>> later today, health and human services alex a's are live at 2:15 p.m. eastern on c-span. i look forward to running against them. >> tuesday, president donald trump holds a rally in orlando florida officially launching his run for a second term.

watch live at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2 online at www.c-span.org or listen live on the free c-span radio app. this weekend newsmakers, the chairman of the house budget committee is joining us from louisville. thank you for being with us. >> good to be with you. we also have with us sarah ferris with politico. and jennifer with roll call. let's begin with the budget rollcall act. you face a deadline. remind us how we got to this point. the budget cap. >> thank you. in 2011, there was a special committee of 16 members of the house and senate.

their goal was to come up with a deficit reduction plan. the process was under the budget control act, which ultimately passed, they set motion sequestration. the idea was that if these 16 people could not come to an agreement in a way to reduce the deficit, there would be automatic budget cuts. it has a 10 year duration. it expires after 2021. right now, if we don't by statute increase the levels part of the budget control act, we will face cuts of about $125 billion. equally allocated against the defense and nondefense side. >> we have this cliff you are talking about. there is also the crisis of the debt ceiling which could have effects on the financial markets.

i want to know, how much of the burden is on democrats to find a solution that can work, a deal with republicans, if it is not an ideal situation. democrats were able to weed out -- wait out president trump until he basically decided to reopen the government. there are very real consequences. this situation is different. how do you see democrats addressing that situation? when we came out of the shutdown we passed an agreement , on spending levels. the house and senate and we all thought it was reasonable. it wasn't perfect from our perspective. it continued funding at a reasonable level through 2018 and 2019. until september 30, this year.

as we approached negotiations for 2020, we said now we are in the majority, we should expect no worse a deal than what we negotiated at the beginning of the shutdown. i think republicans in the senate understand that very well. if left to the house and senate, we would be on the verge of not having reached an agreement. this is not a two-sided negotiation. this is three or 47. -- this is a three or four sided negotiation because sometimes, the white house has two sides. i think we could find a deal but i'm not sure what the white house is going to agree to. the talks so far have blown up. when the president walked out in a meeting with speaker pelosi. this past week, the senate

republican senators went to the white house to talk about a budget deal. democrats were not invited. that is not exactly the best way to negotiate either. hopefully we can deal with the debt ceiling. as you mentioned we have a , statutory debt ceiling, the only country in the industrialized world other than denmark that has one. i wish we could repeal it. we reach it periodically. because we continue to run deficits and then we have to, congress has to act to raise the limit. we have to do it by mid july. we could go later. the safest time is mid july and that would keep us from potentially defaulting on our debts which would be a disaster. >> would you like to see the debt ceiling addressed with the spending caps, or is there a

negotiating room? >> i would personally like to see it negotiated as part of the cap steel. mick mulvaney the president's , chief of staff, i don't think he wants to do that. i think he wants to go as close to the edge of the cliff as he can. he things it gives them negotiating leverage. he would like to see deeper cuts, particularly in the nondefense side of the budget. secretary mnuchin at the treasury would like to do a deal that includes the caps. with the debt ceiling and get that done as soon as possible. i know mitch mcconnell does because we have talked about that. the house and senate, i think, are not going to have a problem as long as we can get some sort of cooperation from the white house. >> could you explain what democrats want? you say you do not want less of a deal.

what is it exactly democrats want? >> in the original budget control discussions, there was some legislative history. however we treated the defense budget, we would treat nondefense spending the same way. what we are asking for, we have asked for an increase in defense and nondefense. they be equal. if you are increasing the defense budget by $15 billion for instance, you would increase nondefense spending by $15 billion. a great deal of the nondefense discretionary budget involves national security. homeland security is in that portion the fbi, the fda. faa. the

a lot of people think, the nondefense side is social programs and that is far from the truth. >> in addition to disagreement about how much to raise spending levels, there is disagreement about whether to do another two-year deal or one deal. would then accredits except a -- would democrats be willing to accept a one-year agreement or would you accept a two-year deal. >> we would accept a one-year deal if the numbers are right. if they meet our principles and our values and their priorities. we would much prefer two years because that takes us out of the situation of having to go back next year. to avoid another round of sequestration. nobody wants sequestration. the reason this was put in was everybody thought it was such an overly destructive process that no one would want to do it and

there would be a greater incentive to reach a negotiated solution. but true to form, that was not enough of an incentive every to we are stuck with it. -- so we are stuck with it. nobody likes it. the appropriators hated and even hal rogers said it would be absurd to try to meet the country's needs at sequestration levels. there is no appetite for these cuts that would emerge if we could not do it statutorily. if we get a one-year deal that is appropriate and suitable, absolutely. >> i am going to ask about an issue emboldening a lot of members of your caucus. that is the issue of impeachment. you have said you think this is inevitable. you think it's something democrats will have to begin to forcibly remove the president.

what do you think over the next several months could galvanize the rest of your caucus to that position? do you think that needs to happen this year or is there a chance they would be willing to do this in 2020 even though it is an election year? >> i think it would be unfortunate if we had to wait until next year. and started impeachment process in the election year. that would be unfortunate. it could happen that way. our leadership might decide the only way to get public sentiment is to wait a little while. see what other evidence emerges from these investigations. as you mentioned, i cosponsored an appeasement resolution in the last congress and i am convinced the president has committed multiple impeachable offenses, the last two days ago when he

said he would accept campaign opposition research. from a foreign government. that's clearly impeachable and clearly a crime. if he were to do that. i do agree with speaker pelosi. there are other investigations going on into other entanglements with foreign governments. with financial indiscretions and other possibilities, the emoluments clause where he is benefiting personally from his position in the white house. we ought to let these investigations go forward. we ought to do it as expeditiously as possible. i don't think we ought to wait until next year. we ought to initiate it this year. >> a majority does not support an inquiry including after what the president said this week about help from a foreign government.

if that does not put them there, is there anything that could change their mind? is this where we will be? >> what you are seeing is a significant majority that wants to follow speaker pelosi's lead. they think that's the right course of action. if you asked our caucus, has the president committed impeachable offenses, the vast majority would say yes. do you think he has committed criminal acts in the vast majority would say yes. i don't think there is a whole lot of difference as to what the president has done. the course of action, has less unanimity, you might say. >> in terms of the legislative agenda moving forward, it took lawmakers months to read a

disaster aid to bill. it has been 6-7 weeks since the white house sent its supplemental request. these are two issues that everyone agrees needs to be addressed but it has taken a long time for lawmakers to get in a room together and start negotiating. what does that mean for the other items down the road like spending caps and debt limit. do you think these are things we could be, well into december before we see results? >> the atmosphere for cooperation in normal legislative activities is not very good right now. not conducive to getting things done. we passed a lot of important bills already in this congress. mitch mcconnell has said, called

himself the grim reaper because he intends to kill virtually everything that comes his way. i'm not encouraged we can make progress on important priorities. one of them is immigration reform. in terms of the appropriations bills, we are moving expeditiously. that's what we spent this last week doing. we will be doing that in june. the majority leader has pledged our appropriations work will be done this month. we are in for a lot of long nights this month. the senate has its own timetable. they are going to markup their bills to a different set of numbers than we did. i don't think they are going to be so far off we couldn't come out with an agreement. the question is, what will the white house except? even whether the president and mick mulvaney are in the same page.

>> you mentioned mitch mcconnell's obstruction of democratic hills and you have passed more than half a dozen of your agenda items but none of them have been signed into law with no significant builds besides appropriation signed into law. do democrats need to acknowledge this reality and focus less on messaging bills? and more on items that can be done? creating a dreamers bill that has republican support? or a violence against women bill? these have all been democratic bills we have seen. >> >> exactly and there is overwhelming support in the country to create a pathway for dreamers. there is overwhelming support for the violence against women act. there is universal support in the country for doing something about prescription drug prices.

also gun purchases. we passed some legislation republicans say they want to deal with. i don't see why this should be any different. we are not sane, pass our bills. -- we are not saying to pass our bills or don't pass anything. that's not the way regular order works but at least take care bills and amend them if you want to. they are not willing to do that. to help us meet the priorities of the country and that is disturbing. we will keep doing that. -- passingpassage messaging bills. we are passing bills that are very seriousness country and we will continue to do this and if the republicans in the senate continue to obstruct them, we will go next year and say come on give us a democratic senate and president. we have shown you what kind of government you will get. >> you have about 60 freshmen members going home to campaign that mean eight have legislation

-- who may not have legislation they are able to get signed into law. how can you address that before it really starts? >> i am not sure that is the way voters cast their ballots. the number one thing any candidate has to do, and my -- in my opinion, is to demonstrate empathy. voters want to know you understand the challenges they are going through. their priorities and values and while you may not have a solution but you understand them. that is what our candidates did so well last year. they talked about health care. they know how to do that. they have done it in many cases. they flipped republican seats. it hasn't been an easy thing to do so i have confidence they can go home and talk about what this house has done.

-- what this democratic house has done and how they have participated and many of them have important positions. many are chairing subcommittees. they can talk about those areas and as long as they talk about them in a way that reflects their understanding of the way people live, i think our members are going to be fine. the 2020 is already in full swing so i want to ask if you have any plans to run for senate or a preferred candidate you want to see challenge mitch mcconnell. the 2020 is already l swing so i >> i have no plans to run for senate. i would love to see -- i think we have potentially two excellent candidates. people know amy mcgrath around the country, the former air force pilot who ran for a congressional seat last year and barely lost. she developed a great following here in kentucky.

a great political operation as well as a national following. she is looking at the race seriously. i think she is going to make the race. if she doesn't there is a guy , named matt jones here. race. if she doesn't, there is a guy named matt jones here who has a state wide sports radio talk show. he has a lot of actually conservative republican listeners who i think would vote for him. i think amy is probably the first target. they have talked to her. i have talked to her. she is dedicated to public service. it will be the beddoe o'rourke ted cruz race of 2020. the nation will be closely focused on that contest. >> the democrat in the beto ted cruz race, the democrat lost. do you think a democrat can win especially against mitch mcconnell?

>> is going to be interesting. if the race were in 2022 or 2018, i would say there was a much better chance. it is hard to tell with donald trump at the top of the ticket. he still is popular in parts of kentucky. on the other hand, mitch is very unpopular. his disapproval rating is over -- is around 30% and his -- his approval rating is around 30% and his disapproval rating is over 50%. one of the questions is how much the top of the ticket will affect the senate race. the way i look at it, there will be no presidential campaign in kentucky next year. but there will be 50, 60, $70 million spent in the senate race. i would think most kentuckians would be focused more on the senate race than the presidential and that would give amy a chance. >> i want to go back to the work

of your committee. you tried to put out a resolution to reach the floor that was unsuccessful. is there anything you would have done differently to get that resolution to the floor? or is this just the reality of the caucus you have? >> that's a great question. i think we felt if we had had any more time, we could have gotten the resolution we passed. on the other hand, it was not going to pass in the senate. we were constrained because of the commitment to appropriations. him when you backup the timetable, the appropriators needed to start working. we had very little time to get a budget resolution done. instead of that we tried to get a statutory piece of legislation done.

we got it out of committee. again, we did not have enough votes on the floor. so instead we passed a rule that deemed those numbers. that is what the appropriators worked on. i think if you take that resolution we passed on the floor and all the appropriations bills, you will see what the democratic budget looks like. we were not able to pass a resolution. it would have been nice. it was never going anywhere passed the house. rather than waste time on that and keep working and still but not get enough votes, we decided to take the route we did. >> will that be a sign of anything to come? you have to get key bills, potentially avoiding another shutdown? are these tensions, do you think that will pose a problem?

>> you will get a hint of that next week when we vote on a bill. we have five appropriations bills we have packaged together. they include the health and human services budget and defense. those are definitely the two that divide the caucus. a lot of members who don't want to vote for increased defense spending. a lot to think we should spend more on the human side, human investment side. the vote will give you an idea whether it is going to be a problem going forward. >> time for a couple more questions. >> congressman, you are obviously the chair of the budget committee. that holds a lot of weight in washington. how much does that role come up when you are back in the district? how much do your constituents care about that?

compared to other things that happen in washington? like a legislative accomplishments and investigations going on. >> well, they don't talk to me about what happened to the budget resolution or why we did not pass that. they are not interested in process. right now, they are asking, how are we going to get rid of donald trump? we have constituents interested in health care and education. the environment. they are not interested in the process. in terms of the budget process or even the appropriations process. they are not interested in how much we spend on individual programs. they are interested in living their lives. >> the house has successfully passed a hand fill of smaller bills. they are related to strengthening the a portal care act, smaller pieces of legislation on drug there --

drug pricing. do you think that voters, after handing you the majority, are expecting something bigger? summing larger question mark some thing more on the scale of what obamacare did in 2010 question mark so far there hasn't been a lot of legislative action out of the house in health care. host: i think -- >> i think that that is an interesting question. i suspect many of them do. i have a strong contingent of constituents who are for medicare for all and that actually means different things to many of them. generally speaking they would like to see it expanded if not made universal. but i think overall they are not that focused on what we are doing up there. more focusedally probably on what's happening in kentucky with medicaid because we have a governor who has done everything he could do in his last three years to undo the most -- successful expansion of medicaid in the country under the affordable care act.

so, we have a governor's race this year. our constituents are very focused on what's happening in kentucky, probably more so than washington. >> congressman, terrorists have -- tariffs have become a large part of the economic policy and foreign policy. something there is a new news cycle almost every day on. some of the tariffs led to rotella torrey tariffs from other countries. in whiskey. bourbon is part of that. how is that impacting the economy of your state? what do voters think about these tariffs? is this going to be an issue that ranks with health care and the economy people consider when choosing who to vote for? >> on the verb inside, bourbon is an $8 billion industry in kentucky. it has almost tripled in the last five years. the tariffs themselves, they do not affect bourbon domestically.

they affect the ability of distillers to export their products and expand their products. i'm not sure the citizens are concerned. we have lots of soybean farmers in kentucky. they have been devastated by the chinese backing out purchasing soybeans from the u.s.. we have two major plants. the third-largest auto making plant, state in the country. these tariffs, particularly those threatened against mexico, that is what our people are really concerned about. they would devastate our auto industry. supply chain through mexico between mexico and the u.s.. , it is a huge economic factor in kentucky.

so they're very concerned about it. the global headquarters of ups is in my district. they want as much trade as possible. to the extent tariffs reduce trade, that affects them. overall there is a lot of angst over the tariff strategy. >> we will have to leave it there. we have covered a lot with you. thank you so much for being this week's newsmaker. >> thanks for having me. >> let me turn now to the two of you. we will start with you. where we started with the chairman, the budget cap, the muslim control act and the deadline these lawmakers face. it's september 30. him what are the prospects? a democratic-controlled house and republican-controlled senate, can they come to a deal? >> you get a sense of the

unpredictability. you have the chairman unable to confidently say he will be in a bill to avoid a crisis. and this is something that is pretty unprecedented in recent history. we have a president now who has said that he wants to see sequestration and has advisors in congress who were calling for these very steep cuts. mick mulvaney, his chief of staff, was one of the biggest advocates of that. we have an on environment for democratic and republican leaders of the establishment are trying to talk a mick mulvaney and his allies out of this vision but there are only a couple of months of real work left until september 30. they are going to be gone for several weeks, four or five weeks over the august recess and that is something that they have to address sooner rather than later. the senate and the house have really not made much progress in talking between the chambers yet.

>> you heard the appropriators say that they don't want him across-the-board cuts. explain to people outside washington why appropriators don't want that. >> it's more than appropriators. we heard from republican leadership that no one wants these across-the-board cuts. one of the other things that is important to remember when discussing this is that even though the fiscal year begins on october 1, they still have until the end of december to reach a spending cap agreement and then to sort of work out the final bills. the sequestration would take thect until 15 days after end of this session. most likely sometime in january. there are still several months for them to reach a deal. it seems like everyone agrees that they need spending caps. a fewhave already been meetings between senior officials, republicans, and democrats in congress. obviously if they don't reach an

agreement, it will be 100 and $25 billion in the drop off of discretionary spending, impacting several departments of thegovernment, cleaned pentagon and homeland homeland security. across-the-board this is something lawmakers want to avoid. >> thank you very much for being on "newsmakers." >> thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] >> tonight, on "the communicators," we are on capitol hill talking to exhibitors from ces on the hill, an event that gives members of congress and staffers advanced looks at new tech products. wheres a changing network technology is moving so quickly, so much is affected, self-driving car's, artificial all ofgence, drones,

this amazing software. congress wants to be aware of it so that they can make a difference and tackle issues issuesivacy or other around competitiveness. >> watch "the communicators," tonight at 8 p.m. eastern on .-span two to runningorward against them. >> tuesday, president donald trump holds a rally in orlando, florida, officially launching his run for a second term. watch live at eight p.m. eastern on c-span two, online at c-span.org, or listen live on the free c-span radio app. >> the reviews are in for c-span's "the presidents" book. topping "the new york times" new .nd note worthy column

from "the new york journal of fast andit makes a engrossing read. ranking the best and worst chief executives, from george washington to barack obama. challenges faced by leaders and the legacies they have left behind. "the presidents" is now available as a hardcover today as an e-book. >> in 1979, a small network with an unusual name laid out in of you. -- unusual idea, ringing you unfiltered content for congress and beyond. online, c-spannd is your unfiltered view of

government. brought to you as a public service. >> we are alive now at the u.s. global leadership coalition state leadership summit in washington. they advocate for development programs.

♪ >> good afternoon and welcome back. of the president and ceo child fund international and a proud member of the board of directors of the u.s. board of global leadership coalition. years ago i went to africa for the first time as a peace corps volunteer living in my mud house in northeastern kenya, working on issues of children's immunization.