tv Washington Journal 11152017 CSPAN November 15, 2017 6:59am-10:01am EST
>> c-span, where history unfolds daily. 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's companiesevision and is brought today by your cable or satellite provider. today on c-span, washington journal's live with your phone call, next. house returns a 10:00 for general speeches, and at 12:00 to modernize the a facilities. on c-span3, the senate finance committee continues its multi-day review of the senate republican tax reform proposal. live coverage when that starts at 10:00 a.m.. coming up in 30 minutes, indiana republican congresswoman susan brooks discusses measures to combat sexual harassment on capitol hill. democratic
representative john larson reviews republican tax reform effort. finally, lisa monaco talks about preventing future terrorist attacks. join our conversation now. ♪ host: good morning, it is wednesday, november 15, 2017. the senate is in at 9:30 while the house meets at 10:00 a.m. and noon for legislative business. this is the day after jeff , fromns' latest testimony everything to trump campaign contacts with russia to allegations against hillary clinton and sexual assault accusations against alabama senate candidate roy moore. did you watch?
what did you think? the phones lines are open -- phone lines are open. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 you can also catch up with us on facebook and twitter. a very good wednesday morning to you. you can start calling in now. i want to show you some of the headlines coming in off of the attorney general's testimony yesterday before the house judiciary committee. here is the front page of the wall street journal, the headline in the photo to go with it focusing on this hearing, russians and hotseat recalls .iscussion of russia meeting to the washington times this morning, their headline also focusing on the russia angle. the subhead saying the attorney general's continuing to change his story. the front page of the financial times also taking a focus on this story with its cover photo
and headline with that, saying under oath, sessions cools on special inquiry and claims against clinton. to a few other news websites, the conservative daily caller focusing on one exchange with congresswoman sheila jackson lane, committee chair silences representative sheila jackson lee after bullying attorney general sessions. the headline from the slate, -- jeff sessions is taste of somet a of the headlines from a very wide-ranging hearing. a lot of the focus on the attorney general's recollections of the trump campaign's contacts with russia during the 2016 campaign. here is one of his exchanges with democratic fungus one eric's -- democratic congressman eric swalwell on that issue.
>> i believe you are asking me today explicitly did you meet with any other russians? i impaired to say i did. i met with the ambassador in my office with at least two of my staff, senior, respected patriot, colonels, retired in the army. nothing improper occurred at all. can we and for all answer the question? >> i am, once and for all, answering the question. i do not understand why you do not take my answer? >> during your time on the campaign, did any person on earth state they were communicating with russians, traveling to russia, or ask the campaign to meet with russians, to your recollection? asked that question? >> i am asking you today, to your knowledge, did any person on the campaign tell you they were going to russia? >> i am prepared to answer the question, but i will not answer
it in a way that suggests i'm anyway intentionally misled anyone when i answer the question. >> to answer the question, mr. attorney general. >> the answer is i met with the ambassador in my office for less than an hour, i believe, he came up to me after a speech at the convention when it was raised to me -- this was much later. nobody said immediately it was an error. i told him the meetings i have had. >> if you missed any part of that hearing yesterday before the house judiciary committee, you can go back and watch it in its entirety at c-span.org. your reaction this morning on the washington journal phone lines, they are open. democrats, republicans, and independents. oscar, yucca valley, california.
good morning. generali think internal -- attorney general sessions did stumble through his testimony, but i also think he was honest. i am a democrat, and i do not favor anything that trump and his whole entourage are trying to do to this country. but i have to same he came across as being honest. the russian connection that they are trying to put on him is obviously something the democrats want to get all over. but i do not think after listening to him yesterday there is nothing there. host: a headline from the usa today, saying sessions stands behind russia story, but says he -- recall the meeting recalls the meeting of former trump eight papadopoulos, the guilty plea stemming from the robert mueller probe of russian interference in the 2016 election.
getting your reaction to the attorney general's testimony yesterday before the house judiciary committee, dave, pittsburgh, maryland. republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i concur with the previous caller. there, there is nothing and with respect to remembering or recurring people that you ,eet with an conference events he supposed to meet with everyone. i think it is a little absurd to think their memory should be to peopleth respect they have just been running into and having brief conversations. host: the attorney general addressed that issue yesterday, this again from the usa today story, saying it is difficult for him to recall details from one year ago, in part because the trunk campaign was so chaotic -- trump campaign was so chaotic. he said it was a brilliant campaign in many ways, but it
was also chaos. he was also still doing his job as senator while advising the campaign. andcrats on but the house senate say they are troubled by some of the inconsistencies that the essence -- that sessions has told them over the course of the inquiries. janet, tacoma, washington. line for democrats. caller: i think that when the republicans were asking the questions, they would grin and him of almost answer for when they asked it, and he would grin. with the democrats asking him questions, you did not see him want to answer it, or he said he could not answer it. host: give me an example of that happening on both sides? democratsll, the ifld ask him certain things
he did something, and he would say well, that was something that he would not be free to answer or he is not supposed to and then when the republicans would ask him something, he would grin and say you did not do this did you, and almost answer the question for him. you know what i mean? host: what i am asking is give me an example of a time when republicans answered a question for him. what was the topic? i don't know, about russia. i do not get it too much, but i it kind of put up what the republicans, because they were making him right to begin with. with the democrats, you could -- tell because they did not
didn't -- ts your point.k we got sam, los angeles, california. go ahead. taking myank you for call. i want to agree with the first caller. watch that last night, and if you watched jeff sessions and his the trail by the media -- portrayal by the media, it is their job to hate people. you do not get a good feeling for who the man is. i am glad that i watched the testimony last night in its entire murray -- entirety, and came away with a good feeling aout my attorney general but sickening feeling about my congress. i think with the democrats in california stacked on the man, trying to cut his throat, republicans seemed to toe the party line.
i was far less impressed with my congress last night then with my attorney general. establishinge that a party line and attacking along party lines is far more important than any kind of drilling down into some sort of truth. that sessions with supposed to be a vetting of our attorney general and that came away as less of a fetching, but more of butn't forget, -- vetting, more of a don't forget, this is what we were about. on -- a few comment comments on twitter. i guess we can now use i don't recall as a defense for everything. another saying he has perjured himself and needs to have consequences. twitter,ur comments on facebook, you can also call in as well like james did on our line for democrats from chattanooga, tennessee. caller: hi, i'm from chattanooga
tennessee, and we pretty much shoot straight here. annapolisse, mr. pop with an amy -- papadopoulos was in a meeting, and jeff sessions did not recall it at all, even though that seems like something very easy to her member -- isember, because that not an easy name, papadopoulos. host: karl's will, georgia. what did you think? caller: i watched most of it yesterday, and what struck me is there were accusing -- they were accusing sessions of lying and not being forth with with his testimony, but i heard several lies from the democrats. i do not hear them ever talking about the lies that obama told about the health plan and all that, and that has hurt people. the lie that he told has really hurt people. hurte not heard anybody
from the inconsistency of jeff sessions' talk. host: a wide-ranging hearing focused on the trunk campaign on russia -- trump campaign and russia, but also how they will be approaching a special prosecutor to investigate hillary clinton. we will discuss that later in our program, and also questions yesterday about sexual assault allegations against republican alabama senate candidate roy moore. here is one exchange between sheila jackson lee of texas, a democrat, and the attorney general. >> to you believe in the constitution of the united dates? of will abide by it with all your intention? >> that is exactly correct. >> at thank you very much. i took the liberty of reviewing federal crimes against children,
particularly those dealing with sexual or physical abuse. as you know, lee kaufman, debbie and beverly young nelson, these young women and others have accused this individual who is running for a federal office, the united states senate, of child sexual activity. do you believe these young women? doubtave no reason to these young women. >> with that in mind, if you believe these young women, do you believe judge moore said be seated -- should be seated in the senate if he wins, and will you induce investigation by the doj regarding his actions? evaluate every case as to whether or not it should be investigated. this kind of case would normally be a state case. i would say, representative that the ethics
people at the department of justice -- i have talked to them about that when this campaign started, it is the seat i used to hold. they advised me that the attorney general should not be involved in this campaign. i have friends in the campaign. i would steadfastly a here -- >> i want to make sure if he comes to the united takes senate -- united states senate that there would be the possibility of referring his case for at least a federal review by the department of justice. host: several headlines focusing thehat alabama senate seat, special election, general election in that special election happening december 12. the news yesterday, the republican national committee withdrawing its support from roy mitch focusing on mcconnell appealing to the white house about the race, said he
might push a write-in candidate over roy moore, but a note it would face huge difficulties and could hand that seat to democrats in the state of alabama. , a leadr story on this editorial today in the wall street journal, the editorial board calling it "the roy moore mess." without a new candidate, republicans would be better off whatg the senate seat is the wall street journal says today. tyrone, new york city, democrats. and you watch that hearing yesterday? yes, i watched the hearing -- caller: i didn't watch it yesterday. after loretta scott king wrote this letter against jeff
sessions, because she knew back then with this man was, and now he is in this office. they come up with this black identity extremist situation. whatever the heck that is. you look at a black person now, and it is bad enough we are already getting killed without having any weapons. people have a group of that are looking to kill cops, and he do not know nothing about this. there are no white identity extremists. this guy is a joke. ofs going to cost life people caller in this country. we do not want to deal with the truth. york.tyrone in new fred on twitter says i am glad the attorney general wants to remove politics from the department of justice. i wish him well and hope he succeeds for all of us. many, pennsylvania, republican line.
go ahead. caller: thank you for picking up my call. it surprises me that i am 49 years old and half of the time, i cannot remember everything. i'm 49 years old. sessions is older, and this jackson lee does not give him man hasfor how long the been working for this seat, but his position. the way they dog sessions really killed me. look, i'm latino and the caller you had before -- yeah. a lot of people are not armed. we do not reason why have guns. it is for safety. other than that, they should respect sessions and give him the credibility that he deserves. thank you. kelly, alabama, independent line. caller: thank you.
one of the things i took away seems likeas that it the left, for the past year, has been coming down on the side of if you have ever been to russia, if you have ever talked to the russian ambassador, then somehow or another, you are guilty of a crime. and yet what the right was trying to prove yesterday was hey, we have some russian contacts from the last administration that you seem to not even notice. my problem with that is i would like to know all those people asking questions -- how many of them met surrogate kinsley act -- met the russian ambassador in their office over the last 10 years? because it if you did, in my opinion, you should not be allowed to question attorney general sessions because now you are guilty. host: i have to ask you about that senate race in alabama with sheila jackson-we asking about
moore,the focus on roy the republicans in washington wanting him to ruth raw from that race. what you think? >> it is very confusing. i am new to alabama, i am a former resident of georgia, but what i am getting from the people in my new hometown is that they feel like washington does not have the right to tell alabama who they need to put in. true, andf this is people also have to understand if an accusation can ruin your life, ruin your career, that is a sad point that we are at. at the same time, they do not want to send him to washington only to have mitch mcconnell and them unseat him anyway. they are very torn. they want to do right by their state, but at the same time they want to believe these women.
-- i dore these women -- this has never happened to me in the workforce. why stay silent for 40 years when he has been a big public figure in alabama? women,to side with the but at the same time i want to believe that the people of alabama can make a conscious, good dissented -- decision and send a representative. host: a call this morning from alabama. about 10 minutes left in this segment of washington journal, just getting your reaction to the attorney general's testimony yesterday on capitol hill. we want to keep you updated on some of the other news in washington and around the country. the senate republicans saying yesterday that they are going to include a repeal of obamacare's individual mandate in their tax bill, in what the washington that called a "bold move frees up more money for deeper tax cuts and takes a whack at
the health care law that they have repeatedly tried but failed to repeal." about thattalking and tax reform, coming up later in our program. we will be joined by congresswoman -- congressman john larson on the ways and means committee, the chief tax-writing committee in the house. if you watched any of that markup of the republican tax reform effort, you will know john larson. he was a presence in that hearing. he will be joining us this an hour to talk about it. and we have spent some time focusing on north korea, the president's efforts in north korea to try and get other countries in the region to put pressure on north korea to get rid of their nuclear armaments. a special envoy to north korea this week, according to china's official
news agency. a special envoy of president xi jinping will leave for north korea on friday, the state news agency saying the visit will include briefings on last month's communist party congress. this comes days after a visit to beijing by president donald trump. this story in the wall street journal today, and one more for you -- a lot of focus yesterday on that gun rampage in northern california. an apparent felon who had been shooting hundreds of rounds in recent days in a small community in northern california began firing at random yesterday, killing four people and wounding 10. he shot at people and property in seven locations, according to the sheriff's office there. they called the incident rampage."nd murderous
the sheriff said it was monumental that school workers took the action to lockdown, and that they no doubt save children's lives. four people killed and wounded in that gun rampage in california. back here calls on the attorney general's testimony yesterday on capitol hill, san francisco, republican. go ahead. want to talki about sessions, but i also want to interject that i am all for this tax break and reform we are going to have. $10ident obama spent trillion. the first $1 trillion went to gifts for congress, the people never got anything out of that. as far as judge sessions -- his father was a judge to, i believe, and they worked for our country, so he has given good service to us. this is a sham. the man is good and the people should be giving back.
they should give back the uranium taken from our country, and we have to buy it the morels. we are short. russia is collecting everything. they have so much oil that it is on the bottom of all the forests. instead, we are investigating whether mr. trump, president trump has any collusion with russia, whereas hillary clinton and all of these people are involved and taking our property. where did the money go? they have $140 billion -- $140 million from this by russia. those people are on the beach and never had housing. they can go to the people in haiti. the clintons are not allowed to go to haiti anymore. host: coming up later in our show, we will talk about the a teary general -- attorney
general saying earlier that he has a vice special prosecutors to investigate whether these accusations against hillary clinton should be investigated. it was a topic that hearing yesterday. we will focus on it in about one hour, and some of the reaction out of that hearing. stick around for that discussion. i want to get in some more calls, general reaction to the attorney general testimony. carol, st. louis, missouri. democrat line. go ahead. caller: i wanted to say that it was amazing that mr. sessions recall things after the man who delivered the copy -- copy had testified, and i have something i would like to say to you, if that is ok. host: sure, go ahead. caller: there was a man who called and said he heard all of the democrats lying, and you did not say give me an example.
but when that woman called this morning, you had her on here quite a while and almost were bullying her into saying what was the testimony? that upset me. sorry about that, carol. trying to have a good discussion this morning. i will keep working on that for you. maureen is in maryland. the line for independence. go ahead. caller: hi, i would like to say -- i do not know if sen. attorney general sessions is a role model, i do not know if the trump administration is trustworthy, but i wish sheila jackson lee was more trustworthy with her communication skills. i get where she is coming from, she had come across
as more professional overall. a think the communication skills used by most of the people grilling sessions could have been more professional. that was all i have to say. host: what do you mean more fashion? focused on a certain topic? caller: yeah. sheila jackson lee, when she was interviewing sessions, her tone was very aggressive. it is hard to define it, but almost cutting him off, interrupting him, or the tone of voice. i don't know. it is a little bit much. with otherating people, you always want to be respectful. i don't know. host: carl, daytona beach, florida. democrat line. caller: how are you doing this morning? host: i'm doing well. caller: i think mr. sessions has figured out that he might have been a little smarter than to go
to work for mr. trump. he is trying his best to not -- she is trying to walk right up to the line. you knows more than what he is telling, and it is amazing that he only remembers things after it is pointed out to him or shown to him in pictures or on tape. --t is kind of worry some worrisome. make, everywant to time i turn around they want to criticize mr. obama for lying about the affordable care act, but they forgot about all the got that mr. bush told that 4000, 5000 of our men killed for the sake of a weapon of mass destruction. they can forget all about that. that is all i have to say this morning.
thank you. rochester new york, independent. go ahead. caller: i think mr. sessions, in his previous discussions with the senate and confirmation hearings they went through, they called him a racist. now they call him a liar. it is ironic how they change tone.town -- their and sheila jackson in the rest of those people up there are just grandstanding. i do not see any benefit to well of these hearings. i think they are a waste of taxpayer money. i think these congresspeople should be working as much as the public does on a daily basis. they should not have all this time off. if they knew anything about their constituents, they would probably be able to ask questions that were pertinent to the conversation that was supposed to happen yesterday rather than putting the alabama guy up there and talking over discussion.essions'
like the woman from california said, why was sheila jackson talking over the top of sessions when he was trying to give her a reply? host: how often do you watch congressional hearings? caller: i watch them quite a lot, and i want your program. host: what was the last hearing you watch that you think was worth while that further the discussion that you thought was worth having the hearing for? caller: probably watergate. host: rochester, new york, the last caller in this segment of the washington journal. up next, we will focus on another hearing on capitol hill yesterday, a hearing yesterday on sexual harassment issues on capitol hill. we will be joined by republican congresswoman susan brooks, chair of the house ethics committee, and later joined by congressman john waterson -- to talk about the
republican tax reform push. we will be right back. ♪ >> he walked into the room first, and was wearing military theuflage fatigues, and initials kkk on his chest, embroidered across his prey, on his head, where knights of the ku klux klan. and he had a semi-audit medic -- semi automatic handgun in a holster. he was followed right behind mr. kelly, grand dragon, in a dark blue suit and tie. when he turned the corner and he froze. mr. kelly bumped into his back because the guy had stopped short. theirtumbled and regain balance, looked all around the room, and i knew what they were thinking. they were thinking either the
desk clerk gave them the wrong room number or this was an ambush. i displayed my hands, nothing in them, and i stood up and approached him. kelly, my name is gerald davis. come on in. >> for the past 30 years, gerald davis has befriended ku klux klan members to understand their hatred and convince them they are wrong. sunday night at 8:00 eastern on q&a, c-span. c-span, where history unfold daily. 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. when i first got there, we had issues, but the one that was really defining was when the president made the decision to
hit syria. after the chemical weapons. when he made that decision, the number of calls and emails i received from countries saying it is so good to see america lead again was amazing. it was enlightening to me, because they felt like we had been dormant and they feel weaker when the u.s. does not lead. they want us to lead on the international stage, and when we do they feel more confident. i think you are seeing that, whether with it is japan and south korea, the north korea issue, whether that is with the arab partners in dealing with iran, whether it is venezuela or cuba, it will always be important for us to know the power of our voice and what leadership means to the world. >> washington journal continues. congresswoman susan brooks joins us now, a republican from serves in the house
as ethics committee chair. while not a member of the house administration committee, you sat on the panels hearing yesterday concerning sexual assault on capitol hill, sexual harassment in the office place. why were you at that hearing yesterday? i want to thank chairman gregg harper for inviting me to be a part of the hearing yesterday. the house ethics committee also deals with allegations and investigations involving sexual harassment or sexual misconduct in the office by members or staff. we know that it is important for the house to ensure that our staff inn offices and our offices know there is no tolerance for sexual harassment. they wanted me to hear it and participate in order to figure out whether we need to make processes in our processes, house rules, possibly in the ide of conduct, that is why was there. to listen, participate, and ensure that the house ethics
committee has sufficient and proper coordination with the office of compliance, the office that really deals with and thates those allegations employees make to our offices. host: we have heard a lot about that process, especially in the last week or so as we talked about this topic of sexual harassment on capitol hill. wind of the ethics committee get involved? when did it become an ethics violation? is it only if a members and located? guest: -- member is implicated? guest: no, we also deal with issues involving staff. whether or not an accuser would wouldorward, if someone come forward, are they indicating to that accuser that pursuing an action with the ethics committee is an option? they indicated that they do tell accusers that as they are going through the mediation, the counseling process, cooling-off processes, which takes a very
long time, i learned, about the timing before they might go forward with a complaint. we wanted to make sure that people did know, can't initiate -- can initiate investigations, can ask the house ethics , butttee to get involved the majority in appropriate places for the opposite of -- office of compliance to be the first place that an employee of the house would go to make a complaint about an action. host: you have been on the ethics committee since you have been in congress. how many times in that five come forwardeone to the ethics committee with a sexual harassment complaint on capitol hill? guest: it is fairly rare that they do, but it is more common for them to go to the office of compliance. they work through the process that has been set out by the house and set out in the congressional accountability act . that discussion came up yesterday, because we think
there may need to be both witnesses, representatives here as well as representative bradley byrne said we need to improve the process. we might need to look at how that process works and reform that process. ivory -- i agree with the representative, it is very much focused on, in many ways, protecting the office of the employee. it is designed in many ways to focus on the employing office accused coming forward. how do we help the victim coming forward? i think there are a lot of great recommendations made yesterday, for instance, and what came out of the hearing afterwards. speaker ryan said mandatory training for members and staff. host: the senate has moved forward with this, the house is going to do that now? guest: yes. our dietsconsensus on yesterday and with the
c hassses, and oo recommended that for years, as they recommended. we did not take it up, and we should have. for thee will remedy it rules that there be mandatory sexual harassment training and antidiscrimination training for members and staff. that is one thing. we also need a universal policy in our employee handbooks. it has been up to each individual office to work with of and pick out which parts hr policies they want in the handbook. we should have universal policy for the house. we need training, policies, and to reform the process. see suggestions, and i think it needs to be a stated rule that no member of congress -- it should be prohibited that they have any type of sexual interaction or relationships with any staff, in turn, or anyone who works for them. host: i would like for viewers
to join our discussion. we are with susan brooks, the chair of the house ethics committee. if you have questions, lines were democrats, (202) 748-8000. republican, (202) 748-8001. independent s, (202) 748-8002. yesterdayar testified about two incidence of members being implicated in sexual harassment issues. here is what she had to say. >> two out of three sexual assaults go on reported in this country, and oftentimes, sexual leads sexual assault. as i shared my own story on #metoocongress, i have had numerous phone calls from women
and men who have been subjected to this an excusable and oftentimes illegal behavior. there are two members of congress, republican and democrat, right now, who serve who have been subject to review or have not been subject to review, but engaged in sexual harassment. these arrests are propositions, such as are you going to be a good girl, to perpetrators exposing their genitals, two victims having their private parts grabbed on the house floor. all they ask in return as staff members is to be able to work in a hostile free work environment. they want the system fixed and the perpetrators held accountable. host: congresswoman susan brooks, i want to get your reaction to that testimony getting a lot of attention in the past 24 hours. guest: as it should. when jackie mentioned there were
two members, she went into some detail about the allegations, i am not familiar, as chair of the house ethics mitty, i am not a milieu of which two members -- i am not familiar of which two members she is referring to. she went to do some specificity as to what she claims they have done, so that is a very, very serious allegation. we certainly -- if employees or other people have been subjected to this type of harassment, whether it is on the house floor or out of the office, it does not matter if it is on or off capitol hill. it is important that the people come forward and that they share. she is right, so much of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct goes unreported, and it is important that people are fully accountable. that is what the speaker wants, that is what the house ethics
committee is about, upholding people accountable, but it is also about conducting fair and impartial investigation. not every allegation is accurate. not every rumor that might be told about a member or about a staffer is accurate, and that is why we have a nonpartisan, very well-trained investigative staff in the house ethics committee that does very serious investigations, interviews witnesses, looks at documents, asks for materials before we render our judgment in our very committee, as a 5-5 that does these serious investigations. i'm not familiar with these allegations she brought up yesterday. host: after you do that investigation, what penalties can the ethics committee levy? guest: it can be a private reprimand to a public reprimand to what is called a reproof oh, a poor public statements. we issue reports that provide
analysis and the results of our investigation. we also ask for punishment by the house. the ultimate punishment would be expulsion. that is obviously what is being discussed over the senate right now. there is a whole range of punishment that can be recommended. some require a vote by the house. that has not happened in my time on the house ethics committee, so i have no experience with that. we have an incredible staff. we rely on a lot of precedents and how manners have been handled in the past, but we take it very, very seriously. host: let's talk to some colors. -- joy, virginia. independent line. funding theire we
perversions if this came out of their actual pocket? about what she is talking -- i was not aware of a dollar figure that had been given -- is that the house -- and i agree -- i think there is a problem with this in that the budget of the house does pay for settlements when settlement is reached between an accuser and the perpetrator. .r the individual being accused sometimes settlements are reached on a lawyer, i have been a lawyer for a long time. sometimes they are reached in order to end the matter rather than going forward, and even defending the matter. it is true, that the house is paying to resolve these matters in lieu of going forward to trial or in lieu of going with the matter. there is a question, and that will be debated as to whether or not a perpetrator should be,
especially if an individual were to admit -- whether they should have to pay for that settlement rather than the treasury and the taxpayer ultimately paying for that settlement? settlements happen in eeoc cases , discrimination cases on a regular basis, and under the has come ofhe house the institution does pay to resolve these matters through settlements. that wenot something have really shined a light on, and i think that is going to we will have a lot of discussions about that now that this is becoming a bigger problem. i also want to remind people that this is not always just involving members. this can also involve staff on staff situations. that is where training is so critically important. jobo a better
training. we have a lot of young staff who may be, this might be their first professional position. it is important that i think we do a far better job in training, and that is why mandating training is critically important. we need to prevent more of this from happening. host: chestertown, maryland, republican line. caller: can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: i am shocked that the representative there is almost spinning this. first of all, $15 million from yesterday is outrageous. then she says we ought to have a discussion about it. i have been retired for seven years, but even back in the 90's -- 1990's in my industry, we had to take sexual-harassment courses. are the republicans and democrats in congress so far behind? therely, you talk about
are so many young people -- there are so many old people that are actually members that ought to know better. i do not see any outrage on the part, and she's should be saying yes, they should pay their own fines. also, why do you have 180 days before you go to a 30 day mediation? what gives their? great points,f but first of all, i am outraged. i'm trying to explain the history and what has happened. i agree. we, as an institution, are behind the times. we are not in line with what has happened in the private sector in many ways, but we have to a knowledge that there are a lot of industries behind the times, and what is happening in many different sectors, whether it is hollywood, congress, these types of situations happen in all sectors of society, and it is
wrong. it is completely wrong. it is because of this coming to light that we need to make sure we are changing our processes. i agree. i think 180 days is too long. i think there needs to be a process. what that process looks like is what we in the house will be debating and discussing. i do think that -- one thing i wanted to make sure we learned about was whether or not a member -- i asked that question in the hearing yesterday -- if it involves a staff on staff situation, is the member informed immediately? that is what i wanted to make sure. it does not always involve the member. i learned that yes, the member is informed when an employee the office ofto compliance and complains about their supervisor or someone else in their office. i was relieved to hear that. but you are right. members must take this seriously and bring in -- they must ensure they have the proper protocols
in place, they have the type of work environment where an employee can come forward and can report if something is happening, whether it is someone in their own office or another person from another office. we as an institution need to make sure this is strictly prohibited. take this incredibly seriously, as we are on both sides of the aisle. host: about 10 or 15 minutes left with congresswoman susan brooks. here with us taking your questions, i want to read one headline and one tweet for you. from the new york times yesterday, house and senate among the worst for harassment, or into some representatives, and james on twitter, as we are having this conversation saying if you get rid of all the groper's in congress, there will be some empty elevators in the capital. how widespread is this problem on capitol hill? west: what has happened is know that so many people who
have come forward who have worked on the hill in the past. we want to let those employees know -- i need to also say, which jackie pointed out yesterday, this involves women and men. she made that point. predominantly women, i would say, are those that have been affected and have been impacted, and have been violated in ways. this is now becoming hopefully a relief to them that we are addressing it, and should have addressed it in the past. there is no question about it, but sometimes it does take a change in the culture. i think that is what we are seeing. that is a really good thing. i do not know about -- i did not work on the hill in the past. this was my first time to work on capitol hill, and that is why i applauded the women yesterday, all who had been staffers on the hill before, because they are
demonstrating two former hill former hillo staffers that they can have a voice in this country. -- of those women's who women who were staffers acknowledgment this happens on capitol hill, but this happens in many sectors and will happen in many other sectors in society. it is wrong, and congress sadly reflects society. we need to be leaders in this, we need to push beyond the private sector and do a far better job in protecting those accused, punishing those setting a culture that this is strictly prohibited, as i said in my statement yesterday. the code of official conduct says this is prohibited. margaret, maryland, democrat line. go ahead. caller: good morning. my concern is the fact that -- i do not feel that the people should be paying for any
lawsuits. if a person commits a crime, that person should be the one paying for their lawsuit, not the people. guest: i agree, and i believe there will be that discussion. all of these allegations are bringing to light the fact that the house and, i would assume, the senate office of compliance have resolved from what is called the office of house number of counsel, a these issues through monetary settlements. i'm not familiar with the range of the settlements, but i agree that individuals who have been involved in this should be subject to paying that themselves. iny need to have more skin the game. they need to realize there are consequences for their actions, whether they are physical, insults, andt,
what is called print quote quid which is -- which is requesting sexual favors for their job or to get promoted, that is wrong and prohibited and people need to be punished for that. host: scott, illinois, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i used to run a couple my clubs -- of nightclubs almost 20 years ago. but there were differences between unwanted flirting from -- attractive men and unwanted flirting from attractive men. i was wondering what to think about the falsely accused, and what she is going to do when people are being falsely accused
on her tractability? -- a tractability -- attractiveness? guest: if the matter comes to the house ethics committee, we investigated it in a nonpartisan way, and that is why we interview a lot of witnesses. we try to figure out whether or not something crossed the line. obviously, -- that is something that flirtation can create a hostile work environment, in many ways. that is where we have to determine and whether we believe there needs to be better policies in place. there should not be flirtation in a congressional office, whether that is between staff, members and staff, that should not happen. we need to make sure -- you are right -- that is why i brought that people are accused improperly or unjustly, and that is why we do investigation.
that is why the office of compliance works with the accusers, to try to make sure that their allegation is accurate, that other people, when they get involved in investigations, that we figure out if there is actual truth to the allegation. it is awful to be accused improperly, and that is where we have to -- like our judicial system -- find a way to figure out the truth. that involves interviewing witnesses, talking with the accuser, talking with the accused, and trying to reach some conclusions. 5-5, fivey we have a democrats, fiber republicans, who look at this and make our determination. just a few -- host: just a few minutes left with representative susan brooks. dependent line, steve, north carolina. good morning. are you with us? caller: yes, are you there? host: yes, go ahead. caller: one thing i would like
to say is that adults should not really need these sexual harassment thing because they should have developed these things as children, or as they are growing up. lines, is it power or what? and in the questions where you incoming, like roy moore, or blackballing, because sometimes people do not report stuff because when they report it, the rest of their career is shot. respect to your second question, that certainly came up. what we have heard from staffers were former staffers is that rather than reporting, it was wiser for them in their career to leave the hill and have opportunities off of the hill. stir thenot want to
pot, muddy the waters, get involved in these things. that is the difficult issue for anyone who has been a victim of sexual assault or sexual harassment in the workplace, whether in congress or another workplace. sometimes it is safer or easier for them to leave. when that happens, that is when the accuser is never held accountable. that is why it takes so much applauded they i women and occasionally the men who come forward and indicate they have been harassed. that is why we have to have appropriate procedures in place to create that environment to encourage people to come forward to eliminate the harassment. speaker ryan has made it very clear as has leader pelosi. there is no place for sexual hill, ort on capitol sexual misconduct. that is very, very clear. secondly, yesterday, when asked
i indicated i believe that roy moore should step aside. it is in large part and because i am in a position of protecting the integrity of the house. i think that is why leader mcconnell and others have said in protecting the integrity of the senate, he should step aside. host: if he does not, what do you think republicans should do? run a write-in candidate against him? guest: i have not studied what all of their options are, but it towns like that might be the only option right now. i know that is certainly being discussed. the national republican senatorial committee withdrew --ir support sometime go, sometime ago, and the rnc withdrew their support yesterday. a ground game be for roy moore on behalf of the republican party, so i think a write-in candidate is the best situation at this point. host: a few minutes left -- i
just wanted to ask you, we will be talking with congressman john larson about tax reform and the latest details emerging about the senate plan, possibly ending the individual mandate as part of tax reform -- where you stand on that? do you think that would pass in a republican-controlled house? guest: great question. ill.not going to comment on they are in the middle of doing their work, like we were. they had a very long mark up last week, going to the house floor this week. i hope our bill passes. i certainly am not in favor of the individual mandate, but as to whether or not it does get through the senate process, we will see when it comes to conference where that all goes. baltimore,e, new michigan. independent line, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. my comment to the representative, miss brooks
there -- ms. brooks there, this is justxual harassment mind boggling to me. with all the problems in washington, this is what you're working on? it does not make sense. you are not going to change nature. it is man's nature to chase women and vice versa. get to work and get something done and stop chasing ghosts. guest: i will say if we have a work environment here in -- that is the problem. that is why you have human resource policies. you cannot have resources discriminating and whether it is age discrimination, race discrimination, sexual cannot have an environment like the rest of the country.
the important work we are doing. that is what the house committee's rollers. lovely we will reform our process and reform them quickly. this is something we can come to much agreement on right away and move forward. that is the jurisdiction of this particular committee. need to make sure our members abide by the code of conduct and the manner by which they conduct themselves. if they do not abide, the need to be consequences. host: two viewers if you miss that, you can go back and watch it in its entirety.
you can check out the archives and actionthe topics -- childhood arrivals program. you joined 12 lawmakers calling for a solution before the end of the year. guest: i wanted to make sure we get to a solution long before the sixth if possible. lot before us between now and the end of the year. the omnibus till, spending bill, whether or not we can get some to the issues involving young people. i will also say in part of the solution, we will include border security resolutions. we know we need to enhance our
border security, tech knowledge he, personnel, fixing some of the border wall and fencing. that all needs to be done at the same time. i was there can be individual resolutions but that is not practical. it is not how things get done here. they were brought here by the parents, yes illegally, but they have grown up here and were raised by the community and they many companiess, have hired these young people, which range 800,000 plus in the country. thousands in the state of working, graduating from high school and college, being productive citizens. that is what we are saying. if they are production --
productive citizens, they want to serve our military and they want to work and they have grown community,ountry and we need a resolution of brian -- a resolution going forward. texas -- host: texas, line for democrats. the reserves in for four years and each and everyone of us in the military, we swear never to engage in dissemination of false information. i understand our commander in , ief is probably exempt from am sure he is exempt from that sort of thing. -- host: what is your question? -- it: i know what you
does not have to do with social harassment but asking for a ua. you get a ua from the commander-in-chief, you would -- a really exotic drug -- before you go, congresswoman, i want to get your thoughts on the attorney general's's testimony yesterday on capitol hill. you had your own testimony but we had -- earlier. guest: honestly, i had an incredibly full day yesterday and was not able to watch the attorney general's is yesterday. i will be reading like you are and i will have to take a pass on that. a former united states attorney and have incredible respect for the attorney general and the office. incredibly good.
host: thanks. come back again. goodwe will return to the attoy general yesterday. issues, we asking you the question, should that happen. we will get your phone calls in just a minute. ♪ >> this weekend, c-span puffy city tour takes you to berlin, vermont. we will explore the history of .urlington saturday 6:30 p.m. eastern on book tv. they discussed their book, vermont in the age of tram.
vermont i think a voted for hillary clinton in greater numbers than any other .tate it is a small state and does not amount to much. the numbers were impressive. booknted to put together a where people answer the question, what do we do now with trump in charge? is in my view against most of the values and characteristics vermonters have. >> on sunday on american history tv, here about the vermont founding father ethan now in. >> he was the first comment on of the original greenmount and boys. at one time, the largest military force in north america. if not for the actions of ethan now and, and other mountain boys
, vermont looks different than it does today. >> a water superhighway. >> watch c-span puffy video tour of vermont saturday on c-span2's book tv. working with our cable affiliates as we explore america. >> "washington journal" continues. should a special counsel investigate hillary clinton? that is the question in this segment.
it was a topic that came up in yesterday's hearing. jeff sessions and peter baker takes up this topic in the front page news analysis piece for the new york times. "lock her up" he comes more than a slogan. noting jeff sessions are ordering prosecutors valuing various -- whether a special counsel could -- should be supported. may be seeking a way out of the bind the bus is putting through. they push back against the republicans in patients for a special counsel. here is that exchange.
>> what will it take to get a special counsel? directorhat former fbi misled.mey we know fbi director comey was drafting and exoneration letter before the investigation was complete. no loretta lynch one day before the benghazi report came out five days before sex or clinton was scheduled to be interviewed by the fbi, met with bill clinton on a tarmac in phoenix. know after that meeting, when she was corresponding with the justice department, she was using the name elizabeth carlyle as i said before. know mr. comey publicized the investigation and made the final decision on whether to prosecute or not. when he gets fired, he leaks a government document through a
fence to need -- through the new york times and what is his goal? it cannot be any special counsel, it has to be mueller, his best friend and predecessor at mess guest mentor. learn them wanted to do business regarding their uranium one deal. i guess my main question is what ,ill it take, if all of that what will it take to get a special counsel? would take a factual basis that meets the standards -- >> is that analysis going on now? >> we've only had two. the -- senatoras dan. however the investigation of special counsel endless death mr. mueller.
those are each special situations and will use the proper standards and that is going back and tell you, mr. jordan. butcan have your idea sometimes we have to study what the facts are and evaluate whether it meets the standard. -- well said. -- >> well said. we are asking should a special counsel be appointed to investigate hillary clinton. thisng your thoughts morning, lines for democrats, republicans, and independents, as usual. william, texas, and independent, go ahead. caller: this is a typical pivoting point. just like president trump always does, changes the conversation. it is always a disguise. lady whor as the last was on, i do not have a chance to mention this but i would like to ask the lady or those who called in, do they have
daughters? that is it. thank you. kathleen, pasadena, maryland, line for democrats. caller: i watched the meeting with general sessions. i appreciate he will only call it,he situation, call for but if it makes public and feel better, i think we should have a special counsel. do you trust the justice department can make the decision on the special counsel? caller: yes, i do actually is not that i think they are making good decisions right now but you have to trust the things they are doing and if mr. sessions will use the rule of law, i will trust they will have a special counsel to do that fairly.
host: betty in alabama, go ahead. caller: i think a special be put in place to try hillary clinton. i am pretty sure with all the information out there, she will be charged with treason. she is an evil woman and has done so much to the united states of america and i don't know what is going on with people. we have got too many dumb people in america. host: what do you think specifically equates to treason? well, the uranium deal. there. enough, even benghazi. -- she'll out our brave men how she allowed our brave men to be killed in front of our
if you want to read the entire editorial, today, it is in the new york times. joe and d.c., line for democrats, go ahead. the lady before me, i do not know what she is talking about in trump ville. peoplet know how these call in and they call themselves christians and people of principle, but you are supporting and you know what is .oing on -- wears and collusion,
have to pass moral substance. they people calling in, think at the end of the day, they can say lord forgive me. the opinion don't mean nothing when it comes to true integrity and honesty. day, what youthe think is desperately sick lisa guess what -- right but what is really right. they play a political game -- host: got your point. greg, line for republicans? caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. starters, hillary clinton sheted 30,000 humans after was put under subpoena, to turn over all of her emails.
point number two. we know many of her eighth personal devices and whatnot so they could not be looked at, their hard drives for collaboration -- corroboration of emails. a personal assistant transferring secure emails of classified settings. there is so much stuff to look at. one caller mentioned been ghazi or whatever, uranium one is giant, a giant thing to take a look at. how do we keep avoiding the stuff? host: do you feel a get was investigated properly when investigated back before the 2016 election? well, jim comey drafting -- it is a letter
associated. let's balance it. very peripheral collateral damage to people in the camp when we have solid evidence so the hillary thing, everything is so imbalanced that people are getting upset about it. mentioning uranium one, looking back on what we know and don't know, one of the questions they asked is is there any truth to the allegations when it comes to the uranium one issue. put a fact laid out in great detail -- poland the fact -- po litifact laid out in great -- clinton insisted such
because it is a case of misinformation. for people who only watch fox theirnd get all of information about hillary clinton and people related to her, it is like there is alternative universe in terms of the news as opposed to various network news and other cable stations. people take the time like i did to find out what is the deal with this uranium one deep -- if you find out what is going on, nine agencies had to approve the deal. it didn't have anything to do with hillary clinton. i could list a lot of points but there is not time but in terms of the quid pro quo, with the clinton foundation, if you take the time to find out who made cameonations, ones that
from russian donors to the clinton foundation, which is a charity and not their personal bank account, some of those donations were made before hillary ever became secretary of state. there is no quid pro quo and one guy who made a big donation i found out last night had divested himself from uranium 13 years before he made his donation to the clinton foundation. there are a lot of facts like that but the other point i want to make is about jim jordan and republicans who i think are just rabid about this. they quote so much information like jim jordan, representative jim jordan, who talks so fast and throughout so many things that were not even true. to gets an obsession hillary. from the benghazi committee, jim jordan was one of the people so obsessed with hillary clinton that even after the official benghazi report was to finished,
after the last hearing, the eighth or ninth investigation, he and mike pompeo, now our cia director, they did their own benghazi report and did a press conference on it. they didn't even think it went far enough. you need to know the full picture. it is about a distraction, which is a popular way of looking at it. anything to not talk about what is going on with trump. i think that is a side result but there are certain members of are inedom caucus who the house of representatives, the most conservative group of representatives, so upsets with hillary clinton that you could be having a hearing on flowers for the white house and he would find a way to say, but what about hillary? is karen in massachusetts this my question, should a special counsel investigate hillary clinton? ron says no, revenge is not the answer and roberts has absolutely, there is an obvious
need for another special counsel. lisa, louisiana, line for independents. caller: i don't know. i want to tell you i really appreciate you because you are the only one i talk to when i call. i called you last month. pedro -- remember i told you as far as the cnn and fox and all of that, they will not let people talk. of our hosts try our best to let people talk as much as they can. go ahead. caller: ok. anyway, the only thing that bothers me is the dossier, i don't know if they use that -- that was a big point to me on the issue yesterday. if they used a dossier, i just fbit understand how the could use that, and i don't know with they really did or not. i mean, i just don't know.
host: you don't how they could use that because of how it were -- how it originated? caller: yes. how do you know if it is true or not? what hejames comey do did? i do not understand that. i think he is more corrupt than hillary linton. going out and making those statements before the election, so much, and change whether -- i think it was wrong. i think it was terrible. melvyn's in mount pleasant, south carolina, a democrat. go ahead. my opinion is, i do not think there should be another investigation because there is nothing to investigate. like everybody else, it is just a distraction to to the
brilliant lady who was so elegant, she said it all. , youave got to realize want to know why people are shooting and freaking out? everything they believe in, you have got people turning around, roy moore and all of that. come on, man. this is why people are bugging out. you have got to be more careful. what about values with republicans? everyone is changing their mind. nobody is stupid. i'm surprised you guys -- i love you and you have a wonderful day. one person who has called for the appointment of a special counsel is the president himself , as we have seen in several tweets. it attorney general was asked about the influence of the president and the white house on this decision about whether to
appoint a special counsel p are here is the attorney general talking with a ranking member of the committee. >> in a functioning democracy, is it, for the leader of a country to order the criminal to retaliatem against his political opponents? >> i would say the department of justice can never be used to retaliate politically against opponents. that would be wrong. >> i interpret that as no. >> i answer stands for itself, i guess. >> well, it would make it a little easier if you would just respond yes or no, if you can. here is another. should the president of the united states make public
comments that might influence a pending criminal investigation? >> he should take great care's in the issue. >> could you respond yes or no? >> i do not know what the facts are that you are raising and what amounts to the concern you have. i would say it is improper -- a >> i do not know what the facts are that you are raising and what amounts to thepresident shy influence an investigation. i have not been improperly influence and would not be part -- improperly influenced. the president speaks his mind and he is bold and direct about what he says but we do our duty every day. and one more editorial on the topic of whether a special counsel should be appointed to
investigate hillary clinton, the editorial on the washington post headline, there is no there. we are your thoughts in this segment. should that happen? for republicans, what do you think? caller: yes. i want to do comparing. he talks about hillary. he talks about her charity. he used his charity fund to buy pictures, 20000 and $40,000 for pictures to hang in his hotels. he used his campaign funds to pay for him and his sons legal fees. and he talks about how she is so crooked and all, but what about his taxes? how do we know he is not getting money from other countries? fees went mar-a-lago
from $100,000 a year to $200,000 per year. why aren't we comparing what he is doing? and his family and all of his people are using their own private phones to talk. why isn't that wrong. host: i take it you are not a trump supporter in the election, though you're calling on the line for republicans. >> no peer at i like chump even less now. everything he is making millions, we need to see his tax returns. host: kathy, last caller, line for independent. --ler: caller: i was a consumer
advocate and they wheeled in case after case of emails, which turned out to be mine. they were trying to discredit me. when i saw the issue with hillary clinton and these emails, shame on all of us to allow them to intervene. as a person who is representing country, to have all of your emails exposed in a deposition, it is wrong. those are the personal emails, it is her personal server and whatever was deleted from the emails was her own -- she is an attorney. i cannot believe people want to believe in this situation, she would have deleted emails. it is just not true. we will and there but coming up next, we are joined by congressman john larson, a senior member in the house ways and means committee.
and later, former white house homeland security and counterterrorism advisor will be here to discuss the war on terror and efforts to prevent future attacks. we will be right back. ♪ >> i was recently with a prime and went overrope to speak in a conference and he wanted to see me. i thought it was a courtesy call. i thought it would last 10 minutes but it lasted 2.5 hours. this preminger at one point said , and did you see what he did? sitting at the same side of a conference table, and he suited up and he said, he took the president and chef him aside and stuck out his chest and his chin and all i could think of was -- not a joke. not a joke.
that is what people are thinking. that is what people are ofnking, violating the norms personal conduct, generates mooring zaidi and fear than any policy prescription that this president has enunciated. >> to some degree, the politics today is a manifestation of the politics brewing for a long time. i remember the hearings and you are on the committee and you saw how raucous they were and we went through an impeachment and the republican revolution and we saw judge , andt being driven out then we saw the republicans when the house for the first time in 40 years and the democrats said, you never one. we're just going to fight you.
it is a pox on both houses. the guy whot about yelled at the president, "you lie" and then put a fundraising letter out the next day and raised money off of it. the system itself has broken down because of base politics. there, wefirst got had issues but the one that was really defining was when the president made a decision to hit there, we had issuessyria after the chemil weapons. when he made that decision, the number of emails i received from countries saying it is so good to see america lead again, was amazing. it was enlightening because they felt we had been dormant and they feel weaker when the u.s. does not lead to they want us to weigh in and they want us to lead on the international and one we do, they feel more confident. you are seeing that with japan
and north korea. you are seeing that with our arab partners when we are dealing with iran. all of those things, whether it is venezuela or cuba, it is important for us to know the power of our voice and what leadership means to the world. >> washington journal continues. , at: congressman john larson democrat -- a senior member on the house ways and means committee. you are highly critical of the process as well as legislation itself. thoughts onr repealing the individual mandate is part of tax reform? taking it that bill and making it worse. the rules committee voted last night that there will be no amendments heard or excepted.
this is political bareknuckle politics. for folks who do not understand the process, why is that unusual? to a: you normally send it rules committee and people at that point would amend it. the rules committee is operating under martial law. they will take up the bill and without any amendments being offered. there will be i don't know how many hours of debate they have allowed it for. people, notof 435 being able to amend a bill is an obligation of their responsibility but worse, the american people do not get their voice or for so many people on the west coast, state and local taxes, that you're no longer deduct, it is an
shift.ble republicans from new york said it best. there has never been a shift like this, a redistribution of wealth from the middle-class from the east coast and west coast to the rest of america in inms of what is taking place the so-called tax reform bill. host: for folks who watch the and markup in the ways and means committee, didn't you get a chance there? we had a chance to offer amendments, none of which were accepted. step back. this is important for viewers. this impacts 100% of our economy 100% of the nation. code and ittire tax will be up for reform. instead, it was up for what they
believe has to be a political victory. without any public hearings on the bill or any experts coming to testify on the bill, the normal process of what we would call regular order, they jammed the bill through just last week. i say what do you have to base that? when ronald reagan was president in 1980 -- 1986 and tip o'neill was the speaker of the house, they have 450 expert witnesses, they held 30 committee hearings on the bill itself, they held 12 hearings, and they devoted 26 days to rolling the bill out. they had bipartisan cooperation in both the executive and legislative hearings, and they devoted 26 branches to work together and get a good bill p
that is what we came in to the start of the year with, the concept that this would be a bipartisan effort and we would work together. the hopes were dashed early when the republicans wrought forward a back tax concept that the administration rejected and then they went behind closed doors and emerged in the latest generation by eliminating andonal tensions specifically, expense taxes, to getons for teachers reimbursed for the money taken out of their pocket. the sad thing is they do so alternativeing the minimum tax, which impacts the very wealthy, and totally , whichng the estate tax does not going to affect, over $11 million. if you are a school teacher, you cannot get a $250 deduction
anymore, but somebody in the top 1% making over $11 million already, you have to make room for them to have this. injury, thet to benefits they do provide to the provision are permanent on the corporate side. they are permanent in terms of the alternative minimum tax. they are permanent in terms of the estate tax. they are not permanent in terms of the personal attack. many of them will be back. to pointit creates a trillion -- a $2.3 trillion hold in the national debt. where will that be filled? kevin brady, in a moment of honesty, said we will have to come back and legislate that. they said social security and medicare, and they said
sometimes you have to cut a program to save it. that is the next shoe that will fall. stay tuned because we will hear more from congressman john larson. join the discussion and we will talk about any of these that you brought up already. -- caller: you made a scary statement about martial law and .he senate could you expound on what you meant? guest: not martial law, let me slow down a little here. on a rules committee. in order to bring a bill and bring up and vote on it, you , when there isr
not a public hearing on the bill , when there are no expert witnesses and no time spent on the subcommittee, and the bill goes to the rules committee, before any bill comes to the floor, it has to go to the rules committee were that will be up, andy the bill taken also what amendments will be made in order, no amendments were made in order. him -- i assure you it will be limited. on.bill will be voted host: how many amendments are made in order and voter on the
floor? guest: allow for the introduction of amendments provided they were rolled to remain by the parliamentarian and by the rules committee. this is a closed role brought to the floor immediately. most people have not had a chance to truly that it. you always come back with a score that basically says this is worse than we thought. that means there are cuts all medicare andard medicaid. host: alan in tennessee,
independent, good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. held inall democrats the senate and the house, they had no budget and on borrowing. a social security trust fund is bankrupt. medicare will never pay everything that it is supposed to and the national debt is astronomical and this guy is worried about the minutia of the swamp monster bill passing. it is the swamp monster bill, that is for sure. so -- the only danger of social security is in not having a public hearing and not having the ability to take this before the american people and talk about the truth. social security is an entitlement -- the insurance that you pay for.
the last time social security rates were increased is in 1983. have any of your insurance premiums gone up since 1983? i think they have. we have talked about enhancing social security for people who have not received it. in povertyill retire and have no chance to uplift themselves. it has not been indexed since 1983 and we ought to pay for it so there is no future debt leveled on the shoulders of our children. can be handled provided you have public forums any do have an opportunity to bring the bill forward and there is a discussion. even the affordable care act where the republicans in the committee described how they did not have as much input as they
would like, it took more than year to do that, number one. ample time to debate the bill. there is a far different cry. act was notle care perfect either and that should be what every american citizen should be concerned about, a process in which you get an opportunity to vote. bus talk about the substance of the bill. if you are in the northeast and you use deductions that have been in place since 1913, from the start of the irs, because you do not want to be double taxed, and you are a donor state like we are in connecticut, where you contribute more in the federal government and you give i don't know what the statistics are for tennessee. because we areat
happy to pay for the military and happy to support the national parks. is a greatit function of the government. we don't think without a public hearing or expert testimony, that we ought to be double taxed in the state of connecticut and throughout the northeast. right.nd said it it is a redistribution of wealth in the northeast and the west coast and the rest of the country. it may be good for some people but hold onto your hat and wait until you get a look at this bill as well. it provides ad, minor tax break and five years from now, brings the bill back. host: barbara is on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. good morning mr. larson. talk about the thatidual mandate
republicans would like to repeal. i am on social security and medicare but i have obamacare and that republicans if that goes, theree a lot of people without insurance. and on a regular plan, those plans cover nothing. i worked in the medical field. people have to realize if you need an ultrasound, you will pay extra. say the doctor is thinking you have a tumor or something, people do not realize it will cost more. let your republican colleagues know that what they are doing is killing us. if we are unable to pay for this stuff and we want to take insurance away, why don't we take their -- their insurance away. guest: unfortunately, they do
understand. it has nothing to do with health care or anyone's in americas. we have seen an uptick in the increase in spite of all of the efforts on the current administration to code -- totally cut the affordable care act, we understand all of the values indicated. they repeal this because they're looking for the money. that is what this is all about. that is what repeal and replace is all about. $338 billion is what they get by repealing that and even using that, again crippling the middle-class and people in a position to get health care for themselves and if families, they go out of their way to cripple them. it is one of the most inhumane
regular -- regular basis. a potential repeal of the individual mandate, 13 million is how many could be uninsured. bay, wisconsin, line for republicans, go ahead. >> good morning. all the blue states, maybe they should talk to their governor or do something. is,ick question and that has in the last eight years, hasn't our government just printed money? and now republicans are doing something, well maybe we will get ahead so hold onto your hat and see what happens six months down the road. it is the end of the world with everything for you guys. if it is a democrat, it is the end of the world. guest: let's see. for the last eight years, we
have been in the minority for the house of representatives. i don't think it is the end of the world, but i think there is by anyetter way standard, anyone who has viewed the process this week, i would bet even you believe that there should be an open process, that you should have expert with -- witnesses from both sides. amendment that is germane, shouldn't there be an opportunity for people to discuss it? what are people afraid of? you are talking about a bill that impacts 100% of the economy and 100% of the people in the united states of america. no expert witnesses, no hearings, no opportunity, none. if you call that a democracy, i feel sorry for you.
i don't and that is why we will continue to speak out. and red states, people in red states will be impacted by this as well. abraham lincoln said it best. divided statesd on the east coast and west coast against the rest of the country, and the middle-class and respective states, i think it is a wrongheaded way to go about this. don't you think we ought to take the best ideas and do what is in the best interest of america? how about all the independents out there that this impacts? andmpacts all americans that is why this is most , the way we are going forward with this for sheer political reasons. robert is in california. good morning.
vet,r: i'm a vietnam apache dissent and both sides talk to both sides of their mouths. that is the way we believe it. that is the way it is. this inlike to say california. my premiums have gone up. through kaiser. i asked why have they gone up through obamacare? they said because you can afford it. i said i can afford it? i am barely making money and barely making anything -- will work on the congressman's earpiece. go ahead and try again. caller: did you hear what i first said? host: what is your question? caller: if this thing is so good, this obamacare, why am i, i am barely making it, why did my premiums go up and then i find out all these people, illegals and people living on
welfare, they get to live and not pay a penny for it because they say, i can afford to pay for them. guest: first of all, i feel your thinkation, but i do not everything you just said is accurate. i agree with you the affordable care act was far from perfect and new to be fixed. the only thing people have talked about his repealing and replacing it. we just went through a whole year, city two times this bill has been taken up to be repealed and still nothing put in place. better repeal for all americans. we put forward things like medicare by nds at age 50 which allow opportunities to buy into the premier program. theywe ran the numbers, gold that people, buying a
on the affordable care act to get it for 40% less if they bought into medicare. these are the things they should be sitting down and talking about, smoothing things out. the point was not to go back and have the only kind of health care you get in the emergency room. all of the costs associated with that. we should be working together for the health and well-being of the american people regardless of whether you are a democrat, or republican, or independent like yourself. minutes leftive with commerce and john larson. you talked about the need for regular order and process today. what is to not regular order, an event you were involved deeply and is the sit in on the floor in the summer of 2016. looking back on that, was that an effective way to push for gun
control? it was and i think people are beginning to understand. when you have the opportunity to sit down with an iconic finger -- figure like john lewis, who because of the tyranny of the majority, meaning we do not get a chance to vote him in him and vote, on the issue of gun control, you know everything that has gone on most recently in texas since then and still not even the opportunity to for failure constitutional responsibility to vote, that is the real tragedy going on here. whether or not you agree with universal background checks, 74% of the nra agrees with, about 94% of the country agrees with, not to be able to ever bring on the floor of
the house of representatives, they at least voted on it in the senate after sandy, although it was not the bill, which is a whole other area for discussion. suffice it to say you will see efforts to call upon people and say the american people should not he denied a petition for at least an up or down vote on the issue of universal background checks on guns. it was an extraordinary measure you should only use and we talked it over with paul ryan after, they called -- he called john lewis and me into his office and said why did you do that and john said because we have not been allowed the opportunity to vote. we may be in the minority, you cannot continue to deny us the opportunity. it any different when democrats were in the majority and republicans were in a minority and there were issues that were important and deeply held by republicans that did not
help get votes on the floor? sure there are for each time there is a session, there will be different issues. the question isn't, well, do we get back for the old he said she said, and the back-and-forth that goes on in the blame game, or do we say this is the way we should proceed? how we need tois proceed and i believe the american public understands that as well. one or two more calls. matt, line for independents. caller: thank you for taking my call. we talk about exemptions and deductions and write offs and whether or not you are itemizing , but at the end of the day, for some people, no income and if you could just answer the question, do you want to pay
more taxes or less? what you pay more or less taxes with the bill? you write something off, or you deduct something, that idea is all a distraction. whether the blue states are arguing with the red states, at the end of the day, you're paying a percentage of your income and that is it it it is a number. thank you. guest: well. one, even before that going back to the civil war, even at the ability to deduct state and local groups, that has been on the books and that has been the tradition. you have changed that with any -- without any public hearings war, even at the ability will it
people in virginia as well as northern virginia, as well as all up and down the east coast. not only the state and local property tax, but let's go through the list. eliminates medical expense studentns, eliminates loan interest deductions penthouses that help students question mark -- student loan debt? eliminates deduction for if youy casualty losses have just been through. if you have just been through a hurricane or another calamity that has taken place p or credit for individuals over age 65 who have retired on disability. eliminates the deduction for what i'm trying to get across to you today is very simple, this redistribution of wealth, meaning one body, one
of the nation is being double-taxed to pay for the rest the nation. we are a donor state in the state of connecticut, we're fact. of that we send $8 billion more to the federal government than we get back in return. we're proud to do that to keep our military, to to keep the national institute of health on science, thisational parks, to make the kind of country that we are. now there is a bill delivered taxes us a donor and you think we will sit back and not say anything about that? deduction, bout the but when you have a right already under the law since aren't you entitled to an expert witness at least to make the case for this? a gross shift that is taking place. orth korea last call, brian, northeastern washington, line for independents, go ahead. caller: thank you for getting me
"washington journal." congressman, i have two questions, i'll make them quick. was the individual andate originally a republican referendum on the put together the affordable care act and two, do you know who alled for the meeting before the new congress' first day of business when you had the sunday to do away with committee?ethics host: congressman, did you get the question? of t: i got the last part it, i have no idea who called to do away eeting with house ethics committee. i served on the house ethics it's a very cog in the deliberation of business on the floor of the house of conduct atives and the f its members and the other
question, i didn't understand. host: i didn't get the question, either. ethics committee, we had the chair, congresswoman on this efore you came morning. the house ethics committee get charges of d in the sexual harassment on capitol hill? the ave obviously heard hearing yesterday, where congresswoman jackie speier about two current serving members she heard of, allegations against them. ethics committee and how would you change the process? guest: i think the ethics committee should be more thorough. it is important people are coming forward and coming out there, they --ed it is a very difficult task, but that i think needs to i totally d and concur with jackie speier on her speak, i've heard in caucus and on the floor with this issue n about
and i think all these things for the y are healthy process and i think, i hope it a different kind of culture in the process and the way you do that, you have to there is accountability. host: how bad is that culture right now? know, that's ou hard to say. i mean, if you listen to the think all across the country this is pervasive in every arena the work hollywood, whatever the ase may be, so i think it's vitally important that especially women in the work force, and men, too, who have harassed that they have an opportunity and feel secure that work place is not some place where they have to worry about that thing. and there is a remedy for that, a place to go to feel secure
their job andlose be punished. host: on lighter note, headline last week after one of those markup hearings of the tax bill. that congressman john lyrics to gs wrong "amazing grace," viewers might you, do you care to give the correct lyric? uest: i'd hate to repeat the same mistake again, i got and "how great thou art," but a moment of the committee is already good and this came, that as a tense committee hearing, primarily because of the way that the bill was being hoisted notwithstanding, the strong substantive disagreement bill itself and he chairman at the time, was admonishing us to after a heated exchange between mr. pascrall,
kelly, to calm down, and o that is when i broke into my less than perfect "amazing grace" hymn. host: viewer consist watch it at c-span.org. thanks for your time. you, john.nk pleasure to be here. ost: up next, joined by former homeland securi homeland security advisor, lisa monaco, talk about the war on efforts to prevent future attacks. we'll be right back. >> this weekend c-span cities burlington, u to vermont, to explore the literary burlington,istory of on the shores of lake champagne. on book 6:30 p.m. t.v., author and cartoonist book "the full of onty, vermont in the age
trump," -- >> wanted to put out a book vermont voted for hillary clinton in greater numbers than any other state. it's a small state, it doesn't amount to that much, but he numbers were impressive, so he wanted to put together a book where people in the state question, what do we do now, with trump in charge. obviously, in my view, gainst most of the values and characteristics that vermonters have. 2 p.m. eastern on american history t.v., hear about war hero and vermont father, ethan allen. c comdant of the military boys in north america. f not for the actions of ethan allen, and the other green vermont may very
well have looked different than it does today. chamlane sit lake museum.e >> the first great lake, the lake is a 120-mile long water that cuts between vermont mountains of a adirondacks of new york. > sunday 2 p.m. on american history t.v. on c-span 3, working with our cable affiliates to explore america. >> "washington journal" continues. ost: lisa monaco joins us from new york. she's former white house homeland security and counterterrorism advisor during obama administration and author of november-december affairs foreign entitled "preventing the next monaco, that lisa
piece in foreign affairs written before the new york truck that , but you mention in piece about lone wolf attacks and recently inspired being example of the new kind of threat that we're thisng with, especially in post-9/11 environment. can you talk about how that has changed since september 11th? guest: sure. morning, john. good to be with you. look, what we have seen since in more than decade and a half morphing ofven, is a the threat, it is what i talk about in the article and that is of attack wee type saw in 9/11, complex attack from hiker arkial organization directed overseas with attackers here in the united states. not gone, hashile been diminished, owing to military work by the
law enforcement, homeland across many omats administrations, so that type of diminished.een what we have seen in the rise of isis and other groups is threat attackers or those who are facilitated or enabled put oftentimes online. days in the new york a few weeks ago and we'll see what developed out of the investigation, but right now is appears to be the case this individualized radicalized in the united states after by reporting is ion, correct, after consuming isis that is what at least it indicates he's told law enforcement agents in the hours the attack. so this ability for individuals online often ized from isis material and other material from other groups and them respond to
direction from isis to take are.on whereever they they don't need to be directed, they don't need to be trained or training to get then be deployed. this is the new phase in the war on terror that i talk about in article. host: what is the main battlefield we should be focused on? online battle? is it physical battlefields on world?er side of the where do you think that counterterrorism officials in the trump administration need to focus their attention? guest: i think we need to focus isis is very publicly called for the creation of califate, islamic state, physical c physicalistate where they physically take and hold territories, we saw that over he last few years and we have seen them lose that physical safe haven through the campaign egun under the obama administration, accelerated over the last two years and further trump ated by the
administration, seen them lose that territory. fall of mosul, their capital in iraq, seen the raqqa in syria, physical afe haven has been taken away, but their virtual safe haven, occupy tal space they with their propaganda and essaging on social media is very much still at issue and it is both a physical safe haven we to continue to deprive isis and al qaeda and others from take , but we've got to more steps on their virtual safe haven. host: invite our viewers to join conversation, we're talking with lisa monaco, the former obama white house homeland and counterterrorism advisor about her piece in oreign affairs in the november/december issue of foreign affairs as we look at the future of the war on terror. lines, democrats 202-748-8000. 202-748-8001.
independents 202-748-8002. can start call nothing now. lisa monaco, folks are call nothing now. can you explain the difference, you talked about isis, we've heard about in your article, the of the branches of al qaeda, can you talk about the difference between the two is the greater threat right now? guest: so i believe we have focusing on isis on removing its physical calistate use and abuse to social media platforms to radicalize and mobilize individuals to violence. but, i believe we also cannot off the take our eye ball of the type of attack we saw on 9/11. reduced capacity of core al qaeda, the group that tribal areafrom the necessary afghanistan and binn bin laden oup
led, but what we have seen is decamping of al qaeda flatta to om the syria and now al qaeda has in syria.filiate it is commonly referred to names, number of jabbamusa r is one. most accurate name is al qaeda and they are focused on regime and e assad focused on continuing the fight against what they call the far the united states, and its allies and continuing to against the home land here. we cannot afford to take our eye ff al qaeda in syria, al qaeda in the aircrafts rabian yemen, who is conducting external attacks, and we ith aviation can't afford to ignore isis and efforts to conduct
catastrophic attack. we saw in the last couple of months, our colleagues in australia dismantle a plot, isis was sending compone explosive for an device through the cargo hold of lanes and it is what one analyst called the ikea model of terrorism. be very mindful of the continuing efforts for a catastrophic attack from al affiliates and from isis, as well. host: bring callers in. for independents. tom, good morning. caller: hey, good morning, everyone. isis and al qaeda rabied military terrorists, how come they never attack israel? the question, or tom. look, i think what we've seen is many of the officials in the middle east being one of the factors of isis and al
aeda in terms of trying to radicalize individuals. it's one of the things we saw in he early parts of al qaeda's propaganda around the 9/11 time for why they have targeted america. so i think you could talk to my say er parts in israel and hat al qaeda style inspired violence and radical jihadist, attack have ist been undertaken in israel by those who are sympathetic to the al qaeda style and isis style of messaging. ost: how much is trump administration altered straight from the obama administration in the areas you are talking about in fighting various threats? uest: well, take the isis campaign, in particular. and in particular, the campaign isis waged against physical califate in iraq and syria. have seen is continuity
obama administration began. 69 nations across the world who have come together, that coalition was built in the administration and has been continued and fostered in he trump administration, that coalition brought to bear against isis in iraq and syria militaryontinuation of campaign in iraq and syria to have the gains that we've seen several years. i mentioned before, against isis mosul and raqqa. bottom line, it has been largely accelerated of the campaign the obama administration was conducting over the course of the last few of its administration, particularly across 2016 and acceleration in that campaign in the last nine or ten months. host: what about the war of ideas on the internet? uest: that is some place where
we haven't seen a lot of continuity and that is concerning, i would argue. so one of the things that both ush and obama administration struggled with was how to messaging combat from isis and al qaeda, how to deal with this war of ideas, on the internet and trust ortantly to build with communities and their government, who are really going instrumental in combating this next phase in the war on terror. when we talk about how do we disrupt the type of attack we weeks new york, a few ago, a lot of that effort is oing to have to come from communities. the type of conduct we saw from of, alleged attacker in new york, would not have come on the radar screen of the 9/11 style we built to that
detect externally directed attack that relies on andrnational communications the like. so far as we know thus far, he none of that type of communication, it wouldn't have een picked up in the type of intelligence architecture that we built to address the 9/11 style attack. how do we n is, etect and intervene before the next sypod gets behind the wheel a a truck and conducts heinous act of terrorism? and the indications of that, something goes wrong in somebody's mind, as it so clearly did in new york a few ago, that is very, very enforcement r law and intelligence services to detect, so we'll need to understand better when and how people are going own this dark path of adcallization and how we can intervene best to stop that happens.t
so those are the types of features that we're going to combat this in to next phase in the war on terror. ost: what is the u.s. global engagement center? guest: the u.s. global engagement center is something was part of the state department in the obama its effort on and bits and w different starts getting it started, in was irst incarnation, it the united states state against t messaging radical jihadist messaging, isis online.bat what you had was united states in response eting to terrorist tweets and what we iscovered was that wasn't very effective. the united states is not a particularly good messenger, the not a good s messenger to get into a debate on twitter, if you will, against
the isis-style messaging. what we did, after consulting silicon rt necessary valley and elsewhere to the stand what is it about messaging and propaganda isis uts out on social media, what really appeals to people and draws them in and how can we combat that and what we discovered is we need to rather than have the united have a government stamp on messaging it puts out, we amplify other voices, people who will be viewed and legitimate by s the -- by isis' target audience. to work with ed clerics in the region, work with nongovernmental amplify ions to help their message rather than have it be of the united states be messenger. we spend time trying to draw on expertise in the private sector engagement global
center to amplify those voices seen fortunately, we've dem nigz in support for that effort in the current seen the tion, we've flight of some of the private ector talent that we attracted to that effort. demunition in the resources, those are the types of efforts we have to be phase ing in this next the war on terror and the type of thing that i think this administration should be focusing on. to shawn, lakeland, florida, line for independents, go ahead. yes, sir. is this the united states or the united nations? terror and g about all the places she's talking about are places that are not in america. know, so i understand you young to go there, but when talk about terror, you want to tart at 9/11, but terror in
america goes further back than 9/11. when you look at the numbers, i your point, look at the numbers, the numbers don't terror here, more people in america should be more worried about the people that people thatause the are here kill more people than or anybody has done in america. ost: lisa monaco, a chance to respond. guest: sure. the caller makes a point that a of the build-up to prevent terrorist attacks making.en in other words, there's been a lot of questions raised as to hether or not we should be focusing on trying to stop terror attacks that emanate from should ber whether we focusing on violent individuals, the ideology, here at home. and i think the answer is we've to do both. and the caller is quite correct, errorism did not start with
9/11. it is, however, the anifestation of the single greatest number of deaths from this country in the last decade and a half and something we had to build up prevent from happening again. ut we absolutely need to be paying attention to other types of radicalization, other types gun olence, whether violence or whether the type of violence we saw in summer,tesville over the whether it is the type of iolence we saw in las vegas a month ago, or in texas just last we've got to be doing both. host: hershey, pennsylvania, is a republican, good morning. caller: good morning o. bbc news within the past week, they had a report dealing with of military evacuation and , where using buses
trucks, a multi kilometer, personnel ly 4000 column evacuated raqqa before the cities fell. fallen, but has what is the implications of isis retain a force in being in that area? guest: so you make a very strong i hear you, is as what you are saying, we need to be focusing on where do the follow-on steps and what are the follow-on days, what are they initial hold after the military effort and purging of in from the stonghold raqqa? our rankly, this is where focus needs to be when talking caliphate hysical and the removal of isis from the this had aliph ate, been ongoing since the obama administration and i hope the focusingdministration,
on how to rebuild those areas and most importantly, how are in those areas going to be -- going to rebuild going is that territory to continue to stay isis-free, of the big struggles that we had in the obama pulling ation was together a hold force, right? we the military capability working with the oalition and working with our partners on the ground and defense forces and the like to theally eradicate isis from stronghold, then the question is who is going to hold that from beingnd keep it regained by isis and that is a remains question that to be seen and it is going to our gulft of work with partners, with the turks, with to continue to work with the syrian defense forces nd the syrian kurds and the
like and that is going to take uite frankly, a lot of considered diplomacy, we need to be focusing on. ost: in terms of keeping the united states isis free, i wonder what your thoughts are on the trump administration's ban, which partially went nto effect in appeals court this week, allowed that ban to people from t for six muslim majority countries ho don't have connections to the united states? guest: we're on the third iteration of the travel ban. viewers will recall the first iteration was done in the week inauguration in january and now it's had different of iterations of the travel ban. i've joined with a group of some bipartisan national security officials to say that we do not is a nationalhere security case for the travel ban or current form.
and the reason is this. it is not we don't need strong vetting. need strong, rigorous vetting of individuals into thisying to come country and who want to realize its benefits and the rights that we afford individuals in this country. they're absolutely needs to be trying etting of anyone to come to this country. but that vetting needs to be in needs to be g informed by intelligence, by the atest threats and to be targeted at addressing those threats. having a blanket animatedde ban that is by countries or religions as the argument is made in the briefs filed. the reason you don't want to blanket approach is because you risk alienating that we need ers
to help us fight the war on not focusingu risk on the precise threats that we if you don't do the vetting and the screening based on pecific threat intelligence as pposed to just casting a wide swath rejecting wide swath of individuals. minutes left with lisa monaco, check out her story in he november/december issue of foreign affairs, "preventing the ext attack, the war on terrorism," we'll get to your calls in the next 10 minutes. for in d.c., line independents, go ahead. caller: thank you. in the obama administration, you ultimately responsible for enforcing foreign agent registration act. know, talk about 9/11, one of the forces hijackers to attack america was their erception we unconditionally
support one side in the israel-palestinian conflict. there was a foreign organization foreign official the h cannon and in 1962, department of justice ordered that foreign organization to as a foreign agent. the united states, at this an honest not be broker in the region on this onflict, its congress is utterly beholden to campaign contribution networks set up by his foreign organization and the justice department, you will the 1962 foreign agent registration order to the american-israel public affairs committee. please explain to america why regulate this entity? host: got your question, grant, a chance to respond. guest: well, i'm not familiar with the 1962 case he actually wasn't
even born in 1962, but the as i take it, we need to enforce the foreign and he's stration act right. it is a law in the book. it is devoted to making sure there is transparency, both lobbying and re trying to influence our overnment, based on or at behest of foreign governments, transparencyused on and focused on prosecuting and do so.those who don't so to incentivize transparency. used as a ely been kind of civil enforcement mechanism, trying to make sure companies and individuals who epresent foreign interest necessary our government make clear they're doing so and it been criminally enforced in notndful of cases, although
very many over the last decade. change, most that notably in the charges brought special counsel mueller and his staff in the last few weeks of those charges in the form of indictments that were gates.aul manafort and when facts and circumstances present evidence it is being violated, the justice department and the f.b.i. should and in my has, enforced it. host: you mention robert as chief of served staff at the f.b.i. when robert mueller was director of the f.b.i. wonder your thoughts on calls for him to either step down or fired as special counsel? guest: well, calls for him to down are baseless and a -- is call for him to be fired
also baseless and i think poses danger to the rule of law in this country. counsel mueller appointed by deputy attorney general pursuant to regulations been on the books for is w decades and he undertaking a review pursuant to pursuant to ion those regulations, pursuant to a and te provided to him given to him by the deputy attorney general and he's built prosecutors and investigators who have decades a number ofe across criminal law disciplines and and tigative disciplines experience is in my and by reputation across the aisle and by his long service of many decades, whether size a marine or prosecutor, director is somebody who
is fiercely independent, follows and is s and the law somebody who will conduct this integrity andwith at the look no further kind of bipartisan support that than the n the past unprecedented nature under which the f.b.i. was extended. your viewers may be aware that f.b.i. director by statute has a 10-year term and that was the congress y after jay edgar hoover40-plus director of the f.b.i. 2011, was eller, in finished his 10-year term, there unprecedented statute passed to extend his particular term by two years and that past nanimously and he was extended
by vote of 100-0 from the ongress to extend service as f.b.i. director, that is the type of bipartisan respect he i think that should e remembered in the current time. host: don is waiting, line for democrats, go ahead. caller: hi. i got a question for you. ou know, i'm getting really terrorist term and -- what are you going to say yemeni man who had his life destroyed, his five kids and his wife and he decides to take some revenge on the and what are you when he say to that man tells you it is one of your bombs that killed my family and decides to take some revenge on americans? lisa monaco.
guest: so if i understand the question and statement correctly, i think he's getting the concern that some of our risk r terrorism tactics creating backlash and spawning violence directed at the united states and this is a very i l concern, it is something write about in the foreign affairs article that you john.n, one reason why president obama put in place set of policy we haveedures that said o take steps as country and government to protect the united states and u.s. citizens, that is ultimate responsibility of he president and the president and his team seriously. to do so consistent with laws and consistent with our so as and do
transparentally as possible so those actions, when we have to them are done as narrowly nd discrim nently as possible, with respect for and an effort to prevent civilian casualties time the caller is worried about and so that we those the legitimacy of actions. and so what the president did, what president obama did, said, to take action to prevent eminent threat against he united states and its people, we will do so only where can be certain that there is no threat that civilian will be killed and that near certainty that no civilian will injured or killed is standard that president obama applied to caller is the talking about and highest tandard we could apply while carrying out solemn responsibility to protect this country. host: is that standard? lace in the trump
administration? guest: well, we don't know yet, is the answer. reporting, en some although we haven't seen any actual documents yet or from the nts administration administration -- these strikes of hot battlefields, afghanistan and iraq and syria, trikes taken in places like yemen would adhere to a set of policies, including that near civilian casualty standard, but we haven't seen actual announcement yet from the trump administration. host: try to get in one more call. alvary, kingston, pennsylvania, line for independents. go ahead. caller: yes, this whole ituation with this
administration is insighting violence. it's inciting more violence in this country. two months, the we've had ble] -- and ing in the churches repealing obamacare and other did, we are --ama administration. all about race and people with his in our countryic to help -- veteran. okay? the thing that our president has still saying are not
right. host: running out of time, give chance to respond. guest: well, i couldn't quite the caller what said, but i believe he said he's him eran, i want to thank for his service. ut i believe he basically was decrying the violence we've seen weeks, in st several particular shooting in las vegas nd texas and the -- what he believes is racially motivated violence. can say is the tenor of our politics today, that is politics expertise, butof agree with the caller's concern expressed about some destructive tenor of the today and the e ivisiveness present in many
aspects of our country and, you know, i have to agree with what hayden eneral mike recently said, who is head of in the bushthe cia, administration, where he talked about one of the greatest that we face is the kind politics lity in our and what that says about our leadership in the world. very concerned about the lack of bipartisanship seen on national security issues. our ed to be hallmark of government and our politics and our approach to issues of that you ecurity was could find by partisanship across the aisle on these issues believe we need to get back to that. host: lisa monaco, former white homeland security security and counterterrorism advisor, you can read her piece in affairs, "preventing the next attack, a strategy for the appreciateorism," we
the time this morning. guest: thanks for having me. ost: we'll end our program today with open phones, any public policy issue you want to are about, phone lines yours until the house comes in at 10:00 today. line for emocrats, republicans, independents on your screen. we'll be right back. >> i was recently with one prime minister in europe, i went over a conference and he wanted to see me. nd so i thought it was a courtesy call. i thought it was going to last lasted 2-1/2 hours. a at one point this prime what er said, did you see he did, same side of the conference table, close as you and i are. said, he took d montenegro, stuck his chest out and chin, all i could duce, not a el
joke, not a joke. are thinking.ople that's what people are thinking, the norms of personal generates more anxiety any policy n prescription that this president has enunciated. politics gree, the today is a manifestation of the politics that has been brewing a long time. borque i remember the hearings, you were on the you saw hraucous they went through impeach sxment republican revolution and driven out andbe foley driven out and the republicans win the house for 40 years and in democrats kind of said, no, you
never won. going to fight on both houses and you are right about the guy that yelled at the president, ironic thing, next day he put out a fundraising money off it.e so the system itself has been breaking down because of base politics. >> "washington journal" continues. ost: house will be in at 10:00 this morning, until then, it is open phones on "washington journal." any public policy issue you want to talk about, any of today's topics, give us a call now. 202-748-8000. republicans 202-748-8001. 202-748-8002. we'll get right to it, dave is in irvine, california, a republican. dave, what is on your mind? caller: i was just wondering, lady on, wondering when the war on terror is going or is it like the war on drug?
and, in other countries you know, it seems like it goes they show nd on and stuff like what they -- show stuff like what is happening stuff ut they never show like what is happening over there, what we're doing, the from it.a stays away you understand what i'm saying? stuff and one lady, it is called blowback. that is why people come here and do stuff. i was just wondering, maybe if we went to all the other -- nobody wants to pay for the wars anyway, and taxes n't want to raise to pay for them. i was just wondering, why are we country? hey keep saying, you know, like -- i'm a little nervous, in hese countries and i don't understand it, why pull out like -- host: it goes on and on and on, it feel like the united states is winning? caller: i just don't get it, we
better country if we were out of all the countries. lia, fort right, lauderdale line for democrats, go ahead. yes, i would like to know how the americans can agree me, when we -- americans and worked and paid taxes down an organization all they do not work at that american federal tax and people, i don't think that is right. host: what organizations are you lia?ing about, caller: what? host: what organizations are you referring to? groups, ike america made a uire by law, contract with the united states government, they are not people and ey abuse very big salary and they only
tax american federal dollars, they are called america group. host: okay, haven't heard of we can certainly check into. patlishia is in new greton, new jersey, line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. earlier on the tax reform bill that they're pushing that is taxation without representation. and this is been going on for sometime, not put the blame on president or part of the body, but what is going on the country is that nothing the e done to represent needs of the people. and the people who need the most the country are literally being pushed out and on the d, the people -- ge are really living out and republicans and democrats
seem to just sit down and go through regular order, go through the establish procedures, which our country was built on. stop fighting o party to party. i was a democrat. let the democratic party and that was going back to obama's arounden he kept running congress. split ticket ng based on individual candidates. then i went to the republican party. at this point, okay, like my stopped voting and we used to sit there and watch meetings, we would listen to debates, we researched histories.te it doesn't seem to matter what the voter is doing as long as we congressmen to act the way they are supposed to be. in new jersey, john, line for republicans, go
ahead. caller: hi. my comment is basically about terrorism conversation that was earlier regarding being to incidents such as 9/11 and of course the brothers backpacks or the pressure cookers in the we're n, seemed like reactive and a lot of information gets lost out there. e spend a lot of money on intelligence and i'm sure how work be more proactive, with campaigns to actually be possible, to recognize threats of people on the watch list. think people are concerned about that and security and that to do with voting for the current president because he talked tough and so forth. i'm curious, you can understand how people may be a little taking d about who is care of keeping an eye on the ball as far as threats.
before said, we want the community to come together, some of the communities in the the cultures are what is the bly -- word, emerging into our culture, we all don't communicate well. that is where i'm concerned, curious what you think about that comment. ost: happy to hear what you think and what other callers think on that in open phone segment, about 10 minutes until comes in this morning. here are headlines that americans are waking up to this morning. starting with residents of the state of alabama. aniston star focusing on the by sheila jackson lee, you see her picture there, and sexual y moore assault allegations against him. nd also, what national republicans are doing to push roy moore out of that race. course, the senate , ndidate, the republican
.pecial election december 12th montgomery advertiser focusing on this issue, the main story focusing on mitch mcconnell, the headline alabama pressured to block -- alabama g.o.p. pressured to lock roy moore, national republicans also exploring their options, as well. daily brief papers, out of northern california, focusing on that attack gunman randomly picking targets, school among sites targeted in the small town where that attack happened yesterday afternoon, keep hool locking down to the shooter out. one other story from the chicago to the sessions' testimony yesterday, attorney denies lying about russia. if you missed jeff sessions appearance before the house committee yesterday, you can watch it in its entirety
at c-span.org. calls. your margaret, grand island, nebraska, independent, go ahead. yes.r: i am responding to the caller, not too long ago about what about this yemeni man his family, due to american intervention in that terrorism. well, the yemenese man has more than likely lost his family because isis has annihilated the the population there already. to talk about s that and the media is not showing what kind of terrorism on theughter is going on part of isis. thank you. host: ray, napa, california, your mind? caller: yeah, on the terrorist thing, it is a society addicted to oil. look at 9/scompleven
9/11 and not worry about jeff sessions and hillary clinton and the russian stuff, at ourselves as society and go, maybe we're the problem, maybe it is not the rest of the world. comment.y we got industrial military eisenhower wrote and warned us about now in control. look at the stock market in the years, how much money they made off this war. e need 30-year-olds to come in and reinvestigate 9/scompleven have more open mind than older people. thank you you. host: line for republicans, leon, good morning. caller: good morning. good morning. my question is -- can you hear me? my question is, at this time in of the, if the president united states called in and said us to pull the bomb, he wanted us to set off a bomb would the military go along with him as in this history --
host: did you watch the hearing yesterday? his topic came up in that hearing, did you get a chance? caller: oh, no ma'am, no, i a chance this time, but i was just wondering, just eing an ordinary person in the united states and the president has that power to do that. host: leon, stick around, we'll talking about this issue again on the "washington journal" sunday morning we'll be on this issue, a segment on that for you, i 8:00 or 9:00 hour. appreciate the quick response from my producer there. is in lake worth, that na, line for democrats. gerald, go ahead. i'm retired special agent with i.r.s. criminal investigation division hear so many things that are out right lies. biggest lie told is we are standard our
deduction. if you believe this, you will believe two plus two is five, believe donald trump will release his tax returns fter the audit, you will believe that the middle-class tax scam will not benefit donald trump. deduction e standard f $12,700 is not 24,000, it is 25,400. when you take away the personal xemption, you are almost negating the increase of the standard deduction, the resolve thresholde increasing for eligibility itemizing from 12,700 to 24,000 for a married couple. his will eliminate most of the middle-class from taking advantage of mortgage interest and any other itemized deductions. it will also reduce, it will values for rty middle class family residents. telling this lie and
standard deduction is being doubled. it over and over again, people are libel to of eve it, but an element perjury is it has to be a material fact and this is a aterial fact because there is lot of money involved. it has to be under oath and the this lie is telling has to be aware of it. i believe paul ryan is fully it.e of host: on the issue of tax reform, a lot of focus in today's front pages, involve the the that the repeal of healthcare individual mandate republican d to the tax plan news yesterday that senate republicans were considering that the "new york calling it a bid for saving conservative votes, republicans revive that quote, is how they put it in their headline. in san bernardino, california, line for independents, go ahead.
caller: good morning. today? you host: doing well. caller: outstanding. was calling about the caller from virginia. that gentleman stated there are segments and communities that assimilate to the american mainstream because willing ssentially not to give up their culture. i think that is white statement.t ethnoceristic, and the united states is built on making us a ure, unique nation. off the collar comments brazil's book.a i just saw your interview with er, i saw the interview with her on c-span -- host: on sunday, i believe it was. ander: yes, a very powerful the htful look behind d.n.c. and how they basically curtailed bernie's entire campaign. thank you for your time, always a pleasure speaking with you.
host: appreciate the call. missed that segment, you can watch it and "washington journal" segments, c-span.org. bob is in oakridge, tennessee, a republican. bob, good morning. open phones. caller: good morning. i just wanted to point out going foreign policy, that i think a problem we have is there s this huge conversion when it comes to foreign policy on the right wing and the left wing. accepted the y status quo that we're going to be intervening in nations abroad can do about it. even going back to president bama, like the person you had on earlier today was talking about his foreign policy he was incredibly actuallyvention and he destroyed libya and syria with his policies, particularly libya. i feel like i'm taking crazy pills because no one is talking about that. bob, what about a senator ike rand paul, who has been
concerned about u.s. intervention abroad? exactly.o, there are a few exceptions, it libertarian right nd further left, like bernie sanders left, so there is not many good options for people who anti-intervention, i guess. host: what is the best option right now, bob? caller: in terms of foreign policy? yes, for what you believe in. caller: i think we need to reassess our foreign policy standards. destabilizes iran the middle east, saudi arabia contributes the same to that, as extent.ael to some i also think that we hold on to comes to foreign policy stance and relationships to other countries. reassess t is okay to our relationship with russia, some like, nd also bite the bullet and face hard
policy.about our foreign host: that's bob. oakridge, tennessee. house getting ready to come in, can get to mary, line for democrats, can you make it quick, mary? the house is walking in as we speak. we'll get back to you another time. it on the o "washington journal" for today. we'll see you right back here omorrow morning at 7 a.m. eastern, 4 a.m. pacific. live coverage of the house begins now. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., november 15, 2017. i hereby appoint the honorable mike bost to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2017, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the