prevent new entrance or competition. the fact the house judiciary committee announced they are a bipartisan way looking to hold hearings, briefings and do some investigating on their own understand the digital market, understand of antitrust needs to be changed and updated or other policies, i think that's the exact right role of congress to be playing. understanding if there is a problem, identifying the problem and looking for the best tool to address it. >> watch tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. this morning, former republican u.s. congressman tom davis of virginia on the role of congressional oversight in recent investigations of the white house and the executive branch. democratic u.s. congressman patrick kennedy of rhode island and -- from the american

foundations is that prevention talks about suicide prevention. you can join our conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. ♪ >> beat is monday, june 10, 2019. the senate returned to 3:00 p.m. and we are with you for the next three hours. we begin today on the new border agreement with mexico. new tariffs president trump had threatened would go into effect today. anublicans hailed it as example of from steelmaking prowess. this morning we are asking for your input. was a good deal? .epublicans, 202-748-8001 democrats, 202-748-8000.

independents 202-748-8002. a special lot -- a special line for border state residents. 202-748-8003. a very good monday morning. you can start calling in now. the full details of the border agreement coming to light and president trump with a tweet this morning indicating there is more to come. the president a half hour ago saying we signed and documented another very important part of the immigration and security deal with mexico. asking u.s. has been about getting a -- for years. it will need a vote by next legislative body. the president tweeting we don't anticipate a problem with the vote but if the approval is not forthcoming, tariffs will be reinstated. the present this morning on twitter in terms of the part of

the deal we do know about, here is a wrap up in the washington times. mexico and that agreement agreed to deploy some 6000 more national police for enhanced security at its own southern border region. sue agreed to expand its cooperation with the trump administration for protection protocols. policy -- a policy under which the u.s. is returning mexico asylum-seekers back to mexico. the u.s. agreed to speed up hearings of asylum cases in u.s. immigration court as a trump administration had sought to unveil the various aspects. this is acting homeland security secretary on fox news sunday yesterday. >> we heard the specifics there, but how much of this is new. >> all of it is new. we've heard --

the last time they deployed down there was about 400 officers. is a tentpole commitment to increase their security. predecessor testified these things were happening to the house judiciary committee, there were talks about moving national guard troops to the southern border with guatemala. you are saying this is different. >> the president put a charge in this whole dialogue with mexico with the terror threat, brought them to the table. the foreign minister from mexico arrived within hours with real proposals on the table. it's the first time we've heard anything like this kind of number. bordert at the southern but on the transportation routes and coordinated patrols in key areas along the southwest. >> the president treated any -- tweeted any story that this was not new are false, but he said

there are some important things not mentioned in yesterday's press release. one in particular. >> the president tweeted out the tariffs have been suspended. the secretary pointed out this mechanism to make sure they do what they promise to do, that there is an actual result that we see a reduction in those numbers. the state department announced there will be further actions. on how to manage the asylum flow in the region which is a small portion of the total flow that we needed to stop with enforcement. >> that was the acting homeland secretary. present from tweeting quite a bit throughout the weekend. here is one of his tweets claiming it is a win over mexico saying if president obama made the deal i've made at the border in the economy, the media would be hailing them as incredible.

and a national holiday would be immediately declared. with me, despite all i've done, no credit. that's what the president tweeted out yesterday. democrats giving him no credit on this deal. this is former congressman and current presidential candidate beto o'rourke yesterday. we will show you that in a second but we want to let you know you can call and throughout this segment on phone lines for republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats 202-748-8000. andpendents 202-748-8002 that special line for border state residents, 202-748-8003. this is beto o'rourke from yesterday. >> i think the president has completely overblown what he purports to have achieved. these are agreements mexico had made, in some cases months ago. they might've accelerated the timetable, but by and large the

president achieved nothing except to jeopardize the most important trading relationship the united states of america has. there are 6 million jobs in this country the depend on u.s.-mexico trade. about 40% of the value of everything we import from mexico originated here in this country on factory floors in michigan, indiana and ohio. farmers in iowa depend on those markets. in mexico -- struggling under a trade war this president started with china. reciprocal tariffs are hammering them. some of their fields are still underwater from recent flooding. they can't take anymore. that will beder right for those farmers in the american workers. that we strengthen our ties with mexico and secure our place not with walls but by investing in

solutions in central america to ensure no family has to make that 2000 mile journey because they are fleeing the deadliest countries on the face of the planet today. we can do a much better job leading on this issue making sure we are secure and fulfilling this country's promise. host: more reaction from democratic leaders in congress. a tweet from chuck schumer yesterday talking about the president over the past couple of months and how he has done when it comes to these deals. president trump declared an emergency to build a wall, he said he made a bogus terror threat even republicans in congress rejected and made a bogus deal that mexico volunteered to a deal months ago. this was nancy pelosi, speaker of the house, or statement from friday night after president trump announced the deal saint president trump undermined the

present -- the world's leader -- america's leadership. we are deeply disappointed by the administration with expansion of its failing mexico policy which violates the rights of asylum-seekers. the president must do much more to cooperate in any meaningful way with mexico cracking down on smuggling networks. threats and temper tantrums are no way to negotiate. thisng your thoughts morning. was it a good deal? michael is up first in north carolina, republican. good morning. caller: i think it is a good deal, as long as we can get mexico to stay with it. the shows you how corrupt democrats and republicans in congress are, trump is the only

one fighting for america. host: mike saying it's a good deal of lungs we get mexico to stick with it. our terrace a good way of doing that? caller: anyway to get them to stop the flow of illegals across the borders a good deal. it's hurting the middle class and the work of americans pay the taxes to keep it going. host: this is the editorial board of the wall street journal this morning on the president's use of tariffs in the situation saying the use is bad policy. that won't stop with immigration. saying itial board has gone for now but businesses can't be sure it won't come back. now mr. trump is using them as an all-purpose weapon, joe biden's climate proposal released last week suggested using tariffs against countries that don't do what he wants with climate change. the dangerous future presidents

will use them as a diplomatic remedy. congress would do well to take trade itblank check on has given presidents over the decade. rodney in virginia is next, a democrat. caller: i don't think it's a good deal. of also wondering when will people realize the president is playing games with the tariffs. win of the democrats in the house going to stand up and show them they have the power of the purse. this is dean in louisville, kentucky. we cannot be a cash cow for the world.

probably use that the democrats want everybody to come in to the country. about taking care of these people. host: the phone lines again if you want to join the discussion about the agreement announced friday avoiding tears that were supposed to go into effect today. we are getting your thoughts this morning on whether you think it was a good deal 202-748-8001 for republicans. democrats 202-748-8000. independents 202-748-8002 and that special line for border state residents, 202-748-8003. allen in georgia, republican.

i don't think tariffs will actually accomplish the goal that our president wants because it will mean if we do those tariffs come we are reducing employment in mexico and they will start coming up to united states. it's ultimately all about the money. fix is not a wall, the fix is before employing -- the tsa gives them approval. i was reading a mexican and it was about --

>> this is sean in california. i wanted to know why is it only mexico but he wants to stop people from coming over, he doesn't want to stop any other people from coming over. lettingtee he is russians come all over. this is a deal for anybody coming over the southern border. other central american countries as well. within the influx from several including el salvador and guatemala and others. centralhose are countries. he's not stopping anybody else. i don't understand why other countries come over and they don't want us to do the pledge

of allegiance in school. it's like you came over here, live by our rules but now we have to change but it's only mexico he is focused on. host: what are our rules people should follow? caller: if you come here, the pledge of allegiance is what we do and people have been complaining about it and it gets pulled out of schools. host: any other rules? caller: that's just a good one. host: earl is next in california, republican. donald trump is on the freeway and all of these talking heads don't understand this in anyand his ability kind of business situation. threat, son tariff what? it worked. the military in mexico has been

mobilized, the democrats are going to see a decline in new voters, illegal aliens coming to vote, which is what they're trying to do, load the card for 2020. i just watched all 20 of these democrats yesterday on c-span, they don't have a chance. relabeled biden. elizabeth warren, are you serious? these people can't even carry a lunch. donald trump calls insult the doctor of debt. -- calls himself the doctor of debt. they should get out of his way and leave him alone for a few months. this whole country would be better for it. host: you mentioned the event yesterday, the iowa democratic , 19y hall of fame dinner democrats showing up for

five-minute addresses and they went back to back to back and c-span covered it, you can watch you canspan.org or search by an individual candidate you want to see. joe biden was not at the festivities yesterday in iowa, he skipped them to attend his granddaughter's high school graduation according to his campaign. he is headed to iowa on tuesday. the same to president trump is scheduled to be in the state. that reporting from the wrap on that event in the washington post. they had a wrapup the latest polling when it comes to the democratic primary. iowa released on saturday night ahead of that event, biden led the democratic pack with 24% in the state, sanders, 16 present, elizabeth warren with 15%. mayor pete with 14%. those of the front runners in

the iowa poll from saturday night. back to your phone calls on this u.s.-mexico border deal asking if you think it was a good deal. john in california, republican. what do you think? caller: good morning. what i think is this is the tip of the iceberg and the overall driving force is overpopulation in the world. we will see migrations all over the planet due to wars, economics, lack of water, resources. this is just the beginning as the world over populates. it's important we strengthen our ifders to prepare that and china goes into recession, there will be people from china. if india goes into recession there will be people from india. isi think this whole thing just the tip of the iceberg of what is to come in the future as

we over populate our plan and we must start to prepare to protect america. host: does that involve a wall on the southern border? caller: absolutely. it's a passive method of stopping people. you don't have guns and the other time it's a one-time expense. host: does that involve money -- a wall on the northern border as well? caller: if need be if that may come to that. wethe world over populates, will have to address it as it comes. joseph in silver spring, maryland, you are next. when people come to , we pay for taking care

of their health care and of don't -- if they don't have a job, their welfare. we want -- if we want to be compassion and say every country that is a problem, remember, i'm america for've been eight years, i'm a citizen. when i see people on tv and who -- they are giving countries money already to fix this problem. they are not because of corrupt leaders spending the money.

watch chuck schumer saying it's not the right thing to do, this has been an issue forever and it's not going to stop because they don't have a plan. this is going to help the economy in the long run. this is where the money is coming from. host: that was joseph in maryland. justin is in chicago, illinois. you are up next. justin, are you with us? try one more time for justin in chicago. independent. caller: good morning. walls don't work, 90% of guns being used in mexico are coming from the u.s.. the tariffs -- is not a good deal because you don't want to strong-arm your neighbors to the

south this is someone we need to be an ally so we can protect our borders. it doesn't mean it's a good deal. host: more of your phone calls coming up in this first hour of the washington journal we are asking you about the u.s.-mexico trade deal. in for phone lines for republicans, democrats, independents and the special line for border state residents, we want to hear from you. we will get two more of your phone calls but i want to turn to the hill newspaper, a national security reporter there for an update on what's happening on capitol hill. the house returns at 2:00 p.m., the senate returning at 3:00 p.m. in the house rules committee taking up a resolution regarding congress when it comes to the attorney general and the former white house lawyer don mcgann. resolutionough that and what will happen today. guest: quite a busy monday for

the house. the judiciary committee is p.m.ng a hearing at 2:00 with former white house counsel during the nixon administration john dean and then later in the day the rules committee will vote on this resolution that would hold if the full house approved, it would hold attorney general william barr and former white house counsel don mcgann under president trump in civil contempt of congress. essentially would allow the judiciary chairman to go to court to civilly enforce the r andenas he issued for bar mcgann separately. it would also authorize committee chairs given they receive approval by the house legal advisory committee to do this. they would be able to go to court unilaterally to enforce their subpoenas as well.

giving the chairman a lot more power in terms of pressing the trump administration and other officials for complying with their investigative pursuits as we see the white house trying to block the efforts to get information. host: why is this going to the courts and seeing civil enforcement necessary. why do democrats feel the need to take this? how unusual is this? guest: it is pretty unusual. i believe we've seen it's before -- it before but it's a rare step. the reason they are doing it is because the subpoena for barr asked jim to turn over the full unredacted mueller report and underlying evidence to the judiciary committee. barr has not done that so far. the justice department made a serious cap -- a series of counteroffers but barr argues turning over the full unredacted

report including material about ongoing investigations and grand jury material would compromise current law and amounts to him violating the law, grand jury material was supposed to be at -- of exemptions. nadler said he wants the justice department to join him in petitioning a court for the release. tug-of-war with the administration and the mullah report. the subpoena for mcgann's testimony. the white house is instructed not to comply with the subpoena. the judiciary committee is taking this route because they say the white house and the trump administration's given them no choice. host: you mentioned the hearing today on the mullah report, one of the headlines is calling it mueller week on capitol hill.

head to wednesday and the house intelligence committee, a somewhat unusual public hearing this week on the mullah report. will you be looking for? guest: this is important because notave -- the house is secured public testimony from robert mueller himself or private testimony so the democrats try to push forward trying to elucidate details about the report without having secured any testimony. thousand diligence committee is holding a hearing focused on the counterintelligence. be very different from today's hearing. it scheduled to focus on whether the president obstructed justice while the house committee is zeroing in on the contacts between the trump administration wallussia and figure out robert mueller didn't determine

there was some overarching criminal activity in terms of conspiracy between the trump not therewhether or was a sort of risk, risks the administration or trump or officials in his orbit have been subject to. that's something the house intelligence chairman has laid out as a key line of investigation. and other contacts between president trump, his association and foreign governments mostly. >> i know you are covering all of this in the newspaper. robert mueller won't be there. who are you most interested in hearing from? guest: i think john dean will be interesting today. i was not alive for the watergate scandal but i've read a ton about it and learned a lot

about it and how some people are trying to draw parallels to the current situation and what they saw during watergate. it will be interesting to see how he reflects on his experiences and what he saw compared to whatever are the details contained in robert mueller's report with regards to whether trump obstructed justice be i think it will really interesting to see how democrats to pushse the hearing forward on these investigations and possibly telegraph what they will zero in on next-door what other witnesses will be called because they've said they are holding you series of hearings. this is the first and we don't know who is next and obviously, mcgann has debated them and robert mueller, we haven't learned about his appearance

either. i think we will get some clues today on how they will proceed. always appreciate your time, thanks so much. on 7:30 on thep east coast and spending this first hour of the washington journal talking about that new u.s.-mexico border agreement getting your thoughts ever since it was released on friday. tears were expected and threatened to go into effect today. we talked about all weekend long. do you think it is a good deal. phone lines again for republicans, 202 -- 202-748-8001, democrats 202-748-8000, independents 202-748-8002. residentste 202-748-8003. caller: thank you, c-span.

people around the country to realize there has been 8000 migrants dropped off in the city of las cruces. the state of new mexico is crucesthe city of las $250,000 for providing relief. now in the past few months the $575,000 toocated migrants who have been released in the city. and $500,000ril 15 on april 25. so what is happening is this is --ng used as a partisan where the governor of new mexico as a democrat has said there isn't an emergency will all of the cities along the border are forced to deal with the situation in terms of the

additional expenses and requirements for providing shelter for the migrants. it is worth talking about and it's important people understand what's happening because like chuck schumer and nancy pelosi, the way they are playing this, they are trying to make it them versus trump when in fact there is a situation that needs to be dealt with both from a humanitarian level and a political level and until the federal government begins to it, the cities along the border are forced to deal with it. -- when people start -- there's a significant ethical question as far as what you do

and how you do it and of course no one wants this treatment and it's important -- we want mistreatment. it's important we monitor the care being provided. but in terms of this particular treaty, he is using the leverage that is there. mexico has gone for decades without addressing the issue and fromct they get reimbursed andants to their economy they have dual citizenship so they can come and go anyway they want to as far as the mexican government goes. so it is significant when you look at the factors and weigh them and then make a decision of what we can -- what can we do about it and how can we address it in a way that provides some

solutions and i think the point to the fact of mexico not having done anything for so long is significant. they've a new government now. he was president of mexico took $100 million from el chapo as testified in court so you have a -- they areee of playing a game on us and we have responseize what the -- what our responsibility is as a sovereign government in recognizing how to address the situation we face. we are looking at a situation people just one or two skipping over. appreciate the view. on the first part of what you're talking about, the need for funding and help down at the

border, the new york times editorial board picking that topic up today in one of their editorials. border miseries billed as the headline of that editorial. unequipped to deal with the facilities, migrant shelters are dangerously overcrowded and the staff is overburdened. disease and even death are a growing reality. this a the problem is many democrats have viewed the trump administration as untrustworthy and are not willing to hand over one more penny for immigration. members of the caucuses have been particularly adamant, insisting leadership to get hardline on negotiating despite its promises -- and the fear that despite promises they will spend more on he military needs -- tens of thousands of migrant

children are suffering. congress needs to get serious about dealing with that suffering. that is from today's new york times editorial board there. in millersville, maryland, you are next for independence. >> i do not agree with this. i feel like as americans we should be questioning why our government could easily go on the other side of the globe and involve our military and things in the names of human rights, however we don't -- people don't want immigrants coming from the southern border, yet we are not willing to deploy troops in those countries in mexico, hunters, nicaragua. violence toll the the things pushing people here. will decrease the amount of

people coming here. so why isn't our government willing to resolve the issue. host: chris from ohio is next. good morning. caller: good morning. you can almost hear it if you read between the lines, kicking us down. finally getting something done with this flood of illegals. you can hear it coming out of him with his comments against. watchedd nancy, i've how many years ago was when they ,ried to push obamacare through i watched on tv talking outside of her head. if you want to know it's in the bill, you will sign it into law. thatkind of assisting is to help the other constituents in congress members know what's

in a bill they're trying to pass and what is that done to having people paying health care and stuff, let alone just an astronomical raising prices. quitreally defeatist nitpicking and troublemaking, getting something done in their -- he is getting something done in there. there is no racism about republicans wanting the united states americans to have more strength but it seems to getting sapped up by everybody in control and not really helping. so many different points people call in and see how many different things americans don't get taken care of with all this handout stuff going to the people getting through the loopholes of immigration and policy and so forth. finally something gets to get started on this and maybe we can have control of our country,

which we don't have. host: more reaction from members of congress, several going on the sunday shows. is senator ron johnson, republican from wisconsin on fox news sunday yesterday. >> i think in general, republicans understand tariffs are attacks on american consumers and we don't want to see them in place long-term nor do i believe president trump does either. he is using them as leverage. he use them in this situation brilliantly quite honestly. after those news reports were published last week i called the mexican ambassador and said regardless of what you read in the press, if the president imposes tariffs, there are not votes to override that so take it seriously. you know you have to do more. this is an uncontrolled situation of the border. the acting secretary is doing an excellent job. this is completely out of control.

we have had groups of 1000 migrants in the el paso sector alone. one thing that is not being talked about enough is the involuntary servitude, the human traffic is out of control. we were down the border last 5% of thesetiny families are fraudulent families. there was 13-year-old boy were told about. abandoned in the hot texas field. we are talking about enough in terms of this problem. host: that was senator ron johnson yesterday on fox news sunday. lindsey graham yesterday on twitter saying i wish democrats would be not against president trump to fix a broken immigration system. i appreciate the maxing government working with the trump administration but hope democrats will do the same.

we have been asking you whether you think this agreement was a good deal. a few comments from social media. matt writes in this morning what agreement was made? most of these provisions were negotiated months ago. there isn't really anything to celebrate here. charles saying it may not be perfect but the deal with mexico is better than the democrats solution which is sitting on their hands. saying whattter deal, do we see the results of the deal? bullying is not dealing. one more from elaine saying they agreed early about threaten to do tariffs on the back americans is not a good way to negotiate. sorry it cause problems in the future. if you've the comments from those of you watching this morning. we hope you call in as well. line for border state residents. , we will keep you just keep showing you more

reaction from over the weekend as we get your reaction this morning. go ahead. i kind of cringe when i hear some of the comments, i'm here in california and you cannot imagine driving to san diego and seeing all of the facilitatethat illegal immigrant workers. going down to laguna beach they have a little facility where you can pick up your own personal worker mexican for the day and they have a water station there them and showers, they have an area because they don't want them in town hanging around the stores so they have a place for them to go and wait for work. the saddest thing is when the

governor, who we thought was going to get in office and help bring the two parties together says he is going to spend almost $1 billion to give illegal immigrants medical care, it makes you wonder what am i working for. thatnk my biggest issue is the republican party has and abandonedt the black community. would nobody is saying, these sanctuary cities, they happen to theyack communities that are dumping these illegal immigrants in and pushing african americans out. it is easy for someone to say from on top of a hill that it is ok, they're just trying to find freedom, we will let them live next door to you.

when i go back to my hometown in compton, almost everybody you see are illegal immigrants, it makes you upset and when you look at a party that is supposed to be for the people, are liberal and what they are doing is they are cultivating votes. to know that now you don't even have to -- in texas, you have to show an id. you have to prove who you are when you vote. in california, you can now get permanent ballots to vote by mail. you don't have to say -- anybody can register and anybody can vote. i'm saying something is wrong. trump is not completely crazy. i don't agree with everything he is saying with this wall but he is absolutely right, we have to do something to make sure and processhat there is a for immigration, that we need to use that process.

and stop stacking the deck for the senses. stop stacking the deck when you know this is going to hurt people. host: this is anna in chicago. an independent. we should notk toow people from a country enter this country to claim asylum if they came through another country. to those from south america who came through mexico, they have to apply for asylum in mexico first and have to prove to us they applied and they were rejected and then they can be considered and the judges would consider why they were rejected as part of the case. and if mexico starts passing out forms saying show this to the government -- american

government, those forms will be denied. so that is one way to stop it. the gentleman who just called and said you can vote without showing an id, we should force everyone to have a valid government issued id to vote. there is nothing wrong with that. everyone has some kind of id and if they don't they can get it from the state. top of a program we mentioned president trump tweeting this morning around 6:30 a.m. about signing and documenting another very important part of the immigration security deal with mexico. information from the white house yet on what exactly it is although the washington post offered some speculation in their wrap up morning. the president talking about possible components of the deal in tweets yesterday.

-- the washington post said those tweets seemed to hint at the possible component of the deal that would transform asylum rules across the region and make applicant seek refuge in the first country they reach. that would allow the united states to deport most asylum-seekers from honduras and el salvador flown to guatemala. such an arrangement would lead to a dramatic drop in migrants in each month at the u.s. border , those migrants are generally delete naturally from custody. if they have a child -- that reporting today about what might -- with this deal might also include. carol is in georgia, republican. caller: president trump is doing a very good job of trying to bring control of the border. he is trying this and that. he is trying everything he can and we see that. we need to understand these

people coming across the border are people that are very young and they are coming at the childbearing stage. they will have children, that's what people do in their 30's and 40's. so that's going to just triple. whoever's coming across the borders, we need to understand president trump is doing a good job and we need to back him and the democrats need to look at it and see he is doing everything he can to bring control of the border and i'm watching every day and he is doing it. we need to admit it. that is all i have to say. just watch trump, he will do something else to try and bring control of the border. >> one of those democrats who don't think president trump is doing a very good job at the border, bernie sanders looking to secure the democratic nomination to run against the president in 2020. he was on state of the union

yesterday, here is what he had to say. >> i think what the president has done is tout what mexico has agreed to do many months ago. but i think what the world is tired of and what i am tired of is a president who consistently goes to war, verbal war, with our allies whether it's mexico or canada. the issue in terms of immigration requires us finally to do what should've been done years ago and that is pass comprehensive immigration reform to make sure our young people in this country who are in the program get immediate legal protection and we remain -- we have border policy. we need a decent relationship with mexico. we should not be confronting them every other day. >> as president, would you be willing to use tariffs as a negotiating tactic on nontraded related issues?

policieseve the trade this country has had for many years were written by the ceos of large corporations, often in secret. , i thinkgainst nafta what the facts show is we've lost 4 million good paying jobs as a result. >> i understand that's how you feel -- host: about 10 minutes left in the segment. asking you about that u.s.-mexico border agreement from friday the diverted tariffs said to go into effect today. we want to know if you think it was a good deal. john in arlington, go ahead. caller: good morning. i have a few comments about this. i'm a person who went to school for business management and i thought trump was actually an interesting person and an

interesting business person. with regards to him being in president, it surprises me he would want to enact something such as high tariffs coming across the border because we are going to suffer as americans because we purchase a many goods from mexico. societyples of american , you are familiar with fender stratocaster's, a lot of them harley, in mexico and and common american icon, parts are made in mexico. things that are an icon of america will end up costing us more money and his bernie sanders was just saying, i think we are making verbal wars with our allies in the world and we betweenng a misnomer the immigration issues and

business acumen. that is all i had to say about that. what thethe u.s. -- u.s. imports are mexico, each year in 2018 it was about $346.5 billion worth of goods making mexico our second largest include $93goods, billion in vehicles from mexico with $64 billion in electrical machinery. at $16 billion. -- $16 billion. and of course agricultural imports as well to the tune of some $26 billion. those numbers from u.s. trade representative from the 2018 imports. randall is next in texas. good morning. i watch this for several years. --ive

i hear you all talking economics, but when you when you talked about -- when you want to , let's get amanity plan, go back to of democrats offered. he $5 billion, let's start building -- $25 billion and let's start building a receiving facility. i can't get the white guy to own up, we helped start those cartels through iran-contra. mass andll part of our that's with those people are fleeing from. i hear you talk about the stock , that's what politicians want us to focus on. they don't want us to focus on the dire needs. ,hey will build their own place

they can manufacture from down there. we can help them dream and not have to worry about them invading rhode island. this county i live in, our wealth has grown immensely. number one dairy co. in texas. will receive them back to their homes to their parents. no discussion of the humanitarian side, there is always the talk about billions and trillions. get somebody down here with a plan that can say let's get you something to do. we are going to feed you. tell the mexican president -- we have to build a safe zone. we have refugee cancel over the

world. host: that is randall in texas. jay is in florida, a republican. caller: good morning, how are you? you quoted a whole bunch of numbers there in the billions, that just demonstrates what we gave away to mexico during the nafta deal. that is nothing more than just the stuff that was made here before we decided to outsource everything under the planet so we could purchase a cheap. americans need to get their act together and decide if they want to be part of america or part of the world order. that a few other numbers goes with what you are saying. this is total imports from mexico. billion in 2018. in the pre-nafta days, the numbers today are up 768% when it comes to goods imported from

mexico. caller: exactly. when they start saying they are the largest trader, this is not a trade. they are not producing something on their own we are purchasing. now this is just outsourced material. some products come back and forth three or four times in the process of being made. think about that. lift to get product, bring it here, but it together, send it back, but another part and send it back. and then put the product out. that is cheaper. is, why would the delegation from mexico fly here hoursght, sit down for 11 to hammer out a process that was completely phony according to the democrats.

that doesn't make any sense. how far they willing to go with this conspiracy stuff? they are losing their minds and i think it is driving most of the people -- i'm an independent but did vote for trump. i think they are driving us to vote for trump a matter what because the only option they are giving us is a bunch of who we. -- hooey. host: democrats are saying much of what was announced in this announcement that was made with much fanfare on friday night consisted of actions that mexico had already agreed to in prior discussions. the new york times story from late friday and ran in saturday's new york times picks up that issue. michael and maggie with the bylines on that story. earned theory that attention of president trump in a series of his tweets from over

the weekends. president trump calling out that story in particular and disputing the story. the new york times today with a report of a statement about the newspaper stand by that article. we are confident in our reporting and as on so many other occasions, they say are story stand up over time but the president upon denial of them do not. the new york times in their paper today, the times stand by its report. claude is next in riverview, florida. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to start specifically from the fact that donald trump currently right now according to new york state, the southern district of new york, is an unindicted co-conspirator in the commission of crimes.

in addition to that, donald trump looks feckless on the world stage when he does anything. his tariffs on china or neighbors, canada, mexico. not to mention the fact these are crisis that donald trump has manufactured with china and mexico and europe. let's look at the real issue. donald trump, i grew up in new york. i remember very clearly donald trump declaring bankruptcy several times. it, looke my word for at the tax releases from 1985 to 1995 i believe was put out. donald trump lost $1 billion i think. more than any other businessman in the united states. donald trump is running the country as part of the trump organization if you look at this washington hotel, his other properties around the world.

is this a violation of the emoluments clause? are we dealing with a criminal? i think so. host: dominic is next, an independent out of new york. caller: good morning. i don't know where this guy from florida gets his information from. you know who died last week of an overdose? there are more people dying with drug overdoses in this country than men killed in vietnam in 10 -- in 10 years and one year. the drugs are ridiculous. , ifar as nafta is concerned the crisis in mexico when the ink dried. they took all our jobs now you have 130,000 illegals coming in every month. we are talking about the drop rate went down.

i see them on government jobs, visit black market. they are really hurting the bottom line. as far as anything else is concerned, we can't allow 70,000 people to drive a drug overdose every year because democrats want to sit on their hands and don't want to handle the problem of the border. we need these people, but we need them to come in legally. they can't come in here with a drug cartel and get jobs through the black market. that's the problem that has to be fixed. go ahead. caller: i'm not going to talk about donald trump. and ilking about ideas will throw this out there. i will throw this out there. listen.can

first of all, annexed to cope you we won the mexican-american war in the 1840's. we were then going to bring mexico into the union, but the northerners thought they would come in as a slave state, so we decided not to. have mexico, then you only 100 miles of border to defend, and then the citizens of mexico would get two senators, and then we would have the authority to really clean up the cartels. host: how do you think mexico would feel about that? caller: i do not care. they have a corrupt government. always will. it will be of benefit to them, even though it will probably hurt their pride in the long run, it will help them. host: our last caller in this first segment of the "washington journal" today. up next, we are joined by former house oversight committee chairman tom davis to discuss the house democrats' ongoing

investigations of the white house and the executive branch. ♪ >> tonight on "the communicators," netchoice vice president carl szabo and gene kimmelman, president and ceo of public knowledge, talk about making up big tech. >> when we see one company achieve what is called market power, meaning you are the dominant player, and engage in anticompetitive behavior, as laid out in the sherman act -- stuff like so fueling, tying -- stuff that is specifically designed to help -- prevent new

entrants. the fact that the house judiciary committee announced this week that they are in a bipartisan way looking to hold hearings, briefings, and possibly do some investigating on their own to understand the digital market, understand if antitrust needs to be changed and updated, or if there are other policies to promote competition, that is the exact right role for congress to be playing. understanding if there is a problem, identifying the problem, then looking for the right best tool to address it. watch "the communicators" tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. >> the complete guide to congress is now available. has lots of details about the house and senate for the current session of congress. informationbio about every senator and representative, plus information about congressional committees, state revenues, and the cabinet.

19 congressional directory is a handy, spiral-bound guide. order your copy from the c-span online store for $18.95. >> "washington journal" continues. former congressman tom davis is back at our desk. one of the many hats you wore during your time at congress as chair of the house oversight committee. for six point what new tools democrats are looking to give their committee chairs now when it comes to pursuing their investigations answer -- and enforcing their subpoenas. guest: the major change -- i was only committee congress chairman that could shoot a subpoena, but now i think they have given that the most committee chairman. committee has a is out there that they would allow the minority to know about it ahead of time.

now if you want to hold somebody in contempt, that is different. then you may need to go to the house floor and have a cool partyline vote. host: why are democrats looking to pursue this effort through the civil courts when it comes to trying to enforce -- guest: if they take it the other way, they have to go through the justice department, and going through the justice department of the trump administration. but let me explain the larger context. this has been evolving. is congress no longer operates as an independent branch. the president's party in congress is now an appendage of the negative branch, whether obama, trump, clinton, bush. ec members of that party protecting that president, trying to make sure that president is protected, because voters react that way, voting

party, not person. minorityher hand, the hand of congress no longer sees itself as a minority shareholder. they tend to see themselves as the opposition party. the end result is the resident's party tends to under investigate, the opposition party over investigates, and this is evolving for 20 years. i think every president takes it to a new level. the end result is congress does not operate as an independent branch anymore. it is operating like a parliamentary system. host: i think the count is 20 some different investigations conducted by different house committees. this term, bipartisan legal advisory group, what is that? guest: we will find out. what the democrats are trying to do is build up some popular pressure for the investigations they are trying to do. they are trying to bring republicans into the fold to investigate the administration

-- unlikely to happen. host: put on your former republican congressional committee chairman have for a second and talk about impeachment and what it would mean in the 2020 field as democrats try to keep the house. how would you sell this as you try to recruit candidates to run? guest: if you are in a safely district, there voters believe that every day the president is in office is a danger to the republic, what are you doing to keep him in office. if you are in a swing district that trumka carry in the next election, you will be more hesitant to go after the president, go after impeachment. is trying to do two things. first is see proctors if they proceed on impeachment. secondly, she wants to protect

because iticts, keeps the party in the majority. so there's a lot of politics that plays into this. depending what street you are from, you will view it differently. republicanr representative tom davis from virginia. he was the oversight, chairman, chair of the nrc c.p.a. here to take your calls and questions. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. we want to stick with that 20 field and the house map. how hard is it to recruit when you are in the minority in the house? and what is the cell for republicans -- sell for rep ublicans? guest: democrats had a pretty good recruitment team. there was a lot of anger out with the democratic base.

had a lot of people who felt empowered who traditionally had not been involved. could feel a little bit of a wave building at this point. it makes it easy to recruit when you have a cause, and cause said they wanted to get a check on donald trump. that helped democrat recruiting. republicans have a bit of the same thing going this time. the problem last time is republicans allegedly controlled all parts of government, a house, senate, and the presidency. as a practical matter, they do not control the senate, just presided over it, because most of these items take 60 votes to pass in the senate. but the voters perceived we needed to put a check, and that was a useful recruitment tool. the president is a polarizing tool. a lot of people who would not have been involved in politics -- we are seeing this with nick

voters and candidates. for them, it was a good recruitment tool, just as it was 2010 withlicans in barack obama, when people came out of the woodwork to run against him. the presidential race is sucking up all the option -- oxygen at this point, but republicans will have a decent recruiting pool. host: but is the cause for republicans the president or issues like the border and economy? guest: it depends where you are. the economy works for republicans right now. would be against them at this point. border issues work well for them. host: let's talk to callers. david is a democrat. caller: how are you doing this morning? i have a couple of things to say about this impeachment inquiry, which i do support. i read the redacted newer report.

10 counts of obstruction of justice. it amazes me, when i hear people, on either side, say that this is not worthy of looking into -- it is worthy of looking into. i think what we need to do here muellerneed to subpoena . if you were to be subpoenaed, i think he would testify, especially when he was talking last wednesday about election interference. about.eds to be talked this administration and the republicans in the senate have done diddly squat to help. democrats and house have tried to do something and were shot down by mcconnell, which, unfortunately, represents my part of the country. i apologize about that, to everyone out there, for that. as far as -- host: let's take up the topic of subpoenaing mueller. guest: first of all, there were not 10 counts but 10 instances that the mueller report raised

that they punted over to congress to decide. a lot of this is not just actions. for example, the president had an -- every right to fire the fbi director. the question goes to intent. did he do this to stop an investigation or where the other reasons? the mueller report that they demanded basically congress look at these areas, but they were not counts or indictments, so to speak. democrats are having a difficult time getting the appropriate information on this. subpoenaing people and the like, because they will not do an impeachment inquiry, as the caller's adjusted. the impeachment in great gives congress a why there -- a wider berth. i think democrats are afraid that an impeachment inquiry changes the narrative going into an election. an inquiry is not an impeachment to it with clinton, there was an impeachment inquiry that

attracted a number of democratic votes in 1998 that did not vote for impeachment after the investigation was over. but it allows congress more flex ability in discovering and calling witnesses from the executive branch than otherwise. host: how do you think elijah cummings and jerry naylor -- nadler are doing it? guest: to some accent, they are victims of whether president sensors have done. -- of what their predec essors had done. -- as i've said, the president's party tends to under investigate, the opposition party tends to over investigate. under democrats, there was pent up amanda to look at these items. i think most chairman, and other chairman as well, are going after them now. host: how do you try to walk the line from not under investigating, and where do you

think the line was in over investigating? wast: my ranking democrat harry wexler, and for two years, he was the chairman. we felt a certain obligation to the leadership that gave us the gavels, but for the most part, we worked things out. i subpoenaed my own secretary of defense, subpoenaed cabinet members for my own party -- host: why did you subpoena the secretary of defense? guest: there were any number of issues on contracting in iraq. we had a situation when a professional football player had died in combat and the kind of covered it up -- we were both institutionalists. we believe congress is an independent branch of government to that trumps being the best that trumps --

that trumps being democrat or republican. the perception now that the president's party is an appendage of the exec if branch. host: who would you appoint as an institutionalist in conversation? guest: you start in tennessee, representative from nashville. i think steny hoyer is an institutionalist. he certainly has partisan inclinations, which he has to do as a democratic leader, but he understands where the guardrails are. that is a couple on the democratic side. on the republican side, you have any number of people who have been around for a while that -- even jim sensenbrenner is an institutionalist, when you look back in terms of how he conducted the judiciary committee. so there are a number of people who understand how congress can work, not the way it is working

today. host: former congressman tom davis up from -- taking your calls. blaine is in michigan, republican. caller: i actually call myself more of an independent, but i got you on this line. steny hoyer is an institution himself. he has been up there forever. they will wheedle him out just like byrd or what? the other thing is, for two years, the democrats have been investigating donald trump. did they put as much effort into investigating john gotti with the fbi? all of his records are public knowledge, and all of this other stuff -- i still cannot believe that people -- you have three networks, abc, cbs, and nbc, that mode this nonsense constantly. come on. guest: i think i'm on the media

today, the media plays partisan politics. that is their business model. it has been a successful business model. you tune in every night and know what you will hear. so that is how they build their viewership. it is difficult for the average american to find out where is truth. if you watch fox and msnbc in the same night, they are different planets, where this comes from. i advise people to look at everything and try to make up your own mind. but you have to remember, in terms of being serious news, this is more of a business model, and a successful business model, basically feeding their viewers what want to hear. host: in texas, david. caller: good morning. i underlined what are the things you said earlier about under investigating and over investigating, and you proved very well when he said the

republicans did not control the senate, they presided over the senate. and you mentioned the 60 votes. the fact that it takes 60 votes is also because they changed the way the senate has acted over the recent decade or so. one of the earlier fellows who call talked about the unindicted trump wasator -- that made by the investigation. if you listen to alan dershowitz, which i've have done quite a bit over the last couple of years, it is my recollection that it was cohen pleading guilty to a nonprime, why would someone want to plead guilty to a nonprime? i listen to plenty of prosecutors describe why someone would be made or asked to do something like that. in this case, i pretty much bet that they wanted him to do that because that would let the press and everybody say that trump had

an untried co-conspirator, even though it was a nonprime. also -- guest: people plead guilty to non-crimes and people -- things they did not commit all the time. when they are throwing the book at you, you want to look for a deal, because the cost of defending yourself can bankrupt you. thatichael cohen's case, is part of it. when they talk about indicting family members, these issues, it changes your perspective. at this point, you look at how do i cut my losses -- that is common, by the way. people will plead something just to get something else out from under them that would be worse. we are talking about the institution of congress. i wonder what your thoughts are on pay raises for members of congress, a story in the roll call newspaper from late last week about commitments being

offered by five different lawmakers that would block a new cost-of-living increase for members of congress that would increase pay by about $4500 in january. guest: congress has not had a pay increase in over a decade. if you go back to the deal made in the early 1990's, congress in those days, members could have outside income. they were able to do speeches here they had women did ways of enhancing their salaries. at that point, all of that was stopped with very few exceptions. the idea was we would give bump up in race and they would get automatic cost-of-living increases, the way every other federal employee gets. then, along came some members who said we do not think congress should get any raise, -- they would chant

at the end of the day, i think congress just gave up on it. there pay has been frozen for some time. host: 175 thousand dollars a year for the rank and file. guest: it has been that way for a decade. they have fortunately decoupled federal judges from that. judges have been able to rise a little bit. in the meantime, i was a sponsor to raise pay for senior executive service. you want to maintain a backup talent in the federal government, when you are up against corporate lawyers and the like. you want to be able to maintain the same level of talent. you have to pay people something. you will never match the paid on wall street, but you can at least give people a career path where they can be more comfortable. otherwise, they walk across the street and double or triple their salary. but one point -- i testify before congress a month ago saying you do not want to give

yourself a raise, that is up to you, but do not put this limitation on the salaries for your staff. what we are seeing is an exodus of qualified, highly qualified, staff members, going somewhere else where they can make significant more massive money with their talent. as congress loses that talent level, they lose the ability to go up against the executive branch, where some of these same agencies do not have the same pay cap that congress does, and against the private sector, and you end up giving the whole thing over to the lobbyists, if you limit those kinds of things. congress ought to bring back the cost of living allowance. i do not think they are not getting people to run because of the costs. there are other reasons people are reluctant to run for this job. it may sound like good politics at the end of the day, but over time, it has had a corrosive effect. oftenyou are called upon on how to make the institution work better. tell us your feelings on the earmarks.

guest: earmarks are merely project designations. it is a responsibility of the house of representatives. if you look at the first 150 years of the house, almost every project was earmarked. we would decide roads and bridges and how to build it. it is a cause additional response village of the house of representatives of the ironies congressrepublican complaining about president obama when they just give him an -- the power. they had a few members appeasing the privilege, and instead of fixing it, they just walked away from it because it was unpopular. mean that they can bring back certain projects that may not get funded otherwise. and it makes the default vote

yes on an appropriate and spill as opposed to know. if i have a bridge or something in that bill, it makes it easier to pass it. it was kind of the glue that held legislation together. it brought republicans and immigrants together -- i will give you an example. in my district, i was not tom davis, the republican. i was a republican in a district designed to be more or less a democratic district, but i was mr. woodrow wilson bridge. i was mr. wyden 123. -- i was mr. widen 123. people may not like my party, but they saw a redeeming qualities and keeping me around. it allowed me to be more independent in my voting record, because i had earmarks and other things to fall back on and just voting with the party on certain issues. these numbers now do not have that, so they are judged by their party kid as a result, people are voting party, not person.

it continues to advance the movement from a democratic model to a more parliamentary model in terms of how we elect people. it has been bad for government. i would bring them back with more transparency. host: trenton, new jersey, democrat. no ahead. ahead. thank - go caller: thank you for having me on c-span. i am a former republican. i do not agree on anything the republican party stands for right now. i am a vietnam veteran. i did not have no bone spurs. here,ot going to stand listening to somebody defend the aesident, who should not have lawyer that we pay for. bank --ake it to the there are two thirds of us

waiting for the 2020 election to come around so that we can vote mr. trump right the heck out of office -- host: if i may ask, what was the point you left the republican party? caller: i left the republican party as soon this somewhat president called -- he goes out and makes a dispersion about john mccain. john mccain was a good republican. he was a loyal american. he earned medals. and he was a vietnam veteran. he did not deserve anything donald trump said about him. veteran,or the former and he should just let him rest in peace. ofst: i am a graduate

officer candidate school, i was a friend of mccain's -- i understand how people feel about this. i am still a republican because there are overriding republican -- philosophical issues. but you have to understand the republican base migrated from the country club to the country. upot of this is playing cultural issues, but there are still underlying market issues i think that divides the party. every voter has to make up for themselves the priorities they have in terms of determining their party identification. i appreciate the call. host: bernie, go ahead. caller: first, amen to the caller we just heard. second, an issue in our politics is money. a deeplys to be

draining issue for politics. to the extent that we can eliminate money from our politics, it would be a good thing. but suggest not term limits no reelections at all. no reelections. simply, if you have to, justially for the house, i the term limits. instead of two years, make it six or eight. and, accordingly, with the senate. if you do that, you eliminate the cost of being reelected, and then the big corporations, who uove money for quid pro q cannot count on a politician to come across, because they will not have to be reelected. guest: first of all, corporations cannot give money to candidates.

that goes back to the tillman act, the beginning of the 20th century. corporations do have political action committees, where their employees contribute, but a political action committee can give $5,000 per cycle, that is it. the employees can give. they are american citizens and are free to give. i sympathize with where the caller comes from, in terms of special interests buying their way in washington. there have been a lot of efforts, over time, to try to curtail that special influence. they have all met with opposition in the courts, going way back to the newberry case in the 1920's, to buckley v. valeo in the 1970's. which said individuals can spend as much money as they could. because if the theory was you do not corrupt yourself giving your own money to candidates. of course now, we have the super

pac's. from verys now are wealthy individuals, who give money, not corporations. of course, you look at where most of these pacs are funded, they lay primaries, tend to be more ideological, and the failure of the mccain-feingold bill was a moved money away from the party, because basically they have to win the senate or win elections. as moved the money from the center to the wings. and it has added to the polarization in american politics. it is a tough issue, but i super with the caller. -- sympathize with the caller. host: the governor of cannot be reelected. has not harmed genia? guest: i think so. -- host: the governor of virginia cannot be reelected.

has that harmed virginia? guest: i think so. we are the only state. there were a lot of states that had a one term limit, which basically was to keep plantation folks in control of things in there areearlier -- state legislatures that have term mitts. there is still a permit clinical class that will run for the state legislature. you will never eliminate the permanent political class. more importantly, you lose a lot of expertise. you lose a lot of institutional knowledge with that. the end result is you end up giving power to interest groups, who are their day in and day out and control the knowledge of the way the place works. it has been a noble avenue experiment -- a noble experiment. i voted for term limits when i was --congress when i

but i am not sure if that has solved the problem. host: what would have been the term limit, if you had the vote for it? guest: six in the house and 12 in the senate. from new jersey, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. i am a registered democrat. i voted for obama and i voted for trump. i will vote for trump again. there are a couple reasons. by want to make a few comments. as far as pay raises for congress, i would not give them a sense --cent. they're not doing their job. and they are off more than they work. two weeks off year, a month they are -- i do not even see them in their seats. that is number one. number two, the never trumpers are part of this confederacy --

conspiracy to get trump out, and no one is looking into the fact that hillary clinton started this whole thing. i know it will come out. i am waiting for it. hillary clinton, with the dossier, started this whole thing. as far as mccain goes, thumbs down at 2:00 in the morning on his own republicans when he ran on getting obamacare out does a good republican to me, so get that out of your head. host: where do you want to start? guest: i do not know where to start. but she typifies the frustrations a lot of voters feel, that congress is not doing their job, not passing legislation, not addressing key issues, not passing appropriation bills on time. this goes back to the parliamentary mob and the fact that you need 60 votes in the senate. the house is pretty efficient to the republican house was pretty efficient under ryan and

mccarthy. the democratic house is pretty efficient. the problem is iran up against the senate and you have to muster 60 votes in the senate. neither party has that. the end result is it stymies things. it is good and bad depending how you look at it. i understand the frustration. i will say this is that members work hard get the fact that they are not in their seats does not mean they do not do other things. and we argue most of the time -- they probably spend too much time raising money, but they spend a lot of time meeting with constituents, talking with people. members work harder than they work long -- hard and they work long. host: robert in virginia. caller: how are you doing? i am an independent. i can agree with the lady who just called, to some extent, set up there,ess

like mcconnell -- he is not going against the president because his wife is the secretary of transportation. so he is not going to do anything. what we need to do is get those people out and do not allow a family member to be working in the cabinet of the president while they are in office. and another thing, you have ,hose congressmen who retire then stay in washington and draw -- get rid of those people that have already served their time. send them back to their state unaware they come from, and you will not ever have a complete congress that is not crooked. know, they have limits on members in the house and senate in terms of how soon they can come back and talk to

former members. they put limitations on these kind of issues as well. but again, the caller goes to a huge frustration, that congress is no longer acting as an independent body. they no longer get legislation passed. this goes back to what i talked about originally, where we have gone to a parliamentary model where the minority party is no longer a minority shareholder, they are an opposition party, and the president's party is an appendage of the executive branch. it is not the way the system was designed. the only people who will change it are the voters. when the voters start voting, other than party, start looking at individuals, we will come back to better behavior in congress. but that is not what the voters are doing. we are seeing less ticket splitting today than any other time in history. fromone house is different the way that the state voted in the presidential election.

the minnesota senate. we have had fewer slits and its, we have had less ticket splitting. cruciate the conversation. thanks. up next, time for more of your phone calls, asking what issue you are tracking in washington. here is a few we are tracking. the hearing on the lessons from the mueller report in the judiciary committee. the house also writing contempt votes against the attorney general and former white house consul don mcgahn. deal about the u.s.-mexico border. let us know what you are tracking. phone lines for republicans, democrats, and independents are on your screen. speaking of the attorney general, william barr spoke at the f ei graduation ceremony friday about returning to the top law enforcement job at the

department of justice after 25 years. here is a bit of what he had to say. [video clip] >> as most of you know, i am a two-time offender. this is my second stint as attorney general. my arrival this time was a little more event will -- eventful that i recall it being last time. june watch the coverage of 6, 1940 four, d-day, i had the thought that my arrival this droppinga little like in on the morning of june 5, trying to figure out where you could land without getting shot. after ias a delight, arrived, to find the fbi in such greatands and find such partners increase in his leadership team at the bureau.

the last time i was in the department of justice, i would have to say that what was the greatest pleasure and pride for me was with -- the association with the f ei -- fbi and the great men and women in our law enforcement community. people asked me today do i regret having come into the government, and the answer is a resounding no, because once again, i have the opportunity to work with the outstanding men and women of the bureau and our nation's law enforcement leaders. >> "washington journal" continues. host: about 25 minutes in this segment of the "washington journal" to take your phone calls, asking what stories you are tracking today in washington. here is a few of the ones we are tracking. including the house hearing set to take place today on the mueller report, the lessons learned from the mueller report.

that will take place in the judiciary committee hearing today. the house rules committee later today around 5:00 will take up legislation involving the possible content vote against attorney general barr, former white house lawyer don mcgahn -- that would take lays tomorrow, if approved by the rules committee today. also, continued congressional reaction to the deal announced friday that would avert the tariffs against mexico that was theto go into place today, president and lawmakers reacting to that over the weekend. we expect them to react even more when they return to capitol hill. the house in at 2:00 p.m., the senate at 3:00. and supreme court decision day today. there are only a few left on the calendar. the supreme court with several highly important cases still on their docket. we could hear today, starting around 9:30 or 10:00 a.m. what decisions may come down today.

we never know until they actually are handed down. phone lines, republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. what story you are tracking today. ronny, idaho falls, republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. my opinion is i do not think robert mueller will testify. i've seen him in congressional testimony before. he does not bear well. and the man you just showed, mr. barr, when that id report comes out, i think all -- that i.g. report comes out, all hell will break loose. and i heard a couple of your callers before say that republicans are trying to push black people out. democrats know they have the black vote and republicans know they do not have a chance.

with all of these guys out there pushing their work, that republicans are trying to do better and understand the black community, i think they are being successful. he had won callers say that two thirds are going to rise up, but they did not get 2/3 the last time they voted. more people will just be silent, like last election, keep their mouth shut and not tell anybody who they are voting for. we will see what happens. on immigration, if trump shut the 7rder down when million doses of fentanyl came to the board and they intercepted it, he should have declared a national emergency then and shut the border down. 57 million people could have gotten killed by that fentanyl. if that is not enough to scare you -- and all of these opioids, they need to cut it back. i know fentanyl came through china, but it came through mexico. host: you started your comments

talking about the mila report. that hearing in the judiciary committee today will cover lessons learned. that is a headlight -- the title of the hearing. lessons learned from the mueller report. the mueller report also expected to get an airing wednesday in the house intelligence committee. chairman adam schiff set to hold a fairly rare open-door hearing. most of the work of the intelligence committee takes place behind closed doors, but this will be a public hearing taking place in the house intelligence committee wednesday. richard in albuquerque, new mexico is next, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. first of all, in the mila report, if you read the mila report host: you will see that even in his speech, he does not even know who is involved. so congress trying to impeach the president -- no. are you there? host: yes, go ahead. they try to impeach

the president on the mila report, there is no evidence. listen to what he said. hearn to him, and you will it exactly. on the u.s.-mexico border, listen -- all of these daca people in the united states, they need to go to the only in the-- united states, you do not get in front of someone else to put an application to wait to become a united states citizen. congress, the democrats -- i know you are a democrat. to not bess needs nice and needs to follow the law. because when you are not following the law, of the constitution of the united states, you are breaking it. host: we are certainly not a democratic or republican station

-- it is a station that we hope everyone can call in and share their opinions, putting robert in colorado, democrat. caller: hello. i am still wondering why the democrats are doing what they are doing. they are sure messing up the united states. i am a democrat, and i will tell you the truth -- i probably will vote for trump this year. last year, i voted for hillary. i cannot figure out what is wrong with the democrats. be sick iney must the head is the way i look at it, the people running the democratic party. host: there are a lot of people running for the presidential nomination of the democratic party. is there anybody there that could pull you back to vote for a democrat in 2020? caller: i do not believe so. a lot of them that i see one go

a communist-type government, and i do not think that will work in the united states. robert in colorado. 19 of those presidential candidates for the democrat already were at the iowa annual democratic party hall of fame dinner. each candidate getting five minutes to speak at that dinner. notably absent, joe biden, former vice president, skipping them to attend his granddaughter's high school actuation, according to his campaign advisors. biden headed to iowa tuesday, the same day that president trump is scheduled to be in the state. according to a poll released saturday night, ahead of that dinner that took late sunday, biden led the democratic pack with 24%. bernie sanders at 16%. elizabeth warren at 15%. mayor pete buttigieg, 14%.

those were the leaders in the latest poll in iowa. jay, independent -- you are next. hello. i was born and raised a democrat, but in the last two years, i think that's changed that's independent. i am so ashamed of what the and ares have become acting. i am no longer a democrat. i am ashamed at nancy pelosi. she makes me ashamed to be a woman. in theey are doing house, keeping the mila report going and going and going is ridiculous. and it is on my dime. it is paying for that -- ridiculous. i do not think there is anybody they are adard, if republican, that they would not

try to destroy. host: scott, a republican. go ahead. caller: i am calling in to talk about the mueller report, the democrats, and the republicans. i am having an issue with congress right now not able to do anything at all. they are unable to pass any bills that mean anything. they are focused on this mueller report. and the whole goal is to take down trump. they do not want to do anything to help america. we are paying for them -- the last caller is right. we are paying for them to be in office. what we need to do is limit their terms or cut their salaries, so they can actually do something instead of just wasting our time. i am tired of watching the news and seeing nothing but junk about how trump is a russian spy. and democrats just stand there and hold onto this like it is

some holy grail, and it is nothing. it is such a waste of time. i am tired of watching this. ,ost: next, sun city california. democrat. caller: good morning. i am glad you pushed back about not being a republican station or a democratic station. steve was attacked a week ago sunday about being a liberal, and he is one of the nicest persons as a host of the program here, so i wish you guys would do just a little bit more when people come off the wall with, well, you must be a democrat or this is a liberal station. i've never heard any of you guys give your own opinion -- and gals -- give your own opinion of anything. the only thing you would do is maybe ask a question, and that is about it. keep up the good work. that was my comment today.

host: appreciate that. do you have any opinion you want to add on what is happening and capitol hill this week and today in washington? quite a bit going on, from the trade deals to another airing of the mueller report. caller: the trade deal is a bunch of smoke and mirrors. just trump's way of saving face. i think the people on capitol better. do and this is a liberal democrat talking. they could do better in getting things done. we need cooperation on both sides. get this country to keep moving. even though i do not like the president, we still have to keep the people in this country moving forward. barbara makes out of pennsylvania. good morning. go ahead. caller: i am a democrat. i will vote democrat or republican if the person is for

the people. my problem is so many people do not actually look at what the president is actually doing. look at thely look, authoritative government towards what we have come put it side-by-side and point out what he is doing, what he has done -- when he is done, we will have an authoritative government. i hope people wake up you he has divided the nation. we are fighting among each other, which we should not be doing. we are a nation of people. when i look at those kids trapped in trucks for days, that is outrageous. they need to set up camps like they did in new orleans -- put them in trailers. get them off the concrete, them babies like that. we are a nation of freedom. why would we do innocent children like that? if they want to do something, they can do it.

the senate needs to step up. they are following trump, and we are in a heap of trouble, if you really look at it. we need new leaders, all over. that is what i have to say. host: that is barbara. in pennsylvania, colleen, democrat. caller: i kind of wish donald trump would watch c-span instead of fox news. have theuse you do real people talking about what is going on and how they feel. i do not think trump understands the basic fundamentals of nato. ass, like a laughable wherever he goes. ever since he became president -- 56-years-old, have not been able to rest easily knowing he is president. he is supposed to take care and

watch for all americans and our allies. i do not think congress is overseeing trump. i think they are turning a blind eye. the republicans, i do not know if they care about the ramifications and dangerous situations he puts america in. but i do think history will show the names of the men and women who let trump treat democrats like the enemy. he talks about democrats like we are the enemy. he should put his energy towards russiand russia, interfering with our elections. i do not think trump will ever admit this, because he is still doing business with them. host: that is calling in pennsylvania. speaking of the president, up and tweeting today, the latest asking when will the failing "new york times" admit their

front-page story on the new mexico deal is nothing but a fraud and nothing but a badly reported hit job on me. it is this story that the president is referring to, mexico agreed to take border actions months before trump deal was the tariff the headline story from the "new york times." the president announced with great fanfare that mexico had fromdy promised to take prior discussions -- friday's joint declaration says mexico agreed to deploy its national guard throughout mexico, that the government had pledged to do that in march between secret talks in miami between the former secretary of homeland security. the centerpiece was an expansion of a deal to allow

asylum-seekers to stay in mexico their legal cases preceded . the new york times today at by that story in their print edition, printing the statement saying that we are confident in our reporting, and, as with so many other occasions, our stories will stand up over time, and the president's denial of them will not. that from the "new york times times" today.rk caller: i am taken aback by the amount of suppose it democrats who would that who say they would vote for trumpcare looking at what he has done, he has basically put america -- he has me because -- he has made as a laughingstock it if you look at the people coming across the border, look at the past history. like iran contra.

the people displaced in central america not just from climate did in destruction we their countries. it echoes all the way back to 1953 with eisenhower, when we allowed the cia to overthrow the guatemalan government. it goes way back. republicans are responsible for a lot of the problems in this country. why would you want to vote for them? the one other thing is one of your callers said that those democratic socialists or communists -- ridiculous. franklin delano roosevelt basically save this country party, the democratic that gave us a democratic-socialist program, which gave you social security which basically saved this country. these people are nuts. host: to racine, wisconsin. rich is an independent. caller: good morning.

it is kind of funny listening to these callers live in an alternate reality. the man has 93% negative coverage. is theg accomplished usa's accomplishment, anything negative is donald trump's fault. at the previous administration spying on a presidential campaign, started out long before he even came down the escalator -- this is all being made public. the mueller report is a joke. they did not want the president in office. the establishment does not want because their game is up. through --l enriched how do you accumulate a $200 million net worth working as a public servant? it is phenomenal, the degree to

which we have been hoodwinked into thinking our government represents us. we have 5 million people. if they catch 144,000, they catch one out of 4, 1 out of three. half a million a month. where do they think these people are going? host: this is marty in michigan, republican. caller: how are you this morning? host: doing well. caller: i am a republican. with they worked democratic party in the last presidential cycle. off, when president obama was in office, and other presidents, walls were being built -- the walls in this country have been built since i was born. but under trump, they are somehow immoral. clinton passed a law

incarcerating children from across the border. implement theush same policy, and now, under donald trump, he is racist. so i do not -- host: you said you worked with the democratic party in the last cycle. how did you do that? caller: i worked as a national director and senior advisor. i started on the regional level and worked my way up through the campaign. i got my candidate -- i was able to pull off getting a superdelegate for him in ohio, which continued and allowed us to keep running in the race, even though martin o'malley himself did not win -- he stayed in the race. it was an interesting election for me, because i also work for trump after the primaries in california. my candidate dropped out. i am being honest here. a manoff, i worked for

who was only hispanic running in the democratic party. at one point in our campaign, we joined up with wilson out of chicago, also running for president, but most people in this country had no idea there was a black man and a hispanic man running for the presidency of this country, because democrats were too busy colluding in the election that i worked in. they colluded in every imaginal way. -- debbiecame out wasserman schultz, i was there to watch her resign because she colluded. it is like bernie sanders voters. democrats held him back, thwarted him, and now he think he will win again? is anan absolute absolute joke, this country. host: that is marty in michigan. our last caller in this segment. next we will be joined by former and thepatrick kennedy

american foundation for suicide .revention ceo robert gebbia we will be right back. >> tonight on the communicators, choice vice president and general counsel and the president and ceo of the consumer advocacy group public knowledge on breaking up big tech firms. >> when we see one company

become or achieve market power, it means you are the dominant player. when they engage in anti-competitive behavior as laid out in the sherman act, such as self-dealing, which does not help anybody, but is designed to prevent new entrants, current antitrust law addresses that it >> the house admitted today that they are in a bipartisan way looking to hold hearings, briefings, and doing investigation to understand if antitrust needs to be changed and updated or if there are other policies to promote competition. i think that is the right role for congress. understanding if there is a problem, identifying the problem, and looking for the best tool to address it. >> watched the communicators

tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> the reviews are in for c-span's the presidents book. it recently topped the new york times new and noteworthy column. it is called a milepost in the evolving reputations of our presidents. the presidents makes a fast and engrossing read. with graduation and father's day approaching, it makes a great gift. read about how noted presidential historians rank the best and worst chief historians, from george washington to barack obama. explore the life events that shaped our leaders, challenges they faced, and the legacies they left behind. the presidents is now available as a hardcover or e-book today. >> "washington journal" continues. our: we welcome back to

desk this morning robert gebbia, who serves as ceo of the american foundation for suicide prevention, joined this morning by warmer rhode island congressman patrick kennedy. you are in town today to speak it their annual advocacy form. -- forum. guest: i will be speaking about the crisis of suicide and mental health in this country. we have paid little attention to the suicide crisis in our country. we need to spend time thinking about the 72,000 people who are taking their lives through drugs and overdosing, but there is an additional 50,000 people taking their lives every year in other ways. combined, well over 100,000 we areach year, and spending $6 billion. that is a fraction of what we were spending on hiv-aids when

we were losing 50,000 lives. it does raise the question, what is wrong with this country that we don't put the same value of life on people dying of mental illness as we do other illness? as the author of the mental health parity and addiction equity act, we have been changing the medical system to finally treat the brain like we do every other organ of the body, and yet we are not doing that. we are falling short. the act.olating every major insurer has been found in violation of this law, which means it has been ok in the general public for us to go along as if nothing is happening. that is the big denial that we need to confront. bia andto thank bob geb the american foundation for

suicide prevention because they are ramping up the pressure on both sides of the isle to tackle this. host: what is mental health for us? guest: it is an opportunity for us to play a role in this 2020 cycle to get both parties to understand that in their platforms we expect these things to be covered. we have voluminous reports on what to do to help stem this crisis. we know what to do. what we are missing is the political will to do it. we are hoping to join a coalition of mental health groups and go around the country and both educate advocates, educate candidates, and educate those that will be writing the political platforms for the democrats and republicans next summer. host: according to the cdc, most people who commit suicide don't actually have a diagnosed mental health disorder. how do you reach those people?

guest: that cdc report only looked at certain aspects of mental health, and it did not look at addiction. when you look at addiction, they found 50%. when you look at that through the information collected through police reports and things like that. most of the research studies, when you interview families, psychological autopsies, it looks more like 90% have an underlying mental health problem if you include addiction. the cdc report did not look at addiction. guest: one of the challenges we have in the advocacy community is we all get divided by our diagnosis. i qualify as someone who suffers from an addiction, from a mood disorder with bipolar. we have advocacy solely focused on addiction, and we have advocacy solely focused on mental illness. our programs through the federal

government fund one more than the other. it is the same person. it is the same organ. part of the reason we have never been able to get to one voice speaking for all is that we are silos that we are not seeing this as the same organ. what you need for depression and anxiety is the same thing you need for addiction and schizophrenia, and that is wraparound services and holistic care. host: you were to bring campaigns on board to have been addressed this. what would you like to see every campaign include? importanta couple of aspect. we want to see compliance with federal law. mental health parity and what that means, it means that you have the same access to care for a mental health condition that you do for any other condition. that is not happening.

people who are in need of care and may be at risk of suicide they don't get treatment cannot get that access, cannot get the coverage, cannot find providers who take the coverage. we have to do a better job in making that available. there is a senate bill that has been introduced that would help with that compliance at the federal level. it has bipartisan support. chris murphy of connecticut as well as bill cassidy of louisiana have introduced that. that is going to be one of our pushes on capitol hill this week. there is also a need for more investment and research. there is not enough funding for research into the causes of suicide and prevention. we have to learn more about how to be more effective in preventing suicide. there are important policy changes we want to see. the federal government has a role to play with the private sector. we want to see but the private and public sector come together. host: congressman, i know you're

outreach is to a lot of these campaigns. is there one campaign you would point to that is doing this well, that has a platform others should look to? guest: the irony is senator campaignsand warren's ask for $100 billion over 10 years. i think that is short of what we need. we in the community think that is a lot of money. we have been beaten down for so long that we are happy with whatever anyone gives us. we have to change that amongst ourselves in the mental health community. we need $500 billion over 10 years. if we were to spend as much on suicide and overdoses as we spent on hiv-aids, we would be spending over $500 billion. that is dollar for dollar, life for life.

that is what we would come up with. hiv-aids, weo with spent money on research, treatment, and we worked to have a public health approach. that has not been reflected in our response to suicide and overdose. guest: there was a report 20 years of ago that congress commissioned that said we have every reason to believe that if you invest at a level commensurate with the problem, you will reduce suicide in the u.s. guess what happened? nothing changed and the suicide rate has gone up every year. 3%,dramatically, but 2% or but over time we are losing tens of thousands of people more every year. it is time to make that investment. is the ceot gebbia of the american foundation for suicide prevention. patrick kennedy, the cochair for the new group mental health for us. taking your calls and questions.

if you are in the eastern or central time zones, (202) 748-8000. if you are in the mountain or pacific time zones (202) 748-8001. these gentlemen will be with us until the end of the program today at 10:00 a.m. i know you recently talked about this at a graduation ceremony where you were the speaker at the university of rhode island. how is mental health treated in your family? guest: my family is no different from anyone else. we kept it quiet and silent. we felt it was a character flaw and a moral failing if you had addiction for alcoholism and if you had depression, you just needed a good swift kick in the behind. that is pretty much the generation i grew up in. in next generation is changing. the attitudes have changed a lot. our neuroscientists have this -- no one gets up

in the morning and thinks how am off everyone in my family, jeopardize my job, get kicked out of my house, and get arrested. maketially, people who judgments on people who have the disease of alcoholism or addiction are saying it is their choice every day whether they use or not. they don't have a choice. they do have an opportunity if we get them treatment to break that cycle and start a different life. we just don't have that in our medical system. i go to the doctor, and the doctor asks me all about my asthma. 20 minutes about my asthma. then they give me lipitor. i have been on lipitor for 20 years to stop me from having a stroke when i am in my 70's. i will be lucky if i make it to the 70's. my biggest risk is dying from addiction or depression.

the medical system asks me nothing about my depression or addiction. my doctor knows nothing about mental illness and addiction. the whole medical system is like two thumbs down on this crisis. host: did your father know? were you ever able to have those conversations? guest: my father helped me get the parity law act. even though we as a family could never discuss these issues. that was the real irony. the only time i ever discussed mental health in a conversation with my father was in the context of providing coverage for an additional 60 million people who could get coverage like we had in our family. host: what did he say after that law was passed? guest: he said keep up the work. i think it is because he had a lot of his colleagues come up to him and say that patrick is really doing important work.

my dad was always good at seeing around the corner. he was ahead of his time on so many progressive issues. i think he thought it was an important political issue. felt allnot mean he right about me talking about this. he felt fine if i was discussing it as a political issue but less find if i discussed it in terms of our personal family. if i had discussed my brothers amputation, not a problem, cancer and my family, we will talk about that. debilitating alcoholism, depression, my addition, we did not talk about those things. host: we would like to chat about these issues this morning. linda is first from pennsylvania. go ahead. linda, you with us this morning? caller: yes. host: go ahead. caller: hello.

this is linda. i'm calling in to c-span. host: go ahead. you are on with congressman kennedy and bob gebbia. caller: i am linda. i am from pennsylvania. i am a counselor, and i would just like to comment. the earliest comments had to do with a report. hello? host: what report? just turned on your television and go ahead with your comment. caller: the first report that was cited today had to do with a large survey. mental suicide does relate to mental illness. even have to look at the research numbers, although that is good, because it is not normal to commit suicide. we all know that. the second thing is i am concerned about the relationship

between possession of guns and suicide. if there was better gun control, i think the suicide rate would go down by 30%. the third area is when it comes to treatment, treatment needs -- yes, holistic treatment is helpful, what i think the people that don't understand mental illness and suicide reject holistic because they see it as goofy in some way. could you explain to the audience what do you mean by holistic treatment? it should really be counseling or psychological treatment, holistic, but lots of people are so sick they really need medication. these are the three legs of the stool. host: thank you. guest: great comment and questions. one, start with the last one, we do believe it is a combination of treatments that makes sense.

for some people there is great talk therapy. they are effective. they work, not only for the mental health condition, but if they are at risk for suicide. often medication is needed as well. it is that combination that often works the best for people. thinkms of causes, people it was a relationship breakup that caused the suicide. it is not an underlying mental health condition. because that is what is obvious. often isens people say, well, he broke up with a girlfriend. he took his life. factors,ombination of underlying mental health conditions and life factors. loss of a job, economic factors, those in fact someone's potential for suicide, but there is also that combination of

depression, addiction, and anxiety. the last comment is really important. about half of those who take their lives in the u.s. use a firearm. it is higher in some states and lower in some. about 50%. one innovative approach now is trying to educate those who own guns about the risk for suicide because there is good research to show that if they believe there is risk, they will safely store it, and so working to educate gunowners about safe storage, when to remove a gun from the home when there is risk , and that could save a lot of lives because we know the feelings of wanting to take your life is often very fleeting. even though you may be struggling for a while, that impulsive moment when you might , it is allempt building up, if there are legal means accessible to you, that

becomes a very serious problem. if those means are not there, often it gives you time to intervene. having a firearm accessible or medications, too, is a real danger. working to educate about safe storage, went to remove that gun, even temporarily, is important. we also support them in terms of the various red flag lost that are popping up over the country. voluntarily gives up a firearm and the family is concerned they are a danger to themselves or others, there needs to be another way to remove that gun, and that is often court ordered action. voluntarily teaching does about suicide, what to look for, how to safely store that gun is part of our strategy. host: thompson kennedy, would you like to weigh in?

caller: i love the caller -- guest: i love the color saying common sense. there is a nomenclature issue. it murder, at, comm negative connotation. it is complete according to most of us in the field because what they are really doing is completing an action they have been suffering. they died by depression. they completed suicide, but they died by depression. it helps change the mindset. the people who are depressed who might have less protective factors to him. control.to impulse we triage cancer. in mental health, we are waiting until it is stage for until we

intervene for most mental health illnesses. people say mental health care doesn't work, but neither would cancer care if you waited until stage iv illness. part of this crisis if we , weess it holistically would do a better job of helping people suffer less because we would do a better job to mitigate the risk of suicide to help people live in a way that they are less disabled. in south jersey, we have a zero hospital system. everybody in the system is focused on preventing suicide. in the process everyone with anxiety or addiction or depression are getting flagged earlier because of the sensitivity everyone in that health care organization has towards suicide. host: as we talk about suicide and mental health, some

statistics from the american foundation for suicide prevention. suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in 2017. 129 suicides per day. suicide 3.5 times more often than women. taking your phone calls, comments, questions this morning. caroline in maryland, you are next. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: there is so much to unpack, i cannot really start. i am a medicaid recipient. at the start of the year, i started having problems with the antidepressant i was prescribed five years ago. i was prescribed that under a

misdiagnosis at a mental hospital in virginia. it took me a full month and a half to find a psychiatrist to work with me. she sees me at 15 minute appointments, which is hardly enough to even get a grasp of what is going on. i thank goodness for my talk that i found in the baltimore area that i do pay out-of-pocket quite a lot. took can i ask you why it 45 days to find a psychiatrist that would work with you? what was the trouble? caller: it was the strangest round and around thing. i started having problems -- [indiscernible] i apologize. you are going in and out.

i want to get our panel a chance to respond. guest: we know there is a workforce shortage in mental health. there are not enough providers, trained providers treating people with mental health , let alone those who are experienced with suicidal patients. there are parts of the country where you cannot find a psychiatrist. go to rural america, and that is where the suicide rates are the highest. we know there is a shortage. even in places where there are providers, trying to find someone who will take insurance coverage. that is a real problem. people do not have the resources to pay out of pocket. there has to be a better way to provide treatment for those with mental health conditions and to make it affordable, accessible, and quality. there is a number of things that the caller brings up.

those are common experiences for a lot of people, and not just in big cities, small towns it is a problem finding a provider. host: timothy is next out of illinois. caller: good morning. this is a great conversation. i'm a mental health patient myself. and aa psychologist psychiatrist. i had a question about inpatient care. what percentage of patients, i don't know if you know the numbers, but how frequently are people needed to be seen in the hospital for mental health problems? is there a number of beds in the u.s.? i wonder if they need to see more beds for inpatient observation. just talk about the duration of an observation and the attitudes

of that kind of treatment reflect on the person and everything and if that kind of care, what it can do for suicide prevention. host: thank you for the call. guest: clearly we don't have enough capacity in this country for people who need the patient psychiatric care. -- inpatient psychiatric care. we don't find it. we don't ensure it. we don't have enough beds. the same thing goes for providers. the reason we have a deficiency in providers, and we have phantom networks, meaning there is no way to get access to a psychiatrist. you would never expect that if it was oncology, diabetes, cardiovascular disease. we just want everyone to get the same. we want the cancer response. we want the hiv-aids response. this is the answer to every question that will come today.

give us the same. as wehad the same outrage had with hiv-aids and cancer, we would have a completely different approach. we have community systems of ,are, coordinated care community support systems, chronic care management. we know how to do this. we have huge gaps, and it is because we don't have our eyes on the prize. we are not paying attention to this. our whole medical system is paying attention to things we pay for because that is where the dollars are. until we get that to change, we will still have people fall through the cracks. guest: that is absolutely right. i would add one little story and insight into what the caller mentioned. about 39% of those who take their life each year come through an emergency department, have been seen, and either their risk has been missed, or their

risk is there, but they have nowhere to put them. you are feeling a little better now, right? out on the street. tore is a real opportunity do a better job in terms of alternatives to just hospitalization. some people need it, and they need to be at an inpatient facility, but we need better outpatient support. so you leave that emergency department without any short-term intervention, yet there are things that could help that patient right there in the emergency department and better follow-up and more community-based care. there are lots of options that are not being used partially because no one is ready to pay for that. we would like to see bundled payments so that emergency department can be reimbursed for the follow-up in some way that would make sure that person does not fall through the

cracks. host: what is the difference between a psychiatrist and psychologist? guest: in most parts of the country, psychiatrists can prescribed medications, and psychologists cannot. they are providing talk therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy. the evidence is really good that they were, but there are not that many providers trained in these good evidence-based interventions. we are trying to get those doing talk therapies that are evidence-based trained and utilized more widely at a scale that would save a lot of lives. host: in new jersey, gabriel. good morning. caller: i just wanted to say i agree we need more funding for mental health because it is such an important issue that is being overlooked. it also hits on a deeper issue of our government not funding things even like usaid that

helps countries around the world could we don't put funding for that. we don't put funding for mental health. need to reevaluate where congress is putting money. guest: nothing reflects our priorities more than where the money goes. , youu follow the money find out a lot about what people's priorities are. i was on the appropriations committee when i was in congress. i know that we underfunded research into neuroscience as well as the systems to deliver mental health care. until we get our budgets to change that, we will always be working along the margins. in politics, you have to have an outcry, and then you have legislative action and policy change. what we are missing in the equation is the public outcry. unlike some of the callers who

self identify as needing mental health care, most people don't want to do that. when you are on the hill as a member of congress on breast i have got to get and asked her large building for all my constituents from rhode island to come down and visit me. when it is mental health awareness day, i have to go outside my home and looked down both sides of the hall to see who is coming because that is the state of advocacy. they all understand it. we are sitting on a much bigger problem that is not being reflected in the efficacy, and that is probably -- advocacy, and that is probably why our country is not responding. host: when you started speaking about your own mental health issues on capitol hill, did other members treat you differently? guest: it was only after i got a

dwi, and my political career was over at the time, and i got back from treatment, i had a slew of my colleagues asked to meet with me. i would go in because i kept thinking it was about some bill. all the time they kept saying could relieve the staff. they were telling about what was going on with them. i was the only one that they knew suffered from addiction. if you look at the representative, it is one in four suffer from some type of mental illness or addiction. that is reflected i think in congress. they cannot reveal it. they are private. if they know one of their colleagues, everywhere i went, i would have colleagues of mine take me aside and say my daughter has an eating disorder, i have suffered from depression, my father took his life. these are things they never shared with anyone else. host: did you say, can you talk

about this with me? can we create that outcry? guest: i did not because i wanted to respect their confidentiality. i have. i would say one of them voted against the parity law even after tommy about his daughter having an eating disorder. afterwards, i said how could you vote against parity? he said, if i voted for it, because he comes from a republican district, i come from the buckle of the bible belt. in my part of the country, they see these problems as moral problems, not medical problems. the press might ask me why did you vote for that liberal bill called parity, and then they might investigate. if they ever found out my daughter had an eating disorder, i cannot be sure what would happen. those are his very words. meaning he cannot be sure his daughter would take her own

life. that is the implication of that. he voted against a law that would directly improve his family's health care for fear that if someone found out, it might jeopardize the safety and life of his daughter. that is one of many anecdotes. guest: one of the things that gives us hope is that we are seeing a seachange in terms of people opening up about their mental health, their struggle, and about those who have been affected in suicide -- by suicide in particular have been passionate about speaking out. what is happening is a real seachange. if you look at those numbers, 47,000 people over the last year , we have data on how many suicides there were. that affects tens of thousands more people because of the

ripple effect. you lose a classmate, coworker, family member. those people are starting to become more activist. the numbers of people who see this as an important public health problem are willing to talk about how it has affected their lives are starting to increase dramatically. we did a public opinion poll that we did through an outside group. everybody over 18. it was adults. what they found was startling. 90% said they thought suicide was preventable. 80%, 85% said their mental health was as important as their physical health. these are some pretty dramatic shifts. what we think is happening is the public is becoming more educated and activist. the activist part gives us hope

in terms of constituents talking to their members. we think that will start to interpret into new policies. host: about 20 minutes left in our program. self tour is in new jersey. good morning. caller: hi. i would like to ask a question. what age is it these kids are dying from the overdose of opiates? what age level does it go to? guest: sadly it does start fairly young. you are talking from teens on up . no one is immune from this. there was an interesting report, i cannot remember what publication, that showed often for dental care and enormous amount of opioids were given to teenagers because of the dental pain when they probably could have treated it with less if at

all. we see this starting to get younger and younger. it is a concern through the life span.it happens straight through to late life. we are not sure how many opioid overdoses are intentional. some researchers think it could be as high as one third. in the end, the pathways are the same. it is despair and hopelessness. the opioid problem is feeding into the suicide problem. host: remind us on the president's mission on combating opioid overdoses and drug addiction. about i was thinking addressing the fence and all issues that were leading to a lot of -- fentanyl issues that were leading to a lot of deaths. oxycontinted to these

medications, they are now going to the streets because just because the doctor is no longer prescribing doesn't mean they are no longer using. that doesn't mean to be the case. treatmentfective addresses the craving in the brain and gets people into recovery, and yet this country has yet to push out replacement therapy. it is an advanced methadone medication treatment that is very effective. we ought to be doing this everywhere in the country like we do flu shots. if you have an opioid addiction, and depending on your severity. this is not for everybody. that ought to be available. you can ask any document this country, and they would say go to the addiction specialist. guess what, these doctors are health care. they need to be delivering

health care, even if that health care is mental health care. primary care doctors, the american medical association has fallen out on this. they were part and parcel of pushing the oxycontin out, and now they need to step up and be part of the solution. frankly, i don't hear them lobbying on capitol hill for more access to medication assisted treatment, more access to advanced collaborative care codes. i am so frustrated with the medical establishment in this country. host: your commission started by president trump, chaired by chris christie. sost: governor christie committed to this cause. at the time of the commission, he was spending $200 million in opioid treatment funding in new jersey at the time we were spending $500 million for the whole country.

new jersey was spending half of what we were spending for the whole country. i joined on because i thought this was a serious effort. obviously, the president dropped the ball on this, which is really sad. he knows personally what addiction does in a family. he lost his brother to it in his early 40's. the same week we had the commission report come out, he asked for a $2 trillion tax cut, over 90% of which goes to the top 10% of this country, forgetting the fact that this country is in a crisis right now, and he could have taken a fraction of the money he spent on that tax cut and made the biggest difference of any president in the history of this country on the most important health crisis of his presidency. he is never going to get a do over. he had that one chance, and he missed it. he could have spoken to this issue because he had a personal

-- i don't know how we could have let this go. it was not for lack of trying. governor christie did his best to push our report, which talked about prevention, which talked about treatment, which emphasized recovery. trump's commission pushed parity, which frankly the insurance industry does not like. for a republican president, that is good. i even met with his department of labor secretary about it. what is really unfortunate is there was no emphasis to push this through. if you want to be a leader on this, you have to keep on keeping on. there is no one day you do a press conference or release a report, and then it is forgotten. this is something that is going to need persistence. host: good morning. caller: i can hear your

frustration and anger about this issue. i have a quick, and then question. then question. i think mental health is not captured in the numbers when it comes to african-americans. i think being black in america is a traumatic event by its nature. i think it is ill addressed. a lot of medication is being prescribed in terms of reducing suicide, but some of the medications cause suicidal thoughts. how is that mitigated? if someone has to take the medication, maybe even from six weeks to see if it works for them, but one of the adverse effects increases their likelihood of committing suicide, i think that is inherently wrong. i think there needs to be more transparency and education without giving these people who

are suffering what poison to pay for themselves. i want your comments on some of those adverse side effects. guest: that is a great question. when some of those studies were done, there was a lot of bad information in the media about that, the effects of isidepressants in terms of your antidepressants causing you to take your life? in some studies showed populations, generally young adults and teens, there was an increased suicidal ideation, but no suicide. that got mischaracterized. the effect drops completely all as you go through life span. in adults you did not see that at all. they think when you take an antidepressant, you have been depressed, it is stimulating your brain, and in young people there might be an increased chance of thinking about

suicide. what did not happen is educating the provider about those medications and the families as well about looking for signs that maybe there are thoughts of suicide's going on -- thoughts of suicide going on. that has all changed. better now there is much surveillance when someone is on the medication, and if it is a young person, they should be watched closely. those medications do work, and if you need them, it is important. it is more risky not to take them. half of those who died by suicide are not on any treatment. that was not available, and it did not show up in any studies with adults. host: vermont, albert. good morning. statistics there any , suicide statistics involving

people who practice their religion? guest: religion can be a protective factor. in someseen that cultures especially where there was a strong religious community, but people of all faiths die by suicide. this is not limited to people who are not religious or anybody. suicide is a great equalizer. everybody is affected. every subgroup, population, economic group. we do see suicide among people who are very religious. there are some studies that show that it could be a little bit of a protective factor. mentioned inaller the african-american community about suicide. we are seeing some increase in african-american males of suicide. it has traditionally been much

lower than caucasians, and it still is, but just the way it is s, it is in white male starting to show an increase in black males. we want to get out the message that suicide does affect the african-american community. historically it was thought that does not affect us. that is not true. it affects every group. clearly the stigma may even be greater right now in the black community about suicide and risk. we think there are great people speaking out in the black community about this, and it is starting to resident. week, on friday, the congressional black caucus holding a hearing a meeting on mental health in the black community. if you want to see that coming you can go to our website, c-span.org. brian is next in connecticut.

caller: good morning. patrick kennedy, good on you. witty go. thing youtremendous have done, probably the best thing you could do in your life with regards to the whole mental health. guest: thank you. caller: i just also want to tell you that i want to point something out to you if this rings a bell. i have suffered from bipolar since late teens and early 20's, and i am in my 60's. i have had great support. i am one of the lucky ones so to speak. that i thinkssue can affect a lot of people. it has to do with the worthiness of one's suffering. can i look atg -- my suffering and say my suffering is valid when i

compare with somebody who's house got knocked down in a tornado or is in a syrian prison or you name the disaster, someone who works in the trump hatever.use, w have you ever come up against that one in terms of comparing and you have to say to yourself of course your suffering is legitimate. guest: thank you. thank you to all the callers self identifying as having mental illness. it does help change the feeling of isolation, and that is one of the reasons people take their lives. they feel isolated even though we are more connected than ever before because of technology. in many respects we are less connected on a deep human level. spirituality, all of us can feel connected to each other and to a

world anding in this to love and compassion for one another. i think that is a big protective factor. i know it has made a world of difference in my life. i think the idea of one person's suffering is greater than another, we don't want to deny suffering. bryan, you have got a point. we have been subject to judgments on the outside, and we subject ourselves to these judgments. we are our own worst critics. we beat up ourselves pretty bad because we don't think what we are suffering from compares to other suffering. i think all of that is very dangerous and destructive, and i don't have a good answer for it. i am thrilled that you are

getting the support throughout and have successfully reached a period in your life where you can look back and think all the people that have been there for you. other.eople helping each then you have a medical layer. don't misunderstand that the medical layer is not a substitute for the human relations. it sounds to me from hearing iian described, he didn't say had a bunch of psychologists. he said i have support. i am thinking that is the supportive spouse or family or brother, children, family, friends, peers support.

those are things that we have not talked about but are essential to people living healthy lives. host: who is your support network? guest: i attend a 12 step meeting every morning. every morning i get to hear about what is going on with other people in their lives, and i gained strength from the fact that i know what works for them, and i can take those lessons they have given to me from their own experience, and i can tell aem how i have negotiated particular topic point in my day -- tough point in my day, and they can take a lesson that i have to share. it is not the specific challenge, it is the emotional challenge and how i react to it and whether i am working the principles of recovery. that is what we do for each

other. it is pierce support. we are in this together. the vast majority of people with a mental health condition do not become suicidal and go on to live very productive, meaningful lives because they get help, whether that is medication, talk therapy, social support, all of those things together. you don't want to make this sound like if you have a mental health condition, you are at high risk for suicide. you are at risk. the vast majority of people manage their condition. they go on to live terrific, productive lives. normalize the suicide part of this, and that is not the case. there are people that do come and those are the ones we need to focus on for suicide prevention. host: brat in new york city. thank you for waiting. caller: good morning.

thank you for taking my call. i was suicidal for years. be fullyay never preventable, but in addition to financial stress and the quickening pace of modern life, we have a growing existential fact that the tightly networked world brings disturbing news to us in a constant barrage. this creates feelings of unreality among many of us. there is an issue i like to add, and it is better gun control. there is one way to help prevent suicide. the american love affair with guns is a crisis. the american love affair with success, cigarette, twitter, selling guns overseas to kill whichnt people, in

americans are directly complicit, and the stupid idea of american exceptionalism is just killing us. i was suicidal for years, several attempts, one dire, multiple hospitalizations. i hid it from my family. i was ashamed and did not want to be labeled a failure. when you are suicidal, logic, reasoning, perspective do not exist. the only way to escape pain, it makes sense. i was lucky enough to encounter smart and helpful questions. if i had access to a gun, i would be dead. thank you for sharing your story with us. guest: a couple of things that brian said that are really

clearly we know from all the research that if we can keep those means away, whether that is firearms or medication, we have a chance to say that person's life. us and glad you're with have come through this. the second thing that is really story is, bryan's common. we hear that a lot, people talking about it. we want to make sure help is available. one of the things in terms of policy is the national suicide intervention lifeline. it is so underfunded that they cannot keep up with the calls. iny had 2.5 million calls 2018. the funding has been the same as when it was formed. one of the important things we

see is to amp up the funding of those prevention services. if you are struggling, call for help, and then you are on hold. calls are getting dropped the crisis system is broken. we want to see a major investment on the part of congress. there is some money this year to bring it up to just about any million dollars, which is still woefully -- $20 million, which is still woefully underfunded. host: we cannot say that number we have been putting it on the screen. the right way and the wrong way for news organizations cover this issue. host: we have been happy to test

we have been happy to see changes in media. i remember robin williams not that long ago, how could he do this? he had everything to live for. these are mental health conditions. it has nothing to do with your fame or fortune. when anthony bourdain., we saw a died, we saw ain shift in the reporting. resources, information about where to get help. the media should talk about these things. it is how. becauselk about means that can have a contagion effect. don't glamorize it. that can have a contagion effect. common report, there are great guidelines on that for media. we work with journalists all the time. there is a way to report it that

is safe and responsible. increasingly, the media is using those guidelines. host: hilda has been waiting for michigan. go ahead. caller: i have been sitting here in this thing. i love c-span. what prompted me to call was saidck's comment when he he has been on lipitor 20 years. i am lipitor. onn he said he has been lipitor 20 years, that he would not die from a stroke, but he would die from depression. that rang a bell for me because when i started my new doctor in 2006, third question they ask you, do you feel depressed? they go through all the mental stuff first, and then they go to the other. i just wonder -- [indiscernible]

with the tone of the country overall, i just cannot get past the way trump talks. it is not necessarily what he is saying sometimes, it is that tone. i wonder if that affects how many people that are in charge of diagnosing or maybe affected with some mental disorder. host: we only have about a your point. we just have a couple of minutes left. i want to give our guest sometime. guest: this is a subject i hope we get a chance to keep pushing out there. we are launching the mental health for us. forus.net.alhealth we don't want people or candidate just to sit to have mental-health and their

families, and i say, oh, isn't that great, we want them to commit to real specific programs. to the notion that these not be treated any differently than any other illnesses. if we get them to say that we want the same as we gave to cancer, or hiv-aids, or any other cardiovascular disease, we reframe this entirely. that is what we want these 2020 candidates to commit to. and would have all the groups moving forward together, which is a real difference. i think the advocacy community is really get galvanized, and tragically, because of these high numbers. i want to thank the american association for suicide prevention for launching this campaign. it is really reflected, when people take their lives. >> and i am pleased to be part of this campaign.

with so many others, we have to elevate this conversation, and elevate the response. back to the report 20 years ago, it is commensurate -- the investment is commensurate with problem.of the we have volunteers affected personally by mental health and suicide, talked in all members of every state. we are excited to see growth and advocacy in this country. is the ceo,bbia patrick candy, thank you both for your time. that will do it for our program today. we will be back tomorrow morning. . in the meantime, have a great monday. ♪

announcer: in 1979, a small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea, let viewers make up their own minds. c-span opened the doors to washington policymaking for all to. bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. a lot has changed today, that big idea is more relevant than ever. on television and online, c-span is your unfiltered view of government, so you can make up your own mind. brought to you as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. today, debate on a resolution to allow the house to do she of a committee to sue attorney general william barr. and come former white house counsel don mcgann for the report.ed mueller you could watch live coverage at 5:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. after the rules committee votes on that resolution, which would also shorten the process for other committees to sue trump administration officials, it

will head to the house floor tomorrow, with live coverage starting at noon tomorrow. former white house counsel john dean, a key witness during the watergate investigation will be testifying for the house judiciary committee today. mr. dean was white house counsel when he warned president nixon that there was a "cancer growing on the presidency." you can watch live coverage of testimony today at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3, and also watch our live coverage online c-span.org.rg -- justice clarence thomas spoke at the supreme court historical societies annual lecture last week. he talked about retirement plans with david rubenstein, of the economic club of washington, d.c. [applause] david: thomas, thank you very much. you have to get out of her