tv Washington Journal On the Phone with Sarah Ferris CSPAN May 11, 2018 5:26pm-5:41pm EDT
uncertainty in the healthcare is exactly what we will need in that regard so we look forward to working with you to again make sure that we provide the right resources so we can do a good job. for members of the subcommittee questions for the record should be turned into the subcommittee staff no later than the close of business wednesday may 16. with that, we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> sarah is joining us on the phone and she's up there with
political. what is on the trump administration's billion-dollar cost-cutting list sarah, what is on this? what are some of the takeaways? >> thank you for having me. we have on this list about one third of the cutbacks come from department of energy program and that is a pretty big deal and there's some in here and some of these programs that u have been repeatedly on the top block and it's money that has not been used in a while. the leaders in congress have been looking at it to use for offset for legislation that includes clean energy (as well as a loan program that goes towards technologies from vehicles in both of those have been in frequent targets of spending bills in the past and it is unclear right now whether the white house will have the support to go ahead with those but there is also about half of the money that comes from the cutbacks is from the children's health insurance program. on its head it doesn't sound
that great. the republicans go after the sloan and help but on the face of it and cbo the nonpartisan budget office has confirmed that thactually none of the funding that will be taken away here impact the program. this is budgett authorities and not money that would be spent and a lot of it has been expired. those are the big key takeaways. >> the minority whip saying this that not a nickel from the fence, not a nickel, it's a fight defies logic that if you send money that will not be is that the only place to look is non-defense programs such as medicare and medicaid. their logic is they want to cut non- dispense running whatever it is and honestly we are opposed to that.
>> that's right. there's nothing coming from the defense onn this. there are ten departments that are impacted and none of them are the pentagon's. that is because the president made it a priority to give the pentagon much anything it asks for this year. it would have been surprising if they were to say we will be coming back after those programs now. there's a lot ofn noncontroversial cuts in this package out of the $15 billion only about 3 billion amount to real cuts and that basically means that most of this money has been expired or congress has no plan on using it and there are programs that are facing resistance from members even republicans on capitol hill who say they are ready to bury these programs and they want to see them exist and maybe they want have a second chance so there are a couple members of the operations committee that are raising alarm about this. >> sarah ferris, what do these resistant packages but the house and the senate and is this the only one that we will see from the white house?
>> this is deftly not the only one we will see from the white house. we have omb director mick mulvaney anxious to keep sending out will request over to capitol hill but this is the first and arwant their story with is the least controversial that they can come up with. as i said these cutbacks were not in the program that brings you here is taunt democrats indisputably that came from president obama. democrats as you heard is saying we will not go ahead with this idea but in reality this is something that both parties have agreed to in the past. last under george w. bush but for this package its prospects in the house rp good and there are a couple of republicanty reported making noise about it but on the whole i think you will see the vast majority of republicans sign onto this particularly after the cbo report basically gave them permission to do this since there's no cuts going to be impacted in the senate it's up
in the air. we don't know right now if there is not a single democrat supporting this which i wouldn't alexpect given the target of chp funds butyo you will have to see the majority leader mitch mcconnell really do arm-twisting to get every one of his members on board and were not expecting to have senator john mccain back on capitol hill anytime soon and that means they really can't lose a single republican bill if they plan to passes. that said it's an opportunity that the trump administration does not have that often because this only requires 51 votes and is not subject to the filibuster unlike every other spending bill congress passes. >> what about the lawmakers who chaired the appropriate committee and they areou in chae of where the money goes? what do they say? >> the site. one of my colleagues spoke to
richard shelby as the new chair of senate appropriations committee yesterday and he says he's concerned about cuts to the appellation in the white house had $45 billion of cuts to that program and that's a pretty sizable amount and he says his instate of alabama has benefited from that over the years. he's not sure if he is ready to let that go so he will see if the bill is changing at all before it heads to the senate and meanwhile in-house ronnie the chairman of hausa provisions committee their he has told reporters that reporters -- he's not been a robust supporter of the idea and that said it definitely could be something he supports because it does not target mostly on the bus. he told the reporters the best he's not willing to support a package that would seem to be going back on a deal with democrats. that passage is one of the goes after that $1.3 trillion been a bill that is likely to be the next package of cuts that we see in the next couple weeks.
>> sarah ferris, thank you for that explanation. >> sure thing. >> on c-span's newsmakers program this week freedom caucus chair representative mark meadows talks about the muller investigation and announces he is requesting an audit from the gao of the investigation spending. he also talks about the goals of his caucus. here's a brief look. >> you have been one of the biggest critics of this department of justice and how they have handled many aspects of their business recently. you have gone so far to suggest that the deputy attorney general should be impeached. you and the chairman of the intelligence community have been asking for more information on their surveillance activities and their investigatory activities. could you start out by explaining probably what is your issue with the way that the doj has conducted itself, mr. rosenstein in particular, and where do those issues stand at this moment? have they been away by these meetings and treaties that have
been entered into in the last few days? >> probably the issue to answer your question directly is that we get more rhetoric than we get action and so for us it's all about getting the documents and making sure that we actually get the documents that we have and constitutional right to have and it's our job to do oversight and we have been requesting many of the documents since last november. here we are with six or seven months into the process and a little over 12000 documents have been delivered to our office out of one point to billion. at this rate we will be way into president trumps second term before we get even the majority of the documents. >> what documents? >> the documents were -- our
investigation really deal with the department of justice and the fbi and the interaction leading to the election and they delve into the hillary scandal and the investigation they were doing at the time with candidate trump and as we look at those interactions and many of the documents that we already have would suggest that there is at least some highest that was going on in some improper activity going on and quite frankly i think the stonewalling of those documents coming to congress with a legitimate request even highlights even further the fact that is there something to hide? i can tell you we know in it has been reported a number of times that information start to come out but it comes out in little
drips. the department of justice new all along that director comey's college professor friend was actually a special government employee. we had to find that out. the department of justice new all along that director comey shared his memos in the classified memos with people other than just that particular friend and yet we had to find that out and so when we are digging and finding out new information that has not been voluntarily given to congress it makes us dig deeper and quite frankly, we're finding more and more information. i support chairman nunez in his efforts to obviously give information that some of that information i am not privy to because of not on the intel committee and i don't need to see it and i'm not really
subject to that because it's really his committee but the other part of that is there is nothing in statute that would suggest that the axis of department of justice is taking are appropriate. and you may get a counter narrative. all of you to cover the sauce you get one side the story for me and one from another so let's make a little news here on new spam. i would suggest that i'm willing to come back and join deputy attorney general rod rosenstein and we will sit together. he can bring his talking points and i will bring my fax and we will debated back and forth and you could moderate that and we will be glad to do that but that is, i am so sure, of the evidence we have and the manner of which we've gone about this that there is no good excuse for the department of justice to
continue the delay. >> to follow up have you spoken directly to the deputy attorney general? and we reported that they have concerns about an intelligence source of there's that could be compromised and what is -- has that objection be presented to you and what is response to it? >> i have spoken to the deputy attorney general not on that particular matter that i believe "the washington post" reported on but that is a common reoccurring theme. every time it's these are national security secrets and we need to make sure that we protect our assets and then you know what? they are right. that's exactly the reason why we have in intel committee. that's the reason i we set that committee up so that they could see those types of documents not all of congress but we have given that authority to some of our colleagues and there is no
plausible reason for doj to not share it with the intel committee. >> freedom caucus chair mark meadows also discusses why he is dissatisfied with the justice department's information sharing with congress. th.see the entire interview on c-span .org. >> sunday night on "after words" good journalist and author jerome talks about his book killing the deep state. he's interviewed by investigative journalist. >> i heard some of these phrases banning about in the past couple of years and i really didn't attach meaning to them until maybe more recently. maybe you can define in your view of the deep state in the shadow government and swamp and the same thing or how do you differentiate? >> might terminology is the deep state and others may call them the shadow government because they are affecting their own
bureaucratic wishes rather than the wishes of the people in electing donald trump for instance and donald trump has turned it swamp which is probably the term most americans immediately understand because washington was the at one point a swamp and the creatures coming out of the swamp our biting and fighting back for the turf. >> watch "after words" sunday night on c-span2's tv. >> at our table michael pregent, senior at bello hudson. michael, you are supposed to be doing this morning by trita parsi and he cannot be o here. he family emergency and he is hoping to reschedule. thank you for joining us at the table this morning for this discussion.