>> here is a look at a coverage on friday. nancy pelosi will hold her weekly news conference. at 10:45 a.m. eastern. at how the, i look trump and obama administrations handled migration from central america and mexico to the u.s. the national governors association is holding day 2 of its summer meeting in salt lake city. hearing on a prescription drug prices and the impact on patients. next, two members of congress talk about the agreement to

increase federal spending and raise the government's borrowing limit. first, democratic are presented brendan boyle. after that, republican representative dan meuser. washington journal is next. ♪ good morning. it is washington journal for july 26. we want to hear from democrats only. we are asking this question. should the house democrats move forward with an impeachment inquiry against president trump, especially after robert mueller's testimony this week? if you still think impeachment should be on the table by house democrats, (202) 748-8000. if you are a democrat and say it is time to move on from impeachment into other things, (202) 748-8001. post thoughts at our twitter feed and you can also

post on facebook. swalwell of california was involved in the this op-ed this morning on the nbc news site. it is time for trump's impeachment. "it is clear that mueller found multiple instances for trump's actions met all required elements for charging criminal obstruction of justice, including firing james comey, trying to fire mueller, trying to impede the investigation, and trying to tamper with witnesses who were cooperating with investigators. it is clear it anyone who is not a sitting president but had acted in such a way would face criminal prosecution he really. more than 1000 former prosecutors have signed a letter saying so. the violations of law, mueller told us the president is not exonerated.

he found evidence of abuse by the president. he said the president could be updated -- indicted for obstruction after leaving office." that is from eric swalwell. if you go to the chicago tribune, their editorial saying when it comes to impeachment it is time to set that aside. here is the case they make. did noty's hearing deliver an opening -- an open and shut case there are other allegations swirling around the and none rise to the level of impeachable offense. they confronts memories of congress who have called for impeachment with the prospect of reliving what occurred in 1998. the house voted to impeach president clinton for lying under oath in obstruction of justice, but the accusers could not persuade americans of his from office. asideats emerging to set

impeachment for now is a logical response in the wake of mueller 's testimony. the focus of trump opponents is election day 2020." those are the thoughts this morning. here i thought some earlier this week from the house speaker nancy pelosi on the topic impeachment. [video] >> my position has always been whatever decisions we make in that regard had to be done with our strong as possible hand. we still have some outstanding matters in court. it's about the congress, the constitution and the court. we are fighting the president and the court. am sure you respecting more members -- >> some members told us they were expecting imminent action for some time. >> i don't know why they thought that.

again, we have a number of -- eithervery next step tomorrow or friday are we going to court to ask for the grand jury material and to enforce the subpoena against mr. mcgann. that's particularly important because the excuses the white house gives for him not testifying are the same excuses for all the other witnesses. if we break that, we break the logjam. host: for the first hour about impeachment proceedings against the president or moving on. you can let us know. (202) 748-8000 if you say impeach. (202) 748-8001 if you say it is time to move on. this will take place the first hour. the last hour we will have a

question for republicans only. the first call is donna in youngstown, ohio who says impeachment should be on the table. i believe donald trump is making a mockery of our government. he is making everyone sick. just terrible the way he comes on tv and lies all the time. i'm tired of it. host: how does that rise to impeachment in your mind? caller: i believe the things they have not told us, those redacted comments in the report -- i started to read the report and was not able to read the entire thing. it is soink that obvious to think he does. they are wrong. if he was telling the truth, he would not have to lie all the

time. host: what did you think robert mueller provided when it came to the testimony on the topic of each meant? what do you think you provided? he did not -- say excuse me. i can get the right word out. -- please forgive me. he did not give any sound that anything he had done was impeachable. think that was just his way -- the comments he did just -- he just said that the government, the new york, fbi, whoever

investigates him can put their case together. host: if you did not have a chance to read the mother report, if you go to c-span.org there are several opportunities. there is an ability to listen to it. all of that is available at c-span.org. florida,jacksonville, who also says impeachment should proceed. go ahead. caller: hello? this is jim. i think impeachment should proceed on the basis of the information in the mueller report. he laid out all kinds of instances of obstruction by the president. that's an impeachable offense. if the democrats do nothing in the president wins reelection, pelosi and other democratic leadership should step down the following day after the election if they do nothing. host: you said mueller provided

information for impeachment. what did you gather from the mother report as far as something that make the president impeachable? caller: all the instances of obstruction of justice. host: did you have a chance to read the report for yourself? caller: i have not. instances auto instruction of justice. that's an impeachable offense. host: another house adding her voice to calls for impeachment. katherine clark, the vice chair of the house democratic caucus put out a statement yesterday on this topic. imparted reads, "idp respect the committee's work to hold the president accountable. all of our efforts to put the facts before the american people have been met with unprecedented stonewalling and obstruction. that's why i believe we need to open impeachment inquiry to

provide a more formal way to fully recover the facts. in treatment inquiry is a process, not an outcome, but i'm afraid there is no meant of wrongdoing that could convince the senate to hold the president accountable." that is the house democratic caucus vice chair katherine clark, democrat of massachusetts, giving her voice to the calls for impeachment. his voice from springfield, illinois. caller: that's a bit inaccurate. i live outside of chicagoland. good morning to c-span viewers. yes,the previous caller, the president is obviously guilty of obstruction of justice. interesting and avenues toant approach this situation.

the clock is running as far as the democrats are concerned. pursue otherthey subjects that the president is guilty of as far as financial malfeasance and the like -- host: when you hear speaker pelosi say they are waiting for actions of the court to see whether they move forward or not, you are ok with that? caller: i am saying don't go through the courts. it will take too long. musclet more political on his side as far as that goes. if it gets submitted to a thatable federal judge, might be a blockage. democrats have more subpoena power, real power in that regard

that can get to vulnerable aspects of his administration that will be able to have over leaning evidence of his inability to be honest, to govern well, to have respect not only in this country and around the world. host: d think actions for the house democrats needs take place sooner rather than later? caller: once again. host: do you think actions by the house democrats need to take place sooner rather than later? caller: as soon as possible. the clock is ticking. if something effective does not happen well before the holidays, it's over because you are into the election cycle and it can know, skewed as far as

of the 2020because election. host: that is ken in springfield, illinois. the house passing a budget bill last night. they are of the 2020 election. host: that is said to come backn september. indiana, columbus, this is keith saying it is time to move on from impeachment. good morning. caller: i think we should move on from impeaching president trump. i think we should pass legislation saying the president will not have the power to fire officials from different divisions. that, i think we could have avoided all of this. host: why not continue down the road of impeachment? caller: i feel like he has committed a crime of obstruction think this is i the blame on russian interference, if that actually did happen.

side on the obstruction should democrats pursue that when it comes to impeachment? i -- i have no stance on that, i guess. host: leanne in oregon says impeachment should continue. you are next up. caller: good morning. there is too much talk. i'm behind nancy pelosi. if she says wait, we have to wait. i say impeach him. i'm tired of all the talking. host: on what basis do you want to see the president impeached? caller: anything they can get him on, just get him out of there. host: you said you are behind nancy pelosi. you are ok with at least waiting

on this action for a while? caller: yes, sir. host: why is that? caller: because i think she knows what's going on up there. host: ok. when it comes to reactions from other members of the house on this topic, the washington post talking about the molar testimony. reaction --the mueller testimony. perhaps most disappointing for members of the intelligent is sheer committee. many felt blindsided that no one --ned them how much mueller they had forced a civil servant into testifying when he was so reluctant in the first place. i was beyond shocked, was a reaction of one lawmaker. even pro-impeachment democrats agreed the testimony may have at helped their case with representative saying i don't think it was a eureka moment. dan kyl leasing i did not see anything that indicates this is a turning point.

we have to change the electorate. i don't think that is necessar ily happening because of yesterday." democrats only in this first hour. whether or not to proceed with impeachment is a topic we would to engage you on. if you say impeachment should be on the table, (202) 748-8000. if you say it is time to move on, (202) 748-8001. next in georgia. go ahead. caller: yes, i think it is time, past time to impeach. speech as the mueller tv over he came on national to tell everyone that it was a lie. what we heard -- he tries to tell us what we hear is alive.

like don't believe what you see, believe what i say. that is subject to being a dictator. we do not need him running our country or speaking the things he says to our children over and over. dictator.ing but a host: when it comes to the molar report what --the mueller report, what was it that told you impeachment should take place? caller: he had to stay within summary corners of his but he also gave us enough thatmation to tell us there were 10 instances where the president did obstruct justice. he needs to be put out.

not going around getting up more votes from the russians. that is what he's doing right now. host: let's hear more from nancy pelosi from the wednesday hearing. she talked about impeachment, and also about how they plan to move forward, factors in the work of the senate. [video] >> you said there is no point moving forward with impeachment inquiries because the republicans control the senate. is that no longer -- >> i never said that. if we have a case for impeachment, that's the place we will have to go. would like it to be a strong case is because i don't thing it based on the facts. the facts and the law. that is what matters. not politics, not partisanship, just patriotism. the senate to honor their oath of office to protect and defend the constitution, to see the

challenge this is to our national security with the russians -- and with the russians are trying to do to our country. the stronger our case is the worse the senate will look for just letting the president off the hook. host: when it comes to the strategy for august, democrats vowed to spend their time talking less about the investigations and more about legislation. nancy pelosi said the next month will be about increasing pressure on senators to vote 90 variety of bills, including a -- on a variety of bills. we will own august and make it too hot to handle for the senate not to take up our bills. that is a quote from nancy pelosi. armin from seattle says impeach. caller: hello. harmin right here. thank you. concern, ito your

have to say mueller laid out all the acts of obstruction of justice at 1600 pennsylvania avenue that was committed already. for what i have to say about it, pelosi and all the rest of them better getting gear and start an impeachment inquiry about this guy or else he's going to win again. host: several democrats have already said the mueller didn't necessarily provide a conclusive ground as far as moving forward i impeachment. how would you react to that? caller: i figure pardon. host: some democrats said the mueller testimony did not lead to conclusive actions. isler: my reaction to that all this articles of impeachment, of reasons to impeach this guy were laid out

by mueller. he told them he obstruction of justice. he committed high crimes and misdemeanors. to get ride have got of this mitch mcconnell guy. why would he block a bill to secure our elections? host: benjamin in north carolina says it is time to move on. caller: how are you doing this morning, pedro? host: i'm fine. go ahead. know, its you well takes two thirds majority of the house and senate to impeach the president of the united states. and, they are not going to get it in the senate. unless they can flip a whole bunch of republicans. me and you both know that. if they get -- if the democrats get the impeachment, it is never going to go through the senate.

it is a complete waste of time. it was a complete waste of mueller's time, and i will say it once again, it will never go through the senate. what is youryou go message to nancy pelosi as far as what comes next? it is just like i say. on anded to move everything. the 2020 elections. josephrom pennsylvania, says impeach. good morning. caller: good morning, pedro. simple.very nobody needs to confused about it. we know that crimes have been committed. even mueller used the word crimes the other day when he was

being deposed. i think the fact is two things. one is there was interference in the investigation, but the investigation of what? behaviors andof actions on the part of the president and his supporters. the campaign. that is to say all those relationships with the russians, there was a lot. we are behaving as though nothing happened. mueller confirmed that. i know he did not perform like a movie star or something the other day because of his age and so on, but nobody should have been confused about what he said. he said everything that was necessary to ensure the president and his campaign had

done very serious things concerning the security of this country. host: if that is the case, why do you think house democrats are not moving towards impeachment? caller: look, the president has effectively hidden a lot of the evidence that is out there. all of that redaction that took place in the report, and the mueller report needs to be exposed. nancy pelosi is a brilliant woman. she does not wish to go with half a deck. she knows the evidence is invisible. mcgann will not come to talk. hope hicks. we need to get all these people to put all the evidence before the american people. host: the previous caller said even if impeachment went forward in the house, the senate would never take it up. is that a good reason?

caller: that is not in word -- important. let the house do its work. when it comes to the senate the wreck people will see the senate performs as it should -- the american people will see the senate performs as it should. this is between democrats and president trump. host: that is -- let's, go to miles in patterson new jersey. good morning, miles. caller: how are you doing? host: go ahead with your thoughts. caller: i think the republican party to get a spine. antipollution is a brilliant lady. she notes -- nancy pelosi is a brilliant lady. the democrats who would to man, mosthis are freshman. they have the enthusiasm. you never going to a courtroom with half a case.

if you want to take down donald trump, let the people do it. go out and vote the man out. host: you are saying focus on 2020 rather than impeachment? caller: exactly. they can stall this thing although we have the 2020. donald trump likes to start trouble. he likes to battle. the democrats -- he's got the young ones. if he gets in their head and they run for it. nancy has been there for a long time. she knows what she is doing and how to handle it. they need to stop worrying about impeachment and worry about -- let this make you doing what he's doing and vote him out. if they want him out, vote him out. once they got him out, new york will take care of him with all his tax problems he had. host: that is miles in patterson, new jersey. he referenced the freshman democratic legislators.

-cortez sayscasio the rule of law means everyone. everyone should be treated the same in the eyes of the law. president.es the he must be impeached. can saying it is time to begin an impeachment inquiry against the president. the full statement is attached tweet.t tweet -- in a seth moulton saying donald trump has committed crimes. it is our job as democrats to impeach him. karen flynn saying i spent months working with common cause staff and board and outside legal experts in the best way to hold the president accountable. i'm announcing our call for an impeachment investigation. andy biggs saying the mueller

witchhunt is closed. democrats should apologize to the president, the american people and the baseless fantasies to impeach the president. some of the thoughts from legislators. democrats only for the first hour, (202) 748-8000. if you say impeaching the president is the way forward. if you say to santa move on, (202) 748-8001. penny from hampstead, new york. she says impeach. caller: good morning, pedro. he needs to be impeached. thisl very unsafe with 2020 election. about rally he is talking a lifetime presidency. he has donews things i can get him in

trouble and the leeway to avoid it does not leave office. it is horrible. we know the russians had interfered, yet they are not doing anything to protect our democracy. host: when it comes to impeachment, what do you base that on? what you think robert mueller's testimony added to that? caller: he said he committed some impeachable crimes. we know that. alone that an outside country like russia has done this to our country alone and trump has no problem with it -- it's like when it comes to putin he has nothing to say. that is not protecting the american people. our democracy is at stake. i have watched this man from when he was early on as a realtor. it goes way back.

he surrounds himself with the worst of the worst people. he does not even respect his own colleagues. he goes on attacks. it is not right. host: speaking of russian influence, the senate putting out a report on that topic. it is the lead story in the new york times saying if the russian government -- if the russians report's while the warnings that the u.s. is vulnerable, the findings were so heavily redacted some key recommendations for 2020 were blacked out. the first volume of several to be released from the investigation into russian interference. 24 hours after the special counsel testified. it concluded that while there were no -- there was some changed,votes were

russian cyber actors were able to delete or change the illinois database. the committee found no evidence they did so. that's at the new york times website. gwen in detroit says it is time to move on. caller: hello, pedro. yes. can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: i think it is time to move onto the next step because robert mueller has laid out everything in the mueller report for people to see and hear. democrats and nancy pelosi are doing everything they can in congress and the senate the whole trump accountable and get evidence. ishink the next thing to do for the people to rise up and a -- we need ase

protest in the streets. we need to protest the second saturday of each month. don't go shopping. protest that way. host: why do you think that's more effective than proceeding with impeachment proceedings? caller: they are going to do , but now it's time for the people to rise up. we have to show -- just like in puerto rico. all those people demonstrated. we have to show the groundswell for people to come together. don't shout, don't go to the movies, don't go to dinner, don't do anything on second saturdays of each month. that is a protest for people who can't get out into the streets. host: wait a previous color say maybe the focus should be on the 2020 election. is that a better stratey?

caller: all of it combined. we can't leave it up to one thing. the people have to show that we want him impeached. it is not just democrats. you have on here democrats only. you should just say impeach him or not. let the republicans call and. there are a lot of them they don't like what this president has done. bill clinton was impeached for perjury. that is why they would not let trump get on there because he commits perjury every day. caller: james in michigan says it is time to impeach. hello. caller: hello, pedro. i appreciate this program. i believe we should impeach because right now the republicans are using fear and nancy, as great as she is as a leader, she has fear now.

we need to impeach him because when we impeach him this will go on record. we don't need to wait until the next year or until the election. we need to impeach him right now. host: what should democrats based the impeachment on? on his performance every day in office. and the report. as he feels democrats are too afraid to go on, he will do what he wants to do. host: you said nancy pelosi was scared. what is she scared of? caller: she waited until the election. she listened to the base. she listened to the republican base. we voted her in to do the job.

host: what is wrong with waiting until the election then? caller: because they need to be focused -- they would just wait and wait. it is time to impeach him. host: harland in texas. caller: good morning, pedro. i say move on. i watched washington journal every morning. could you explain what the construction job is behind you? host: they are working on the senate garage. there are other projects involved in that. sometimes you will see a crane. the topic of moving on, what do you base that on?

caller: i'm so tired of the democrats and their continuous knocking of our president. host: are you a democrat? caller: i am a democrat but i'm sued to be a republican. -- i am soon to be a republican. host: you are not one currently? caller: exactly. just continuing to investigate. nancy pelosi is not in control. thatave some radical dems just want to keep on going. host: when you save move on, what should nancy pelosi focus on? caller: she should get rid of the investigations and start doing stuff for the people. host: such as what? caller: health care, immigration. there is so much stuff that could be done. georgia inlouisiana, gonzales, louisiana says it is

time to impeach. caller: good morning. we need to impeach him a dereliction of duty. he is not protecting this country. he is causing more mayhem than anything. host: when you say he's not protecting the country, what do you mean by that? -- she willlection not talk about it. he will not help the states to protect the election. he is putting fear in everyone. he is causing more mayhem with all his foolishness. host: why is that the basis for impeachment? why do you think that is the basis for impeachment? caller: protecting the country as part of his constitution. he took an oath to protect the country. he is not protecting the country. host: that is georgia. you may have missed our "newsmakers" program that featured derek kilmer, the chair

of the new democrat coalition. a moderate democrat. he talked about some of the issues he would like to see as priorities for voters in his district. [video] >> the bulk of the folks i represent want to see congress work on things that make their lives better. they want to see forward motion on health care and prescription drugs. they want to see congress finally do something about infrastructure. having said that, they understand congress needs to walk and chew gum at the same time. there is a role in terms of oversight and accountability. when the president says something offensive and irresponsible, having congress serve as a check on that to say that is not ok. it's a legitimate action for congress to take, particularly in an instance that was offensive as it was. my hope is that as we roll into next week and as we roll into the fall you see congress

continue to move forward on some of those priorities on behalf of the american people. i mentioned infrastructure, prescription drug pricing, election security is something a lot of our members would like to see forward motion on. there is an election coming up and there has not been enough progress to make sure that will be secure. host: if you want to see the full program, go to the newsmakers website on our c-span.org website. you've heard him talking about areas he would like to see congress focus on. when it comes to democrats only, if you want to see impeachment proceedings go ahead, (202) 748-8000. if you want to say it is time to move on, (202) 748-8001. hour.ats in the first in the last hour questions are a questions for republicans only.

the washington post keeps a running count of democrats in the house asking about impeachment proceedings. when it comes to the idea for in impeachment inquiry, 98 democrats are siding on -- signing on so far. they included a list, including the district and how they voted. for those who say continue existing investigations amongst the various house committees, 130 saying that is the way forward. when those saying they have not said or are clear on one of those perspectives, only seven. that's a running whip count. you can see that at the washington post website. raquel is from hawaii. it is time to move on. good morning. caller: i did not catch your name. host: it is pedro. caller: hi, pedro. i would like to move on because

there are a lot more pressing issues. like the housing market falling. like a lot of big businesses moving towards the future soundt making foundations. host: why do you think those thans are more important impeachment at this time? caller: why would you move somewhere else? when where youer are at now cannot be better? host: you say in inquiry or efforts on impeachment is not the way to go specifically? caller: because the entire system, from the very beginning of time, from the creation of money has been corrupt. from the time we started

creating -- it has been corrupt. what is waiting until september supposed to mean to anybody? it is just time on the calendar. it is time passing and we're expecting something to happen, for someone else to step in for trump and for him on his behalf or whoever's behalf? everybody is performing. is that all we do? is that what we have become a nation? professional performers? host: kevin in richmond, california says it is time to impeach. caller: i think it is time to pursue the impeachment inquiry. i am one of the 3% to actually read the mueller report cover to

cover. what came out during the mueller hearing that was not in the report which i think is critical is that mueller indicated clearly under oath that the president was under oath when answering the questions in writing. he was not truthful in his questions. that was not in the report. mueller said under questioning by val denning that the president answers were not truthful. in the report mueller said they were not acceptable or incomplete, but he did not say they were in true. -- untrue. he did say that in the hearing. i think we should move on. nancy pelosiying and the house need to do things. i was trying to find it online while waiting but the house has passed a number of bills, a number of pieces of huge legislation having to do with

anticorruption, having to do with health care, et cetera. they go to the senate as they do to create law and they die in the senate because mcconnell refuses to bring anything to the floor. we need to question why is that the case. host: when it comes to impeachment what you say about far ink of interest so pursuing an impeachment inquiry by the house speaker? caller: they are stuck on strategy. we need to move beyond strategy. i agree with nancy pelosi when she says is not about political parties, it's about patriotism. they do not have a choice. it is the congress' job to move towards impeachment when we learn there are crimes or misdemeanors perpetrated. we know that is the case. host: that is kevin in california.

talking about the writing section. reuters says it was the special counsel saying they generally agree to the characterization that the president's written answers were not always truthful. "isn't it fair to say the president's written answers were not only incomplete because he did not answer many questions, but where he did his answers show that what he was not always being truthful? generally was a response from robert mueller." if he did not see the hearings, go to c-span.org. you can watch both hearings from the intelligence and judiciary committees. youcan go to the site and can listen to the mueller report if you want to do that while you're doing other things. that's available at c-span.org. one of the people talking about the efforts of the democrats was the house minority leader kevin mccarthy. he talked about this topic of

impeachment, especially after the mueller hearing. [video] >> why would you bring up impeachment after yesterday's hearing? that should be put to bed. we watched it, we heard it, we read it. what more can they make up? the only people that want impeachment are the ones sitting inside this chamber on the democratic side. the american public made a decision. why would they put the american public through this instead of doing the job they should be focused on? from creating a better economy, solving the crisis at the border, or health care. host: democrats only for the next 15 minutes. eva in lafayette, louisiana says it is time to move on. caller: good morning. i think it's time to move on. if impeachment would get him out of office, i would before it -- ibecause i do think would be for it when you're

percent because i think he's a horrible person. he caused our people to turn against each other. impeachment will not remove him from office. we know he is. you only have to listen to him talk and you can see his lies every time he speaks. he takes credit for things he has nothing to do with. impeachment will not remove him from office. we need to concentrate on the election coming up and in 2020 and get him out of office. that is the only way to get rid of him is to get out and vote and vote him out and concentrate on the states in the electoral college. sometimes i feel like my vote does not count. no matter what we do in the popular vote, it will not remove him from office. we have got to get the states voting in the electoral college to defeat him. host: what do you think -- he talked about the election, but

if not impeachment, what should house democrats be focused on? caller: they should be focusing on things that are coming up in the legislature. bills that they want to get past. let's face it, they are fighting a losing battle because mitch mcconnell has them sitting on his desk and he will not even bring them to the floor of the senate. we need to keep face because we keep trying to send these bills, trying to get this legislation through. we need to put it on the -- weird doing all we can do. mitch mcconnell is holding us hostage. get out and vote and vote this man out of office. he is just a horrible person. i could go through a list of why i think he is horrible but that is not necessary. eva spoke of mitch mcconnell. the hill says he blocked two

election security measures on thursday arguing democrats are trying to get the cells political benefits. chuck schumer tried to get consent to pass a houseful that requires the use of paper ballots. it includes funding for the election assistance commission. 225-184, with one republican voting for it. mcconnell said senator schumer was trying to pass partisan legislation. "clearly this request is not a serious effort to make a law. it only received one single solitary republican vote in the house. it is not going to travel through the senate by unanimous consent. under the senate rules anyone senator king request consent to requestill -- can consent to pass a bill, but anyone senator king object." bill says impeachment should be the way forward. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my

call. think, will cause a lot of trouble and a whole lot of angst with everybody. saying herybody should be impeached for what he did. realist. a i can also read a calendar. say hes stuff that they it done, you have to look at from when he took over power from barack obama. regardless of what the democratic party tries to do, which what they are trying to do andt now is destabilization flipping kenny political model -- flipping any political model to the socialist model, what

they are going to be tagged with his history and discovery. host: are you a democrat? everybody down here in west virginia is a democrat. they are a lot moving towards independent. host: you said impeachment would cause trouble. even in light of that, that should be the way forward? everybody's, talking about the rule of law. if we feel strongly enough about impeaching the president and not waiting for the election, that is what you can do. a lot of people also think when you look at the holistic debacle that went down the last election, the coup with the fbi and the doj and all the other stuff that will continue to come out, then people will probably be prosecuted and should be prosecuted for it because they broke the law themselves.

host: nicholas in fort myers, florida says impeached. go ahead. : this is what i could analyze. right now with mueller we have to listen to what he says. we cannot charge him because he is a president. we have to charge him after he leaves office. that means that there is something wrong. there is something that was done . what is it? that is going to be the charges that will be done after he leaves office. i think the democrats should pay more attention to getting him out of office. that way he can be charged with the crimes he has committed. not waste the time on the impeachment. why? it will take too much effort. they should put all their effort on getting him out of office.

that way he can be charged. man,d trump is a very wise but stupid at the same time. he has created in the united people.ar against he comes over here and he offends. he says this person is doing a great job, but if they say something against him, he will create something -- host: if you say when it comes thate house democrats election 2020 be the focus. an impeachment inquiry go forward in the house? but if it should, they're going to do it, put in all the effort to do it. if not going to do it, let's get him out of office. host: let's hear from james in

manhattan, kansas. he says it is time to move on. caller: good morning, pedro. how are you? i agree with the caller from florida. nohink the republicans, matter what evidence they are given are never going to allow trump to be impeached. i think we should just table everything and work on the election to get him out. host: that is james in kansas on that topic of the election. balls had this to say. "the barriers to impeachment have always been it a challenging option to the frustration of some democrats. saying therats were party's focus should be on the 2020 election rather than

impeachment. that now is the only realistic course for the future of the president's presidency. the mueller report is part of it but hardly the only part. it could be as much a motivator for trump's base as the democrats." you can find it online at the washington post. trent is in atlanta, georgia. he says impeachment should go forward. hello. caller: it is brent. host: sorry about that. caller: we need to start the impeachment proceedings for sure. it makes people get up there and talk. hicks, everybody, and maybe at least get it to a vote. we can put these senator's feet to the fire. especially collins and maine. -- in maine.

the new ones from colorado, georgia, arizona, montana. we can flip every one of those seats. host: wire house democrats hesitant? -- why are house democrats hesitant? caller: because of what happened after clinton for the sexual act and perjury. this is so much more devastating for what trump is doing than what clinton did. of course the republicans hammered -- got hammered afterwards. i don't believe that will happen at all. host: you're saying it's a worthwhile effort? caller: yes, definitely. worthwhile. we have to put these senators from the states i just mentioned, and get the turtle out of kentucky. it will be a close race there i

believe. host: james in north carolina says to impeach. caller: good morning, pedro. he should absolutely be impeached. the democrats need to quit handling donald trump with kid gloves. this man does not understand subtlety. there needs to be a scorched-earth policy. they need to go after him because you can't rely on the voting result in 2020. the russians changed those polls in midwestern states. you'll find that out in five years. the county votes were changed. the voting machines were changed. they just made subtle changes that changed the results. i believe that donald trump loses by 6 million votes this , you will have unrest in this country. host: what is the value then of

scorched-earth policy? corrupt,hey get a dangerous president out of office. he is dangerous for the united states. across otherment nations around the globe as well. doesn't matter if you're socialist or communist, the guy is dangerous. look at what he does. host: let's hear from mary from new york. she says it is time to move on. from albion, new york? go ahead. caller: yes. i had one thing to say. i think they should impeach the whole congress and leave the president alone. i am changing over. i don't like their antics. they are trying to take over our

lives. host: rhonda is the last caller on the topic from new jersey. she says the effort to impeach should go forward. hello. caller: good morning, america, my beautiful country. i think we should move forward with an inquiry, but i think we have to trust nancy and her wisdom because she is a diva. she knows exactly what she is doing. i think we as american people need to do exactly what they did in puerto rico and take to the streets and demand this man resigned from office. i think mitch mcconnell should be impeached because he is covering up for the president. agree with heru as far as holding off? caller: the reason why, and i

will explain it, even though i want him impeached more than anyone in the world. we have been divided as a country. it is like them against us. we as americans have to love one another. we have to love our neighbors truste stranger as gothe reasoo nancy pelosi is because of the division in our country against each other. she wants to make a case that is so convincing, that the republicans and the trump supporters have to know that this man is a liar. ok? his people believe everything he says. and he is lying to us. they are not doing the research to see how crooked he is. mitch mcconnell's wife, what

issue he come our transport -- host: again, back to impeachment. what is the basis for impeachment in your mind? caller: first of all, he has committed human rights abuses with these kids he has kidnapped from parents at the border. he has lied to us on a daily utin and hisp relationship with these russians. they are controlling the white house. host: that is rhonda from new jersey. republicans, we will give you a last chance to sound off on the topic at about 9:00. two guests are joining us in the next hour. representatives of one of the last act for the house went on break -- one of the last tasks before the house went on break was passing the budget. we will talk to them about that. first up, pennsylvania democrat of representative brendan boyle. then later on, pennsylvania

republican representative dan meuser will join us later on. those conversations coming up on washington journal. ♪ announcer: this weekend on book 8:15, adviceat jean carroll talks about experiences of sexual assault in her life including an alleged assault by donald trump in the 1990's. >> men who take what they want, men who have their trace of women. all these women, the more women that come forward. he is more like genghis khan, like alexander the great. he is like the great candidate, clinton, jefferson. inis a mark of the leader many peoples eyes to see a man

taking what he wants. announcer: then at 9:00 p.m. from freedom fest, the annual libertarian conference in las vegas, we feature on author, john lott. >> 45% of the countries in the world don't report firearm homicide data. that wants we don't report are the ones who tend to have the highest homicide rates. announcer: on sunday, our coverage continues at 8:00 p.m. with former judge o -- georgia congressman bob barr, talking about his book, what is." andave allowed discourse elliptical activity to sink to the level where we don't demand a requisite amount of understanding, education, civility and professionalism in what we do with and demand of our elected officials. and what happens then is that

those important, mechanisms such devalued.ment, are announcer: then at 9:00 eastern former georges," w. bush administration special advisor for cyber security, richard clarke talks about how to make ciber's pace -- speiser space -- cyberspace less dangerous. >> are they less vulnerable to attack? no, but they are resilient to it. can someone penetrate their network? sure, because there is no parameter anymore. candidate do real damage to those companies? the answer is , no. announcer: watch book tv every weekend on c-span2. continues. journal" host: representative brendan boyle represents the pennsylvania.f

he is a member of the budget committee and also a member of the ways and means committee. good morning? guest: good morning to you. yesterday,t passing how did you vote for that? guest: when it is a vote like about, there will be a number of things you like and some things that you dislike. at the end of the day, i thought it was the responsible thing. we have to the era of the constant threat of either government shutdowns, or god forbid, not raising the debt ceiling. so in terms of things i like, that was chief among them, the fact that the debt ceiling was raised. it is raised until the summer of 2021, approximately two years. in my view, we shouldn't even have a debt ceiling. we are the only country in the world that does. it is a dumb and dangerous idea.

i think i have talked about this on here before. we should entirely remove the concept. if i could, i think there is some misinformation about that and i want to educate folks, when i say remove the concept of the debt ceiling, i am not actually saying, increase the debt, or take on more debt. the debt ceiling has nothing to do without. what it is is, after we have already made the decision to spend, passed the law and committed the united states to spending something, within essentially get our credit card bill in the mail. what the debt ceiling is is a second separate vote as to whether we will pay the bill that we are decided months or years ago that we were going to run up. if we were to ever refuse to not raise the debt ceiling, keep in mind that would completely default the full faith and credit of the united states. it would shock the world

markets. you would see interest rates jump probably by about five to 10 points. suddenly, liquidity would dry up. secretary mnuchin in front of the ways and means committee months ago, i asked him, explain to me some of the consequences that would happen if we ever refused to raise the debt ceiling or failed to, and he said, congressman, the consequences would be so dire, i don't even want to entertain it. that, as yous recall, in the summer of 2011, we came within a couple of days of not raising the debt ceiling, that alone was enough of a shock, according to the government accountability office. it cost american taxpayers $1.3 billion. why are we keeping around this dangerous, ticking time bomb? that to me was the most important thing. i know it was not the entire thing. the fact that we have now and is sequester, something that came

in back when the so-called tea party was supposedly concerned about, that has completely gone out the window in recent years, if we were to have a cut of 10% in spending, that would be dramatic and not warranted. host: that caps -- the new , 1.7, the caps would rise 3 trillion, and a little bit above that in 2021. are you comfortable with those levels? guest: so here is one final point on that. it gets us through the end of sequester. sequester was a 10 year deal. now the sequester is over. believed, byt is the way, to have slowed or recovery back in the early part of the decade. it would have gone more quickly, according to some economists, and i happen to agree, had it

bringingthe sequester down spending. in terms of deficit and debt, we do have a challenge in the 2020s and also the 20 30'ss when our benefits and entitlements start to turn negative in my the -- in when our benefits and entitlements will start to turn negative. it will not be addressed entirely from spending cuts. it is a false narrative when the other side says we have a spending problem. actually, discretionary spending as a percentage of the gdp is lower today than it was 15 years ago. spending is lower today on discretionary than it was 50 years ago. however, our tax revenue has fallen off a cliff. it is far lower as a percentage 12%.r gdp, by about if you recall, in the last

congress, the republican majority passed and almost $2 trillion tax cut, blew a $2 deficit.hole in our so if some of my republican friends want to talk about deficit and debt, just remember, they added $2 trillion to it. host: if you want to talk to our guest about the issues of budget, 202-748-8000 for democrats, republicans, 202-748-8001, and 202-748-8002 for independents. the other side is calling for offsets to pay for these measures. would -- what do you think about? guest: they were remarkably silent when the figure was not 50 billion or 100 billion, it was $2 trillion. we do need to tackle the long-term debt issue. it becomes particularly pronounced when we get to the

latter part of this upcoming decade, and i made part of the 20 30's -- the made part of the 2030s. our deficit has spiked 9% in the past year. the obama administration, after the great recession, it bottomed out. from obama's second year up to 2017, the deficit came down every single year. then you had the massive tax cuts, you saw a 40% rise in the deficit. we would have continued to make progress on the deficit, and then the tax cuts, which is not paid for, completely blew away a hole. host: mitch mcconnell, the senate majority leader, talked about the topic of entitlements. i want to have you listen to what he had to say. sen. mcconnell: what is doubly frustrating is people like senator sanders, and now it has become the mainstream view on the democratic side is to ignore what i said and added even more

challenges for medicare in particular. i haven't seen the will on the other side to face reality on this issue. we can't do this all by ourselves. we have divided government. then,ied government even requires bipartisan support. that is a real driver of the debt. so i make no apologies for this two-year deal. i think it is the best we could have done in a time of divided government. the alternatives were much worse like a one-year continuing resolution, is sequester, perpetual chaos. i think we have done the best we can with this divided government and i want to congratulate both secretary mnuchin, on behalf of the president, and speaker pelosi, for stepping up and crafting the best possible deal we could've crafted, given last year's election. host: representative boil, what do you think -- representative boyle, what do you think of

that? -- guest: given the government and given the idea of his sequester or a one-year continuing resolution, meaning we would be back facing in the middle of a presidential election the issue of raising the debt ceiling and whether or not we would be facing a government shutdown. i have lived through three government shutdown, i think, in the last few years. each one of them has a cost to the taxpayer. thatoid that nonsense and dysfunction and to make sure that for the next two years, we don't have to worry about that, i do think what he said was appropriate. now the first part, he is entirely wrong, on as he calls them, entitlements. they are earned benefits. people have worked a lifetime to pay into social security and medicare. 50, 60 years worth of work. was he wants to do is -- you

know, it is kind of a three-step act. the first step was passing the massive, almost $2 trillion tax cut, 83% of which went to the wealthiest 1%. that is the congressional budget office's figure. step two is for them to come back and say, oh my goodness, it turns out democrats were right, this was not paid for. it blew a big hole in the deficit and debt. the problem is we are spending too much on medicare and social security. now they want cuts on social security and medicare. and then step three would be to enact these cuts. so i.d.s agree with it -- i disagree with it. social security has been around since 1935. it has run a surplus every single year. payment.ver missed a

try to find any program in the private sector that has been around for 84 years and has a 100% track record. it. a strong supporter of i serve on the social security subcommittee. i believe it is one of the greatest achievements of our federal government. and i don't know why in the world we would want to mess with it or cut it. host: our first color is from rockford, illinois. mike on the independent line -- our first caller. caller: good morning and thank you for your time. over the last couple of weeks on c-span, the media is not reporting, maybe you can help me -- number one, i found out that russia is replacing our shipments of corn and soybeans to china. the second thing, i found out during the shutdown, there are 15 oil and gas permits passed

for our national parks, and 70 on our coastline. during the shutdown, they were passed. #3 is the biggest one: there were 20 arms deals to saudi arabia by jared kushner. one of them alone was 15,000 missiles, air to surface, whatever they are called, and isffey and -- raytheon moving there to build a factory and show them how to build the missiles. host: do you have a topic on the budget? the tax thing that was just asked last year, -- passed last year, i found out it was $1 trillion a year for the next 10 years. it is not one year, it is over 10 years. is that true?

guest: there are different projections for the entire package of the tax cut, most of which was a corporate tax cut, which dropped the corporate rate 21%.25% to it is estimated by the war-torn school that it was a $1.9 trillion, but there are some estimates now that show north of the $2 trillion figure. so ain't that it was a $2 trillion figure, it seems to be most accurate. when we present these figures, they are over a 10 year period. that is done by both sides because that is the window for projection. i will just say quickly, he asked about coastal drilling in drilling in public parks, this is something i strongly oppose. whether it is new jersey or maryland, or virginia, or the carolina coasts, florida, the derivesastern seaboard

so much tourist revenue from their beaches. i can't see any place where offshore drilling would be popular or appropriate. i strongly oppose it. while i don't represent a district that is coastal, i represent a district that is about one hour from the atlantic coast. thisinly, my constituents time of year are somewhere on the jersey shore or the delaware beaches, or the mirror their -- the maryland beaches. the idea that you would have offshore drilling there is something michael sidhu is would find disturbing. host: from new york, laura, go ahead. caller: i do know if you realize, but a great deal of money goes into military research. and some of this research is on the low level warfare side, where basic things like hip hypnosisicrochips --

and microchips are being used in surveillance. you have a program that is causing a great deal of difficulty for the civilian population and it is not monitored. a lot of money also goes to the police and other people. they have military equipment which unfortunately they can use as they see, really, as they want to. i think a great deal of the population is being cleansed through this. i also think there is something going on, sort of like the mk ultra, i think that was a program with, sort of a mind control program. some of the anti-semitism and other viewpoints that seem to be popping up might be occurring through the use of programs that can pass through surveillance. host: that was laura in new york. guest: i cannot say that this is something i know anything about.

mind control or hypnosis. interms of the recent rise anti-semitism, it is deeply disturbing. unfortunately, this is one of the most ancient forms of hatred that has been in existence. the increase in the last couple of years in hate crimes directed , ourd our jewish-american fellow americans who are jewish has been shocking. that has been underreported. new york city for example, the number of hate crimes, the areease of crimes that anti-semitic and origin has been through the roof. i think all of us have a responsibility to speak up and speak out.

it is shocking to me that we are even having to have this conversation but we need to address it. host: marks don't off of twitter saying -- medicare and medicaid is going bankrupt, social security will be depleted by 2022, what should be done to save them? also, the tax-cut had nothing to do with social security because they have separate taxes for employers and employees to pay for them. guest: that is true, but it is not correct that it has nothing to do with them. now. that you have a dramatic increase in the deficit and the debt, what the white house proposed in their budget from a few months ago, their own budget proposed massive cuts in medicare and medicaid. one of the reasons why they justified that, was to control spending because the deficit increased by 40%. so that is how they are linked. in terms of what we do about the trust fund, i do a lot of tongue falls -- townhall's in my , where many of the

folks are seniors. i got a question from someone who was afraid that social security was about to run out of money. i wanted to provide that constituent the good news that from now until about the 2033, 2035 period, there is 100% money to fund all current obligations of social security. so for the next five years, the next 10, and even the next 15, if you are on social security, you don't have to worry. the people that are scaring you that it is about to run out of money, that is not true. now, once you get to the middle part of a few decades from now, there is a problem. mostly because there is not enough revenue coming into social security, frankly because we have fewer workers today to retirees.

that cohort of baby boomers is retiring, and it creates a fiscal challenge. not only for united states. germany and on most the european countries are facing this problem. in those countries, the problem is actually worse. this is an area where immigration helps the united states. we otherwise would have even fewer workers, relative to our retirees. i want a bill called social security 2100. my colleague, john larson, is a main author of it, he has been a passionate fighter for it for many years. i am sure he has spoken about it. part of our plan, we would shore up social security through the year 2100, and we would do so without cutting benefits. most of the additional revenue that would be coming in would capture those and make more than $400,000 a year. currently we are not paying into social security. it shows you that if the will is if you believe that

everyone should be paying in in roughly equal percentage to social security, there is enough money to fund it all the way to the year 2100. my daughter will be . 86 euros old in 2100. i feel good that that would be -- my daughter would be 86 years old in 2100. i would love for that to be my legacy. we can save social security in mostly its current form if we are just willing to add more revenue into it. host: this is mike in port charlotte, florida calling on our republican line. you are on. caller: things for taking my call. can you hear me ok? host: you are on. caller: a couple of issues. daughter, i hope this countries around at 2100.

how do we justify raising the kind of debt? this is ridiculous. maybe we should inform the viewers how much we are paying in interest alone. that is my first issue. the other one is, what about the increase in taxes from full employment that i am hearing about? is there any truth to that, or is that just an untruth of the president too? thank you very much. guest: mike, i am confident the united states will still be here in 2100. i am actually more optimistic despite the rhetoric we sometimes hear, i am more optimistic about this country and our future then probably most people. in my view, the united states of america, uniquely among countries on earth, has always had this view inherent to who we are that tomorrow will be better than today.

i think it is part of our dna. i have absolutely no doubt will be here in 2100. and as long as we fulfill our responsibilities in this era, we will be stronger than we are now. in terms of debt, it is a challenge, particularly as you move forward. we face some of those structural challenges,, beginning about a decade and a half. i am confident, though, that we can get through them. i mentioned social security 2100, a bill that would solve one of the two main issues we talked about. figure that large that -- sticker price can be eye-popping two people -- part of that includes money we owe ourselves. sometimes it overall figure is a little misleading. and then the question, the second questions was about the increase in taxes from full , i am not sure to

what that is referring. i do know of any proposal to dramatically increase taxes on middle-class or working people from the democratic side of the aisle. included,, myself support for the going after the top 1/10 of 1% to pay for more tax revenue. if you go back to 70 years ago, the very wealthy paid significantly more in taxes than they do now. an increasing amount of money is shielded from taxation whatsoever. so there is a certain fairness. issue and equity issue -- fairness issue and an equity issue. when amazon can go without yet a anything in taxes, retiree living in northeast philly on $35,000 a year is paying more in taxes than amazon, that system has to change. it is morally and ethically wrong.

so that is the only taxation debate that is happening right of this town and the campaign. host: our guest represents the second district of philadelphia, brendan boyle, member of the ways and means committee and the budget committee. from tennessee, hello. caller: good morning. i would like you to explain to the people out here about the federal spending and our debt ceiling deals. a lot of people don't know what you all are talking about. withrn, what i see spending and the debt ceiling, everything went up with trump. he was supposed to be in there to drink the swamp. but he is the swamp. they are cutting people's social security benefits, making them medicaid.or

they are going around cutting food and nutrition programs for the people in need, they are sending money for other countries when we need the money here. we need the money here for crime also. host: all that said, where would you -- what would you specifically like to ask our guest? caller: i would like to ask him to explain why our federal spending and debt ceiling is so high. host: thank you. guest: thank you, janice. i mentioned this before, but it is a fact worth repeating that there has been a 40% increase in the deficit from this year to last year because of president trump. and because of the last republican congress that passed this dramatic tax-cut which mostly benefited the wealthiest 1%. for about eight consecutive years, you had the deficit coming down. the last six years of president obama. it even carried into the trump

administration until the dramatic tax-cut blue such a significant hole. it is the first time ever in an economic expansion but you have seen that increasing the deficit. what happened in all previous economic expansions, the economy is doing better, and more people are working, the deficit comes down. so this is quite unusual what has happened with the deficit. one point about president trump, he was very good in the 2016 campaign in pennsylvania and in other states, wearing kind of a populist coat. yet he has governed on tax issues and on spending, governed corporateal very republican. i don't know any way in which any sort of conservative republicans would have been

different from president trump when it comes to his economic policy. there has been literally nothing for working-class people that ever-present in the city of philadelphia. host: before we let you go, currently, there are democrats who say that impeachment proceedings should proceed and others who say we should move on. what camp do you fall into? guest: i had an opportunity to vote on this three times. the specials investigation was going on, i voted against moving toward impeachment -- when the special counsel's investigation was going on, i voted against moving toward impeachment. i thought we should wait. once the report came out, i read all 400 pages, i watched robert mueller's press conference that he gave some weeks ago. moved and said, there is clearly sufficient evidence year, in at least four cases, of obstruction of justice.

not to mention the other issues. in my view, it is a constitutionally ethical and right into do to have impeachment -- right thing to do to have impeachment inquiries. whether or not we will, your guess is as good as mine. people with strongly held views are on both sides. host: representative brendan boyle, we thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: we will hear another member of the budget committee on some of the topics, republican dan meuser joining us next on "washington journal." ♪ announcer: this weekend on american history tv, saturday at 5:00 p.m. eastern, a discussion about the 1980 refugee act. >> i don't think president

carter's decision to push for was act and to implement it a hugely important, humanitarian , and he deserves every bit of the credit we have heard here today. that said, we have to be realistic and say that it does not solve all the problems, in fact, it creates them. announcer: then at 6:00 on "the civil war" in a renowned civil war scholar. >> academia should have some dimension that. >> reached out to people who are just interested in the era the way i have been when i was growing up. it seems there should be more bridges between academia and the public then there are. one of the key places where that can happen, i know from battlefields, at where you can make a connection to the past in a way that you can't. announcer: sunday at 4:00 p.m.

america, theel 1967 film "testimony of truth" details the injuries and deaths caused by u.s. bombings in vietnam. >> i used to come home with my folks, father, mother, grandfather and grandmother. let all 15 of them including an unborn baby, have been killed. are though the babies innocent victims of these american air raids. announcer: at 6:45 p.m., historians discuss health care policy since world war i. >> truman was universal. and it would have covered everyone. polls show that initially, up to 75 percent of the public supported the idea of health insurance for all via the social security system. announcer: explore our nation's past in american history tv. all weekend, every weekend, only on c-span3.

continues. journal" host: another member of the budget committee joining us also from pennsylvania, this is dan meuser, republican joining us for a discussion on yesterday's vote. good morning to you. guest: good morning. host: why did you vote for the bill? guest: it was a tough vote. there were many reasons, many issues i had with it. i think we are in a fiscal crisis as we continue to spend in. than we bring we have issues with discretionary and nondiscretionary spending. this bill, after weighing all considerations and sides of it, it is basically a $49 billion increase from one year to the next. $22 billion of it goes to our military, $9 billion goes to our veterans. it also has a provision providing for its ability with no restrictions for border

security, $7 billion or $8 billion that could be used to secure our borders, for deterrence, asylum and detention centers and care. weighing all of that and seeing that as probably the best deal that we could get, and actually in discussion with leadership, democrat members and republican members, and also president trump -- i spoke with him yesterday morning, and he made those points clear. so we thought it would be something i would be supportive of. so i was affirmative and i voted increase.iling host: how do you make the case then for the long-term effects it will have on debt and deficit? 2000: well, since the year really since 9/11,, we have been taking place, deficits have gone up, the debt has gone up $22 trillion in the last 19 years.

under george w. bush, it went up by $7 trillion. under president obama it went up another $10 billion -- $10 trillion. so yes, we have been spending more than we bring in. but as a member of the budget committee, and i am a former revenue secretary for the commonwealth of pennsylvania, our revenues are quite healthy. year,venue growth is 7% a in the state, that is phenomenal. when i was secretary of revenue, the most revenue growth we had was 3.5%. our discretionary spending goes up about 2.5%. so everything outside of medicare, medicaid, and service on the debt, and social security i everything else we spend

on is going up less than 3%. the problem is the mandated spending, nondiscretionary, is going up almost 20%. so clearly, anyone reasonable and just look at the graphs and see, if we are going to control our spending and truly be fiscally responsible, we need to , as republicans and democrats, work on this together. host: so when it comes to the discretionary side, what should be targeted first? guest: there is no necessarily targeting. we have to look at the big, richer set out long-range plans to see how we will get there -- we have to look at the big long-range set out a plan to see how we will get there. when i was in the pennsylvania cabinet, we reduced spending by almost 1.5% just by rooting out waste, abuse and fraud from our annual budget. that is something that can be done.

it is a project that will require bipartisan support. it starts with rooting out waste, abuse, and fraud. it is about efficiency and doing things better. we have got to do things better how the private sector does things. we just can't keep raising taxes, and going home and feeling good about it. planed a true, strategic that the american people can adopt and get used to. that is clear in understanding. the government should never set up a program and then pull the rug out from underneath people. we need a longer term plan, more social security -- longer-term plan for social security, medicaid, and medicare. it is just a question of standing up and doing it. i looks forward to being part of that in congress. i am not so sure right now with the leadership in the house,

although sometimes they speak favorably in this way, the top leadership of the democratic caucus, about being involved in such a fix, but frankly, i don't see it in the next year and a half. that is one of the reasons i am excited to do the work we can do here, then in the next congress, hopefully, with the american provide the votes to gain a republican leadership and really bring in fiscal , and is president is reelected, which is very important, we can work on the right plan for america. host: our guest is here until 9:00, when the house comes in for a pro forma session. up until then, if you would like to ask questions about the issues of budget, 202-748-8000 for democrats, 202-748-8001 for

republicans, and 202-748-8002 for independents. our first call is from texas. caller: thank you for taking my question. i am going to ask the representative if he voted for the tax cuts, especially for the rich, how could he justify cutting all the spending? why couldn't we just have the taxes where they were so that we could continue being solvent? time, when you were referring to the businesses, how business is run, they also look for more ways to make money. that is not the only way they survive, not by cutting expenses. so let us be realistic and look at what we needed to bring in. taxes are below where we were before reagan. confused? we

-- why are we cutting the taxes and putting pressure on the middle class?guest: that is a good question . the tax cuts, i was not in congress. this is my first year in congress, i was elected last november, so i was not here when cut act was tax passed. but i fully support it. there is no question that the tax cuts helped the middle class dramatically. i am in a district where the average per capita income is $41,000 a year. the average family in my district received a tax reduction of anywhere from $1200 to $1800 a year. that cuts for the middle class were 3%. there is no getting around that. it was a 3% reduction. in the standard deduction was $24,000.rom $12,000 to so you no longer paid any tax on $12,000, and if you

made $50,000, you had a 3% reduction on that final $26,000, that in itself adds up to at orst 1100 or $1200 a year $100 a month. taxes are necessary for our country to run, and for government to provide the services that our constitution calls for. however, taxes have to be competitive. when we reduced the corporate taxes from 35% to 21%, look what happened to our economy when that was done. it sounds like a dramatic reduction. however, the rest of the world has reduced its taxes. so why would a business want to be located here as opposed to say ireland, where the corporate tax rate is 12%? the corporate tax rate in ireland is a most half of where we are now even after the reduction. so in order to bring back the manufacturing jobs we now have, and repatriate a lot of the

money and investments that were being made overseas, those corporate taxes were absolutely essential. there is a reason why we have an unemployment rate of 3.7%, the lowest in my lifetime. it is because businesses are moving here and growing. they are reinvesting. and employees are part of those corporations. let's not make corporations out to be just money hungry organizations. i mean, that is where people receive their pay, where they receive their livelihood, where they receive their health care, where they spent 30 years of their life. we also had a reduction on small businesses of approximately 20%. i have hundreds of small businesses throughout my district, and they all tell me when i ask them, that the tax reduction was extremely favorable, it allowed them to hire one more person, allowed them to expand, allows them to buy new equipment.

so we needed to be competitive, and we needed to reduce these taxes to actually drive our economy. and i will tell you this as well as far as revenues go, the lower taxes very often increase revenues. now, we have not attained a revenue neutrality, or with the new tax rates, we have not yet achieved a higher level of revenue than we had prior. but we are getting there. if you look at the $100 billion ,eficit going into next year 150 million of that comes from the tax reductions. so it is a small percentage and it is worth it. and that is not a dynamic model. if you can't the less people that are on social programs, and work that into the formula as well, it really gets the revenue neutrality. jobs are the best way of increasing revenues, and jobs

are the best thing as a service the energy for our country and for american families. host: from alabama on our independent line, charles, you are next. caller: i sure wish i could have got in with that character from the democrat. host: well, you're on with our guests now. caller: my comment is, ron paul put in an amendment on the budget to cut across the board, 1%, of the government organizations. not one mark rutte voted for it -- not one democrat voted for it. so they should have no complaints about the budget going up. something that goes way back , that dirk is used to

irkins used to say, you spend 1000 here, you spend 1000 there, pretty soon you are talking about a bunch of money. host: thank you. guest: i understand. as a country, we need to be fiscally responsible. we need the part -- the proper amount of revenue to come in. it is easy to reduce spending by 1%. and i say that from a private sector perspective -- i was in business for 25 years -- if our goal was to reduce costs or overhead by 1%, we could do it quite easily. as a matter of fact, in the private sector, most companies reduce their overhead by more than that every year. small businesses and large businesses. so there is no reason government cannot do it as well. it would be something that i

would definitely be favorable to. electd to get serious and people who are serious, and we can do things far more efficiently. there is technology, there is innovation, there is higher levels of productivity that exist in the real world, that does not yet exist in washington and in many state governments. we've got to change that and i am dedicated to doing that. host: from new york on the republican line, joe. go ahead. caller: ok. even with the tax cuts, i think the money came back this year. cuts --'t think the tax the deficit because we bring back money from other countries. second thing, the tax cuts helped jobs. now, unemployment is lower than

-- because you have more jobs. more companies are getting people to work. i saw more people come by from the stores. same thing with the tax cuts. so i don't think the tax cuts make the deficit, but i do think spending makes deficits. right.you are i am not giving you a dynamic model, i am just giving you numbers from the congressional budget office. you're also right, if you count the amount of money that came back to the united states from repatriation due to the lower taxes, if you added that in, and that is not considered revenue, that is considered cash that is just going into the private sector, that companies are bringing back and reinvesting here in the united states, you are right. if you look at a full dynamic model, the lower taxes are driving a much stronger economy,

a much stronger gross domestic product, and the plans of the president of deregulating, lower taxes, getting government out of the way, being focused on lowering health care costs, are working. working for virtually all americans. and it is our job to make sure all americans are included in this booming economy. the: it just came across government is reporting that the gross domestic product grew 2.1% from april to june slowed from 3.1% from the first month of the year. marketwatch says report showed that the economy was stronger in some ways but there was a loss in momentum among businesses. from a revenue perspective, what do you think of those numbers? does it cause you concern?

guest: it is a little better than we were hearing. we were hearing it would come in at 1.9% or so. we would still be close to 2.8% 3.0.9%, if not look, contractions take place when amounts of investment take place. with the jobs act and tax act, it allowed for 100% repatriation. what that means is if companies purchase high levels of equipment, they were able to write that off on a tax deduction. so a lot of times, you go through those sorts of things, a lot of purchasing and inventory buildup. those are not great numbers, but the economic indicators that exist are terrific. our unemployment, inflation rates, all the different people, different demographics that are getting jobs, wages are going

up. to me, which increases is the most important indicator. because of law employment and the number of jobs -- because of low employment, and because american products are the best, our food is the best, our products are the best, as long as we can keep them well priced, and we have fair trade agreement, our long-term growth can be sustained. some of that downturn may be to the fact that we have not yet u.s.m.c.a., the united states mexico canadian agreement. it is a bill that is ready. it has been ratified by mexico and by canada. it is a north american agreement on trade. it is teed up and ready to go. we know that it will pass the house. we have got the majority, if not virtually all republicans that would be favorable to it. my district is demanding it.

my district is in need, from our farmers, our fabricators, to our retailers in our manufacturers. we are looking for speaker pelosi to bring it to the floor. you will see the economy advance even further. and his team are working on a trade deal with china. once that is complete as well, we will have added growth. i am very confident of it, as our most economists. host: from massachusetts on the independent line, donna, hello. caller: hi. i would just like to ask if the gentleman is familiar with the panama papers. corruption is really a huge problem. when he gets bored, he could pull it -- google it. it is a rude awakening.

backoney could be coming to us where it belonged, but they shove it somewhere else. host: ok, thank you. guest: ma'am, i don't blame you for being highly suspicious of the things that go on in the world, in the private sector but even more particularly, the state,sector, the deep some of the things we saw this week with the f.b.i. and investigations that take place. there is a lot of confidence in many aspects of our government. i was in business for 25 years. i served for four years as department of revenue secretary in pennsylvania, with governor tom corbett. but we need people who are frankly here for the right reasons. that will be honest and will level with the general public. will provide real information and not this represent the facts for their own good.

ida know if you have heard the phrase, do a job, not have a job. those are all fine sayings. i do my very best to abide by them. i feel that you should have more faith. we have some leadership -- one of the things that has impressed me about coming to congress -- you here before you get here that perhaps some people -- you hear before you get here that perhaps some people do not belong, but we have some impressive people here, particularly the leadership. steve scalise, kevin mccarthy, these cheney -- liz cheney just to name a few, these are incredible americans. they care so much, they are so dedicated, they work hard and they are honest. and look at how transparent things are largely due to technology and the amount of cameras and the electronic

information that never disappears. so i hope that that sort of days.is in the old we've got to move forward and do better in government. host: the organization known as club for growth their president put out this statement after the passing of the bill saying, congress is no longer concerned about the extended budget deficits or the debt the ad -- that they add. guest: yesterday's vote was more about a payment of bills than it was a spending bill. those our debts that we owed, dollars that needed to be brought in so we could pay our obligations. i came here to reduce spending and make our government work better, make it more effective, make it more efficient, and find areas to reduce wasteful

spending, apply it in the right areas, get leaner, and get back to being a constitutional government. club for growth, i respect them very much. i appreciated your position. but i give you my reasons earlier as to why i wanted to vote. this was a vote for military, a vote for our veterans, a vote for border security. the president felt that this was the best deal we could get. elections have consequences. republicans don't control the house. so nancy pelosi, and steny hoyer and the other leaders of the democratic party were very much involved here. so it was a negotiation. frankly, i didn't like. the fact that it rushed up on us in this way, but i am sure steve mnuchin in the treasury department didn't like it either.

but that is another thing government does not do very well, long-term planning. that sort of thing is rare in business. it happens, but it is rare. if it does happen, there are people who have made some big mistakes. we need long-term plans. we need a long-term budget. and a long-term strategic plan of what we're going to deliver for the people of our country. again, i firmly believe we can get back in the house leadership ifrepublicans can -- republicans can get back in-house leadership, i think kevin mccarthy and steve scalise will have a plan that people are happy about. host: russell in baltimore, you have about 30 seconds for your question or comment. caller: my question is, how can a regular person running a business compete with a tax ?helter with deep pockets guest: while, i guess you got to do your best.

i am not sure which tax shelter, or if you are talking about nonprofits, or what sort of organization that you think has an unfair advantage. i would go to your accountant figure things out,. if they are in the same business as you, they should be following the same accounting rules as you. nonprofit,t is a nonprofits play an important role as well. but if you are in pennsylvania, or if you are in my district, i would be happy to talk to you and help. host: representative, you have been in congress now for seven months. how do you approach the issue of the budget and deficit, the next time you have to make these considerations, how would you -- what would you do different? guest: we were working on long-range plans in committee that would deal with mandatory spending and with discretionary

spending. if we can get the previous leader back into leadership and put together a budget, i think the american people will see that it is very fiscally responsible. it will be about making tough decisions. i am here to support those decisions that we make. i am on the budget committee right now. i believe it is the first time that a budget did not come out of committee. we had no budget that came out of committee. i think that is unprecedented. not only did a budget not get voted out of the house floor, and did not make it out of committee. in the past, democratic leadership has yelled at republicans, their budget was a reflection of their values. we heard that often from speaker pelosi last year. this year, their values are to do nothing except maybe to investigate rather than legislate. host: that was representative dan meuser, republican from pennsylvania a member of the budget