up several bills looking at humanitarian aid. at 10 a.m., the u.s. senate continues debate on executive nominations with votes expected. c-span3, the house oversight subcommittee examines the outbreak of lung disease among e-cigarette users with testimony senior cbc -- cdc official. later at 2:30 p.m. come a senate foreign relations subcommittee looks at u.s. policy toward syria. coming up in one hour, national -- the national thatleblower looks at laws apply to the intelligence community. at 8:30 a.m., representative ro discusses the call with theukrainian president and

subsequent whistleblower complaint. at 9:30 a.m., family research council center for religious freedom policies.ravis weber ♪ host: good morning. it is tuesday, september 24, 2019. president trump is in new york city where he will address the united nations general assembly. president trump became the first american president to convene a meeting on the issue of religious freedom and on the washington journal, we will begin on the topic of religion. we are asking your view of religion and public life. the phone number to call this morning, 202-748-8000. if you think religion doesn't play a large enough role, 202-748-8001. if you think american politics and civics gets that balance

about right, 202-748-8002 is the number to call. you can also text us your thoughts. if you do, please include where you are from and your name. that number, 202-748-8003. on twitter it is @cspanwj. on facebook it is facebook.com/cspan. very good tuesday morning, you can start calling in now. we are talking about the separation of church and state, the president was talking about religious freedom around the world when he convened that meeting yesterday. here is the headline in the washington times, trump calls on u.n. to end religious persecution. he says the organization has an ofent duty to protect people faith, here is the president from yesterday. [video clip] >> the united states is founded on the principle that our right do not come from government, god.come from

they are enshrined in the first amendment to our constitution's bill of rights. our founders understood no right is more fundamental to a peaceful, prosperous, and virtuous society than the 1 --to one's religious liberties --a proximally 80% of the world's populations live in countries where religious liberty is threatened, restricted, or even banned. saidi heard that number, i please go back and check it because it cannot possibly be .orrect and sadly, it was 80%. as we speak, jews, christians, muslims, buddhists, hindus, and many other people of faith are being jailed, sanctioned,

tortured, and murdered at the hands of their own government simply for expressing their .eeply held religious beliefs so hard to believe. with one clear voice, the united states of america calls upon the nations of the world to end religious persecution. among the actions and the announcements the president made, more reporting from the -- stop theimes destruction of religious sites. he also said his -- fight religious persecution. this morning on the washington journal, asking your opinion on the role of religion in public life. do you think it plays too much of a role? not enough role? phone numbers for each of those, you can start calling now.

some reaction to the president's comments at the united nations. their tweet yesterday saying it was hypocrisy at its finest. president trump held a panel of global religious persecution at the u.n. basice, he is stripping human rights from lgbtq women. one of the main tools critics worry is being misused when it comes to religious freedom is the religious freedom restoration act and that is the subject of criticism by members of congress and how president trump has used it since he has been in office. this is the story from earlier this year about efforts to reshape the religious freedom restoration act. congressional democrats in march thatroduced an amendment

aims to ensure the 1993 red -- legislation is not used to permit discrimination in the name of religion. it is called the do no harm act and it was reintroduced by joseph kennedy of massachusetts. senator kamala harris of introduced --rst hobby lobby stores decision. under the religious freedom restoration act, for profit companies could deny insurance coverage for contraception if it was against their employer possible religious beliefs. this is the statement congressman bobby scott put out --n the do no harm act a response tot as a supreme court case which under -- of religious majorities. bad faith interpretations have

been used to deny health care coverage for employees claimed exemption to civil rights law and repeat justice in child labor and abuse case read it with the man them to clarify no one can cite religious beliefs to undermine protections and refuse services to minority populations. this bill would restore the original intent and ensure religious freedom is only used as a shield to protect individuals and not as a sword to cut down the rights of others . talking this morning about your view about the role of religion in public life. do you think it plays too much of a role, not enough role, do you think we get the balance right in america? phone lines for all those views. we start with elaine in missouri, thinks it plays too much of a role. why is that, elaine? caller: thank you so much for taking my comment. although i love god, just the usage of that term puts christianity above other

religions. -- men have said allah.hat god is above he seems insincere. i think it was a slap in god's face he did not attend the climate summit with an open convened atstead this so-called religious summit. host: why do you think that was a slap that god? caller: god is inclusive and god wants us to protect to the earth. as i am going to take people away from the climate summit so that i can talk about religious freedom and he can't even pronounce the words -- the

chapters of the bible. i have heard him before mispronouncing something. it is just a farce. i think when i go to political meetings -- yes, political meetings and they open with prayer and they are just praying to one god, that is not inclusive of all of us. host: that is elaine in missouri on the issue of the timing of this religious freedom meeting president trump convened. it did convene it during a forum on climate, that climate summit that took place on monday although the president did drop by the climate event for what was time that 14 minutes. here is three scenes from the president dropping by that climate summit during those 14 minutes. this is the president at his desk listening to the address of and thenthat climate

the picture from the new york times of the president walking out, leaving after staying 14 minutes. one more from the washington post, their picture showing greta thunberg, who has been a focus of climate activities at the u.n. this week and their presence in the united states since last week, watching president trump in new york after stopping by the climate summit. getting your thoughts on the role of religion in public life. karen in texas thinks it doesn't play enough of overall. why is that --of a role, why is that? caller: i think we should put prayer back in school. morgan freeman did an excellent series on religion and their views about god. basically, we all believe in god. is woman prior to me, nobody

choosing one god over another. we all believe in one god, we just believe in different ways. i think we should put prayer back in children. we have movies and tv shows where it is ok to commit any sin in the world for one night a year and then they think that is ok and they wonder why our kids are messed up? that is our entertainment, watching people do whatever they want one night a year and get away with it? that is sending a very bad message to our kids and then we wonder why these kids are losing it and walking in school and shooting people. they just saw a tv show where it said it was ok to do this one day a year. religione need more back. host: the pew research center

with some of their research about views on religion. roughly 4 in 10 americans say they are very worried about the nation's morals while another 34% are fairly worried about it. for republicans, the country's moral health is a major concern. when they think about our country's future, they are worried about the moral values. worried.are equally women are more concerned about the country's morals than men while older americans are more worried than those younger than 50. 49% of older americans worried versus 37% of those under 50. margaret in texas, thanks religion plays too much of a role. why is that? caller: good morning. i taught the constitution for it, oners and teaching

has to look into the background, the writings of the founding fathers and so on and we have to realize the constitution is not a god-given document, it is a .an-made document even before the constitution was written, hamilton was warning about having religion in the constitution and thomas payne, george washington's very good friend did not believe in any religion at all. washington said religion must stay out of the constitution because there was never anything else that had caused so much strife in the world than differences of religion and, of course, franklin and jefferson were not christians. i find that really alarming when people talk about the

constitution being a religious christian document. , john adams in 1821, when he signed the treaty with tripoli to end the war, within that treaty, it states unequivocally that the united states is not a christian nation. host: as somebody who has thought a lot about this, how do you feel about the declaration of independence? we hold these truths to be self-evident that it all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. caller: who are the men created equal at that time? they were landowners and they were white. god, what about the use of the creator in there? that is not in the

constitution. that is something that was put into the bill of rights. they are not professing any particular religion anyway. creator.saying the i find it very hypocritical of to talk about bans muslim, he the way he talks about other religions and what he is professing is what he says is basically a christian religion and look at his behavior. his behavior is not appropriate for the tenets of a christian religion. i say keep religion out. host: that is margaret in texas. you might be interested in this washington post column. his column back from this spring amid this discussion about the religious freedom restoration act and president trump's

policies when it comes to religion. trump'ss president perception of religious liberty adds freedom only for the faiths he prefers. what if some future leader used mormonism as incompatible with american democracy or protestantism? eitherus freedom is rigorously equal or it becomes an instrument of those in power to favor or disfavor religions of their choice. robert thanks religion doesn't play enough of a role in public life. .ood morning caller: there is a lot to say about the lady from texas. i am happy she is not my history teacher.

-- establishing this nation was to get away from old europe was a stateicism religion and they left here to establish religious freedom. as a matter of fact, our third president, i believe said our constitution was for a moral society and wholly inadequate for another. with freedom called morality. you have to have a moral society. people are wondering why we are having these mass shootings, it is not because of the government , it is because of the immorality. host: what does the separation of church and state mean to you. no denomination will put

one president over another. as far as christian society, they agreed upon that and that is why in the declaration of independence, all of our rights come from god, not the government it i wish people would go back to studying history and i wish this government would get out of our public schools so they could go back to prayer. host: did you say they thought it should be a christian society or a religious or moral society? upler: moral society backed by christianity. -- moral andeved christian. -- they must understand when they assimilate to our nation, our laws, our rules, our culture, it is a

christian basis. host: what about the role of muslims and hindus in american society? accept christianity as our culture, fine. they can practice their faith. when they want to change our society, i have a problem with that. in maryland says we get the balance about right. go ahead. think we have it about right. you can choice -- choose to have your choice of what you want to believe in or not believe in. i think that is fair. not to say i don't think we should remember that in my experience, going to church or isple or whatever you go to a part of banding together as a community that serves a purpose

,ot only to praise your deity but also to learn to be with others within your community, which makes for a stronger society, i feel. i think in america, i really don't think weather you are a hindu or islamic or jewish or , iistian or whatever, mormon think we can all follow the constitution of the united states and not keep debating weather it is judeo-christian or not. it is still our constitution and i feel that as long as we, as a people are on the way of morality, i personally feel need for that and i think you get that from the family unit and the family

manners that you are taught, which may decrease violence and the ability to communicate with one another and another place to reinforce that is in the church or the temple or whatever you go to. that is all i have to say. host: 30 years from now or 50 years from now, do you think religion is going to be as important to americans? caller: unfortunately, i don't think so. host: why? feel theeally do christian era has come and i taught morality throughout the world and people now have more confidence in themselves and we are trying to -- care about

what is happening on the other side of the world and not just your own backyard. i think all of that has done us well. just don't think people will be that into religion as we go forward strife.it causes such we don't have time for all the strife that religious extremists always bring to the forefront. host: her opinion on the future of religion, how important it will be. this from the pew research poll, weatheric divided over religion will become more important. half say religion will lose importance while 42% say it will

remain unchanged. only a third of blacks and 4 in 10 hispanics say the importance of religion will decline. adults with more formal education are more likely to see religion in a clips than those with less and the story notes among religious groups, roughly equal shares of white evangelicals, mainstream protestants, and catholics say religion will be less important in the future. host: suzanne is in texas, says religion plays too much of a role in public life today. why is that? caller: because every time i turn around here in texas, they open every meeting with a prayer. i don't care what your religion is, keep it to yourself. religion belongs in church. i open my paper, i find a at the end- thingy of the editorials. the president is a hypocrite and

evangelicals are a hypocrite for voting for him. ment tired of religious telling me what i can do with my lady parts all behind their religion. i am sick to death of religion everywhere and it is nobody's business what your religion is. keep it to yourself or in church, your temple. host: john says we get the balance about right. go ahead, john. caller: yes. i watched this president and i think his role is about right. that heng tv evangelist surrounds himself with. evangelistsl tv that always want your money. they always have some kind of way to swindle you out of your money. host: that is john in

pennsylvania. this is allen in little rock, says religion doesn't play enough of a role. caller: good morning. just to pick up from the first caller, dear lady that was story teacher.a i would like to say i am very personally, deeply acquainted with someone that has probably a longer history of teaching the constitution and declaration of independence than she does, so let me add a couple important characteristics. there are four references to god in the declaration of independence, not just the 1. there is nature's god, creator, then supreme judge, all those proper name capitalized in the handwritten original version. and then the very last sentence reads like a prayer, reads like

the president for the pledge of allegiance and says with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, divine lowercase as an adjective describing proper name providence reference to god. the fourth reference to god in the declaration of independence and it reads on like we are relying on god for our country. there is our first statement in the declaration of independence and then it proceeds on to describe 27 abuses of the king of england, the reason why we are declaring this independence, to be free of this authoritarian initialnd from those years, we failed to get along with each other. kind of like what is going on today. this whole idea of bringing the president back in scares them to

death because they say we just nought to get free of a authoritarian king and they are talking about a president so they want to decide what will help us protect against an authoritarian? the point of the constitution is to help the states get along and protect against an authoritarian. what is an authoritarian going to do? they said let's look at what we know and authoritarian will do, like the king of england and they look at these 29 abuses listed in the declaration of independence. i never hear anyone discussing them. the majority of the declaration of independence and they say, how, in the future, can we protect against that? they say, let's look what an authoritarian will do. host: the declaration ends by saying and with -- protection of

divine providence we pledged to each other our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. go ahead and finish your thoughts on the declaration and the founding documents. caller: the point is the very first thing they say is that the king was most abusive of our religious freedom. the very first thing they say, the very first point of the first amendment is congress shall not establish a religion, but everyone who stops there rather than continue to read, nor infringe on the free exercise thereof. all of this stuff from government is infringing on the pre-exercise thereof. all of this should be an easy case to settle government get out, it is not separation of church and state, it is separation of state against the faith,or believets for people practicing their faith.

look at your first amendment and it comes from the abuses of the king and what any tyrant will do and all these folks and really the right word is to say bigots hollering about too much freedom of expression of our faith are trying to do the same thing the king was doing, we need to be real careful about these folks that really sound like bigots, unfortunately. host: that is allen in little rock, appreciate your thoughts. a lot of folks want to get in, including tom from michigan, thinks we get the balance about right read why is that, tom? caller: good morning. am i on? host: yes, sir. caller: religion varies and it is based on interpretation of the bible. sometimes the bible is consistent, nobody has ever found anything that is contradictory and it although they are accused of doing it. our nation was found on the

principles of the bible. church without a pope and our country without a king. we came here on the mayflower, of theg the persecution dominant church, catholic church, so we could establish a country where a person could worship with their conscience or no worship at all, we should be free to exercise that right. the first four commandments are duty to god. someast 6, the state has jurisdictions in keeping people from murdering or abusing someone else or some other crimes. as far as practicing religion, andhould be able to do it the state not interfere at all. nashville says

religion doesn't play enough of a role in public life. why is that? belong to the masonic lodge. i don't represent them by any says, but i would like to there is truth in all religions of there is a supreme being the universe if people want to believe that. atheists don't believe that and shame on them. or they can believe what they want to believe because the the priorities have .een rearranged prayers have been taken out of the schools by the supreme court.

time we live in that we have to even stoop to this level. host: what is the discussion when it comes to religion in public life involves the johnson amendment -- that provision in the tax code prohibits nonprofit prohibits nonprofit organizations like churches from endorsing or opposing political candidates. how do you feel about churches endorsing or opposing political candidates? , it is like saying the metro nashville education association endorses a political candidate for an office. i don't believe that should be -- i don't believe that

should be part of the recipe for all of this. i think the president should be more concerned about putting prayer in the schools and -- host: one of the things the president has been concerned about is the johnson amendment and spoke about his administration's actions when it comes to the johnson amendment yesterday at that forum on religious freedom and here is what the president had to say. [video clip] >> i want to thank vice president pence for the outstanding job he is doing. he has been a fantastic, invaluable represent above our country. likewise, secretary mike pompeo, ambassador kelly kraft, secretary ross, secretary mnuchin, ambassador sam brownback, all for joining us today and we have other representatives of our cabinet

and the administration in the room. we have done a lot, the johnson amendment doesn't get spoken enough -- about enough, but we have a brute -- obliterated the johnson amendment so now we can listen to the people we want to listen to, religious leaders without recrimination against them. it is a very important thing and i said that at the very beginning and i say it now, it is something i am proud of. host: that was the president yesterday at the meeting on religious freedom he convened. the president is addressing the generalted nations assembly later this morning in the 10:00 hour. you can watch it right here on c-span, we will be headed over to the united nations general assembly meeting when our program ends.

you can watch it on c-span.org or listen at the free c-span radio app. one other hearing you might be interested in, the house judiciary and foreign relations committee will be holding a hearing on president trump's muslim ban, 10:00 a.m. is when that is happening being streamed live at c-span.org. at 10:00 eastern time. some of our coverage today, we are talking in the first 45 minutes of the washington journal about the role of religion, asking weather you think it is about right, too much, or not enough. we have also been asking you to tweet, send facebook messages, and texts. i definitelyniel, feel religion is important, but all religion should be treated equally. howie in pennsylvania saying there is too much religion in

public life. unfortunately, there isn't enough consciousness and intuition. since the foundation of this country, religious freedom has been the bone marrow of the structure of law and rights of civilians. ji sayingm -- jim saying it does piss me off you cannot eat at chick-fil-a on sundays. trump is the most immoral example we can find, yet that is ok with his supporters. any talk of religious superiority is hypocritical. writing in it is personal, let he who is without castast the first -- sin the first stone. want to hear your opinion in the first 45 minutes of the washington journal. plenty of phone calls, including from jason. thanks religion plays too much

of a role in public life. why is that? caller: thank you for taking my call. i think i meant to call on the other line because i think what passes for religion isn't really religion. what a lot of people practice is self-deception. unfortunately, what is going to happen is people are not going to believe anymore because they are seeing it as hypocrisy and it is shocking how a lot of these people who claim to be religion gloss it over. i am not seeing it, the president is a good man, this is god's country and it is bs and a lot of us see it. i practice religion. i have practice all of them. i love this country because it affords me enough opportunity to have free time to do it right. religious mode of thought takes -- you cannot really get us to the end. that is my point, i guess. host: out of santa barbara,

california, says religion doesn't play enough of a role. why is that? caller: can i ask you one question before we start this conversation? what makes our constitution the most unique document in the world? host: you tell me, joseph. caller: what makes it the most unique document in the world is where our rights are derived. the purpose of the constitution -- and it was created before the government, so, in other words, what is so unique weather we discuss religion or not religion is our rights come from our creator. maybe you don't believe your creator is god. i don't in particular to read my creator is my mother. whoever you think your creator is, that is where our rights are king.d, not from the

you can discuss religion all you want, but if people don't realize the uniqueness of the constitution, then they have missed the whole point of it. it allows us our religious freedoms, but the most important thing is our rights do not come from the government and the reason that is important is when the government can give you rights just like the king, they can take them away and that is what is going on in this country because we are not following the constitution. host: this is randy in tennessee, plays -- says religion plays too much of a role. go ahead. caller: religion should not be part of government, should not be part of law. to causings down problems because the government is there to govern everybody, not one particular religion or

anything. that is my belief on that matter because all it does is cause gaylems it is like the people that wanted to get married. they were having problems because the woman would not give out marriage certificates because her religion did not believe in that. they have nothing to do with her religion. that was the state law, that they were allowed to. who cares. that has nothing to do with that personal person. that is what they wanted to do. host: just about five minutes left in this segment of the washington journal although we will return to the religious freedom discussion in our last half-hour of our program today. in about five minutes, we will

turn to talk about whistleblowing in the intelligence community and what it means. as this can ash this story continues to -- as this story continues to play out related to president trump's phone call in july with the new president of the ukraine and what he said and what perhaps may have been asked for. nancy pelosi hounding house democrats about weather to impeach trump. in nancy pelosi meeting with 6 of her committee chairs today handling investigations into president trump, including this ukraine story and then there is a special members only caucus meeting expected to take place at 4:00 p.m. today although plenty more democrats in the house coming out this week. i think the number is about a dozen since this story broke favoring impeachment of the president. this is an opinion column

getting a lot of attention, 7 freshman democrats with national security and military backgrounds saying the allocations are a threat to all we have sworn to protect. that piece in the washington post -- we will be talking a little bit more about that piece later in our program today. floyd in virginia, thanks for waiting, you say it is about rights. why is that? caller: i think what donald trump had done to talk to people about god was the right thing to do. he done the right thing. -- it should say the role of god instead of religion. people use the word religion instead of god, it should be the role of god.

you talked about the role of god, but didn't say anything about how to vote. all through the bible it talks go tothe right side -- to the right road and not the left road. schappert -- www. shepherdschapel.com. host: are you associated with the shepherds chapel? caller: i am a member. they have millions of members. when you sit down to study with them, there are millions of people. china is the third largest country -- united states, chanted, and -- china, and canada.

go there and find out a lot of things you never know. you never learned in a regular church. host: do you think churches should be able to endorse political candidates? because we have got a right. we are christians. republicans are to be endorsed myself is because how baby in a woman and want them to cut it out? that is not right. that is murder. that is one reason. in northis isjamal carolina, doesn't think religion plays enough of a role. caller: first of all, i would like to thank god for waking me up this morning and i would like to thank c-span for taking my call.

third, i would like to speak on of fact that the historians the callers, i appreciate each one of them, but i think they kind of got it wrong for this day in time. i think we should just be dealing with the present situation and what is going on presently in the united states, don't even have to look back at the constitution or any of those type of things and we can look at our society and see it is deteriorating because our young people don't have a belief system in something greater than them and they feel very reckless in their thoughts about sexuality and religion gives you those type of moral boundaries and understandings. first of all that there is a god and there is something greater than you and a lot of our children feel like there is no god and then there is boundary

appropriation -- of procreation. that is what our design is pre-to our human parts are made to connect with one another so we can create other children and other people. that is what the design is. we don't have to go back to the constitution to figure that out. we need god in our lives, praise god. we need some type of god in our lives. we have people going into public squares and killing each other. why? because they don't have the belief system in god. int: that is our last caller this first segment. plenty more to talk about today. up next, we will look at the rules in place for whistleblowers within the intelligence community. we will be joined by david colapinto and later, joined by democrat ro khanna to discuss the whistleblower complaint

against president trump. ♪ announcer: former dean of harvard law school questions weather forgiveness and amnesties can strengthen the american justice system in "when should law forgive?" explores the rise in political engagement amongst millenials. bill o'reilly looks at the life and career of president trump in "the united states of trump." ," profilesnd power mike pence. recalls the life of his stepfather, and associate ups -- of jimmy hoffa.

former secret service agent argues the mueller investigation was a failed attempt to end the trump presidency. a former assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york provides an analysis of donald trump's legal history in "plaintiff in chief." watch for many of the authors in on c-span 2.re beenr 40 years, c-span has providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public-policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country so you can make up your own mind, created by cable in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. announcer: "washington journal"

continues. colapintoelcome david from the national whistleblower center, cofounder of that, general counsel as well. explain what the national whistleblower center is and what you do. guest: the national whistleblower center is a nonprofit organization in washington, d.c. committed to assisting whistleblowers and exposing corruption and thatnduct -- accomplishes three ways through legal advocacy. laws --o improve host: this whistleblower complaint that became public, at least the existence of the complaint -- are you involved in that at all? guest: no. host: what this complaint has

shed some light on is there is a difference between whistleblowers in the intelligence community and the laws and rules they have to operate under and whistleblowers in the rest of the federal government. can you explain why that is and what rules they have to abide by? guest: sure. the most basic difference is employees in the intelligence community deal with classified information and that needs to be protected. there are secrets, et cetera. that doesn't mean employees who work in the intelligence ormunity don't see fraud misconducts or violations of laws. there needs to be a system in place for all federal employees weather you work in the regular secret service or the intelligence community to report misconduct when it occurs. host: in the intelligence community, obviously we are trying to find out the information and what is in this complaint. how is this process supposed to

work? host: there are two different phases. the first is the disclosure phase, which is where we are at right now with this intelligence community whistleblower who filed a complaint and there are two ways to make complaints. you can go internal and you can exercise your regular rights within the intelligence community to report up the chain of command that you observe violations of law rules, abuse of authority, gross waste, gross mismanagement, et cetera. there is a special provision in the law given the significance of the intelligence community and intelligence agencies to report -- to request a whistleblower concern be reported to the intelligence committees of congress. that provision requires follow

with the a complaint inspector general, which would be reviewed under a strict timeline, 14 days for him to take a look at the complaint and determine weather or not that complaint is credible and meets the standard in the statute as an urgent whistleblower concern that should be reported to congress. that is what the whistleblower did in this case and it cleared the first hurdle. the inspector general, michael was an urgent concern. an urgent concern isn't just an ordinary violation of law or an ordinary abuse of authority, it is a flagrant violation of law and a flagrant abuse of authority.

fall into that category with -- that as soon as possible must be presented to congress, at least -- intelligence communities explain why this has been stalled and congress does not have access to the event. guest: the second phase is after the inspector general verifies it as an urgent event to be verified by congress. he must go to the director of national intelligence who has 7 days in which to transmit to congress and the statute is specific on what is required. the director of national intelligence must transmit either the complaint alone or utilize that seven days to decide in addition to the complaint, the agency is going to provide congress with a

statement of position. the statute affords no discretion in the director of national intelligence to withhold from congress, which is happening here. host: a minute ago you drop to the attorney general's title. can the attorney general get involved in the process? guest: no, that was a slip of the tongue by me. it is the inspector general to be clear and the director of national intelligence. the attorney general is not involved and is nowhere discussed in the statute. given the special constitutional role the government in the united states plays, can you whistleblow in the intelligence committee -- can you blow the whistle on the president? guest: sure. this is a misconception i think is happening and for a lot of

different reasons. the misconception is -- just because it may involve the president doesn't mean it isn't not a violation of law that could be within the statute. the other thing to remember is the president may have issued orders. we don't know what is in the complaint itself -- may have issued orders -- orders to different department heads, may have trickled down, may have concerned violations of law or abuses of authority being carried out by other officials in the government. to say and speculate it is all about the president i think is premature and that is another reason why this complaint needs to get in the hands of the intelligence community -- committee. invite callers to join the conversation if you have questions about it. david colapinto, a good person to ask those questions too.

202-748-8000 if you are a democrat. 202-748-8001 for republicans. independents, 202-748-8002. david colapinto will be with us until the bottom of the hour, 8:30 eastern so you can listen to the conversation and get your calls in. thomas is up first out of north carolina, republican. good morning. host: quick question -- caller: quick question. can a whistleblower remain anonymous? i work for state government and i know when a whistleblower follows a complaint -- files a complaint, they don't investigate right away, it can take months and months to make sure that person is credible. guest: good question and the laws and rules being able to file a complaint anonymously vary depending on where you are blowing the whistle. in this particular instance, you can blow the whistle

confidentially and there is a lot of reasons for that. in the intelligence community, sometimes the identity of the employee is a secret and there is also other privacy act protections available at the initial stages and all we are talking about here is someone actually following -- filing a complaint asking it be looked into further. i don't think there was an in-depth examination. it is credible in that sense, i did not mean to imply there has been a full sail investigation by the inspector general. host: can you come back to the benefits of using this process as opposed to the whistleblower going and finding adam schiff and telling adam schiff what his concern is? guest: congress set it up this crediblesure only

allegations that meet the flagrant standard would be transmitted to congress. if it doesn't meet that standard, there is another provision that says employees would be allowed to go, they would just be instructed how to must contact this person at the intelligence committee who is cleared and knows how to handle classified information and your information to the committee if it is not an urgent concern. in this particular instance, the benefit -- i don't know if congress envisioned the circumstance we had right now when they wrote the statute, but the attacks on the whistleblower because younfounded have a nonpartisan professional appointed by president trump,

michael adkinson, who has looked at it -- he has been in government for 50 -- 15 years or more working for the justice department before he became inspector general and he examined the complaint and found it meets the standard that it is credible and concerns a flagrant --lation within the scope that is a benefit that doesn't exist under a lot of other laws. most whistleblower laws, the whistleblower is on his or her own and goes to congress at his or her own risk. was is a hurdle that cleared host:. host:does the inspector general then represent the whistleblower? guest: no. it is a completely independent function of the inspector

general. host: we heard the whistleblower does have now a team of lawyers in washington, d.c. host: that is what i have read and that is best practice weather you are in the intelligence community or dealing with a publicly traded company or another federal agency. host: fort lauderdale, florida, tom. caller: i believe the inspector general said urgent and i have dniquestions -- it seems broke the law and what is the remedy of congress in subpoenaing him or holding him in contempt? the law says it should be given to congress immediately. the second says there should be no judicial review, which means you do not take it to the justice department for judicial review. they need to hold him in contempt, ask him what his definition of urgent is.

what is your position that is a great question. the first question, on the face of the law, it has been broken. there is a disagreement between the inspector general and dni. the inspector general is online record saying disagree, it should be transmitted to congress, but i am not being given the authority to disclose the details of this whistleblower come late on the orders -- complaint on the orders of the dni. officetice department, of legal counsel got involved, issued some sort of secret legal opinion to justify not transmitting this concern to congress.

statute, itof the is not being carried out, and the remedy for that, congress has the tools -- people should remember that congress and the president are two coequal branches of the government in this arena. the president has a lot of functions under national security, congress has oversight and can exercise their oversight tools which are subpoenas, contempt citations if people do not obey, or they could withhold money from the agency. we have heard that discussed by adam schiff. to ultimate penalty would be remove people from office by impeachment. host: your thoughts on edward snowden? guest: edward snowden is an interesting case because he studied the laws in this area. he was a federal contractor,

work for the nsa -- worked for the nsa. he determined the best way to get the information out that he wanted to disclose was not to go through this process, but to go to the media, and we all know his story about fleeing to hong kong and eventually to russia. that this is ais difficult question for it is notwers and something that i would advise anyone to do, because it is breaking the law and there are stiff penalties. there have been a number of prosecutions of people under the espionage act and other laws relating to classified information.

there were a string of espionage act prosecutions, one of the most recent the reality winner case where she pled guilty to leaking one document to the intercept. she has a five year prison sentence that she is serving. the case that those who have done that have made is that the system doesn't work, the system doesn't allow people to get to congress. when p -- when we were in discussion with the -- discussion with the obama administration and the bush administration to reform laws, one thing we kept hearing as we are going to make the system work. administrative remedies will work. these processes we have set up to allow employees to go to congress as long as they go through the proper channels are going to work.

that was a justification for prosecuting whistleblowers who did not go through the system. host: what do you think this ukrainian phone call whistleblower complaint means for the next one down the road? guest: it is testing the system set up by congress, and the intelligence community subjectlower system is failure if it is a they don't transmit the complaint to congress. it would be the worst possible outcome to have a whistleblower who did everything right, obeyed the law, did not leak to the media, had the complaint verified, and not had it go where congress said it should go. host: syracuse, new york, bill, democrat. caller: i find we have a lot of

secrecy around. the fbi and cia are basically secret police trying to get information which they can use to prosecute people outside the law. i do have a question for the gentleman. how is the inspector general appointed? does it have to go through the president or congress or what is the situation? guest: excellent question. the inspector general is appointed by the president, nominated, and confirmed by the senate. host: is that for dni or all inspectors general? guest: all inspectors general. they generally take their jobs very seriously, professionals, typically career prosecutors. sometimes they rotate from

agency to agency with inspector general duties, and it is a true professional core of investigators who know how to handle these types of complaints. host: california, tom, an independent. about: i got a question the whole purpose of the reason we have a constitution and the bill of rights and all the stuff when i was growing up, this was the word. everybody has to follow it. the government, and is like interpreting the bible. people read what they want to read and take it as they want why -- if they want. why do we have this? guest: at the bottom, it is a constitutional dispute between the president and congress, and

the coequal branches our government. a few years ago, my law partner through his research, the untold story of america's first whistleblower law passed by the continental congress, that was a story where what happened was incredible. there were 10 sailors who blew the whistle on the commander of the continental navy regarding the alleged torture of british prisoners of war. the group of sailors got together. they thought what the commander was doing was wrong and they would risk their lives to report this. the reaction was, by the continental congress, passed the first whistleblower law in the united states, perhaps the first in the world where it was said

by congress -- and i am paraphrasing what that statute said -- was that it is the duty for all persons within the service of the united states to report misconduct and fraud to congress at the earliest opportunity. the reason that is important is retoldnce that story was , it has resonated in the halls of congress for the last six years. the u.s. has passed resolutions and cited that whistleblower law. andy year, whistleblowers government officials gather to talk about that, on july 30, which is declared national whistleblower day. in this particular case, the

inspector general, michael , henson has on his webpage has cited that continental from 1778 on his webpage. they have declared that that is the policy and the policies of today's laws will be carried out in that tradition. the same thing exists in the training materials for intelligence community employees when they get whistleblower training. lawn, a reference to that stating it is the public policy of the united states. the caller is right. we should adhere to our values that make america special. host: the dni.gov and inspector general webpage, the first news item, the inspector general

recognizing national whistleblower appreciation day. mike in suffolk, virginia, independent. caller: good morning. how are you? host: well. what is your comment? caller: my comment in question, thateople, this committee this gentleman continues to talk about that this goes to, what qualifies them other than the politicians?y are and what is the difference between a whistleblower and a snitch? guest: good question. the intelligence committees are permanent committees of the house and senate. the members are elected members. there is no process for members of congress who are duly elected

did to get security clean -- elected to get security clearances. they are two coequal branches, so the members of these committees are those who have been appointed to serve and conduct oversight and budget authorization for the intelligence agencies. that is who they are. what was the other question? host: whether the whistleblower is a snitch? -- i havet has been been practicing whistleblower is for 30 some years, and it one of the things that is in the toolbox of people who are facing a whistleblower complaint, often to shoot the messenger and attack the person.

you are a snitch or whatever. -- theolks are whistleblower in this instance who was probably a long serving intelligence community employee, a professional. a lot of those folks have served in the military. they don't take a step like this lightly. anyone who works in the intelligence community would know that taking this step to file a complaint with the inspector general and ask that an urgent concern be transmitted to congress, let alone the subject matter, will create a lightning rod and you are going to not be enhancing your career by doing it. host: is there any circumstance under the whistleblower laws that the whistleblower can contact a committee directly? guest: not directly.

you must exercise this -- under the rules, you have to go to the inspector general to make this decision. even if the inspector general says no, i don't think it is an urgent concern, the employee can request to go to the committees without the in parameter of the inspector general saying this is a concern and it meets the flagrant violation standard. the only warning in the statute is that you can't go unless you are advised how to do it to protect classified information. host: 15 minutes left with david cala pinto. pinto.a in san francisco, california, democrat. caller: good morning.

a few callers back hit my concern about the dni not submitting this report in time. "shall't heard the word go -- "shall." contempt should be the first thing he should do removalshould do and for nonperformance of duties, but can they dni be removed for nonperformance of duties? guest: those are two good questions? thank you for pointing out that shalltatute does say " within seven days transmitted to congress" and can add the statement of position if the dni so chooses. we are dealing with a director of national intelligence who is really enacting dni, not someone who has gone -- an acting dni,

not someone who has gone through confirmation and approval by congress. congress can impeach someone in an acting role, but this person has not been confirmed. host: his name is joseph mcguire. nancy pelosi is doesg -- blocking him called upon him to violate the federal statute which unequivocally states the dni shall provide congress this information. the administration is endangering national security and having a chilling effect on any future whistleblower who sees wrong doing. what is your reading of her letter? guest: she is very strong on the law. that is what the statute says. the arguments i have heard olc,ed about as to why the

office of legal counsel of the department of justice may have come up with legal arguments as to why this is not an urgent complaint. sense andat makes any none of it has gone public what the real reasons are. i don't believe the president has yet formally invoked executive privilege over this complaint. there has been a lot of discussion about phone calls and transcripts and people are forgetting about the complaint. thee is a complaint in hands of the inspector general that has been found urgent and a flagrant violation. host: how long have you been working in the field? guest: a good part of my 30 yields -- years. we came across it very early when we started practicing law,

with people from the cia and fbi. i have litigated a lot of fbi cases with a similar problem. host: have you seen an administration step into this process as speaker pelosi is calling out the administration for doing? guest: in the intelligence past,ity world, in the things are more transparent today than 10 years of -- 10 years ago. a lot of things happened in the intelligence community with whistleblowers trying to raise concerns that never saw the light of day. the statute was not enacted to 1998 and prior to that, there was no process which someone could go with approval to the intelligence committees. it is a relatively new process. there were also additional rules

and laws enacted in 2013 and 2014 to provide remedies if someone is retaliated again. -- against. that system has not worked well. it is not a public, open, and transmitter and -- transparent process. there have been a lot of retaliations against people trying to report these things in the past. host: just about 10 minutes left with david colapinto. thank you for waiting. caller: ask this gentleman, please, did this whistleblower about ukraine actually here president trump's call or see a printout of it? what are we to believe? guest: that is a good question. the answer is nobody knows.

these complaints have to be kept secret. they are classified and currently even congress cannot see this complaint. the question about whether or not the whistleblower has much support to corroborate the allegations, whether or not there really was a violation and whether it involves things beyond the conversation by the president, all of that is unknown. reasons why the intelligence committee should get a copy of the complaint. host: is all that known by the intelligence community inspector general? he would have taken that into consideration when saying this is urgent? thet: whatever is in complaint was given to the inspector general who said this meets the standard and should be given to congress. host: from north branch, minnesota, ed, independent.

caller: it is my suspicion that trump himself is the whistleblower. the publicity he will get from this ushers away all the other andense they talk about, that is who gets elected, who gets the most controversy or publicity. that is my point. guest: that is an interesting. . -- that is an interesting theory. it reminds me when after watergate there was for probably 30 years, this parlor game played as to who was deep throat. not many people guest it was it was mark guessed fbi.of the fbi i heard -- i heard maybe it was john

bolton. let's get the complaint to congress where it belongs, that is what the law says. that is sound public policy. the best way for president trump to diffuse the situation is to allow the complaint to go forward. it does not mean he cannot raise objections, but it needs to get into the hands of people who can investigate. host: does the law say anything else after getting the complaint to the intelligence committees? inthere any further process the whistleblower protection law? guest: no. the idea here is to get the allegations of wrongdoing to the appropriate authorities. in this situation, because we are dealing with intelligence committees, congress is the appropriate authority. be, if there would

was a further investigation, perhaps the inspector general could make referrals or congress could make referrals for criminal prosecution for people other than the president, if there are such allegations. under the constitution, congress has to play the oversight role here. it is not like you can just file a claim in court or fill out a police report with the u.s. attorney when you are an intelligence agent and dealing with classified information. , sewall, new jersey, democrat. caller: i have a couple of questions. i understand other people were in on this phone call that were actually in on the fault -- phone call, not that hearsay that somebody told them. what about the other people who

were on the call? do they get questions? they are coming out and saying it never happened did the inspector general take that into account? the dni might have done that already and that is why he did not feel it was a legitimate complaint. there is other people who heard it, that is number one. host: let's take that. guest: what is important to remember is that there hasn't been a full-scale investigation. what it is is it has been reviewed as a credible complaint that meets the flagrant standard. it means more investigation needs to be done. the caller is correct. we don't know a lot about what went on. we don't know what is in the complaint and whether it even concerns a phone call. that has been sourced by

journalists and reported on and commented on by the president, but there is a lot we don't know. that is more the reason why there needs to be some sort of investigation to find out what happened, so the american people can be assured there is not some sort of intelligence faded -- failure. this has played out in the press in the past seven days , the latest reporting from ,washington post" and others that president trump told his acting chief of staff to hold back $400 million of military aid in crane at least a week before the phone call in which -- in ukraine at least a week before the phone call and which he spoke to the president of the ukraine to ask about investigating the son of joe

biden. to say thesked delays were part of an interagency process but to give them no additional information. out in theory played process of the press. guest: it is interesting, because the press has dug into as soony by going back there was a source that said it might involve the phone call or ukraine, people have gone back to construct a timeline of events. the most recent reporting that came out is that there were other agencies involved in this process. the state department was involved. there will be a lot of discussions in the intelligence community and foreign relations establishment regarding this, that the president was

instructing people to withhold money. there might have been discussing -- discussions as to why that was. --just don't know yet it is know yet. there is a lot of ancillary facts being reported to fill in what we don't know from the whistleblower complaint. host: chicago, illinois, bill, independent. caller: i want to know why julian assange is in prison and hillary clinton, who basically , shethe security clearance is not. host: julian assange and hillary clinton. is, as ilian assange think people suspected, was the

subject of an espionage act indictment. he is well-known for wikileaks. it raises a lot of questions about how the espionage act is used. if he is extradited and brought to the united states or criminal prosecution, it will ignite a debate as to the use of the espionage act, which, by the way it is used against whistleblowers as well who week to the media -- who leak to the media. as snowden has pointed out, he is not allowed to come in and tell a jury, if he is prosecuted, why he did that, what his intent was. that is not allowed in an espionage act prosecution, whereas you might be able to mount a defense under the first amendment or other regions --

reasons. the same thing with reality winner. she couldn't ever explain the reasons why she did it. because of the laws that prevent that. host: clearwater, florida, marshall, independent. caller: i have heard your guest speaking, and one of the biggest things is what does he say, she say, what somebody heard somebody say play into this? thinged a lot of light on when you said these people on the panel are a lack did -- politicians. the politicians in washington do not like president trump. they vehemently hate him.

they have called for people to attack him verbally or run him off from a gas station, his supporters. i want to ask your panelist this this is seeped in reality and how much is just another ploy? host: let's let him answer. guest: i understand the point of .iew and the question democracy and we have elected officials who get elected and served in the house and senate. the composition of these committees, they are members of both parties serving on those committees. as far as whether or not the

complaint is a he said she said reallyor entails more goes to the weight you would give. if this were to go beyond an investigation by the oversight committees and say, president trump did something bad and needs to be impeached, the callers are describing is what the debate would be in the country as to what weight do we give the evidence that might be marshaled? we just don't know. host: how could we have that debate? how much of what the intelligence committee, even if they were allowed full access to this whistleblower complaint, how much could they talk about it? guest: that is a good question. an impeachment inquiry behind closed doors? i hate seeing them go into executive session and talk about

all kinds of things, but that is the nature of classified information. you saw some dispute over that in the mueller report where some portions were withheld and they had to go in a vault to read them. if there is a high public interest, they will go through some sort of declassification process, but that takes time. to issue there is they need scrub it to ensure they are not security national classified sources of methods and things like that. it is hard to say what we are dealing with. is it a discrete set of allegations over a discrete set of event that do not entail sources and methods?

that could be declassified quickly. when inspect your generals investigate -- inspector generals investigate, they to thetheir reports public and congress is a declassified order of events. we have to get the complaint into the hands. it may be the intelligence committees will look at the complaint and not be interested in pursuing it. host: do you think that will be the case? guest: it is hard to say. i don't like the speculation. lots of reporting seems to verify bits and pieces, but we don't know. host: not to continue the speculation, but mickey has a question -- mr. trump referred to a -- to the whistleblower as a he and a partisan.

did the dni reveal the information to the president? guest: my thoughts are, the other day the president said he did not know. someone asked directly, does he know the identity, and the president said no, but proceeded to call the whistleblower partisan. used have been other terms by pundits who support the president, on national television, to subscribe -- describe the whistleblower as a deep state punk, a snitch, and all sorts of derogatory terms. it goes back to the old playbook to shoot the messenger. people are taking side in this struggle -- sides in this

struggle, and one of the strategies is to tar and feather the whistleblower who just is making the allegation. i have a lot of first-hand experience without about 20 years ago when my firm represented linda tripp in her privacy act case. i don't know if people remember that after the -- during the impeachment inquiry, there was information about linda tripp taken from her security clearance file and linked to a reporter -- week to a reporter -- leaked to a reporter. the inspector general found it was a privacy act violation, and we handled that case. the level of scorn that was levied at linda tripp was a lesson that probably this whistleblower does not want to repeat, does not want to be out

there facing that type of scorn because it will be politically based. it will be emotional. that is something i think it would be wise to avoid possible. we will see where this leads. if the complaint goes to the committee, the facts will be verified or not and the whistleblower may not even be relevant to the story. host: with as much attention as this case is getting, is it likely the whistleblower's name will come out? guest: i think eventually it will come out. eventually, deep throat came out. when that is might be years after the trump administration. host: time for a few more calls with david cala pinto -- david colapinto. is theblower.org, that

website. michigan,ointe, democrat. caller: a couple of things. is there a precedent for this happening? has anyone in the history of this republic ever blown the whistle on a president? this has got to be even more serious than we think it is. thendly, has anyone asked ukrainian president whether this happened or not? when is he going to chime in? that would give you a concrete answer. in thee that this guy white house as privy to america's secrets. i think our secrets are for sale to anyone with enough money for this guy. he will absolutely sell us out. guest: as far as the history of whistleblowing on the president, the answer to that is yes.

remembernd viewers may the watergate episode and the watergate scandal. was a key witness against the president. he was the white house counsel and ended up testifying against president nixon and the white house hearings. where verified in the tapes nixon made, and led to his impeachment. ofre are other examples people who have blown the whistle on the president. it is not an easy task. it is rare. what was the other part of the question? host: just about whistleblowing in general. why don't we take the last question as to where you think this goes from here? guest: it has got to be

investigated. cann't understand how they withhold this complaint from congress. it is where it was intended to go. if it doesn't, i think the momentum is building that these folks at the capital, they are dug in and they will not be satisfied until they get the whistleblower's complaint. host: questions about whistleblowers, whistleblower.com, -- whistleblower.org, that is the national whistleblower center. up next, we will be joined by congressman ro khanna, democrat of california. later on, we will discuss the president's speech on religious freedom with travis weber. ♪ student camera experience is valuable.

>> it had a huge effect on our life and is helped us grow as people going into our college years. of thepast winners studentcam documentary, titian -- competition, at spark their interest. >> i get to be right in the middle of the caucus season and i have gotten to meet so many different candidates, and because of c-span, i had the insperity and's in the equipment -- experience and the equipment. >> we are asking middle and high school students to create a documentary addressing the issue , what do you want presidential candidates to address? we are awarding $100,000 in total cash prizes, including a $5,000 grand prize. >> what you are discussing to express your view no matter how

small or large you think the audience will receive it to be, and know that in the greatest country in the history of the earth, your opinion does matter. >> for more information, go to our website, studentcam.org. at some booksok being published this week. dean -- whether amnesty's can strengthen the american justice system. in how to start a revolution, exploring the and political engagement among millennials. bill o'reilly looks at the live of -- life of president trump. published, jack goldsmith, former assistant

attorney general recalls the life of his step father, jimmy hoffa, in his book. a former secret service agent argues the mueller investigation was a failed attempt to end the trump presidency. a former assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york provides an analysis of john of -- donald trump's legal history in plaintiff in chief. "washington journal" continues. host: california democrat ro khanna joins us, a member of the house oversight committee. we are hearing reports that nancy pelosi has called a meeting of the caucus at 4:00 p.m. today to discuss the issue of impeachment. what will you say? guest: we will probably have a

full attendance, and it is a serious issue. i will talk about our founders. hamilton talks about foreign interference being the largest threat to our republic. our founders were concerned about interference from written and france -- britain and france. this is not a partisan issue. this is standing up for our constitutional republic and saying it is wrong for any elected official to get close to the line of seeking foreign assistant. host: where do you think the caucus is on a morning we see seven democratic freshman with an op-ed about the issue of impeachment, seven members of the military intelligence communities before they came to congress? guest: i saw that op-ed and i said to a friend, this is a game changer.

these are extraordinary members of congress. they have the most credentials when it comes to national security. many are in districts that trump carried. for them to come out and say this justifies an impeachment inquiry has changed the tenor in our caucus. a number of aggressors -- progressives who called for an inquiry, now you have moderates calling for it. i cannot think of something more significant than that op-ed. host: significant enough to move the speaker? ifst: i would be surprised she doesn't officially endorse impeachment investigations at this point. you would have to ask her, but given the breadth of support, that would be my expectation. impeachment investigations are proceeding. jerry nadler has started the

investigations. you may get a more formal statement from leadership. host: last weekend this week with the dni acting director coming before the intelligence committee on thursday about the ukraine phone call, but the house oversight committee is working on an investigation in that round. -- realm. guest: what we did is go over the process. when you have a whistleblower who makes a complaint to the inspector general, the inspector general needs to determine whether it is urgent and serious. ,he inspector general did that and has an obligation to refer it to the agency head, the director of national intelligence. the director of national intelligence has to provide that complaint to congress within seven days, since 2010, since the status was set -- statute

was set up. congress has gotten the complaint even in cases that were not urgent, and you have the director of national into intelligence -- national intelligence and blatant disregard refused to give this to congress. when i was asking the inspector general was, has this ever happened before? he said no. is it normal? he said no. host: congressman ro khanna with us. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. --ependents, (202) 748-8001 (202) 748-8002. accomplishmpeachment

if republican senators line up hind trump? guest: the constitutional duty to stand up for the principles of the founders, it exposes what is going on and the corruption, and puts members of congress on believeaying, do you foreign interference is acceptable in our democracy? do you believe what hamilton wrote? do you share the concerns of george washington, john adams, that the biggest threat to our democracy is foreign power? we do not think about it much because we are the most powerful foreign power, but this was a preoccupation of our founders. that is why the grounds of impeachment originally were treason and bribery. colorado, keith is a democrat. caller: good morning.

we need to stop playing games. i am a diehard progressive and a democrat. there is one word for my party right now and it is feckless. feckless and in fear. the way you allowed corey lewandowski to attend that hearing and disrespect every member of congress, that was incredible. now you have proof of the president obstructing justice in real time. impeachment is not a debate. it is obstruction. the inspector shall -- which means must, it is a law. there is no debate. if he does not turn in the complaint, the transcript can

come later, if you does not turn in that complaint and you do not hold him in contempt or take action, you are failing and don't deserve to be in office. guest: thank you for sharing your frustration and much of your point of view. i agree, this is not optional. if the director does not answer the complaint, he should be removed. inhas violated the statute disregard for what congress wanted. impeachment an inquiry months ago. jerry nadler has started the preceding, but we need to unify the house caucus so there is no debate or equivocation or ambiguity. host: brad is a republican, international falls.

caller: quite a deal going on now. it is really sad they turned it up to this point. this is as far-fetched as telling the people that a spontaneous attack on an area that was attacked twice previously, but on this the youngwer deal, lady that was here a couple weeks back, she did not even listen to the conversation. how can a whistleblower be a person who never heard the call? host: we are still waiting to find out more information about the whistleblower complaint. where do you get your information? caller: it is the writing on the wall. they know what is in the horwitz report. they are doing everything they

can to muddy the waters because then they will stand and say, you did not do anything to trump. host: ro khanna, do you know what is coming? but we can have the president release the transcript of the call and we can have the whistleblower complaint go to congress so people can evaluate it. if there really is nothing to hide and these reporting has been an accurate, the president can clear up any ambiguity. the burdennt, he has to show there was nothing improper. reporting about him pressuring the ukrainian president eight times about hyden, he tweeted -- biden, he tweeted that was not the case. let's prove it. host: comparisons between congress' reaction to the mueller report and the

whistleblower complaint, ukraine is different because the mueller investigation carried out through indictments over two years. the ukraine story has unfolded in less than a week. what has that meant? guest: i don't think it is just the amount of time it has unfolded in, but the fact that this is forward-looking. ugly andwas such an divisive election, there was part of the country that wanted to move on and did not want to relitigate even though there were severe violations. the country said, i don't want to have that campaign go on. it is different when you have , thesive allegation president for 2020 maybe

soliciting. open toking 2020 foreign interference? that is why there is a stronger reaction. point,erbie in moss mississippi. theer: why are you doing american people like this? it is tit-for-tat. obama could not get anything done. trump is trying to get something done and the democrats are doing the same thing. they are trying to prosecute trump. bush took us to war and whistleblowers came out, they used colin powell and these people. they are coming out after these lies and obama did not do anything. a gentleman said the other day that china has not had a war since 1979 and they spend their

money on the economy and their people and they are doing wonderful. host: on the whistleblowing process and what this ukraine complaint means for the future of whistleblowing? your thoughts. guest: let me first answer one of herbie's points. right, absolutely president carter said china has 1979 andn a war since that we have been in 40 conflicts. i agree with you. this is a different issue. who has a whistleblower evidence the president of the united states may have asked a foreign country to tarnish and investigate his political rival. whistleblowers need to be protected and make sure there are not repercussions against them, and that they can come

through this process without a fear for their safety and employment. that is why we have a statute that is a step-by-step process. this is not a partisan issue. if the whistleblower complaint was partisan or lacked evidence, the inspector general would not have forwarded it to the director of national intelligence. you had an independent person appointed by the president who said this complaint merited moving forward to congress. maryland,m, independent. immigrant from the soviet union and i became an american citizen in 2005. a couple of points, i think c-span is bad toward democrats. that is obvious.

union, im the soviet can see all those lies from the republican side and democrat side. the iraq war, you cannot trust a war that comes out of the intelligence community that is lying. that is why they are called spies. i want to ask the democrat representative, what does he know about joe biden, what joe biden was negotiating in china when his son got 1.5 billion dollars from the chinese? a question that nobody is caring c-span, it islly much more important what obama knew and what biden knew when got 1.5 billion

dollars. what biden and obama negotiated. the money to biden and obama's accounts? did anyone try to investigate this money? host: got your question. guest: frankly, that is afensive, and i say that as cochair of bernie sanders campaign. where youof politics are launching attacks on vice president biden, who dedicated his life to public service and or $400,00000,000 of life savings, and you have no evidence, that is what happens .o the american politics montreal, canada, richard,

a republican. micer: obama was caught off moreg he would have flexibility after the election. i wonder why they do not like to talk about that. guest: the issue was not one of president obama asking the russian president to do something to interfere in presidential politics. if the president had a conversation with vladimir putin or xi jinping about foreign policy, and i disagreed with what he said or his judgment, i might criticize that, but that would not be a legal issue or an issue violating the constitution. we have an allegation the president is asking a foreign government to interfere with the election. engaged inhat he is

a form of negotiation i might disagree with. host: alyssa wants to come back to the politics of impeachment -- will be held areas, either she tamps down there -- hilarious, either she tamps down orre hopes for impeachment she moves forward to the big fail. lawyers doing everything they can to avoid impeachment. i don't know a person who is president of the united states saying, i want one of the first paragraphs saying i was impeached. usually people who run for president have extraordinary ambition and want to be well regarded, and do not want to be in cheech. host: -- impeached. host: jeffersonville, kentucky. caller: i would like to ask this

himhave him and all -- if havell the others on this a higher enough security clearance to sit in with the president and all his leaders? caller: no, certainly, i do not have permission to sit in on the president's calls with world leaders, nor do i want to. it would be highly inappropriate , and i totally respect the president having the privacy to do negotiation and congress sitd without the media sitting in. but that is not what we are talking about. we are not talking about the president making a deal with north korea that i may disagree with, or the president criticizing the iranian leader for a policy i disagree with. a presidentng about allegedly pressuring a foreign

leader to investigate his political rival. that is something that no president should have the authority to do. an independent from new jersey. caller: i am going off on a slight tangent. it is about impeachment. democrats go through with it, the majority leader of ,he senate has outrageous power and mcconnell would not even allow a vote to happen. i know the representative spoke , and in theefore constitution from what i , if it goes through and that happens to pass the vetoesand the president

it, it needs to go through again for a vote. thatof the criticism is why are they going to that process unnecessarily? identifiedy would be who voted for yes and no, and be held accountable. what is the situation with the majority leader having so much power? guest: i agree. the majority leader of the senate has way too much power. i personally believe we need to get rid of the filibuster and restore a sense of democracy in the senate. you made another good point which is everyone should have to have a yes or no vote on the issue. there is something you learn in politics after 435 of us in congress, 100 senators, of

course, the president, and i do not control a lot of things in the process. if i worried about how every would bends, i paralyzed. all i can control is how ivo and how i represent my constituency. and that is what every member has to do and not try to game out how the process will and. host: mitch mcconnell was brought up. this was mitch mcconnell yesterday on how the senate and congress is treating the whistleblower complaint. [video clip] friend sarah schumer is working to have been get the inspector general and the intelligence community inspector general before the committee this week to discuss the matter. it is extremely important that it is handled in a secure setting in a bipartisan fashion, and based on facts rather than leaks to the

press. it is regrettable that house intelligence committee chairman schumer have chosen issue.ticize the can assistittees matters in an appropriate manner. host: your thoughts in the majority leader's comments yesterday. guest: if i were guilty and i needed a lawyer, i would hire mitch mcconnell. the person who is obstructing the process is not adam schiff. it is not senator chuck schumer. obstructing the process is the director of national intelligence who refused to give the complaint to congress. if he gave the complaint to congress, none of this would have been public. wasrepresentative schiff

left with no choice because it was the director of national intelligence continues to be indirect violation -- be in direct violation of the law. host: phone lines for democrats, (202) 748-8000, republicans, (202) 748-8002, independents (202) 748-8002. you brought up being a national cochair of the bernie sanders campaign. i wanted to talk about the story in "the washington post." bernie sanders has a problem and her name is elizabeth warren. guest: i disagree with that premise. bernie sanders has a campaign that is focused on working families, working parents, and now they have been left out of the trump economy. how eez going to help them with helping the kids go to college, he has an extraordinary grassroots base. senator warren is running a strong campaign, but frankly, more of bernie's

expanding coalition is going to come out of the vice president boat, and i believe he will be the nominee. host: are you concerned about the news of the cnn des moines poll? guest: i'm not. everyone will say it is a three-person race between warren, biden, and bernie sanders. he has been an underdog before. i still remember the days i was for howard dean, but john kerry was 2% or 3% in the polls at this time and he won. a is very early and he is in good position. it is going to be a tough, hard-fought race between him, senator warren, and biden. his focus of economic issues and working americans for people trump betrayed, that is what is going to win it for him. in pawtucket, rhode

island. republican. caller: how are you doing? i am not really a republican, i do not like either party, but i want to make a couple of points and i would like to hear your comments. biden was on national tv bragging about how he pressured the ukrainian president then, not giving him a billion dollars and less he fired the prosecutor. the second thing i would like to hear is -- you cannot have trump give out the transcript of the phone call because all the heads --state will trump trust trump about this call which the whistleblower did not even hear the call. it was secondhand. in a report.med yes, he said it was urgent that congress sees it, but he also says it was not from the original person. host: you brought up those two

points, let's take those on. guest: first of all, the vice president pressuring ukraine not to have corruption is totally different than what the president isi accused of having done. as if vice president biden pressured ukraine to look into mitt romney's finances. that is the appropriate analogy. obviously, foreign presidents that pressure countries -- american president xi pressure countries to and correct -- american presidents pressure the corruption, and nobody would have a problem with it. but that he tied allegedly our that isaid on that, and the concern on the abuse of process. we still do not know who the whistleblower is. we have not gotten the information of how he found out about the call, and where his

evidences, and that is why congress should to the complaint. host: roberts, portsmouth, virginia. democrat. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: years ago when our forefathers were running the country, it was a little bit -- who has the transcripts in person? who physically has the transcripts? guest: good question. i don't know whether the transcript are kept in the white house, national intelligence, archives -- i don't know the details. i do know the president can make sure they are released to congress. host: that is all the time we have with congressman ro khanna. appreciate your time. guest: thank you i enjoyed it. host: we will turn our phones over to you, the phone lines are yours.

democrats, republicans, and independents, your phone lines are on the screen. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ will be in order. >> for 40 years, c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from washington dc and around the country. so you can make up your own mind. 1979, c-spanble in is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> their studentcam experience is really invaluable to me. >> studentcam had a huge effect on our lives and it helped us grow as people, going into her college years. >> for past winners of c-span's studentcam documentary

competition, the experience parked their interest in document reproduction. >> i currently attend a drake university in des moines, iowa. i get to be right in the middle of the caucus season and i've gotten to meet somebody different candidates, and because of c-span, i have had the experience and equipment, and knowledge to be able to film some of them. >> this year, we asked middle school and i -- high school students to create a short documentary answering the question, what's issued do you most want presidential candidates to address during the campaign season? we are awarding $100,000 in total cash prizes including a $5,000 grand prize. >> be passionate about what you are discussing to express your view no matter how large or small you think the audience will receive it to bea. know in the greatest country in the history of the earth, it does matter.

>> to help you get started, go to our website, studentcam.org. "washington journal" continues. host: we are asking for your top public policy issue in this segment of "washington journal." democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001. .ndependents (202) 748-8002 you can start calling in as we bring you back up to date on the two main stories from capitol hill and the white house. on capitol hill, nancy pelosi sounding out house democrats about whether to impeach president trump over this whistleblower complaint. nancy pelosi meeting with her six committee chairs handling their various investigations into the trump administration today, and then what is expected to be a special members only caucus meeting for democrats at 4:00 p.m. today.

this is happening on the same day that seven house freshman democrats with intelligence or military background came out with a column in the washington post. it was posted late last night and their thoughts on the president's actions. seven freshman democrats, these allegations are a threat to all we have sworn to protect. there is the headline for the op-ed, and the seven members of congress. all freshman members. they begin by saying, our lives have been defined by national service. we are not career politicians, we are veterans of the military and our service is rooted in the defense of our country. they say we join as a unified group to uphold the oath as we

enter uncharted waters and face unprecedented allegations against president trump. moreu would like to read on that "the washington post." and the president is set to speak at the united nations, expecting him to speak sometime in the next hour. this is the story, united state stepping up their claims of iran and saudi strikes ahead of the u.n. gathering. president trump with the full address to united nations general assembly today. meetingy, he convened a on religious freedom. the first american president to convene a meeting on religious freedom with the u.n. we want to hear what is on your mind and what is your top public policy issue. shelley is up first in charleston, west virginia. a democrat. caller: hello. host: are uss this morning? -- we: i just want to say

will go to robert and brooklyn, brooklyn park, maryland. caller: hello. i heard the problem with the uranium 1 problem. did we sell uranium or did we not to russia? i never did hear a clear answer to that. if we did, why are we doing that? they are totally against us in every thing in the world. why would we sell uranium to them? and to was in charge of that if it did happen? storyrobert, with that going on, do you think that is something that congress should be investigating? and what do you think about the ukraine investigation? caller: i would think the uranium problem would be the biggest problem they should be investigating because it is way more important than the uranium problem. that is talk, you are talking selling actual uranium to other

countries. and they are totally on the user side of the fence with on everything. why should we give them any uranium at all? int: that is robber maryland. this is bill in spring, texas. caller: good morning. i would like to address the issue of the whistleblower. the gentleman that came forth, the whistleblower, never heard the conversation and it was secondhand knowledge. it is another -- by the democrats who desperate right now. there is no validity. worthy.ot even host: that is bill in texas. this is brian in minnesota.

caller: good morning. i would like to say what the guy said earlier. it seems to me they want to impeach the president for something that is here -- heresy evidence, and they have not seen the facts. host: you think the meeting about the impeachment of the democratic caucus is holding today should wait until all of the investigations are finished into the president before they make a decision to proceed? caller: they should see that facts. they have not seen the complaint. you needt facts would to see to proceed in the direction? caller: what do i need to see? host: what would you need to see? caller: i would like to see the complaint and i would like to hear the transcripts. the person that is a whistleblower did not even hear the phone calls. they got it from somebody else.

so that is heresy. host: that is brian in minnesota. this is ed in myrtle beach, south carolina. caller: how you doing? host: doing well. as ar: joe biden is dirty dump truck, crooked as a snake. -- giuliani went to ukraine and investigated it. he was on "hannity" last night and he said that joe biden has been lying, and there is a whole lot going on. we need to find out what is going on. ny in virginia, democrat. caller: good morning. are you there? host: yes. caller: yes, i would like to ask 'll try to passya to where you can -- a

sitting president? host: if you wanted a referendum on that, how would you frame that law? caller: where he could be indicted just like anybody else. he is supposed to be for the laws and have the american that you vote on it, could indict a sitting president. host: do you think you should have been indicted in the wake of the mueller investigation and report? caller: yeah, i do. i think he is getting money. i did not like him before he got any money, and i do not like him now. i think he is a crook. i think he should be respecting the law just like we do. if he breaks the law, he should be able to be indicted. the american people should be able to vote on that. host: danny, a democrat in virginia. the president is addressing the

un's general assembly this morning, and expecting him within the hour. you can watch it right here alive on c-span and also on c-span.org, or listen to it on the free c-span radio app. on capitol hill, a joint hearing today between the house judiciary and the house foreign relations committee. it is on the trump administration's muslim ban, and is at 10:00 a.m., you can watch that stream live on c-span.org. for public policy, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. jeremiah and birmingham, alabama. thisr: i want to comment, is a very dangerous game. a lot of dangerous games, but this is the most

serious. he created this situation where he pulled out of the nuclear agreement. he created the situation. he wants to go to war with these people even though he says otherwise. it is my belief the reason he is saying otherwise is because they do not see this as an american problem, and they are not ready to commit their forces to go and get into a situation that we ,ave previously -- from, ie george w. bush when he led us into iraq and there was no cause. price, and inat afghanistan ever since. and now, this man wants to get us into another conflict, for what? this man should be in prison. he has no business being a president. host: that is jeremiah and alabama. just a few weeks ago, there was speculation that president trump might to meet president rouhani

unitedsidelines of the nations gathering this week. things have changed since then. here is a headline "trump and yorks rouhani both in new but still far apart." there was a comment from president trump saying, nothing is ever off the table, but i have no intention of meeting with iran, but that does not mean that it will not happen. i am a very likable person, is what president trump told reporters -- i am a very flexible person, is what president trump told reporters. diane is next. caller: i do not know if this is a current issue, but it seems that, remember years and years ago the little boy who cried wolf? this was the blower routine they are bringing up and everything else. it is almost like they cried wolf and told so many lies that you do not know how -- who to believe anymore.

if congress wanted to help the people of united states, maybe they could create a policy issue in regards to the news reporting or maybe limit it and not have it 24 hours a day. host: how would you do that? who gets to verify the truth? caller: people have to be held accountable when they are not telling the truth, i don't care what side it is on. as an independent, when i go into the voting booth, quite frankly, the democrats have tried to tell so many lies along the way and have not been proven to be truthful that when i go and pull the tickets, it is going to be for trump, because every single time it is like they are trying to bury him because he did not get his way. host: that is diane in texas. staying in texas, this is barbara, a republican. caller: good morning. my thing is, i don't understand why the democrats keep wanting to accuse trump of this and

that, which they cannot prove, and eventually found it is not even anything there. what they are accusing him of doing is what they are actually doing, but they do not ever get investigated for what they have done. they just want to keep investigating trump over and over. that is what is going to get him reelected. they can keep doing what they are doing because that is what is going to get trump to presidency in 2020. gene is a is next, democrat. caller: i think the most important public policy issue today would be somehow to reinstitute the fairness doctrine. that would allow each station to have to present both sides of everything. the elimination of the fairness doctrine is what we have today with people giving opinion on only one side and listening to those previous comments, people

who have the opinion that everybody is doing something wrong from the other side. i think reinstituting the fairness doctrine and bringing the accuracy, the truth, and everything more centered will allow us as a population to become more centered and we would not have the huge divide were each side feels the other side is almost completely wrong what we just heard from the texas people. in ohio.t is gene outside of washington dc and the united nations meeting in new york, one-story getting attention -- the strike against gm entering its second week. the autoworkers longest nationwide strike since 1970. yesterday, they officially went on strike, and wall street continuing to show worries with gm stock closing on monday at 5% since the strike started costing gm between $50 million and $100

million a day. president trump has encouraged gm to make a deal quickly while democratic presidential candidate including joe biden, elizabeth warren had visited strikers to show the allegiance with the labor disruption. one more call as we ask about your top public policy issue, this is jim out of florida. republican. caller: i am a democrat, not a republican. my whole thing with this whistleblower is that trump has been emboldened by the lies that he has told. now he just keeps obstructing people,and you get giving him a free pass on every lie he tells. i really do not understand what has happened to the people in

this country. when a guy gets on tv and tells a lie, two days later, he tells a different story, and they still back him. i don't understand why our country is going to someone that is so abandoned his moral values. i don't get it. host: that is jim, our last collar in this segment. up next, we will talk about president trump's speech yesterday on religious freedom at the united nations. we will be joined by family research council's travis weber. we will be right back. ♪ >> the studentcam experience is really valuable to me. >> studentcam had a huge effect on my life and that has really helped us grow and learn as people going into college years. >> for past winners of c-span's studentcam documentary

competition, the experience part of their interest >> in documentary production. i currently -- interest in document reproduction. -- and because of c-span, i have had the experience and the equipment and knowledge to actually film some of them. >> this year, we ask middle school and high school students to create a short video documentary answering the question what issue do you most want presidential candidates to address during the campaign. c-span video and reflect differing points of view. inare awarding $100,000 total cash prizes and including a $5,000 grand price. >> be passionate about what you are discussing to express your view no matter how large or small you think the audience will receive it to be. that in the greatest country in the history of the earth, your view does matter. >> for more information to help

you get started, go to our website, studentcam.org. ♪ watch our live0, coverage of the campaign candidates on the campaign trail and make up your own mind. 2020, yourmpaign unfiltered view of politics. journal"ngton continues. host: travis weber is our guest for the last 30 minutes of our program today. he serves as director of the family research council's center for religious liberty, joining us for after president trump's speech yesterday on religious freedom at the united nations. what do you mean by the term religious freedom? guest: simply defined, the freedom to choose one's faith and live it out. and this includes the ability to change one's faith, and this is

what we see an international law in article 18, and domestically in the religious freedom restoration act, and in the first amendment, the courts have historically protected the freedom to choose and change and speak about one's beliefs. host: how does religious freedom stick with the idea of separation of church and state? guest: we have to look at the spirit of authority -- the sphere of authority of the governments, the church, and religious leaders. the government's role is to allow religious people to fulfill their responsibility to god. this is what you have in china aret now -- but there limits to the laws and the united states, but there is always a framework of understanding the religious community's obligation to fulfill their commitment to god and protecting them is the

founding of our country, and protecting their ability to do that. host: what do you make of the president's speech yesterday at the united nations on this issue of religious freedom? guest: sure. this is the first time the president addressed the issue and made a big statement saying we welcome other nations of the world to join with us and the fight for global religious freedom. there are significant problems and a multitude of manifestations around the world. trumpe president addressing this, primarily saying we will focus on ,rotecting houses of worship and across the middle east, africa, so we will commit to that -- 25 million dollars. and welcome business community's involvement. you had a town hall in recent days ahead of the speech for ways that president trump can make religious freedom great again at the u.n. what were they ended president trump to any of that? guest: one recommendation with a

focus on the houses of worship effort initiative. he outlined that and said we are going to focus on that. the other three were to train our diplomats, and to condemn the use of technology to repress religious freedom and to condemn the use of national security efforts that are often used to suppress religious freedoms. these are all measures that are out there and they are good policy proposals, and it would be good to see them all taken up by the united states. there are reasons to address all of these. host: coming back to president trump's speech yesterday on religious freedom for the last 30 minutes. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. having this conversation ahead of the president's address to the un's general assembly around 10:00 a.m..

we will go there when the president does speak. do you think that religious freedom will come back up in the full address to the general assembly? guest: i hope it does. it is possible that president trump will address iran and china, both countries that have religious freedom problems. tona is in a state effort consolidate state control under national coercive policy into alignment with hsieh he. so getting back into the articulation of church and state as discussed earlier. iran, there are significant problems for people to share faith and convert away from islam. i think it is part of our world leadership that we should address them and say these are human rights problems and take them up on the world stage of the u.n. host: back to china, how does president trump do that at the same time he is negotiating a trade to deal that is obviously very important? guest: good question.

the key is to make religious freedom a human rights condition as a part of the trade deal. they do not get a deal unless i take steps to deal with these problems. there is evidence that shows that long-term money society says we will help religious freedom flourish, it is good for that country's security and economic growth. china is seeing a backlash right now where it is trying to freedom religious against christians and muslims. it is not even -- it is in china's own interest to do this. at the same time, we have to take the approach that no religious freedom concerns are being addressed, no trade deal. host: what provisions would you how to see in there, and do you make sure that they are actionable by china? guest: we have to work through the administration. congress can play a role, but

the administration, state department, and other agencies can hold china to a standard where if there are violations, there are sanctions for its violation of religious freedom, and we dealt with this back in 1990's when we failed to deal with it properly and letting china favor nation trading status without properly yielding religious freedoms. on the trading front and economic front, we have to attach clear conditions and steps where there improvement has to be measured with observation inspection, verifiable if they want certain economic conditions to b improved. r-- be improved. host: phone lines, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents,. (202) 748-8002. travis weber with the family research council's is our

guest. what is it? are a christian organization and arguing for all family and for every person and every faith to live out their faith fully. host: "the washington times" story noticing that in the audience, tony perkins, the president of the family research council. consultident or aides with family research council at all i head this address at the u.n.? suggest -- ands i will let tony speak to whatever he might have said to the president's administration, but these are clear steps that i would communicate to any government official in the administration when they ask me for recommendations that we would support and like to see pushed by the administration

both the u.n. and international diplomacy. host: nate in springfield, massachusetts, an independent. caller: hi, thank god for c-span. with what yourm guest is saying, in fact, i have a problem with almost everything your guest is saying. why is it our business to go an independent state and tell them how to believe, what to believe? i don't understand it. this sounds to me like the crusades. and saudi arabia are primarily islam, if india is and if otherdi, countries primary religions are their primary religions, i do

not think we have any business at all trying to evangelize them to the judeo-christian belief system. i think it is a disaster. i will take your comments off air. guest: sure. that is not what i am saying at all, i am saying that the freedom should be there to choose the faith they wish. we can go back to post-world war holocaust,er the they said that these are human rights and we really set them forth an international framework, so really, the way to understand what i'm explaining here is that all countries should allow people the freedom to choose as they wish. we have under the first amendment and religious freedom law, people can choose and change their faith, and that is the way it should be around the world. all.do not deal with them

for peopledvocate free to choose wherever they are. host: milton on twitter asks this morning, how about the muslim ban? guest: this gets into the question of immigration and national security here at home. there obviously immigration and national security interests and policy questions, and one way religious freedoms can be abuses by citing national security. obviously atime, legitimate interest, and you cannot do anything in the name of religion. international law allows it to be limited, but the question is whether they are abused. with that question, that has to be dealt with the context of national security and i think that question has been litigated elsewhere, but it is related to the lack of verifiable

information in those countries and being able to assure us of safety and security of people coming from those countries. host: alabama, darlene. n they -- salvation today instead of religion, and that is the real god. we do not need religion, we need salvation, somebody real in our hearts. thank you. host: any thoughts? as ast: i would just say, christian organization, our motivation for religious freedom is our own faith, and i can speak for myself and our organization, driven by a personal desire to see people know god, but the government should not have a role to push it one way or another, so the

government should leave the public square open for people to be free to choose are not to choose as they wish. host: in michigan, this is mohammed. caller: good morning. watcher, and third time on c-span. i wish the guest would dive into the subject more about the abuse is going on with governments, namely china and incarceration of muslims, and what happened in vermont, and all over the world. i like the idea of president trump approaching and speaking about this religious freedom. would -- he would wear other persecution is happening. guest: i fully agree. i will reference the state department ministerial where the administration did point out a

lot of issues around the world including china and verma, highlighting china with issues of persecution there. speaking of family members that were detained, so i fully resonate with the caller's comment, and this is an issue that needs attention and it is not being addressed. i will note my agreement and the state department ministerial is a positive step, and i do hope the president brings this up today. host: 80% of the world's population lives in countries where religious liberty is threatened or restricted, or banned. where does that come from? guest: that comes from the pew breaks down the restrictions of how persevered they are, and it breaks down the government of restricting

religious freedom or places like pakistan, where the law sometimes protects religious freedom but the culture is so hostile that it is a far more significant threat. this data is good data to .ighlight another pew survey notes that 80% of the world's holds religious affiliations. the: speaking of pew data, trend survey from earlier this year saying that the public is divided over whether religion will become less important over the hill next 30 years than it is now. that religion will lose its -- half say that religion will lose it's importance. having a% of the world religious affiliation, that number is increasing. ins is significant because modern times, we and other

countries have neglected engagement on religious issues, and i will point back to the csis study and other think tanks that focus on our policy post iraq, and we do not fully understand religious contexts. i think we need to address these issues, we need to engage more on them, and there is no reason that we should not in this modern era when religion is increasing in terms of its prevalence around the world. at ausly, adam -- more detailed level than that, we can think about cohesion in a way where religion is defined as a core idea, but i would argue that society has flocked to some form of religion. we have a more traditional

understanding of religion. i did we have to engage on the question of religion today. the directorweber, of the center of family research council, and website is frc.org if you want to check them out. about 15 minutes left if you want to call in. james, roanoke, virginia it, a republican. caller: i would like to say that i am so proud of president trump for going to the u.n. instead of heng to the climate hoax, went and talked about something is -- something that is very near and dear with religious freedom. there are many people who care about religious freedom. we are so very proud of our president today. thank you. guest: i agree. i am glad he addressed this issue, and we need voices on the

world stage. one of the things we did, president trump did with the speech yesterday was try to bring other nations into a coalition and address this issue. this continues on the state department ministerial to took placeorts that in july where the administration invited other nations to join them in an effort to see religious freedom protected around the world. as we have talked about this, it needs to be addressed for a host of reasons, and i glad the president raised it yesterday. host: clint, indiana, independence. caller: good morning. i would like to ask my concern for the family research council. it seems they have been somewhat quiet on our crisis at the border, understanding that these are families coming across the border and by all appearances, it seems like they are, catholic and conservative in their values.

i appreciate what president trump is doing in our conservative christian values, but it looks like here is a large number of conservative to ourans trying to come borders to not only experience a bit of a better lifestyle, but opportunity to have religious freedom and worship as they see fit. vein ofainly in the conservative christian values. guest: we are a christian organization with a statement of faith. valuescate for christian broadly, catholic, evangelical, and other. there is more info on our website about that but in terms of our policies, one of our core policy issues is religious freedom. we do not deal squarely with the immigration issue. there is an overlap between the two, no doubt.

for people toows flee to places where they may be protected, and the avenue should be protected. there are other questions about immigration law, different visa questions, et cetera that are much bigger than just issues of the border. andously, concerns questions of how are legally or not legally coming across the southern border. i'm not going to speak to it that detail, but i will note, is tolicy on the families support the flourishing of the family and to see the family unit upheld and to allow the family to flourish. there are limits to that and even the state will step in at times where there are abuses and issues in the family units, but the policy on the family is to allow the government unit to flourish, because that is the best for society at large. host: one of the ways that you

said president trump could make religious freedom great again at that townhall column you posted was to encourage countries to train diplomats on religious freedom. how are u.s. diplomats trained on religious freedom? guest: good question because it raises a question of a need domestic for us. recently, the administration has started training diplomats on religious freedom and at least made some adjustments on that. i have not seen the details on , but basically, along the lines of what we have been talking about. important that our diplomats know what religious freedom is. and ourternational law own legal and policy standards that we want to protect and promote from the u.s. perspective. along those lines, we need diplomats to have an understanding of the issue, knowledge of the issue, and make

sure it is a priority. when an issue is raised overseas, we should not be casting that off when someone is concerned due to religious persecution. we need to have knowledge to engage on it. behind this, there is the question of sort of fear and concern with engaging on the religious issue, and i will just point us back again to the csis study that noted that we failed to engage religion properly in afghanistan and iraq after we went into those countries. if we cannot engage religion, we cannot engage religious freedom properly. host: what was our biggest failure and engaging religion there? guest: we went in with a mindset is if we just get democratic and constitutional structures in place the way we understand them and united states, things will work out. we did not account for the deeply held religious beliefs in religious communities in iraq and afghanistan and the impact

those beliefs would have on forces in society when we set up a structure and then left things playing out as they would. saw the failure to adequately pinpoint the driving forces with in societies which -- in iraqficantly and religiously significant in afghanistan. the cause of the religious conflicts, we were up to repeat that around the world. host: -- are improving and addressing this, somewhat. in nigeria, there is significant conflict right now between a christian segment and muslim segment of the country heavily haram anda

there is not a lot of attention on the religious conflict nature of this. if we do not get a handle on nigeria, that could become a significant problem in the future and i was just note an example of northeast syria right now, the post-syria civil war now. is created aia framework of rights that we recognize similar to our own including religious freedom. i would argue they should be protected against religious forces outside of that including turkey who wants to disrupt that. there are religious dynamics within syria right now that would threaten this enclave within northeast syria. host: less than 10 minutes before we take viewers on c-span up to the un's general assembly meeting. the president speaking this

morning, expected right around 10:00 a.m. eastern. it might be a little bit after in terms of the timing of the u.n. speakers. until then, travis weber is our guest with the family research council. massachusetts. a republican. caller: thanks for having me. i would like to look inward and ask your guest. in your old days, we had people having to go to court to express religious freedoms, and it was very expensive. you have the hobby lobby case, nuns that-- the did not want to pay insurance for family planning, you had judge neely in wyoming who lost her job for choosing to perform a gay wedding, you are the people with the cakes, you had the american indians that want to take payment for their

religion -- i want your comments on things we have to do in this country to go to court to express religious freedoms. thanks for letting me ask the question. guest: sure. obviously, president trump's remarks yesterday dealt with religious freedom on the world stage, but we have our own issues in the united states which we are advocating to ensure they are addressed through long-standing laws that we have. the religious freedom restoration act since 1993, the litany of instances, and others are similar in that vein are a part of an emerging trend that we are seeing. some of these need to be addressed through statutes, and congress and state legislatures need to ensure that everyone is free to live out their faith as they wish. i would argue that the religious freedom restoration act sets up

a standard, it does not dictate the outcome of cases. the government has to show the compelling interest in suppressing that belief and to doing so in a narrow way. it allows these things to be sorted out in court, and allows genuine religious beliefs to be protected, but does not allow religion to be abuse. in terms of the litany of instances the caller made reference to, they do need to be addressed, and some need to be addressed through statues, and others will need to fall back on the restoration act. host: your thoughts on efforts to amend the freedom of religion restoration act. one of these is the do no harm act sponsored by representatives. this was bobby scott's statements on the act, he said, the religious freedom

restoration act originally passed in 1993 as a response to a supreme court case which undermined the rights of religious minorities, unfortunately in recent years, bad faith interpretations of rfra has been used it to deny health care coverage for and the do no harm and restoreend the original intent of rfra, and ensure that is only used as a shield, but not as a sword to cut down the rights of others. is a: i think that problematic statement, and number one, democrats cannot advocate and say you want to protect religious freedom and say we want rfra, but then rfra doesn't apply over here because we do not like those beliefs.

someone that i do -- that does not hold my beliefs deserves rfra. it was signed into law by president clinton and now all of a sudden, people do not like that it is protecting -- but it is no reason to change religious freedom law. we have to uphold religious freedom for all people even if we do not agree with them. it continues constitutional protections that go back decades before that. host: what are your thoughts on the johnson amendment? guest: it was put in place in the 60's in order to deal with the oversight of a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. then, it has been interpreted in a way that gets into real free-speech concern in possible violation of the first amendment we talk about communications on matters that are deemed political. the first amendment approach

year would be to broadly open up free-speech on these issues, and this is something that i attempted to be addressed in recent years on the question of if things are political, we should allow the open forum, haderve the framework we where 501(c)(3) is set up for purposes of the common good, and we preserve the distinction between religious organizations and 501(c)(3)'s. host: kim in iowa, an independent. caller: hi. i just heard him saying about the democrats is pushing the wrong thing on people, but you want thedid not not believing,op they do not believe in the bible , and the god, and -- but you

are contradicting yourself because you are pushing your beliefs on other people. do that, because i am a christian. if i believe something, other people may not interpret the bible or scripture different than i am, so i cannot push my valise on people, and i do not think you should be doing that, either. that is blasphemy. i do not think that is right. guest: i agree with caller that we should not push our beliefs and that we are using law to coerce them and that we would ,elieve, but what i explained our standards are allow all people to believe as they wish. we are talking about a religious freedom standard that sets of a pretty robust level of protection, but that protection applies to all people of all faiths, and i will fully support people under that law to have fair treatment under that law, they need to be afforded equal protection of the religious freedom protection act,

regardless of their faith, and this is what we have argued should be was supported around the world when we talk about people being free to choose to believe as they wish. host: family research council can be found online at frc.org, and travis weber is the director there, and we appreciate your time. guest: thank. host: that will do it free our program there, we will be taking you c-span viewers up to new york to the un's general assembly. president trump will speak there shortly following comments made by the president of brazil. [video clip]