coronavirus vaccine. more on the day coronavirus response. c-span2 the senate is back to work to continue working on a defense program and policy bill for fiscal year 2021. they will vote to advance the housetion of the white budget director. on c-span through the subcommittee on efforts to obtain personal protective equipment and other supplies in response to the pandemic. a.m.gets underway at 9:00 journal, on washington security correspondent katie williams joins us to talk about the recent reports of russian bounties on u.s. troops in afghanistan. we will also hear the latest on the federal response to the

coronavirus within the net barragan. hisd mcintosh talks about organization's role in campaign 2020. ♪ this is "washington journal" for july second. several key members of the trump administration including the president himself respond to reports from an "new york times" bounties.t russian several members of congress urged it in hearing how much the program it what the expected response will be from the u.s.. will getrst hour we your response to the story in the white house reaction as well. ,emocrats, (202) 748-8000

republicans, (202) 748-8001, ts (202) 748-8002, if you're an afghanistan veteran you can call us at (202) 748-8003. you could post on our facebook page. prpicksciated press story thatmpanying has yesterday's response said washington criticized for inaction. president donald trump and officials picked up their defense that russia offered bounties for killing u.s. troops in afghanistan. presidents national security advisor city he had a list of retaliatory it options if the intelligence proved true.

the follow-up sing the president coming under increasing pressure to provide more answers about the intelligence in the u.s. response or lack of one. democrats were briefed at the white house tuesday, suggesting he was bowing to vladimir putin at the risk of soldiers lives. the republican president has repeatedly said he was not briefed because there wasn't cooperating evidence. you were first reported by the new york times and confirmed by the associated press by the american intelligence officials and others with knowledge of the matter. story,ect comment on the he had this to say. it is just another made up by the fake news to damage me in the republican party. it does not even exist, just like the dose -- just like the story itself. if the new york times has a source, review it. adding it is just another hoax

. you heard of some assessments and briefings tuesday that the will brief -- that was confirmed by the white house press secretary yesterday. the white house officials and director of national intelligence, john radcliffe, briefed select lawmakers. they pressed for more information's on reports on the russia.bounties by president trump spy chief traveled to capitol hill to brief does members. the meeting thursday will include nancy pelosi, chuck schumer, both of whom demand a full briefing. cog. eight,e known as the

kevin mccarthy among others a part of that gang. you could call us (202) 748-8000 four democrats, republicans independents1, and (202) 748-8002, if you are in afghanistan veteran call us at (202) 748-8003. you can also post on social media. reaction ofs to the the white house, the national security advisor, robert o'brien, off the white house ground talking and responding to the story. here's some of what he had to say yesterday. a hoax is the initial reporting. the president had been briefed and chose not to take action. that was a hoax.

there's no question about it. there's nothing more important to the president of an theited states th safety of united states of america. reporter: when did you first ?earn about the intelligence presidentfed the since we heard about the "new inquiry that someone leak this. these are important allegations. if they are verified i guarantee you the president would take strong action. we have been looking at options for several months if this uncorroborated evidence turned out to be true. they made it impossible to get to the bottom of this. some government official somewhere decided to week allegations before we had a

chance to get to the bottom of it. we may never get to the truth of the bat matter. host: we will show you more as the hour goes on. we start off with ken in illinois. he's on the democrats line. morning, pre-july 4 celebration. reports that i have been cnn sayre of on msnbc, there has been a method of made to the payments the taliban. aware theseund payments emanate from from a russian account.

it obviously provides financial distribution and purchasing weaponry and whatnot. it seems if you just listen to the administration who are will notliars, this obviouslyanything but there is a trail of evidence. more of it will be coming out. it will be a larger nail in president trump's political coffin. "new york times" actually following up this story with another.

it was bolstered by data on financial transfers on the 30th of june. if you want to read this online, read it is next in jacksonville, alabama. he's lied about everything else. he's nothing but a thief. what about the story that you specifically believe, why do you believe it? is everything we hear all lies? in his spring hill, florida, republican line. for years when the russians were in afghanistan, the u.s. government supplied military aid to kill russians. what's good for the goose is good for the gander. host: the bounty program would

be something you support personally? if we did it, why shouldn't the russians do it? that's my comment. host: bernie in florida, democrats line. one more chance. to mike in louisiana, independent line. here we go again. you are given credence to anonymous sources and those great sources you've always used in the new york times and the washington post. host: is that the reason you don't believe it? you give credence to end

avenattihad michael eva running for president. story,his is about this what don't you specifically understand or believe? been so fewe have casualties in afghanistan. i think there is only two this year? aren't there? do you think about the white house's response to it yesterday if this is not a story of note? response isink the they are debunking. host: that is mike in louisiana. gary brown on facebook saying when it comes to the story that there is no response required. have murray also saying all the facts been found? there cannot be a response

without facts. facebook is one way you could reach out to us. you could also post on our twitter feed. -- texttext as us at (202) 748-8003. let's go to william. caller: we have all these trump supporters. he never paid no taxes. go to war,e time to all of a sudden he got bone spurs. story,et's stick to the what do you believe or don't believe? caller: i believe it. host: why so? caller: he does nothing about it. host: stick to the story, why

don't you believe it? tell me why you believe it. caller: no matter what putin due to trump, helsinki when they they said trump looked like he had some sugar in him. host: that is william in washington, d.c. reporting when it comes to legislative action on the story, house democrats expect to address the intelligence that russia offered bounties to kill american soldiers. there's a bill that would among other things require congress to

provide information about any bounty program and russia's involvement in it. cheney previously required the administration. use of the president make reference to that drawdown earlier on. as well as when it comes to what is going on there in afghanistan. we are giving you a chance to respond to the story. one of those responses coming from secretary of state mike pompeo about it. russiansct that the .re engaged in afghanistan members of congress are suggesting they are shocked and appalled by this. it will be interesting to saw what -- to ask them what they did when they saw. what they are referring to. not just the intelligence committees by the way.

even more broadly than that. we handle it appropriately. the russians have been selling small arms and put americans at risk therefore 10 years. i talk with my russian counterparts about this each time. not perfecthave a but somewhat overlapping objective in afghanistan. we know they were routed in afghanistan. they have an objective to reduce the risk of terrorism. time but withy great frequency when i speak to my russian counterparts we speak about afghanistan, the fact that we don't want them engaged in this. set,erybody could be level money flowing to afghanistan to support the taliban has been going on's and we went to afghanistan almost two decades ago. it is not just the russians. host: that was yesterday.

if you want to watch moravec go to c-span.org. republican line, james, go ahead. caller: good morning everybody. about sevenlled in or eight years. only when it comes to intelligence matters. the taliban supposedly reported this to intelligence sources in afghanistan. president bill clinton, george w. bush, president obama, and now president trump all have found out over the last 20 years or so that you cannot trust the taliban. look at the number of peace agreements there has been with those people. they violate within 24 hours. pertaining to the story, which was probably fuel because there's nothing iran would like

better than the united states to go to war. depends over 50% of their national budget is from petroleum and petroleum like sales. we went to war with that we ll out ofb the he their pipelines with george rmany. they would love it because it would preoccupy us with them. they would end up having to defend neither country. host: you sound like you studied this quite a bit. as far as the reaction you have heard so far on this, what do you think of it? how much further does it have to go? caller: this is my point, i have not quite finished. i'm retired. standard operating

procedure since world war ii that has been in the government and all agencies. as soon as something i guess is reported, it immediately goes to all intelligence services. israel,itain, france, jordan, saudi arabia. host: danny in tucson, arizona, independent line. morning, nice to talk to you again. i was a veteran in vietnam like a million years ago. host: what did you say? i'm sorry.

there always was bounties on people's heads. it didn't really matter with us. you will have to stash host: you will have to stop paying attention to the television because you will be distracted. was watching your mouth moving. the rangers and special forces, or could ask any navy seal anything like that, they always had bounties put on their heads. i doubt very much russia had anything to do with it. it was probably all taliban. you think russia wouldn't have a role in this than that? why should they? what will they get out of it?

why should they try to get in afghanistan again. host: in maryland we will hear from robert, independent line. good morning, the reason russia would get involved in afghanistan is because what we did to them in the 70's when we sent all of those stinger missiles over there. for anybody who doesn't know their history, if you don't know what you are doomed to repeat it. the real reason is to cover up the intelligence communities incompetence. these people have been there for 19 years and have gotten their buds kicked by a bunch of guys on horseback. in the top brass of the pentagon should be fired. if you can't win a war with the bunch of guys that don't have a bunch of navy, air force, they don't have an organized army.

they kicked our butz. this whole situation, the pentagon should be wiped out and cleaned up. that is robert speaking of the russian government. yesterday the russian government voted to set up a system to keep vladimir putin in power for a significant length of time. wednesday, results 76% of voters approved a package of 200 constitutional amendments that includes a reset clause on two consecutive presidential terms. don't potentially allow him to run two more terms. would be 83gb boss years old in 2036.

julian pennsylvania -- we will go to kyle in pennsylvania, republican line. caller: everybody is talking about speculation. this is another story based on anonymous sources. any story based on anonymous sources is not news. it is speculation and rumor. this all the time, anonymous sources. how many times does it turn out to be wrong? who leak this and why? host: why do you think you saw so much response from the administration yesterday if this is nothing in based on rumor? caller: they have to respond. listen to the people that call. they have to respond. what is the motivation for leaking this story? there are two things going on.

this is about trump politically. the other question is the people that oppose his efforts to get out of afghanistan. obama promised eight years he was going to get us out, never ?appened, why we get a leak to the new york times, the story comes out. i'm tired of anonymous source journalism. it is not journalism. there needs to be an ethical change. there needs to be a change in journalistic standards. jim banks a republican of indiana serves on the committee and served time in afghanistan. bounties maybe putting u.s. lives that risk.

he says we don't know who is telling the truth and now we maybe never will. trump'suse president critics in the media interrupted intelligence community efforts. i serve on the armed services committee so i track it very carefully. if we follow china and iran very carefully, i desperately want to know about our adversaries maligned activity in afghanistan and every inch of the globe. if our troops are in harm's way, members of the armed service community need to know that. are a lot of rumors floating around globally. if we acted on all of them it would be unwise. that is why we require hard, confirmed intelligent before we act. now the community is tied. they cannot follow-up to learn more about the russia operation which leaves our troops stationed there in danger.

you could read that more at fox news. i believe it was yesterday. kathleen in the dayton, ohio. the story ends up being confirmed and accurate, i agree with many of your other callers, there is no way to trust anonymous sources. we saw what happened with the new york times and judy miller. our intelligence sources, of course there are serious reasons to distrust them as well, given what they provided, cherry , and disseminated to the bush. in afghanistan, i met a young university who was

from afghanistan. a wonderful young man. the stories he told me about, who is involved with opium is just incredibly alarming in regard to u.s. involvement as well as russian involvement. he also talked about at that point in 2004, his father had fought against russia. sources ofbout the who is involved with the opium. host: bob in michigan, independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. first comment, russia has been

,upplying them with rifles tanks, airplanes, missiles for decades. bounty?s about a my next comment. host: why do you conclude it that way? caller: why are we in a space station with the russians sharing our most valuable secrets in our military? how thaton't see relates to the bounty program in question. how does it relate? caller: how does it relate? russia andners with the military space station for over two decades. we are also partners with russia at a military base in australia. host: how does that relate to the bounty program? caller: it doesn't relate, it doesn't have to. the bounty is worthless. it is a meaningless hoax, again.

host: we will go to frederick in new haven, connecticut. because i'mcalling looking at putin, trump, and trump is doing exactly what putin would do if he was president. he has divided the country, created nothing but chaos. host: how does that relate to the bounty story? how does that relate to the story we are discussing? caller: he's ignoring what russia is doing. as he always does. him and putin are partners. host: when you say he is ignoring it, how so? caller: he's not going to do anything about it. just like russia does when they have a private meeting. they are in cahoots together. a child could figure this out. host: do you believe the bounty story? caller: yes i do. host: why so?

trump: i think putin and are behind all of this. trump is not a patriot. host: we will go to tom in fort lauderdale, florida. get muchhings can't more preposterous but the american people, if they just think for a moment, look at the consecutive weeks that come out against donald trump that make him look bad from the intelligence community. when one goes away, guess what? under one, under one. it began with the mike simpson -- the mexican president conversation. it has been a parade. this is legitimate. it sure has not been very effective. how many deaths of american soldiers have happened in

afghanistan compared to all of the previous presidents of the united states. this is to offset the point president trump has been making. what really has been damaging and killing troops in the united is the a that the have given the taliban from the nuclear deal. that's what's killed american troops. president trump is taking troops out of afghanistan. very few americans have died there since he took office. how much was this bounty? much was this bounty? where did it again? if they are so smart, why can't they find out where the leak came from here in the united states? makes them look incompetent. host: we will continue for the

next half-hour. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 if you are an afghanistan war veteran, you can call us at (202) 748-8003. everyone else can text us at the same number, and include your name, city, and state. twitter and facebook available, too. this says, should the president be informed in a briefing every time? is briefing daily? it would be as long as the distance to the moon. on twitter, there really is not much to respond to. the claim does not surprise me, but it is simply an opportunity for the president's haters to emerge. yesterday onnting the senate board was the democratic senator from virginia, tim kaine, and his son

is an active duty marine. talked about not only that portion but the story overall. here is a portion from yesterday. [video clip] >> to the extent that there is a difference of opinion about the existence of such a program among u.s. agencies, what explains the differing conclusions? president trump discuss the matter in any of the numerous phone calls he had with russia, president putin, from late march through this month? thehe president knew of concern, why did he persist in trying to get russia invited as a participant to the g7 meeting to be held in the united states this fall? why hasn't the president condemned the existence of any such program or at least pledged that there would be serious consequences if such a program

existed? madam president, that russia might behave in a hostile manner toward u.s. troops in afghanistan would not be a russia'sbased upon track record of bad behavior all over the globe. but what has been surprising has been the administration costs actions regarding -- the administration's actions regarding this explosive allegation. and i believe the senate must get to the bottom of it. host: not the only one offering comments. several making thoughts on twitter this money. democrats ask senator from connecticut says the buck stops with the president, why isn't he holding russia and his buddy putin accountable for putting county on american service members' lives. this one says our intelligence community is said to be reluctant to brief the president on national security because

they do not trust him enough to take it seriously and not tweet it out. he adds, the man is a danger to a soft. ralph abrahams is the president has been tougher on russia than any other president in recent history. instead of smiles and reset buttons like president obama, he delivered crippling sanctions and renewed deterrence. this says, i have long said russia is not our friend, and i do not trust him as far as i can throw him. so let's continue to push back on russia and pass the annual defense bill and give our troops and allies resources they need to counter russian aggression. russian says poor judgment and decision on a retaliatory action, we need the fax -- before russian judgment and decision on retaliatory action, we need the facts. again, some of the reaction from members of congress, key members of committees, and also house and senate leaders.

there reportedly going to the white house today to receive a briefing on these matters, known as the gang of eight of sorts, to follow-up on a briefing from earlier this week at the white house. they will receive that information later on today. you will see pictures of them as we go on to our next call. antt from sherwood, arizona, afghanistan vet. caller: good morning. sherwood, arkansas. host: i apologize. caller: that is ok. two comments. one is, while in afghanistan, taliban don't need any other reason other than they want to kill americans or coalition forces, whether it be bounties or anything else. they do not need them. they wanted to kill us. my other comment is to people that say president trump is weak on russia, do they know in 2018,

to 300ed roughly 200 russian mercenaries that were basically attacking some american troops that were there? that is all i have got to say. host: before you go, tell me a little bit of what you did in afghanistan. 12-w,: i worked on the mc an isr aircraft. host: when you say the taliban would not need a reason to kill an american other than just that, as far as russia's involvement with this and whether they offer bounties, fundamentally, do you believe that? caller: it could very well be true. but also, a lot of the munitions that were coming in to the taliban were coming from iran, which i think we gave, what, $170 billion or $1.7 billion in cold, hard cash, plus another

$150 billion, and that was in the other administration. callers mentioned iran, as well. as far as responses are concerned, from what you have heard from the white house and what they say about the situation on its face, are you satisfied or are you waiting to hear more? where are you at on that? caller: oh, i want them to do their investigations, our intelligence services. and they want to have proof before we are to do anything, and of course there will not be any kinetic actions taken. it will be sanctions or something in that manner. that is about it. host: that is scott, an afghanistan vet who has called us this morning. you can call us at (202) 748-8003 if you wish. david, independent line. new york.

caller: hello. stories all, where the supposedly come from where i read online, the criminal element of jihadists and the thesen, but then again, websites, these right wing radio stations, they barely ever touch this. athink john rothman on kgo night for east coast, he makes a big deal of it. they seemght-wingers, to say, mr. president, you are really in deep, i do not think we can help you. host: as far as that story, do you believe it or not? caller: sure, i believe it, because it has also been proven -- proven, ok. this was sent to president trump's daily briefing folders, and he never read it. there is no doubt that it was sent to him. host: the president said he did

not see it because he says it was not verified. caller: he said he did not see it, right, but it was sent in his daily briefing book. to me, i am let down because i am a trump supporter. i am thinking now i am going to have to vote third-party. know.gabbard, you i'm really let down. host: that is david in new york. a member of congress offered a perspective this morning from her background as an intelligence examiner, a democrat from michigan. profiled in the "new york times" this morning. it says, the former white house national security aide and intelligence before or who past included ensuring that previous presidents were made aware of such potentially momentous reports began calling around to former colleagues from the george w. bush administration, checking on this, what we have done. the answer was clear, she said in an interview they would have

alerted superiors to make sure the president learned of the assessment. if i had been on the council under the president bush or president obama and this would have come in, i would have slept a cover note on top of it and send it up the chain to the national security advisor and would have said, sir, i want to flag this. it has conflicting views and is important, and we should flag it for the president ahead of his calls. there is more of her background and perspective on the story in the "new york times." alexandria, virginia, another afghanistan vet. good morning. caller: good morning. lots of interesting comments, so i thought i would try and give mine. i was in afghanistan about 15 years ago, and i do not think it has changed much today. i do not think there is really a need for the taliban to go after anyone today. their word is not very strong,

and they are so segmented into theseent parts that leaders within the taliban are constantly trying to one-up each other. the second point is, i do not see what motive russia gets out of it. besideso not see it, knowing the united states, which i do not know why we would want to do that. so i do not see a motive. that is pretty much my position. do inwhat did you afghanistan, if i may ask? caller: i was an auditor. i audited the trans mercy relief program. i was primarily based in kabul. i was auditing dod programs. host: on its face as a story itself, how much interest do you think it generates?

for americans as a whole? that iti mean, i think does generate interest. but i actually think that there is also an element of politics in it, that they are going after trump. and i am not a trump person, but i think this is just one more thing given the timing that they are going after the president, as well. chris in alexandria, not too far from washington, d.c., and afghanistan vet with his perspective. person giving perspective is republican senator chuck grassley, republican of iowa, talking about this story and its implications on the senate floor yesterday. [video clip] >> if reports are true that russia has been paying a bounty to the taliban to kill american soldiers, this is a very serious expertion of what russia

edward lucas dubbed "the new cold war mr. lucas said that back in 2008. movement by russia, it demands aen, strong response. and i do not mean diplomatic response. host: again, you can go to our website for more perspective not only from members of congress but things said by several members of the administration that you heard from, including the press secretary yesterday. all that available at our website. andy on facebook says, what response? still have not condemned russia. that is the only response required at this point. even then, a little too little, too late. this says if it is true that it is an act of war, the publishing

of the news story needs prosecution. anyone who leaks classified material is guilty of treason, true or not. staten island, new york, anthony, republican line. hi. caller: good morning. vets fromfrom two afghanistan who called. hypothetically, if bounty was made, how would someone pay a bounty? it would have to be something untraceable, right? probably cash. if you think about it hypothetically, and let's assume that the bounty story is true, then if the bounty would be paid in weapons, then how is it different that from 1980's when america was giving weapons to the taliban and america not only

giving the weapons but making a movie about it in 2007, tom hanks, "charlie wilson's war," basically was a statement to what has transpired here. we are not talking about giving, you know, blocks and bullets -- glocks and bullets we're talking about heatseeking missiles and high-end military equipment. , according tos mass media, the white house and the pentagon has both clearly stated that the sources were unconfirmed. the key word here is unconfirmed. and the last thing i want to say is this, and maybe this is news, but i was born in soviet union. i was about 12 years old when the bodies of the soldiers start coming back.

and that is when the people started to question the war. you both nations are good people, america and russia. i assure you that mothers hurt the same way in every country. is,the news is, the reality what do you call your allies? europeans actually do not like americans. and russians, believe it or not, they always actually kind of think highly of american people. and i think if the soldiers come together, they nations could be actually --as people, remove politics -- host: ok, that is one perspective. he mentioned the briefing yesterday on this very topic, and here is the response. [video clip] >> are you preparing some options for the president to consider for retaliation against russia should this intelligence proved to be true?

>> i will not get ahead of the president on action and i also will not get ahead of the intelligence that is unverified at this moment. >> [inaudible] -- it isesident unverified and being assessed, going through the same process normal intelligence would go through. it is unfortunate is we are having this discussion because of the "new york times" deciding to run with this erroneous information about the president being brief, which was not true, and the erroneous information that there was a conclusion when, in fact, there was not an conclusion. >> can you confirm that the cia director and nsa director will brief the gang of eight tomorrow about the russia bounty? >> yes, that is the plan. >> will anyone else be in attendance? >> we are not sure who else will be in that briefing. >> does the president generally have confidence in the intelligence community finding good conclusions about russia? >> yes, he does have confidence,

and he has many times acted unverified intelligence. and there are times he has decided it is in our strategic interest not to act. an example of solemani and al-baghdadi and the example of iran engaging in actions in the president said it is not time to engage because shooting down an entity is not the same as the loss of civilian lives. host: next call is from scott in massachusetts, democrat. caller: good morning, pedro. well, i will give you a response to the question and then a quick statement. overall, i would not be surprised if the united states has had bounties on russian fighters in the past 20 years, so the story really does not bother me that much. i would just like to say that this is what happens when you elect a businessman as commander-in-chief.

his response to covid-19 -- host: to the bounty story itself, do you believe it or not? caller: yes. host: why? caller: it just does not surprise me. i mean, russia has been involved for the past 20 years in the past 20 years in afghanistan. host: what do they gain then from offering such a bounty program, do you think? caller: nothing much. i do not think they need any -- i do not think -- be convinced to kill american fighters, taliban. host: call from allen, texas, independent line. caller: good morning, pedro. rhetoric going around here, here is a situation, once again, that we have leaking, someone learned a little bit of information there.

i am talking now -- host: we can hear you, but you have to focus not on the television but just on the conversation on your phone. caller: yeah, the television is muted. song back to where i was, much rhetoric going on here. again, we have got a situation where someone heard something, a little bit of something, and they leaked it. there is an investigation going on. they leaked it. and in this case, it was the "new york times" once again did not have the responsibility not to spread this out and make it worse than it is and because all this ruckus again. and i think what we are looking at somewhere along the way here, we need to look at adjusting the free press portion of the

force theon that will informationd back when there is nothing solid about the allegation. host: you concentrated on the leak. what about the story itself? caller: well, there is no story yet. it is a story that has been leaked out and should not even be out there be discussed. an investigation is going on. host: you have not concluded whether it is true or not or at least thought about whether it is true or not. caller: no one has. no, the only thing to think about really is, why would somebody go leak stuff like that? it causes more fear, other than the fact that they are trying to put more heat on trump. it is just ludicrous. host: ok. rich in marion, ohio, republican line. isler: i think one reason

they are putting out false information is they want to divert people's attention from the spying that went on by obama and biden on the other party, and that has been confirmed. the other things that have been confirmed is that -- host: why do you think it is a distraction from that. be specific. uranium hasof our been sold to russia, and i think that is not to do nice things to us but maybe to weaponize atomic bombs. the other one is we sent money , stec full of $100 bills. i do not know how these things get approved. host: how does it tied to the russian bounties story? caller: that money went to soldiers. we do not know where that money went to, u.s., not russian money, u.s., approved by our government. i do not know where that money is. we do not have any trace on it.

it most likely went to weapons to kill our soldiers. host: next is baltimore, maryland, democrat's line. turn down the television before you start talking. bob in baltimore, hello? we will move on to kelly from west virginia. callers, just turned on your television or mute it or walk into another room, and that keeps the conversation going. kelly in virginia, independent line. caller: hi, i have got mine muted. first of all, i am a vietnam veteran, and i do believe that the bounty is probably a true story. 2.0., this is just vietnam and we have been in afghanistan for, what, 18 or 19 years? i think it is way past time that .e got out

and i would like for c-span to do a program on the drones. i do not think we need to be in afghanistan anymore. i think we need to pull the troops out. host: because you paralleled it to the vietnam war, specifically how? caller: it is political. we are saying, and even the president is saying, we have got the most, the greatest army in the world. yet, we are playing a political war, just like we did in vietnam. host: yes, but how does that relate to the bounty story? caller: well, it is all part of war. just like -- it is more political. instead of going in there and doing the job, we go in there and then it turns into a political war. then you have all these things that come up, bounties.

this is being done, that is being done. just like i said, when we were using drones for some reason or another, all of a sudden it stopped. batonwe will go to rita, rouge, louisiana, democrat's line. just listened to robert o'brien, the white house national security advisor, say that they have been working for several months on options if this evidence turned out to be true. so they have known about this for several months without notifying the american people of the possibility. , if this has been leaked, now that it has been leaked, it is a hoax. my question is, if it is such a hoax, why have they been working on it for several months? why would it take that long to verify it? story byre is a

melissa quinn at the cbs news about robert o'brien, to follow up. this is out of washington, sang the national security adviser said wednesday that a senior career cia officer who briefs the president and person made the decision not to verbally brief him on the intelligence about russia offering bounties to target american troops in afghanistan, saying she lacked confidence and veracity of the intelligence. the president's career cia briefer decided not to brief him because it was unverified intelligence, adding that this officer is an outstanding officer. told reporters following his interview that the cia officer who serves as the briefer, who he did not identify, decided not to tell him about this because she did not have confidence in the intelligence that came up. we get raw intelligence everyday, hundreds of pieces of intelligence everyday, thousands of pieces week. she made that call, and i think she made the right call, so i am not going to criticize her.

knowing the facts i know now, i stand behind that call. cbs news is where you find that story. melissa quinn is the author of that piece on the website. lincolnville, republican line. rick in maine, hello? robbie onllo, this is the republican line. host: go ahead. caller: ok. , if this is a russian -- sorry. i question is or my statement if this report is true, why was it only mentioned one time? we do not need to know everything that is going on out there. ean, it was mentioned back in

february, so -- host: ok. remy, brooklyn, maryland, democrat's line. morning, pedro. i live about 30 minutes from nsa here in baltimore. the thing has all the earmarks, that writ -- the rhetoric i'm hearing, it has all the earmarkings of another eightball , i guess, conspiracy, if you will, from the cia in order to get the military hardware manufacturers back in the business of supplying what is needed to promote something in another country that we really have no business being in. so at this point in time, we are going to need a lot more than what we are hearing to find out what the purpose was behind even putting this out there in the "times." i am sure the "times" has its

trusted sources coming in from the various agencies that keep this country going. host: your previous conclusion, how did you come to that? caller: it is like this, we have a $26 trillion national debt that we can attribute to afghanistan. if you want to go back to iraq, even as far back as vietnam, laos, and cambodia. all these insurrections we went into and the hundreds of military bases we have around the world, it is almost like if we are not someplace doing something for the corporations that actually run this country and the lobbyists that bring the money to our politicians -- host: how does that relate to the bounty story specifically? caller: the fact is, i do not think there is enough credibility there that even warrants why russia would actually want to do this because i do not see where russia even would benefit from this, i guess, news cycle we are going through. host: ok.

rick is up next, republican line. caller: good morning. you know, this makes no sense just take a deep breath and ask yourself why. and put it in context with what was going on at the time that this was first leaked. why all these unnamed sources? well, ok, this sounds like ,nother adam schiff wet dream you know, just another thing to persecute and prosecute the president. i am not a fan of the president, but, you know, this whole game is just nonsense. if you really think, why in the world would russia do this? it makes no sense. host: why not? caller: well, if you have to ask why not it makes no sense, then you are not thinking. host: well, why not? caller: it just doesn't make any sense, the whole story. host: ok.

last call from connecticut, independent line. caller: yes, i have been a reader of the "new york times" for the last 25 years. i am 88 years old, and i love the paper for all their good stories about denmark and people falling in love in europe and about the swamps in florida and all that stuff. spent 24 hours a day, seven days a week, trying to get donald trump. they hate this man with a passion. that frank roney cannot stand him. the: specifically about russia bounty, what do you think of it, and what is your -- how much do you believe it? caller: this is another sneaky of the "new york times" trying to get donald trump. why do they hate him so much? you cannot write a letter to the

"times" unless it is against donald trump. this ok, that finishes off hour. we will continue our conversation with the story concerning the russian bounty program, the white house reaction, and other elements of it with katie bo williams who writes on defense and intelligence issues for defense one. we will also be joined by california democrat nanette barragan on the house vote on the infrastructure bill and helping green technology. onse conversations coming up "washington journal." ♪ the presidents, from public affairs, available now in paperback and e-book, presents biographies of every president

organized by their ranking by noted historians, from best to worst. and teaches perspectives into the lives of our nation's chief executives and leadership styles. presidentsan.org/the to learn more. and order your copy today wherever books and e-books are sold. >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events. you can watch all of c-span's public affairs programming on television, online, or on our free radio app, and be part of the national conversation through c-span's daily "washington journal" program or through our social media feeds. c-span, created as a public service and brought to you today

by your television provider. "washington journal" continues. aboutjoining us to talk the story concerning the russian bounty program is katie bo williams, who writes on national security issues, the senior national security correspondent for defense one. thanks for joining us. guest: glad to be here. host: several people in the previous hour asked the question or some form of it, what does russia get out of this bounty program if it is true? let's start there. what do you think? guest: so there is a lot of sort of competing theories about russia's potential motivations here. one of the things i have heard a lot from sort of close russia-watchers, former best centers, former national security council officials is that, certainly, there is no question russia will take any opportunity it can to kind of mess with the united states.

it could be as simple as that. it could be just this is another way of kind of poking the united states, knowing that the u.s. does not want to get into a shooting war with russia and is probably not going to escalated to that level. another thing i heard that i thought was very interesting was former ambassador to russia thatoned to me yesterday the russians are quite often surprised that our intelligence capabilities are as good as they are. the suggested being they might have thought they could sort of do this, kind of mess with us, make our lives in afghanistan a little harder, and get away with it, that the united states might not find out about it. beeninly, russia has following a certain amount of support -- funneling a certain amount of support to the telephone for years, kind of in the form of small arms, a certain amount of financial support. this is something that the american intelligence community

and the military operating in afghanistan has known for a long time. from that perspective, this is certainly an escalation of that. datat is sort of another point on a pattern that was already kind of underway, so it was already something that the russians were doing. to theyou take that strategic level, not just the small, technical, yeah, let's mess with the americans in afghanistan, if you take that to the strategic level, things get a little bit more murky, and i think there is a lot less consensus about what russia sort of overall plan is. are they trying to bog down the united states in afghanistan in such a way that we're going to continue to stay, send money, spin resources, and our focus on afghanistan? or, conversely, do they want the americans out of act -- out of

afghanistan and this will put more political pressure on donald trump to kind of speed the process along? some analysts believe this is essentially revenge for an --ident in 2018 in which the in which hundreds of russian a kindries belonging to of shadow, parallel merit -- peril military -- paramilitary force from russia, american forces killed hundreds of russian mercenaries in syria and they attacked a base where american soldiers were present. so there is some talk that this is putin looking for revenge for that. i willmany ways, and stop after this, sort of a long answer, but it sort of harkens us back to some of the sort of worst days of the cold war.

as many of your viewers have alluded to, when the united states was back in the -- backing the move house should been in afghanistan against the soviets and the soviets were offering weapons to the north vietnamese and their fight against the united states. we have seen this before, and it is certainly a deeply, deeply tense moment. at this point, what you're hearing from a lot of analysts, have about an imperfect view into the inside of vladimir putin's mind, making some of the part ofc decisions speculation. host: four democrat.

republican.01, .202) 748-8002, independents (202) 748-8002 for afghanistan vets. one person pointed out -- the question being, how is the u.s. intelligence, and i think this is what makes it such a difficult case, how is the u.s. intelligence community going to definitively prove that a given death of a u.s. service member would not have happened had it not been for the bounty? that is not to question that the bounties were not being offered or not being paid, but would that death have not otherwise happened? that is the very tricky counterfactual to prove, particularly in an operating environment that is chaotic and difficult to gather, as afghanistan is. lots of different players on the ground.

we are to understand from the public reporting that intelligence officials have both what is called human intelligence, kind of information that they have gathered from interrogations of captured militants, as well as a certain amount of intelligence that tells us they have intercepted money transfers. they are able to link those together in such a way that paint a picture of, like, this particular attack would not have otherwise happened, i think it is one of the things that is probably being debated behind the scenes right now. this is sort of a conjecture on my point, but it would not surprise me if that is one of the sort of causes of the public debate that we are seeing right now about whether or not the intelligence was reliable or whether or not the confidence level of the intelligence was high enough to do determined that it was appropriate to brief the president. host: and there is talk about

what actually reaches the president and what has to happen with the intelligence to reach the president. it is said a cia officer determined it was not that much information to bring to the president. put that together for us exactly as far as how much information reaches the president and what it takes. guest: certainly not every tactical threat report on the ground, certainly in a combat and where, as viewers others have pointed out, the taliban were already actively trying to kill american soldiers. certainly not every report at that level makes it up to the president. but there are sort of two tracks here. one of them is, ok, did this intelligence about these bounties suggest an increased level of risk to american service member's on the ground in afghanistan? and the question of, what does it say about the u.s. relationship with russia? and i think that is where it becomes a little bit more difficult to understand if the intelligence did not make its

way up to trump, particularly given that this is a moment in which he was engaging with vladimir putin, in which he was actively calling for russia to be readmitted to the g7, this group of the largest sophisticated economies in the world that russia was ejected from after the annexation of crimea in 2014. that is where a lot of the sort of questions are circling. but certainly, as a strict matter of fact, o'brien and others are correct, not every piece of intelligence suggesting, ok, u.s. service members over here are in some level of increased risk, needs to go to the president. the same former senior intelligence official put it to me, if the president was going to make a decision based off of this information, he might not need to know it. one could reasonably argue that there were decisions to be made, and obviously that is the point of view being taken by many

democrats in congress and certainly by many, many former national security and intelligence officials we have seen speaking publicly and on the record about their experiences with briefing the president. host: we will go to california first. bruce on the democrat's line. katie bo williams of defense one. bruce, you're on with our guest. caller: i have a comment, and i will take the answer off the air. president, it the is like he is in bed with the russians because he is a pedophile with bill barr. that is why they killed jeffrey epstein. mary,ok, we will go to dallas, texas, republican line. you are next. caller: is this me? host: yes, if you are mary from dallas. caller: i was wondering if this would be considered classified

aformation, and isn't it crime to leak classified information with jail time considered? also, i want to know if it could be considered propaganda from the taliban or whoever to get trump out? guest: you raise a couple of really important points. to your first question, yes, when this intelligence was first making its way up to the white house level, this was one of the most closely guarded secrets in american intelligence, certainly without question. yes, it is a crime to leak classified information, which is a risk that sources who choose to speak to journalists for a variety of reasons certainly take when they make the decision. to your second question about ofpaganda, yes, i think one the early questions that

intelligence officials with have been asking when they were looking at the early clues about this program, one of the questions they would certainly have been asking themselves are, is this a form of misinformation, whether from the russians or from the taliban, to get us shaking our tales, waste time, waste resources? that is pretty standard spy craft and certainly something officials would have been asking . i guess that gets us back to the essential question that we have, which is the degree of the intelligence community ultimately came to with this information. host: katie bo williams, we had a few callers ask about the actual number of deaths of american soldiers we have had in afghanistan and whether that factors into this bounties story or not. guest: from what we know from public reporting, there is at least one incident in afghanistan that resulted in the death of three marines in april

of 2019. an american convoy was attacked on its way back to bagram, the big american base in afghanistan , and three marines were killed. from what we understand from public reporting, that event is under particular scrutiny by intelligence officials trying to see if they can prove a definitive link between the bounty program and that death. , that isioned before going to be one of the biggest challenges that intelligence officials either have faced if they have not already reached a conclusion or are facing in an ongoing investigation, which is, how do you essentially prove a counterfactual? how do you prove that that particular attack was motivated solely by the bounty and would not have happened otherwise? i think that is going to be one of the big sticking points going forward and one of the questions that reporters like me and lawmakers on the hill are going

to be looking at. host: we saw lawmakers get briefed earlier this week, the gang of eight, so to speak, leaders go to the white house today for more briefings i know you will not be there. but exactly what did they get exposed to as far as information? be the big will question. it is the first time lawmakers, certainly democratic lawmakers, will be briefed by the director of the nsa. they are going to be looking for the kind of questions we are asking right now. how many deaths, and how good is the intelligence linking those debts to the boty complaints wed from house democrats coming out of the original white house briefing earlier this week, which was conducted by chief of staff mark meadows and a few other white house officials, as opposed to the real leaders of the national intelligence community, was they felt like they did not receive any facts. they received a lot of, sort of,

assurances that the president knew about this and behaved accordingly and left with a lot of questions about what the u.s. intelligence community actually knows about what happened on the ground. so i think they are going to be pushing very hard for that. the other thing that makes the briefing consequential is, at some point during the development of the intelligence community's assessment about this bounty program, there was apparently some dispute in between the cia and the nsa about the strength of some portion of that intelligence. i should be clear, that is very normal. the intelligence community is made up of a lot of different agencies that have different strengths, different weaknesses, different institutional prerogatives. the nsa specializes in signals intelligence, and he cia much more focused on human intelligence. they do not always agree about here is how good the ultimate assessment is, here is how much

confidence we can put into the assessment. 2017ve seen this with the intelligence assessment about russian interference in the elections. the nsa had only moderate wasidence that trump putin's favorite candidate, while other agencies involved had high confidence. i think that is one thing lawmakers will be leaning into. at what point did this confidence level dispute between these two agencies occur? was it substantive? has it since been hammered out essentially? because what we're hearing from the white house, at least publicly, is there is no consensus amongst the intelligence community. and what i am hearing from lawmakers who have been briefed on portions of this information is that they believe, by democratic lawmakers, they believe the white house is this between the to come up with a reason why action was not taken

sooner or why president trump was not briefed. laguna,ke in california, you are next. caller: i have a basic question. what american interests are , youngin having brave american men and women killed in afghanistan? and if we were not there, wooded the afghans be fighting the russians? thank you. -- wouldn't the afghans be fighting the russians question rick thank you. guest: you hit on something that has become an essential campaign issue in the 2020 for a reason. people are asking exactly that. if you speak to senior military leaders, like when i would travel with secretary jim mattis or the current chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the answer is to prevent attacks on the homeland. the united states is sort of ande to keep the taliban

from allowing al qaeda back in and then use it as a safe haven to launch an attack on the united states like we saw on 9/11. that is the basic argument. stay over there now, fight over there, but keep the fight over there as opposed to allowing terrorists to bring that fight back to the united states, as they did in 2001. obviously there is a lot of dissent about that view. you have lawmakers, prominent lawmakers, saying we have been there long enough, and we have sufficiently degraded the sort of capabilities that allowed al qaeda to carry out that attack in the first place. and if we need to, we can go back in. our intelligence will be sort of good enough to help us at least see that something is coming. we have gotten better at watching what is going on over there than we were in 2001. so that is an active area of debate and i think one -- certainly you can look at the presidency that he comes down

very much on the side of, we have been there too long, this is not working, we need to just get out and watch, and if something happens, we will hit them harder than they have ever been hit before, that is kind of the language he uses. but i think you ask exactly the right question. host: katie bo williams, listen a little bit from mike pompeo yesterday at the state department offering his assessment of this story and giving it his context. we will get you to respond to it. [video clip] russiansct that the are engaged in afghanistan in a way that is adverse to the united states is nothing new, by the way. some members of congress are out there today suggesting that they are shocked and appalled by this. they saw the same intelligence that we saw, so it would be interesting to ask them what they did when they so whatever intelligence they are referring to. they would have had access to this information not just to intelligence -- not just the

intelligence committees, by the way, even more broadly than that. we take this seriously and handle it appropriately the russians have been selling small arms and putting americans at risk there for 10 years. we have objected to it. when i meet with russian counterparts, i talk with them about this each time. stop this. we think we have a not perfect but somewhat overlapping objective in afghanistan, on their doorstep. we know they were routed in afghanistan, so they have an objective there, too, to reduce the risk of terrorism there. so yes, maybe not every time. but when i speak to my russian counterparts, we talk about afghanistan, talk about the fact that we do not want them engaged in this. but just so everybody can be level set, money flowing to afghanistan to support the taliban has been going on since we went to afghanistan, now almost two decades ago. it is not just the russians. host: katie bo williams, what context would you give? going pompeo is certainly

very particular argument i have heard frequently from both allies and -- of the president and people who would cast themselves as no fan but have expanse in the region, who will say, from a troops on the ground , from the perspective danger to troops on the ground, what is the difference between russia providing small arms to the taliban or providing financial support to the taliban, which using it toturn kill americans versus putting out a bounty on americans and paying that way? i do not pretend to take a stance on that one way or the other as a journalist, but that is the debate that is being had. which is, how much of an escalation is the paying of bounties? and that is where the argument lives right now. some people would say, yes, it is an escalation but not an extreme escalation. some will tell you that this is

sort of a categorically different order than the kind of sort of low-level support that they have been offering the taliban for years and that we have known about for years. then others say it is exactly the same thing. host: robert, good morning, in virginia, democrat's line. caller: yes, thanks for taking my call. putin is a brilliant strategist. he played us, played the administration, played all of the united states. even this phone call might have been something he envisioned, this radio program. he may have seen the whole thing playing out. hearding whether trump knew, may have known, may not have known. he has asked to have bad news excluded from his reports regarding russia. thatestion now is, is because this willful ignorance allows him to push russia's

inclusion into the g7? something to consider. we talk about him being transparent, but he has never been transparent. at this point, he has been called for information for congress and for investigators, and he has never turned over any of it. that is not transparence. host: ok, thanks. guest: there is a huge question here, sort of a side story, we have talked about a lot about how president trump consumes intelligence and whether or not that system is working. the baseline here is that different presidents receive intelligence in wildly different ways. some people like to have it briefed orally and some like a back-and-forth discussion about it, and some prefer to read a book. it is the responsibility of intelligence prefers working under the rubric of the national security advisor to make sure that, in whatever form, however it happens, even if you have to

make a cartoon video, that the right information gets to the president so that he is able to then make decisions. and one thing that i think has has been -- the question laid there by what we have seen over the last week is whether or not that process is working under president trump. we have certainly seen in numerous accounts, certainly from former officials speaking on the record, thinking of john bolton's book right now, he describes twice-weekly intelligence briefings with trump as being more kind of trump venting what he is seeing on fox news that day to intelligence prefers, rather than the intelligence prefers providing information. trump is notoriously difficult to get him to sit down and focus on a complex threat pattern, by all accounts, whatever the issue is that prefers are trying to convey to him.

clearly the process of getting information to this president is fierce debate, whether or not that is working. i think there is debate because, obviously, the white house denies that there is any problem with the briefing process. we saw the white house press secretary come out the other day and said that president trump is we sort of balance that with the bolton account that he is sort of willfully not interested in receiving his intelligence briefings. briefings,ll, intel how do they generally work? is it a verbal briefing? is it just going to materials, bullet points, highlights? guest: like i said, there is no general way. different presidents have wanted to receive their intelligence in completely different ways in my understanding is that trump is on a twice-weekly --

twice-weekly schedule. some prefer everyday at 8:00 a.m., 10 minutes, however long it takes to sort of run through the threats that happened overnight. for some people, there is a book that a briefer has put together and the president reads the book and absorbs information that way . it was that way for obama. i believe bush, and i would not quote me, but i believe bush wanted a conversation with his briefer. it is different for every president. and for every principal. the president is not the only one who receives intelligence briefings from analysts. it is the responsibility of the analyst in question to design a briefing that gets the information to the customer in a way that makes sense to them, that they can absorb, and then they can do their job as a policymaker of making a decision. intelligence professionals are not supposed to be policymakers. they're supposed to provide the

right information to the policymaker who can then go, ok, here are the options i have, and i'm going to go with b now that i have the information. republican line, mount victory, ohio. we will hear from don. question, a 50 thousand foot question, and i have listened to the callers all morning and have listened to this young lady, and we are talking on the "washington journal" show. when is this not political? every aspect of this story since it broke has been a political situation. everybody ran to their corners and dug in, and i have heard a few callers very intelligent the ones ig, and think of offhand were vets who served in the area and have seen the actual things that went on the ground. to the young lady here, i

appreciate you being a reporter and appreciate, pedro, you being in a journalism-type business, but this has now been in our new cycle hereand as fast as the nee travels, i assume that it will be out of here by monday. i get the feeling that since the hatred for the president trump's high and everybody went to their corners, that this is another process of the news cycle that we will chew up for a while. i will gladly listen to the young ladies comment. happy fourthay and of july. not wrong that this has become a deeply political issue. and it is election year. americans will be going to the .olls it is an emotionally resonant issue. involves u.s. service members

resonanty emotionally concepts like bounties on american soldiers. it has become a deeply political issue. it has been interesting to me to watch that it is not entirely partisan as we have seen with perhaps ukraine or the impeachment saga. there are still lots of are oncans that committees that work in the armed services, intelligence affairs, theyeign have also expressed deep concerns about this and want to know more. i think this is a story that will have legs for a while. i don't think it will totally disappear by monday or tuesday if for no other reason that there is still a lot of unknowns. number one being come where there any american service members that were killed as a direct result of this program?

on the democrats line. robert, hello. listr: i would like you to some of the concrete costs and benefits of the war in afghanistan. costs like humanlike. life -- human life. the numbers bear out that the cost in soldiers lives is negligible in effect. i challenge the colors to get a number in their head to what they think the death toll is per year. oris something like a dozen two contrasted to the number of unarmed people murdered by police or children that die on the crossfire. host: so the question is what?

caller: what are the costs and benefits? guest: this is a rich subject of debate in washington right now. there were 22 americans killed in afghanistan last year. you're right that it is relatively low compared to other armed conflicts the u.s. has been involved in. if you are one of the families of the 22 americans, that is not how that feels. i don't want to discount that in giving you the relative numbers or characterizing that. there is an enormous financial cost. i am regretful to say i don't have the figure on hand right now, but we have spent millions of dollars in afghanistan over the last 20 years. and there is the evergreen question, what are the benefits?

is a difficult case to sell. supporters say that we have to prevent another 9/11. that is hard to put on a ledger sheet. you don't know what that will look like. you don't know if you might catch it. if we leave, we give up on 20 gainsworth of hard-fought which is a questionable word. abandoning the afghan partners that you fought alongside for the last 20 years? this?u going to allow thee is a dispute that if u.s. left tomorrow, the taliban would be in a position to regain

power. much do went, how gain? there are questions about what do we value and what we should be spending our blood and treasure on as a nation. host: a senior national correspondent, you can find her work at defenseone.com. thank you for walking through the story with us. 25 minutes up until the next guest at 9:00 and we will talk about public policy and the economy. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. , (202) 748-8002.

we will talk about the unemployment rate and more when washington journal continues. ♪ >> during the summer months, reach out to elected officials with c-span's congressional directory. it contains all the information you need to take -- to stay in touch with members of congress. order your copy online at cspanstore.org. >> washington journal continues. host: here is the breakdown from the labor department of the figures i just mentioned. personser of unemployed on temporary layoff decreased following a decline of 2.7 million in may. the number of persons unemployed declined.

persons five to 14 weeks numbered 11.5 million, down by 3.3 million over the month. they also added the labor force participation rate increased by 0.7% in june to 61.5%. it is 1.9 percent below the february low. those are breakdown of the overall figures that came out. you can talk about the upcoming july for holiday and other issues in this portion. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. for independents, (202) 748-8002 . david on the republican line from texas. caller: under roosevelt, we get a sneak attack on pearl harbor.

secrets ton, we lose russia. under eisenhower, castro takes over cuba. under kennedy, we get the bay of pigs in the cuban missile crisis. we gave up the atlas missiles in turkey which is why the russians turned around. that did not come out until six or seven years ago. george bush gave us 9/11 and the iraq war. isisbama administration, after the superfast withdrawal of the troops that were left headed up by joe biden, we got the jv team of isis that took over big parts of several countries. which donald trump had to clean up. we had libya under the state department guidance of hillary clinton that turned the country into a wasteland.

with all of that said, what are you trying to say? presidents absorb this stuff in different ways. we have no reason to believe that this current thing about how trump wasn't advised about what was going on yet because they hadn't determined if it was real enough to take action. it's the same way book that is over and over again. host: let's hear from the independent line. caller: we are about an hour 50%ide of d.c. and may be of the people in the county are federal employees including myself. they are starting to gear up to bring everybody and that has been teleworking since march. and i think it has been a really bad idea. a guy in our building says they have maintenance people still coming down with coronavirus. the buildings were built in the

70's and are loaded with asbestos. there is bad air intake and all problems.- sorts of school comes back in september and i have friends that are teachers that are terrified of this. host: what do you have to say personally about new rates of contraction or deaths to make you feel comfortable to go back to work? feel comfortable going back to work. they knew about coronavirus and employees in the buildings testing positive. it took days before they notified us that it was going on. i have worked a lot in incident .ommand i have never seen such a horrible communications plan in my life. no messaging, no unified command, no unified messaging. should have been telling

people in february or march. they should have abbreviated the school schedule. there are so many things that have gone wrong here. let's go to the democrats line. top issue isnk the community relations with the police in certain areas. i think it is necessary to form more public policy to get the entire legal system involved. maybe supreme court committees can develop restatements and a body of laws. ability to train police officers arise, you can make sure the police know exactly what is expected of

them. host: i was going to ask you if you think that complicates the process. caller: it can. you have to have a structured one. the starting point is for the legal system to work on the idea of what it means to be a police officer in the united states. maybe you can have the community leaders get involved. these documents are often revised. i think a good idea is to get the body of law that can help guide the police and the communities for better results. james on the republican line. the topmy comment on public policy issue in america remains that we continue to

bring back jobs in this country and we do not allow china to drop off the number one issue. pharmaceutical drugs that we need to protect ourselves from this virus, when you look at the ppe that we are not getting, i would also bring up the mask issue. i have asthma. when they test the masks that come from china, 50% to 60% or even 80% are defective. we are asking american people, not just hospital people but regular citizens to rely on a country that has no regulations except for they will make the quickest dollar they can. inope the wall street people this country and the chief executives in this country that have made so much money off of china -- and they don't want president trump to succeed. they don't want him to bring manufacturing back.

apple doesn't want to bring cell phones back. but the core manufacturing to protect ourselves from this epidemic, we need to have the manufacturing base back in america and focus on that from the selection to the next election. -- from this election to the next election. host: there is a bill for funding in the defense department. and catheriney from the wall street journal billting that the defense comes as part of a push to remove symbols of the confederacy as a demonstration against racism. the house and senate are working to pass separate versions of the defense bill in coming weeks. they are expected to reconcile their versions before sending a final product. senator lindsey graham said he

would recommend against the president vetoing the defense bill. he's one of several prominent republican makers. the issue of army bases named after confederate generals is a confederate -- is a legitimate concern. there is a lot of good things in this bill and i don't think it is reason big enough to veto. turning to more local matters when it comes to statutes -- statues of the confederacy. if you go to the twitter feed, videos.e hundreds of people gathered to witness the removal. about 430. and in the statement, they ordered the immediate removal

including confederate statues. protesters attempted to take those that are at risk of serious injury or death. caller: good morning, america. gotta bless us on this independence day. i hope we have many more to come. there is a mishandling of everything going right now. colleagues from new york, i'm paying attention. even homemade masks. if you don't like the chinese masks. there are things you can do during this pandemic.

all you have to do is wear a mask. we know what's going on with the russians. if you don't know what's going on with the russians, it was going on before 1980. care what is up with my leader, but would better wake up. host: let's go to tom in clinton, maryland. caller: can you hear me ok? host: we can hear you fine. i know the american people -- not all american people, but there is a segment of the american people. i don't understand how they can and itme of the programs is time to push. as far as a public policy

issue, what is your top one? removing the president of the united states. he is a traitor to the country. from west virginia, the independent line. caller: i have been listening to your comments and everything this morning. why don't the american people wake up and realize that this is nothing but a set up for the one world order and the one world government? we love our country and we don't want another government. i hope the american people wake up and realize that this is nothing but a set up by democrats and republicans. they are all involved in it. host: when it comes to matters of coronavirus, two stories to show you. fda, how effective a virus

vaccine might be. 50% effective. at the fda guidance issued on tuesday indicates that the first vaccine to be approved must go through the full fda license program including phase three clinical trials to protect people against disease. peopleuld need to show that their blood indicates a clear concern with the fda's on if it increases respiratory disease, causing it to get worse. go to the new york times this morning. the headlines when it comes to the matters of testing, the u.s. planning with the headlines suggest is a major shift in testing strategy.

she gives an example of how this would work, saying this is how the technique would work. every onesamples from of the thousands of students, setting aside part of the individual samples. a pulled sample is tested for coronavirus infection in just 1% or 2% of the students likely to be infected. would test parts of the individual sample, and pulling the effective student. the strategy could be employed for three dollars per person per day. there is more to the story and you can read it online. maine, them democrats line. good morning. am a 68-year-old

caucasian. i got a couple of things i would like to say. i think it's terrible, this virus. i hate to see people being killed because of it. i think as far as america is concerned, if we can ever get this racism thing straightened out, it would be the biggest thing america ever solved. us all it would give peace and teaches us how to love each other. you guys.eciate there is so much news going on out there, you don't know what to believe. i think the most important thing for america is that we are all created equal and we should love each other all the same. michael from baton rouge, louisiana. remind i would like to

all of the american sitter and -- american citizens, that the pope is getting ready to sign it covenant to bring all the religions together for one world religion. there is some attention to be brought to that and some serious attention to be brought to that by c-span. and also this thing coming out about the bounty, that is some adam schiff words. , i'm a black american, and i think a lot of wokeack americans that are , we are woke to the fact that a lot of things are going on in this world. we should be looking at what the pope is getting ready to do. host: if i may ask, where did you hear that story about the pope? caller: you can research right

now. host: where did you directly here it? caller: the internet. it's on the internet. just go and look for yourself. host: michael in baton rouge, louisiana. cnbc reporting that a new york appeals court on wednesday cleared the way for a publisher to distribute a tell-all book over the objections of the president's brother. they were lifting the restraints that were issued a day earlier that would've blocked distribution of "too much, never family created the world's most dangerous man." copies of the book had already been sent to bookstores. leftppeals ruling, though, in place restraints against mary trump after the brother said in

court papers that she was part of an agreement among family members not to write about their relationship without permission. this is coming from yesterday, saying that police in seattle converged on the city's protest on early wednesday, making .rrests the mayor issued an executive order for protesters to vacate the area. they cleared the area first known as the capitol hill economist zone. infollowed an outbreak violence after two fatal shootings occurred in recent weeks. protesters took over the area. from heather, the democrats line. others i agree with about dealing with police reform

and dealing with coronavirus. another thing that hasn't been addressed is global poverty issues. i think we should direct funding to the international affairs budget that this administration wants the cut i 22% next year. i think it will help the world economy and national security. host: why interest in this program specifically? byler: i got attention to it learning more about the fork and project which is a nonprofit organization. host: what do they represent and who backs them? they are basically an advocacy organization to try to get an important global poverty issues past. -- passed. host: dave in salem, new hampshire. comment, really. i feel like i'm living in one of those dystopian novels. we're living in the land of doublespeak. good is bad, up is down.

freedom of slavery, war is peace. i don't get it. . really don't understand we are more apt to believe propaganda and conspiracy theories that are being spouted by most of the news organizations and not pay attention to our history. what, specifically, are you referring to? caller: we did this before in 1968. in the 1960's, the upheaval from race relations. and the war. and what the government is giving us as far as what is happening and what is really going on in the background. host: which is what? caller: oh, god.

is trump, how well he is supported by his minions. he was the exact opposite of what i was raised to believe as a man. he doesn't adhere to anything that has to do with honor or truth, the principles i think that all of us in our 60's and from our given given whatd parents, a good citizen was. line.the democrats go ahead. boss, brian lamb, he has done a terrific job with c-span. i hope you support the channel fact-check.n you know, media check.

mistruthsxamine the spoken on cable news channels and have people call in. i can't imagine you can do that 24/7, but i think it would tremendously help in clearing up all of the made-up news stories and opinions that are heard every day on cable news that basically corrupt the minds of americans. they don't know black firm white and -- from white and right from wrong anymore. see at the polling, people the same facts as two different things. the fact-check channel like that would be wonderful. people can call in and give their opinions on it. organizations do those kinds of things and we make the viewer make up the mind

for themselves. caller: another comment. i don't think after trump we will have anybody in the white house that has zero political experience, and no experience in governance. it will never happen again. thank you, everybody who voted for trump, but it is not ever happening again. host: one more call from raleigh, north carolina. charles, good morning. caller: one thing about term limits, and i love c-span a lot. of appalled that the number congressmen and senators that are older than i am. we have been watching for over 40 years. able to gett been stuff done in 40 years, they should not be in federal government. thank you for your time. raleigh, north carolina,

finishing off the segment of your top policy issues. coming up, two guests in the final hour. representative annette barra gone from california. later? the program the club for growth's dave mcintosh on their spending plans for campaign 2020. coming up on "washington journal." >> book tv on c-span2 has top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. coming up this july 4 weekend. saturday at 11 p.m. eastern, iowa republican senator jonierns talks about her journey from growing number iowa to being the first female combat veteran in the u.s. senate. in her memoir daughter of the heartland. sunday at noon, in-depth, a live

two housh conversation with etired admiral james devritas, author of several books. join the conversation with your phone calls, comments, emails, and tweets. at 8:30 p.m. eastern in her memoir, dare to fly, arizona republican senator martha mcsally reflects on her military career as the first female fighter pilot to fly in combat. at 9:00 p.m. eastern, on afterwards, pulitzer prize winning "washington post" reporter mary jordan on the life and influence of melania trump. she's interviewed by "usa today" washington bureau chief susan page. watch book tv on c-span2 this weekend. >> today at 10:00 a.m. eastern,

n.i.h. director dr. francis collins, c.d.c. director dr. robert redfield, and h.h.s. acting assistant deputy secretary for response testify before a senate appropriations subcommittee for a review of operation warp speed, the researching, manufacturing, and distributing of a safe and effective coronavirus vaccine. watch live coverage beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. on demand on c-span.org. or listen wherever you are on the free c-span radio app. >> washington jourm continues. host: our first guest is representative in a net barragan, of california. democrat from that state. she serves an the energy and commerce subcommittee on held and represents the 44th district of california. thanks for joining us this morning. i guest: thanks for having me. host: your governor in california making new rules when it comes to -- in spopes to coronavirus pulling back on some openings.

overall, what do you think that says about the state of california? what do you attribute that to? guest: well, if you see some of the photos and video, we are seeing more and more people going out not wearing a mask. not keeping their social distancing. and we know from testimony from dr. fauci and other top health experts that having people in crowded places and indoors is higher risk. so i think it's a product of people -- too many people going out. maybe they feel the sense -- need to do so because they have been inside for a long time. maybe being a little lax on following the guidelines. i'm glad to see the governor is taking action as we see the spikes in california. we need to do what we can to stop the spread. host: i suppose this also comes along with concerns from the business community about what those kind of impacts do on businesses. what are you hearing from your residents? what are your concerns about economic impacts as states are

starting to reopen things? guest: well, we definitely need to do what we can to help the economy. as you know it's been hit very hard. we are hearing from businesses how challenging it's been for them to keep their doors closed. we are also hearing that even if you open businesses, some people are afraid to come back. they are afraid to be out. vulnerable populations as well. we need to be safe about how we do it, and smart about how we do the reopening. and right now i think the focus from what i'm hearing from the medical experts in my committee is outdoors is the best start. and so we saw yesterday the governor in california closing indoors, indoor dining, card rooms, things that are indoors. it makes sense to me to do a scale back. he did so slowly. it's not shutting everything down. there is not a statewide stomente -- stoim -- stay at home. we are doing what we can to balance out the health impacts

and economic impacts. host: the committee you serve on the energy and commerce committee recently heard from members of the coronavirus task force of the white house. from the information that you took in, what's your assessment? guest: my biggest concern with hearing from the panel that they haven't spoken to the president in weeks. in dr. fauci's case it was 2 1/2 weeks. these are the top health officials that the president has put together to advise him. yet they are not advising him and giving him the information because it had been at least 2 1/2 weeks while we are on the upside in the spike. it was also very concerning to hear that dr. fauci predicts we could have up to 100,000 new cases a day. yesterday we were up to almost 50,000 cases a day. that's unacceptable. we are doing something wrong if you take a look at the deaths. the united states has accounted for a quarter of those deaths. you can take a look at the curves in other places. we just need to do a better job. that needs to start with coming

up with a national testing plan that we still don't have. host: so, i was going to ask you as far as the next step. at this point is it testing? or are there other elements you would like to see put into place? guest: we need to start with testing. there needs to be a national plan on how we do that. there needs to be tracing. so once we find out that people have the virus, we need to trace it to make sure those who have been infected are exposed or quarantined. stay at home and don't infect others. we know there are a lot of folks who may get this, who may not have any symptoms, and are spreaders. we need to folt c.d.c. guidelines. this is still not happening. unfortunately it's been political. i'm happy to see that more of my republican colleagues have spoken out and are being a good example by wearing the mask. this is information that we are hearing from our public health experts, which is who we should be listening to.

wearing a mask, keeping your distance, avoiding crowds. we need to continue to do that. it's going to be up to us on whether we stop this spread and whether we take control of this. host: "the new york times" reports this morning that dr. fauci was quoted on discussions within the white house a move to something called pool testing. which would ration tests and only test those with symptoms, pool testing then would enable frequent surveillance of asymptomatic people. have you heard anything about this from the task force itself or dr. fauci or other means there in congress about this idea being discussed? guest: i have not. but certainly hopefully dr. fauci will come back to our committee and we can all -- ask a lot of questions and follow-up if we don't get a report before that. i will tell you i put a lot of weight on what dr. fauci recommends. he's been doing this for decades. he really is the pre-eminent expert on infectious diseases. we need to listen to his advice and we need to give it serious consideration. in most cases i haven't heard anything from him yet that i don't agree with. host: our guest will be with us

until 9:30. asking questions it's 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. medical professionals, if you want to ask questions about coronavirus related matters, call and ask 202-748-8003. another thing happened there on the house floor this regarding infrastructure. can you tell us what was passed? and from your perspective what does it offer when it comes to actual building of infrastructure in the united states? guest: this is a huge investment in our roads and our bridges and infrastructure across the country. it's a $1.5 trillion plan that will help us rebuild our bridges, our roads. it will expand broadband. there is a lot of investments in rural areas that we need. we are also very excited to see one of my own bills in the package, the climate smart support bill. this is a bill that will help green the ports. almost 40% of americans live

within a few miles of a port that are great. i represent the port of los angeles. a huge economic engine although they do cause a good source of pollution and emissions. so this is an opportunity for us to invest in greening the ports. electrifying them. to help clean up the air. many times those who live around the ports are low-income communities and communities of color. host: from the bill itself overall, how much contains efforts on green efforts, so to speak? that was the criticism from some republicans yesterday that the bill was a lot about these green technologies and the like, and it shouldn't exist within a infrastructure bill. guest: you know, pedro, it's interesting. when i was on the city council i remember the times where we would go and do street repavement, the next week we talk about putting in and laying cable lines. we would do it backwards. if you're going to repave a street and tear up the streets, at the same time you might as well do it right. lay down the cable lines instead

of coming back and breaking ground two times. that's the same concept here. if we are going to invest in infrastructure and we need it because it's going to create jobs across the contry, we need to also think about doing it in a smart way that's going to protect the future planet and bring down the emissions that we need to. we need to go green. it's unfortunate to hear that criticism. thankfully i'm on a committee where we have bipartisan efforts on making sure we are reducing emissions and making sure we are addressing the climate crisis. it's unfortunate to hear that. but it's critically necessary. we don't need to look very far to look at hurricanes and the weather patterns and see the weather changing. it's a climate crisis and we need to address t host: i'll play a little bit that have criticism you spoke of from the senate majority leader who spoke about the bill passed on the senate floor yesterday and some of his criticisms and get to you respond. >> this so-called infrastructure bill which is billions in

funding from actual infrastructure to follow into climate change policies. by putting a huge thumb on the scale for mass transit and electric vehicles, it revives the old obama-biden focus on disproportionately helping major metro areas, leaving rest for the rest of our country. no wonder it came out of committee in the house on a purely partisan voke anti-white house declared it not a serious proposal. and made clear this will never become law. so naturally this nonsense is not going anywhere in the senate. it will just join the list of absurd house proposals that will only drawn up to show fealty to the radical left. host: representative, your response? guest: i don't think the leader's looked at the bill. there is a lot of investment in rural areas. bills that have been bipartisan. there's a huge investment in broadband. affordable housing. housing credits. things that are very critically

important to rural areas and middle america. this is going to create jobs. we are at a time where we need to invest in the country in jobs and the infrastructure that is crumbling. we have seen zero come out of republicans on infrastructure. we have heard the president talk about it. and it being a priority. he's going to get it done. we haven't done that. he hasn't done that. there is zero proposal on their side. house democrats are trying to move this country forward. trying to create jobs. and invest in what we really need, which is infrastructure across america. host: we have some calls lined up. this is from tracy, las vegas, nevada. for our guest. she's calling on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: hi, there. i'm very concerned by the partisanship going on right now and the politics involved in this. if i was someone who dropped on to this planet and said how do we attack this problem without any information, who cares about

countries or politics, right, or trump or not, there is a couple of countries right now, they are not using -- kenya is a country of 54 million people. they have 149 deaths. they are not doing social distancing. they are not using masks. they are not -- they don't have the ventilators. why? let's find that out. and i hate to tell you guys, it is because they are using that cheap malaria drug that the media is trying to say does not work and had the fake studies. i got more proof of that. australia, they have under 150 deaths. they started using that malaria drug back in april. they bought many, many millions of doses of it and used it there. so why are we looking at nonsense? host: we'll let our guest respond to what you brought to the table. guest: thank you. for me what's important, and i think for the country, which should be the guiding light, is a public health officials. we have the president's own

coronavirus task force that has testified, that has given information to members of congress to help us in our policy guidance, and to help americans. that's one of the ways we should make sure we take the partisanship out of this. let's listen to the health experts. let's put them on -- in front of a camera every single day and hear from them. let them answer the questions. i'm simply conveying what we have heard from the president's coronavirus task force. and that is, that these are the measures we need to take. we need to be careful about how we reopen the country. we need to wear a mask. because the spread of the virus can be through droplets. and that will help everybody. we have seen areas that have -- put these into place. and how they have helped flatten the curve. we also -- we are very different than kenya. the united states population, the way that we live, our interactions, and so i think

it's a little different to compare kenya than it is to the united states. and again i just want to keep going back to, and making sure that we are listening to public health officials and the very task force that this president has put together. host: republican line, larry, next. he is in elk hart, indiana. good morning. caller: good morning. my question to the lady there is how they are going to get all this money to pay for all this stuff? there is nobody working. our country's pretty much shut down. and it just seems like all the democrats want to do is push this virus thing so they can win the election in november. i just wondered where you going to get the money and how are you going to pay for this stuff? host: representative. guest: thank you. first of all a quarter of the deaths of coronavirus are happening here in the united states. we have over 125,000 americans that have died.

i don't really understand this line of this is a democratic talking point and the democrats want to push this. we've got people dying in arizona, in georgia, in florida. in states that are heavily republican. this is not a democratic issue. this is not a republican issue. this is a public health issue. and i really wish we could move away from the conversation of whether democrats are pushing something or the republicans can push something. this is about saving lives. this is about saving the american people and helping take control so that we can go back to some sense of normalcy. so we can go back to building this great country of ours. i just really wish we would move away from that and again i'm going to keep going back to making sure we are listening to public health officials. i think there was a second

question your caller had if you could remind me about that. host: you may be right. i did not take note of that. i apologize for that. sorry for that. can i point you to a letter you sent yesterday. you and the democrats sent leadership in the house regarding another potential coronavirus relief package. and what you like to see included when it comes to green issues. could you elaborate on that? guest: sure. me and a number of members led a group of my colleagues to making sure that when we look at the next coronavirus package, part of it, what we are doing besides investing in hospitals and testing and tracing, is to say how do we put america back to work? how do we help the economy? and we have seen that through economic payments. the economic payment to the american people. we have seen that in other ways. what this says is we really need a green stimulus. we need to make sure that when we are thinking about how we put

americans back to work, how do we create jobs, that we are also thinking green. thinking about investing in the future of this planet and country. we want to create jobs. that is making sure we are investing in things like clean energy to put america back to work. host: do you get a sense from leadership there is a timetable about another covid relief package being passed by the house before the august release? guest: there's always conversations. i know just yesterday there was a movement on a voice vote for the p.p.p., the assistance for businesses, small businesses, critically important. we had the senate for a while say they were going to do nothing after the democrats -- house democrats passed the heros act. although the senate has budged on that. they this week passed something on p.p.p., and we did yesterday. i think there is going to be more conversations and there should be about what we need to

do before we go into the long august recess. we are in unprecedented times and we need to be making sure we are helping the american people. host: jim from highland park, new jersey. democrats line for our guest. hello. caller: yes. thank you for allowing me to speak on this subject. welcome, miss. it seems as though we have a problem with congress. not only the president, who is supposed to set the example, but also congress. meaning the one side of congress, the g.o.p. the grand old party. that's the problem that we are faced with. they don't want the democrats to ass anything having to do with

anything that's good for the entire country. inform, sh to apprise, and remind the republicans and he president that we have over 125,000 vets in this country due to the pandemic. where is the hoax? host: thanks, caller. guest: i couldn't agree with the caller more in the sense that we really need congress to come together. again the covid pandemic is not a democratic or republican issue. it's really a public health issue. i wish that we would better work together on this issue. pedro, we have the senate in session complaining about where the house democrats. we were working remotely. when they are in session, they were working on covid relief.

they were working on a infrastructure bill. they were working on confirming judges. so during the middle of a pandemic, they were focused somewhere else instead of helping the american people. at a time where we are in the in the middle of the pandemic and people need to get back to health care, we have the trump administration in court fighting trying to take health care away from americans. it's unbelievable. i will agree with your caller, we need to make sure democrats and republicans come together. we are here for the country. we need to be here for the american people in this time of crisis. host: one of the arguments, especially on the senate side, when it comes to covid relief, is money's already been appropriated. starting to be disbursed. why not wait to see the impact of that spending before considering new spending. what do you think about that argument? guest: we have seen the lines wrapping around for miles for people who need food who are not getting food on the table. one payment of $1,200, pedro, is

not enough. certainly in certain parts of the country that doesn't cover the rent. people are in need. we are in a time. unprecedented crisis we ever had in this country. nobody was thinking on the republican side about the price tag when they decided to giveaway this dacks scam to the -- tax scam to the highest, very small percentage of healthy americans. that cost $2 trillion. nobody was asking then how we are going to pay for it? americans are dying, 125,000 americans have died. we need to make sure as congress i believe has to step in and say we are here for the american people. we need to help. that starts with putting money in testing. in tracing, access to health care. and doing things like the infrastructure bill that's going to create jobs and help -- put think economy back on track. host: albert, droy, michigan. independent line. caller: yes, i support your program wholeheartedly, your proposal.

the infrastructure. we need to get -- they have been talking about doing something in infrastructure for decades and nothing has been done. in the meantime the republicans give tax breaks to the rich. and big business. and the wealthy. nobody asked about how we going to pay for any tax breaks. 's amazing how 35%, 45% of these idiots support the republicans and basically they have no program for the people. this is a program for the people o help the people. nobody asked -- the tax cuts for the rich? and big business. who got paid, who got paid on that virus money? big business. host: thanks, albert. representative, do you have any response? guest: no. i agree with the caller. i think this is a situation where house democrats are fighting for the people. we want to make sure they are

taken care of. access to health care, access to testing. this is all about the american people and how to help them. we need to for a moment move beyond the part znship and how to help the american people. i want to thank the caller for his comments. host: would it have been possible to work with senate republicans on infrastructure if those green provisions weren't part of the package? guest: well, i think regardless of -- in the infrastructure package, let me just say, many months ago the white house was sending over their infrastructure person to meet with the chairman of transportation and infrastructure because they were talking about a plan. i can't tell you where -- what happened in those conversations. but i can tell you that we have republican support in investing in clean energy and a clean future in this country. i hate that this is becoming a partisan issue. whether we are going to save the planet. whether we believe in climate change. there are many republicans on my

committee in energy and commerce, starting with the ranking member, representative walden, who talks about climate change and the need for us to address it. and so it shouldn't be about when we talk about infrastructure we don't talk about thinking about the future and investing. if we are going to spend taxpayer dollars to invest in infrastructure, let's do it smart. let's make the microgrids that we need. let's make sure that we are putting in investments in clean energy. the republicans have no problem thinking about that when they are thinking about the fossil fuel industry. we need to be able to come to the table and have this conversation together and look at congress is a give and take system. it happens all the time t happened in the cares act. it's happened on legislation we work together on. sometimes we don't get everything, but we come together and compromise. host: one of the things you also advocated for in the package was the outdoors for all act. what was important about it? guest: the outdoors for all is a

great example of bipartisanship. we have historically in congress passed every year legislation that would help fund outdoor recreational spaces. this is an expansion of rec spaces in low-income areas, communities of color. and what it does is it takes a portion of the funds that we get frem oil revenues, about 20% of them, to invest in green spaces. it's somewhat of a opposite program you take money from dirty fossil fuels and put it into green use spaces. historically this has been a bipartisan issue up until about two years ago. and my bill is a bipartisan bill, rep turner helped me introduce this bill. this is not a partisan issue. outdoors for all. host: jersey city, on the republican line. james, go ahead. caller: yes, how you doing. my one question is, we hear the

democrats, republicans. my problem is we have had all of these demonstrators not following social distancing. you see tens of thousands throughout the country now. -- all these people leave that. they go back to their places where they live. and as they travel throughout the country, they spread all this. but no one has brought any light to that. they are saying you are opening too quickly. but let's just say if you had 50,000 people travel the country to go to these rallies. they have to stop, they have to eat. they have to drive. they meet other people as they go. then they spread it. but no one is bringing that up. that's actually my question. host: we'll let our guest respond. guest: thank you. first of all i many proud to say from what i have seen in my own participation in protests i have

seen the majority, i would say 99.9% of people around that i have seen wearing masks and doing so peacefully and doing so -- the social distancing is harder, but at least you are seeing folks airing the mask. i'm not sure that's -- wearing the mask. i'm not sure that's an accurate criticism. when i think about crowds not wearing masks i think about the president's rally in oklahoma where we saw people back-to-back, no masks at all. you want to talk about spreading and irresponsibility, that's really irresponsible. again, let's just go back to the fact that we need to make sure we are encouraging masks to be worn and the social distancing regardless of party. i would be the first to call it out. if it's happening in my community, if it's happening amongst the democratic convention of some sort, or democratic event i'm going to call it out because i believe we should all be following the rule of wear masks and doing what we

can to follow social distancing. trying to keep events outdoors instead of indoors. and the last thing i want to just respond to this theory about oh, it's the protestors causing the spike. we have seen a couple of studies come out in the last couple of days, there's been no evidence so far that the protests have been the cause of the spikes. and if you take a look at some of the places where thee spikes are happening like georgia, you take -- arizona. you don't see the correlation. so far from what i have seen and what i have read is that there is no evidence in that assertion. host: nancy from austin, texas. caller: hi. i find it interesting what you just got through talking about since you see in the "new york times" in june, june 6, coronavirus jumps the border overwhelming hospitals in california. so they were bringing in

illegals to treat them in california. the other thing you said that i wanted to make a comment about is government creating jobs. government's not supposed to create jobs. they are supposed to get out of our way so we can create our own jobs. when government does the so-called creation of jobs, a lot of that money they allot for that goes to pork paying off your donors, or lining your pockets and stuff like that. the protestors, you just say that the protestors have not caused any of this spread of coronavirus is ridiculous. it's been going on for months. the looting, the rioting. i haven't 2340es nthsed you saying one thing about that. you didn't -- you talk about trump's rally that was two hours. and this rioting and looting where they are just packed in there doing t. you haven't said one thing. you seem to condone that. that's ok to do that. don't go to a two-hour rally. host: ok. so the caller's point is there a different standard being applied in this case, representative?

guest: i don't think so. first of all i don't condone it. i don't support any violence at all. i support peaceful protests. and don't agree with when we do see looters and violence. let me start with that. i don't think we are seeing a different standard. the protests are happening outside. they are in opening spaces. and again as i previously said, y observation and my participation have seen just about everybody wearing a mask. i'm trying to think of a situation where i haven't seen that. and i will be the first to say, if you are out there protesting, wear a mask. it is critically important that we do what we can. protest peacefully but wear a mask. i will continue to say that regardless of who's protesting, regarding if it's a red state, blue state. again not a democratic issue or republican issue. the last thing i want to say,

pedro, it's very sad to see callers and people across the country continue to make covid-19 about the southern border. covid-19 didn't come through the southern border. it didn't come from mexico. quite the opposite. mexico had much smaller, very small number of cases and was concerned that americans were bringing it over by going south. what do we have now? the e.u., the european union won't even allow americans to go there because of how poorly this administration has handled the coronavirus. and how we continue not to have a national strategy. we have to all do our part. in the community we all need to do our part. this is going to be up to every single one of us whether we help stop the straight ahead and flatten in curve. let's do our part and start by wearing a mask. start by doing a social distancing. and being mindful of our fellow

americans. host: representative in a net barragan of california who serves the 44th district. thanks for your time today. guest: thank you, pedro. host: the president, by the way, just added a press conference at 9:30 this morning. you can monitor on c-span radio an our website. the press conference probably talking about the release of those job numbers. coming up on "washington journal," david mcintosh, the president of club for growth on their plans for spending in campaign 2020. >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events.

you can watch all of c-span's public affairs programming on television, online, or listen on our free radio app. and be part of the national conversation through c-span's daily "washington journal" program. or through our social media feeds. c-span, created by america's cable television companies as a public service and brought to you today by your television rovider. >> american history tv on c-span3. exploring the people and events that at the time american story every weekend. coming up this weekend, saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern, a discussion on the declaration of independence origins, purpose, and global significance during and after the american revolution. with university of maryland history professor, richard bell. on sunday, at 4:00 p.m. eastern, on real america, the 1970 film

"fresh colors" detailing czech political refugee and award winning animator first job upon arriving in the united states. hired by the u.s. information agency to create a film about the american flag. using his own narration, animation, and archival footage. at 6:00 p.m. on american artifacts, a tour of the museum of the american revolution with president and c.e.o. michael quinn discussing the museum's history, design, and what he calls the museum's crown jewel, george washington's camp tent. exploring the american story, watch american history tv this weekend on c-span3. many >> sunday night on "q&a," physicalon and pulitzer prize winning author on the u.s. response to the covid-19 pandemic and the medical science being used to combat it. > i have not seen a level of

collaborative spirit within the scientific community of this iling or stature in my life. that's very encouraging news. things have moved as fast as they can possibly move. we will have, hopefully, by the end of this month two to three to maybe four potential drugs, including antibodies, that will attack the virus. these are still in advanced stage studies i can't comment whether they work or not or what they work on. we will also have about four or to or six new mow dalities treat the inflammatory phase of the cry vuss. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is former representative from indiana, david mcintosh. he served from 1995 to 2001. he is now the president of club for growth. thanks for joining us.

guest: great to be with you. host: remind the viewers about the mission of club for growth. guest: we are the leading advocacy group for limited government and free market economic policies. we push for those in congress. we also have two political action committees that support candidates for congress and for senate who are champions for those issues. and we have been very active this year in the republican primaries in supporting candidates that we think will be great future leaders and strong supporters of pro-growth, free market economic policies. host: what kind of spending have you done in previous cycles? what do you plan to do for this one? guest: in the last cycles we averaged probably around $15 million to $20 million. this cycle i think we are -- our budget will be over $35 million. we have already spent $15 million in the primaries behind some great candidates. people like nick, nancy mace. we just had a good result a few

weeks ago with rich mccormack in georgia. and so i'm very happy that as these elections have started back up we are seeing some really wonderful, tremendous future leaders emerge and we are able to support them and they are able to win their primaries to get ready for the fall. host: what's the reasoning behind the higher bump this cycle? guest: i think people are looking at the problems we are facing today. the economic shutdown created enormous unemployment. and job dislocation. i was delighted with the job numbers today that showed both in may and june we are starting to recover. people are rehiring. i think they are looking for members of congress to be attuned to that so that we can see a return to a really strong, robust economy. host: does it connect to any concern that you have about losing the senate? guest: we also have very active in senate races. we are supporting tommy

tuberville in alabama who, i think, will be a great challenger for doug jones. be able to let republicans take back a seat there. we are also supporting steve danes in montana, who drew a really strong challenge from governor bullet. i think it is important that majority be maintained. my sense is we are going to have some strong candidates there. it's going to be hard fought in about six different races. i think republicans should be able to keep that majority. host: is that only from the races that you mentioned or overall the mood as far as keeping it in republican hands after november? guest: i think keeping it in republican hands. people see what's at stake on the economic issues, supreme court appointments. if there is a vacancy there. and they are looking at the differences. the democrats have enormous pressure to move far to the left to embrace the new green deal.

to support government takeover of health care. i think that's hurting their candidates down ticket where the republicans can lay out a vision that let lets people see they are going to once again be building back the economy and let it take care of us in those areas people think are important. host: if you want to talk to our guest in the last minutes of this program. 202-748-8000. 202-748-8001 for republicans. and inpends. 202-748-8002. mr. mcintosh you probably see the polls as well as i do as far as how it's shaping up between the president and joe biden. what do you think about polling? what do you think it does not only for the white house of president trump's re-election but what it might do down ballot? guest: i think you're right. we have seen a dip in the polling in the presidential race. i was talking to one of the really good national pollsters who said they have seen it. but it's basically president

trump's numbers have been shifting a little bit to undecided. joe biden actually hasn't increased from his base line. which for republicans means that's good news because they can try to win back those undecided voters. i think what it really means is the president's been out there with covid, the country's been hit with the health crisis, they have been hit with an economic crisis, with the shut down. and crisis in terms of what we need to do to address policing to make sure that it's strong and robust, but also fair and just. and i think what you're seeing is joe biden's been able to avoid most of those issues for the last three or four months. essentially what we see in polling is when you ask a question, are you for a candidate, donald trump or generic democrat? generally the generic democrat does better than any named candidate.

it's just a phenomena everybody reads into generic democrat. their ideal version of a candidate. joe biden's kind of been able to take that status. he's not defined. he's been out of the public eye. and i think what needs to happen next is the president and his team have to start to define the difference between the two. the president will lay out his agenda for the next four years. i think he's road testing that with some of the rallies. and then he'll define the contrast between biden and him. then you'll see the polls start to narrow. and i think in the end the president's message will be successful. host: let's go to some calls for you. this starts off with allen in wisconsin. independent line with dave mcintosh of club for growth. you're on. caller: good morning. yes. speaking of big government. the worst big government problem that we have in this conright now. and this is the wild west of politics. is student loans.

the $2 trillion is own. the government owns 930% of the debt. we need fiscal stimulus right now. the president could cancel these loans by executive order without one dime of cash money needed. without one penny added to the national debt. that's $55 million voters. what does david think about that? is he a true conservative or fake conservative? part of the swamp or for the people? that's what i want to know. host: mr. mcintosh. guest: thank you for that question. i think it would be a terrible idea to cancel those loans because it sends a message for everybody in the future i can borrow money and not have to pay it back. that, frankly, doesn't work in a free market economy. i think when people have taken these loans, the government, you're right, has taken them over, which has been a disaster. it used to be when they were in private hands the lenders would work with people so they could

teach them how to repay those loans. and these students as they left college and started their careers had that assistance of these private lenders, helping them work it out and be able to take responsibility for that. and frankly build up a credit record that when they borrow money they repay it. if you start having on your credit record that you don't repay your loans, then you can't get insurance. you can't get a mortgage on a house. it would be a total disaster to the financial system and, frankly, be a total disservice to those 55 million borrowers to suddenly say we are going to forgive them all and can you borrow money and you don't have to pay it back. plus, think about the fairness factor of this. what about all the people who actually have paid back their student loans and now they are being asked to pay more taxes so that these loans can be forgiven? terrible idea. host: cameron in nevada, missouri. independent line. missouri, cameron in

hello? we'll try one more time. cameron, hello? i believe -- let's try this one. cameron, are you there? caller: yes, i'm here. host: go ahead. caller: hi. mr. mcintosh, i would just like to get your opinion on some things here. do you think that this whole coronavirus thing is -- do you think that we are opening up too soon? our economy, especially since how we have the biggest stock market crash since the great depression? because for the life of me i can't seem to understand why we are continuing to open everything up when obviously -surge in urgenies cases. i believe this country needs to come together and we need to really -- all of us should come together and pray and unify itself so that we at least asked god to help us get through this.

what do you think about that? guest: cameron, i'm also a big believer personally in a god who will look out for our country an to pray and ask him for that. thank you for that. yes, we need to do that. that's my personal opinion. club for growth doesn't take a position on issues like that. let me talk about a little bit on that tradeoff with the coronavirus versus the economy. what we are seeing in a lot of areas of the country is that the virus continues to remain very low incident rates. we should encourage those areas to stay open and reopen in their economic activity so people can go back to work and get their jobs. but in some very concentrated, urban areas it was like, i think miami-dade county in florida. los angeles county in california, they are seeing a second spike in the incidents in coronavirus. there what the medical experts

have said for a long time is we have to keep the curve flattened. what they are telling us is, this virus is going to spread. i think angela merkel was the one politician who was honest about it and said, look, half of germany's going to get it. it's going to spread. but what we need to do is make sure our hospital system can treat the patients when they get it. because if we can treat them and treat them early, almost everybody can survive and then go back to life and healthy person. there are individuals that don't and that's always really sad. but what we need to do is let the counties and cities make those tradeoffs between opening the economy and protecting people from the virus. and the key metrics, the ones that -- like the governor of texas i heard him articulate this very well, when the hospitalization reached 80%, he said that's getting close to capacity. i think it's time we reverse a little bit. step back and see if we can,

again, flatten the curve. then let people go back to full activities after we have been able to do that. it's a hard, hard decision for people to make. the virus, we didn't know much about it when it started. they know more now. they recommend people wear masks. which is a way of cutting down the personal risk for everybody. but in the end you're right, our hands -- our fate is not in our hands. it's in a loving god and we should also ask him for his help and peace and protection in this time. host: do you think the trump administration is doing enough to provide enough certainty to give those businesses, to give those states something to go on when it decides to pull back on certain things or open up certain things? guest: i think they have given tremendous leeway to the state and local officials. and support for them in terms of the expertise. although like florida has an excellent health officer that gives guidance to the governor

there. some states need that from the c.d.c. and the n.i.h. but also the resources. we didn't have enough veats when this started. and they have turned around on the dime. they have been able to work with companies that didn't make ventilators to switch their production line to that. now those are made available whenever a state says we are running low, we need more. pushing really hard for a vaccine. in the end a vaccine will help tremendously when you have a good one that works because people can protect themselves ahead of time from the virus and feel comfortable going out in public again and even if they are exposed being safe. so, yes, i think the administration has done a phenomenal job when you look at t we started in january and february. we didn't know much about this virus. frankly the whole health care system was a little bit asleep at the switch on it. and in a matter of two months they turned it around, focused on it daily. there were ups and downs. it was messy but it worked and

we were able to mobilize and take that death rate from an estimated couple million people down to less than 200,000. it worked and it had a good effect at protecting people. now mistakes were made. governor cuomo sent people back into the nursing homes. that we recognize was a mistake. it sadly caused more deaths in that state. now we are learning more and people are adjusting and figuring out how to respond to the coronavirus. yet still keep the economy going. host: dave, in asheville, north carolina. independent line. caller: good morning. host: you're on, go ahead. caller: thank you. linda bennett ran to replace mark meadows here in this area. she had a very strong ad. she really stressed she was totally endorsed by president trump. she got trounced by a young man, 24, 25 years old. i think that was the referendum

against the president. just wanted to know about your comment on that. think it's a sign of things to come. one more point if i could make it and get your opinion on it in today's "wall street journal." an investment firm semper capital management was awarded a forgivable paycheck protection , $726,000.r. mnuchin other business is to invest moneys so rich people can get richer. host: keep it there. we are running a little short on time. mr. mcintosh, go ahead. guest: let me address the question about president trump and the north carolina race. we followed that race carefully at the club for growth. our pack didn't endorse either candidate. they were too good conservatives running. i think what the decision on

that race, as i understand it, following it, was that linda bennett, who had the president's endorsement, made the mistake in one of other ads and appeared to be attacking her opponent who was in a wheelchair and making fun of him. and the voters always react badly to that. and so all of these races enharntely have these local issues that -- inherently have these local issues that affect them and address the outcome. we poll in dozens of congressional he senate races around the country. when a candidate has on the republican side, has the president's endorsement, in a republican primary, that usually gives them a 15 to 20 point lift in the support. and the reason is republican voters want to send members of congress to that will work with the president. and not be attacking him or criticizing him from within the republican party.

we are still seeing that today. don't think there's been a shift. i think that you have seen some races where people actually think the challenger to a sitting congressman, we saw this in colorado on tuesday, will be more supportive of the president than the sitting member, even though the president had endorsed the sitting member. so the voters, they look at the individuals. they take a lot into account. some of it is the president's endorsement. some of it is what they see the two candidates presenting. host: the club for growth decides who to support financially, what's the litmus test? guest: for us the litmus test is are you for limited constitutional government and free market policies on economics? those are the things we talked about. we interview every candidate. we have done about 300 interviews so far this cycle. endorsed almost 30 candidates out of that will 300. litmus test is probably a good

way to say it because if somebody is not going to be a supporter of free markets, if they are a republican but yes sometimes i want to raise taxes or republican says, well, sometimes we just have to spend money, then we are very skeptical of them and look to one of their opponents to see if we can support them. host: kay is in katie, texas, republican line. caller: yes, sir. mr. mcintosh, i didn't vote in 2016, but i voted for mitt romney. i wanted to ask you a question. the tax cut that the president, the g.o.p. passed, a couple just a couple of months and the economy collapsed. how come this hasn't been so effective to neutralize the effect of the coronavirus?

and my second point is, you angela merkel said half of the german will get the disease. why can't we focus on the end of the disease. once you get the disease it does damage to your body. it's more important for erybody to do what's necessary. wear a facemask? social distancing? so that you can prevent from getting the disease. so it doesn't damage your lungs, liver, or your body. host: thank you. guest: thank you very much. i agree. i think it makes a lot of sense, keep social distancing. our family's been basically garneteend at home for the last several months. --quarantined at home for the last several months. until the scientist vs. been able to develop a vaccine where we can protect ourselves from it. i'm optimistic based on listening to what mr. fauchy and others have said they hope that will be available by the end of

the year, beginning of next year. let me address the tax cut question. what we saw after president trump's tax cuts was tremendous growth in the economy. we saw 3% or more growth for several quarters. we saw unemployment reach historic lows. particularly for groups that typically aren't benefited by a strong economy. so blacks and women and hispanics all saw historic, historic low unemployment where the economy is working for they have. good jobs. wages were going up. and that was working when we had to shut down the economy because of the covid virus, yeah. it stopped. what i would say is keeping those tax cuts in place is one of the reasons in may and in june we are seeing small businesses reopen and rehire people quickly. if we had higher tax rates -- the other factor is, the president suspended a lot of regulations and red tape that

cost small business an average of about 15,000 per employee. by cutting back on the red tape, keeping those tax cuts in place, that lets a small business who is hammered -- they lost all their sales, they basically had to pay rent and continue to pay for some of their wages for their employeeser or else let them go. give them pink slips. they said, hey, i can look at the future and i can make it. i know how to do this business. and now i don't have to have all this hassle with the red tape that doesn't make a difference for anybody. the government's not going to take 50%, 60% of what i make. when they look at that future ok i'll put in more of my money and i'll hire people back. we'll get back to work. we'll figure out how to deliver products in coronavirus times when we couldn't, before they had to come to the shop. now we'll take it to them. the ingenuity of the american people will be unleashed if you take off the heavy hand of the

government and remove the regulations, keep the taxes low. host: our guest will appreciate the fact the house is doing a pro forma session at 10:00. we have mere moments before we go to that. aaron in maryland independent line because we are short on time jump national park with your question or comment. caller: i'll try to be quick. this guy's screaming bloody murder about loan forgiveness. trump administration has done that six or seven times. and i know you are going to say, well, it's not illegal because of the l.l.c. and blah, blah, blah. host: is that your question or comment for the guest? only because i don't want to lose out on the time. go ahead. caller: well, everybody should be able to file for bankruptcy. if donald trump can do it, people shouldn't be homeless. this is a whole new ballgame. host: thank you. any response? guest: i would just say, yes. if somebody can't make it with their loan payments, yeah we have a bankruptcy proceeding to help them out. hopefully they have family members and others who will help them out. yes, if somebody's really hurting we have ways to help them. but to do a mass forgiveness of

loans where many of those people are making a lot of money, or come from rich families. that just sends the wrong message that you can borrow money and expect you won't have to pay it back. host: we have about 30 seconds. how do you know if the investment you make in this cycle is successful? what ratios do you need to see? guest: we hope to win each of our races. we know they are tough. my board tells me, david, don't pick the easy ones because i don't want to you pad your win-loss record. i'm always careful about making predictions. let me just say it will be hard to see any of the great candidates we have lose. i know that happens in politics. and you got to pick yourself up and start over again. but i think we are going to see the margins narrow. i think it will be competitive in the house. i think the senate will stay in republican hands. and the presidential race will come down to the wire. i think president trump has the better vision for the future. and likely to win. host: david mcintosh, president

of club for gothe. he also served as a representative for the state of indiana as a republican from 1995 to 2001. mr. mcintosh, we thank you for your time today on "washington journal." the house is coming in for a pro forma session. the president made statements earlier this morning just after 9:30 talking about the new job numbers that came out. but taking no questions according to reports. but you can see that at our website at c-span.org. that's it for this program today. another edition of "washington journal" comes your way at 7:00 tomorrow morning. see you then.