announcer: tomorrow, members returned to take up a resolution that would allow the house judiciary committee take civil action against william barr and don mcgahn over access to the full mueller report. this is expected, despite jerry nadler announcing earlier today that he has reached a deal with the justice department to review certain mueller report materials. as always, live coverage of the house when it returns at 10:00 a.m. eastern tomorrow.

>> you first explain what new tools house are looking to get when enforcing against the executive branch. >> when i was in congress, i was only -- i was the only committee themman and now most of have that ability to move ahead with it. allows thees, it minority to know about it ahead of time and will consult with the, but basically put power in the hands of the committee. if you want to hold someone income -- in contempt, that is different. democrats looking to pursue this effort through the civil courts when it comes to

trying to support -- to enforce? 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.

announcer: c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up tuesday morning, nathan and william discuss their former roles as former counsel for the house of representatives and the debate over congressional oversight versus executive privilege. and then, rick steve's talks about campus policy and his work on the board of the national organization for the reform of marijuana law. be sure to watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern tuesday morning. join the discussion. the reviews are in for c-span's the president. it tops the new york times new and noteworthy:. curtis review calls it a milepost in the ever-changing reputations of the president. and the new york journal and books says the president makes a

fast, increasing read. with father's day fast approaching, this makes a great gift. noted presidential his storage dust historians explain the wide events that shaped our leaders, the challenges they faced, and the legacy they left behind. c-span's presidents is available as a hardcover or e back -- e-book wherever books are sold. announcer: the house debates a resolution tuesday, giving the judiciary committee approval to sue william barr and don mcgahn in federal court to compel them to provide congress with information related to the mueller report investigation. the measure also allows other house committees to sue trump administration officials for

testimony and documents, as long as they get approval from a bipartisan house leadership committee. watch live coverage tuesday starting at noon eastern on c-span and watch anytime on c-span.org and listen on the free c-span radio app. rulescer: the house committee met monday to consider the rules for debate on the resolution authorizing the house committee judiciary chair to take legal action against william barr and don mcgahn. was offered to postpone consideration of the resolution, but the motion failed. the rules committee voted along party minds -- party lines. this is >> are we ready?