security.r border later, former virginia attorney general ken christian l.a. talks about the confirmation process for william barr next u.s. attorney general. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] host: president -- two of president trump's nominees on capitol hill today. day ofhe second confirmation hearings for william barr, the president's choice to head the justice department. see that at 9:30 on c-span 3. this is the "washington journal" for january 16. william barr answered questions about the role in the mueller investigation and the level of independence he will show. we want -- we want you to tell us about the level of faith you have in the justice department and the fbi. you can call and let us know that. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. and independents, 202-748-8002. the level of confidence in justice department and the fbi you can post on twitter at @cspanwj. there is also a pole you can take on our facebook page and leave your comments at facebook.com/cspan. the headlines to show you from yesterday's hearing from william barr, this is the washington post. a mueller report may stay secret according to william barr. the wall street journal this morning highlights their headline saying trump's nominee says he will not cave to the white house. in reading some of the editorials, this is the washington post's take saying his view of presidential deference is concerning, but he limited the extent of that deference. he insists the president will be helthy of obstruction if tampered -- guilty of obsstruc tion if he tampered with evidence. presidential tampering will be "a breach of constitutional duties and an abuse of power. the wall street journal in their editorial takes this look. barr for the presidency. as long as he is in the job, he has a duty to follow a presidential order that is legal. if he cannot do that, the honorable pass is to resign. mr. trump has every right to fire mr. mueller. especially important when political mobs want heads on pikes. healthmperative to the of our system and national cohesion that any claim of wrongdoing is solidly based on evidence of a real crime, not a debatable one. that is some of the elements that came out of day one of testimony. you can find that at c-span.org. day two takes place today. your thoughts on your level of confidence in the justice department and the fbi in this first hour. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. and independents, 202-748-8002. on social media @cspanwj is the twitter feed and facebook.com/cspan is where you can post. a bit from that hearing yesterday. this is william barr being asked by the chairman of the senate judiciary committee, senator lindsey graham, about the mueller investigation and his thoughts on if it is a witchhunt. [video clip] >> you say you have known mueller a long time. would you say you have a close relationship? >> i would say we are good friends. >> would you say you understand him to be a fair-minded person? >> absolutely. >> do you trust him to be fair to the country and the president as a whole -- the president and the country as a whole? will you share as consistent as possible? do you believe mr. mueller would be in a witchhunt against anybody? >> i don't believe mr. mueller would be involved in a witchhunt. >> that is some of the testimony from yesterday. william barr noted he was unaware of the conversations robert mueller and rod rosenstein may have already had about information, making it public and justice department leaders might already have a plan in mind. while it was barr who face to the cameras, the person who was , was the starller of that hearing. this goes to the largest -- larger issue of levels of faith in the justice department and fbi. 202-748-8000 for democrats. republicans, 202-748-8001. an independents, 202-748-8002. in salt lake city, utah, democrats line. caller: good morning. how are you? host: fine, thank you. go ahead. caller: i was watching yesterday all the conversation between the senators. he said it doesn't matter republican or democrat, we need to have -- we need to know about the reports of mueller. republicans are thinking he is innocent. he mades are thinking some mistakes in his presidency. both of them we need to have. the da said we are not going to ga said we are not going to do a full report. host: with that -- to that in mind and the larger issues of confidence you currently have in the justice department and fbi, where do those stand? caller: i don't have any disagree with that. anyust become clean and report must become clean and clear without touching anything. host: let's hear from mark in california. you are next. good morning. caller: good morning. i agree i have confidence in the justice department and fbi. i have family members and friends who worked for the fbi and they were some reputable people. wonderful friends, honest people. people i have known all my life and i trust the constitution will guarantee that people who are guilty of crimes, no matter what position they hold in our government, are held accountable. host: does your level of confidence change depending on who leads the fbi or justice department? caller: no, it doesn't. i just assume and this may be wrong, i assume whoever is put in charge of the justice department or fbi has some legitimate constitutionally guaranteed respected authority mandated reason for being there. host: what was your level of confidence in jeff sessions when he headed the justice department and the former fbi director jim comey? caller: i thought very highly of mr. comey. i think esther trump did not like him because he was taller than he was. i had confidence in mr. sessions because even though he supported was an attorney, not that that means all attorneys are honest, decent people, but there are also decent trash collectors. whoever is sanctioned by our house in congress, i believe has been vetted accordingly and they have a legitimate reason for being there. host: harvey is next in virginia. independent line. caller: yes. my whole concern is robert mueller's investigation and i believe jeff sessions recusing himself was proper. to get back to the mueller investigation as a whole, the length of time it has taken him to go through this investigation and, with some evidence of some tremendously a long time. i guess it is close to a year. anyone who is qualified to conduct an investigation of this sort certainly should have been able to wind up this situation because it is costing the taxpayers money the money -- the longer and longer it draws out, the more it costs the -- average american taxpayer money. host: do you think the head of the justice department should encourage mr. mueller to finish up his investigation, then? host: yes, i do. host: does the length of the investigation affect your view of how the justice department runs? caller: yes. host: how so. caller: the length of time it takes them to accomplish anything. people of any kind of intelligence or common sense understand if they are qualified to do a particular job, they should do the job to the point as man perfection himself is not perfect, but he should still be able to, in this time, have completed the investigation. host: let's hear from sofia in the bronx, republican line. caller: yes. good morning. fbi has00% believe the been doing an excellent job and i trust them. i don't understand people. the callers that say mueller has 33 indicted. so many of them, everything that has with our president, which i vote for. which i vote for, has a connection with russia. what else did we want? mueller did the whole job, clear. that is it. by the way, pedro, yesterday morning when you had the callers for the open phones, please be strong, don't let those people whatcompletely against c-span was doing. host: that was yesterday. back to this morning. when you have -- you said you had levels of faith in the justice department, what do you base that on? caller: on the investigation they have been doing. they have been insulted. says our intelligence russia has been manipulating our campaign for our democracy. what else do we want? host: that is sophia in the bronx. nadine from facebook says the top leaders of the comey fbi are gone. a and others are still under investigation. there is room for improvement knowing forward. nothing than -- could be worse than holden and lynch. says comeytwitter and rosenstein would hang in a legitimate political system. old-schoolarr is an swamp creature from back in the george w. bush administration. he is the best the gop has to offer and that is really sad. that is off of our twitter and facebook feed. sam, democrats line from new york. hello. caller: hello, good morning. thank you for taking my call. actually, i don't have any confidence in the fbi at all because on sunday, a woman was transferred by the fbi to a detention facility in washington, d.c.. it was very shameful for our country to arrest a muslim woman who was born in america without any crime just because of living in iran for a while. american-born how she was detained in missouri on sunday. host: the matter of who heads the justice department and the fbi doesn't change your level of confidence in them? guest: caller: i am explaining -- caller: i am explaining that that fbi work is very on a shameful. i want all together and have a rally in front of the prison she is kept. host: let's go to ella in louisiana, democrats line. caller: hi. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: my name is ella jones. i was put on hold. i was speaking to the person who spoke earlier about the common sense. host: you are on the air now, what is your level of confidence in the justice department and the fbi? caller: yes. my name is ella jones. i am speaking to the gentleman on earlier who spoke about common sense. there is a lot of things we should have common sense about. host: i am going to ask you to turn down your television so you can have a conversation. when you keep that television on, it offers feedback and slows down the conversation. let's go to nick in sarasota, florida. independent line. go ahead. .aller: good morning, pedro i have zero confidence until mr. barr. if he is appointed, i want to see how long it takes to get a second special prosecutor appointed. host: why does that have to be a factor? caller: if you have read any of the half a dozen books published in the last two years that has 160 pages of foot norse -- footnotes of sourcing, this has been a coup attempt against a duly elected president. all these people seem to be sliding, stepping down and retiring. they need to be jailed. if he doesn't go in, he is not doing his job. host: the second special counsel would do what in your mind? caller: he would go after comey and lynch and all these other people that have worked around him trying to put this phony russian stuff against the president all these indictments for -- has been for old tax cases. there has not been an iota of collusion and we are spending $20 million to investigate. it's time people get in there and look at the real crimes and hold those people accountable. host: what is your level of confidence william barr would do such a thing? 50-50 because i don't know how this guy is getting appointed. if i was president trump and interviewing somebody, they keep crying, he might ask if he will be lawyer or ask the attorney general if he is going to appoint a special prosecutor, he doesn't have to do that. he has to say what are your top five priorities for being attorney general and if that is not in the top three, should not be nominated. host: that is nick in florida. for 15 minutes, your level of confidence in the justice department and the fbi. you can add your comments to the conversation. if you want to call, it is host: for adamic -- it is 202-748-8000 for democrats. republicans, 202-748-8001. an independents, 202-748-8002. if you go to our facebook page, there is a pole you can participate. you can leave your level of confidence, at least one of those two lines, several people have participated and left comments. you can leave comments at the twitter feed. a little more from yesterday, this is a question to mr. barr regarding the legality of interference and a personal matter of the president. here is some of that exchange from yesterday. [video clip] >> the other category of cases, and let's pick an easy bad example would be if a member of the president's family or business associate or something was under investigation and he tries to intervene. he is the chief law enforcement officer and you could say he would have the power, but that would be a breach of his obligation under the constitution to faithfully execute the laws. in my opinion, if a president attempts to intervene in a matter that he has a stake in to protect himself that should first be looked at as a breach of his constitutional duties, whether it also violates a statute depending on what statute comes into play and what the facts are. host: that was yesterday. you can find more at c-span.org. it is the larger question of william barr becomes the head of the justice department. we are asking about your level of confidence in the justice department or fbi if william barr should assume the position. is next in ohio, democrats line. caller: yes. i have no confidence at all in the fbi or the doj. they did not investigate hillary and all of her things she did. the democratic party acts like a bunch of clowns and i am a democrat, but i will be a republican from now on. what they are doing to this president is a farce. all the other countries in the world are laughing at the jokes going on in washington. i don't think they should be paid. is that the investigation you are looking for that would change your level of confidence? caller: because there has been too much corruption. host: meaning what? mostr: washington is the corrupt state in the world. they talk about other countries, they should not talk about other countries. there is too many corrupt people there. host: donald is next in san antonio. caller: good morning. this last caller i am listening elite runninge this country. no matter who they appoint as the doj, i still would not have confidence because i am listening to these people calling in. we cannot let these people run around whether he is the president no matter who he is, run this country and do criminal things. why is it that these are the people that make the laws for us to follow and they are not supposed to follow the law? no matter who they appoint, it doesn't matter to me because all of them are corrupt and i am listening to these people calling in here and what planet do they live on, you wonder. host: the president's current nominee is william barr. if you think people appointed at that level are corrupt, what is wrong with him? caller: i am listening to the things he is saying. even with the justice department, he is supposed to be neutral. from listening to things he said in the past, he is not neutral. in front of the tv cameras talking about the constitution and none of them are following it. he is the president, he is not god. he is supposed to follow the same laws. host: zelda in new jersey, independent line. hi. caller: hi. this is zelda. i am very appalled at how they are treating this president. he is trying to give the best shot. there are a lot of officials in his government who are not for him. resigning.they are he wants people who are going to him.r him and support the poor guy, people are jealous of him. host: zelda, because we are talking about confidence in the justice department and fbi currently, what is your level of confidence in both of those organizations specifically? caller: they are corrupt. they are very corrupt. that's why you see a lot of them running away. they have a lot of secrets and they have been there for so long, so many years and the president knows what they are doing. host: that is zelda in new jersey. this is kevin off twitter saying bill barr lives in the 1980's and so out of touch that he is perfect for the trump criminal administration. facebook says i don't have confidence in the fbi or the doj. i only trust president trump. eric dyson says it's just another corrupt three little -- three letter agency. the only way to eliminate corruption is eliminate the funding. this viewer says they trust of the fbi to do their job and don't trust doj because of top leadership. i mentioned this before, but the facebook page as of right now at the start of the show had just over 1000 votes on this poll if you have confidence in the justice department and the fbi. you can click one of those and leave a comment on our facebook page and also make comments on twitter @cspanwj. john is in trenton, new jersey. independent line. hi. caller: thank you for taking my phone call, first. that morning, america. i have a little discrepancy about this candidate. he is acting like he doesn't know what the questions are and he is giving a whole lot of technical answers. it's either a yes or a no. i have little confidence in the justice department, but i have a high confidence in the fbi. if the president is guilty of should not redact or hide or any other reason to from the fbit investigating the president. duty to have this country honest and forward and above the law. i cannot say this enough and just me, ok? the fbi is serving us. the president is supposed to serve us, not putin. trenton,t is john in new beers he -- trenton, new jersey, giving his thoughts. previous memo about the mueller investigation. he called it ludicrous the notion that his public comment critical of his -- he promised no changes would be made to the special counsel's report during a hearing. mr. barr recounted a conversation he had during the president in june 2017 in which he was briefly considered for a -- deal with the mueller investigation. he said he met with the president and made it clear he did not want the job. that first day of hearing was yesterday and if you go to our website at c-span.org, you can see from yesterday and use it as a means to follow on this second day of confirmation. andrew wheeler, the person the president nominated to become the head of the environmental protection agency will appear before the senate for his confirmation hearing at 10:00. you can see that at c-span.org. adele from michigan, democrats line. hi. caller: good morning, pedro. good morning, america. you have a wonderful program. we live in a republican area and we support president trump. i am a democrat, but he writes me letters. i have written to sarah sanders. he has helped our economy immensely. i think mr. barr is qualified. host: before we let you go, your level of faith in the justice department. what is it? caller: i used to work for the fbi. they have a tough job. they have a wonderful staff in washington, d.c. and they are very qualified. they try not to be political. i think we should praise the fbi and department of justice. host: how much is that -- of that confidence is shaped by who is in the leadership? veryr: christopher wray is qualified. i used to correspond with jay at -- j edgar hoover. people don't realize the difficulty people have in the fbi to investigate crimes and so forth. they do a wonderful job and i think we should praise the fbi. they are wonderful people. host: the justice department being the topic of the conversation yesterday with mr. barr, one of the topics that came up was the shutdown and border wall funding topics. this was done by the minnesota senator amy klobuchar asking the nominee about those topics and here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> i would like to see a deal reached whereby congress recognizes that it is imperative to have border security and that part of that border security is a commonsense matter needs barriers. >> you are aware in the copperheads of senate immigration bill we passed, there was billions of dollars for border security back in 2013? caller: i am generally aware -->> i am generally aware of that. >> also, we had an agreement last year that would allow the dreamers to stay legally that also had money for border security. >> the point is we need money right now for border security, including barriers and walls and slats and other things, anything that makes sense in different areas of the border. arkansas, diane in republican line. thanks for calling. we are asking people about the level of confidence in the justice department and the fbi. caller: of course, i have no confidence in them. still be in office as far as it is concerned and he loaded up all the lawyers and everybody that is on mueller's his line ofm thinking. i have advice to people. a lot of people already know. read the book "radical sun" by david horwitz and look up the rules for -- host: back to the justice department for a little bit. caller: let me say this really quick. the rules for radicals. look that up. host: you said it. back to the justice department. you are saying even a change of leadership would not change your opinion? caller: well, you need to get somebody in there that isn't against trump. i am so upset, i can hardly talk. host: do you think that person is william barr? caller: no. host: why not? caller: why not? look at what he is saying. he is against everything our side is. host: such as what? -- i will tell you. as i say, i am so upset, i can hardly talk and common sense tells you that this ridicule and -- 95% or more than that of the press is against our president and this just goes right along with it. host: belton, missouri, independent line. bob, hello. caller: good morning, pedro. i don't know. i have total faith in the justice department and the fbi. i think a lot of people have really short memories and i cannot remember that the trey gowdy investigation went on for .ears and turned up zero yesterday, at his confirmation, barr said there was no way mueller would have anything to do with the witchhunt and he is as honest as the day is long. there are so many things. people calling in essay donald trump is being treated so bad are totally absent-minded because he is a tax roger, draft dodger, he made the statement he loves to grab women by their personal parts. host: back to the justice department part of this conversation. when you say you have confidence, what do you base that on? caller: i base that on christopher wray when he was first put in the fbi by donald trump. i thought that was a farce, but he turned out to be a great guy doing a good job. host: did you have similar feelings about james -- jim comey? caller: jim comey was a servant to this country for 25, 30 years and he did a wonderful job and the only time he had a problem was when he got on trump's trail and trump didn't like that, so he got rid of him. host: back to the level of confidence in the justice department, did you apply that to jeff sessions equally? caller: i did not like jeff sessions. even though donald trump picked on him and gave him trash talk for not being involved with the mueller probe, he still did donald trump's bidding and was his lapdog. i had no faith at all. host: what do you base that on? caller: what do i base that on? host: yeah. caller: all the things, attacking people at the border, which trump wanted. there was multiple things that , and he was right there for him. i just can't bring them all up on the moment. i have total faith in the department of justice and zero in donald trump. host: okay. let's go to david in north carolina, republican line. caller: i don't have any respect for any of the justice system because they run it like a political party. biased,supposed to be not have a democratic judge or republican judge. they should lose that. when a country is run like a government, you see what happens. they do plead got -- plea bargains and on the -- ungodly things and no repercussions over it. trump was not a politician. he was a businessman and took this country back to where it needs to be and these people don't understand that part of it. host: you are saying the justice apartment and the fbi are run differently now under the president? caller: no, he cannot change they run likese the house does. they have their opinion and they stick to it. a democratic judge or republican judge will be favorites. you can see the way they do plea deals with murderers. host: you are saying that would not change of william barr became the head of the justice department? caller: no because they are politically corrupt. that is the problem with our justice system. host: democrats line, clyde is next. clyde from new york. hello. caller: yes. good morning. how are you doing? host: fine, thank you. go ahead. our confidence in the fbi and cia people, this new head donald trump is putting in, i have no confidence whatsoever. it seems like it's a lot of m and people not rescinding like this one guy, barr, he wrote a 19-page totement and he is not going step away from the case at all. i don't have any confidence whatsoever. host: that is clyde in new york on our democrats line. for 35 minutes or so, this is our conversation we are having, your levels of confidence within the justice department and the fbi. if you want to make comments on the phone, it is 202-748-8000 democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. independents, 202-748-8002. you asmedia available to well. off of our twitter feed, this is -- the president hired a capable fbi director who will see the entire of the mueller investigation. i am comfortable this fbi director will be 100% full j edgar hoover on the entire conspiracy. franklin delano saying i don't trust barr. twitter says there is more confidence in the administration and the fbi has loyalty for the constitution and not the president. you can add yours as well. missouri. democrats line, hi. caller: thank you so much for your outstanding program. i trust the justice department. i trust them to do what is right. these are hard-working people that truly believe in serving their government. i think that attorney barr. i think his time has passed. he was a part of yesterday doing his debate -- his performance, he was a part of the criminal justice department that set up mass incarceration. he danced all around the comments, acted as though he did not remember laws. i just don't believe he is trustworthy and i think we should look at the next person. not believe we are fairly.g our judges when we have an organization and giveelect people them lists and that organization is definitely biased, that is unfair. host: let me ask you. it seems like you have confidence in the people who work in the organizations, not so much the leadership. it did you feel that way when loretta lynch was heading up the justice department? caller: no, i felt loretta lynch did a fine job and she interpreted the law and applied the rules fairly. i believe the people that have come up through the ranks are .ard-working, honest folks even the ones that are there now that trump has weaved through, i don't know why rosenstein wrote the letter that led to comey's dismissal. i think he was set up. int: let's hear from debbie naples, florida. republican line. caller: yes. i am calling. i don't have any confidence in the justice department. i think they did a soft coup, the fbi, the cia, the doj host: host: against our president. a change of leadership wouldn't change our -- that confidence in you? caller: i guess it would. i would think they would have to clean up the top -- i am not talking about the everyday workers, but the top echelon has to go. all of it. judges. host: what is your impression of william barr? the person who has been nominated by the president ahead the justice department? caller: i actually wish it was somebody else who isn't so connected to washington. allink washington is incestuous, they are all the same people. we have a big country and i think there is people that apply the constitution and the law and unfortunately, i don't know, i will have to give him a try. am i 100%? no, i am not because of his ties to washington. naples,at is debbie in florida. we have been showing video of mr. barr from yesterday. you can go to our website if you missed the first day of hearings. you can watch the hearings play out. if that is what you want to do, go to our website at c-span.org and you can do that. it will prepare you for the second day of hearing. the box on the side will give information about how to watch that and andrew wheeler hearing, the epa. there is the government shutdown that continues as the house and senate continue to week. -- meet this week on issues. from california, independent line. this is kelly from garden grove. caller: hi. how are you? host: i am well. how about yourself? caller: excellent. thank you for asking. i would like to bring attention to people to look at the policies of this gentleman in his past. my understanding through the historyhe has quite a of mass incarceration, questionable immigration is very local in extending the presidential overreach -- very vocal in extending the presidential overreach. host: did you just base it on the aclu or other things? how did you come to those conclusions? caller: i did pretty much on aclu. i guess i could do a little bit further research and with democracy now. host: that is kelly. she brought up the questions of immigration. you heard mr. barr on the border wall. another level of questioning on immigration matters. this is from the republican senator, joni ernst, from iowa. she asked mr. barr about border security and what it meant for drug trafficking across the border. here is that conversation. [video clip] >> how do you see the situation at our southern border contributing to the prevalence of controlled substance use here in the united states? >> it has been pointed out earlier, it is the major avenue by which drugs come into the heroin, fentanyl, all the serious drugs are coming across the border. again, i feel it is a critical part of border security that we need to have their ears on the border. we need a barrier system on the border to get control over the border and i think there are some places that more of the traffic comes over than others. unless you have a system across the border, you are not going to be able to deal with it. if you build a barrier in one place, you will displace it to another. we need a barrier system across the border. part of that is illegal immigration, but a big part of it also is preventing the influx of drugs. host: related to the mueller investigation, the wall street journal announced michael cohen, set to testify in a january may be limited to what he can say. he is scheduled to speak in that open hearing february 7 and won't be able to talk about topics he discussed with robert mueller according to a personal -- person close to mr. cohen. resulted in him pleading guilty in august 2 8 felonies. represented of adam schiff, the democrat from california and the chairman of the house intelligence committee said he planned to schedule a closed session to answer questions related to the russia investigation. -- it is unclear what restrictions the special counsel might impose in that setting. anne from mount juliet, tennessee. hello. caller: good morning. failed innfidence had the fbi over the past two years basically because i could not understand how our president was not being investigated for his current activities and closeness with russia and then last friday we got the information from the an york times that there is fbi investigation open because we have witnessed him obstructing justice. we have witnessed to him being way too cozy with vladimir putin on numerous occasions. i have lost faith that any of that would be taken into account and now i have faith again. is concerned,barr i cannot understand why he did not study up. he knew he was going to be asked these questions and he comes to a hearing and he doesn't even know the emoluments clause from the constitution? that gives me pause to wonder. state,lan in washington republican line. go ahead. caller: i was pretty impressed with him until he said he was friends with mueller. how can you be friends with a crooked cop like mueller and then say you are for law & order? mueller kept people in jail he knew should not be there. and so is wiseman, they both got overturned in the supreme court, they are just as crooked as a dog's hind leg. host: from sean in washington, d.c., democrats line. caller: hi. as a democrat, my sort of feeling about the justice department and the fbi is complicated because although i am completely supportive of the investigation, i think donald trump is the worst president ever, full stop. it is a little hard for me to have this rah rah cheery attitude about the justice department and the fbi given their past. they are pretty soft and weak on corporate criminals in the fbi infiltrated leftist and activist movements over decades. it is pretty tough for me to rally around this engine -- machine of justice given their complicated past. do you apply that equally to the workers in the leaders of these agencies? caller: yeah, they are employees of the agency. if you are working for the agency, you have to condone the actions of the organization overall. if we look in the past and how they infiltrated civil rights movements and how sort of agent provocateurs within protest movements, that -- it is tough for someone of my political persuasion to dance with joy around the actions of the justice department and the fbi. host: does that only apply if there is a republican in office versus a democrat in office? caller: no. again, i completely support the investigation. that is a really good question. it to be honest with you, i try not to have that sort of look through the political lens of my orientation or preferences. in the last couple of years since the investigation has gone on, it really has been difficult for myself and a lot of other left-leaning individuals to sort of dance and jump behind -- fully support the justice department or the fbi given how complicated they are in terms of, again, targeting activists, targeting the little person, how soft they are on corporate criminals and how quick they are to go after the marshal lysed. it is -- marshallized. it is difficult for me. host:don from tennessee, independent line. caller: good morning, pedro. i started referring to the justice department as the departing of justice. when the lack panthers were approved stand in front of voting booths. would ask what would instill confidence in me. one person would be to head that, ted out of texas. that was one class judge. people got left at their hotel. that is my comments on it. host: william bar doesn't do it for you then -- william barr doesn't do it for you then? caller: no, i don't know much about him. ted poe is one class act. i would be 100% the justice department then. host: in warren, michigan. republican line. ron is up next. talk to you.to we havee our problem is republicans and democrats in the fbi and justice department and many of them are biased toward the democratic party at the top that they are very much against our country. i think the socialism is actually communism and the democratic party is standing for that and pushing for it right now. host: what do you think of the president's choice to head the department of justice? caller: about his choice about the department of justice? host: the president -- whose choice for the next person to head the justice department, william barr? caller: i don't know anything about them. trump probably thinks he is a good die and he might be. what it boils down to is democrat and republican. a lot of republicans are fox in sheep's clothing. host: that is ron in michigan. if you want to get your comments in on your level of confidence in the justice department and the fbi, it is 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. an independents, 202-748-8002. one of the actions that took place in the house of representatives yesterday dealt with the iowa republican steve king over statements made about white supremacy. you heard in the last couple of days as far as his committee assignments, they are gone. yesterday the house voted on a measure to condemn those comments. not a full center measure, the house voting on that 416 to 1. one of the votes for that measure was steve king himself and he explained why when he went to the floor of the house yesterday. [video clip] >> i look at this language that is here, this resolution that the house of representatives rejects white nationalism and white supremacy and hateful expressions of intolerance contradictory to the values you find in the people of the united states. i agree with that language per eight i would add the language i used on this floor in this very place last friday afternoon when i said i would strengthen it by adding my previous statements which not only correctly reject white nationalism and white supremacy as evil ideology, but also condemn anyone that supports this evil and bigoted ideology in its ultimate expression, the systematic murder of 6 million innocent jewish lives. that is where i stand and that is what i believe. i want to complement the gentleman from south carolina for bringing this resolution and i have carefully studied every word in this resolution and even though i would add some more that are stronger language, i agree with the language in it. i want to ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's vote for this resolution. i am putting up a yes on the board because what you say here is right and true and just. host: when it comes to other leadership at the justice department, roll call reporting the house judiciary committee chairman joe nadler and matthew whitaker agreed for mr. whitaker to testify before the committee in early february partial government shutdown or no. that is scheduled for february 8 at 9:30. thank you to continue -- for continuing to work to find a time to testify. i am happy to have reached an agreement for you to appear. that was mr. nadler and whitaker has not appeared for testimony in the three months since he took over for jeff sessions. sessions came before the committee 15 months ago on november 14 of 2017. charles is next from st. petersburg, florida. democrats line. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: fine, thanks. caller: fantastic. basically, as a black man in this country, i have not a great deal of faith in the justice system. it's not because of president trump by no means. i think he is a more on who should not -- moron who should not be in office, period. the justice department has proven there are times it cannot be trusted. however, what we have going on today in the white house is ridiculous. we have people just -- basing their opinions on the justice department based on the things -- the lies from trump and fox news. host: specifically, what do you base your decisions on the justice department on? caller: simply past history and how we treated our citizens. the justice department has not been fair with treating citizens, particularly justices -- justice is not for poor people. host: give an example. caller: if you are a poor person, you don't get a fair trial. you don't have the luxury of having a fair trial. it is sad, but it isn't true. if you have finances, you can perhaps get away with things that a poor individual cannot do. one of these would be the sentencing for similar crimes. one crime committed by one individual without income would get a far greater sentence than a person that has -- who can afford a decent lawyer, for example. host: that is charles and st. petersburg. off of twitter, when it comes to the levels of trust, he says it is career employees, not the appointments. james brooks facebook says they have a lot of corruption to fix within themselves before they go critiquing anybody else. another viewer on facebook says i trust the fbi before the president. -- you can leave your question on this poll if you want to participate in that. from michigan, independent line, david. you are next. good morning. caller: good morning. is this me? host: yep, you are on. caller: about the wall, i know the democrats in the past wanted the wall and now that president trump is in office, they are against it and i don't understand it. it is like everything became a personal agenda for the different parties whether it be democrat or republican. host: let me pause you only to get back to what we are talking about as far as levels of confidence in the justice department and the fbi. how would you weigh in on those? caller: um. the fbi should have looked more into like hillary clinton when she sold our uranium to the russians indirectly and i think more should have been done about that. it seems like you don't hear anything about it and why she was able to do what she did and why nothing was able -- was ever brought up. it seemed like it was buried and i never got a satisfying answer for it. host: virginia. from north carolina, republican -- republican line. hi. virginia from north carolina, you are on. caller: thank you. i just want to say i don't know how this person is going to work out. i know every time whoever is advising trump on mueller, wray and rosenstein and all these people, it is not working out well. i want to know this person is going to have a special counsel and will he be able to put his friends in jail wherever they need to be because he keeps saying they are my friends. is he going to go by the law if you find something wrong with all these people? host: something wrong such as what? caller: anything with a democrat. report was rosenstein , i want them to look into rosenstein and the judge. there is a lot of things he needs to look into and have that special counsel. i don't know if i am going to be able to trust him because all these people are hades -- his friends for years yet i believe they are as corrupt as could be. right down to loretta lynch on the tarmac, comey, they are all corrupt. i want it investigated and what happened to barr and his investigation? where are all the investigations that were supposed to come up? we are not hearing about them? marielet's go to from charleston, south carolina. she dropped off. .e will continue on with guests it is andrew wheeler who will be before the senate today as he is considered to become the next head of the environmental protection agency. a lot of topics within that conversation expected. kevin bogardus will discuss mr. wheeler's nomination -- confirmation and what he faces. present a gonzalez, whose district includes part of the u.s.-mexico border -- vicente borderz will discuss security. those conversations and more coming up on "washington journal ." ♪ >> the senate confirmation hearing for william barr to be the next attorney general of the united states continues today at 9:30 a.m. eastern. we will hear from witnesses in support and opposition to the nomination. mr. barr is president trump's nominee to replace jeff sessions. watch the confirmation process for attorney general nominee william barr live today at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. ," author anda journalist patricia miller and her book "bringing down the olonel" about a congressman sued by his former mistress. patricia: the number of middle names he has to signify that he is a southern elite, had been a confederate colonel in the confederate cavalry. at the time of the lawsuit, he is in his fifth term of congress. though woman was pretty much fromy, a poor girl kentucky, very hungry for an education. she was this hungry young woman who ran into breckenridge at the time, and she was desperate to make yourself something in the world and get an education. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: day one of confirmation hearings for andrew wheeler. here to tell us what to expect is kevin bogardus e&e news. he serves as a publicist for that publication. good morning. guest: good morning. thank you for having me. andrew wheeler is not a common name. who is he, and why is he nominated to be head of the epa? guest: july of last year, he took over from scott pruitt, who resigned amid ethics allegations. by the senateed once before, but that was as deputy epa administrator so number two or second command of the agency. -- that wask i in back in april 2018. he is an interesting guy, kind of a well-known washington hand, insider policy. as aarted his career career epa employee back in the early 1990's but actually spent the majority on capitol hill as for the senate environmental works committee, which he is appearing before today. he is known for being a senior advisor, top aide to republican senators, especially republican senator jim animhoff. withoint of controversy him, he went into a lobbying ander in 2009 at a law firm ended up lobbying for several energy and environmental interests. he has a moniker of a coal lobbyist, because one of his , andts was an energy court the ceo, bob murray, has been a big critic of the obama era epa. host: what about then as far as that background of his, will that be pressed today by democrats as a big question? guest: i think it will be, but they have gone over that when he was deputy administrator. that was kind of the main line of attack against wheeler in his first confirmation hearing when he was deputy administrator. they went over who he was meeting with, what he was doing, and they spoke a lot about murray energy corp. some reporting bias in e&e news has found out that he has met with former clients as acting epa administrator. his recusal statement seems to still be in line with the worked with those clients long ago, or was in group settings, so i think that will definitely come up at today's hearing, but it has also been kind of well-trod ground with him. there are other things to go over, including his record as acting of ministry or sister light. host: what are some of those -- acting administrator since july? host: what are some of those a compliments? guest: he does not have the same negative headlines day after day as prewitt. one thing similar between him deregulatorythe agenda, several rollbacks. we are looking at the rollback of the waters v. united states rule, obama era clean power plant. i am trying to remember them all. but a more recent one is looking at the justification for mercury emission limits from power ofnts as well, so it kind keeps on, every time the epa release, itth a new is rolling back a regulation from the prior administration. from the efforts he is making, how many impact the coal industry directly? guest: i would say the mercury one is one that was wanted by the coal industry. the coal industry was also a huge it opponent of the clean power plant, so you can see the huge connection there. again, i think the argument would be from epa, we learn as republicans, we believe we do not need these heavy-handed to govern the environment, and we need to think about economics as well. host: andrew wheeler is being considered to be the next head of the epa, and our guest is here to tell us about him and the hearing today at 10:00. you can see it on c-span.org, but if you have questions about this, you can call us at (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. and independents, (202) 748-8002 . you can post thoughts on our twitter feed @cspanwj. does mr. wheeler take a certain position when it comes to climate change? guest: we had a sit-down interview with him back in july 2018, pretty much in his first week, and we asked him about climate change. he probably will be asked again. physically, do you think human activity is contributing -- basically, do you think human activity is contributing? but i do not know to what degree. that is where he is kind of fixed on his stamps, sitting with some republicans, and that gets to carbon emissions going down by the united states, which i think will be happening now, and we have had some studies that they might be going up again from the united states. so innovation, we have done well. over the years, carbon has gone down for the united states. we do not need these big new regulations to kind of go after carbon emissions to kind of help about climate change. but there is a bit of uncertainty. he has about climate change and what it is. he is definitely not fully on board with what we considered environmental group, the democratic view of the cause. using terms like "climate crisis," like former vice president al gore. host: what his comments leading up to the hearing was the sierra club. "putting a coal lobbyists like andrew wheeler in par charge of the epa is like making tony soprano the head of the fbi, in chargee hamburglar of mcdonald's. the fox in the henhouse analogies are endless here, but so are the ways that he can put our environment and health at risk if he remains at the top spot at the epa. friendly withjust corporate polluters, he has been on their team for years." industry and other interests, before that, he was a republican aide for some of the on the gop side, including senator inhofe, who has been a big proponent of climate change, his bill. i think that is where they are drawing that statement from. he put out his own statement, saying "andrew wheeler is the perfect person to lead the epa. he works for me personally. i have confident that he will advance the regulatory agenda that protects the environment." i suppose it is that regulatory aspect that will be a concern to democrats. guest: republicans definitely see one of their own in charge of the epa, and that is something he would not have said ,uring the obama administration basically former state regulators coming in on the top federal agency on the environment. is toially, his job pull back these rules. that is what president trump wants, and that is what he is executing. host: when it comes to regulations under scott pruitt, what does mr. wheeler face if he becomes head of the epa? guest: one thing that has been interesting as we focus a lot on the regulatory rollback, but --o the workforce under epa excuse me, the workforce at the epa under the trump administration is shrinking. it was up around 17,000, and then started to go down during the obama administration, so he has a kind of shrinking workforce.aging he has taken a little bit of a than scottone pruitt. scott pruitt could almost boast about the declining workforce numbers that epa, comparing them to what they were during the reagan administration. wheeler kind of has a different tone and kind of says you know, we need to recruit, we have an aging workforce, we have more young people who want to come in and work for the agency to talk about wanting to hire a human resources director. i do not think that has happened as of yet. it is kind of an interesting thing. what also kind of comes into that, too, is he also makes a point, usually during any kind of public appearance or speech, about how much he loves or appreciates the respect, the work done by the epa career and he also brings up the fact that he was once of the a career employee epa, and i think he has actually talked about defending the agency, saying this workforce is dedicated and really loves the environment and will do the right thing. first call comes from elliott in florida, democrats line. good morning. you are on with our guest. justr: hi, yes, i am calling to talk about the confirmation hearing, you know, of judge bar. -- judge barr. host: caller, i apologize, that is the last time it. last segment.-- we have moved on to the next segment. this is john in ohio. hi. caller: i am on the democratic line. host: you are on. go ahead. caller: i want to talk about the epa and these republicans cured we are in the second gilded age of the country, and these people have to put a stop to all of this. corporations running everything, that is terrible. areyou have fox news, they a cancer on society. that is all i have to say. the: when you talk about gilded age, what are you referencing as the new head of the epa is being considered? caller: we have corporations, oligarchs infiltrating the government. they have been doing it. host: ok, that is john from ohio. guest: i mean, i guess i would only say to that, i think it is a fair argument to say that this epa is probably friendlier to moretry, is willing to listen to industry, with a color regulated community at the agency compared to those of the past administration. personalfar as the record, being with the: industry as long as he was, how is he defending that, and as he -- the coal industry as long as he was, how is he defending that? guest: i do not think he will bring it up himself. one thing i remember from our interview in july last year as we brought some from the coal lobbyists, energy, and environmental, and he said if you listen to the media, it sounds as if i have one client, so we tried to disperse what he did as a lobbyist before coming back to the epa. one thing that was approached by the democrats in his confirmation hearing for deputy administrator back in 2017 was his involvement in something called the action plan, which had a number of different policy items done by the health administration. they have kind of gone forward and ticked off, and wheeler is actually pictured in a meeting with energy secretary rick perry. wheeler is not an epa official but still in his lobbying role, and he is actually in that same meeting with bob murray, the ceo of murray energy. host: from pennsylvania, this is martin, democrats line. hi. caller: hi. how are you doing today? is always saying how this will go on for a while. i hope his prison sentence is as long as he has got the country shutdown. we go to leesburg, virginia, democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. the more i hear about what is happening in the epa, i know why i am a democrat to what it comes to clean air, clean fuel, all of the things we talk about, bottom line, what is going to make them more money, all the they care about, does anyone care about what we are breathing, about what will happen to our drinking water when you let corporations do what they want? they will do what is cheapest and let our environment suffer. that: i would say on wheeler in response would cite statistics saying how air pollution and water pollution have gone down. some of those achievements at least happened or maybe even were achieved by tougher regulations that this administration is trying to pull back. host: from surprise, arizona, republican line, this is greg. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would like to make a statement , what my feelings are with the epa, as far as i am concerned, the epa has been the most destructive agency in the united states as far as our economy is concerned. they get involved in a lot of things they have no business being in. agencyarted off as an that was needed is the beginning because water was polluted and the air was bad, but over the years, it has grown to a -eyed monster that has been totally uncontrolled until trump came along. i would like to see what your guest opinion would be about the .pa under wheeler host: what statements can you provide? past, it wase needed, but over the past 25 years, a lot of that has been cleaned up. compare the united states to the rest of the world, our emissions are low, especially when you consider countries like thailand and korea. we are the star, you know, as far as pollution is concerned. we have the strictest regulations in the world, especially automobile regulations. i just think the epa has gotten involved in a lot of places where they have no business being. the border wall, they are talking about being worried about animals crossing the border back and forth. it is crazy the outreach that the epa has reached over the years. host: ok. thank you for the examples, greg. mr. bogardus. it actually has become some of the talking points that wheeler himself likes to use, that the united states is kind of the landmark example of environment protections in the world, and it kind of fits into, yes, the epa was needed in the 1970's, but look at the achievements we have made. do we really need epa involved in all of these different areas? is --ing the caller said what do you think the future of the agency is under wheeler? i have one word, which is "litigation." essentially, these rollbacks have now been proposed, most of them have been proposed under the trump administration, now they will start to be challenged in court, kind of finalize the. -- kind of finalized. it is important that all of these finish before the trump administration is out, otherwise you may have a democratic administration come in, and they will probably back away from defending those regulatory rollbacks, if president trump loses his reelection bid in 2020. the clock is ticking on what wheeler and president trump and epa want to do under this administration. host: what approach is mr. wheeler take when it comes to clean energy or green jobs? guest: well, i think he has remarked on it sometimes, but epa's that is not really wheelhouse, per se. it is not supposed to be an economic develop an agency. republicans, i think, it would like to see more of that, and in some ways, the complaint against the clean power plants, the obama air rules to curb emissions from power plants is kind of the line that winners and losers, the government is thinking winners and losers, that coal plants are going to close down while the solar winds we have built up, turbines and things of that nature instead, so it is kind of -- the complaint was that government was picking the renewable energy industry over the coal industry. i think the a broken line on that is the epa should be creating a level playing field and should kind of stay out of some of these regulations that definitely target certain industries in certain sectors of the economy than others. can regard us e-news is joining us with a preview of today's hearing with andrew wheeler. news?s e e&e guest: we cover environmental news. everything with the department of energy, the department of the interior, we follow it every day, every single minute. i have been covering the epa mostly for almost the last five years now. basically that is what we look at. we are focused on what is going on with those agencies and what they are doing. host: talk a little bit while we have you about the shutdown. how is the epa affected? guest: the epa is closed under the government shutdown. they said they would use carry on, and they did, but by the end of the week, the holiday week, by that friday afternoon, they were sending out furlough notices. what we have is roughly 13,000 epa employees on furlough. that is a huge basically almost the entire workforce. that sawhat we have is roughly 0 epaid, i think they actually just updated the numbers this week, and their shutdown plan, 891 epa employees are considered accepted, to use the terminology. in prior shutdowns, those employees would be called essential. they are doing a lot of different things. they are there to protect life and property, so you have epa employees doing emergency response, helping clean up hazardous waste from california wildfires. but you also have epa employees helping wheeler prepare for his confirmation hearing this morning, which some democrats have questioned, is that really a good use of epa resources? the epa has come back and said well, this is part of the agency's constitutional obligations, and we need to respond to congress and be prepared. host: this is from florida, democrats line. linda, go ahead. caller: good morning. this conversation has gotten so convoluted with epa emissions -- with epa's mission, but when you think about it, epa's mission is pretty myopic. it protects the environment. air, water. we do not have state air, we do not have national air, but air is everywhere. instead of picking economic winners and losers is ludicrous, because we all know that coal burns black smoke. we all know that solar energy does not put as much into the -- that is a kosygin it is a carcinogenic. this is a fools errand. their job is to protect the environment. that is it. it is not democrat. it is not republican. people have thrown so many wrenches into the machine, and i understand they want to do it. they don't want the machine to work. but that is counterproductive to our overall health. everybody has just got to stop. the epa is there to protect. host: ok, thanks, linda. thank you. guest: that is the argument you hear a lot from the agency supporters. the agency's director tractors will say the epa has become too political and have gotten involved in too many things that kind of stray from its mission. has a kind, the epa of wide ranging mandate, which, yes, protect the environment and public health, and that is a huge task ahead of it, and it is not just climate change and air and water pollution, but it is also a toxic waste thing. there are a lot of dangers and other possibilities to harm human health out there, so epa always has to be on the lookout and try to mitigate or fix whatever it can. host: from cheryl in texas, independent line. caller: yes, my husband is a chemical engineer, and he is 75. actually, he is retired, and then he went back to work. but he worked for a large chemical company whose name you would know that makes all kinds of pesticides and insecticides and extremely dangerous substances, and he was absolutely horrified with the trump administration relaxing so many of the rules governing the use of all of these deadly substances. if they get in the environment, they have a very long half-life. they don't just go away. children haveies' the highest rate of childhood leukemias and other cancers, because they are the ones that are especially exposed to all of these substances. if they get into the water or the air, they do not just go away. relax all of the rules and restrictions, i cannot tell you he got about it. he worked for the company that made roundup, i do not want to say their name, and then he worked for a company that makes plastics. the people that know about this believe that the restrictions are necessary. he was horrified at the relaxation of all the rules and restrictions. host: ok, thanks, cheryl. guest: i think that kind of fits into what will be the opposition to wheeler today at the confirmation hearing, the ,egulatory rollbacks statistically on chemicals. there has been a lot of concern over a three influence at the trump ep, working with chemicals, industry background -- the chemical industry, i should say. and the epa has kind of move onk on some proposed bans some pesticides and other chemicals at various administrations that has sparked some real concern. host: have democrats on the senate committee, are they asking for any concessions in light of the nomination of mr. wheeler? guest: i do not know if that approach has been made yet, but i think there is a good chance there could be such an approach. democrats have had some success. they have kind of taken a different path. they have been able to kind of push on some prior environmental policies, nominees, including the head of the first -- wa president trump's first nominee, he actually had to pull back after some republicans joined in opposition of him, but the new head of the epa would confirm, but actually with some policy concessions, so you might see democrats tried that approach again and will back off, we will take the temperature down a bit in our opposition to wheeler in order to get some change in policy at the trump epa. host: from philip in minnesota, hello. caller: good morning. just listening here, i really agree with the previous caller from florida, in texas. it sounds like mr. wheeler would be pretty balanced in his approach between corporate interests, the economy, and the environment. but again, if we destroy the environment, i do not care how much profit there is, we are all going to suffer. i think as individuals, we like to take responsibility for our environment and the clean air. but then the people thinking there are buffer zones right now is the issue as far as runoffs. they should be compensated. that the trade-off between and the general public interest. , everything they have done for us, well, that is not reality. we have to take responsibility, too. so it has got to be a balance. i appreciate the work that is being done. i just hope the government shutdown -- this country is going backwards, and my theory is we should not be going backward right now. let the official start working together. host: thank you, caller. i think thatially, is the argument that wheeler could make at his confirmation hearing today, which will be focusing on strikes, look for a balance between the government and the economy, and he might get a response from the democrats about your job, your job is just the environment, protect the environment. but again, republicans, that is what they want to hear. they are really worried about the economic impacts of these regulations that have been coming out. host: from valerie in north carolina, republican line. you are the last call. caller: yes, hi, i am very interested in watching the confirmation hearing. i just got finished reading a book by john grisham called "great mountain," and basically it is about stripmining in west virginia, and even with all the regulations that the obama administration, that there were ,hese coal mining corporations they are still able to get away and dumping the sludge polluting the water and not basically following the regulations. it looks like there was not , for the epa to control these corporations, so i am just interested to see if mr. wheeler is actually going to enforce these regulations and make sure -- i am not sure where the coal industry is right now, if they stripmining anymore or if the target is deep mining. host: we will leave it there, thanks. won,: i will pick up on she used the word "enforce." epa.cement is down at the dogblic interest watch group found out that epa enforcement numbers are the lowest they have been in 30 years, kind of on referral to the justice department for action item and environmental crimes. no it ought to be a interesting kind of task if democrats want to stick at the confirmation hearing, we know how you feel about regulations, you are not rolling back all of them, you need to enforce the ones that are still there. guest: we will see how they approach today, if he will bring enforcement up again at the agency. host: the website for e&e is &enews.net.t e the hearing today will be on c-span.org. kevin bogardus, thank you for your time. guest: thank you so much. host: coming up, we will talk with texas representative vicente gonzalez as he talks about his perspective of armed border security. later on in the program, attorney general ken cuccinelli on william barr's confirmation hearing today, and also on the process of criminal justice reform. those conversations are coming up. ♪ >> sunday on "q&a," author and journalist patricia miller and her book "bringing down the onel," who was sued by his former mistress. patricia: the number of middle names he has to signify that he is a southern elite, had been a confederate colonel, a very respected calvaryman, in the confederate cavalry. at the time of the lawsuit, he is in his fifth term of congress. the woman was pretty much nobody, a poor girl from kentucky, very hungry for an education. she was this hungry young woman who ran into breckenridge at the time, and she was really desperate to make yourself something in the world and get an education. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." ♪ c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> "washington journal" continues. host: representative vicente gonzalez is a democrat in texas, and he serves the 15th district, which includes mcallen, texas. good morning to you, sir. guest: good morning. host: talk about where you live, particularly mcallen and the president's case that he is making on this. an honestried to have conversation with the president and folks here in washington about how life on the border really is and how safe it really is. of what youa lot watch on the news every day, mcallen is experiencing a 33-year low in crime rate. it is one of the safest cities in the country and in the state. el paso, another border community, is right now the safest large city in the country. there are stories after stories like that about the border, and i can assure you there is no community on the border that is one of the most dangerous on the that you may find yourself pretty comfortable walking in the middle of the night in mcallen, and that is something that i may be will not do here in washington, d.c. host: are you saying that the border fencing or wall is needed or not? guest: i do not believe that it is. an issuehat we have with caravans and undocumented migration that we need to deal with intelligently and suggest that when we talk about a border wall, we should be talking about incorporating cutting-edge technology that can secure our border. we have six between the district theyhe adjoining district, have 180 mile vision, they gather intel, movement. i think we should be talking that to securee our border, more cameras. we have 7500 vacancies that need to be filled. those are real issues that i think need to be addressed. host: for the president himself, in mcallen, texas recently, talked about for security. let's listen. [video clip] pres. trump: we have lists of things. what they need more than anything is a barrier, a wall, call it whatever you want. whether it is steel or concrete, you don't care, we need a barrier. and they have done a fantastic job. never so many apprehensions ever in our history. but it could be a lot easier. it could be a lot easier for you, and you can spread your people out to a lot of different areas, which would also be helpful. >> mr. president, we have 55 miles of fencing in this sector. in 2006.d the job we need to finish the job. we need the personnel, the technology, the resources, we need the infrastructure in order to control this border and managed it. part of the area on the east side accounts for 60% of our traffic. when we have no fencing, over 90% of our traffic occurs in those areas. pres. trump: ok, folks? you don't have to say anymore. that is it. and we never spoke before this. i did not tell you to say this. [laughter] >> no, sir. pres. trump: i should have. this is common sense. they need a barrier, they need a wall. if you don't have it, it will be nothing but hard work and a grueling problem. host: representative gonzalez, when you have a control person saying things -- patrol person saying things along the nature, what do you think? guest: i would ask another question -- have good people who work for our government and puerto rico, but they follow policy from the top, they are soldiers on the ground, and they know to some extent there is politics in every job, and you do not directly contradict the president on the opinion that he has. host: you think he is not being forthright? guest: that might be his personal opinion, but i can show you for every person that has that opinion, you will find the opposite, even within the agency. when we went down there, he did not speak with anyone in the business community, he did not meet with local officials, mayors, county judges, the sheriff, chief of police, texas department of public safety, others who are dealing with border security on the grounds that really know the impact of what we are dealing with on a daily basis. host: our guest is with us if you want to ask west is about border security and related issues. (202) 748-8000 for democrats, republicans, (202) 748-8001, and independents, (202) 748-8002. the president also spoke about apprehensions. you had contention with that number. guest: we actually had a 44-year low of conducting any crossings. a light surge recently or in certain areas, overall, our country is experiencing a low in undocumented crossings. ani said earlier, it is issue i am concerned about your it i am a law and order member of congress with a border district, and i believe we should have immigration policies that address issues such as these caravans that are coming into central america. when people say we have a crisis on the border, i would say we do not have a rice is on the border , we have a crisis in three central american countries, el guatemala, that has been ignored and not dealt with it over a decade, and we are dealing with it on the border. host: our guest is with us until about 9:00. the first call is from chris in michigan, on the line for democrats for our guest. go ahead. caller: hi there. am from michigan, and we are close to the border with canada. it is not much of a problem. toot of the money is used control our border up here, and we really don't need it. i think the money should go down to the southern border. a lot of the people that we have worked with -- i am in the construction industry, the jobs that we have lost, the our scale has not increased for the last 20 years of here because of illegal immigration. sayingf people are immigrants are paying taxes, and i have worked with them personally, and they go back and forth across the border. down ine like kings mexico every year, because they take the money, and they put it back across the border. i have been to three deaths already this year with the heroin crisis with fentanyl. haida not know why the democrats -- i formally was one, turned independent -- we have voted for this for 20 years, why they will not put the money into a border just because of the president. host: ok, thanks. we will let our guest respond. guest: the vast majority of drugs that cross our borders are coming true ports of entry. entry's for ports of having better detection, x-ray machines, and certainly the 7500 vacancies are impactful on our ports of industry, and that is where the money should be invested. we need to have solutions of how to address what they are dealing with on the border. host: thomas is next on the independent line. wall,: hey, about the what trump should do, the money allocated to israel, $20 billion that to the wall. the biggest cement company is in mexico. i mean, that is the largest one i think in the world almost. stopping them going into el salvador from america. host: ok, thanks. guest: i agree, we do need to stop arms going south and address the addiction that we have here in the united states. a pretty good is partner, and we should continue having them as our friend and helping them how we can. i think the issue going on along the border is a completely separate issue. i am not against investment on border security. in fact, i think we need to fund more security and invest in cutting-edge technology that we already own. sets that wethese own, there are six of them between my district and the adjoining district. last year, we had 27 home from afghanistan that were sitting in storage somewhere outside of d.c., virginia or maryland or somewhere. why don't we set them on the border? host: you introduced an act, this land is our land act. what is that? guest: that is right. preventing private property owners from losing their land that have been in families for generations to the united states government. it is a taking that is unauthorized, it is illegal, it is wrong, it is immoral, and i do not think it is the right thing to do. host: a shutdown is enacted. where our democrats as far as offering some type of resolution or resolve? what is your take? guest: i hope we get the border own -- the government opened immediately and continue the conversation about the border. we have employees that need to get back to work. they missed their second check. i was getting messages from my front is on the border patrol who were not getting paid. friends in the u.s. attorney office, in law enforcement, critical of the u.s., critical o places of government that are not being funded. do. is the wrong thing to i voted to keep the government open when it was the democrats trying to keep close the government, and am voting against it right now when it is the republicans closing it. host: you have a meeting today. guest: today we have a meeting at the white house, and it is regarding how we can figure out a way to get the government open this borderntinue security debate with an open government. host: what is the group of people meeting with the president? guest: we have a group of problem solvers, 22 democrats and 22 republicans. a small group out of that that is going to be meeting, i think four or five of us, that will be meeting at the white house this afternoon and try to have a conversation of how we can figure a way, a path forward, with an open government. host: what is your group's pitch to the president on this? is let's personal idea get the government open today, let's people get -- let's get people back to work immediately, ground onfind common the issues we do not agree on, but let's do this without impacting 800,000 families. host: the president has also said even if that happens, then the conversation with stop, at least on the democratic side. guest: i don't believe that, especially if there is a deadline. i suggest opening it for 30 days or 60 days, get everybody back to work, and continue the conversation on issues that we don't agree on. people need to find a middle ground to get this build on. host: our guest serves the 15th district of texas. representative vicente gonzalez joining us for this conversation. from florida, we will hear next from tim on our republican line. tim, "washington post -- tim, go ahead. you are on with our guest. caller: i have a couple of statements i want to make. the president does not want to extend the border for the whole 2000 miles. to me, it would seem illogical that you would take and build your fence areas where you can stop people from crossing the border illegally, ok, to where they have to go to ports of entry. then you can use your border patrol to take care of these people. find out if they really have asylum. ok, you talk about these three countries -- guatemala, honduras, and guatemala -- do we not have u.s. industries down in those countries? if we do, do they have legitimate asylum claims? why don't they go to our u.s. in the sea -- u.s. embassies there and file asylum claims? i got a friend who married a lady from the philippines. it took him over two years to get her legalized in this state. they went through all the proper channels, paid the money that they needed to do, did all the background checks. thought of the outcome let's open up the government and talk about it, you know, that is not going to work. host: ok, got you, tim, thanks. guest: i agree. we need to figure out a way for people to seek asylum in a more expedited way, and the vast majority do not qualify, and i am for working with mexico to help them secure their border, deal with asylum-seekers at the port of entry. the caller mentioned about having walls in certain areas. we already have walls in certain areas. the president, the platform he worked on during his campaign for president was having a big, beautiful wall across the entire hashern border, so, yeah, the conversation changed since then? of course it has. but what the caller is suggesting is not exactly what the president was saying during his campaign or the rhetoric during his first two years as president. host: there are 77 major or significant walls around the world with 45 countries planning or building walls. 800 walls have been built in europe since 2015. they have been successful. stop the crime at our southern border. that? you respond to guest: we have not had walls like he is proposing anywhere in this century. the idea that you can build a wall and walk away and say now our border is secured because we have this wall is foolish. walls will be breached. they will be totaled under, crossed over, they will be penetrated. at a monumental cost to taxpayers dollars -- you have got to think, this is $25 billion. his first or second or third ask, for $5.6 billion. we could take care of our seniors, there are so many places where a 25 billion dollar investment would make more sense for the american people. it ishe also said becoming more obvious that the radical democrats, his words, not mine, are the party of open borders and crime. you have heard this before. guest: i am completely against open borders. that is campaign rhetoric. there may be folks at the extreme left that might agree with some of that, but i can tell you the vast majority of members of congress on the democratic side do not agree with, and not a single member of the border district would agree with that, so it is absolutely false. host: here is kathy from michigan, democrats line. caller: good morning. c-span workers, pedro, mr. gonzalez. i want to tell a short story. in a85, i was a student summer class, and for the paper, i chose to do a research paper. the peninsula, and on the inside, there is an east bay and a west bay, and it opens up to lake michigan. there are apple farms and cherry farms. i was looking to find migrant workers. to do that, and i kind of dressed up a little bit, and when gentleman spoke to me, and he could speak english. it was beautiful, so gorgeous up there, just beautiful. but he kind of got down on me as little bit because i was overdressed. and he showed me the water source, and it was a hose coming out of the size of -- side of the house. there was no running water, no electricity, no heat. i think part of our problem is that we have taken advantage greatly of people and their desperation, and we have employed them, and we have mistreated the, and at that time, our u.s. senators were don riegel and carl levin. reagan was the president. everybody locally in this part of michigan were republicans. huge problems with people not doing their job with justice. host: ok, thanks, caller. we will leave it there. guest: i agree there are some injustices that occur in our country, and the biggest issue, this country is addicted to cheap labor, and that invites a lot of these substandard living conditions and working conditions for migration that is undocumented. program, alabor guest worker program that would allow folks to come, work seasonally, or work for a year, and get out of the shadows of our country, pay taxes, pay social security, be here for a certain amount of time, do the wor honorably, fairly, and correctly, and then go back to their home country. i think we need to work about programs like that. youe was a program that will hear ridicule about on both sides of the aisle, but it was functional. it could be improved upon. host: what do you think about the e-verify program as of today? guest: it can be interesting to see how it develops. you talk about employers. it is going to put a lot of pressure on a lot of businesses. i think the solution is having a guest worker program, because, without a doubt, we have a labor shortage. we try to claim that we don't and that americans will be doing some of these jobs, these provide a lot of the agriculture america, you do not see americans picking the fruit and vegetables and doing the hard labor. host: also from michigan, this is kevin. caller: hi. i was just thinking about when reagan was president, he gave amnesty out, and it was supposed to be for securing the borders. but i do not think either democrats or republicans want to secure the borders. the democrats want votes. republicans want cheap labor. the american people are in between this. i do believe that our borders should be secured. hopefully one of these days, somebody will actually do it. thank you. that is all i have to say. guest: you know, it is a fact, people want cheap labor, and our to,ers need to be tended but more than anything, we need to have a policy. right now, 75% -- even if we built a wall that people could not penetrate, you have got to think 75% of the migration coming across the border are asylum-seekers. so they can swim across the american soil, they are actually looking for border patrol agents to turn himself in and file for asylum. i think we need more immigration judges across the border, and it should be a 10-day turnaround. if you apply for asylum, it is granted, and if you don't, you will be deported. we will do for you in a humane fashion as a family unit. we do not separate families. that is not who we are as americans. host: the house and senate were supposed to be out next week for the martin luther king holiday. you will be back in session for the week. guest: that is what they tell us. i guess if we do not get the order open in the next 24 hours, we will likely be back next week. host: what did speaker pelosi say if the specific plan to open the border? guest: we would like to get the government open. if we do not get it open in the next day or two, and a effective districts, we will work back home. if not, we will keep chiseling away. host: will there be specific offers from the house, or are they waiting on the president? guest: it is not that we have not invested in border security -- by the way, one thing we need to make clear, that $5 billion ask passed the house and did not control the senate. the republicans controlled the house, senate, and the white house. they did not get the $5.6 billion, that is not the democrats. they have the votes to do it and to put a stop to it. the american people overwhelmingly pushed back on some of the policies that have come out of this of administration, and now we are dealing with it. host: on our republican line, jim in alabama, you are menetxt up. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have two questions for the gentleman. why are the democrats treating the illegal aliens better than the american people? and, uh, why is his party turning communist? i served for 22 years. retired military. i run around the world fighting communistss and now they are trying to bring i here to the states. guest: absolutely we are not turning communist. there are some liberal folks in my party. i will be the first to acknowledge that. but most are somewhere in the middle, middle left or middle right. i oppose communistic ideas, socialistic ideas. i do not think that is who we are as americans and what the majority believe and think. i think we are somewhere in the middle. whenever a radical left-wing or right-wing make a comment like that, they get a lot of news media, and that is why you get comments like this, that that is the weighted the party is moving, but i do not believe that. host: are you meeting with leadership on this issue? guest: yes, we have talked to leadership about our meeting, and we are doing this independently on our own, and we will see where the conversation takes us. host: guest this is patty in calif, democrats line. hi. caller: how are you doing this morning? i would like to ask a question of the gentleman sitting there. i am not democrat or republican, but i lean more democrat -- they are all messed up, but anyway. i would like to ask a question, you live near the border, so therefore why do we have troops in honduras and other different areas like that? do you know what we have troops there, or do you not? guest: we have very limited troops. we do not have many troops in central america. many are there to train locals, but for the most part, we are not in central america. caller: because i have family in honduras. there for nine months to bury my brother. i brought him back to america. they used to have three good areas, not honduras as much, but the other areas that are coming here, they have, not like us, but i democracy. now all of a sudden, they are running over here, and they say the the police are bad, cartels are working with the police, so if we are over there, then it is like -- why don't we correct it? host: thanks, caller. guest: she has a point. people are is gaping because -- art escaping because of economic insecurity. i've been advocating for more american help on the ground to bring security, to invite foreign investment, to incentivize people to stay home. that would get to the root of the problem. wethe time people leave home are just putting a band-aid on it. we are ignoring the three central american countries. about a wall that doesn't bring a permanent solution, i think for a fraction of that investment we can go down to those countries, get on the ground and figure ways to incentivize people to want to stay home in their home country by bringing security and safety on the ground, and opportunity for them to succeed. mexico right now has negative migration. mexican nationals moving back to mexico than we do coming into the united states. why is that? there are security issues in mexico, but there is also economic opportunity to much more extensive than those central american countries. we need to keep pushing in those areas to try and create that environment. host: from ios, republic -- from iowa, republican line, rick. hello. you are on. go ahead. caller: u -- yeah. i think go ahead and put that sense up. but the people back to work -- the fence up. of the people back to work. if the fence don't work, you can vote them out. host: and from madison, ohio, independent line. caller: good morning. two comments. mr. trump, i think you should step back, open up the borders, and let all them people come flooding into the united states because the american people, i think, need a good lesson. thatr two, i have a card by a masterin 1886 builder that came to the united states referring to the democratic party. -- neverever made fun make fun of democrats because he made democrats the way he made other creepy, probably things. host: we will leave it there. what are you comfortable with in far as keeping the step down as it continues on? guest: i am comfortable with making an investment in port of entry, where 95% of drug flows come through. i am for filling in the 7500 vacancies of border patrol agents we desperately need. i am for more sensors on the ground, cameras, better infrastructure along the border. there are areas where we have torrential rain and vehicles aren't able to maneuver very well. those are smart ideas that actually are functional, that bring real, lasting border security. host: representative vincent a gonzales ofvincente texas, thank you. coming up, we will hear from the former virginia attorney general ken cuccinelli on several topics. "hat as "washington journal continues. ♪ announcer: sunday on "q&a," author and journalist patricia miller and her book "bringing olonel," on a kentucky congressman who was istress.his m >> he was a very well-respected cavalryman in the confederate cavalry. at the time of the lawsuit, he's in his fifth term in congress. she was, by contrast, a poor girl from kentucky with literary aspirations who was very hungry for an education. she was this hungry young woman who ran into breckenridge at a time when she was really desperate to make yourself something in the world and get an education. announcer: sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." c-span cut our history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies, and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. continues. journal" host: joining us on the program is ken cuccinelli. he served as the former virginia attorney general from 2010 to 2014. the attorneyabout general nomination of william barr and criminal justice matters, hello. who served as an attorney general, what you think of his performance yesterday? guest: in terms of pure performance, he did spectacularly. to use the old russian joke -- the old olympic joke, even the russian judges said he did ok. anything that positive out of the other side is impressive. he was an impressive choice to begin with. it is kind of hard to argue with someone who's already been attorney general. nobody's saying he isn't qualified, etc. it comes down really to politics for these votes. yesterday was a lot of substance , and he did really very well. very impressive. host: how do you think he had questions about the mueller investigation and his role in it should he become attorney general? guest: from the perspective of getting through the senate, he them out of the park. -- he hit them out of the park. i do think he may have been over reassuring. i would have liked him to say -- let's back up one step. he ripped this 20 page memo sometime ago that he characterized yesterday is very narrow, and that he thought the mueller appointment was flawed from the outset. i personally think he should have taken the position that the information i based that on was all public information, which he did say yesterday, meaning he had no insight or information, and that he would have to reassess it when he's attorney general. the one thing, whenever any of us think about an investigation like that, is that if we are not on the inside, we do not have all of the information. so you can't make a decision about something like continuing the investigation. but he was very reassuring in terms of completing it, at least sharing a summary of the final results, which are probably not that far off, so it is going to be a very relevant question for a and attorney general barr. not: when he said he would carry out an order from the president to fire robert mueller, do think that went too far? guest: i may be a little biased because i was a state attorney general. the attorney general is unique among cabinet members. ordinarily a cabinet members job is to implement the policy preferences of the president. that is you work for. in the area of policy, that is true also of the attorney general. but the attorney general, to a degree, not present in any of the other departments, is called upon to make independent legal judgments, and that also means independent of the president. bill barr was very clear that in that area, he will be independent, and i think convincingly so. i've known him for years. i believe those were sincere, honest answers. and the democrats know that. see the kind of questioning of his credibility that maybe you've seen in other political appointment fights on capitol hill. you are just not seeing that was bill barr because he is a known quantity, including to the other side. all ofy not appreciate his politics, but they do appreciate his past performance, and when he was attorney general previously, he was very honest with capitol hill. that carries over 25 years later. us,: ken cuccinelli is with talking about william barr and other topics if you want to ask him questions. . (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 four republicans, and independents (202) 748-8002. when it comes to the mueller report, should that be released to the public? guest: i would expect that to be a summary. the molary started investigation was the counterintelligence concern about russia meddling in our elections. there was no criminal basis to start the mueller investigation, which was the complaint of myself and others, that the special counsel regulation rather presumes he explicitly that a criminal investigation will be in place. to have that, you have to already have evidence that a crime exists, and to this day that doesn't exist, at least publicly. on the counterintelligence side, you expect some sensitivity in terms of how they are able to gather information when you're not talking about a domestic aboutal undertaking, but international counterintelligence. i absolutely expect to see parts of this report not made public, and in fact, maybe even restricted to a select number of folks on capitol hill simply because of sources and methods utilized together information about the real russian role in the election as best our government can figure it out. host: one of the topics leading the justice department is about morale. what do you think bill bar faces should he become the head? guest: first of all, we are going to talk a little bit about criminal justice reform. one of the concerns my fellow conservative criminal justice reform advocates have with bill is that he is so loyal to the department of justice, and they are not as supportive of the president's criminal justice reform bill he signed last month. that they will slow walk it. the concern is that the cracking of the whip will be a timeout in the corner instead of firing people. if it were ken cuccinelli attitude and you get a bureau of prisons dragging its feet on and lamenting the change, the reestablishment of the 54 days of good time from 47, if they dragged their feet on that, i fire them. bill bar will probably not fire them. he will make them obey the law. i have no question about that. but he won't crack down internally. and from the inside, morale question, he is going to be somebody they really appreciate, i think, as being the next boss. very much so. i think if you work in the department of justice in a setting aside all their own personal politics, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone in america they be happier with as the next boss of their in department. host: you are affiliated with a group known as right on crime. what is that? guest: a coalition of conservatives that support criminal justice reform. it is a double entendre. we are conservatives, so we are on the right side of the onctrum, but we also focused evidence-based solutions. we really rely on the laboratories of democracies who have tested many things, and find where they have worked in parts of the country and help bring them to other parts of the country. normally we are working state to state, but on this recent criminal justice reform bill, we were deeply engaged in trying to advance that bill through the house and senate, and of course ultimately successfully. we believe not only with that improve public safety and quality of life in communities wracked by crime, but also for the families of convicted criminals, and that it will offer them greater long-term prospects of their own. that's part of how we are going to drive the crime rate down. host: we have a couple of calls lined up. state is in washington for our guest, cantu tonelli. go ahead -- our guest, ken cuccinelli. go ahead. you are on. from the watched beginning to the end yesterday, and it was quite clear he believed the president couldn't be charged with a crime or held to justice by the justice department. he also made it clear we will not be getting the mueller what he decides to put out and say about it, and that disturbs me immensely. we have a right to that report. guest: i appreciate the call. first of all, i think that the position -- i'm quite confident that the position bill barr took on indicting the president is consistent with the decades of bipartisan department of justice positions as it relates to indicting a sitting president. that is not new. bill barr simply stuck with the decades-old doj position in that regard. and i appreciate that you don't like that. the reasons people from a policy standpoint, if you want to see the president indicted, you are really enthusiastic about that. obviously the available alternative is impeachment. bleepy, as bleepy some of the new democrats have liked to say. it is the case that the attorney general will ultimately decide what is public in that report. i already made my comments about why i would be shocked to see the whole report ever released, but bill barr is a straight up player. your tone suggests to me you are biased against bill, and i understand that. it is a partisan world, and you really can judge him by his performance, i think. if you look back 25 years to when he was last attorney general, part of the reason he was so well received by democrats yesterday wasn't just his performance, which i think was outstanding, but his track record is one the democrats appreciate. he genetically increased civil rights enforcement, for instance. he's got other elements of his track record like that that, just on paper, if you didn't know who it was, most democrats would appreciate. but you combine that with his excellent performance in what the democrats know to be his honest answers, and it is a pretty good round up. democrat -- ia think from a democrat's perspective, you cannot hope for any better from a trump nominee. is, to me,question the most interesting and terrifying thing that's come out of the mueller investigation is that it is becoming increasingly clear that the fbi, possibly with the knowledge of barack obama as president of the united states, had authorized spying on a competing political party candidate running for president. that they had already started investigating. they just cooked up this russia thing as a grounds. couldn't you do that with any campaign? can we come up with something appoints, and if he the fbi people, but they can't now go and spy on the other campaigns and use that as a basis and then start squeezing them? because everybody's backers has something in their closet. guest: i share your concern. if having a person one step removed from a campaign like candidateknows the and has dicey dealings in other countries, is enough to get a five a warrant -- a fisa warrant, and then you are going to let the local people like susan rice have access to that information, i think that is very problematic. i try to take an idealistic approach. i'm sure democrats looking ahead to 2020 aren't keen on the notion that donald trump could the 34 orsdropping on so democrat candidates for president that are going to show up, double the republican number from 2016, and you wouldn't when that power in trump's hands anymore than i would appreciated being in president obama's hands or any other democrat. i just don't think that power and authority should exist under such specious circumstances. that is a real problem. as we get closer to the year 2020, i think you are going to start hearing more and more democrats expressed the same concern that you just expressed, but they are going to be more nervous it is going to happen to their candidate going forward. it is not going to be something we learn about after the fact. host: this is mike from indiana on our independent line. caller: yes. this is for ken cuccinelli. guest: yes, you got it right. caller: about william barr. i was really impressed with him yesterday. they will be about two months if we can see that he can hold everything he says. he talked really well. i'm independent. i was just wondering about that marijuana thing, these laws the states are breaking, and yet it is still a federal law. he got a little upset about that. he said it's congress that's got to change that. why are these states bricking laws and not getting punished? i don't understand that, and i get the impression he might dissenting about that. i hope he does -- he might do something about that. i hope he does. guest: you bring other really interesting point. it is nullification. when i was the first attorney general to sue on obamacare claiming it was unconstitutional, the media jumped all over me. he's an ally fire -- he's a nullifier. he, that is playing within t rules of the system. you have states defying federal law, which was bill barr's position yesterday. i'm going to enforce them. the fact that colorado thinks pot brownies are ok, you haven't changed the federal law, congress. if you don't want me to enforce those laws in those states, you need to change it here at the federal level. i agree with you. he sounded like a guy who may, frankly, do what hasn't been done up to this point, and that is go ahead and enforce those marijuana laws in states that, under their own laws, have legalized pot to one degree or another. that could create a real interesting political situation, but there's no constitutional crisis. this is a very clear supremacy clause element. the federal government has the right to enforce the criminal law in these states, even if the states don't agree that should be the law. it could really shatter those markets, particularly in colorado and washington, where they are the most developed. host: you served as attorney general from 2010 to 2014. you are in this right on crime group. what else do you do? guest: i joke that i am part of the gig economy. i do practice law in far southwest virginia. most interesting case filed in a little while. on the political side, i run the senate conservatives fund. mike from indiana has a new senator named mike from indiana, who we supported come on many others, this past cycle. i've been leading it for the last four or five years. regulations with freedom works foundation, and helped start an oyster farm in the middle of the chesapeake bay on much in the news can share island -- much in the news tangier island. host: when it comes to the senate conservatives fund, is there a message you are sending to senator mcconnell when it comes to be shut down? guest: stand with the president. we are in the midst of surveying our members. for the first time ever, a subject finished ahead of confirming conservative judges, and that is building the border wall along the lines the president is talking about. it is the only time we've ever seen an issue finish ahead with our members. mcconnell has always hung judges out there as his thing. and he's said i'm deferring to the president on this shutdown. as long as that is in the form of support for the president, i think that the people i represent in that organization, including a lot of them in kentucky, for a senator coming up on election, they like to see that position. they like to see him supporting the president. host: in virginia, what was your message to them? guest: i grew up and lived in northern virginia. they seen this before, but they don't like it. it is understandable. who wants to work and not be paid for it? my wife just flew recently. all the folks going through there are thanking the tsa employees as they go by because they are working without pay, and that is to their credit. people who work for the government now are sacrificing as public servants. i don't think that is necessarily inappropriate, but they have mortgages to pay and things to do as well. certainly the government in the last 10 years has made itself a less attractive employer because it is subject to these annual budget fights. both parties own blame for this. they haven't had a budget go through on time since time immemorial, it seems. so they can blame president trump all they want, and the president has made his demand as far as the shutdown goes, but really this whole fight should have taken place in september, not january. host: in texas from our independent line, bob, hello. caller: this is a great honor to meet you on tv. i'm one of your biggest supporters. i had a question. we have one written guarantee in the constitution, and that is article four, section four, to protect each state against invasion. if we reopen the government until we enforce that law -- well, article one, section 10, paragraph three of the constitution allows states to defend themselves without a declaration of war by the federal government when they are actually invaded, and you live in texas. you are being invaded every day, along with the other border states. your governor has that authority to use the national guard to literally turned people around at the border, in my humble constitutional opinion, without any consideration that the border patrol has to deal with or that ice has to deal with. it is literally using the state's war powers. since world war ii, interestingly enough, congress hasn't declared war on nations. they keep doing these authorizations for the use of military force and describe things like al qaeda and so forth, so it is very clear that power isn't just aimed at nationstates. again, you live in texas. i joked with greg abbott when he was in attorney general at the same time as me come you guys act like a country just because you were. this is one of those powers the border states retained as much like a national power. it takes a lot of money and manpower, but that power does exist for those desiring of using it. host: in tennessee, this is stan. hello. caller: good morning c-span. askks for allowing me to ken here a question. thisalk a lot about -- and of course is the subject for the hearing -- and the other is shutting down the government as the subject for the hearing, and that is all appropriate. you are talking basically about the role of the attorney general , the u.s. attorney general. but more important than all of that is who is this person? his name is ken -- i'm sorry, william barr. counsel, former general counsel for verizon wireless, which was the inheritor of the breakup of the bell companies. and those companies are doing unconstitutional things such as they are demanding that you must online foruter to go any dispute, any questions that you have about your billing, and any of that. they have no customer service. [laughter] caller: there is no customer service. that is unconstitutional. guest: no, it isn't. it is bad business, but it's not unconstitutional. having switched from verizon to sprint to save money, i will tell you you do get better customer service at verizon then at sprint, but you pay more for it. that is not unconstitutional, and the government is not responsible for that. you're welcome to lay some of the blame for that with bill if you choose, because he was the general counsel for verizon. he still serves on a number of boards of directors. he has certainly been involved in the corporate world and doing business in addition to his charitable efforts to a great degree. he's had a long career. he is 68 years old. most of it, though, has been in government service. while i'm sure he did well as the press general counsel, he's also been at cia, legislative counsel, served in the white house, and of course really been the attorney general. so we actually have a track record as attorney general to look at to determine how this guy is going to act. a record to be proud of if you are bill barr. it is an easy record to stand on and say i am going to continue that kind of work in point right to it, and not have anything to be ashamed of. i appreciate that you don't like verizon. i'm not a big fan myself. it's why i switched. at the same time, i don't think that's a reason to vote against the man for attorney general. host: one of the critics of the aspect of cutting mandatory ,inimum sentences, tom cotton said that "under no circumstances should congress cut mandatory mental and sentences. that's foolish approach is not criminal justice reform. is a jailbreak that would endanger communities and undercut president trump's campaign promise to restore law and order." guest: tom cotton was supported in 2014 by the senate conservatives fund while i was running it. the is not a subject area senate conservatives fund deals with, and he and i vehemently disagree on this particular subject. i will use an example from my own evolution, and talk about bill barr as well in this context. when i was in the virginia state senate, i voted consistently against drug courts. the reason was there was no evidence to show they worked. but here we are 15, 20 years later, and there now is evidence to show that, designed particular ways, they do have a greater effect at keeping people out of crime and so forth. a lot of the offenses those folks run into, both drugs and -- and those of us who are strong supporters of the second amendment typically are also strong supporters of tough penalties for gun crimes -- some of those mandatory minimums are ridiculous. they are like 20 years for a first offense. there's also the problem called stacking, where you'd have several incidents, separate crimes you are being charged with at the same time. so the first one was you were convicted of 20 year mandatory minimum, and the second one, same type of offense, now you at $35,000 ars year cost to the taxpayers. as my friend pat nolan likes to say, we really need to save that bed space for people we are afraid of, not people we are mad at. tom cotton is famous for saying we have an under incarceration problem. i don't have an opinion about whether the right number of people are in prison, but i clearly think his notion that there's no make a tory minimum to high -- no mandatory minimum times youand no should give judges discretion below these ridiculous floors, is just disproven by the data. he doesn't want to concede to that. but that is what we have legislative votes. thankfully with the support of the president and the left/right coalition, that bill got through and was signed into law in december. i think when we look at the data in three to five years, we are going to start to see declines in crime rates in the areas that were contested in that bill that is going to defy tom cotton's position. host: i want to ask you about a virginia state issue. the virginia state senate just passed an issue to amend the constitution for the equal rights a moment. specifically, what does that mean for the larger aspect of amending the constitution's? than athis is muddier lot of constitutional amendments for the reason that when they first advance to the era, they put a seven year time limit on states to ratify it. back in 1939 in the miller case, the supreme court said quite explicitly congress has the power to do that. to do exactly that. when they were approaching the deadline, they weren't getting the number of states to ratify it, so congress voted again by majority vote, a contentious legal issue, to extend the deadline three more years to 1982. of course, it wasn't extended after that. they never reached the ratification number. people on the left are sort of excited. bridging it be the 39th state to ratify -- virginia would be the 39th state to ratify. the problem is the ratification the supremeer and those sortuled that of things hold. we are getting really legalistic here, but five states withdrew their ratification. if youa is only 38 state don't grant credit to those five states for their ratification. if the state can't withdraw its ratification of an amendment, that has very serious repercussions or other amendments floating around right now. bethis should end up legally in much of do about nothing, but it is interesting to see republicans advancing this in virginia that seem to be taking the legal advice of people they are almost always on the other side of arguments from when it very clearly is demonstrated in at least three states to open the door to lawsuits that have successfully used their state-level e.r.a.'s to arrest publicly funded abortion from their state governments using that amendment. abortion is a driving factor for a lot of the people putting emphasis on the e.r.a. from the left. what is more surprising is that you've got a decent number of republicans going along with it. host: ken cuccinelli served as attorney general for virginia from 2010 to 2014. also affiliated with the group right on crime. thank you for your time. it is day 26 of the government shutdown. we will give you some sound from the senate on where that is going. we want to know what you think about it. democrats (202) 748-8000, democrats -- republicans (202) 748-8001, and independents (202) 748-8002. we will take those calls when we come back. ♪ announcer: sunday on "q and a," author and journalist patricia on her book on elite 19th-century sex scandal involving a kentucky congressman sued by his former mistress. william campbell preston breckenridge -- and the number of middle names he had should signify he was in the southern elite -- had been a very well-respected cavalryman in the cavalry.te contrast, a nobody. she was a hungry young woman who ran into breckenridge at a time when she was really desperate to make herself something in the world and get an education. host: sunday night at eight upon eastern on c-span's "q&a." c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies, and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. "washington journal" continues. host: it is day 26 of the partial shutdown of the federal government, and we want to get your thoughts on it. (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 four republicans, and independents (202) 748-8002. the shutdown could affect the president's state of the union address. politico saying speaker nancy pelosi asked the president to reschedule his state of the union address or deliver it in writing as long as the government remains shut down. concerns, security unless government reopens this week, i suggest we work together to determine a suitable date after government has reopened for this address, or for you to consider delivering your state of the union address in writing to congress on generate 29th." -- on january 29." that is one of the latest aspects of this government shutdown. another being highlighted in the federal government section of "the washington post" for pay for federal workers, the "the judge who ruled against a consolidated claim that the national treasury employees union and national air traffic controllers association filed against the government a legend employees should not be forced to work without pay, unionized employees have had to work without pay at agencies including the irs, customs and ," and protection, fda goes on from there. it also is knowledge is the strain on employees working urges the judge do not insert himself in the political dispute that when congress and the president. an order from the court would cause "chaos and destruction." we will hear from you now in pennsylvania. go ahead. caller: i do believe that mitch mcconnell ought to be thrown out of his position as leader of the senate because if anybody doesn't do their job -- and his job is to make sure that the federal government is funded and not to protect the president -- and that is what he's doing. he's protecting the president and not letting congress do their job, and that is to make the federal government run. he is causing a national emergency by the tsa and everything else not being funded, and people calling off. to tell you the truth, if i have a kid and i'm at home, and i can't pay my babysitter to watch my kid, i have to stay home and watch my kid. host: that's joseph in pennsylvania. in "thelivan washington post" says that "mcconnell's position is simple. it is on trump, schumer, and pelosi to end the standoff. the solution to the problem is for the president of the united states, the only person of the 330 million of us or so that can find something into law, reaching agreement with the democratic majority in the house and enough in the senate." that is a quote from mitch mcconnell. john in indiana, go ahead. caller: i would like to make a comment on how to resolve some of this. they go out and make a trip out to the border and actually spend some time -- just load congress up, take them out there and walk the border. start a group on both ends and see what actually it would take to resolve the problem. it may not be a wall, but they need to walk it. river ande of that flooding, it changes, and the border will change. so you couldn't put a wall across the river. that would be out of the question. but they need to go out there and physically walk up it. let them spend a few days in pup tents. take your cell phones away from them and actually think about what they're looking at. host: ok. melanie is next from tennessee, independent line. caller: yes. good morning. i have a comment about the government shutdown. i am actually for the wall -- well, a combination of wall and hello?and also -- host: go ahead. caller: yes, and also security. anyway, i just have a question of isif anyone is aware the government shutdown can go , what they have to pay things that are subsidized by the government, the employees have to pay their own dental or medical, if anyone is aware of that. host: ok. michael in tennessee, democrats line. caller: yes. i'd like to know if you could please tell me why these senators are not contributing their money as president trump deficit and the federal workers out of work. host: richard is next after that from kentucky, republican line. raner: pedro, donald trump on the promise of building a wall. 60 some odd million people said they wanted a wall. they voted for it. now you have nancy pelosi, who takes union dues from union refusesworkers, and she to work with donald trump on this wall, border barrier, whatever you want to call it. if i'mthe opinion that the leader of a hundred thousand federal union workers who are not getting paid, if i'm the leader, i'm going to do what i can to make sure they get their paycheck. i know a lot of those union workers voted for donald trump. instead, nancy pelosi and her group go to puerto rico for fun and sun. if i'm union head of the federal workers union, i give nancy -- i get nancy pelosi an office and work this stuff out. "the wall street journal" this morning says that when it comes to efforts only the shutdown, "no democrats showed up tuesday for what was supposed to be a bipartisan luncheon with mr. trump. some cited scheduling conflicts. they had invited another group to a meeting today, the so-called problem solvers caucus . skewedcully's said -- steve scully's -- steve sc alise has said he has tried everything to get into bolivian chuck schumer to negotiate, and they've refused. " caller: this whole shutdown thing is absolutely ridiculous. for a president that claims to be such a great business person, anybody who's spent more than five minutes in any level of business can see the answer. he stops talking about the wall, comes up with some technology and people, and the democrats give a little bit on the cost. isis so simple, but his ego what is destroying this country and wasting our time and money. if you would just get off his high horse and actually give a little bit, the other side would give also. host: the democratic senator from virginia mark warner has an op-ed piece today highlighting his past experience as head of a technology company. "here's how you make a deal, mr. president. one, always try to find a solution in which both sides come out ahead. mr. trump has refused to compromise or negotiate. two, don't surround yourself with yes-men. you need smart experts who aren't afraid to tell you when they think you are making it a mistake. president has made it clear no one can credibly speak on his behalf." you can find that at "the wall street journal." all is next in texas am a democrat line -- paul is next in texas, democrat line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think it is embarrassing and appalling to hold the u.s. hostage, especially federal workers. our border security. but i have a different spin on it. i think they did make a decision on it. the president allowed a radio disc jockey to create the set down -- the shutdown. it was already a done deal. so a dj decided he was going to make him put on the status of how he felt about the president , that thecision republicans and democrats already decided. this radio disc jockey, our president allowed a radio dj to determine the fate of america. host: are you referencing rush limbaugh? caller: yes i am. host: why do you think he has that much influence? caller: once that call was made, he made a statement over the air and said the president at this point in time would be losing all of his constituents. democrats. to the then the decision was made that he a changed his mind. rush limbaugh did this. anytime you allow someone of authority to allow someone else to share an opinion with you with no basis of facts, that is just rush limbaugh's opinion. host: even in the mists of this shutdown, events concerning between 20 election are still going on, particularly as the root of democratic candidates interested in the position of president growth. one of those, kiersten gillibrand from new york made her announcement on late-night television last night. sen.joe around -- gillibrand: i am filing an exploratory committee for a campaign for president tonight. >> thank you for telling everybody here. i'm honored that you are here. why do you want to be president of the united states? sen. gillibrand: i'm going to run for president of the united states because i'm a young mom. i'm going to fight for other people's kids as hard as i've fight for my own, which is why i believe health care should be a right and not a privilege. [applause] we shouldi believe have better public schools for our kids. it should not matter what block you grow up on. [applause] i believe anybody who was to work hard enough should be able to get whatever job training they need to earn their way into the middle class. you are never going to a college any of these things if you don't take on the systems of power that make all of that impossible , which is taking on institutional racism, taking on the corruption and greed in washington -- [cheers and applause] -- taking on special interests in washington that right legislation in the dead of night. and i know that i have the compassion, the courage, and the fearless determination to get that done. host: that is kiersten gillibrand from last night. we will go to carol in florida. hello. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i'm well. how about yourself? caller: i am very disheartened in my wonderful, beautiful country. this shutdown is not all donald trump's fault. , the entire government, holds responsible for this. for the speaker of the house to waltz her butt in there and say not one dollar, i wouldn't spend two minutes in the room with that woman. for your callers to accuse the president of not want to are they -- they need to stop watching their liberal media and think that they know everything about everything. they don't know everything that is in every bill that is put in front of the president. all that little jumped in there that our congress likes to put in there. our president sat in the white house the entire holiday while nancy pelosi hobnobbed in hawaii on your tax dollars. why does that not enrage every civil voter? host: ok. the vice president in an op-ed in "usa today" this morning writes that it is democrats that won't compromise on the wall, saying "since even before this partial government shutdown began, our administration attempted to work with democrats in good faith. we propose they come from isaac contains both republican and democratic priorities, including the president's request for $5.7 billion to fund a steel barrier on the southern border, and more than $7 billion to address a wide variety of security and human carrying needs that have wide been supported by both parties in congress. but the american people deserve to know democrats refused to negotiate on building the wall." mike in arkansas, and in that line. caller: can you hear me? host: you are on. go ahead. caller: i would like to make a couple of points to my republican friends out there. number one, the house and the bill to fund a portion of the border wall. it passed overwhelmingly from both parties. trump backed out of the deal. that's fact. that's indisputable fact. second, when all the campaign did he everad, claimed he was going to build a wall and the taxpayers were going to pay for it? no. he stated that mexico was going to pay for the wall. my republican friends, think back at least a month as to really what's going on here. pelosi said she would get a dollar, she was asked will you give any money? will you give a dollar? she said yes, i will give a dollar. she didn't come up with the i will give a dollar. for goodness sake, people. host: let's hear from vicki in new york come and democrats line. you are on. caller: thank you. i enjoyed your show very much. thank you for having c-span. this issue is so old. since reagan. something needs to be done with thosesomething with people that were here and renamed. we need that wall. i watched the caravan shows. you are talking about thousands of people walking all over the place. we need to know who they are, where they are, where they are going. we need some sort of barrier. we need immigration reform, and we need all these knuckleheads in congress to get in the office in negotiate in good faith. host: let's hear from john in georgia. caller: yes, good morning. i have a comment. if all of these congressmen would get together and just sit down and try to reach a negotiated agreement, but you can't reach a negotiated agreement when you won't even show up for work. why doesn't all these congressmen that's been in hawaii and down in san juan taking a leisure vacation at the ense, just don't pay them. they don't show up to work, don't pay them. twitter, "unpaid federal workers walk off their job. if they don't get paid, business stops. the president can cry over his spilled milk as usual, and politics as usual can resume." glenn in pennsylvania, independent line. caller: yes sir. good morning, pedro. i have two comments here. first of all, the republican-controlled house and senate for two years didn't have any kind of border wall going on. they didn't shutdown the government. for two years they didn't have a border wall. they passed a budget was nothing in there for the border. note. -- no. they want to go to the democrats for money for border wall? what were they doing for two years? why didn't they have money for the border wall then? no, they are crying wolf. why not just leave the democrats alone? they have two years to do this. thank you. next from chattanooga, tennessee, democrats line. caller: some people in the united states me to go back to school. mcconnell is the problem. mcconnell needs to take it to congress dod let their job. if he takes it to the floor, maybe they will open the vetoproof.up and be but he won't take it to the floor. congress makes the law. that's all i got to say. host: loretto is in charleston, mississippi, republican line. caller: yes. i was calling about the shutdown. aboutr man had called some democrats in puerto rico. i didn't know of a lot of people knew there were 101 lobbyists down there, too. it seems like the congress is working for the lobbyists than the american people. host: don't forget those two confirmations you can see on c-span on our various platforms, 9:30 with william barr, and then andrew wheeler, president trump's nominee for the epa. you can see that at www.c-span.org. mike in new jersey, independent line. go ahead. caller: yes, this is pretty simple. 2014, gallup polls indicated the american public considered the government of the united states corrupt. that is why donald trump got elected. ok? so it is pretty simple. he got elected on the basis of a platform that included good relations with russia, end of foreign wars and all of these endless wars, and building a border wall to secure the peace and security of the american people. so what we are seeing here all along this way, the russian relations thing has been sabotaged by the corrupt congress. we are now having a cold war and possibly nuclear war threatened. we then have the same congress in 2014 or 2013 who appropriated $1.2 trillion, the democrats with obama, for more horrific nuclear weapons, $800 billion to secure the borders and 800 bases around the world -- host: ok. let's go to gary in west virginia, democrats line. caller: good morning. like the german was saying -- like the german was saying -- like the gentleman was saying. where did the money go? it didn't go anywhere because the republicans shut it down. they are talking about $25 billion for the wall last year with the daca thing. the only problem is i hear mitch mcconnell and the wit say all about that, but it was the president that called and canceled that. host: thank you, caller. that is the last call for today. we go to the house of representatives. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms. washington, d.c. january 16, 2019. hereby aa point the honorable albio sirse to act as -- sires to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2019, the

Related Keywords

Arkansas , United States , Honduras , Alabama , El Paso , Texas , Minnesota , California , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Russia , Mexico , Arizona , South Carolina , Iowa , Wallstreet , Colorado , New York , Chattanooga , Tennessee , Philippines , North Carolina , Missouri , Iran , Washington , Kentucky , Florida , Indiana , Virginia , Canada , Guatemala , Michigan , Mississippi , Puerto Rico , Salt Lake City , Utah , Leesburg , New Jersey , Israel , Petersburg , Sankt Peterburg , Pennsylvania , Maryland , Ohio , Capitol Hill , Americans , America , Mexican , Russian , American , Bob Murray , Nancy Pelosi , Sarah Sanders , Ken Cuccinelli , Adam Schiff , Franklin Delano , William Campbell , Loretta Lynch , Amy Klobuchar , Steve King , John Grisham , Joni Ernst , Al Qaeda , Putin Trenton , Al Gore , Steve Scully Scalise , Greg Abbott , Patricia Miller , Martin Luther King , Andrew Wheeler , Christopher Wray , Scott Pruitt , Ella Jones , Eric Dyson , William Barr , Pat Nolan , Ken Christian , Edgar Hoover , Mount Juliet , Carl Levin Reagan , Sen Joe , Joe Nadler , Ted Poe , Cantu Tonelli , Jim Comey , Michael Cohen ,