tv Axios Discussion with Reps. Adam Schiff Steve Scalise CSPAN May 13, 2019 11:17am-12:21pm EDT
>> in 1979, a small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea. viewers decide on their own what was important to them. c-span opened the doors to washington policymaking for all to see. bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond reedit in the age of power to the people, this was through people power. in the 40 years since, the landscape has changed. there's no monolithic media, broadcasting has given way to narrowcasting, youtube stars are thing but c-span's big idea is more relevant today than ever. no government money supports c-span. it's partisan coverage of washington is funded as a public service by your cable or satellite provider on television andonline, c-span is your unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind . >> house intelligence committee chair adam schiff sat down to discuss the molar
investigation and other issues before congress. later we will hear from the house minority with steve scalise and former planned parenthood president cecile richards. this is an hour. >> please welcome axois executive editor mikeallen . [applause] >> welcome to aspecial friday at axois . [inaudible] i thank my axois events colleagues fortheir constant miracles . axois makes you smarter faster on the topics changing the world so that you canmake better decisions . we'd love to have breakfast every day, my no new voter mike stopped in, at axois.com and also we'd love for you to along today if you're watching on live stream land, axois 360. our first guest is the
chairman of the house intelligence committee. california sunday magazine called him the silver narrator at a time when chaos rain. he's a democrat of california, the congressman from hollywood. he's a graduate of stanford and hartford law, he is adam schiff and intelligence chairman schiff, welcome to axois. thank you for coming to axois. appreciate it. have you got any subpoenas in your pocket? >> i do not. >> you are from boston, you're a boston red sox fan. what did you think of the hubbub yesterday? >> i caught some coverage this morning and it is unfortunately apropos of the times. we have a divisive president who's managed to divide us in all kinds of ways in which we used to be divided and we have been historically united
around sports but i think it's a function of the fact that this president doesn't comprehend that a vital part of the job of president is to make us a more perfect union and the result we see in escalating incidents of hate, we see it in divisions over who goes to the white house or a sports celebration. it permeates all of society and this is i think one of the many unfortunate downstream impacts of a president wholacks character and run the country in a divisive way . >> before we plunge into the news, let's set the stage with history. we all are living history, that will be talked about as long ashistory is buddy . i heard you say that russia and issues related to it flowing from the election is bigger than watergate, what you my? >> in many ways is more serious than watergate. watergate involved a burglary
of the democratic headquarters a bunch of bundling plumbers . as they were described. this involved a nationstate interfering on our democratic process. similarly a breaking of the democratic headquarters but a break in . it involved the exploitation of the fruits of that break in by the president and his campaign, by his old team as we learned in the molar report,they built into their campaign strategy . and then watergate involved a cover-up we're not covering up here merely breaking, domestic break-in, where covering up the actions of a foreign power. and then we have a prospect of the president of the united states siding with that repeatedly over his own intelligence agencies including just about a week ago when the president once again in conversation with vladimir putin call this whole thing a hoax. he's speaking to the guy who perpetrated this attack on our democracy and he's saying
i don't believe you did that. which to me is an invitation for further russian meddling so that goes beyond i think anything that richard nixon did with the exception of nixon's intercession in vietnam to try to deter a peace process for political reasons and maybe the one next on an action that rises to the level of what we see this present doing . >> front page of today's new york times, giuliani to for inquiries that can help trump . that's my former colleague ken vogel. you treated rudely admitted to seeking help from a foreign power again. what are your concerns about that? >> i give giuliani credit for consistency. he said just a few weeks ago there's nothing wrong with taking help from a foreign power in an election and in his defense this time is this is not an election, i'm just seeking the help of the
prosecution. happens to be of the son of the rival theyfear the most . and the fact that he would be so open about it, boastful almost that he would acknowledge that he's doing this with the knowledge and support of the president, take your breath away and i continue to think i will cease to be shocked and then i'm stock all over again. but imagine in an ordinary world the lawyer for the president of the united states going to a foreign power and trying to encourage them to investigate a family member of the president's political rival. and saying that as he did again , it's not criminal he said. some people may think it's improper, yes. you know, arguably everyone, but that is not stopping them and this is just another illustration of how the ethical standards of the
country are being dumbed down to where anything goes as long as you stay below that bar of absolute criminality. >> the white house as it up today just say no strategy with congress, refusing to comply and docking request, top story of axois.com but this morningthe president will risk impeachment to pursue that strategy. it's not an opening position we're told that his administration policy , isn't working so far? >> it's only working in the sense that they're going to try to delay things. >> they are delaying things. >> they are. they're going to try to delay things and blame democrats for how the long the investigation took. that's the strategy they used with bob mueller and it was at least partially
successful. they played broke a window with mueller for months and ultimately mueller did what they hoped he would do which was throw up his hands and say it would simply be too long to prosecute this subpoena in court and i don't want to have to stick around another year on the investigation to do it so we're going to conclude that we don't need it. look, i think it was a mistake not to pursue a subpoena with the president, both because when you're, and i said so at the time, if you're trying to divine the president intent if that's a key element and obstruction of justice case and it is, there's no better solicitor and the presidenthimself . there's no better evidence than that. and so it was successful, that delay tactic with special counsel, they're using it with us. they were dealt a serious setback by the court recently in the masers accounting case where the court said we're not going along with this tactic, were going to accelerate the timetable. >> they clearly are willing to or want this to go through
all the way to the supreme court, how do you for that or shorten that? even from just running out the clock? >> i think these are the ports, there's only so much we can do. we can urge them to expedite the briefing schedule, urged them to expedite the decision process and but there's no guarantee there. the district court might do that, the court of appeals might not. the supreme court might not and so it is a process that is designed to take time. and we are already thinking of what are the post watergate reforms that will need to be enacted when this uglychapter is over . and we will i think undoubtedly have to connect a swifter process to enforce congressional subpoenas. but one thing we are considering in the absence of that is whether we need to
revise congress's inherent contempt power such that we would have our own adjudication of the congress and we would levy fines on those were not cooperating until they produce what they are compelled to produce. >> this is news, you don't think people should be put in jail but you are considering what? >> much as i like the visual of that idea, i think it's far more practical to consider levying individual fines on the person, not on the office until they comply. the courts used that practice andi think it's quite successful . >> you're talking about a big number. >> yes. you can find someone $25,000 a day until they comply and that wouldprobably get their attention . >> can you do that? do you plan to do that? >> we are looking through the history and studying the law to make sure we're on solid ground.
that's a big step but if were going to consider other big steps like impeachment, we ought to consider steps like inherentcontempt that will allow us to get the information we need . >> it sounds like you would like to do it, you're studying it, how quickly will you know if you're going to implement that? >> at the end of the day this is a decision we made above my pay grade . but ultimately by the speaker in consultation i'm sure with the chairs , but if there is going to be this across-the-boardstonewalling, were going to have to consider extraordinary remedies because of the end of the day , this isn't just about this president. it's not just about these documents. it is whether congress is a co-people branch and coequal power and we can enforce oversight because if we can't, it means any future president can act as corruptly or malfeasance as they want and there's no accountability. >> you believe this congress will hold multiple trunk
administration officials in contempt of congress? >> it's possible. i think that what we're doing now if there are multiple contempt proceedings in multiple committees is likely to be consolidated on the floor. now, whether those will all be directed at the department of justice . >> you lost methey're going to be a big package of contempt ? >> that's one of the things we're contemplating and that is we have a full and busy legislative agenda which is our top priority we want to make sure we can get our healthcare bills passed and protect people from existing conditions and continued on safety legislation, continue to take dark money out of the process, attack gerrymandering, all these important legislative priorities, we want to make sure we have time to do. >> as a result of that, what you're considering is what? >> considering it multiple committees and moving forward with intent, that those proceedings be combined into a single floor action or a
single action comedy of actions on the floor. >> this can involve multiple departments? >> it could. >> or more likely all the justice people . >> look, the refusal to abide by the law, by the commissioner of the irs and secretary of the treasury may require a proceeding directed at them rather than at the justice department. or maybe the decision of the ways and means committee and i defer to chairman neil on these decisions , to go directly court. to enforce the statute rather than go the contempt route but we are mindful of the fact that our toppriority is legislative . but we have to do our oversight responsibilities also. >> could you hold the president in contempt of congress? >> that's an interesting question and i don't know the answer . it may, there's certainly no bar. there's no constitutional bar, no immunity from contempt. whether that is the right
person, whether that is the person that is the executor of the decision to withhold information from congress, i think it goes to whether he would be the right party. >> so you might consider holding west wing officials who promulgated this policy in contempt? >> i would think if there's a west wing official that is subpoenaed to comebefore congress and refuses to show up , that that the individual where an action would be taken. i don't know that you would use the content process to go over to go after somebody on a policy decision, i don't think there's a precedent for that but if there were, the extraordinary occasion where there were documents you need directly from the west wing official etc., that might provide grounds but again, we are not looking to simply make new law were foster,
we're looking just to do our oversight jobs and not be obstructed by this president. >> you believe congress will get the president's tax returns? >> yes. >> why are you convinced? >> because the legislation is abundantly clear. it says that the commissioner shall provide the returns to the chairman of ways and means, not made, that might. >> not if the objects were to about it. >> will this takes months or years? >> i think it will take months to prosecute for the court. the courts are going to be mindful of the disruption of the democratic process. >> it sounds like you think congress will get the president's tax return this year . >> one way to move the needle on the findings of the mueller report is to take part of the report and dramatize themwith hearings , is that your plan? >> we think that in addition to the investigative work
that hasto be done, there's a very important public education component . it's one thing to read a report that summarizes obstructive actions by the president . it's another to have a witness say the president wanted me to make a special counsel go away. he instructed me to do it. i refuse. when it became public that i was asked by the president to do it, he asked me to lie about it. how did he ask you to lie about it? this is what he asked me to do. has a force that reading a report does not have. and i do think that one of the best ways to try to regain the ethical standards of the government is to expose this kind of malfeasance . because the more you can sweep it under the rug, the
more you get into the mitch mcconnell's who say case closed, and the kevin mccarthy's who will do anything thepresident asks , >> the leader said case closed, you would say. >> i would say by thatlogic, there would never have been a single one the hearing . and that would certainly not bob mueller's intention. if you take the position you can't indict a sitting president, you can only proceed in congress to hold the president accountable. but you see the moment the investigation is finished, the congress has asked act because it's over, then you're given a president immunity, allowing the president to be above the law . the single most instructive thing no bar hasdone was not congress although he did , was not misrepresented the two years of work above mueller although he did, it was to tell the country that the president could make a criminal case implicating him go away because he thought it
was unfair. the implication of that is that he is above the law. and not only to make bob mueller's investigation go away but he can make all the 14 referrals go away. that thinking given voice by someone who's supposed to represent the people is singularly destructive. and i have to say, and i posed this confirmation because he refused to recuse himself from an investigation in which he had such an obvious bias but i would never have imagined that he would prove to be as dangerous as he has.to our system of checks and balances. >> i showed youtwo years ago what we've learned from the mueller indictment , guilty pleas on the report you would have said that president would beimpeached . republicans would have, are democrats soft?
>> i think first of all that the premise of that is all too accurate in the sense that we have learned the public has learned about the course of the president's conduct and those around him in dribs and drabs for two years. and that has had anumbing effect . and we learned everything we now know in the mueller report but not before the mueller report, had suddenly been disclosed that the president's son was meeting secretly with the russians, russians were offering dirt in writing on the clinton campaign and that the president's team said they would love it a secret meeting and then lied about it, had we learned about the interactions of the efforts to stop the investigation, all at one time. i think there would have been bipartisan recognition that this guy needs to go. but we didn't. we didn't and the other part of this is that, and this is
i think why our democracy is on such shaky foundation. it's not just the ineffable actions of the president, the fact that one political party is so unwilling to stand up to him in any way. >> but you have a gavel now, you have the majority. why have the democrats moved on? >> first of all, there's been a lot of debate about how the politics of impeachment cuts. my feeling is this is far too serious to be viewed through a political lens. at the end of the day we need to make a decision on what's right for the country and so the question is is it right for the country to embark on an impeachment knowing that it will ultimately be unsuccessful? is the process of impeachment so vital and important to undertake that it is merited even if it can't be successful? >> do you think maybe or no?
>> i have come into this process advocating for the last year and a half that this should not be a process that we eagerly embrace, it should be one that we go into reluctantly if at all. i will say having obstructed the justice department's investigation and now obstructing the case for impeachment gains weight. and if it were determined by a court that we cannot do our oversight outside of an impeachment proceeding, that may be the most powerful arguments for initiating one. i don't think that's going to be the case that a court would so decide because with a respect for example to the grand jury material and here it's important to know where not just talking about the grand jury material in the report which may be a small percentage, we're talking about the underlying evidence in which case it may be a substantial sense of the
underlying evidence. it seems to me that a court is unlikely to find that you can't impeach the president. where you can't indict a president, you can only impeach one but the justice department can take the position we can't see the evidence you may need to in initiate an impeachment until you initiate an impeachment. >> you think the case has gained weight, do you sense a rising appetite among your colleagues to begin impeachment proceedings? >> i think that there's a certainly a recognition that if the president continues to obstruct the congress, if a court should rule against the president and the president still ignores the rulings of the court, at a certain point whether it would be successful or not , you have to consider any remedy to fight that unlawful action. >> that's a new bar, a lower
bar than the thinkers articulated in the past you have to have republicans who would support it . >> look, we are in the horns of thisdilemma . if you don't move forward with an impeachment, what does that say about whether this kind of conduct by a president is compatible with the office? by the same token, if you do go forward with impeachment and the president is ultimately acquitted, then you have an adjudication that this conduct does not rise to the level of impeachable offense. that's the dilemma and, but if the president takes the lack of an impeachment proceeding as a license for further obstruction, that's going to strengthen the argument of those that are urging impeachment. >> last question, what do you think don junior's exposure is? >> don junior has the same problem the president does,
like father like son which is , and the president's lawyers have been quite blunt about this . a year putting him in front of anyone under oath with the president who is incapable of telling the truth for more than a minute was legal malpractice. and don junior's lawyers may feel very much the same. >> what do you think are the chances the congress will call ivanka trump? >> there's certainly relevant testimony she may be able to offer on things like moscow, trumptower and so i wouldn't exclude anyone merely because they are family of the president . >> that would be in your commission. >> it could be in our committee, it should be in others as well . >> we are looking now to revise the scope of our investigative oversight work, knowing what we do from the mueller report and how her principal concern all along
is over the counter intelligence issues and this is an important point that i think is lost sometimes in the discussion of all this, this investigation began as a counterintelligence wrote by the fbi and our committee. looking at the not whether crimes are committed but whether people are compromised . that is still the focus of our investigation . >> as we say goodbye, allie ruben will throw that. you have recently talked about thedanger , of the fate videos. what can you do about that and what should we do about it? >> as we were watching the events in the committee in real time as the russians were hacking institutions and dumping documents in 2016, my most profound concern was they were going to start dumping forgeries among the real documents. that you would take a real email between two clinton campaign workers and insert an additional paragraph suggesting they were engaged
in criminal activity, you can imagine how incendiary that would be area with this new technology you can now produce video and audio that is indistinguishable from real. and imagine you introduce a video of a presidential candidate saying something racist or sexist or criminal, a few weeks before the election. >> you think that's possible. >> i think if possible, the technology is already there, it's just a question of whether a foreign adversary or a domestic party interested in doing mischief is going to take that step and what's our capacity to deal with that. and even outside of the political context, you could create videos and there are enough that are not fake. of police violence against people of color. it could be sufficiently provocative to create a right. and you may later just discover that the video was a fake but the damage is done and in fact in the political context, ecologists will tell you that once you see the video of somebody saying something, even if you're later convinced the video was
a fake, you will never completely lose the lingering negative impression of that person the damage is done once you have seen it. so this is a brave new world that we may be entering. in which a capacity for mischief is profound, to me that is an even greater concern than the concern i have which is also substantial about potential interference with voting technology. it's easier to affect the voters and the votes and with this new deep fake technology that become much worse. >> your chairman of thehouse intelligence committee, are you worried about hot were with a rack ? >> i'm concerned about it because the steps that the administration is taking to continue to try to deprive iran of any benefit of remaining in the agreement even though we've left it may have the effect of encouraging and ran to go back to enrichment and where does that leave us?
this is of course the problem all along with the argument against the agreement. it wasn't a perfect agreement but the alternative was worse . we are now and into the alternative where we have around that may go back to enriching, we have allies alienated from us because they blame us for the situation. we have russia and china that are going to go along we have a week and sanction regime, we haven't iran is going back to enrichment and where does that take us? i'm also concerned frankly that on multiple occasions when barack obama was president, donald trump said or treated along the lines, watch obama provoke a confrontation with iran prop of his sagging poll numbers. this president does nothing not get on to others his own lack of ethics . and so you do have to be concerned with the motivations of the president. >> look, i have the most
profound concern that this president cares about one thing only and he's made it abundantly clear and that is himself. and that puts very little constraint on what he's capable of. >> you for joining axois, thank you very much. appreciate your time. thank you chairman schiff, we'd like to thank the bank of america. we will be right back. >> we have said we're here to drive responsible growth, if we don't, someone else will be here. you got to do it the right way, do it by taking the rest , and the last part should be sustainable, by sharing our success in our community. around the world. >> always look at our growth and i say if you have a responsible growth initiative, how about a responsible visiting initiative. how about we get a huge
investor pools out there interested in getting some of these projects? >> you can get a lot of agreement and common thinking around global problems that we're all trying to solve in a responsible public citizens and members of the global community. you've got to engage all the different parties. that's the things banks like ours. the results are going to be partners share a common vision and goal. >> whether affordable housing or climate change or gender parity, we feel we can be part of the solution for the much larger issues that are going on in the world today. >> thank you very much and we thank the bank of america for making these conversations possible. our next guest is the number two house republican leader, house public in wit, representative of louisiana running from lake pontchartrain of new orleans,
taking in wetlands and bayous, it was a software engineer and a tech executive , our next guest was critically wounded in an ambush by an alexandria baseball field not far from here as he practice with colleagues. made a heroic return to congress three months later. he has a book and he's congressman steve scalise, welcome to axois. >> thank you for joining us. how are you? >> so axois is everywhere and i have sources that say that you still go to congressional baseball practices. i was there this morning , roger williams is our coach, we started 6:00 in the morning and i'm not a morning person but i get out there every day. it's a lot of fun to get out and move around. i'm more mobile than last year we're trying to get in better lighting physical therapy three days a week to keep building up strength. and this conversation with your colleagues indicates to
me that this baseball is no game. >> is serious business. it's a very fierce rivalry, the republicans have been playing the democrats for almost 100 years and it actually, you get over 10,000 people come to the major league ballpark and just how cool is it to be able to play in a major league ballpark at washington national stadium but we raise half $1 million a year for every charity in dc and it's a great way to build relationships not just among republicans but we get to be good friends with the democrats and it's competitive, but it's a friendly competition. we want to win this year, we're going to win this year but cedric richmond might not even make the whole game and were going to see. we do alittle trash talking as well . >> the house and has a majorityin your title, now you house minority in your title . >> house republican with. >> what can you do besides make noise? >> obviously being in the
minority is a lot different. >> what's the worst part? >> don't set the agenda and thethings we like to move through the house and get to the president's desk getting this country back on track , you can't do that because nancy pelosi is the speaker and clearly she's got a different agenda and her conference is even more i think radically left then when she was the last time so we do have limited tool in the minority and we've been making good use out ofthem to show the country what we stand for and some important issues . >> so you asked house republican with have had success on the floor using these limited tools. i don't want you to talk about motions to recommit, not say that but what has your approach been using any muscles or levers that the minority does have? >> the first thing we want to do is show the contrast to our conservative principles, why they're going to be better to keep the economy going and we are seeing great
success because of what we've done and you look at some of the bills that nancy pelosi have moved through, they've been very far left and it's a contrast to show so when we use these other tool we want to make sure we can show people what we stand for and how in contrast with some of the things miss pelosi is bringing to the floor. >> you said democrats over the american people an apology. you just heard chairman schiff, i don't think you got it. >> it's almost like they're doubling down and ignoring what was in the report. the important thing to note is for two years and were running around promising the american people there was collusion. we've got stronger than circumstantial evidence there was collusion. there was no collusion and if they had this evidence that after almost 2 years and tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to look for it, they didn't find any they've got some secret information, they should have come up with it but there wasn't any so instead of admitting they're wrong, they continue to go down this
radical now let's hold the attorney general in contempt. it's the first time in the history of our country where somebody was held in contempt of congress for not breaking the law. because if the attorney general were to have complied with the request of chairman nadler, he would have been in violation of the law and that's how ludicrous it is and yet this is where they're going instead of focusing on, think about this. there's a crisis in our border. there are 4000 people across the border illegally, jay johnson was barack obama's homeland security secretary said it was a bad day for him when he saw that the day before over 1000 people cross illegally. today we're seeing 4000 cross and the committee of jurisdiction would think we would be holding hearings on how tosolve this crisis and instead, they're holding hearings to hold the attorney general in contempt and continue to go down this witchhunt radical . >> so the president has been
pursuing a run out the clock strategy with the house doherty, we're top story on axois today , an outside advisor to the white west wing saying that the idea of refusing document requests, subpoenas is not a bargaining position, that is how this president doesn't but a passive ministration policy, is this approach going to work with. >> the president been right and number one complying with the law but also in focus on doing his job. he was elected to help this country back on track and it's working. last week we saw some of the best job numbers we've seen in decades. 49 of unemployment, wages for hard-working families these are the things we should be celebrating and instead, nancy closes robert, pushing 70 percent marginal tax rate to have a green new deal where they literally ban fossil fuels and in 10 years can't fly around on an airplane and they get rid of towels, this stuff is laughable but this is what they believe in. that's the contrast again
where president tom is going to be in louisiana next week but to highlight one of his great energy successes, we're exporting with by natural gas, helping our allies around the world. have to get their energy from russia and other countries we don't like in american energy, it creates jobs, lowers their electricity rates, lowers our electricity rate and you see pelosi's agenda is to reverse that. >> are you surprised democrats move faster on impeachment? >> i know they're still moving toward impeachment, whatever the circumstance. >> nancy pelosi knows it's a losing issue and it's something they shouldn't be doing, yet all other liberal attendance keep talking about impeachment even though there's no back to back it up . this is what angers people the most about politics, there are problems people want us to focus on solving and pelosi got themajority , their wrongfully on messaging but they now have a
responsibility to govern and they can't, they didn't even pass a budget. we passed the budget out of committee every year and eight years we were in the majority, they've already missed the legal deadline and have no plans to bring forward a budget. >> you think they will move to increase the president? >> i think they will, their base is so rabidly anti-trump andthe government over hatred is not the way you should use your powers , it's an abuse of power but i don't think they can help themselves. >> when you and i work for gaming, the first issue you said you wanted to talk about was healthcare and people in both parties would tell you healthcare is part of the reason you have a house minority in your title.how can republicans get back on the offensive on the issue? >> we didn't do a good enough job last year of letting people know what we stand for in healthcare. the democrats brought a lot of things that were inaccurate and lives.
pre-existing conditions, we want to protect people with pre-existing conditions and we brought forward proposals that would help people with pre-existing conditions in all families that know they're paying too much. the biggest problem is that people are paying too much and in many cases there seem to be, 25 percent increases every year. people with pre-existing conditions many times out of $10,000 deductible, that's not access to care. we want to focus on lowering premiums in families that can't afford the healthcare that they have to.>> publicans were slow to recognize the power of that issue and . >> a lot of members that didn't respond to the attacks, human michael bloomberg alone spent $2 million a week in some of these races or three weeks in a row, you have $4 million bet against you before you start responding to an attack even if it's a lie, but by that point it too late and that happened to a lot of people where they were flat-footed, that's not going to happen again next year and you're already seeing a very fierce debate on what our plan is to lower premiums while protecting people with pre-existing conditions and the democrats plan is what
they call medicare for all. it gets rid of private health insurance, over 150 million americans would lose a private health insurance they have in life and people on medicare today know medicare is going bankrupt. we want to save medicare from bankruptcy but medicaregoes bankrupt quicker if you put over hundred 50 million more people on medicare . it clogs up the line and ultimately will bankrupt a lot of hospitals, it's a horrible idea but that's the democrats plan there's a contract you're going to see . >> one thing the president wants to spend money on is infrastructure, their conversation about a $2 trillion infrastructure package . you've said that's too expensive. >> the bottom line on infrastructure is this is an opportunity for us to come together in a bipartisan way and pass something important for the country but we have to have an agreement on how to pay for it and i know when
you saw the speaker go down to the white house a few weeks ago with chuck schumer, they talk about how much they want to spend but they didn't talk about how to pay for it. we've had discussions, republicans on and democrats on how we can come to an agreement on an infrastructure bill thathelps rebuild our infrastructure . you've got to have reforms to the way we do building projects. in many cases a project takes 10 years that should only take two because of so much duplication and you have a permitting process at the state level duplicated at the federal level and they throw things on top that jack the cost of before you can afford it. those reforms need to be in place to but we need to agree on how to pay for it. >> if you report some senior house lawmakers frustrated by congressional salaries are exploringwhether to accept an annual pay raise a child since barack obama was president with republican support , would republican support that? >> what congress had paid want to be publicly known, it ought to be fair compared to what other things are out there. how the economies doing but
the bottom line is you've got to make sure that we can attract good people. and you're seeing good people step up to run for congress. i know we're doing a good job right now recruiting but you don't want it to be a place where either the ultra-wealthy or only people that are lower income can afford to run. you want to make sure your encouraging everybody of all walks of life to serve in this great body. >> so you're not taking a position but you're not ruling it out. >> ultimately we'refocusing on a lot of things that need to be confronted right now and at the end of the day we got to make sure we can continue to run an effective congress . >> you opened up your campaign, the first words it says pro-trump, conservative leader. what are the hardest part of those first two words? >> the biggest part of how president trump is perceived is a misunderstanding of what he'slike as a person . i get to work with him on a regular basis on policy, i
worked closely on the tax cuts and job act, a great achievement i started working on when i was still in the hospital. he would call me from the hospital to check on me. 8:00 at night i get a phone call and it would be the president calling to see how i was doing. he came when i was shot to console my wife jennifer. >> .. with an airy code but you have an idea when that comes in, my wife was when the hospital one night with me when the call comes in and she goes that must be some telemarketer, don't answer. i said you never know. this is the white house, will you hold for the president? she's like take the phone, take
the phone. >> as we say goodbye, you recently shot and elk. comment. >> a massive, about an 850-pound elk. i took my son hunting with me and it was done to be able to take harrison with me and hunting. i'm glad he likes coming with me. we conduct hunting and elk hunting. it's great to meet by the way. it makes great grilling for, the back strap, , the sausage you cn make. >> congressman scalise it was an auditor had on the axios stage. thank you for serving our country. [applause] >> thank you so much. we appreciate you. we're going to see a quick video and i'll be right back. >> the dodgers stadium is a backyard. something that bridges families together. >> the love for the dodgers is
undescribable. >> where the dodgers come where exciting and we're saying financial liturgy and i think that peaks peoples interest. >> since 2015 the dodgers foundation partnered with bank of america to deliver their battered money habits curriculum to thousands throughout our local community. on average every year we get about five to six financial literary seminars where families have gathered at kennedy centers throughout los angeles to hear from bank of america, volunteer about the basics of banking and the basics of saving for college. things that are very important to our families. >> we have different topics depending on what the audience needs at the time. we will incorporate games to get the crowd engaged. we have a lot of people that speak spanish so we presented in english and in spanish. >> it's great because i'm saving for culture my kids and it's a bigger expense. i knew if i don't start now later undone what it would be
much worse. >> my hopes are is give it a good college. the video helps a lot. >> 91% of families have said after financial literacy seminar if they felt so much more confident about their financial futures. >> we all want to get or chilled something better than we have. these programs help the community and it gives them the power to go for their goals. >> i can identify with the community. i see a lot of customers that come in, the remind of myself, so that's what i want to help my community. i want to make sure they can make informed decisions. the better money habits website is available for everyone. you don't have to bank with us. you can pretty much look at the videos anywhere where you are at. >> we are talking about the future of our neighborhoods, we are talking about the future of our youth. when you think about that, the financial component is so important.
financial education is going to be the driver. it gives families the power to save, the power to go to college, the power to buy a house it really the power to dream. >> thank you very much. thank you to our friend friende bank of america for making this conversation possible. our next guest is one of america's best-known grassroots activists with a passion for women's rights and economic justice. she was president of the planned parenthood federation of america. she was deputy chief of staff to someone called house democratic leader nancy pelosi. she is author of make trouble with the "new york times" called a professional troublemakers guide for young activist. she sound of a a new women's advocacy organization super majority. she's down from new york. she is cecile richards.
cecile richards, welcome back. >> thanks for having me. [applause] >> as a new yorker what always seek to when you come down to the swap? >> i'm not a a new yorker. i'm a texan. but -- right, hook 'em horns. it's good to get out of washington. i lived here for years. obviously worked for ms. pelosi. that was fabulous. i've enormous admiration for people can stick it out in good times and bad. >> you went to new york to connect with america? >> thank you, exactly. i know that's funny. everyone in washington loves to make fun of new york but but id there to take a job at planned parenthood. just sent my kids to the new public school system. >> i mentioned your founder -- stick a big believer in the public school system. >> you've been pleased with that? >> i have and my daughter who now works for senator kamala harris graduate from d.c. public schools from wilson high school. >> i shout out for new york
schools. you are found of super majority designed to harness the political power of women and you talk about women's nude ubiquitous that? >> it such an interesting time now in that women are the most powerful political force in the country. people are finally recognize it, including women. not only are women the vast majority of voters, we know in the last election probably 8053, 54% of the voters are women. they boys then i guess the majority of volunteers on political campaigns, phone banking and doorknocking. they are the ones who have been leading every bit of resistance in the last couple of years, whether it's teacher striking for better schools or whether it's rushing to the border on the family separation policy or even defending planned parenthood. actually one other thing i think is really interesting that is less reported is in this last election in 2018, women
contributed $100 million more to candidates and campaigns and they did two years earlier in 2016, which is so fascinating to me because that was the year secretary clinton was running for president. i think women are sort of a 360 view of political activism, and get a lot of issues women care about are largely not discussed, and particularly post election. so the idea of a women's new deal is is a what are the thinks women who like to see at the top of the agenda? rather than dismissed as site issues or sort of women's issue issues. >> election between 20 is something like november third, so november 4, 2020, super majority will have been successful if what? >> if 84% of the voters in this country are women, and if we actually are able to insert into this election the issues that women care about and elect a
president who is committed to do something about them. >> there are at least six women running for office, or president. i've had my phone off during this event so there could be one more. >> right, could be. i'm announcing later, right. no. [laughing] >> there's a lot of people -- >> that's a joke. [laughing] >> a lot of people think that's not a crazy i didn't. >> some days it would be easier than what i try to do but that's okay. no, but i mean i'm sure yet a follow-up question that i'll answer it anyway. it's really interesting having that many women running is very important, and i love the thought that, so you may not know but back in the olden days my mother was actually govern -- i know, i move them around. my mother was the governor of texas for for a moment, and ine days women, to run for office yesterday of a certain type and mom used to give instructions about how, you have to have hairstyle and stick with it,
right? >> that's working for me. [laughing] >> there are days when secretary clinton said she wished she had listened to it. there are things like that's how you had to do. of the thought there are women of all different sorts and backbench running, but the really exciting thing to me is there talking the issues that women to care about. so whether it's having elizabeth warren, out with a comprehensive childcare proposal or kamala harris talk about the need to raise teacher pay, because three three-quarters of teachers are women. it's time all the candidates talk about these issues, not just the women running but i'm grateful to them for lifting up issues that often kind of put on the site. >> where are we in the spectrum of women issues becoming mainstream interest? >> we are right there absolutely, and speedy weight. mission accomplished? >> no. that's why we're organizing super majority.
it's important that the issues women care about that we don't just know they are issues that are generally supported by the public but they are actually fun and center in both this presidential campaign and in congress and so forth. that is why we are seeing women, obviously millions of women have been doing, have been marching to other things. there was an interesting kaiser poll that said one in five people in this country have marched or taken part in some kind of protest over the last two years. the number one issue has been women's rights. that includes a lot of men as well. i think it's time that we make sure that -- marching is good, you know, and going to town hall meetings is good but voting is essential and that's how you fundamentally can make a a statement about what kind of government you want and the issues you care about. >> in my notes when we get a preview i wrote women didn't just march and then go home.
that's what you think happened or that's what you want to avoid? >> absolutely women didn't just march and go home. in fact, when i was at planned parenthood when i left last year, but it went directly from marching to defending access to planned parenthood and actually supporting healthcare access to the affordable care act. women were instrumental. in fact, i think there was a research done that showed at least by one measurement that 86% of the cost of went into congress over the aca fighter coming from women. i think women, and it is why as i traveled around the country over this last year it's really one of the recently started super majority, is because women were not saying i'm burned out, you're going to iowa or arizona or florida, georgia. women are saying i want to do more. a lot of women say i've never been an activist. i've never taken part in civic participation and now i feel like i need to.
>> you are talking about the feet 4%. alice the stats. women vote more than men, they are better voters and also is the trajectory of voters as voters increasing? tell us what the projections are, not your hopes of what the projections are of women as part of elected in 2020. >> who knows? it's hard to say but i think if the current trend lines continue, yes, i think women actually would be a majority of the voters and the likelihood is we will get to the 53, 54% of the electorate. i mean, i say that also i think it's important to know a lot of the voting restrictions that are being passed in states they do disproportionate fallen women because women are often working moms. they're working two jobs. they they are students, all the research those the barriers to women voting are higher. i think the enthusiasm among women for civic participation is at an all-time high.
i just want to make sure that women feel like they are supported, and the training and information. that's what women are saying. relaunched this out of the world last monday. more than 80,000 folks have already signed up and mainly what they're asking for is training about how to be more cynically involved. they want to know that issues if they want to know where the candidates stand on issues. there's nothing but opportunity now. >> from your point of view what will success look like for the six or seven women candidates, presidential candidates? >> that they are obviously, that they are treated more equally in the media. i think that is still a really tough thing. we have two-thirds of the violence in political reporting for stomach and to think we still are seeing -- i think it still tougher. >> have you seen sexism so far in coverage of 2020? >> yes, i have. >> in what sense?
>> i just think, i mean, i don't want to get into individual candidates because i just don't want to go down that road. >> talk about characteristics or topics. >> women raise more money, women, the questions about sexism, the questions -- are always asked the women. again i think that i want to hear, i don't want to just have women candidates asked about women's so-called women's issues. issues. i what all the candidates to be asked about them. the media can play a role. in the back, all right. i've got a take it or i just think it's time, so, for example, childcare. in half of states, it cost more than college now. it's like almost absent in any conversation. i want to hear that only what elizabeth warren wants to do about childcare and amy klobuchar and kamala harris, i want to know what joe biden is going about -- going to do about childcare. i think it's important that the
conversation is the same across the board. and look, i just think we all know it's tougher for women. the good news is the women who are running have a record of always winning races. i think they are up to the challenge. >> you know virtually all the candidates but since he's a fellow texan, what do you make of beto? >> i was afraid there was a felon who was running. [laughing] which is possible. i mean, he's a very compelling guy. i think he has a real political future. it's a big field. it's a big field, and i think it's important to distinguish yourself not only your personal characteristics of what you're going to do when you elected president. >> a memo to beto that he said do a little more. what do you think of the heartbeat bills and other abortion restrictions that are
going to meaning many, many states with republican legislatures now. >> was about unconstitutional, they are actually inflated women across the country and i think they're going to be a huge issue, because as we know with the appointment and confirmation of judge kavanaugh, the right to face a legal abortion in this country is not just a theoretically at risk. it is actually at risk. it's interesting, i know you are seeing the same things i say, health care and access to healthcare is still a top issue. i think the fact that this administration and what we're seeing around the country is that people are not, there's no place in these legislatures to do with issues like maternal mortality rates which are rising and the united states, especially for asking american women. there's no efforts to do with the fact we don't have maternity benefits for millions of women. the only thing they're going after is right that when the fed for more 40 years and it's going
to be, it's obviously i think it's the wrong policy. i think it's politically not a good thing. >> you have lived this. as these ways of activities go, how does this one compare? >> i've never seen anything like it in my lifetime. i've been an organizer since i was like started out. what of the fascinating things about starting super majority with my friends is that it's not a question of creating interest or desire among women. it is literally how do you do with us and on and women were coming out of the woodwork and saying i just want to be more active? that's an exciting child to have. >> you mention the great and richards. what's the lesson for succeeding in life and politics, or life for -- >> oh oh, my god, that's another book. but i would say it's my lesson right now and that is start before you're ready. i think so many women wait until they have the right to -- the
right degree of other children on the right age or so in comes to them and says we think you're prepared. the exciting thing for me as i think women are starting before the ready. nothing would give my mother more pleasure than seen the record of young women, , women f color going to congress and, frankly, beating the odds. >> thank you to the bank of america for this axios news shaper sears. next to my axios event collect and all the axios folks who helped today. happy mother's day to all the moms including our guest but especially barbara allen in wilsonville oregon. and thank you cecile richards. >> good to see you. thank you. thanks a lot. [applause] >> later today on c-span2 air force secretary heather wilson and army secretary mark esper
discuss modernizing the army forces in washington, d.c. live at 130 eastern on c-span2. live online at c-span.org and live on the c-span radio app. >> c-span's newest book the the presidents, noted historians rank america's best and worst chief executives, provides insight into the lives of the 44 american presidents. true story scattered by interviews with noted presidential historians. explore the life events that shape our leaders, challenges they faced, and the legacies have left behind. order your copy today. c-span's the president is not available as a hardcover or e-book at c-span.org/thepresidents. >> today on c-span represented alexandria ocasio-cortez and
senator bernie sanders and ed markey will be speaking at a rally for the green new deal to address climate change. live at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org and on the c-span radio app. >> democratic presidential candidate cory booker met with diners at the soda shoppe in laconia, new hampshire, over the weekend. he took questions from reporters. thank you guys for all your help. how's everybody doing? >> happy mother's day. thank you for bringing your