c-spans coverage you can find it any time online at c-span.org videos of key hearings, debates and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights. these points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos. this timeline makes it easy to quickly get an idea what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-spans points of interest. >> two irs whistleblowers to testify testified today on the ongoing investigation into the biden family. live coverage from the house oversight committee starts at 1 p.m. eastern on c-span three, you also want a free mobile video at c-span out or online at c-span.org. baynote. >> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker play c-span radio and listen to "washington journal" daily at 7 a.m. eastern, 14 congressional hearings and other public

affairs events throughout the day weekdays at 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. eastern catch washington today for a fast-paced report on the stories of the day. listen to c-span anytime. just tell your smart speaker play c-span radio. c-span, powered by cable. >> republican presidential candidate asa hutchinson talked about his proposal to overall deral law enforcement agencies including the fbi. this i will if it was hosted by the national press club here in washington, d.c. >> that afternoon everyone. welcome to purporting to the national press club, the place where news happens for headliners ms. baker i mike balsamo, treasurer and editor of "the associated press." former arkansas government is asa hutchinson watches presidential campaign f this pat fall in front of the benton county courthouse in bentonville, arkansas, the same spot where in 1986 he launched

his first campaign for public office a longshot and notably unsuccessful bid to unseat senator, a democrat for ten years later he was back this time as u.s. representative asa hutchinsonhe succeeding his brother tim after capturing 56% of the vote in northwest and northwest arkansas district that included bentonville. in 2006 he launched the race for governor of arkansas to then attorney general might be a democrat only to return in 2014 and win the general election with a decisive 55% of the felt the largest margin forge a republican in an open seat gubernatorial race since reconstruction. he won reelection in 2018. governor hutchinson it seems as the stranger to longshot campaigns today despite poll numbers that place them at near the bottom of a crime republican field and fund raising them exclude them from the first republican debate in august,

governor hutchinson has persevered this week and he even weathered blues injure some top supporters at the turning point usa conference in west palm beach, florida. governor hutchinson characterized himself as a consistent conservative with decades of experience in the public service and elective office trick he has not let up on his criticism of former president drop despite the backlash and has said that trumps role in the 2021 insurrection at the u.s. capitol should disqualify him from holding office. today we look forward to hearing more about the first point of governor hutchinsons presidential policy agenda, a proposal for a complete reform of federal law enforcement. please join me in giving a warm national press club welcome to governor asa hutchinson. [applause] >> mike, you can always count the press to put a dose of realism into an introduction. so thank you for that and, of

course, i overlay realism with optimism as i continue to campaign. i want to thank the national press club for opening up this venue to make this important announcement on future of federal law enforcement and the reform that is needed today here and whenever you look at the rule of law and, of course, we are here celebrating freedom of the press, w but the freedom of the press would really be meaningless if we did not have the rule of law. there's a lot of countries that recite in the constitutional freedom of press but it's nothing but empty paper because they have no access to courts. they have no access to enforcement. so the freedom of the press and all of our freedoms are so intertwined with the rule of law. and this is personal to me. is representing what i have advocated for throughout my public career, and in my private

life as well. i'm an attorney and also a federal prosecutor. i have been a city prosecutor. i have been head of the dea. i was at homeland security overseeing one of the largest federal law enforcement agencies. i have been a defense attorney inou the courtroom. while i was in congress i was on the judiciary committee overseeing many of the federal agencies that are involved here here and so i bring a breadth of experience but i hope you see a breadth of commitment in my life to our system of justice that is second to none in our world today. and i'm proud of the system of justice in america. i'm proud of the rule of law that weav have, and i don't want to seerm it undermined. i'd like to see it fail in its

really premier responsibility of creating a system of laws in our country. and, of course, when i reflect back, i was a young united states attorney when ronald reagan was president. and two historic moments, one was whenn ronald reagan tryingo enhance the war on drugs, said he is going to bring in the fbi and give them jurisdiction over drug cases. that was in the early 1980s while i was a young united states attorney. and that was a historic preservation mode for the fbi, given that jurisdiction. wrestled another 20 years while i in another historic position, and that is whenever i called them on a sunday to the operations room at the department of justice where i'm head of the dea, we have

director whole oful their. have theve department of justice leadershipcr attorney general jn ashcroft combat for the white house and he announces it is no longer enough for the fbi and federal law enforcement to prosecute terrorists or to prosecute crime. we have to be in the preventing business. and at that moment the mission of the fbi change rather dramatically in order to gather intelligence and to print a terrorist attack, and to elevate their counterterrorism mission and so i've seen two very historic moments in law enforcement history at thefe federal level, both with the 1980 change of president reagan, a change made by president bush i saw in life and in person well today wes are 20 years advanced from those historic moments, and today i am offering another

historic moment to reform federal law enforcement, to correct some errors, some omissions, to correct some change in the climate of crime in our country. and so i've been fighting my entire adult life or justice. i want to continue to do that. and whenever we see the needs, i'm calling for a new direction and i'm calling for reform of the fbi that provides more focus, more accountability, and a deeper commitment to civil liberties. and the reform that i'm calling for today iss not just apply to the fbi but to all of federal law enforcement. and i want to first say that i have worked closely, extremely closely, with some of the top fbi officials in our country that are dedicated to the rule of law, to fairness, and to public safety.

they are fine individuals, and so i've always had praise for our federal law enforcement partners, both in termsms of personal relationships and their professional responsibilities. but i believe that donald trump has done great harm to our rule of law in this country and to federal law enforcement. he has undermined their credibility in the eyes of the public. he has continued his victimization, and it has harmed our support for law enforcement and the confidence that americans need to have in the criminal justice system. and because of that, even though some of his claims are justified, going back to 2016, but they have become self-serving and they have undermined exactly what we are trying to accomplish in this country, which is a rule of law that works, a criminal justice

system that is equal in its treatment of all individuals, and it has the confidence of the public. and that is been our system of justice all through history, and we want it to continue but we need to have reform to make sure it works well. there are currently, i'll make the case for reform that are over 90 federal law enforcement agencies with authority to carry firearms and authority to make arrests. the investigative authority includes every agency of the secret service, postal fraud under the the u.s. postal s, national park service officers for violation of the national park rules, the federal protective services that guards our buildings, to the department of agriculture thatod investigas food stamp fraud and other things. that jurisdiction for offenses is not always clear, and this leads to turf wars and leads to confusion and lack of efficiency

and effectiveness in the work of our federal law enforcement agencies. the fbi is the only law enforcement agency with exclusive jurisdiction over all federal crimes the result is too much time on turf battles within the agencies and teaming agents officers that are going to a civil case because they have overlapping jurisdiction this can over time impact the clarity of the mission and work on important cases that impact national security and public safety. the clearestpl example of the duplicate efforts in federal enforcement is in the t area of illegal drugs. we have the dea, fbi and eyes that have specific statutory jurisdiction over federal drug laws and violations. and, of course, illegal drugs can be encountered in any venue from national parks to federal

buildings. so there's naturally some overlap but the coordination is critical and the clarity of vision of our law enforcement agencies is e absolutely essential. and so the most recent controversies with the fbi and some of the other federal agencies are for shadow banding in which of the louisiana federal judge raised an issue of federal agents going in to socialco media companies and alerting them to problems of accounts that results in account being canceled. and that of course is on appeal at the present time but it raises a significant issue that our reform addresses as well. there is an important principle at stake. one, the rule of law is fundamental to our democracy. secondly, our federal agents including the fbi, are fighting a battle for public safety and

our security that is critical. and they are to be praised for the efforts to the third principle is that defending the fbi is off the charts, bad idea. -- defunding desperate anyone who makes that argument is ignoring reality and weakens our law enforcement. and finally as i made the case, there are needs for reform. the reform centers around accountability for enforcement actions. it's critical we protect civil liberties. we have to have clarity and focus admission and have to have fiscal responsibility even in the operation of federal law enforcement, which i will just emphasize that every local prosecutor has resource constraints. well, that was a problem with an independent counsel. there was no resource constraints which allowed them to go after and target individuals there always should be some fiscal discipline and

constraints that may help guide our federal law enforcement as well. and so with that i wanted to go through eight particular elements of reform that are critical for today. and if you look at this, i think you can conclude that this is the boldest set of reform ideas in federal law enforcement in my lifetime. and first of all, as i set the stage for it, i want, our plan would be to take federal enforcement of our drug narcotics offenses away from the fbi and gives them jurisdiction over everything else. but it would allow them to continue to concentrate on their counterterrorism mission, their violent crimeme initiatives, and be more focused as an agency. and so there still would be when you're looking at the fictional crisis, for example, we have dea, with ice, we have customs that all will be engaged in this

effort when it comes to terrorism that is supported by drugsor or organized crime, there's obviously some overlap. dea as the lead when it comes to the drug mission that will lead that effort and we will minimize the role of the fbi in terms of drugug enforcement because we wt them to focus on the other critical missions. secondly, it is critical that we hold fbi accountable for the protection of privacy and civil liberties. right now there's the office of privacy and civil liberties within the fbi, but it is housed underneath the general counsels office. that needs to be elevated to give it more stroke, to give more independence, should report directly to the directors office. .. this is broader than just the f.b.i. if you're looking at a

government agency that goes to a bank and says, you need to look at this account and perhaps you ought to close it out because we have information on them, that's a property interest. that is something that's important to some citizen of the united states. and there ought to be some level of transparency. and i would suggest that that transparency would be to report that type of conduct of shadow banning to congressional >> congressional committee and to the congressional advisory board that would be set up under my plan. this would be helpful in simply allowing transparency. it could be through the privacy and civil liberties board that is doing good work that's out there. it can also be the congressional committees, the gang of eight, which they would review from an intelligence standpoint exactly what the fbi activities are.

the third reform is, you might consider in the weeds, but anybody who's practiced law in federal court understands this. and that is to increase the transparency and accountability as the fbi by recording interviews. if you look at local law enforcement, if they interview a subject or a witness, it is normally the rule that it would be recorded. and when you go into court there's a recording that you can have that as the best evidence. the fbi has always had a different rule and the general rule is that no recording. the fbi agency takes the notes, they're later recorded on a 302 and the summary of the interview is what that agent relies upon a year, two years later as they go into court. there's no recording. that is the general rule of the fbi. i want to reverse the general rule so that the general rule is recording of witness and

subject interviews and the exception would be those unique circumstances for national security reason or some approval process through high level in the fbi, that you can have an exception. the general rule though would be to record interviews. by the way, just as a side note there, if you look at the indictment of the classified information on former president trump, you'll see that the interview of one of the witnesses was actually recorded. that's the way it should be of the let's move on here. fourth, we need to reassign fbi administrative support offices. right now, you have the fbi as in all practical matters, an independent body. even independent of the justice department. i think they've made some progress for merging those to a greater extent, but the justice department needs to be more

intertwined with the fbi where the fbi has actual supervision over attorney general that's been appointed by the president of the united states that has a higher level of accountability and so the support role can be moved over to the department of justice and that would intertwine those agencies to a greater extent. and sure, the fbi is going to continue to have a congressional relations office because congress wants to be able to have that because they need to report up the chain to the department of justice where they'll be transparency and clarity as to what the position of the department of justice is. the fifth reform is to establish a charter for federal law enforcement agencies. this applies across the board. this would be a unified framework where there's fundamental principles set forth in each federal law

enforcement agencies about protection of civil liberties, about enhancing accountability and this will ensure consistency across our federal agencies. sure they will have unique missions, but they will have a uniform charter that will assure that we're not going to target someone because of what the -- because of a political speech. we're not going to target someone because they're exercising a fundamental constitutional right and those should be described and set forth in a charter document. and then sixth, looks more at the future in a comprehensive plan. and that is to establish a commission on the future of federal law enforcement where there can be a more in depth study as to where there is overlap, where we can achieve more efficiencies. where we can define jurisdictions more clearly and where there's a challenge that we can meet that with the legislative fix.

and so, that commission will look at it from a much broader scale into the future for efficiencies, effectiveness and for public safety and the protection of civil liberties. then the seventh point is that we need to reform the intelligence collection under section 702 of fisa, our foreign intelligence collection, it's been misused in the past primarily because we have agents that query it without responsibility, without authority, good reason and cause to do so. that needs to be changed. we need to continue section 702 and have it renewed, but we also need to make changes to have prep congressional review and to reform and prevent abuses. any inquiry into the section 702 data base should be reported to congress, to the gang of eight, to our intelligence committees so that

there is some awareness and checks and balances in something that's so insensitive that could impact our u.s. citizens. and then finally, it's critically important to reaffirm the critical relationship between the president and the attorney general and yes, in the post-watergate era, we've had more of an independent department of justice, attorney general, particularly in the area of investigations. policy has to be intertwined. there's certain unique cases that have to be communicated, but in the general context, it is critically important that we maintain the independence of the investigation and the authority of the department of justice. and so, thank you for allowing me to present these reform proposeals that are designed to improve the rule of law in our country, designed to build

confidence of our citizens in our system of justice, that's fundamental to everything that we want to accomplish in maintaining our freedoms. thank you. >> thank you, sir. let me just remind the audience that i'm happy to take your questions. please write them legibly on the cards and they're here at the front of the room. so, governor, i was hoping we could start, you know, with one of your proposals here. so, there's obviously this public confidence has lowered in the fbi in the recent years, as has morale within the

bureau. how would you take that into account? how do you get the bureau to a place where the public is -- more of the public is confident and the ability of the agents who are working there and in the work that is done in the fbi? >> well, you do that by having balance in the reform proposals and that's why i hope all the fbi agents that are out there in the field see this as giving them a more focused mission, to give them more transparency, to give them more credibility in the courtroom whenever they testify, it's not just going to be based upon simple note taking that is -- could be based upon human error, but you're going to have recording in most instances to support their testimony and so that transparency, this should build confidence in the phish and in

the fbi and their work. whatever we do in government has checks and balances. whenever you look the at most sensitive things, there have to be guardrails. i see this as a morale boost for the fbi. i see this as a confidence building for the public toward the fbi. >> do you support body-worn cameras for fbi agents conducting field interviews or during search warrants that are executed by the bureau? >> a great question and in the norm course of fbi activities, no, i don't see any need for that. generally you need the body cameras is whenever you're in a potential dangerous or confrontation with a citizen in which harm can come and it's a protective measure for the police as well as information for the public. but, no, i don't see that necessary in routine fbi actions. obviously, if you have -- you

know, like the fbi and the hostage rescue team negotiating with the sword and the-- and this is a potential confrontation in arkansas, i was u.s. attorney on, sure, this day and time i think there ought to be as much documentation of that type of potential violent outcome as we can have. >> how do you get the republicans, including those who, you know, have disparaged federal law enforcement officers, called for defunding the fbi, you know, some of these obviously formed for the weaponization of the federal government, how do you get them on board with your plan to reform federal law enforcement. >> there will be some that say it did go far enough, and that's not the definition of my

party, rule and law. we're a party of law and order. so, this is where donald trump has done great damage because there's so much sympathy for what happened in 2016 and as the durham report indicated there was wrongdoing on the part of the fbi, but then you fast forward that and you overlay that into 2020 and the mishandling of classified information, you know, he has personized personalized it all, this battle and taken it to the extreme of many of the republican base and created this animosity and distrust that's really not called for where you need to have reform over a dismantling and destroying the confidence that americans traditionally have. rebuild confidence rather than destroy confidence. >> concern, there have been more than 30 mass killings so

far this year, more at this point in the year than any other since at least 2006 according to a usa today, northeastern university and associated press data base on this. these mass killings claimed more than 150 lives so far in 2023. how should we be addressing gun violence in this country and how does that fit into your proposal for reforming federal law enforcement? >> we've got to get to the root cause of the gun violence and it's everything from mental illness to simply a heart that does not regard life and those are fundamental values that we have to address in our society. and then the second part of it is preventive measures and we've taken, whether it's a business that wants to protect their customers. you know, you have off duty police officers, others, you have cameras, so we've built

the preventative measures in. those are two things that are important for us. you know, i applaud senator cornyn and, you know, democrat counterpart that had a bipartisan solution that closed the gap on juvenile records to make sure that we knew if somebody was violent or had a violent record that they are not going to have access to guns and turn the legal age. so there are some things that can be done, but focus on prevention, focus on the root cause of our violence. >> you mentioned civil liberties. how do you strike the balance between necessary intelligence sharing between agencies, including the cia, and privacy of private citizens? >> well, we learned from 9/11 and the extraordinary 9/11 commission report that you have to avoid setting up silos for

intelligence sharing and i thought about that and the united states is unique you have a law enforcement agency that prevents crime, but gathers intelligence, it's unusual. there was a thought that we ought to separate those two. but the lessons of 9/11, i think we ought to give it another opportunity to work right and that's where i concentrated on the transparency, the checks and balances, versus rebuilding silos, that prevent, you know, legitimate law enforcement agencies from having the information they need to have on particular threats. so, to me, again, it's the checks and balances. it's the transparency that is most critical. >> how does your plan for law enforcement reform set you aside from other candidates running for the g.o.p. nomination? and are you prepared to defend

your plan on the debate stage as if this time comes? >> absolutely. i'm prepared to defend it and secondly, i make the case and i don't think that anybody disputes it, that i have a greater breadth of experience in federal law enforcement than anybody on the stage. i know we've got another former united states attorney there, but i've led the dea. i have a breadth of experience in homeland security, which is again, another federal law enforcement agency. so, i'm happy to defend the proposal both with the media and on the debate stage because it's the right balance for america and that's a word that probably doesn't sometimes sell that well whenever you're looking at harsh language and getting clicks and who can drum up the latest controversy, but i don't believe in chaos. i believe in doing things the right way. that's what governors do.

and this is a plan with balance that has very dramatic reform, but doesn't go crazy, that under mines our public safety. undermines our counterterrorism efforts. happy to defend it and i'm sure i'll have that opportunity. >> could you share your thoughts on, you know, the recent talk about reducing the size of fbi headquarters, establishing these larger satellite offices and most recently, the idea of moving the fbi's headquarters to alabama? >> you know, great question and first, i think you ought to give thought to changing the name of the fbi headquarters from the hoover building. i think that's reminiscent of a time in fbi history that did not protect civil liberties, did not even have a regard for civil liberties and it's really an image that you want the fbi to get away from, which, you know, under chris wray they've had some reform so i want to

applaud him for progress. we just need more progress and more reform. in terms of the location, my view is that every key agency ought to be located in close proximity to the president of the united states in the sense of the department of justice and their relationship with the fbi. out of sight, sometimes is out of mind. so i want that relationship to be close and so i do like having many of the subagencies out in the field and would love to have one in arkansas. when you're talking about subagencies, it could be labs, could be forensics, these are things that could be moved out of the headquarters arena and moved out in different parts of the country. and i love that, really in many

aspects of our federal agencies, but particularly in this regard in the fbi. so, let's get it done, let's have it make sense and let's move some of those out to where people live. also mentioned about some of the regional offices. i just-- there's a lot of beautiful regional offices that are out there and a lot of beautiful fbi offices that are in our states and they need protection. they're a-- could be a target of opportunity, but, you know, i think they're well resourced in that regard. >> i want to follow up on something that you mentioned there, the fbi director wray. what are your thoughts on how director wray has run the agency and would you as president keep director wray on as director of the fbi? >> well, director wray ought to be applauded for his

patriotism, for his commitment to the rule of law, for his leadership. he's had a very, very tough time, and obviously under his leadership there's been mistakes made by the fbi and he's made some reform efforts that have been helpful, but i would want a fbi agent-- excuse me, i want a fbi director that is fresh, that is committed to the level of reform. what i've outlined here is not easy. i've -- i was obviously -- helped set up the new department of homeland security, the largest government organization since the pentagon was created and it's not easy transforming government. it's not easy making these changes. so you've got to have a leadership team that's 100% committed to not the traditional way of doing things necessarily, but the transparency that i've spoken of. so i would want to have new

leadership so that we could carry out the reforms that i've talked about. >> how do you stop politicians from using their power to trigger what people see as politically motivated criminal investigations? >> using their power to stop? >> how do you see stopping? >> them from doing that? >> yes. >> but from impacting politically motivated investigations. well, first of all, both administrations have been guilty of this and at different levels, but obviously whenever you have a president of the united states under the previous administration, calling out specific individuals and chewing on the department of justice, why haven't you doing something on this and why aren't they in jail yet, you say this publicly and that's inappropriate and you could say the same thing

about stopping investigation. it's a very delicate matter whenever, you know, you're in jeopardy or you know, that investigation impacts your political future. but it's our post-watergate environment and fundamentally the right thing to do on specific investigations. you know, this current administration under president biden, you know, it's handled in different ways. the most offensive thing was-- well, that was actually the previous administration, but the way jim comey and the fbi handled their investigations crossed some lines as well. so it's about leadership and having the right people in place, it's about having transparency. >> on one of your tenets of the reform plan talks about having the attorney general closer to the president or more engaged with the president of the united states. how would you envision an attorney general striking the

right balance between those conversations and making sure that the department maintains, you know, its independence and ensuring that there are not politically motivated investigations? >> well, first of all, there have to be clarity from the outset in your relationship with the attorney general. the attorney general, with the president, should help set the priorities of the department of justice. i remember what the priorities were in previous administrations for violent crime, for white collar crime. for terrorism, and it all depends upon the challenge of the moment. violent crime. so the president needs to be engaged because this impacts the entire nation and it sets the tone for the nation. and so setting priorities is right and holding the department of justice accountable for it. whenever you're looking at the efficiencies, whenever you're looking at all the other

operations of the department of justice from their handling of, you know, grant programs, you know, i want to make sure that our grant programs are going to cities that are enforcing the law, for example. well, that's a relationship between the president and department of justice. so, it's just in the area of, you know, once they've started investigations that there's always some exceptions of foreign interest that might come to bear, foreign policy with the president, but by and large, that has to be run by the department of justice, the investgative body. >> you said you would not pardon former president donald trump in the investigation in handling of classified records.

and would you expand on that statement why you would not consider a pardon for the former president. >> first of all, as a candidate for president, i would never consider a pardon for anyone in my public statements, it's wrong. you're running for candidate you don't bargain pardons and you don't dangle them out there for voters for votes. i respect the power and utilized that as the governor of arkansas and i accomplished with it mercy in some cases, justice in other cases, and giving people a fresh start in other instances. and i had some guidelines that i followed. and so, it's not that never will it ever be considered because you don't know the outcome of the case in court, but if you start dangling or promising, as some candidates do, i will do this, why in the

world is a jury even called. why do you have to go through that? you're undermining the juror and give the jurors in there, and throw up their hands, why are we bothering with this because you've already seen people promising pardons. and so, again, you've got candidates that are misusing the power of the presidency. you've got candidates undermining our rule of law and our justice system and you've got to get this play out. and then, we'll see what happens down the road. >> are you concerned about foreign influence in u.s. elections and the influence of foreign media entities on the electorate? >> yes, i am. whenever you see the ability of foreign governments to utilize social media to manipulate information it goes to the american people. obviously, whenever you have the level of attention that

americans pay to social media, well, that's an avenue that you're going to have foreign influence. and you know, the best anecdote to that is information to the american public versus censorship that can cross over to u.s. citizens. and so, it's a challenge for us as a society and as always, challenges have to be met boy our citizens and our voters and to realize that risk is out there. whenever we know that there's foreign actors involved, then law enforcement ought to be able to sound the alarm on it and make people aware of that and also, do the appropriate investigation. >> i want to turn to a couple of questions related to your campaign. have any of your former colleagues in congress been receptive to your campaign and are you seeking their endorsement? >> yes, and at the right time,

yes, for the latter part. sure, i've got support for foreign members of congress. i love the relationship i've had with many of my colleagues, but i also, i don't go and put them on the spot and say, hey, would you endorse me now? i'd like to be higher in the polls before i make that request. i'm very respectful of where they are and i also know that i'm fighting in the trenches with the voters and endorsements 's help, but they're not the end all. so, i'm proud of the relationship i have with many of my former colleagues and some of the current members as well and i hope they'll be of the right kind that i'll be able to ask them and they'll say yes. >> you're still several thousand donors away from meeting the 40,000 minimum to meet -- to make the debate stage. how do you plan to meet that minimum by august 23rd.

>> i'm working hard getting there. there's a plan in place. there's a lot of people that are helping us to get to the 40,000 donor threshold, and you know, if you'd have told me when i started this campaign that i would have 100 or 200 or 300, 400 new donors in a single day across the country, i would say that is incredible, but then you realize, you know, the threshold has been placed, you know, you have to have thousands every day in order to meet that. so, it's a high threshold that's been set. we're going to make that go. and we have a plan to get there. and we have a lot of people that are helping us. so, that's the main mission that i have between now and august 23 and you've got to put the time in perspective. we're still in, you know, early. we've got time to work with and we expect to get there. >> you spoke this past weekend at the turning point usa action

conference, a conservative organization focused on college campuses by charlie kirk that's been stalwart in its support of president trump. as a vocal critic i'm sure you were not surprised to have a hostile crowd there, booed and jeered. and why do you engage with this and with audience. >> i wish you could have been there with the younger audience and i actually got stuck in the airport trying to get here, because the storms, took a long timement i was in the airport with all of these young people and we were in line for a long time, taking photographs, having conversations and that's why i'm there, to engage that generation and i relate to them. i communicate with them. i understand, but also listen to them. and so, it's a great interchange. you're right, you know, we had some boos out there and guess what? they were not from the college age kids, they were from the

adults. [laughter] >> and so they didn't set the best example, but why i went there though was just i said, i go -- i'll defend my position in a place that you have an opportunity to make your case and these are voters that i hope to get down the road. we don't -- this is the most unpredictable political landscape i've seen in my lifetime. if anyone can tell me the outcome next year make sure you see me afterwards and we'll place some bets on that, if necessary. but it's an unpredictable environment and so i see this changing dramatically and i want to make sure that the trump voters and others that are going to be voting next year are-- they understand my background. they understand who i am, what makes me tick and my vision for america. that's why i went there and that's why i went to other places that are challenging

venues and i've always done that and always will. >> most of the other republican candidates have avoided direct criticism of former president president trump. do you believe that the party is held captive and how to break through? >> do i think the party is captive? whenever you have 50 plus percent of the vote they might not have been captive, but they've certainly been listening to him and they have an understanding of him as a former president. how do you break through that? all i can say is, you don't-- you can't hit a home run unless you take a swing at the bat. the last thing i want to do as a batter is to sit there and watch three strike balls go across the plate. i'm going to swing at one of them. whenever you're in a campaign for the president of the united

states and you announce for president, i was the third one to announce, and i'm saying, our country needs an alternative to donald trump. i believed it then, i believe it now and i want to make my case. whenever i argue to the jury, i give them proof beyond a reasonable doubt. i make my case, and i can go shake hands with the opposing counsel afterwards. so it's not a matter of animosity, it's a matter of making your case for votes and the only way you can win is through donald trump and particularly whenever you disagree with where he will take this country in the future and some of the things that he's done in the past, increasing our debt, you know, whenever you look at some of the ways he handled the pandemic. i disagree with those things. i can be a better leader than that and i'm not going to be

shy about saying we need a leader that can reform federal law enforcement in the right way that builds confidence and not a president that will undermine it and that shows disrespect for our system of justice, whether it's a civil case or a criminal case. >> what do you think you can take from your time as governor of arkansas to make sure that these changes you want are implemented with little headache, both in the executive and legislative branches? >> well, usually they come with a headache so you've got to plow through that and that's been my experience as governor. you know, as governor, i transformed state government from 42 different departments of government that reported to me down to 15. and it was-- i first made my case to the arkansas voters so i traveled and held town meetings making my case. you do the similar thing in a campaign for president, you articulate your vision for

federal law enforcement reform. that way when you win, you have some momentum with the public and then you've got the legislature and whenever i got the consensus, we've got it into the legislature and whenever you're passing legislation to change 42 different departments of government literally the bill was this thick. and the chairman of the committee that considered that legislation, he was not that excited about it and so, he started the hearing, the markup of the bill this way. he said, we're going to be here a while, let's turn to page one, line one. he went through it page by page. so, sure, you have to build legislative support, public support, but that's what governors do and president, you know, in my administration, i want to have a cabinet that do a great job of communicating the public message of an administration, but i also want them to manage the department

and to watch the administrative state, to make sure that we're acting in accordance with what congress dictated and carrying out my mission. these are management issues. you look at what i did as governor, i managed, i made my case to the public. i defended it, and as a result we accomplished a lot. >> could you talk a little more about your plan for a federal law enforcement commission and how you envision that commission being different than the ombudsman commission that existed under the trump administration, particularly under attorney general bill barr? >> well, how i see that commission working, and if you look at my time in arkansas, i utilized task forces, i utilized commissions, that were very, very effective. in fact, you know, we had a task force for the, you know, for the transformation of state government. we had business people. we had experts that were engaged in that.

you know, we had, you know, we had health care task forces during the pandemic so i really believe in that concept of bringing in experts to manage and make recommendations that are of such a serious nature. i'll be doing the same thing for social security and medicare. i want to have a commission for the future of social security and medicare that looks at long-term fixes, very similar to what president reagan did in 1982 with alan greenspan that sustained the life of social security and medicare for decades. so, i want to utilize that tool. how do i envision this? with those with experience in law enforcement, those that have already studied this issue, there's a lot of work that's been done and those that are fresh from outside that can take a more distanced approach to it. and i want them to look at,

first of all, efficiencies. you know, we've got over 90 federal law enforcement agencies. is there a better model that we can look at. secondly, the-- we've already accomplished the charters that will provide some standardization between the agencies, but there's always going to be differences in mission and we're going to look at how they coordinate. like i said, you know, if you have a meeting on a particular kind of case, you might have 15 different federal law enforcement agencies there. and you have that overseas as well in the country offices and in the embassies where you have so many different agencies that are represented. so, look at overlap. look at clarity of mission and make recommendations that we can do things better. and part of that would be the checks and balances and the transparency. so we've, in this transformation plan, laid out some very specific concrete items that we're doing, but we

are going to take a longer look at it through the commission. >> the d/b/a has not been without its own controversy. and former federal agents have been prosecuted over the years and reports that come out that shine not such a positive light on the dea. do you believe that the agency needs to be reformed first before you could implement the change of ensuring that all drug offenses are prosecuted -- are investigated by the dea? >> that's a good question. that shows we have human systems. we have a human system of justice and that's why our founding fathers designed checks and balances and so, it's all about the accountability. now, we're not expanding the mission of the dea because they already have drug enforcement responsibility. they already have offices in scores of international countries. they already are working closely in mexico, going after

the cartel. they already are part of the organized crime drug enforcement task forces so they already have the mission, so i don't see any challenge there. you know, you mentioned some of the mistakes that have been made. that's going to happen. that's why we have ig's. that's why we have administrators that makes those corrections, so i'm not saying that they're a perfect agency, but i'm saying that that's their fundamental principal mission and the fbi, it's not theirs. and the fbi has very important task in counterterrorism and violent crime and supporting local law enforcement investigations and on and on down the list. but, in this one area, let's make sure that we have an exclusive jurisdiction in the dea and that the fbi can support those efforts as needed. >> before we get to the final question here, governor, i'd

like to just take a moment to thank everyone who helped put this together, the clubs director of membership, and membership events and programs coordinator, cecily scott martin, i'd like to just remind you all the national press club will draw attention to wall street journal reporter gershkovich's detention in russia, reading his stories this wednesday july 19th. governor, i want to sharpen on the point we talked about on the dea and fbi. more than 100,000 people have died of drug overdoses in the u.s. last year, particularly with fentanyl and other synthetic opioids. there's been criticism of the dea's budget and the number of agents that it currently has. do you believe that taking away

the fbi's role in enforcing drug-- enforcing drug crimes in the u.s. could lead to additional overdose deaths? >> no, just the opposite. we have a more focused mission that will lead that effort and so, we will be more successful in that and it's a good example when you're looking at fentanyl. you've got to go after the cartels. you know, the lead in that would be the dea working with our counterparts in mexico, coordinating that effort. you've got also the responsibility of customs and border protection that, you know, i was there at the beginning of that. the majority of pent nil is coming through there. it's not being detected by fbi, it's coming through our customs and border protection. whenever they detect fentanyl, they call the dea. the dea looks to see how we can do a delivery or controlled

delivery to go up the chain and try to get to the organized crime efforts there and so, this should -- now, there will be, we'll have to look at resources because the dea resources have been very constrained and partly because we've put such a great emphasis on the counterterrorism efforts in our country. so, that has to be looked at and balanced, but let me assure you that this will enchance our capability to go after fentanyl traffickers and also, you know, critical part of going after fentanyl is the education in our communities and when i was with the dea, we had demand reduction agents that were assigned, that we could go in the communities and have drug awareness, that is very important with fentanyl because some young person thinks they're buying a percocet pill on the street, which is wrong, bad and dangerous, but that percocet pill is likely now to

be laced with fentanyl. this is something that the dea does and does well, and they could enhance those efforts both in education, but also, in the enforcement side under my plan. >> i want to thank you all for being with us all today and thank you, governor hutchinson for joining us and taking so many questions. it's also my honor to present you, sir with a national press club mug. >> hear, hear. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you all. >> great job. great job. >> this morning, israeli president herzog will address a joint meeting of congress, live beginning at 11 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, our free mobile video app or online at c-span.org. >> a healthy democracy doesn't just look like this, it looks like this where americans can

see democracy at work, when citizens are truly informed our republic thrives. get informed straight from the source on c-span, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word, from the nation's capital to wherever you are because the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks likes, c-span, powered by cable. >> live now to the u.s. capitol where the senate is about to gavel in. today lawmakers are expect today continue work on its version of the 2024 defense programs and policy bill. live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will now lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. lord of life, we magnify your