders were scheduled to go to the white house. the president comes in for a couple minutes to talk to them, about three minutes reportedly and as he finishes that meeting, abruptly he goes to the -- he goes out to the rose garden and says this. [video clip] >> instead of walking in happily with a meeting, i walk into look at people who have just said i was doing a cover-up. i don't do coverups. you people know that probably better than anybody and i was

looking at a list of some of the it, moreat we just than 2500 subpoenas qualified for and i let everybody talk. i let the white house counsel speak for 30 hours, 30 hours. i have 19 special counsel agents. 40 fbi i said open it all up, let them have whatever they want, nearly 500 search warrants. did you ever see a search warrant before? neither did i. this was over 500 search warrants. of the 19 people that were heading up this investigation or whatever you want to call it werebob mueller, they contributors to the democratic party, most of them to hillary clinton, they hated president trump -- they hated him with a passion. they went to her big party after

the election that turned out to be a wake, not a party and they were very angry. these are the people that after or $35rs and $40 million million, it will end up being a lot more than that by the time the bills are paid, this is what happened. no collusion, now obstruction, no nothing. host: those are the events from yesterday and you can see more at c-span.org. we will get your reaction to that and what you might think it means when it comes to actively working on legislation and if anything can get done. 202-748-8000 for democrats. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. the hill picks up on this idea of what could happen. they add -- alexander bolton adds the prospect of a grand bargain on infrastructure, one of the few issues trump and

democratic leaders saw as a promising opportunity for bipartisanship all appears all -- now appears all but dead and an agreement on setting spending caps for fiscal 2020 and 2021 and raising the debt ceiling faces fresh uncertainty. deal,ent a usmca trade which would fix the 2017 tax reform law appears stuck. if you go to the pages of the wall street journal, they add to the legislation porcelain -- portion. said these officials administration does not plan to abandon efforts to reach a budget deal and have congress -- reach a deal with canada and mexico. current funding for the government expires september 30. lawmakers of both parties said they expected legislation to move forward despite the president's remarks.

senator john cornyn, republican no, don't slitd your wrist. kentucky,t with paul, independent line. you are first up, hello. , you onlyrst of all had democrats on there. host: that is not true. that is not true, caller. caller: let me talk. let me talk. i am proud of president trump, he is finally standing up for these fascists. they lost the election, they cannot stand it, so they are trying to tear this country apart. they would betray this country to iran in a second. these are evil, despicable people. host: what do you think he accomplished yesterday?

caller: what did the prep -- the democrats accomplish? they are tearing this country apart. they lost the election and they cannot stand it. host: let's hear from lucille in savannah, georgia. democrats line. caller: good morning. how are you today, first? host: fine, thank you. caller: ok. the caller that called in with that, god bless him. thecrat and republic, democrat are doing what they can do. when you are lacking wisdom, people will call in and say all kind of things that doesn't make sense because they don't have wisdom and knowledge. what he did wrong. trump know that he is guilty and

a lot of people that covered up for trump, what he doing wrong. it is wrong. host: the trump administration will say they had a mueller investigation that had conclusions, what is the point of the continued investigation by democrats? how would you respond to that? caller: yes, he did have that. to say hefor mueller did something wrong, it is for the house and the senate to do their part of it, they are not -- it is notcause right. host: do you think it was appropriate for speaker pelosi to use the term cover-up? caller: yes, sir, it is. she told the right thing. host: why so? caller: because it is cover-up. i know it, you know it, we all know it is a cover-up.

i did not vote for trump, but maybe trump will stop lying and do the right thing. maybe all of us will like him. host: let's hear from james in pittsburgh, independent line. good morning, you are next. caller: good morning, pedro. good morning, america. let -- thank you for letting me talk again on this beautiful station. we are so divided. the people, we are suffering for this. when the confederates surrendered april 4, 1865, president lincoln was assassinated five days later. we never got reconstruction together. we have a problem with racism, with that rebel flag. host: appreciate the history lesson, but the events of yesterday, you said we are suffering. what do you mean by that? saying pelosi is

president trump has a cover-up. i was a bad kid. i was in juvenile detention centers and i would do a lot of manipulation when i was a kid and i see right through trump. it is dangerous because we are so close to war, we need to get together as human beings and we need an independent party and we need help for the people. host: let's hear from jane in ohio, republican line. toler: good morning everybody. i am concerned about collect the president's tax returns because i do believe they will be collecting everybody's tax returns and that could be very, very, very dangerous. host: do you think that has any bearing on the events of yesterday? caller: yes. host: how so? think pelosi and the

democrats are just thinking about one thing right after another that is not true, just to be holding everything back and hurting trump more and more. host:host: the hill story i read to you earlier offers historical context and events we are seeing today. alexander bolton is saying it is a striking difference compared to 1998 and 1999 when then president clinton worked with gop leaders even after they impeached him. republican of mississippi said i voted for the articles of impeachment on friday and on the following thursday, clinton called me about some inconsequential bill and wanted to know if we could move it along, never mentioned the impeachment trial with the senator saying we went about our business. -- offers another historical aspect saying in a tweet, even

during the watergate hearings, the 93rd congress passed and nixon signed the federal-aid highway rehabilitation act of 19 73, the endangered species act, the budget act, the war powers resolution. all these laws still exist in some form today. if you extend the bills drafted under nixon, but signed by president ford in 1974 and early 1975, the federal education right to privacy act, safe drinking water act, privacy act, and hazardous materials transportation act, that is some of the historical aspects reflecting yesterday on efforts by the administration and house democratic leaders initially to work on transportation issues, reporting that -- that is effectively dead for now and concerns about other legislative issues. this is williams in tampa, florida, democrats line.

go ahead. caller: how are you doing, sir? host: fine, thanks. go ahead. is i want toestion know about the situation about the jobs and why donald trump did not get impeached yet. invents you think the of yesterday will impede or hurt efforts on job creation and improving the economy and things like that? caller: if we impeach this man, jobs will get that are and everything will go forward. int: let's hear from rich hickory hills, illinois. independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i personally don't care for this president and i think he is a liar, cheat, all these other things. it just because i think he is a liar and cheat, that doesn't mean he is a liar and a cheat. i would like to have an

investigation without political interference and rhetoric about being a democrat or republican, it needs to be, did he commit a crime? whether he is democrat or republican, if he commits a crime, he needs to be dealt with and nobody should be above the law, the president or anything and that is what this is all about. host: how do you think democrats are handling this aspect of investigating and looking into activities of the white house? is it at the right level, too much, too little? what do you think? caller: i think a lot of this -- what the president says and does, being publicly, trying to dissuade -- persuade the american people to put pressure on congress and the senate in a political sense rather than criminal or legal sense. personally, i think when you, as a president of the united states

, or a person running for president saying to a foreign government, i wish you could hack into one of our person's -- one of our citizen's emails, that is criminal. host: that is rich. graham, a close confidant of the president send out these tweets yesterday after the events you saw i knew can see them in full at c-span.org. senator graham saying i disagree with what the house of representatives is doing. i thought mueller was the final word. i can understand how the president feels, it is never enough. i have a lot of similar from president trump, i have never seen anybody treated this way. i would say try to rise above it if you can, the company -- country is looking for leadership. my advice is to try to find solutions to problems like

infrastructure, prescription drugs, and a broken immigration system. to see if we can do two things at once, fun -- fight with each other and find common ground. you can let us know if you think this is possible, 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. independents, 202-748-8002. this is-- i am sorry, donning in kentucky, republican line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i want to say we are never going to learn what happened with all this stuff because there was no crime. -- who stole those emails. the one who took those emails because he discovered all the stuff the dnc was doing. debbiewasserman saltz -- wasserman schultz had him killed. host: that claim aside and that

is your claim, what do you think about the events of yesterday? caller: i think trump is doing a good job and has never done anything wrong when an election and democrats are just mad. host: do you think it was appropriate to say things like infrastructure are off the table while the investigations continue? caller: obviously not anything is going to get done while they are investigating. we are at a stalemate and we have been at a stalemate too long. we voted for obama. i liked obama. i thought he had done a decent job, but the republicans were obstructionist while he was there so we had basically 8 years of stalemate and now we are just going to have more stalemate. this country cannot stand anymore stalemate. we need these people to do their jobs. we need term limits. host: when it comes to stalemate

and breaking that stalemate, is that going to involve both sides in this effort and what should both sides do? caller: both sides should do their job. at the republicans acted exactly the way the democrats are acting there.n obama was in obama had to micromanage everything. and to get the highways stuff done, he had to add -- micromanage the fuel tax. i keep up with this stuff. i am unemployed, i watch you all every day. i read the newspapers, i watch more than one source of news. people need to stop watching cnn, msnbc and start looking abroad for their news. host: brenda in houston, texas, democrats line. caller: good morning and thanks for taking my call. absolutely there is a cover-up. there has been a cover-up from

day 1. this is a fraud president. putin appointed this president. i will believe nothing more, nothing less. host: what do you base that on? caller: all the reports we have with the collusion with the different people in his administration and that helsinki sang sunk it for me. i never believed in him from the beginning. he looked like a little boy. host: when it comes to the events of yesterday, we heard the previous caller say it is a stalemate. do you think that is the case and is that okay with you? should that be broken? caller: this clown in the white house is going to clown until the bitter end. they will have to take him out in handcuffs. i want him investigated until the very end. mueller did not say there was no

collusion, stop saying that. host: even as all this went on yesterday, a couple of events outside in various courts and the like, this is highlighted in the new york times saying a federal judge in manhattan ruled against president trump to block deutsche bank from complying with congressional subpoenas. in new york, lawmakers approved a bill that would allow congress to obtain mr. trump's state tax returns and those actions came two days after a federal judge quash a. trump's bid to subpoena to get his accounting firm to hand over tax returns and other financial documents. ivan from texas, republican line. caller: hello? host: you are on, go ahead. caller: i believe donald trump has a right to say that investigation needs to be stopped. if i go to court on false charges and tell the district attorney you need to give up on

stuff and everything you base this on is on false charges, ist is not a cover-up, that fighting an innocent charge against you. i think if democrats do not want to act right, we send them all over to iran. host: when it comes to that statement, was the president right in your mind to stop efforts on infrastructure because of these issues? caller: yeah. he has the right to do whatever he wants to do. host: ivan, are you there? i think ivan's signal is breaking up. we will go to william in wisconsin, independent line. caller: i think the democrats governmentotaged business instead of proceeding on infrastructure that the meeting was about. they started bringing up these

investigations. it doesn't seem like the time and place. if they are going to investigate him, investigate him, but they have to get government business done. host: infrastructure should have stayed on the table in your mind? caller: i think nothing but infrastructure should have been the topic of the meeting and in regards to trump, it is probably say a negotiating stance to stop talking about the investigation when we are trying to talk about investing -- infrastructure. they don't need to use it to interfere with carrying on taking care of the stuff that is supposed to be taken care of at the meeting. host: do you think both sides intended to carry out this infrastructure meeting or do you think the efforts were part of the plan to avoid that or walk away from infrastructure? caller: if everything and everyone was perfect, the meeting could have continued. the democrats sabotaged it,

apparently trump did not have the greatest reaction to it. i think they just set a bad tone, democrats did by bringing up the investigations. it was not the place for it. host: it was a senior administration official said dissent remained on how to pay for infrastructure initiatives and whether the president should have agreed to $2 trillion in spending two weeks ago, some aides were happy because it avoided promising -- policy promises they saw as detrimental. another official denied the walkout had been planned before pelosi made cover-up comments. the signs had been printed weeks before, around the time special counsel robert mueller repeated his -- completed his report. if you go to our website at c-span.org, not only the president -- the comments from speaker pelosi, but you can also see comments yesterday from president trump at the white

house and we are talking about that and what it could possibly mean for legislative efforts moving forward. stephanie in brooklyn, new york, democrats line. caller: how are you today? good morning. likecalling because i feel the president is covering up and that what he is putting our country in is turmoil and nancy was right yesterday because trump likes to play the victim all the time. any time anything goes wrong with him and then he cannot control the situation, he goes into a tantrum and plays the victim. he is not a victim. i am from new york and we know president trump and his family are known crooks. he is like a mafia of new york city. you said speaker pelosi's

comment of cover-up, you agree with that, tell me what you base that on. caller: because he is covering up, he is not allowing these people to go before the committees to answer questions. one thing not only from the district attorney -- the u.s. attorney they want it to be not only about mueller's investigation, but they wanted to speak to him about breaking up the health care system, the he hasre system because gone before the court to break up the health system. they wanted to speak to him about that. anything that goes on in the white house that pertains to the people of the united states, this administration does not want anybody to know about. he is getting ready to cause a war with iran because it is all about money and oil. tom inet's hear from woodbridge, virginia, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my

call. i want to say c-span is a national treasure. without c-span, we would not know any of this. this is par for the course, this is all about political theater, trump's reaction to nancy pelosi's statements about a cover-up, he is going to use her statement about the democrats for political reasons on the republican side and then the democrats are going to flip it around and say he really never wanted infrastructure. it is all political theater. fortunately, if people listen carefully to the people calling in to c-span, the american people are waking up. the american people are waking up to the false narratives on both sides. these people have one purpose and one purpose only. i mean the parties, the democrat party and the republican party, they have one purpose and one purpose only and that is to get reelected. they will be as extreme today or

branch of the narrative as necessary to get elected because they know they don't actually have to get anything done when they get there. all they have to do is basically get on tv and pump everybody up so they vote and send campaign donations, they don't have to get anything done. and: that is tom calling in he mentioned this idea of political theater, that thought picked up in the new york post, it is plausible that trump, a show man staged the walkout to exert pressure on democrats. so what? pelosi knew exactly what she was doing having a meeting about impeachment in the morning and walking over to the oval office to play faux nice. do not buy that pelosi and schumer are outraged, they are loving the status quo that allows them to push for a sham public impeachment, undermining's trump political agenda. politicalning trump's

agenda. sandy from youngstown, ohio, good morning. .aller: good morning everybody keeps saying trump should be investigated when he has already been investigated by mueller and he was not found guilty of anything. they keep forgetting that fact, not guilty of anything, they could not find anything. she is accusing him of a cover-up and she does not say what kind of cover-up because there is no cover-up and he had every right to just walk out of the room. host: speaker pelosi said that in part of subpoenas that are not being met, people called to testify who are not showing up, additional requests for record, those kind of things. caller: those people were already interviewed by mueller. he interviewed hundreds of people and why should they go and get in there committees when

they have already been spoken to? isgreen of whatever state he from, he even said the reason they want to impeach trump is because they don't want him to get reelected because they know haveadical the dems become, socialists and communist and that trump will win and they will overrun the country with illegals, which is exactly what you guys are doing. host: that is sandy in ohio. we are getting your comments, many of you talking about the events of yesterday and some even talking about the ramifications when it comes to getting an addenda done -- agenda done. we will continue until 8:00. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. and independents, 202-748-8002. here is more from president trump at the white house yesterday [video clip] >> i have said from the beginning, right from the beginning that you probably cannot go down two tracks.

you can go down the investigation tract and you can go down the investment track or the track of let's get things done for the american people. i love the american people. .rug prices are coming down we can get them down way lower working with the democrats. we can solve the problem on the border in 15 minutes if the democrats would give us a few votes. knowt wanted to let you that i walked into the room and schumer, speaker pelosi i want to do infrastructure. i want to do it more than you want to do it. i would be really good at that, that is what i do. you cannot do it under these circumstances. get these phony investigations

over with. host: this is cliff in maryland, republican line. caller: good morning. i have been listening to the segment so far and i have heard some outrageous stuff, i really have. these democrats/socialists/communists are losing their minds right now because bill barr is about to drop a ton of bricks on their heads. he is about to expose everything that happened for this attempted coup of the president of the united states and they are losing their minds. they are trying to do anything they can to get him before they get got. thanks and have a nice day. host: when it comes to the actions of president trump yesterday, what do you think of those? he hung up. let's go to tim in alabama, democrats line. caller: hello. good morning. there was not really a meeting yesterday. i guess trump was a little bit

upset about the comment that nancy pelosi made. do a meetingted to on infrastructure, it looked like he would have had a plan for infrastructure, for what would the budget be? what are the long-range plans? thereld have had someone to speak about how to get started or anything. he shows up with -- at the meeting and he has no staff, really. all the staff are let go. how can you come up with an infrastructure plan and you don't have anybody in your administration to make these plans? that is what i saw yesterday. host: you are saying the reaction to the cover-up, which the president spoke about was because he did not have anything

in place to talk about when it comes to infrastructure? caller: did not have anything in place. did not have anything. i have never heard a plan come out of this white house for infrastructure by anybody. they have not laid out a plan. where is the money coming from. who is going to pay for it? how much is it going to cost? how long is it going to take place? 10 years, 15 years. what are they planning on improving? the train -- the rail lines. look what is happening with our airlines. none of this stuff has been laid out by anybody in the white house. host: that is tim in alabama giving his thoughts. next up will be from virginia, independent line. this is robert. caller: good morning. i say nancy pelosi is right when she says -- about the cover-up.

when president trump comes out of his mouth and everybody heard on national television, he said i don't do coverups. what about stormy daniels and the cover-up money paid to her? everybody knows about that, that was a lie that came out of his mouth. host: when it comes to speaker pelosi's claim, what do you think she is basing that on? caller: there is something to do with a big cover-up. it is not just the president, it goes right down the line. you just go down the secretary, it goes way down the line. it is a big cover-up all in the higher ups in the executive branch. when it hits, it will hit like a ton of bricks. the president is trying to bankrupt the united states of america so the russians and

chinese can come in and buy up what they want. virginia calling on our independent line. -- the cover-up allegation made after a caucus meeting was intended to placate resistive elements of her caucus. go fromes everyone here? as they investigate his administration. mr. trump has effectively blown up that plan. policy discussions are not possible as long as he is under investigation. we are going to go down one track at a time, according to the president yesterday. benjamin from north carolina, republican line. caller: how are you doing this morning, pedro? host: fine, thank you. caller: pedro, all of this could have been settled long ago. the mistake was made when they

turned the mueller report over to barr. what is said have been done is they should have had a meeting of the senate and the congress and mueller should have, and testified in a joint session back yonder and then had the tv cameras and everything in there and the american public could have seen and the chips would have fell where they should have and all of this would be over with and it is not going to be over with until something like that is done and mueller comes to testify. host: you are saying if the special counsel appeared -- he hung up, too. apologize for that. bobby from west palm beach, florida, democrats line. caller: hi. i believe nancy pelosi is correct saying there is a cover-up because a guilty person

would give the evidence to prove they are not corrupt and not doing anything wrong. somebody guilty would try to hide that information. they would do anything they can to stop somebody from getting that information. that is how i feel, that is a common sense approach. as far as the initial investigation, it was started because trump was dealing with russia and trying to build a hotel. there is probable cause, he is the united states president and russia is not our ally. host: if this is about evidence, why wasn't the mueller report and enough in your mind? caller: they did not even get the redacted version. that is important. host: they got the redacted version, it is the unredacted version they were after. caller: yes, correct. correct. i am sorry. mueller did not have a legitimate access to oust the

.resident host: bobby giving her thoughts and west palm beach florida. about 20 minutes left to give your thoughts about yesterday. you can talk about the exchanges that went back and forth between the two and you can talk about impact or potential impact of passing legislation. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. and independents, 202-748-8002. the independent line, good morning. pedro. good morning, i just wanted to say i believe is president and my comment i am sure he is human and we all make a mistake with a girl,

infidelity. as far as he has decided to run for president and clean up some about mess and he knows building and spending money and so that is my comment. ist: if you are saying he trying, what about this action from yesterday that says when it comes to infrastructure, he will work on that? caller: he is human and maybe he will change his mind and welcome pelosi and schumer back. that is all. host: what do you think about the actions of speaker pelosi about this cover-up statement she made yesterday? caller: that is fine. she should speak her mind. as far as, i believe him on

working for us and i believe pelosi made her point. come back andll they can work for us, that is my point. host: it was after those events after therday -- meeting with the white house that speaker pelosi went to the center for american progress for an event and was asked about the exchange on the president's comments. here is a bit of those comments from yesterday. is in plainct sight, in the public domain, this president is obstructing justice and engaged in a cover-up. that could be impeachable. subpoenas of nixonss, article 3 of the

engagement, article 3, he did -- honor the impeachment subpoenas. it is not the substance we are after and want to keep the truth to the america people, but in striving to get that, the obstruction -- the the administration is engaged in -- the cover-up is frequently worse than the crime. host: if you want to see more of her comments, go to our website at c-span.org. cnbc picks up some of the legislative efforts that has to take place this year saying the debt ceiling increase that will be necessary to keep the u.s. treasury from missing payments or defaulting on debt is being hammered out as part of the broader fiscal 2020 negotiations. it was on wednesday morning steve mnuchin told a congressional committee he hopes

the deal will be read -- reached before the end of summer. i would hope we raise the debt limit soon. fund the government and raise the debt ceiling seem to improve this week after senate gop leaders said they personally lobby the president on this issue. secretary mnuchin before the house financial services committee to talk about many things including the president's tax returns. if you go to our website, look for it there. you can type in steve mnuchin or tax returns. all that information available at our video library. delaware is next, frank from millsboro, republican line. caller: good morning, pedro. i would like to comment on all

the people calling in. my first impression is my lord are we in trouble in this country. these people are as dumb as i don't know what. democrats are taking us down a dark, dark road. they are lying to you all the way. they are trying to twist your mind. host: when it came to yesterday, the claims of cover-up and calls for additional information, what is wrong with that approach in your mind? caller: it is over. the mueller report came back, it is over. they will not let it go. when they come back later with all the stuff they have on the democrats lying -- democrats better stop putting these people in office. actionse president's yesterday canceling infrastructure or at least stopping that effort? caller: i agree wholeheartedly,

you cannot go on with these people. host: democratic lawmakers, this is katie hill saying i was sent here to fight for accountability and the commander-in-chief cannot even put our roads over covering his own ass. we could be progressing on the issues we agree on, but trump is beholden to your calls for -- holding the cost of your insulin in the quad it -- quality of your water hostage. reminds me of the house gop launched five benghazi investigations and held select committees to confirm what we already knew and president obama did his job anyway. thoughts also from other legislators on the twitter feed. you can see a list of legislators that you can see

their collections of what they are saying on this issue and other issues. ike from north charleston south carolina, good morning. caller: something my dad taught me long ago, if you never learn how to read between the lines or never listen to what people don't say versus what they do say, you will never understand anything in this world. i am tired of hearing people blaming the media and blaming this and blaming that. if you want to know what is going on, get the mueller report and read it. collusion1 cases of or contacts of up structure and and other things in this report that need to be answered. you get all the investigation you want to years on top of years. he still has legislation -- the president's plan is to work for the american people. rough sport, this is a

blood sport and if he has nothing to hide, i will ask you one simple question, why doesn't he cooperate and you know darn well if this was president hillary clinton, this would have already been done because mitch mcconnell will not pass anything. he would have impeached hillary clinton by now, trust me. somehow or another, this would have gone down with or without the president. let's have the investigation and get it over with and put out all the information the american people are entitled to and we can go about our business. host: mike, go ahead. [indiscernible]

the president walking out from the meeting is a bad thing for the president. host: let's hear from annapolis, maryland calling on our republican line. caller: i agree with the president. how much and how long are the investigations supposed to continue? everyone agreed to allow the mueller investigation to continue and that we would accept the results. the democrats can either accept it -- i used to be a democrat, but now i am ashamed up the anger and the way they are

attacking our president and the lack of concern for our country. host: if you agree with the president, why was it ok to stop talks on infrastructure? caller: he is fed up with it, it is too much going on. it has been going on so long and enough is enough. it is hard for him to go forth under these conditions. int: that is larry annapolis, maryland. a couple bits of news to share. the pentagon thursday will present plans for the white house to send up to 10,000 more .roops to the middle east the official said no final decisions had been made and it was not clear if the white house would approve sending all or just some of the requested forces. it was not a response to any new threat, but aimed at reinforcing security and said troops would be defensive forces and

discussion would include additional patriot missile batteries, more shapes, and increased efforts to monitor iran. if you go to the new york times this morning, there was a move yesterday in congress when it comes to what is known as the authorization for the use of military force. the house appropriations tuesday approved a bipartisan amendment that would repeal the 2001 authorization for the use of military force which provided congress' blessing to use only against groups responsible for the september 11 attacks. the enemies were al qaeda and taliban host in afghanistan. presidents of both parties have an vote of the war authority to justify military force in many other places. angel from washington state, democrats line. caller: hello, pedro. goodness. i think.

goodness. name-calling and carnival barking president we have right now is mind-boggling. i think if every politician was outed as a liar and a scumbag, we probably would not have any politicians. i think trump has some kind of tarnation --weet tardation. no one is helping him filter his insanity. sometimes the stuff he says, i cannot even process. this guy is the president of our -- sophie, mobile, alabama. independent line. caller: good morning. just calling to comment on some of the different comments i have been hearing about -- from

the different callers. i wish the american people would wake up. even if the results of the mueller report came out and it was so many unanswered things, wouldn't they want to know what he is hiding? why wouldn't he want to release documentsform -- tax and why wouldn't we want them? the american people want to know that. host: you agree with nancy -- speaker pelosi on this idea of a cover-up? caller: i believe he is hiding something and if he is making comments that he would wish it would go away, he can make it go away, he can release his taxes, he can allow those people to come to congress and testify and stop blocking a lot of things and creating problems so he can make the solution from the problems he created.

sometimes i will be a little mad with the democrats because if republicans even felt like there was something going on, they wouldn't wait for certain things to go into play, they would impeach and think about the consequences later, even if it did not work for them. in california, republican line. if the yes, i think democrats want to see president since nancyreturns, pelosi is third in line to be president after vice president pence, she should release 10 years of her tax return so we can see how she got so rich off a congresswoman's salary. host: what about her claims of cover-up yesterday? what did you think of those claims? caller: i thought it was stupid. it is just another way to get to trump, they are trying to take him out, death by 1000 cuts and

that is all they are doing, they will continue this and it will be one thing after another. they are crazy. host: what did you think of the actions of the president yesterday? caller: i thought it was great. sooner or later you have to say enough is enough, stop this stuff, and walk out. i have never seen anybody treated so badly in my life. he is being attacked by the whole country. the media, the education establishment, the politicians, you name it. any otherperson, person could not have done it. host: even to the point of stopping efforts on infrastructure issues or transportation issues, you thought that was appropriate or is there a way he could keep going even facing this opposition? caller: i think he did the right thing, pull the plug on it, you guys grow up, fly right and we will come back and talk. this is ridiculous.

how can he in good faith think whatever he does with them will bear fruits? they will come at him from all angles and there will be infrastructure conflicts, you name it, they won't stop. mo. is there ammo -- host: one more story from npr on their website saying bearded and -- 20-year-old from northern california was found among the ranks of taliban soldiers captured in afghanistan less than three months after the september 11 attacks. lynn is scheduled to be released today after serving 17 years of a 20 year sentence, getting off three years for good behavior even his -- even though his probation terms include a host of restrictions. he remains a lightning rod for critics who say his sentence was

too lenient and should not be allowed out early. in his sentencing, he said i have never understood jihad to anti---i-american or kathy from missouri, democrats line. caller: hello? host: you are on. caller: ok. i just wanted to say i thought what pelosi did yesterday was really stupid. they did not go in there to have a meeting on obstruction, period. they did what they were going to do and trump did what he had to do. we don't blame him for it. what they don't realize is a lot of us are walking away from the democrat party. they are losing a lot of voters. would 2 is that if people read, there was no collusion.

nothing trump did was even bad, period. they just carried us on and on and on and on. i hope to god and i am praying on it, that each and every one of them get arrested for treason . that is exactly what they are doing. host: robert in columbus, ohio, independent line. caller: yes. how are you doing? host: fine, thank you. caller: i agree with the collusiont and charges. pelosi was right. host: give me a reason why she is right? , when obamainstance turned around and had his birth certificate and trump turned around and said you release your birth certificate, i will release my taxes, and he never did it. host: give me a reason why you

think she is right about the cover-up claim she made. the reason i -- think she is right about the cover-up charge? look at nixon. he said he was not doing a cover-up and he did. --mp is the worst president worst president than nixon was. host: from our republican line, sebastian, florida, we will hear from pam. good morning. host: morning. you are on, go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. i am going to try to stay calm because it is so easy to get out of your head on all of this. i am calling on the republican line because that is what i signed up to be. i was a democrat my entire life, but i cannot and will not watch these people do what they are doing. whether you like trump or not,

whether you like the name calling or the way he behaves aware the things he says to me has nothing to do with what is being done. i don't understand why people cannot see -- people like nancy pelosi, and i don't know her personally, i have nothing against her. she has done her job for how many years? i guess. i love how they went all -- they are coming out of the woodwork and they would do this and that and joe biden, i am going to give you this and that, these people have been there for almost three quarters of my life and nothing has been done. things are getting done in this country. imagine if everybody worked together, how good it could possibly be and when you ask someone a question about why they believe there is a cover-up, not one person that has called in this morning can give you a substantial answer. can you imagine in this wonderful country we live in it

all of a sudden today or tomorrow you were dragged into court, arrested by the police and charged with a crime, whether you did it or not, if your constitutional rights were being invaded, if you weren't having anyone around to represent you and then the trial ,s over, you are found innocent but yet they won't let it go, they keep coming and coming at you. believestion is, do i trump should have walked out yesterday? i don't know. i don't think anyone knows the answer to that question. ast: do you think he has mandate to rise above all these things even if they go on as this opposition takes place? caller: i don't know the answer to that. all i know is i cannot believe that someone like william barr in the position he is in or any of these higher ups in the executive branch would be saying

they are not going to show up to answer questions if they knew it was truly illegal and they couldn't get away with it. come on. we have to think. they are putting stuff out, the democratic side. they had no intention of listening to trump yesterday. he knows it and everybody knows it. host: we are really short on time and even shorter today because the house comes in at 9:00 this morning and we are going to have two guests joining us before that. first up we are going to hear about the future of health care, particularly when it comes to medicare with the manhattan institute's chris pope. later on we will speak with delegate stacy plaskett about the mueller report and democrat efforts to hear from the administration. those conversations coming up on washington journal. -- coming up on "washington journal." ♪

>> monday, memorial day, american history tv and c-span's washington journal are marking the 75th in diverse verse three of d-day. starting at 8:00 eastern with a live viewer call-in program with alex kershaw, author of the first wave, the d-day warriors who lead the way to victory in world war ii, and mary louise roberts, author of d-day through french eyes, normandy 1944. during the program, we will take your phone calls, tweets and facebook posts -- facebook comments. monday starting at 8:00 a.m. eastern. watch book tv all day memorial

day for noted featured authors. eastern,-- at: 05 government overreach. at noon, a former obama advisor on her path to the white house. aei:30 p.m. eastern, president arthur brooks offers strategies on how to bridge our political divide. at 9:00, kathleen hall jamieson. at 11:30 p.m., award-winning biographer robert caro discusses his writing process. watch memorial day book tv on c-span two. >> "washington journal" continues. host: this is chris pope, a senior fellow at the manhattan institute, talking about issues related to health care. guest: thanks for inviting me. host: the manhattan institute, what positioning does it take on issues of health care?

with health care, the cost is a big issue and a big part of my job is to try and figure out new policy solutions to reduce cost to people. host: one of the issues that has come up as of late is this idea of medicare for all. what you think about it. ? assumption ofn buying everything for everybody. ultimately that just fails to engage with the real essence of the issue which is health care is all about trade-off. host: tell us why. guest: the recent piece was about the medicare program traditionally. if you think about existing medicare benefits, there are big gaps in medicare benefits. medicare part b which covers outpatient drugs does not have an out-of-pocket cap. people are potentially exposed

to tens of thousands of dollars of out-of-pocket cost which is why seniors by medicare gap plans. cost is quite substantial on prescription drugs, in many cases more than what some people might be used to playing -- used to paying. medicare is a benefit that falls short in many ways. what is promised under medicare for all is providing everything for everybody at almost no cost out-of-pocket. there is a real big gap between the reality of medicare and the proposal. host: could there be a hybrid? guest: there could but you have to find the money from somewhere. i think the appeal of medicare for all as rhetoric is saying we have a medicare program that exists. leave from there to

the proposals, the proposals don't look that much like the medicare program. host: there was a hearing in the health budget committee and one of the discussions that came up was a single-payer health care. the congressional budget deputy director was asked about a single-payer health system. i will let you hear his comments. [video clip] >> according to the cbo report, how much did we spend on health care in 2017? >> $3.5 trillion. >> how does that, and that is annually correct? that is 2017. over 10 years, it would be $35 trillion. how does that which takes up 18% of our gdp compared to other developed countries? >> significant -- significantly higher. >> higher than what other countries are paying. -- current system costs 3

$3.5 trillion and is projected to cost $6 trillion by 2027, the most in the world by far. and yet we have 29 million people without insurance, and another 44 million who are uninsured -- underinsured. the richest country in the world is unable to access health care. is a single-payer system capable of providing coverage for everyone and achieving universal health care? >> yes. a single-payer system could achieve universal health care. >> i like your answer. a single-payer system could achieve universal health care. host: those are the questions and responses. what do you think? guest: if you are willing to spend an unlimited amount, you can certainly purchase whatever you want. how much money does that achieve for other public priorities such as health, education, transport, defense.

if you look at budget ,redictions -- projections other physical commitments are out there. we are struggling with the meat that we are already on the hook for. host: our guest is with us until 8:30. if you have questions about medicare for all, (202)-748-8000 for democrats. (202)-748-8001 for republicans. for independents, (202)-748-8002 . what did you think of the representative's comparison of health care in this country to other countries? guest: countries are different in an -- in many ways. the united states has twice the rate of obesity. we have a high risk of diabetes, higher rates of cancer. our health care system has to do more. by nature, more people are coming through the door. more people are going to hospitals. we also have more hospitals.

i grew up in england and england has 200 hospitals. the united states has about 5000. the unit estates is a much bigger country than england but not that big. we have a much higher level of intensity of care, a greater level of access of care. edgeu want cutting treatment and have insurance, you can get it. there are reasons we spend more than other countries and ultimately there are different ways in which we fall short but in terms of filling gaps, it is going to mean spending more money, not saving money. single-payer of will point to the national health service in england and talk about dire consequences. are those assessments fair? guest: like everything, every

country is dealing with trade-offs in health care. there is not a free lunch for anybody. in britain what you tend to have is you have primary care be essentially free for people to go to. the emergency room is essentially free, so a lot of services have no immediate financial burden but then there are some high-end procedures that you are just not going to build have access to. some of the cutting edge treatments are not available and even things like hip or knee replacement, there might be a very substantial wait. you may be waiting for five months if you're able to get it or all -- at all -- waiting four or five months if you are able to get it at all. host: what about pre-existing conditions? guest: it is an relevant distinction in england because they do not purchase insurance, they are automatically enrolled.

host: what is the best approach? guest: i think a part of the affordable care act has worked -- that worked pretty well was the entitlement part of it. subsidies for people who want to go on the exchange, financial assistance, people with pre-existing conditions able to buy from the exchange. that part has worked fairly well and can essentially be allowed to continue. host: is that sustainable? guest: the amount of people on the individual market is relatively small. this gets lost in the discussion of the affordable care act. 90% of people of working age get health through their employers. with the affordable -- what the affordable care act it was it revolutionize the individual market and that is less than 10% of people. the individual market by itself is not the biggest fiscal burden. host: this is chris pope from the manhattan institute here to talk about health care issues. first up is mike from baltimore,

democrats line. caller: i would like to ask your guest, i am for single-payer. insuranceays had through my job. i got laid off and once i got laid off, i did not have therance so i called maryland health connection. the process was very easy. the next thing i know, i am a , i was in between jobs at the time. my $40 medication was free. i got my checkups and i am back to work now. now i pay a certain amount a month. it is a really good thing to know that when i was down, it

came through and really helped me. let is all i've got to say. i don't know too much about whether it is a good thing for all but i know one thing, this health care really works for you when you fall. host: that is mike in baltimore. many ways toare think about the impact that medicare for all would have. for people who already get substantial assistance from government programs, they would see the least change or would have the least benefit or cost one way or the other. the revolution would be for people who are on employer plans and individual plans and are currently in different arrangements. if you are on a state medicaid plan like maryland, little would change with single-payer. john,from michigan, independent line. caller: thank you for c-span.

i had a quick question. if it consumer in the health care market gets in the hospital, they are forced to buy health care. essentially they're going into the shoe store or restaurant or mall and the supplier is basically holding all the leverage. i was wondering how can you possibly bring health care cost down if the consumer is forced to buy the product? guest: that is a great question, especially in given that congress is going to be talking about it today, which is the price about -- out-of-network billing. when you buy a normal product in most markets, you know the price before because you shop around, you know what different options there are. hospital care, even scheduled care, you don't know what the price is. you don't know what services you were going to be billed for. you don't know what the anesthesiologist is going to charge or whether they are going to be in or out of your network.

this is a problem. host: the administration made some progress on these issues as well. guest: that's right. the house energy and commerce committee had a bill on it. there was a bill led by senator cassidy and later today we will see the health, education and labor committee. host: our republican line, florida, irene. caller: good morning. i would like to say this. greatre for all sounds but i wish that you would have a program explaining that once you turn 65, it doesn't matter. you're going to pay a premium from your social security for you as anwhich gives older person no benefits. a lot of people get sick because

-- and it have an 8 creates a bigger issue. i wish someone would explain. i was 16 years old when medicare first came on the market, when it was first put in place. i worked 40 years, so i have been paying into it all this time and i am still paying it and the part of it we still have to pay, our co-pay if i have to go to a primary care doctor, a co-pay of five have to go to a specialist. i wish that someone would fully explain it so people won't inc. -- won't think everything is covered. host: we will let our guest explain it. guest: that caller does a great job. that is exactly how it is. medicaid is more like what the

proposals for medicare for all looks like. medicaid, most coverage depends on the state. there is essentially no cost sharing, no out-of-pocket expenses in the medicaid program. seniors, there are substantial co-pays, deductibles, premiums associated with part b. the thing to bear in mind with medicaid is there is a reason why medicaid can be so generous and it is because that program is targeted to a subset of the population. the neediest subset, the disabled, children, low income, elderly. if we try to do the same thing for everybody, there is no way we can be as generous in terms of coverage and access to care for the neediest sections. host: clear politics today paul about medicare for all and they asked one question, a system in

which all americans are on the government's health care system. 67% support it. -- 34% opposing it. guest: americans generally like having choice and being in control and there is an aspect of medicare for all where the government would be in charge of the money. the government would be in charge of choosing which doctors and types of procedures you get covered and paid. if the government decides a procedure or type of care is not going to be covered, then people would just be out of luck. that is the thing that is going to be challenging for selling a medicare for all proposal. i think people do value the access to care that they are currently able to get. host: from massachusetts on our

line for democrats, mary you are on the line with chris pope of the manhattan institute. caller: hello. i am calling from massachusetts. host: you are on. go ahead. caller: ok. medicarent to say, worked out great for me. i don't have to pay anything. i have had all kinds of procedures over the years. cataracts. specialized eye surgery for glaucoma. hip replacement. all things that happen when you get older and with the supplement, it's about $195 a month. for me, it has been perfect.

i lived in the same area my whole life. everybody i know seems perfectly satisfied. i have not heard any complaints as long as i can remember. i think medicare has been fabulous. host: thank you for sharing your experience. guest: that reveal something important about the medicare program which is it is a very generous benefit provided by taxpayers to the elderly. we understand that there were elderly, retirees and the disabled and the medicare program unable to work so taxpayers fund about 60% of the benefit. it is essentially a 60% subsidy of the cost of your health care you get when you become eligible for medicare. -- we wouldnerous not be able to provide as

generous as assistance to everybody across the board. host: chris pope, kaiser health news tells us there was a hearing taking a look at something known as junk insurance plans. what are they and tell us about the nature of these hearings? guest: this relates to the affordable care act. the trump administration made restoring plans, plans that existed prior to the affordable care act. they were essentially about half the cost of the plans that you can get through obamacare. president obama famously said if you like your health care plan, you can keep it. that rule was restoring the choice of plans the people previously had. host: as far as the plans themselves, are you and advocate for them, and opponent? guest: i am very much in advocate of these plans. what the affordable care act did was it said that insurance has to be priced the same for people who sign up before they get sick

as people who sign up after they get sick. what we saw happen a couple years after was that people started waiting to get sick before they purchased insurance. that means that the premium started spiraling upwards because the only people buying insurance had serious medical conditions. what happened is even though the subsidies that were attached to the affordable care act plans protected people who were enrolled from catastrophic expenses and stabilize the guarantees, people who are willing to sign up before they got sick had no access to affordable coverage. the average plan, the benchmark premium was something like $5,000 and then you are facing a deductible on top of that. it was like $9,000 before you get any real services or care under a standard aca plan. what these plans that the trumpet administration made available do is they restore health insurance prices in

proportion to what you face. we have premiums that are about half the levels that obamacare offered that are becoming available. the insurance benefit is essentially the same. host: there is a legislative effort to push back against this plan. one of the signers onto this is richard blumenthal from connecticut. he says junk plans reduces access to quality care. the bill will halt the trump administration's efforts to expand these incomplete plans that don't even cover basic benefits like prescription drugs or mental health services. guest: that's not true. there maybe a couple plans that don't cover prescription drugs but the best majority of them do. when you look at the coverage, people are able to get, it makes it more affordable to get a more comprehensive benefit package. the junk insurance line is a political attack because it has become a partisan thing.

these are traditional insurance plans that americans were used to before the acute -- before the affordable care act. host: let's listen to our next caller from colorado, independent line. caller: i have a couple questions. a lot of the democratic candidates are talking about they talkor all and about putting a plan out there and letting people buy into it as a glide path as opposed to just changing the system. my question is this. if somebody wanted to buy the plan or even a company wanted to buy it. coca-cola, for all 20,000 employees, what would the monthly premium be for medicare? guest: that is a far more complicated question that a lot of the democratic candidates recognize. who arey for seniors entitled to medicare -- you medicare,itled to

there is a medicare buy-in option. the premium is about $900 a month which is twice as much as the average plan you will find through the affordable care act. in --tual body and -- by buy in for medicare is not that great a deal. host: your second question? caller: people are under the perception -- for all the times that i worked. is the races this tick that says when the average person has exhausted all the money they have contributed, at what age have you exhausted all of your contributions and then after that, you are being picked up by the taxpayer? sense in which a yes, people do quote, contribute but the way they contribute is through paying taxes.

it is fair enough to think about the medicare program has funded through taxes. that is especially true for medicare part b and part d. that is entirely funded out of general revenue. it is only medicare part a that is funded with a dedicated medicare tax. host: this is deedee from california, republican line. caller: thank you manhattan institute for coming to c-span. i believe in california we have kaiser permanente. enrolled.rdable to be their services are completely open to you. war between the companies that offer insurance, the hospitals, the doctors, they want the highest profits,

unbridled search for profits. prices anddrug hospital stallions and doctor visits. there is lobbying by billions of dollars from these companies that they don't want the status quo to change. there has to be a middle ground where you can have access to health care. in california if you have a healthy lifestyle, you definitely have the benefits of access to mental health and exercise and preventive care. prediabetic classes. you can keep yourself healthy through a very affordable and monthly payment instead of the thousands and thousands of dollars that we used to have

with a partnership between the government and private industry. guest: that raises some interesting questions. ,ne point that is often lost the heart of the cost battle in health care is the battle between the providers, hospitals and doctors on the one side and the insurers on the other side. the insurers make such a good bad guy. everyone knows the doctor and the hospital as a for mentally -- as a friendly familiar face. nobody feels affectionately to the insurer. decades, politicians have lined up on the side of the hospitals, especially. that has made it very hard over decades for insurers to essentially negotiate a good deal with hospitals. hospital prices have been soaring as a result of that and

the money does not stop with the insurers. they have to pass on the cost to the people who want to purchase insurance. the fact that insurers have been weakened for so long has essentially left the consumer without any direct protection and are essentially paying the price. host: we have seen efforts by the white house and democrats and republicans to lower prescription drug cost. is that a good effort? guest: it is complicated in the sense that yes, prescription drugs are very expensive. the reason they are expensive is they are very valuable. if we could do without innovative prescription drugs, we could easily save all of our money. the important thing to bear in mind with the drug market is there are two markets. there is the generic market and there are branded drugs.

90% of drugs that americans consume our generic, for which price is not a problem. they are freely competitive, the patent has expired. low is pretty much fairly and stable. the price problem is on the branded drugs, new drugs that cost $2 billion to develop and research and bring to market and get through the regulatory process. the question is, how do you spread the cost of that research and development and that ends up in the price drugmakers have to windowduring that short when they have some market exclusivity. host: this is chris pope of the manhattan institute, talking about health care issues. manhattaninstitute.org is the website. the house is in at 9:00 this

morning. we will hear from delegate stacy plaskett of the virgin islands, here to talk about among other things, the mueller report, disaster aid and other topics. all coming up on the "washington journal." ♪ >> sunday night on q&a, watch our october 20 18 interview with yale university historian joann freeman on her book, the field of blood, violence in congress and the road to civil war. >> scores of congressmen got

into a mass brawl. it in of itself is dramatic. guys throwing punches, it is a massive encounter. what was interesting to me was people at the time look at it and what they saw was a group of urban nerves and southerners, lots of them armed, running at each other in the house of representatives and several of them said this does not look like a normal congressional fight. this looks like north against south. this looks like a battle. that is striking. indeed it certainly did look like a battle and it is not that long before the civil war. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. " mugs aregton journal available at c-span's new online store. go to cspanstore.org, check out the "washington journal" mugs and look at all of the c-span

products. the house will be in order. >> 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 across the country, so you can make up your own mind. c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. "> "washington journal continues. host: delegate stacy plaskett, democrat of the virgin islands. a member of the oversight and reform committee as well as transportation and interest-rate or committee. guest: thank you for having me -- transportation and infrastructure committee. guest: thank you for having me. host: what you think of the term cover up by nancy pelosi? guest: what i think we are seeing, we are seeing that there

has been mechanisms used by the president, discussions he is having to kind of lay over issues that we have been investigating and this is outside of the mueller report. this is related to a variety of issues. on oversight we have been , aking at a moments clauses coverup of issues related to health care and other issues throughout congress. i think when she is talking about cover-up, she means the president obstructing us from doing the work that the people of the unit states have brought us to congress to do -- of the united states have brought us to congress to do. host: saying the democrats are getting nothing done in congress, all that effort about a redo of the mueller report. it is not possible for them to investigate and legislate at the same time. their heart is not infrastructure. drug prices, pre-existing conditions, all of that geared

up -- trying to find anything that would be bad for me. he goes on from there. guest: i think congress can do multiple things. tweaks to the health care bill, prescription drugs, education reform, all of those things can go on because there were multiple committees in congress that are doing hearings, doing the work of the people and there have been a number of bills passed on the house side. who is not doing the work is the senate. mitch mcconnell is refusing to take up bills that have been passed on the house side, to debate them or bring them to the floor to allow these members to have a vote on legislation. if he were to do that, the people of the united states would see the tremendous amount of work that has been done already in less than 200 days of this congress. host: a budget, the debt

ceiling, is there activity on those fronts? aret: those individuals having many discussions about this. i am the cochair of the infrastructure task force. i have been going around the moderateith other pragmatic democrats looking at the issues that are important in terms of infrastructure. we are laying the groundwork. the president is the one who can't do two things at the same time it would appear. as long as he focuses on his own self interest, his own issues with regards to the investigation, he is the one who is unwilling to have discussions about other things as well. in oversight, we had that tremendous back and forth in ourte -- and debate between chief ranking member in jim jordan, when it came to the

cohen hearings. yesterday we had a meeting on artificial intelligence where we will be doing legislation where they were both in agreement that this was something that needs to be looked into. within the same committee, members of congress can have disagreement and then find ways to work together. host: before we let you take calls when it comes to those issues of disagreement, one being reported on by many as this idea of impeachment and if this should move forward. where do you stand on that? guest: i am not in favor of beginning an impeachment hearing or procedures on the president. i believe we are getting ahead is democrats that it is our job to investigate. we are trying to unravel the information we have. we don't have much of the information that was redacted from the mueller report along with the subpoenas we have issued to verify that. host: when do you think it becomes an appropriate time?

guest: we are looking to the third branch, our founders created three branches. there is a dispute between the executive and legislative. we may have to bring in the -- bring in the judiciary and allow them to determine. i think the buyer decision from oversight, the court is in our favor, that these things should be brought forward. we are asking for information that should be given to us and once we review those things and have a discussion amongst ourselves, i think we will then make a decision. host: the house is in at 9:00. robert from baltimore, maryland, democrats line. articulatedclearly what i have felt all along was the right course of putting the brakes, at least gently, on impeachment. i have been saying for months

that the game is to win a lot of votes in the 2020 election, not just to win back the white house. the senate is even in play. pelosi said last week, she articulate what i have been saying for months, and that is that basically that is the end game. the obstruction word she used yesterday, that wasn't the word, what word was it? host: cover up. caller: that seems to go against that line of rhetoric that led the president to create this for of passionate backlash his base and it seemed to work contrary to that goal but everyone seems to agree on it. was it a mistake on her part? guest: whatever work she had used, whether she used investigation, cover-up,

obstruction, it is clear the president had this walkout plan. when he got to the rose garden, the banners were already made, the posters were already made about this. whatever word she was using, he was going to take that to do his storming out of the meeting. let's not put the illness on her. it is on the president to put on his big boy pants and not allow name-calling to be the thing that keeps him from doing the work that the people of the united states obviously put him in office to do. that is to sit down and have discussions that you don't necessarily like or agree with for the better of the people of the united states. that is what we need to be holding him to. we should not be walking around afraid of inciting his wrath by using words that he doesn't like. it all of us operated that way, nothing would get done. you're a smart man to agree with myself and mr. losey and i --

ms. pelosi and i thank you for that. many on the democratic side or of that opinion. it is often that the media will pick up those of us who are speaking in manners that get more headlines for them. host: from nevada, joanne, republican line. caller: good morning. problem with you being a territory and representing the virgin islands and our congress. i know how the supreme court settled on that years ago. i think we need to revisit territories having a vote when they don't pay taxes. can you answer that please? guest: that is a great question. you will remember that it was not until the 1920's that there was even a personal income tax in the united states.

are you saying that the great minds and great thinkers calhoun and others that were in congress before that time should not have been there because people within their districts did not pay income taxes? those of us in the virgin islands and puerto rico and guam do much more than just pay taxes. we are the ones who come into the military and much greater numbers than places from the united states. we make the ultimate sacrifice willingly as members and citizens. there were places in the united states -- this is the only time in american history where territories remain territories indefinitely for over 100 years. in the unit states, new orleans, montana,, wyoming, everywhere outside the original 13 colonies were territories at one point in time and eventually were allowed to become states. puerto rico and other places are

not allowed and i think the real question is why is that? what is it about the composition of those places that the united states will not allow them to become states? host: let's speak to some of your voting powers in congress. guest: the extent of my voting powers is that i vote in committees. all members have full voting rights in committees. we draft legislation. when we are a committee as a whole, we vote which is primarily on amendments and then when the committee as a whole on the floor rises to do the full body, we do not have a vote. there is plenty of legislation that is brought up in congress that is related to puerto rico, guam, bills that address us specifically in the fact that we don't have the ability to vote on things that directly affect us should also be problematic. to me that sounds like a colony. host: there have been efforts about increasing disaster aid to

those areas. answer, iyou have an would like to know as well. we have been in negotiations for a number of weeks now, several months on a new disaster package which would include california and other places and additional funding for the virgin islands as well as puerto rico. that has been stalled because of can -- because of border security and issues related to the border. senator shelby wanted to put information in regard to ports. until there was clear understanding about where everyone stands, i am not sure what is going to go up there. the virgin islands have been concerned about the coupling that has been happening, us with puerto rico. we in many respects in a disaster bill feel as if the virgin islands is an ancillary division of puerto rico. we have different circumstances, different government systems,

different ways we have handled our money and we would like to be treated separately. host: rhode island, jamie, and dependent line. -- independent line. between democrats and republicans, i think you are all disgusting. you never want to get anything done. you're on tv saying the president won't work with us. you won't work with him. last few- for the years, you have done nothing but call him a liar, a trader, a spy for russia, a racist. you are saying how he calls everyone names. you are calling him the worst names you can call somebody and you are saying he does not want to work with you? i'm not saying trump is a perfect guy. i am not saying democrats alone. as well, republicans

you are doing everything you can to not get this country going. guest: i'm sorry you have that sense of what is happening in congress. at some point we need to look beyond what the headlines are on social media as well as cable news and if you would look at what comes out every week from members of the body, you will see that republicans and democrats are working together on a number of pieces of legislation. we have had quite a number of bills passed in this congress. many of us are working on infrastructure, working on fixing drug pricing, prescription drugs as well as a number of issues. wese things have passed and are waiting to work on some of the larger issues of the day. it is unfortunate that the thing everyone is talking about is investigations and name-calling but if you look behind the veil, you will see that on a daily basis, republicans and democrats

sit down with one another and cosponsor a bill together. they work on fine-tuning , issues that are relevant to the people they represent. they push this narrative too. guest: why would we not investigate the president if there are allegations of misconduct on his part, questions of whether or not one of the primary components of our -- you cannot have financial gains while in office and if there is evidence to support that that potentially may be happening, it is our duty to do that. that does not mean we cannot work together. in other administrations, there have been investigations and members of congress and that administration still work on those issues. one of the primary ones was

during the impeachment of bill clinton, they still work on a budget deal together. one does not negate the other and people need to stop thinking that way. host: because of the events of yesterday, where does that leave the infrastructure committee? guest: ranking member graves, the republican and chairman de blasio are still working together. they can ash people can have their temper tantrums and press conferences but those gentlemen are still rolling up their sleeves to work on a deal. we believe they will be doing a surface transportation bill, something we believe will be palatable on the senate side. we will have to see if the president is willing to sign it. host: delegate stacy plaskett joining us for this conversation. our next caller on the democrats line. caller: thank you for being here. on the point of impeachment, i believe it is different than what we are dealing with now.

pageow we have a 450 document that states what was going on and we have multiple investigations. given how he behaved yesterday with the press conference and closely saying what she said, -- and pelosi saying what she said, what more do we need to go down the road of impeachment? guest: we need to have the information come out to the public so that many of us who are members of congress can believe that it is in fact what our constituents want. an individual like yourself in north carolina, and others, for those members in areas where individuals do not believe the president should be impeached, we want them to have the confidence of their constituents that they are doing the will of those individuals who put them in office. that way they will be fulfilling their duty. the impeachment of president nixon, there was an overwhelming number of members of congress on the judiciary

committee who voted it down. members who were democrat as well as republican agree to that. at this point we only have one republican in the house who has said he thinks we should move toward impeachment. that wet pass something believe will then be taken up in the senate unless we have that bipartisan support. as long as we have those members in the democratic party who believe that the democratic caucus, that their constituents are asking them to do that. at this point, i think the best course for the democrats is to continue to have these investigations, to have these hearings to the american public can see the caption -- much of the mueller report is under the cover of black ink. iswing what is in there important.

host: there are those from the justice department who offered a less redacted version. is that a good strategy? guest: it is a good strategy. i don't think it is a fair trade because particularly for a committee as the intelligence committee, they should be able to see the full unredacted report. have the information and have the wherewithal to keep that information confidential. to keep that from us when it is the right of congress to see it. yesterday we had the hearings with the nguyen who continues to refuse to give the president's tax returns when the law clearly states that a lawful subpoena from the ways and means committee for tax returns shall be given to congress, period, full stop. there is nothing related to exec

at of privilege or anything. executive privilege is related to the deliberation before a decision is made. a tax return is not a deliberation of a decision-making process. it is the decision by the individual of what they want the report to look like. host: we saw several court proceedings take place when it came to terms of the trumpet administration. what is the most significant of those decisions? guest: the myers decision is very shocking in the sense that the court said definitively that congress has the right to this information. that is where we are hoping the judiciary will continue to move. that they are above the politics , that the american people are concerned with that and they are interpreting the law and the law is that we are separate branches of government and part of the job of congress is to

investigate, is to ask for these documents. the executive branch can be reticent to do so but the courts have continually ruled throughout our history that that is congress is right -- congress's right. the myers decision really outlines that. host: do you think this will keep going for a while? guest: it will and that is a concern that many in congress have. this is not something we want to drag on forever. that supports the president's play, to have this continue to make himself appear to be a victim and continue to appear to be someone who is being beat up on by congress where congress is simply doing its job. if we could get this information, get it out to the american public, we could move on and do the other work as well. host: let's hear from bob in illinois for our line for republicans. go ahead.

caller: good morning. the country wants to move on. my comment is, after the expensive mueller report and the time-consuming and the number of people, they came up with no collusion and the only thing, i nadler,y giving it to the only thing they can do better than mueller his leak it to the press. yourme work, roll up sleeves and get some work done for the american people. trump is doing so many things with one hand tied behind his back. you hate him so much. all you do is drag him down. guest: to point out a point of clarification. there is no legal term as collusion. this is a made-up term that has been used in the press. what the mueller report looked

at was obstruction of justice and what they came up with was there were acts of obstruction but they do not believe that based on the department of justice's instruction that a president can be indicted so they would not rule on that. that is where the report took us. if you recall, this report was laid less expensive -- was way less expensive than previous committees and other investigations that have been done in the past. host: what is the status of robert mueller coming to testify? guest: they are trying to work out an agreement on that. meetingsrom caucus that chairman nadler of judiciary is potentially having shift --ell as german ciff -- chairman schiff.

trying not to always go the route of having to subpoena someone but really working to come up with a mutually agreed-upon date and scope of that hearing. host: this is mary in new jersey, independent line. caller: i am so angry at so many points but as far as the mueller report, it is done. the democrats are just dragging it out. just to bring president trump down. another thing i wanted to mention was, you're making such a big deal about him obstructing justice. fast and furious, and american died, and ghazi, but that's ok. i am angry about everything. thank you. guest: no one is saying that what happened in fast and furious was appropriate. one does not negate the other. with the mueller report, we don't know everything the

mueller report says because so much of it was redacted from members of congress being able to view that. i am not having discussions with members of congress, sitting around all day talking about the mueller report. i talk about the issues that are important to my constituents. how do we create new jobs, how do we rebuild, how do we get the federal government to release funding so we can have new schools? on the virgin islands this week, people had to be removed from an elementary school because we are still in discussions with fema about how much that school was damaged, how much money they are willing to give us and the children had to be reviewed -- removed because a wall fell in the middle of the school day. those of the things we are concerned with. health care issues, prescription drugs, affordable housing, creating a livable wage in the of knitted states.

-- in the united states. report is something the president brings up in all of his rallies because that is what he wants to keep those who support him round up about and feeling he is a victim. host: james in california, democrats line. we are running short on time. caller: the office of oversight hhs.gov, nobody is talking about the fleecing of medicare by for-profit hospitals, nursing homes, hospices to the tune of trillions of dollars. oversight has passed a new law for whistleblowers not to have any retribution and the american blindsidedbeing so

by the lies that are going on and the republicans don't care if anyone lives or dies. host: we have to leave it there for time sake. guest: that is an important issue and i believe there are members of congress who are interested in all of those. members on both sides of the aisle who are interested in those kinds of issues. those of the things i think on a daily basis, you are seeing myself and my colleagues working towards finding solutions for and ensuring that individuals who are less fortunate, those who cannot speak for themselves have a voice. host: what do you think will be the focus once congress returns? guest: i am hoping that if we don't take it up today that we really has out the final intricacies of the disaster bill. we want the american people to know that we are continuing to work on infrastructure and we will be doing that as well as the other things we talked about.

prescription drugs, health care, jobs and living wages. we will take that on. host: delegate stacy plaskett, democrat of the virgin islands. we take you to the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. may 23, 2019. i hereby appoint the honorable elaine g. luria to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, chaplain major thomas e. fussell, united states air force, patrick air force base, cape canaveral, florida. the chaplain: will you pray