for general speeches, legislative business at noon. members take up the 2020 spending package that take up agencies including defense, and the state department at hhs. votes on district court nominations in ohio, alabama, florida, and georgia. on c-span 3, the house oversight and reform committee considers whether to hold attorney general william barr and commerce secretary william ross -- wilbur ross in contempt of congress related to the trump administration's adding of -- that gets underway at 10:00 a.m. eastern. this morning on "washington henryl," representatives cuellar and mark amodei on the 2020 spending package. ,ater, "the fulcrum's" editor

david hawkings, looks at the legal dispute over congressional oversight. as always, we take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. ♪ host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal." this is wednesday, june 12. the president meets with the president of poland and they will do a news conference this afternoon. bernie sanders makes a speech on democratic socialism. the house is expected to stay pretty late tonight to deal with the package of spending bills, nearly $1 trillion on the table. it is defense, health care, state department, foreign operations, you can watch that right here on c-span. another contempt vote in the house -- this time in the house oversight committee.

or they will take a vote after 10:00 against attorney general barr and the commerce secretary over the 2020 census. that will be 10:00 eastern time. we thought we would ask about these investigations of president trump and whether you think it is time well spent. if you think these investigations of the president aren't important, call 202-748-8000. if you think they are not important, 202-748-8001. if you are just now following this issue and would rather focus on other aspects of life and work here in washington, call this number, 202-748-8002. your thoughts on the investigations of president trump and all of this follows yesterday's action. we will take comments from folks as well at twitter. @cspanwj is our twitter handle. facebook.com/cspan. you can post a comment there as well. this question today follows

yesterday's big vote in the house and here is one of the headlines on that story. the vote will empower democrats ck ask courts to ba subpoenas. the resolution passed on a 229-1 likelyyline vote and is to get frequent use as there are attempts to pry documents and testimony from the administration. although the resolution applies to future battles, it specifically empowers the judiciary committee to go to court to demand the attorney general and don mcgahn provide documents and testimony. this resolution means chairs won't have to come back to the full house for a vote in each new case, but can get permission

from the house's legal advisory group, which is controlled by democrats. here is the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, on the floor explaining why she thinks it was important to pass this resolution. [video clip] >> we have a responsibility to honor our oath of oafis oath of office. we have responsibility under the vision of our founders and the text of the constitution to en sure the truth is known. will be held accountable, including the president of the united states. the house will continue to fight to make the truth known for the american people and defend congress' role under article 1. i urge a strong bipartisan vote to hold attorney general barr and don mcgahn in civil contempt for their refusal to comply with

congress' subpoenas and honor the oath of office they take. host: if they follow through in filing the suit, democrats will be calling on a third branch of government, the federal judiciary to settle a disproved congress'spute over right to conduct investigations. the answer could have significant implications not just for mr. trump, but oversight of the executive branch for decades to come. there is no guarantee the courts will give them useful outcome. cases have stretched on for months or years, a fact that could become problematic for seeki and her team as they to keep calls for impeachment at bay. here is another piece of sound from the house floor yesterday. it is representative debbie

lesko, republican of arizona talked about the debate and why other things might be important. [video clip] aret is disappointing we here again debating a measure that will have absolutely no impact on the lives of our constituents. instead of fixing pressing issues like the security and humanitarian crisis at our southern border, democrats continue their focus on influencing the 2020 election at taxpayer expense. americans are tired of this witchhunt. for nearly two years democrats claimed the president colluded with russians to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. after 22 months, 20 -- 20 800 subpoenas, 500 warrants, 40 fbi agent's, and spending $45

million, special counsel mueller concluded there was no conclusion between president trump and russia and did not charge him with obstruction. yes, my democrat colleagues continue to attempt to undermine the president of the united states because all i can think of is they have not accepted the fact that he won the election. it is clear to me democrats are trying to influence the 2020 presidential election at taxpayer expense. .mericans have real problems we can and should be tackling instead. host: that was representative debbie lesko, a republican on the floor yesterday. what should congress do post mueller report? we wanted to show you numbers from a poll from npr, pbs, and marist.

22% of americans say impeachment proceedings should begin. 25% say not quite yet, but continue investigations. censure president trump, 5%. 39% say no further action. are unsure. our first call is penelope in vermont who does not think these investigations are important. thank you for calling, tell us why. it is ai feel like waste of time. they are doing another witchhunt after millions they sent on -- spent on the mueller investigation. they want to spend a ton of money that could be spent elsewhere. let's help people with health care. host: we have cleveland on the line.

you are calling on the line for those who think these investigations are important. tell us why. caller: very simple. it is the right thing to do. the president needs his name cleared. the only way to do that is to go fallrd and let the cards where they fall. congress needs to get its job done. job and the of his people need to see government functioning again for them. host: what do you think of what you have heard and seen so far in these investigations? caller: i think there is enough evidence to move forward from what everybody says, even mueller. there was no collusion, that is not a crime. however, there was evidence of obstruction.

hasomebody in that position done something wrong, the people have the right to know. part of what is going on is congress and their jobs and everything. everybody is forgetting about our right to know if our president is a good guy or not. int: terry is hanging on tennessee. thanks for waiting. what are your thoughts? timer: it is a waste of like the first caller was mentioning. it is really funny they are trying to push this so fast. let barr and these other investigators investigate how this started in the first place. there is a lot of talk about it.

its course just like they did the mueller report and find out what is the real truth. that is basically my comment. host: thanks for calling again. members vote where no crossed of the aisle. the washington post says the vote yesterday keeps democrats squarely on an investigative track favored by nancy pelosi and away from the formal inquiry some 60 rank-and-file democrats and 2020 presidential candidates have been seeking. after the vote yesterday, a elijah cummings met with reporters. he and other democrats met with reporters and here is a little of what he had to say. [video clip] >> none of us wanted to be in this position. the trump administration is

challenging the constitutionality of congressional oversight and it is happening in broad daylight. this is not just about russia. this is a broad, coordinated ow moren to s investigations across the board and it is being directed from the very top. this entire year, the white house has not produced not one document to the oversight committee. let me say that again. in all of our investigations, the white house has not turned any investigations in response to our request. the white house has produced nothing. efforts to --

the white house produced nothing. hush money payments, the white house produced nothing. even on issues like spending taxpayer dollars to pay for private jets the white house has, again, produced nothing. it does not matter what the topic is. the tactics are all the same. this begs the questions, what are they hiding. what are they hiding? the oversight committee is being forced to vote tomorrow on whether to hold the attorney general and the secretary of -- congresscontempt refusing to release documents related to the senses. so, ladies and gentlemen, we are soul ofa fight for the our democracy and we will use every single tool available to

us to hold this administration anduntable for its actions ensure the government is working effectively and efficiently on behalf of all people. host: one viewer writes democrats are investigating trump nonstop because republicans investigated bill and hillary clinton nonstop. revenge is a dish best served cold. doreen from florida, you are calling on the line for those who think this is important. it tell us why you do. caller: it is absolutely important. the president is acting as if he is the king of the united states. he has produced no documents. he has not explained why he complete sitting cabinet. everybody is acting.

there are only acting members of the cabinet. everybody else that was asked to sit on the cabinet have either been fired, left on their own accord because of him or have been indicted and put in jail. there are still some sitting on the cabinet that need to be investigated. these -- these people are criminals, friends of his. he is a chemical -- he is a criminal. his family is criminal. that has been proven in actions they have taken in front of these committees that we have only heard bits and pieces about in the papers. host: that was doreen from jacksonville, florida. thought you were done, let's move on to tom in maryland. you think these are just not important, why?

caller: i think it is a waste of america's time. it is a personal vendetta. , -- she hasller been falsely informed. however she gets her information, she needs to recheck. he is making them all look like. -- like fools. we probably -- finally have someone in the office that cares about the american people. i could go on for hours. let's look at nadler. nadler has a personal vendetta against trump. in the beginning, mr. trump was a democrat. that is why they are doing an

investigation on his wife. pelosi is the fourth richest person in d.c.. that -- how did she get that? divide and conquer. everyone says socialism, socialism, and they called trump a nazi. host: another tom on the line from ohio. with a different viewpoint. caller: go ahead, tom. i think they should go ahead and start impeachment. he is a disgrace to the united states. my wife lived in west palm beach went back tol we ohio. my sister went to school with him.

i think it is a disgrace how he conducts himself as a president. calling biden sleepy gel. he has a nickname for everybody. why don't they nickname him psycho don? i think he is a disgrace to the office. host: here is another tweet this morning. democrats are setting a precedent. the next president will be subjected to the same kind of investigations if republicans control the house. looking for your thoughts on the investigations of president trump. if you think they are important or not important or you are simply not following these investigations. one of those calling on the line for not following is columbia, maryland. go ahead, sir. you are just not following these investigations. tell us why. caller: it is a waste of time.

like pelosi said, leave the president alone. take him down in 2020 so he can go to prison. everybody knows donald trump is breaking the law. let 2020 take him down and from there, we continue with the investigation. host: are there other issues he would rather them focused on in washington as priorities? the priority is fix our roads, infrastructure, that is all. that is it. infrastructure and health care. look at the road system, look at dz -- d.c. look at the dmv.

fix the roads. the railroads, look at it, look at it. we don't have no transportation system. we are backward right now. forget about the investigations, let the president be taken down by 2020. if you want 2020 took on, 2020 is next year. that is all we need. host: thank you for calling. some other ideas about what else washington should be focusing on. james from tennessee. it tell us what you think about these investigations. i think it is just a diversionary tactic. ofller found no evidence collusion, which was going on

for two years, millions of dollars and now everything shifted to something else senate will keep going and going and going as long as trump is the president. it is not about the truth anyway because the same people who -- aed this collusion mess diversionary tactic to keep them tied up so they will not get at the real truth, which is now being probed by barr. barr will find the real crooks and many of them are the democrats. they are trying to diverge all this attention to trump and that is pretty much it in a nutshell. host: darlene from hawaii. thank you for calling and getting up early. what do you think? caller: i think president trump

is not a good man. he needs to dirty be investigated. host: how far should this go, darlene? caller: they should go all the way. they should go all the way. stateuld be left to each -- infrastructure should be left to each state. look at the price these children are paying and all of that. it is not right. , you have got is -- that are -- it mueller in his report said

.hould be brought to justice we heard elijah cummings, the chairman of the house oversight and reform committee -- c-span 3. here is a preview in the publications we are reading. barr uses census material as a weapon against contempt. the attorney general will ask the president to assert executive privilege to shield documents from the administration's decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. holdingproceed toward barr in contempt, this revelation came on the eve of an expected oversight committee vote to hold barr and wilbur ross in contempt for failing to turn over documents as well as stopping a witness from testifying. that is the set up from the

attorney general and commerce. there is the story from the hill last night that says cummings offers to delay this boat -- vote. here are some of the details. he would hold off on the contempt about for barr and ross if officials provided documents to congress by wednesday. in a letter sent to barr, cummings was critical of the doj letter sent earlier in the day and warned the department would ask the president to assert executive privilege in other words without making any recognizable counter offer with respect to the documents, the department appears to be indicating it may stop producing responsive documents and that the department may withhold documents in other investigations. watch c-span 3 10:00 a.m. eastern sissy -- to see if there are any new revelations or

developments. it should be interesting watching at 10:00 to see how this plays out. tyler has been waiting on the line. you are just not following this. tell us why. now instead of passing --ls -- host: let's move onto christine calling from rhode island. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i was just calling to say they should continue the investigation into how important .his is to the country .t is terrible

he is the acting president. a lot of things they do is just propaganda. he is still a reality show. i am not going to get into the slander of it all. the republican party, i just feel like if they speak out, they get attacked. i hope somebody stands up for the truth and they continue doing their job, the democrats. thank you very much. jefferson township, pennsylvania, bill is calling. tell us your thoughts on the investigation. caller: i want to say all the trump haters are drunk on the alphabet network kool-aid. news.bs, nbc all they do is try to find something the matter with trump. kool-aid.drunk the

where is the respect due for a president sitting in office? he is a duly elected president. where is all the respect? there is no respect anymore? . that is my comment. goodbye. host: are you still there? caller: yeah. host: what about the earlier callers that say we do not know yet in order to make decisions? caller: they have the mueller report. can't they read? get somebody to interpret it for them. it is all there. it is one investigation after the other and it is a waste of money and time. they should work on something like taking care of the national debt. congress should do their job, especially democrats and they are not doing their job with all these investigations. they are wasting the taxpayers time and money. they are not doing their job and they should get the hell out of office, all of them. host: starting at 8:00, we will

have a couple of members of the u.s. house. amodei.ellar and mark here is a tweeted this morning on all this. imagine if congress investigated all of our endless wars with all this level of scrutiny. how many million american soldiers could be saved? how many trillions of dollars? for iowa leaving yesterday, the president reacted to the action in the house where they voted to enforce subpoenas for william barr and don mcgahn and here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> nancy is a mess. the democratic party is a mess. they are doing everything they can to win the election. they are guilty of many crimes. many, many crimes. they are guilty of many, many crimes. hopefully in a short period of time, that will be seen. they should never have done what

they done. they should never waste time on these investigations and in the meantime, they cannot get a border deal done. they cannot do anything. in addition to the great deal toh mexico, we need them work on illegal immigration, lower drug prices, infrastructure, and they are not doing anything. they have come to a halt. host: onto henry in louisiana. go ahead. caller: i think it is an important investigation, but i think it is time for the truth to be over. yesterday a key democrat stated they are trying to find a way around impeachment. i hope everyone can see through that and it is a joke and big distraction. as soon the mueller report came out, they needed something to else to talkhing about. put a stopnt do you

to it? i am sure trump would come out way ahead, so why don't they investigate her? host: let's hear from bill calling from delaware. you are on the line. caller: yes. my question is they are worrying about trump. why don't they worry about fixing things? they don't want to take care of the people. . think it is a disgrace host: thanks for calling. lots of callers coming in this morning. you are on the line. caller: good morning. i love this station and i love .t every morning

really --u all could am i still on? host: what do you think that will yield? caller: the other thing is the politician stands up there and -- wee are doing this don't want it, we are tired of it, we don't want to hear them fed up talking about our president. it is scary for them to go to other countries and hear the politicians standing up and calling him names. host: a couple of other tweets on all of this. what did mueller have to say about his own report? he is all done and wants nothing to do with it. he does not want to defend or

talk about it anymore. whyother viewer rights don't we establish an office of --manent residential presidential investigation? if they have nothing to hide, they should not mind, right? we welcome your calls, your facebook postings, twitter postings. we will continue to do this for another half hour. here is another look at that pole which led us to ask this question. it is a poll done recently by npr and marist. what should congress do following the mueller report? 22% essay begin impeachment proceedings. 25% say continue investigations into political wrongdoings. 5% say centura president trump and 35% essay no further action, end the investigation. let's hear what lily has to say in st. louis. you are on the line. caller: these people that are

calling in have not read the .eport mueller turned over this report, he turned it over to them to investigate to find out what is going on. if this president would turn all the papers over, they would have this investigation. he said everything is over, no, they are supposed to investigate them and that is what they are for. he is talking about the border.

he does not want to pass nothing, he uses everything for an excuse. these people who say my president, he is not for them. it is so sad and they don't read, they just talk and it is sad and we are not going to get anywhere. that is all. texas.raig calling from your thoughts on the investigation of the president? yeah, thank you for taking my call. the president does not have to clarify when he makes a decision on anything. first of all, there was no collusion and that is not a crime even if there was. the second thing is under article 2, he does not have to justify what he does with his staff or anyone else in his departments. more --ion is nothing

it does not really matter. -- isis is his eyewash eyewash for the 2020 election. it is useless in all it is is divisive. it divides the country. the 2020g mentioning election. in iowa between the president and former vice president joe biden. trump and biden escalate feud, here is a shot of the president being cheered and cheering after signing an executive order at an ethanol producer in council bluffs and joe biden running to seek the democratic nomination talking to supporters after a town hall meeting. they escalated their feud and getting personal. according to what we heard

yesterday. we want to spend a couple of minutes giving you a flavor of what the two of them had to say about each other in iowa beginning with president trump. [video clip] >> under the obama administration, our politicians let other countries push us around, treat us badly, treat our country with no respect, and you see that with biden. we would never be treated with respect because people don't respect him. even the people he is running against are saying where is he? what happened? he makes his stance in iowa one or two weeks and mentions my name 74 times in one speech. that reminds me of crooked hillary, she did the same thing. applause]d and then when it came time to vote, they all set she does not like trump very much, but what else does she stand for?

the same thing is happening with sleepy joe. he is a sleepy guy. >> he embraces kim jong-un who is a damned thug and a murderer. he had his uncle's brains blown out. i was pleased to know his alliance with kim jong-un, he and kim jong-un thought maybe i should not be president. jong-un while he was there. okay, all right. owah. he did not -- woah. he did not do any of the right things. he gets up in the middle of the night while he is at normandy and tweets and attack at bette midler? the mayor of london because he is muslim? the speaker of the house who is there with him in london?

a stunning display of childishness the whole world watched. host: just a flavor of what has been happening in iowa this week. you can watch those speeches in their entirety. ore in president trump iowa joe biden iowa. trump and biden get personal in the iowa skirmish. the hostile exchanges yesterday which went back and forth across multiple iowa campaign stops were the biggest evidence yet they see -- waging a battle against each other. back to our question about the investigation of the president. in washington, hello. caller: good morning. i wanted to make a few points. during the 2016 campaign, -- there areon more russians in brookland than anywhere else in the country.

that should be a clue. why would they have their headquarters in brooklyn out of all the places they could have chosen? amber two, we need constitutional convention. the cartels are in control of the country, it is obvious. not just the mexican cartel because they take a lot of flak, but cartels from all the different countries, china, you name it. they are franchising the country . people come over and start sponsoring people in their home or labor toa fee come over here, set up a business, have those slave labor -- all these cities and communities where a street is totally taken over by an

ethnic group and you have to ask yourself are the cartels controlling this or not? i believe they are. where therelaces are different places that are ethnic and i did not think much about it until i started seeing migrants coming from south america being sponsored by different cartels in mexico or south america. they come up here and they have contacts all throughout the country to set these people up and they get here and start the process all over again, franchising america, sending people up here. there needs to be a constitutional convention. a person goes from state to state starting with alabama and

get people to vote in person. no mail-in voting, no computer voting. if they are worried about voter fraud or people influencing our elections, people need to go to the polls in person and we go from state to state and revise the constitution so it cannot be abused by the cartels of the world. host: thank you for calling. we are waiting on mike -- mike is waiting on us from laurel park new york. go ahead, please. caller: thanks. i support the investigation. the first part of the report, mueller talked about how we were attacked by putin and his friends. they opened up hundreds of thousands of facebook accounts and when you retweet and retweet, i have seen them.

i am on facebook with a bunch of friends of mine who are trump supporters and they just retweet from these crazy addresses lies and lies and lies. you had some guy during the election drive out of state into the d.c. area because he heard hillary clinton was operating a sex ring at a pizzeria and he was going to shoot the place up. this is what is happening. noot of people in new york trump or know people who know trump. his hotel floors are owned by saudi arabians, oligarchs, putin's friends. whons with a lot of money are looking for all sorts of favors. the guy is bought and sold. everything is a transaction. he is looking to open up condos with kim jong-il, whatever his

name is. the only staff he has are his sons, jared and ivanka, his girlfriend. this is a guy who attacked president obama. when obama was fighting a couple of wars trying to pull us out of second worst fiscal situation we have ever had and i remember mitch mcconnell would only give obama $800 billion and wasp passed a tax cut that $2.5 trillion. 90% of it went to 1000 people. i don't know what these people are talking about. i would not mind seeing trump because he is not going to pass anything ever again. that is all he is going to get for the next two years, the next four. host: we mention the president meeting with the polish leader today, one of the headlines ahead of that meeting this morning comes from fox news.

they are asking is there a polish fort trump ahead? they are making the point the u.s. is expected at least 1000 troops to the 4000 already stationed in poland, a sign of strengthening ties between president trump and the polish leader at a time when many other nations in the e.u. are drifting away. they will meet and do a press conference during the noon hour. in the washington times, they talk a little bit about the house and its spending bill coming to the house. got a little bit smaller as they removed one piece of it for discussion perhaps later. house democrats are backing off a vote on a bill to increase lawmakers' pay. raise pay.ant to their rank-and-file members will not let them. plans on ats shelved

vote to increase cost-of-living increase saying they heard too much opposition from their most vulnerable members who feared facing political attacks that they run for reelection back home. on healths to show care or other issues on which democrats ran in 2018. the house comes in today at 10:00 for morning our. those speeches on any topic. long day and evening ahead of them with a massive package of spending bills as they try to work through the appropriations. in nearly a trillion dollars will be considered today and tomorrow in the areas of health, education, defense, the state department and foreign operations. you can watch that on c-span. we go on to plainview, new york. what is your name? go ahead. caller: good morning. is although trump is

, trying to boy establish a coup d'etat is not the way to conduct another president. it sets a precedent going forward and anybody who was elected, if they do something or their background can be fully they can be and attacked for the next few years. we have elijah cummings who was scandal andthe involved in funneling money for his wife involved in the election. we have hillary, champion of women who destroyed cell phones

and computer evidence, 33,000 emails. i can go on and on. democratic sins is just as gate as -- great as reported sins of our president. thank you. host: we have rick on the line from idaho. go ahead. caller: good morning, c-span. of the my observation entire mueller investigation, the democratic party is running on a deployed deception. no one was paying attention to the left-handed democratic party . the the voters went to voting booth, the voter voted democrat. this is nothing more than a scene in the shawshank

.edemption the question nobody asked to this date, was the mueller report to liberally delayed pending the outcome of america's vote? what would have been the outcome of america's vote had the mueller report been released prior to america's voting? the pipeline to america is franchising. thank you, c-span, for allowing me to answer a complaint. filing suit toe block a phone merger. this is a group of state attorneys general blocking a merger of t-mobile and sprint corporation. a challenge that comes as federal antitrust officials are reviewing the more than $26 billion deal. usa today this wednesday morning talks about measles. this year's measles cases have

passed the 1000 mark for the first 6 months of 2019 the highest number in 27 years according to the centers for disease control and prevention. to the washington post, money for the wall is the key point in the house panel battle over military spending and they are talking about the markup happening today on the military spending bill. the president's border wall and the military construction projects are going to take center stage today as it attempts to finalize a defense bill amid several deeply partisan policy divides. matt thornberry of texas is planning to challenge provisions -- pay for the construction of the border barrier and deny the trump administration reprogramming barrier -- diver money toward border construction and part of a broader amendment he plans to attack an additional

17 billion onto the 733 billion-dollar authorization bill, which it -- will bring it closer to trump's budget request and legislation the armed services committee approved last month. border wall money to be part of the debate today. we are covering the markup and you can watch a little bit later on c-span3 and we are hearing it will go to 11 or 12:00 midnight so you can see a good chunk on primetime tonight. let's go to new york, you are on the line. it is robin, correct? caller: hello? host: go ahead, robin. caller: hello. thanks and good morning, c-span. i am calling just because i think the investigations in congress against president trump are just a fishing expedition. obviously they have such

deep-seated hatred toward trump they have to find something. they are pushing to find something that can bring him down. the mueller report, that did not work out for him so they have to go fishing for something else. that hearing yesterday where was supposed-- in to be to help the american public understand the mueller report because the mueller report they said was too long at americans would not read it. americans would not have time to read a 400 page report. sit downd have time to and watch a 4 or 6 hour hearing? the whole thing is a joke. let them just keep fishing. if they find something, they do. i don't think they will. i think they are just desperate. desperate. host: donald in north carolina,

what would you like to say about the investigations of the president? caller: thanks for having my call. the investigations -- they are done. that is what we paid $30 million -- with all the witnesses isnesses and now the doj investigating the investigation and the pfizer court other things that happened within our national security intelligence and farming and people in other intelligence in other countries to spy on american citizens and john wayne he connecticut, information, --

host: harmon, in seattle. good morning to you. caller: good morning. all the right-wing jokers sticking up for this guy and all the patriots, you understand? i want to say we were attacked by the russians in an attempt to get this guy elected. congress, absolutely, they must have those watergate style hearings and all of that and inform the public about what is happening. the way, this guy, mitch mcconnell has to be voted out of office. they areity of people, good people, you understand?

just jokers like mitch and that guy at 1600 pennsylvania avenue .hat is so mean-spirited otherwise, have those hearings and inform the public. host: thanks for calling. mueller investigated trump and could not prove in a court of law trump or any of his people colluded. of testimonyhours and found nothing. congress wants to do the same thing, why? it is just hate for trump. before we wrap up this first hour, i want to take you to a piece of another hearing at the house judiciary committee that features the committee and jon stewart who got very serious and emotional as well talking to lackess about support or of support for 9/11 first responders. here is a look at what jon stewart had to say at this hearing. [video clip] >> the official response time to

9/11 was five seconds. .ive seconds that is how long it took for nypd, port authority, ems to respond to an urgent need from the public. five seconds. hundreds died in an instant thousands more poured in to continue to fight for their .rothers and sisters the breathing problems started almost immediately and they were told they were not sick, they were crazy. as the illnesses got worse and okay, got more apparent you are sick, but not from the

pile. when the science became irrefutable, ok, it is the pile. this is a new york issue. i don't know if we have the money. i am sorry if i sound angry and undiplomatic, but i am angry and you should be, too. they are all angry as well and they have every justification to be that way. there is not a person here, there is not an empty chair on that stage that did not tweet out "never forget the heroes of 9/11." never forget what they did, what they gave to this country. and where are they? if theirbe one thing

callous indifference and rank hypocrisy were nine, but it is not. these menference cost and women their most valuable commodity, time. the one thing they are running out of. host: yahoo! news rights some of the empty chairs at that hearing yesterday reflected the subcommittee's small size relative to that of the full committee. even so, they were a potent symbol of what jon stewart saw as indifference. do little to enshrine that remembrance in extended medical coverage for first responders who support the families of the fallen. go to c-span.org to watch the full hearing. just type in jon stewart and it

will come up for you. darrell from north carolina. caller: good morning. i think what the american people need to emphasize about the first part of the mueller report when they talk about the russians attacking our country was under attack -- we need to emphasize and understand the on obama'sas done watch, his intelligence community, brenner, klapper, they knew what was going on and what did they do about it? cut it out, that really was a big threat. anyway, that is all i have to say about that. i think in the long run, hopefully when attorney general barr and this new investigator will find -- about the genesis of this witchhunt to begin where it started and tried pull a coup

d'etat on our president. thank you for your time. host: linda in texas, what would you like to say? linda, are you there? caller: good morning. how are you? 1 if you could turn the sound down on your set, we could hear you better. caller: i am not following this investigation because we are too close to an election. ok.eople do not want him -- if people don't want him, they can vote him out. voteu don't like trump, him out. we are close to an election. that is all i have to say. i am not bothering because i want an environmental person in there for the young people. i am 70 something years old. i am only going to listen for

the ones who are for our next generation and save the planet. vote him out. host: go ahead, teresa. is despicable it we have a president that uplifts the adversaries of foreign countries and bashes the military and other politicians. also, i find it is a disgrace that our american people are not that concerned that we have problems with russia tampering with the voting system. it still happens on trump's even asd he is not rattled like jon stewart was. he should be just as rattled as jon stewart was on 9/11. i find it is very disgraceful and if he doesn't have anything to hide, why manipulate people who refuse to testify and all

this malarkey going on? host: ok. one last call from bill. caller: i would like to say a couple of things. i've been here 64 years from greece and i've never seen anything like this and if you go to greece right now, you can dump the whole country down the river. i would tell you something. ve been here with the -- scottsdale, arizona. this guy, president of the united states, donald trump is the best president we've ever had since reagan, ok? now, these people are so inbrashed -- brainwashed, they're so sleepy. they don't have no idea, they don't have no education at all. god give you brains that use it and abuse it. they don't use it at all. i'm republican. and i'm democrat. no. you're not. you're american. 100% american. and the man he wants to stop the

wars. he wants to do everything he can notice a politician, is a businessman, he knows how to work it out with people and nobody wants to give him credit. spent $30 billion, democrats and liberals to destroy him because they're trade afraid of him. they're afraid he's going to get rid of the swamp. my wife worked 37 years for the government years ago when i had the chance and i didn't and i was stupid and i regret that. this is america. love this country. if you don't like it go back to greece, italy, wherever you come from, africa, wherever you come from. i don't care! i'm american. go to greece. i don't have no family here. they're all in greece. but i'm going to tell you something. i go see them and come back home. to america. america. wake up, america. wake up, american people. don't be brainwashed by these politician people because they're not doing nothing for you. the only thing that say if you're stupid enough to fall for

me, what do i care? host: all right. the voice of bill there, to wrap up this first hour of this conversation. i'm sure we'll be continuing. we'll take a short time-out on this wednesday, the 12th of june and in a couple of minutes, we'll be talking to two top members of the appropriations committee in the house about the battle for overall federal spending and whether another government shutdown can be avoided. first up, henry cuellar of texas and a little bit later, we'll be joined by the republican congressman mark amodei of nevada. this is "washington journal." we'll be right back with more of your calls. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018]] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. isit ncicap.org]

>> when we think of wynton churchill, we think of the older man sending the younger man into war but to one knew better and few knew as well that realities of war, the terror and the devastation and he said to his mother after his second war, the raw comes through. you can't gild it. he absolutely knew the disaster hat war was. >> candace millar, in her book, "hero of the empire." >> and he says give me a regimen, game point and i want to fight. so he ends up going with a regimen on the day that it foal the british and he takes over the prison and he frees the men who have been his fellow prisoners, he puts in which prison, his former jailers and

he watch at the flag is torn down and the union flag is oisted in its place. ♪ >> the house is being ordered. >> for 40 years, c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public political events from washington, d.c. and around the country so you can make up your own mind created by cable in 1979. c-span is brought you to by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of overnment. announcer: "washington journal" continues. >> at the table now, congressman henry cuellar, democrat from south texas, member of the appropriations committee in the house. good morning. guest: good morning. host: it's not often that the

house takes up a bill that has a price tag of a trillion dollar or so. it's going happen today on the floor. what is in this appropriation bill and why its coming up now? guest: half of the federal budget discretionary funding goes into the military. so therefore, when you include the defense funding, then that's going to take a large chunk of money. so therefore, we get the defense appropriations. we got the military construction and for veterans. you got the state foreign ops which is important for some of the issue that we'll probably talk about, migration. and health and human services. what are we doing for providing education health care services? host: what are the most important aspects of that bill for you and your constituents? caller: certain the -- guest: certainly the defense, i represent san antonio. so we have money for not only the military construction but for our comment women that serve

and that's important because i serve in the defense appropriationings. -- appropriations. i'm a big believer in providing education opportunities. and on the state foreign ops, there is funding there to help the central american countries to address the issues of migration. host: where will the biggest fights be on the n.e.c. two days? >> there are about 400 or 500 amendments that were subjected or submitted. we're going to have over 100 amendments tonight. we have a late one. last votes are going to be somewhere between 10:00, 2 1:00. so a lot of it comes in -- if you talk about health and human service, you always have votes on some social issues like abortion. if you talk about events, people think we need to add more money

and some people think we need to reduce it more. every single bill is going to have several amendments. host: but the phone number is on the screen for henry cuellar. we have lines for republicans, democrats, independents. we'll get to your calls in just a couple of minutes. the congressman is in his eighth term now, correct? guest: that's correct. host: member of appropriations as we talked about and vice chair of appropriations subcommittee on homeland security. a little bit more on this bill, this trillion dollar or so bill that's coming up. wow don't you put it in context one of the reason i ask you is august recess now under threat as spending -- yearly spending bills pile up. guest: just yesterday, we passed the 12th final bill and appropriations. and the house has moved all the bills out of the committee and as you know, we got four bills that are going to be on the

floor and we're hoping that next week, we're going to do the same thing. i think the house is going to be able to pass all the bills and send it over the senate. we'll see what the senate is going to do. but, you know, again, always talking about august, they call it a break but once we're back in the district, with do a lot of traveling. guy a large district that goes from san antonio to la radha and mcallen. the southern part that you know, i visit there because we got issues with the migrants that are coming in. host: we welcome your calls and your comments via social media for henry cuellar. it's hard to have a conversation like this about the budget without thinking about a potential shutdown. what's it going to take to avoid a shutdown this year and do you have any concerns? guest: well, you know, certainly, i hope the president doesn't say i'm proud do this shutdown like he did last time.

it was not good to have that. i certain want to make sure this is the house under our leadership were pushing all the appropriation bills early because went to get everything turnover the senate and just be ready to start moving on it. i was part of the concerns committee back in february to -- conference committee back in february for the shutdown. we were able to sit down and sat down with the senators, democrats and republicans and actually do a process, the conference committee which is something that we work out conferences. so if we're able to get down the difference, we could work it out, but of course the factor is what's president trump going to want? host: i promise we'll get to calls in a second but i want to ask you about other looming denials later this year on the annual debt ceiling deadline and a biggie.

sequestration deadline. can you explain what you're looking forward to here? guest: the sec tradition was put in -- sec stration was put in place -- sequestration was put in place and that affects almost everybody. it calls on congress to sit down and one of the questions we have to look at is how do we pay for that? so we always look at this issue. so we got sequestration. we got the debt ceiling also that's coming up also. the debt ceiling, it's not for new spending. the debt ceiling means we lready have some spending. it calls for bipartisanship. and again, what i don't like

about the process, we always wait to the last minute. we know we have to do the appropriations. we know we have to look at the debt ceiling. we know we have to look at sequestration so often. why do we wait till the last minute? i wish we realize that we have to do this in a bipartisan way. host: the calls are coming in for the congressman. megan, you're up from rochester. is it michigan? caller: yep. is there any room in the bill for international spending? a lot of this year's discourse politically has been about national security how to best secure that and i feel like a lot of things have been overlooked regarding international development as an outlet for that. host: thank you. guest: she's absolutely right. we're talking about the migrant issue for example. and there is a development help that we provide different parts of the world. but if we're talking about in the south, central america, back

in 2014, congresswoman and myself and other folks, we set up a fund to help the central american country so they can address the root problems, the poverty, you know, the violence that they have down there and to develop those countries. and again, in order to address this issue, you have to address easy to root problems. some people feel like all we have to do is build a wall at the u.s. border. it just doesn't work that way. i was involved with some of those.coms. we have to come up with better metrics to make sure that we put into a system -- we never give people cash. it's their own n.g.o.'s that's doing the work down there. we have to make sure we get results and finally before somebody asks this, it's very it's lessto know that

than 1% of the budget. i hear people say cut the budget and keep in mind, there's five countries that are part of the $1 billion club israel gets the largest amount. over 3.5 billion dollars every year. then you've got other countries ike jordan and egypt and others, pakistan gets assistance on that. so the four in eight that we send to central is so small in other areas that we provide since. host: let's -- assistance. let's go to mike. caller: i am just wondering. hat was the monetary revenue monetary from the federal budget from the tax breaks that were in the latest tax bill. not the tax cut. the tax cut, let's say round that off 10% revenue loss.

how much monetary loss to the budget, the central budget was caused by the tax breaks that were in that bill? i moan, i can't find that on there. -- i mean, i can't find that on there. host: congressman? guest: turf answer that question by moneys coming into the federal budget. i don't have that exact answer but i would tell you this. look, it's very simple economics. the economics is the federal budget, money goes out, money omes in. everybody loves tax cuts. i believe in keeping the lowest tax possible. when money goes out and money comes in, if they don't match, then we're going to have a problem. we're going to have a deficit spending. and if you see, now we have the deficit that has increased because of the tax cuts. it's very simple. less money comes in, money go

out. i along with some of the folks because the people that were selling these tax cuts say it's going to bring more revenues to the federal budget. so we propose saying well, why don't we condition those tax cuts on the money coming in into the economy? they trophies do that and what do we see now? we have less money coming in, more fun coming out and therefore, we have this decide. i don't want to blame republicans and democrats. this is a problem that's created by both parties. the debt that we have has been created by democrats and republican administrations in congress. so we just got to make sure that we're fair everybody to and put the blame on folks and that's why i call for a bipartisan support on this issue. host: but how far can this debt continue to increase without congress getting together, finally getting together, and coming up with some maybe painful solutions? guest: and we have to do it. we have to look at it. the last time there was

something really done on this particular issue, it was a democratic president and a republican congress. president clinton and newt gingrich, the congress at that time and what happened when they addressed that issue for the first time in many years, you actually had a surplus. then came a new election and then new debt came in. we had the wars and of course, in afghanistan, iraq, and then of course we had part d prescription drugs and all of that is very expensive. all of that was put on the credit card. so we saw a surplus under a president that was a dem accurate, a congress that was a republican because they worked together. and then after that, one party controlled it and then debt went out. i remember back in the 2010 election, my tea party friends were all saying that -- the debt, the debt, the debt. and now you don't hear anybody saying the debt. so i assume that once there's a democratic president, they'll

probably start bringing out the debt again but again, we have to address this issue. host: let's hear from larry from kentucky. go ahead, larry. caller: yes, sir. what i'd like to know is is there any provisions in the budget to cut money out of paying for illegal immigrants coming to this country? that's one way to curb it in my opinion. thank you. guest: yeah. the federal law has been there for so many years, so many years that doesn't allow money going to people that are not u.s. citizens. i mean, that's the bottom line. and we have to make sure that we enforce that law and make sure that the money only comes to us. but again, that money -- i mean that law has been in place several pieces of laws have been in place for many years. host: that's a good transition to your district. let's take a look at a map of the 28th district of texas. you can see that it stretches from san antonio all the way through la radha and down

through the -- laredo, down to mchale len, -- mcallen, texas. tell us about your district. guest: we got a lot of bases that i represent there and then you got ranchers or farmers that have concerns about the tariff hat the president has. we don't want the farmers to get a bailout from the government. i rather you get a check from the frequent -- free market and that's why i'm a believer with the trade that we have with the u.s. and canada and mexico that's so important. laredo has become the largest port, bigger than l.a. and in between, you have the eagleford, energy, oil and gas.

and then you go down the border. then you hear mcallening and the mcallen's a booming area but at the same time, you have a situation of people that are coming in from central america and other parts of the world that are coming in throughout that area, almost 1,000 people a day. host: you consider that a crisis? guest: i call that a humanitarian crisis when the kids were coming in in 2014. i don't call it a security crisis. f you look at the latest statistics, the border crime rate is lower than the national crime rate. the border crime rates in mcallen or even in laredo, my hometown, is lower two or three times in washington, d.c. so the most dangerous thing about being being in the border is when i leave the border to come to washington, d.c. i'm not talking about the politics. but the crime rate here, you've seen the f.b.i. stats for 100,000 says that washington,

d.c. is more draws than those cities on the border. host: i want to continue this part of the conversation but i want to get some more calls. sam in thousand oaks, california, good morning. caller: yes, good morning, congressman. thank you for taking my call. so i have a simple question. can congress legally require any given president to borrow money? and i'll stay on the line in case you have any clarifications on that question. guest: yeah. well, first of all, the budget or appropriation of money is congress. so it's not up to the president. this is up to the congress. i know we are an interesting times and i know we have a president that has stretched out what it means to have executive powers and as you know, those have been challenged by, you know, by congress, at least by the democrats, should i say? but the power of the purse belongs to the congress and this is why we've had problems with

the president moving certain moneys and the military construction and other places to build this 14th century solution called the wall. host: let's hear from kelly from hot springs national park from arkansas. hi, kelly. good morning. caller: hi, good morning. tanks for taking my call. i'm thinking about the appropriation and i understand what you just -- what i just -- d that congress does host: go ahead, kelly. kelly, are you with us? caller: hi, i'm sorry. i'm listening to myself. host: keep going. caller: i understand that congress does that, but once the money is approved and it's supposed to go where it's supposed to go, like the places

disasters t by the like puerto rico. that was cut back. and as we watched the news daily, we hear every time that what he wants to give to help has been cut back. i want to know if the money that he is not allotting to these does it go? if it is not given to those places, where does it go? host: thank you, kelly. guest: right. again, under article one of the constitution, the power of the purse belongs to the -- to congress. we appropriation so much we work out an appropriations on the 12 different appropriations bill tell. white house is involved as we're negotiating. for example, i was in the conference committee in february so neglect out of this shutdown

so it was the house negotiating with the senate but the white house was involved. so therefore, once we reached an agreement, we wanted to make sure that the president will be ok. so the president working with the senate is involved. we appropriate certain things, we don't want that to go and be diverted for other purposes as the president tried to divert it by $8 billion for a wall. or he can hold back or try to hold back, for example, he wanted to cut off the funding to central america. again, you know, that's the root problem that we're looking at, a $520 million. i know it's a lot of resources but again, i mentioned there are five countries that are a part of the $1 billion club. you have israel, jordan, i'll name the other five countries, afghanistan. this is only a small investment that wore looking at because i rather play defense on their

20-yard line working with mexico and central america than playing defense on the 1-yard line using football as an analogy called the u.s.-mexico border where we spent $18 billion a year. host: here is president trump talking with reporters outside the white house yesterday about this agreement, what he's calling an agreement with mexico. president trump: mexico, we're getting along with them great. marcelo and the president and all of them, we're getting along great. they've started a very strong action. they're moving right now, 6,000 soldiers to their southern border. whoever heard of that? you think we had that two weeks ago? two weeks ago, i'll tell you what we had. we had nothing. and the reason we had nothing is because mexico felt they didn't have to give us anything. i don't blame them. but this is actually ultimately going to be good for mexico too and it's good for the relationship of mexico with us. so here's your thing. you all say oh, he doesn't -- i just gave you my word. inside here, and i would love to

do it. but you are free to action it. you will stop it. you will analyze it. every single letter, you'll see. but in here is the agreement. host: congressman henry cuellar, what do you think of this agreement? guest: well, again, this is something that u.s. and mexico got togethering to address an immigration issue. but the president's use of tariffs which would have been a disaster on the jobs in the u.s. side. especially to the consumers because if he thought that those tariffs were going to punish mexico, wrong. i'll tell you why. the goods that come in from mexico are so interconnected with the u.s. if a product comes in from china, it will have about 4% american parts. if an import comes in from canada, it will have about 24% american part. but if an import comes in from mexico, it will have 40% american parts. so those tariffs would have had a negative impact on our economy

and jobs and consumers because our american consumers would have paid 35% of all the vegetables for example. you know where they come from? mexico. so that would have had a direct impact the president used immigration and economies. again, those are two different issues that we need to look at. i do want to say this, that mexico should do more because i told the mexicans. the problem that the u.s. is facing you're going to be facing soon because it's no only central america coming in, but you got now people from africa, china, name the country in the world that are now figuring out that all you have to do is come through central america, mexico and the southern part of the u.s. host: we were told before the program that you were on the phone with u.s. and mexican negotiators leading into the weekend in this deal. what did you tell them and what did you hear from them? guest: i talked to the white house and talked to the vice president's people about, you know what, they expected because

there was a very big demand that they were asking the mexicans and they gave me their thoughts. i talked the foreign minister and speaker pelosi and so much us met with them and we spoke. and one of the first things he said, he said how about the military? and i said that's what the president likes. he wants to see visual things because he sent the u.s. military to our border, a lot of people know they're not there securing the border. they are not doing immigration. they do support work. and i agree with that supported. they're the eyes and ears for our border patrol. so that was one thing that the president wanted. the 6,000 national guard to the southern border and that's one of the things that he got. but in my opinion, unless i'm missing something from my conversation, there's no secret deal or there were no agreement by mexico to buy all thising a products. that's the -- this agent products and that's the president tweeting out his story.

caller: i just want to make a comment about the international affairs budget. as you had mentioned earlier, it leveraged less than 1% of our overall budget in the fiscal year of 2019. and for the fiscal year of 2020, the trump administration has proposed another cut, the international affairs budget of 24%. do you believe that this cut will end up happening or do you believe that congress will stop his cut? guest: we rejected the president's cuts for several reasons. there is a purpose for foreign assistance. and that is what we call soft power. we can help influence certain countries through the military, which we have the greatest military in the history of the world or we can use soft power. we're not the only ones using soft power to address this.

one of the examples out there are countries that use soft power is china. they use soft power thought the world and they're starting to look at central america. and i keep telling my colleagues don't forget what happens in 80's. -- 1980's. all of a sudden, we forgot about central america. and we have to understand that that's your own backyard. if the bad guys wanted to play games with us, they will look at their -- our own backyard. we have to look at mexico and central america and you've got countries like russia and china that are already looking at and already there in central america. host: ed is calling from bonita springs, florida, republican. hi, ed. caller: hi, good morning, c-span. thank you for taking my call. i appreciate the representative's comments that our national debt is the

responsibility of both people. at $22 trillion the interest on that debt is $364 billion. now, president bush and us patriots, we asked for $8 billion for a wall and you guys seem to have no problem spending $364 billion just on the interest alone. that's almost half our national defense budget. and yet you know, you guys are complaining that president bush piss overstepping his boundaries, asking for $8 billion for a watch i don't think the legislative branch has illed the fa deutsche ray. -- fiduciary for that. we need everything to present this, this national tragedy that's happening with the drugs that's coming over, the human trafficking, it's just -- you

knowing you talk about the low crime rates in laredo, yeah, but what are you doing with the illegals? you're sending them all over the country. up north in massachusetts and vermont and all those places. so don't tell me you have lower crime rates because you guys are sening from the border rates. don't send them over here to florida or anywhere else in the country. we don't want these people. host: all right, ed. thanks for calling. let's hear from the congressman. guest: i assume he's talking about democrats when he said you eople. sometimes folks that don't live with the border just don't run the border. i'm a democrat and i believe in law and order. went to have law and order at the border. and we want to make sure that we secure the border but we can't use 14th century solutions to address the border. the walling the every border

that pa troll chief will tell you this. when i've asked them how much time does a border wall slow nobody? it will be "a few minors a few seconds depending on who wants to cross." technology now, you can use drones. you can use airplanes to come over and if you remember -- i think you said you were from florida. remember in the 1980's, drugs were coming in through florida. so what happened? and some of us predicted that tear going to be coming in through the southern border so much now they're coming in through the southern border. the u.s. has a consumption of drugs. every year, billons of dollars are sent down to central america because of the large drug consumptions that we have across the united states. i believe in use -- using technologies, drones and stopping folks. but did you know most drugs will

come in through ports of entry if that's a statistic that is unrefuted? if you want to stop people from coming in into the united states, i was told -- would tell my friend there in florida that most people, one third of the people coming into the iowa state come through the southern border. most of the people, 66% are coming into u.s. and staying here illegally come through an legal visa but they're overstaying and you know which is the number one -- in the states? canada. i'm not asking for a wall with canada but you have to look at the facts. don't believe the myths. don't follow, you know what, you hear and repeat and pair it to everything you say. i live with the border. i want to see law and order at the border. that's where my family lives. you have to unthat we have to use the technology, the personnel to address this issue. you know, this thing about attacking the border and people

want to have an open border, it's just a myth that some people are just carry over and over again. host: one more call, congressman but wanted to plug the mexico-canada trade agreement into the conversation. how important is it if this passes? do you like what they've come up with? guest: i believe in nafta and this new version of nafta. they have done a good job in trying to address this issue. in my hometown of laredo, we're the number one in trains, buses and trucks. every day, we get about 60,000 trailers a day just imagine that. 60,000 trailers a day. we get by 25 trains from mexico. you're talking about a lot of trains. and then, buses. why are buses important? i want you to, especially my friends in florida, a couple of years ago, we got over 19

million mexicans that came over as tourists. and they spent over $20 billion at our hotels, restaurants, orlando, you know, different places across the country, and that's money to our economy. one out of every four international visitors are mexicans. so again, tourism is important but the trade, every day, there's $1.7 billion of trade between the u.s. and mexico. over $1 million a minute. yes, i'm a big believer in nafta. we have to make a couple of jaums on labor reform enforcement and environment and pharmaceuticals and we are going to get there. host: and it will pass the house, you think? guest: it will pass the house. host: all right, thank you a lot for joining us this morning. guest: thank you so much. host: thank you. we will talk with another member of the house appropriations committee. it's republican congressman mark amodei of nevada. we will hold that all that we didn't get to in the next

segment and take your calls with the congressman. we'll be right back. >> when we think of winston churchill, we think of the older man sedged young men into war. but no one knew better and few knew as well that realities of war, the terror and the devastation. and he said to his mother after his second war, you know, the raw comes through. you can't gild it. he absolutely knew the disaster that war was. announcer: sunday figure out on "q&a." historian candice millar talks

about the early career of winston churchill. >> and he says give me a regimen. i want to go and i want to fight show. ends up going with a regimen on the day that it fell to the british and he takes over the prison and he frees the men who have been his fellow prisoners and he puts in the prison, his former jarlse and he watches as the bore flag is torn down and the union flag is hoisted in its place. >> the complete guide to congress is available. it has lots of details about the house and senate. contact and bio information about every senator and representatives and information about congressional committees, state governors and in the

cabinet. the 2019 congressional directory is a handy spiral-bound guide. order your copy from the c-span online store for $18.95. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is a republican in nevada, mark amodei in carson city, elko, the northern part they have state, correct? >> correct. host: with a the most pressing matters on the minds of your constituents? guest: we just finished our biannual legislation. people are kind of digesting all that. the jobs pictures looking pretty good. people in nevada are always worried about what's going on with tourism, the economy. agriculture's big there. so anyhow, things are going well. but like anything else these days, you can never say mission accomplished. host: how has the immigration issue affected your folks?

guest: it's like one in four people are hispanic origin so much it's as big an issue for us in nevada as it is anywhere. host: our guest is a member on the appropriations committee as well. so let's talk about this big spending bill that's on the floor today. health care, defense, state department, other programs. it's almost a trillion dollars. how are you going to vote today? guest: well, what i'm going to do is we're still finishing up our homework on it. we like to try to do that. but i'm probably a no. and here's why. there's some things in the that quite frankly on both side of the gild here, to use my colleagues on the other side's phrase, it's like there's plenty of poison pills in there to. you go through that balancing thing and say hey, is this worth that? and quite frankly, we're at the point where a of that stuff where i think we have to send a message. if for part of it is just for

the balance in terms of when you get over to the north side of the building, you know, you need to send a message in terms of solidarity over there. people are talking about vetos and how that whole process works out. in the overall scheme of things, i'm going to be a no today. host: what >> with main problems with this bill? guest: well, let me give you an example. health care is a big issue from prenate toll death. not many other issues you can say that about. so when you talk about we're going to spend a lot of money on this navigator stuff, what i think we found it, -- is it refer to the previous administration's health care bill as the affordable care bill. if you want to help people with health care, let's talk about for instance, in my state, over half of the people in that it state are on employer-provide plans. i'm not going to kick people off of my state in assurance, that's teachers and first responders. i'm not going to vote to kick

you folks off and put you in a one size fits all. so why are we continuing to fund what is essentially single pair? host: there are longer term issues here with the budget. can congress avoid a debt default and $125 billion in spending cuts? we're talking about the debt ceiling and sequestration. tell us about these other looming denials, why they're so important -- deadlines and why you see happening? guest: the scary thing is it's all been incredibly politicized. in the old days was like how do we steer the course to fix the problem? we have become such political talking point athletes that both sides have gone to their corner and stayed there. we get things like default, sexeek that sort of stuff so much it's one of those things where people are pretty frustrated with those of us here

in this process and you know what? they're justified in that. host: should there be spending caps though? should they be lifted? should it be capped? military, domestic, both? one or the other? guest: it's public money. since you're borrowing half of it now, of course there should be a discussion on it. but there isn't a discussion right now. when you ask me, it's like we don't have any of those yet. and you sit there and i guess you might as well chuckle because if you don't, you're going to cry is as a member of the majority, not that long ago, how can we do that without the 302-b's and 12 months later, it's like so the h-word is alive and well in the process here. host: let's start the phone calls for our guest, mark amodei, who reminds us that today is his birthday. guest: happy birthday to you guys too. i'm a lot older than you guys but what the heck? [laughter] host: let's go to doug on the democratic line. caller: what i'm kind of

wondering about is i'm about ready to get on social security and you guys are on a totally different plan and i wonder why that is. you get like $30,000 if you last two terms or whatever. and boehner pulls up $65,000 a year. and me, i'm going to get maybe $1,600 a month or whatever. but anyway, you guys, if you make extra money, i get money back if i make over a certain $1,600 or whatever. i was wondering if you guys get any paid money back and trump says you guys are filling the pocket with tariffs. is that true or is he lying to us? guest: ok. thanks, doug, out there in christy gnome country. i just got my little statement. i'm 61 yes, sir old as of today probably shouldn't meng that. anyhow, i just got my last statement that they send to you every year and i can tell you i'm not sure what you're

referring to if it's something that the former speaker boehner, but i haven't gotten any special social security things. so my answer to you on that is whether we have to pay something back or not is i'm on the same social security trajectory as everybody else. you know, i think -- i didn't used to know as much about this but now that i'm getting older, i'm paying more attention. it's a reduced rate and here's what happens at 65 and 70. so i'm going through it just speaking from my own experience the same as anybody else. as you get to the eligibility ages. and the sec one was something about funding terrorists? host: he is gone now. i want to ask you about social security. we know their efforts in congress to extend the life of the program as healthy as it can possibly be. what do you know about plans in congress and how critical is it that something happen very soon?

guest: well here's the thing about social security it's imminently solveable because it has cash flow. and so what you need is the political courage to go hey, we need to do some things because quite frankly as the guy who was born in 1958 baby boomer, that budge in the snake is unsustainable for my generation, if you will. on its present trajectory. that doesn't mean you pull the rug out from people right now. you got to give a decent amount of time, 10 years ago or something like that for people to transition so there still is a program. but the bottom line is there's no political courage over there for anybody to say we're going to vote to do anything to social security because the consultants will have a blast saying hey, so and so basically voted to pull the routh from under you. and until there's a courage to say if i can't make that right with the facts and the people on my district, guess what, salem on you. host: mary on the independent line. good morning. caller: hello.

yes. i was calling trump in joining the campaign has said that he was not going to tax social security and medicare, and now he's attacking both these programs. and one of my questions is you give the most -- the richest people in america the highest -- the greatest amount of tax relief and then you want to take it away from medicare and social supposedand how are we to accept that? guest: well, mary, fair question. my an is you're not supposed to accept it. let me take you back a little bit before the president. and medicare are both legislatively creative things. if somebody wants to change them, they have to change the law some no disrespect to anybody's talking points but the fact of the matter is unless

congress changes medicare and by the way, there's nothing going on in terms of hearing schedule or anything like that to change it right now. see my discussion about political courage to try to make it, you know, more long term and sustainable, things like that. but there's nothing proceeding through the congress right now to change either one of those things. so despite somebody's talking points, the facts don't bear that out. if the facts doesn't change it, the president doesn't have the ability to do that because quite frankly, they're based on statue. they're what we call mandatory spending. with all these fights about spending, if you want to change spending, you have to change the law that funds them. and by the way, those two programs with a few others are presently about, you know, 70%, 73%, something like that of all federal spending. host: let's take another call from james in florida.

hey, james. you're on with congressman mark amodei of nevada. caller: all right, good. thank you for taking my call. hey, i'm interested in where the proposal for lowering the interest rates on credit cards is at the present time. i have two credit cards and i've en a small businessman and things have not turn out the way i wanted them to. but now at this point, they are. but my interest rate on $4200 is $99 a month. and i got a visa and a mastercard. guest: so jame, why should government be involved in reducing a credit card rate? we all have credit cards or most of us anyway and we spend on them. what's the government's role here? caller: to legitimate -- legislate the credit card companies.

like one of them said, they're taking us to the cleaners. they use our money to loan back to us. guest: just wanted to hear your defense of that point. we know there are some efforts to cap credit card rates out there. is this something that you support? guest: it's a case-by-case basis. it doesn't mean it should be off the table. james, i can tell you this. i look at those things and say if you're going to charge me 28% or whatever it is, guess what? i don't need to carry your credit card. and not that you can say i don't need the credit card, it's like i think we're all used to having that as part of our financial toolkit if you will. but shopping around is one thing. and another thing quite frankly is when i was younger, i thought it was neat see how many i had and i'll over that now that i'm little older because the first line of defense for you is shop yourself because if somebody wants, you know, an interest

rate that's up there in the stratosphere, it's like i don't need your credit card. host: one of the items that's been pulled out of the big bill in the house floor today has to do with your pay and the pay of your colleagues. here's one of the headlines called fight over pay raise for congress causes democrats to pull the spending bill. i think you make about $174,000. is that enough money? guest: first of all, you know what you make and it's not talking about a pay raise. it's talking about cost of living adjustments and it's different to saying hey, i want a raise but as we hear a lot from the federal workforce and other workforce, how do we keep up with things are going if it's been 10 years. if i get a proposal to say here's what we're going to do. we're going to do a -- and we'll see how it works. i haven't closed the door on it. it goes back to something we talked about earlier which is it have concerns on both sides there. it's like hey, nobody should

welcome wealthy serving in congress. you don't want to make it the exclusive province of the wealthy. but by the same token, ingles you're getting to a point where it's look you have to be able to afford to come here and maintain two houses this neighborhood for all the wonders of the nation's capital, it's not a cheap place to exist in and it's something that i look at. when we talk about political courage, if something like that comes up and i support that, i can't make that right with my people and i get fired, that's the process. host: randy calling from iowa. go ahead, please. caller: how are you today? guest: good, good. caller: i just -- i'm listening to you speak and you talk about throwing your constituents like school teachers and stuff off of their plans. aren't there plans to -- aren't they socialized medicine basically through private corporations? and the thing that keeps come to

mind which means you're a five-term led, that would be 10 years, i would guess, you saw the destruction of the -- by the republicans and the republicans continue to create problems in health care like the doughnut hole that goes back to george bush, like the war debt that goes back to george bush that was never paid and now we've got trump tax cuts and you guys never pay your bills and you never remember that you actually cause the problems but you're always willing to offer a solution. so for you to blame the democrats for what's going on in congress right now, they inherited a mess from john boehner and what's his name? the weak skinny guy from wisconsin? so that's about all i got to say. you republicans don't have a

very good memory and i wish you start telling the truth and doing right. host: let's get a response. guest: well, thanks, randy. i guess. i can tell you that health care in this country wasn't something that happened in the last eight years. it's been happening over several decades. and so when you mention the teachers, i can't speak about iowa, but i can tell you this. a third of the people in nevada are probably already on single payer for all intents and purposes. medicaid, traditional and expanded, medicare and v.a. so quite frankly, it's not that the shouldn't be any single payer, it's a piece of the puzzle but nobody has yet to connect the dots as a policymaker. i was a democrat until 1988. but nobody's connected the dots by saying kicking people off of their state health insurance program, their federal employees hett insurance program, their school district employee health programs will fix the health care problem in this nation by

putting it urge single payer. i'm omahaed to what i'm miss -- open minded to what i'm missing but other than having we've got the partisan talking point is not going to fix it. and both sites are guilty and let me take you more in history the reason that i think john boehner got to be the speaker was the original health care vote back during the obama administration that's just my opinion. but there's a fact that probably should be woven in there somewhere. host: our guest has spent close to 15 years combined in the nevada state senate and the nevada assembly in the late 1990's and first part of the 2000's. what's the biggest difference between serving in a state legislature and this one here? guest: well, you know, fair question. when i was in the nevada legislature, we dusted up in the election psych a little bit. we played donkeys and elephants and stuff like that. but when you got in there, we got a limited amount of time to

solve issues. quite frankly the challenging part is there's no deadlines. so when you look, it's like how do we move the ball on health care? how do we move the ball on immigration? how do we move the ball on spending issues? does anybody -- so, when you say what's the biggest difference? the biggest difference is the time frame here, almost seems like there isn't a clock here. and quite frankly, there needs to be some kind of clock because right now, in my personal opinion, the focus is on political olympics and not issue solving. host: our guest is also the lone republican in nevada in the congressional delegation there. here's a headline from the nevadacurrent.com. it says now you are a collector's item. guest: it means i can have a meeting in a cocktail room and room for guests. hen i first got here, crescent hardy the next congress was here.

and now, i have some great colleagues that i have a ton of respect for. but quite frankly, it's a good thing that i'm not vulnerable to lonely tenants or i'll probably be an mobile wreck right now. host: did you campaign along or by president trump? guest: he won my district. it was less than two points but yeah, i was his like honorary chair of his nevada campaign, can was kind of an interesting thing since, you know, the other republicans in the state, most of them were heading in different directions in that stuff with the other folks. so, it was -- i don't think -- not that i'm the leader of whatever but quite frankly, the list got to the point where everybody else was in another camp and it's like yeah, i'll go where this guy. i single-handedly destroyed all the florida folks. you know, i started out as a jeb bush guy and then i went to rubio and after those guys dropped out, is like i'll support whoever the nominee is.

host: let's hear from marilu from new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. mr. amodei, your expertise, i would hope you would be able to answer this question for me. and i think it ties into what you've been talking about in terms of moving the ball in congress on spending, immigration, health care. an i want to know is as american citizen, do we have the right, the legal right, to sue the congress for not doing their job for the american people in these areas? i am very concerned that the congress, especially the house, is simply dwelling on issues of donald trump. and we are not getting to the important issues, such as the spending bill. we have a crisis at the border that's being ignored. we've got issues with health care. do we have the right to take them to task and force them to do the job that we put them in

for? guest: interesting question. you certainly have the right to expect with the money that we spend on running the congress and the staff and all that other sort of stuff to "respect" expect that we would have the ability to multi-task that doesn't mean that everybody agrees. i had to sign two discharge petitions to get an immigration boil the floor to finally vote on. so do you have the ability to knew as a lawyer, i'm sure you can find somebody who will take a look at that and do that. i will answer your question this way. i'm not aware off the top of my head of anything that will prohibit you from bringing such action. host: what do you make on the president's linking on any progress of the issue to border wall and to tariff? do you support him? guest: well here's the thing. you can link whatever you want and that's a negotiating tactic. so i get that. but the bottom line is this. when you link those things, and i don't care who you are, first of all, in the time that i've

been here, i mean, we're starting to hear the s. word again, shutdown. there is nothing that has changed from when we shut down for whenever reason on that issue to when we opened back up. so here's my conclusion. shutdowns don't work. and i supported some of them. i voted to shut down and in health care, i voted to keep the shutdown. what was five years ago. would do i it today? no. it doesn't work. the issue didn't move at all. you can link whatever ultimate. but the frustrating part is this. ok. so you link it. you take a little. i give a little or whatever. those days right now are hard to find. in terms of those big issues, because everybody's angling right now towards the white house. we want to get rid of this guy. do we want somebody knew new? do we want whatever? but by the way, it's fair as the lady from new jersey just said. it's like i want some progress on the issues. instead of just going back and

saying we were political athletes. host: you also voted no on the democrats resolution which would allow committees not with a vote of the full house but committees for subpoenas toderal court cot get information and documents. how come? guest: when i first got here i was on the judiciary committee. we had some disagreements with the prior administration and we went through that process and i don't think it hurt us. some people would claim it was a little bit slow. one of the problems over there right now is regular order has become a phrase. when you try to find regular order, it's one of these things where you go, you can tear down all of those things but when you get it to the point where there are no rules that sounds to me like you are not solving issues and you are focused on policy -- politics over issues. host: one of our last calls. caller: thank you for taking my call.

aboutssman, you mentioned trying to raise the salary for congress. but do you support raising the federal minimum wage? since you obviously believe that the cost-of-living needs to be adjusted for congressman, shouldn't that also apply to the citizens of the united states? thank you. guest: listen, i'm open-minded to any cost-of-living legislation for anybody. you going, what are to do on this. my response is after doing this for a few years, show me the bill and i will tell you how i will vote on it. as a general proposition it's like listen, i haven't closed the door on anything. and cost-of-living quite frankly is a reality for everybody. i was in a restaurant in san diego within the last month and they had a little thing saying basically because of legislation in california on minimum wage, there's going to be a surcharge on whatever the bill is.

that's an interesting way of dealing with it. it's upfront. it's whatever. i refuse to sit there and go, let's have a drama convention and whatever. let's look at the facts. let's look at the region and make some policy that makes sense based on the next as opposed to i'm catering to this side or that side. diane is in michigan. democratic caller. caller: we are the richest country in the world. and we can't take care of our sick people and provide health care for people? you can't have a country full of ill people. and this could be solved very quickly with medicare for all. people who are on medicare, you don't hear them complaining. they love it. why not give it to everyone? it's a system that has proven itself. the distribution is already planned out ready to go. we could start it tomorrow if

you wanted to instead of hashing out this obamacare that's been riddled to death. you could do it. guest: how do you pay for it? let me jump in. how do you pay for medicare for all? caller: our system now isn't paying for itself. the a very, look at percentage rate. i don't know what it is, but it's better than the distribution of insurance companies. host: thank you, diane. congressman. -- since 86,ou say anybody can go to emergency room. that's not a great way to get your health care. in my state, the uninsured rate for health care about 11%. when you say we are going to put everybody on one program i say, why do i kick that have people that are off that are also happy with where they are at, diane? and by the way, a lot of them are union members who have negotiated those benefits. and when you say how do you pay proposal is you

create one big group and everybody is in the same group. when you talk about those people that have that, that negotiated for that and then basically say by the way you are now part of one program for the 11% in my state that we need the help. do we need to help them? absolutely. do we need to kick over half the people off to pay for that? i would close the book that i'm unaware of the facts that would support that vote. host: our guest has been congressman mark amodei. inc. you for joining us this morning. one hour left in this wednesday addition of the washington journal. when we come back we are going to focus more on congressional oversight and the trump administration. get some perspective from a journalist, david hawkings. editor-in-chief of the fulcrum. plus more of your calls. you're watching washington journal.

>> the reviews are in for c-span's the president book. it recently topped the new york times new and noteworthy column. kirkus reviews calls it a milepost in the evolving and ever-changing reputations of our presidents. and from the new york journal of books, the presidents of makes a fast engrossing read and with father's day this weekend, c-span's the presidents makes a great gift. read about how noted presidential historians rank the best and worst chief executives. from george washington to barack obama. explore the life events that shaped our leaders. the challenges they faced and the legacies they've left behind. is nows the presidents available as a hardcover or e-book today. at c-span.org/the presidents. or wherever books are sold.

>> the house will be in order. >> for 40 years, c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public-policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country so you can make of your own mind. created by cable in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span. your unfiltered view of government. washington journal continues. now is david hawkings, editor-in-chief of the fulcrum. good morning. -- joining us now is david hawkings, editor-in-chief of the fulcrum. good one. what is the fulcrum? guest: it is the newest news site based in washington. we are a nonpartisan nonprofit news site devoted entirely to

the issues of the broken democracy and all the efforts out there to fix them. host: what is your mission and how are you different from others? guest: we are narrowly focused on these issues. we are a niche publication that is addressing an under covered story in washington and around the country which is all the various -- there's a generalized sense among the public that the government is broken. medias not a galvanizing place where people interested in the broken democracy can read about changes to the campaign-finance system or the voting system or election and administration or the balance of power. were redistricting, gerrymandering. we are narrowly focused on that and we are trying to do news and commentary and be a community gathering place. host: let's talk about the vote in the house yesterday. it was a strict party line vote. empower the democrats to ask courts to bask subpoenas.

so committee chairman can go right to federal court in this area. put yesterday's action into context. >> this is a new approach. the top republican on the house judiciary system said you've got to give them credits, the democrats are being audacious. happened whenas congress feels defined by a and congress is of both parties have felt spurned in requests for information from presidents of those parties. done ise that they have to actually hold the official in contempt and try to force the information out that way. this is not what they are doing. instead of holding these officials in middle contempt which congress does have the power to do they are taking a new and different approach. they say it is in the interest of trying to keep the balance of

power alive and keep things not quite as combative as they have been the past. host: how much do you expect the democrats to use this new power? >> i think a lot unless the courts tell them they can't. i think what does as a practical matter is it assures that this balance of power fight between the president and congress will continue for months maybe even beyond the next presidential election. courts don't often feel too rushed to address these issues. this will go to a trial court judge where congress has already won a couple of little rounds and then it and go to an appeals court. sooner or later one of these cases probably will end up at the supreme court and that will be the acid test. when both the legislative branch and the executive ranch will have essentially gambled all their marbles on that third branch of government breaking the tie and ruling for one side or the other. host: you see these as step

towards impeachment? steps --see them as when i'm asked about impeachment what i described the house democrats is doing is impeachment in name only. it but not in name. not in name.t but clearly the house democrats have made a decision for now to not pursue impeachment. missus pelosi knows that a majority of her caucus doesn't want to pursue impeachment right now. instead she wants to do something that is short of being formally called impeachment but is nonetheless a pursuit of what the democrats believe are the president and his administration misbehaviors. hold?can her approach guest: i think it could. there's nothing this morning that would seem to change that

dynamic. this has been a three-year period where every time we wake up in the morning thinking it's going to be a status quo day something tends to change. so who knows? that is perhaps one of the variables that all sides are willing to play into witches who knows. something could change dramatically to liberate the president from this. some behavior could be exposed that would change the 60 votes to impeachment to something like hundred 80. -- 180. host: phone numbers on the bottom of the screen for our guest. we are talking about congressional oversight and the trump administration. wanted to go back to monday's hearing of the house judiciary committee with john dean. what was your take on that hearing? was it worth the effort?

what came out of that event? guest: not too much to be honest. for one thing the hearing occurred at a time of day when through strange coincidence another news event happened prompted many of the cable news channels to look away. crash on a helicopter a tall building in new york. the producers who run the networks all hang out in new york and they all hang out in midtown manhattan and when there's a lot of anxiety about an aircraft crashing into a building they all cut away from mr. dean. i guess i thought rhetorically the republicans of the judiciary committee probably did a better job than the democrats of making the most of the john dean thing. i think one of the members called him the ghost of christmas past which i thought was a memorable line. i'm not sure what it did to advance the cause of the democrats. it was sort of the best they had.

host: let's get to the callers. diane is up first from oak harbor, washington. public in color. called because i don't agree with what's going on. if it's for the people, you are wasting our money and i don't believe in what you are doing at all. repeat if youn care at all about the people then you should not be doing what they are doing at all. -- when you say you, i assume you don't mean the two of us. you mean the house democrats. caller: i mean the house democrats and all of them. pelosi, the whole bit. this is ridiculous. this is a free republic and i can't understand what's going on. host: ok. guest: i think what is going on back you take a step way

and try and be sort of dispassionate and nonpartisan about it, oversight of the executive branch has been going on since the first congress. an essential part of what the framers of the constitution said that congress should be doing. have two jobs. to write legislation and oversee the executive ranch and this is an essential part of that. the president characterizes this as a witchhunt. that's of course his right. don't really see what the congress is doing as out of normal boundaries. in divideds governments all the time. maybe you do remember during the clinton administration when the republicans were in charge of the house, the republicans had some pretty by two pretty of hearings on what turned out to

be some pretty small matters by today's standards such as the haters of the white house travel office. and then of course when president obama was the president and the republicans ran the house they had all manner of investigations into his behaviors and the democrats of course did the same when george w. bush was president. in frederick, maryland. good morning. the problem we have is we should be a country that is united as we stand and we went through a radical change with respect to fundamental transformation. what we are witnessing now is a desperate gasp of one party to cover up a huge and i'm glad we took note with that hearing the other day, a huge spying operation. we had watergate with nexen. gatee have russia gate/spy

that was orchestrated by the obama administration and the press is complicit in all of that. now what we are seeing is theyone rushing to defend partisan dues at the expense of the american public. thepublic is part of it to majority of people aren't going to tolerate it and i as an independent want to see my country succeed. i don't want to see my country fail. that'm tired of radicalism has weaved its way into our highest offices in this country. host: david hawkings. guest: i think you make an important point which is that we have become as a country so polarized politically and the congress itself has become so polarized politically that it is often hard for half of the country to really even take seriously or take at face value with the other side is saying.

until our politicians and the acceptbegin willing to everybody is acting in good faith it will be hard to get to the bottom of some of these things in a way that both sides feel is credible. host: there is more oversight today on the hill. a contempt book has been scheduled. you can watch it on c-span3. it's the house oversight committee. elijah cummings who chairs that committee sparked this headline in the hill yesterday. he's offering to delay this contempt boat today if he can get some subpoenaed census documents. pulling off on the contempt boat for the attorney general and the commerce secretary if certain documents are provided today. not sure where we are right now. we will see how things play out today. what's happening here?

guest: this reinforces what we were talking about a minute ago. the democratic positioning is to try and suggest to the voters that they are after the investigative stuff, not the people. they are trying not to go after the people. they want to actually get the documents they are seeking. and this issue here will be in the headlines in the , they are expected to rule at the end of this month whether the senses that we are all going to be taking in april of 2020 will ask us whether we are citizens or not. that is not a question that has been asked on any census form since the 1950 census. but the commerce department says that it needs to be on this current census as a way to enforce the voting rights act. side, the folks who say it is not necessary, it's not about enforcement of the

voting rights act. it's really about is about depressing the turnout among latino voters in particular which would presumably work to the benefit of the republicans and not the democrats. what they are subpoenaing the records here is essentially about what was the process that led to the inclusion of this question and whether it is legit. host: here's the pushback in the washington post and elsewhere. material asg census a weapon against contempt to shield these documents from the administration's decision to add that question if house oversight goes forward. another piece of drama here. >> it's a long roster of things to follow. thecongress is i think washington post has tried to do the definitive count and there's something like 28 subpoenas or investigations and the trump administration's to various degrees of intensity rebuffing

everyone. host: clyde is calling from oklahoma. are you with us? caller: trump is going to drain the swamp in washington, d.c. he has been. it's been all around him. suck your bone down and forget about him. say? anything you want to guest: i think claims that he has drained the swamp, most people that advocate for good government would disagree with that. caller: good morning. you were talking about the senses and asking if people are a citizen. we just got through doing our census and it did ask if we were citizens and we were happy to check yes that we are citizens andit should be on there

if you are american whether you are here from wherever and got your citizenship, you will be more than happy to put down there that you are a citizen of this united states that these democrats are trying to tear apart. make into a socialist country. people need to take their winders off and look at what they are doing. that person earlier was saying how they were brainwashing the people. they are and wanting this free stuff. i mean, the people before them that went to college, they had to work to pay off their student loan. that's america. care, far as the health why would they? they did that and took people's health care from them to give it to a few. they didn't have sense enough to figure out how we can ensure these people over here that

doesn't have insurance and let the people, the 85% keep their health care. america is better than that. they can figure that out. but the democrats want control so bad. they want to do away with the republican party so bad. i can't believe what i see. and how they are doing this. but i just pray that the people open their eyes and see that this president loves this country and he is trying to do for the people and as far as the tariffs, you are not willing to spend a little bit more to stop america from being robbed from these other countries? come on, america. host: thanks for calling. a lot of different points.

when the founders created the census which is in the prescription the was clear. it was to count everyone living in the country. not citizens. it was to count the total number of people in the united states. time it tookt the a different approach to the counting of enslaved people. they were only to be counted as 60% of a person. it was not about citizens, it was about people. and the apportionment of our congressional district is based on the number of people living in each district not the number of citizens. people of all ages. host: our guest will be here for about 12 to 15 more minutes if he can stay. david hawkings, editor in chief of the fulcrum. here is the site right now. what else will folks find here

today? guest: the story leaving the site right now which is a terrific story, some of the more revolutionary ideas in the good government movement is to change american voting to weaken the a sense byystem in coming up with someone -- something called ranked choice voting in which voters are allowed to rank their candidates in order of preference, as many as they would like. and then mathematically if nobody wins out right in the first round, the lower theidates drop out and second and third place votes are redistributed to others. it's a new way of doing voting. it's only been tried at the congressional level in one state and it produced a winner who was not the winner in the first round. coming to the

presidential contest. it will actually play a role in the iowa caucuses in february and the primaries and caucuses in at least five other states. there will be 23 candidates. voters will be able to rank as many as they want down to five. those votes will be redistributed mathematically to allow people who are second and third choice to actually get some delegates. line inan is on the spartanburg, south carolina. caller: i really like this david hawkings guy. he is an honest broker. last time i spoke to c-span, he was on there. i think this whole democratic primary thing is nothing but an exercise in frustration. these people are blowing themselves up left and right in the press just doesn't want to report it.

that's fine. what's important to me is the u.s. female soccer team scored 13 points in france against thailand and they were punished for excessive enthusiasm. every time they scored, the fans went nuts and the french went crazy. i just think that's nuts. dozen, there's about a full of surprises available -- pulitzer prizes available and i hope david gets one of them fresh air. thank you so much for taking the call. host: the house intelligence committee this morning is holding a hearing. we can take a quick peek at that hearing. they are looking at counterintelligence lessons learned in the mueller word regarding russian interference. you can watch this live at c-span.org. this is another aspect of the efforts democrats are looking

at. guest: it is what when mr. mueller made his one and only , presumably the words were very carefully crafted. robert mueller special prosecutor began and ended with the same point. which was whatever you think of the president's behavior notwithstanding, it is clear that the russians interfered in the 2016 election. it is clear that they are hoping to do so again. walkoff line was this is something all americans should be concerned about in the democrats in congress and some there ares as well, plenty of republicans as well who do want more oversight of this and want to take tangible action to make sure our election system is protected in 2020. host: let's get ben from springfield, massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i agree with my last caller who

expressed the objectivity of your guest this morning. i sense that as well. i've been listening to the program this morning and i have heard a number of supporters of call in andt lambaste democrats. i'm a democrat. one of the things that i have democratss that the have only been in the house -- have been in the majority now since the beginning of the year. investigation they are attempting to do, most of it has been kind of blocked by the administration in terms of not supporting it. the's why the subpoenas and court hearings that they are asking for. the first twohat, years of this administration, republicans have been in charge

of the white house, the senate and the house. decision that was made relative to spending money or anything else was made by republicans. calling of the people and complaining about the spending of money by the mother investigation, i would like for you to explain to them in your to way who made the decision , toin mr. mother investigate russia's involvement and also who decided to pay him or who decided to make the decision to pay. i think the republicans who are calling in is going to need to understand that. thank you. guest: just to review, mr. mother was named, was appointed to that job. he was the former fbi director. one of the few fbi directors who has been allowed to serve longer than 10 years. he was named to the job by rod

rosenstein who was the deputy attorney general. it was rosenstein's responsibility to decide whether this should happen because his boss, jeff sessions, mr. trump's first attorney general, nestle recused himself -- famously recused himself because of his involvement in the trump campaign and sessions did what most lawyers think was the right thing. and recused himself so that rosenstein made the decision to appoint mueller. my understanding of how the budgeting for this works is that whena person is appointed, there's a special counsel appointed, the budget is somewhat open-ended. it is essentially whatever that prosecutor and the justice department agree he needs to spend he gets to spend. this might sound silly to many callers, but the amounts of money that we are talking about

are not large by federal government standards. they are in the millions, not the billions. the justice department is in a norm is placed -- enormous place. whatever this person needs, he or she gets to spend. short piece as the speaker is interviewed by cnn about the prospects for impeachment. >> so is the question you asked do we get more by having an inquiry? some say yes, some say no. >> if a majority of the caucus wants to go forward with an impeachment inquiry, would you go for it? >> it's not even close. why are we speculating on hypotheticals? what we are doing is winning in court. we have won a victory getting the documents from the justice department today. for fear of further going to court although we are still

going to hold the attorney general in contempt today. on -- i'mhat we are going to tell you something. nothing as divisive in our country in my view an impeachment. host: she also said as part of an interview yesterday that she's done with the president. she's very frustrated. have you ever seen it this personal between a speaker at a president? guest: i have not. i date back to the end of the reagan administration which president reagan famously got along famously well with the debt -- the democrat speaker of the house. tip o'neill. they were of very different ideologies but had similar approaches to interpersonal relationships. it was sort of a cliche that they would argue like cats and dogs during the day and open a bottle of whiskey at the end of the day and share a drink. it has been downhill kind of ever since.

president obama and speaker john boehner were furious with one another. they got very close to a very comprehensive facet reduction and budget deal. and it fell apart. each side blamed the other for it falling apart. they did not do so in personal terms. it was business. the overlay of sort of, you are myousy person is unique in experience. host: what does all of that mean for future cooperation and the progress of the country? there's an old adage in traditional politics. said inr leader politics there were no permanent friends and there are no permanent enemies. that is sort of a traditional way of looking at things that

the president is a very nontraditional politician. maybe he doesn't subscribe to that. there could be cataclysmic events in the country. crises that could bring both sides together and get them to cut a deal. i think mr. trump views himself as a patriot. missus pelosi certainly views herself as a patriot. i operate with the presumption that these folks working there andhave human flaws frailties. thishave all gotten into is this because they view it as a patriotic opportunity for service. that's how i begin looking at each one of them. host: jim from idaho. good morning. caller: it seems like the left doesn't have a knowledge of the quarter office. always seem to stack it with like-minded people.

and common sense -- buy and sell from other countries. once you become dependent on another country, that's bad business. and that's what trump is trying to do is bring america back. thank you. on the courts, it is absolutely true that as long as there have been presidents there have been presidents who have tried to put people on the bench for those lifetime appointments of similar views because their ability to perpetuate those views extends long beyond the life of the president. donald trump has not had much success legislatively but he has had enormous success in populating the federal bench with like-minded people who will be perpetuating his view of conservatism long after he's gone whether he is president for

two more years or six more years. host: joe is in phoenix. good morning. are you with us? caller: it's jeff. i'm jeff. host: go ahead please. i think ainslie has it right. we've got to worry about climate change. i saw that show on hbo last night and it's like wow, we .eally need to worry about guest: certainly you are speaking to the folks i live with. think young adult sons this is the premier issue in our country and wish that it was getting more attention. unfortunately it is one of the many issues that is subject

to profound fullers nation. of course the president does not view climate change as a genuine threat. ritually every democrat who wants to run against him views it as an existential threat to the country. some are talking about it now as asational security issue, trying to get the attention of the country. it is going to be an issue in 2020. whether it's mr. in sleep or not this will be one of the big things we talk about in the coming year. host: laurie from michigan. good morning. caller: i'm glad i made it. left pretty much before that. i'm reading through the molar report. i'm about two thirds of the way through. don't understand the gop's reference to the steele dossier. listen to trunk or the gop congress people keep talking about how none of this would

have started if it hadn't for and corrupt steele dossier how it implemented all of this and i don't read that and i'm reading through the mother report. so i'm confused as to why it would be stated as such by other gop members. guest: it's a great question. it's a little but of a red herring. was verye dossier salacious. there were allegations never proven of sort of salacious behavior by mr. trump way before he was president. none of that has ever been supported or approved. there were other aspects of the steele dossier that had more meat on the bones. nonetheless it is a sideshow to effortsmore evidence of by russia to interfere in the 2016 campaign and i think i will

just echo before i leave what mr. miller said that that is a profound issue. it is a profound threat to our democracy to have another country trying to sway our voting. it is something that all americans no matter their ideology should pay attention to. on here.ot going david hawkings, thank you for talking to us. david hawkings is editor-in-chief of the fulcrum. thanks a lot. we will take another short timeout for we had to the house at 10:00 eastern time. we will spend the next 20 minutes or so returning to the theme that we talked about this morning and a little bit here with david hawkings. the investigation of president trump. if you think these investigations are important, .all (202) 748-8000 if you think they are not important, (202) 748-8001. if you are not following, (202) 748-8002.

we will be right back with more of your cause. >> most of us when we think of winston churchill inc. of the older man sending young men into her. but no one knew better and few knew as well the realities of war. the terror and the devastation. and he said to his mother after can't gildwar, you it. he absolutely knew the disaster that was. night on q&a, historian candace molnar talks about the early military career of instant churchill in her book, hero of the empire. a daring escape in the making of winston churchill. >> he says, give me a regiment. i want to fight.

he ends up going to pretoria on the day it fell to the british and he takes over the prison and he frees the men who have been his fellow prisoners. 'sputs in the prison former jailers and he watches as the flag is torn down and jack is hoisted and >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. >> washington journal continues. to our question about what do you think about these investigations of president trump. we will leave the phone lines on the bottom of the screen. if you think they are important, call the top number. not important, call the second number. not following this at all, follow the third number. here followsestion the major action in the house yesterday. the washington times has a short write up that's fairly easy to

understand. they write that the house democrats delivered the most forceful rebuke to the voting toon tuesday demand compliance with investigative subpoenas. this was a 220 92 191 straight strict party line vote and is likely to get frequent use as democratic chairs say there attempts to pry documents and testimony from the ministration are facing unprecedented obstruction. it specifically empowers the judiciary committee to go to demand court to documents and testimony surrounding former special counsel robert mueller's report. the resolution means chairs will not have to come back to a full house about for each new case. that's the washington times version. from winchester, virginia. let's get right to it. go ahead please.

caller: i think it's just very important for congress and the house to do their job. to investigate what went on especially with russia. i don't want somebody making or toons on how i vote influence me on how i vote. if people would read more and learn more about the constitution and about important parts of our civics, i think that would help a lot. host: ok. lynn is calling from las vegas. hello. are you with us? let's try lynn one more time. lynn in las vegas. let's move on to paul in monroe, michigan. are you there? caller: yes. my comment is i don't think it's important to focus on the president. the molar report actually

mentioned the illegal immigrant. i was reading it in the first 20 pages. that russians illegally entered the u.s. which means they are illegal immigrants prayed therefore congress isn't even taking action against illegal immigrants to stop the problem in the future. therefore they don't care about problem in the future. the russians could be plowing across the border and getting by. how come they're not doing anything about that? even when molar has identified it clearly is a problem with russian intervention. host: calling from east norwich in new york. good morning. caller: to me it's very important that the congress fulfill its duties to the american public. a foreign power meddled in our election. end of sentence. that's all i really care about. we need to find out the origin of it we need to understand why there is so much lying and for station going on. important's extremely

before our next election. host: debbie and henrietta, new york. good morning. caller: i'm watching, but i'm not really following because i think that there's more important and i'm following what's happening on the border. and children are being worrieded and we are about the democrats campaign. for the 2020 election. and that's all i have to say. host: new york times has a short piece of context here. votewrite about the house yesterday and say if they mean the democrats follow through in filing these suits they will be effectively calling on a third ranch of government. to settlel judiciary a dispute between the legislative and executive branches over congress is right to conduct investigations and shield evidence from lawmakers.

it could have significant implications for mr. trump and oversight of the executive branch for decades to come. the times goes on to write that there's no guarantee the court will give them a useful outcome. past cases have stretched on for months and even years. that could become problematic for mrs. pelosi and her team. in san clemente, california. good morning. caller: good morning. i hear a lot of callers talking about the tax bracket. the schools spent 200 grand on college. i'm in the last tax bracket of 37%. a upsnd of mine is driver. so i paid 25% more.

people that make good money are paying less taxes. i paid 25% more on a larger amount than he did. report ihe mueller wish they would keep it going. because it's going to kill them in 2020. and that's all. in santa clarita, tony. impeachmentink the process is going to be a good. it's going to reveal more information about the obama administration especially with libya, syria and isis. it's going to cause the democrats to realize the obama administration was a failure and trump had to come in and fix all their mistakes. let it come on and watch trump defend themselves like a street kid. he's not going to sit there and take it.

host: the president stopped by to talk with reporters on the houseboat. here's what he has to say. nancy is a mess. the democratic party is a mess. they are doing everything they can win the election in 2020. they are guilty of many crimes. many many crimes. they are guilty of many many crimes. and hopefully in a short period of time that will be seen. they should never have done what they've done and all they do is waste time on these investigations where there is no obstruction, no collusion, no nothing. and in the meantime i can't get a border deal done. they can't do anything. in addition to the great deal with mexico we need them to work on illegal immigration. on lower drug prices. on infrastructure. and they are not doing anything. they've come to a halt. the president tweeted this

morning, wow. just got word that our june 18 tuesday announcement in orlando, florida already has 74,000 requests for a 20,000 seat arena in orlando. with all of the big events we have down, this ticket looks to be the hottest of them all. see you in florida. that event is next tuesday. we will have it live at 8:00 eastern time and we will take your phone calls on the campaign battle after that speech. again the next tuesday, the president's reelection speech. in springfield, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. ito want to say that i think is extremely important to all americans to mueller report. andou are only sitting listening to the television to get your news such as the various cable programs, you need to make an effort to read the

molar report. i do believe that this investigation is extremely important. and that if we read it, we realize how shocking the number of attempts of the russians to with the trump trump campaign. and the trump campaign was very involved with the russians. over 100 times from what i understand. withjust packed communication between russia and the trump administration. it shocks people and it makes you realize that this campaign scam on thefalse american people. thank you. joanne is in sleepy i, minnesota. welcome to the program.

inc. you for taking my call this morning. i would like to say that i do not feel that the investigations should continue. we've already had five investigations. and in response to the lady right before me, yes the russians did contact the trump campaign but they refused to cooperate whereas the russians have also been in contact with elections for the last 10 or 15 years in our country. but more important, on the investigations the democrats keep saying no one is above the law. we have to make sure that even the president is above the law. but what is happening. what are they trying to do? is it above the law when if you are so angry and you don't get the results that you like, you want to change the laws. how many times have the

democrats in the last couple months wanted to change our laws? they say you can't be above and last but they are trying to change them and we talk about being divisive. i happen to be an independent and i try to see both sides. the pros and the cons. i feel i do not like the way president trump often responds and the names that he uses. but if you look back, since he got elected, every time that he responds it's because he's been attacked first. then he responds. attacking.do the he does respond. i think enough is enough. get allpens if they this information they want again which has been out and it's not that the decision that they like? then what investigation are they going to start?

host: thank you for calling. today wilburng ross over the since his question, the citizen christiansen that's coming up in the senses. this is elijah cummings. there's a live picture of the hearing room where they're going to meet to tackle this matter. they are supposed to be starting up in less than 10 minutes. you can watch this live at 10:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span three. chairman has announced that he scheduled the committee vote to hold the attorney general and the commerce secretary in contempt over this dispute about documents regarding a potential citizenship question. elijah cummings, the maryland democrats and all members of the committee have proposed to enforce the committee's bipartisan subpoenas.

the chairman said last night that if he gets some of these documents today he will call off the boat. we have also read that the attorney general william barr, allows the president to declare executive privilege. you can watch it at 10:00 a.m. on c-span3. here on c-span later today, 10:00 eastern time it's morning hour in the house. and at noon they start debate on a giant package of appropriations bills. roughly $1 trillion in spending overall. is defense, health and human services, education, state department, energy and water development projects over the country. this debate is supposed to go deep into the night ended into the day tomorrow. don't think they are going to finish it this week. there's many amendments to this. watch it here on c-span. lisa, niagara falls, new york. good morning.

caller: how are you? just really upset about it. i think people need to in their eyes. i'm a military daughter and my grandparents and my father went to wars for us against dictators and there's always a fake story coming out of his mouth and a lie. people are not above the law. keep just spinning everybody's head around sideways. we need our balance back and that means we need a president, not a dictator. host: david is calling from otisville, alabama. ville, alabama. caller: i watched as president obama came president and i watched everybody cry that he became president.

he has now had time to be a president. he has been attacked ever since he took office. it should have lied in the obama administration to correct the problems when it came to russia. and everything he's doing at the border is something that needs to be done and the children that are being left there, i feel for them. i honestly don't understand their parents are not so concerned in wanting them back in their own custody. this meant needs to have a chance to be a president for one. and quit attacking him for things that he was actually voted into office for and that is to try to straighten up the government in washington, d.c. host: a couple of other events we will be covering today. bernie sanders will make a speech on his support of democratic socialism. we will be recording that event. we will show it to you later in the schedule. also the president is meeting

with the president of poland. the president is going to announce a u.s. troop increase in poland. significant announcement. they are saying at the white house the numbers that are part of the story according to defend someone says the pentagon would deploy another 1000 u.s. troops to poland with added forces to have logistical duties. i think the article said that currently there are about 4000 troops rotating through poland. leaders want a stronger presence against an increasingly aggressive russia. conferenceave a news at 2:10 eastern time. from massachusetts. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i love washington journal and hearing from my fellow americans. it gives us a great outlet to express how we are feeling.

observed andave why i identify as an independent in our politics is about team sports and pelosi and trump seem to be our team captains and we root for them and we don't hear the other side. there was a caller in the last few minutes saying, i'm not really paying attention and that iurned me to call because think we should be paying attention to both sides. there is an academic who has been saying for years about how easy we are manipulated and biased towards the things we already believe in regardless of what the facts are. i think we all need to be paying attention to what the other side says no matter how much it might disagree with our preconceived notions and beliefs because we can't find compromise and we can't move forward if we want to play team sports than that's what we get. if we want to take on challenges

like climate change, the things that face our children that i'm really concerned about. be not just reiterating talking points. from joan ine call rochester, minnesota. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i think one of the most crucial problems we have is the power that mitch mcconnell has. a place wife that's on with trump who inserts a lot of influence. and if mitch mcconnell would ever do anything that was against trump and look at anything else, the first person off trump's group would be elaine chao would probably be out on her ear. power andoo much those people. it's behind the scenes and he has absolutely no use for the united states. mitch mcconnell doesn't.

havest wants his wife to her power. and if he would anything different she would be gone. host: that was our last call. we do want to move onto the floor of the u.s. house. we thank everybody for calling this morning. we will be back at 7:00 eastern tomorrow. morning in the house speeches on many topics. enjoy your day. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. june 12, 2019. i hereby appoint the honorable henry cuellar to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2019, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority leader and minority leaders for morning hour d