congress exercised its other power. beginning with the louisiana purchase and the acquisition of florida from spain. in 1828 the supreme court reinterpreted the territory clause not only granting congress property rights but sovereignty to govern the inhabitants and everything within its borders. that was a scene for territorial expansion all the way to the pacific and beyond. eventually admitted as one of the united states and enjoy the same rights as the citizens of several states. temporarily governed by congress until admission to statehood could be justified sufficient population. the core values embodied in the american form of government in 1898 the united states acquired three new territories. also different from those motivated previous annexations. the spanish-american war serve the political objectives. it also served economic objectives, sources of materials, i'm told export markets and geopolitical strategic objectives to compete with japan, asia, and in the caribbean to set the stage for an enter oceanic c

>> because congress specifically said and we merely carry out the will of congress. congress said we should issue a report, do a study, issue a report, and then act in terms of addressing arbitration in light of that study. >> your intention to perform the will of congress. when 80 members of congress write to you and ask for a specific question, do you believe that you should answer those questions? yes or no? >> i pay close attention to what members of congress tell me. it's my job tone force what congress has enacted. >> when 80 members of congress ask you a question, do you believe you have the responsibility to respond and answer those questions? >> i respond to individual members of congress but i enforce the laws that congress enacts. >> so the answer is no since you did not say -- >> no, that's not correct. the answer is yes. >> you do. well, we sent a letter back on june 17th of last year. we're still waiting for a complete answer. the bureau with regard to that so-called comprehensive study. the bureau ignored requests to disclose the topics that would be c

which is a congress that is doing nothing. so he called it the do-nothing congress. it was an effective message. >> he turned the tables, he had very much been on the political defensive domestically, anyway. so that was a very forceful way to take command. >> truman's tactics had damaged republicans in congress. but governor dewey is unaffected. >> dewey's team make a campaign film to be shown in movie theaters around the country. >> he's the product of a small town in the middle west. having been born over a general store in owosso, michigan in 1902. >> scheduled for an october release, it's a real hollywood production with thomas dewey as the lead. >> if you were going to cast someone in a movie, as a presidential candidate, he's the guy. >> tom dewey likes to take whatever time can he from his busy public life to spend with his two boys, tom junior and john. >> dewey is promising america a fresh start. >> they took a poll of the 50 most respected journalists that wrote about politics in america and asked them about who was going to win, dewey or truman. it was 50

congress could probably ban some of them out of thick systems but they haven't. >> host: they perfectly allow payday loans. >> guest: the criminal law is not to be read to extinguish a whole line of business unless it says so. what happens is the administrators were in cahoots with the other agencies and the justice department and believed a law about the regulation of protecting the regulation of the banking industry. the idea originally is that you didn't want tanks risking reputation in a way that might harm the stability of the financial system. it's to protect the financial system and is a part of that might be what if these banks start lending to industries which are very high risk so people might doubt whether they are actually financially stable. that i'm not so sure if it's something the government should be regulating even if it is then the government through this interpretation doesn't have any grounding in whatever the congress wanted to do and say we can stop things from regulating industries that we think of better reputations like gun sales, tobacco sales, the clean deale

term limit to the united states congress. [applause] we can fix this. these complicated problems are not so complicated that we can solve them. we can absolutely fix this budget. it's only worked in the last 40 years. do you think any business can survive doing this? no. it's what creates this problem. we can absolutely get rid of these redundant agencies the general accounting office facilitys that's about $400 million. we need to get our economy growing and get people back to work. it's not that hard to do if we would just revise these archaic and out of date and noncompetitive tax laws if we and push back the burdens if we would develop a plan of these god-given resources that god's blessed us with, we can get this economy going. we can absolutely save social security and medicare. we have to for the people who need it the most. the problem is, both of those trust funds are literally out of money in less than 15 years. their trust funds go to zero. we can actually absolutely get this economy going again. the next thing is

congress, in fact, uses the f.e.c. as a political tool to almost confuse people in campaign commercials of doing something wrong because they know nothing will ever happen so if we can reform the f.e.c. and get congress to pass a bill to change the demographics there, you know, maybe it rotates, four democrats, three republicans, depending upon who's president, it's never deadlocked 3-3, they're independent people appointed, that could do a lot to change the way that there's teeth in our election system and the way it's enforced and then you build from there. you start going to the states and the states are encouraged to keep up their reforms. you see jurisprudence efforts, whether it's a new supreme court or a few supreme court members, a constitutional amendment you could work on at the same time. that's the kind of momentum we need to see from the american people on this. you'll follow it more and get more involved and the whole purpose is citizen involvement and a system that is responsive to the average citizen bu

and what congress wants to pick for appropriation the law passed by congress cannot exclude the power of congress and now going back to the original idea it is in just a budget we should use the word power of the purse. but if it is controlled in that way if it can be controlled by congress not having to act. but that decision not to appropriate, with the house of congress to act independent. in they should be shaking in their boots and that is emblematic of what is going on. >> i commend your restraint not applauding wildly. that is the right way to think of this problem. since the 74 budget act and to make it more like the executive agency in a way that the president used his own vantage in with those 30 massive budgets those bills are written by those underfunded. it happens in the administrative agency by those who are supposed to be begging congress for many. and is not close to the process in congress should always be legislating it would be of a dramatic change but if you break the power over their own budget to fundamentally change that process. >> civic alike to return to the

congress? i think finally, i want to address a concern that both congress, representative bejarano and peralta raised i think from a very thoughtful level, and i wanted to bring it down to the island. you mentioned self-determination, and in this debate it seems to be missing the will of the people in puerto rico in this process. it's been mentioned as the responsibility of the congress or the united states or how the congress can act but i'm very curious that only because of one controversial site in 2012 that seems to answer the will of the people and i wonder if the entire panel feels that that was addressed completely there or the will of the self-determination of puerto rico still remains to be exercised. thank you all. >> representative bejarano, would you start with your answer? >> i'll be very brief. i'll answer a little bit of the last comment. i don't get too stuck on the result of the 2012 site, important as they may be because i think that moving forward only garnered a little over

it was suggested in this form that congress needs to promote legislation that binds congress with a result of nonterritorial options of billable. be it statehood, free association or independence. however, this has has not happened in congress and we need to do more than just wait and see. may this form serve as a petition for congress to act now. thank you all for attending. [applause]. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] >> tonight on a special primetime additional book tv, books about medicine and healthcare. next, author vincent on cancer research. then jeffrey lieberman the author of, shrinks the untold story of psychiatry, 1015, john and karen discuss their book about autism. and the author of the pandemics, sonya shaw on how to prevent the spread of infectious disease. >> doctor vincent and his

congress, most likely by congressman darrell issa who was the author in the last congress. and we look forward to examining that very closely to make sure that we are doing everything we can to encourage economic growth in our economy. and the h-1b program, done properly, does just that. so that's where we are on the issue. many people have been extremely disappointed with the president's lack of enforcement of our immigration laws and, therefore, the committee has also spent a lot of time on enforcement legislation. and i would say that most people in the public want to see those enforcement measures and want to see a president enforce our immigration laws before they see action taken on legal immigration matters because fact of the matter is if you don't trust the enforcement of the law, you're going to be very worried that your job is at stake with the government not protecting you from unfair competition by people simply entering the country. not just across the border, but also entering the country legally on business visas, student visas and simply overstaying. so thi

really, this is a matter for congress to decide. congress should decide here. we're scoping all ritz beyond what feels comfortable to us. that might not be wrong. it's possible that a judge might say, well, you know, that might be true but this is an appropriate application. but actually apple itself is starting to assert these sort of concerns about congress speaking in this area and actually as a defense to being compelled to do something. so i think when sort of all sides are saying it's time for congress to speak, you know, it's important to -- to sort of recognize the way that the role of congress is really being raised in the court process now that it's getting harder and harder to separate the two out. >> judge or rin stein, the judge in the eastern district of new york, otherwise known as brooklyn, suggested in his ruling that congress has spoken. congress spoke through two ways. through callia. it ruled out the kind of technical thing that the government is asking apple to do. it considered it and it rejected it explicitly through culia because culia s

how congress acts, if congress acts, or if the courts act and how they act. i think the public needs to weigh in. to know what the public is going to say. i think look at the polls depend on a ask the question you get a different answer. i think the public itself is somewhat conflicted because it's a very complicated issues and they often raise complex that are not easy to solve. >> i would just add that whatever you're having a public debate that's highly technical, that's always hard to have in a sophisticated sort of informed way. i hope that the technology community can also sort take solution in making sure people understand the technical issues at play. i also think though it's important to not dismiss people who disagree with sort of the technical mindset. i think there is a little bit of, i don't know, sort of a temptation to say if you have sort of a different value for you come down differently because you don't get it. if you knew math like we did, you just don't understand. it's just important not that it's indicative of the right or wrong answer

it's to be set by congress. congress wrote the laws. in 1996, immigration reform act, which lamar smith of texas was so instrumental in, is a large body of the immigration law that we have to follow. that was the considered will of the people, it was a bipartisan considered will of the people. signed by the president of the united states. that would be bill clinton back then, wouldn't it? and so we have a country that is the unchallenged greatest nation in the world. we have a lot to be proud of. we have a destiny of history that has been flattened. it's been descending for a lot of reason. economic reasons, foreign policy reasons, cultural reasons, failure to adhere to our oath to uphold the constitutional reasons, but in a large way, diminished because we have so little respect for the rule of law. of all of the things we can talk about with immigration policy, securing our borders, ending sanctuary cities, making sure that local law enforcement works again in cooperation with federal immigration officials, ending this idea that order

both of these gentlemen serve in the united states congress. in of them had to overcome their lives incredible obstacles. both of them, after their and beyond n 1965 came back to serve their country , to continue to organize, to continue in the case of -- to continue, in the case of sam johnson, to be a flight commander. john lewis, as we all know, is the conscience of the house of representatives. sam johnson is the most admired republican on the floor. they are both iconic and american heroes. and tomorrow evening at the library of congress they will be recognized. the bipartisan policy center has been helped by both the library of congress, the fortress of knowledge, an institution started by the united states congress, and houses our great history and tomorrow on display will be the documents of the civil rights movement and the direct participation of john lewis and the documents about the vietnam war and the cap tyity and imprisonment -- captivity and imprisonment of sam johnson. and speaking tomorrow evening on behalf of sam johnson will

congress not in session. the gentleman asked, what's a better way to proceed with this noncontroversial bill and the controversial bill? look, on the non-- either way is fine if we had an open rulemaking process, open rule, at least there would be some point to these discussions on the floor. there would be republicans and democrats who might have ideas to make these bills better, that would be bringing them forward, at least there would be some point to it. but no. there's no point to it. because we're debating it, we know the outcome. and republicans and democrats can't even offer their bills to enhance it, and we're prohibited during all of this time, debating one bill, that's largely noncontroversial, and one bill that isn't going anywhere and won't become law, we're spending the entire week debating these bills or most of the week, i know we'll be back to discuss another court case relating to imgration later this week. but the bulk of the week is debating this. rather than the budget, securing our borde

i believe congress did speak. the fbi tried to get this proposal through last year but they couldn't get a single member of congress to carry a bill that would do that. so my view is congress spoke by not accepting what the fbi and doj wanted to have happen. but there's another element to consider, which is courts interpret laws. courts don't have independent authority to make people do stuff. they can't compel you to take action. they need a source of authority which is a law. and in this case they are citing this all writs act, and what the judge is saying, i don't think that law would apply in this situation. if congress is just silent, the courts can't come up with its own authority to make you do something. they need some sort of a statutory basis to compel action. if congress decided i think that silence does speak volumes. >> let's move on to the second iphone in our tale of three iphones, and that is the one in san bernardino. kate, do you want to do the press he? >> sure. probably most of you know so i'll

which is a congress that is doing nothing. so he called it the do-nothing congress. it was an effective message. >> he turned the tables. he had very much been on the political defensive domestically, anyway. so that was a very forceful way to take command. >> truman's tactics have damaged republicans in congress. but governor dewey is unaffected. >> dewey's team make a campaign film to be shown in movie theaters around the country. >> he's the product of a small town in the middle west. having been born over a general store in owasso, michigan in 1902. >> scheduled for an october release, it's a real hollywood production with thomas dewey as the lead. >> if you were going to cast someone in a movie, as a presidential candidate, he's the guy. >> tom dewey likes to take whatever time can he from his busy public life to spend with his two boys, tom junior and john. >> dewey is promising america a >> dewey is promising america a fresh start. >> they took a poll of the 50 most respected journalists that wrote about politics in america and asked them about who was going t

then lectures in history on the culture of the antebellum congress. after that, 19th century african american senator blanche k. bruce, followed by the history of the joint committee on taxation. it's often argued our current political parties are the most divisive in history. proffers joann freeman who studies early american politics and brian balogh, who specializes in the 20th century disagree. up next, t

we do that to report to congress. i would congratulate congress. they did an excellent piece of work in passing the card agent. it made an enormous difference for consumers. different assessments of amounts that consumers have been saved in terms of previously exploited fees range from $16 billion to whatever. but it's important to recognize this is going forward year by year. every year consumers are saving. that's important. the second piece is this shows -- by the way, my experience goes back to when i was in state government before the card act was passed. we would hear tremendous complaints and concerns about the credit card product at that time. i'm now in the federal government, since the card act was passed. we are doing a regular review of this and watching the jd power consumer surveys which show increasing customer satisfaction in this marketplace year in and year out. it's a tremendous success story. it shows what can be done with serious substantive even-handed regulation. butt better performance by the industry. i give them credit for

congress to play. we seek to find accommodation to provide information and would only ask for those kinds of conversations that are necessary to go through the accommodation process to proceed. >> had he received a response from this committee when you've reached out to them to attempt to come together and have some discussion around these issues? >> only yesterday evening but that was after four people on the treasury staff received subpoenas for interviews. we did have conversations that would help us work to before that. >> i think whatever today you're still offering. >> we remain available and anxious. >> you and your staff are available to? >> the right level is for counsel to counsel. that's a visa been worked out for four years that i have been a part of. >> her house before you leave you can speak directly to the chairman and reinforce your desired to be responsive and to talk and to have these discussions. perhaps that would be helpful. her house there's some misunderstanding about what effor

but congress roles -- rules do not apply tonight. and later we will take questions from the audience. in the spirit of the subject of the evening, the microphones will go to the highest bidder. meredith, we with are marking as we all know, i say marking, not celebrating the 40th anniversary of the buckley decision in the supreme court. this is the decision that equated spending with speech. can you walk us through buckley, what it decided and why it is such an important decision? meredith: i will spend a minute explaining how we got here, because it is important to see how the issue developed. i could start back with the start of the country, but i don't think i will go back that far. i think that you need to look at this through the scope of the last century, where you had the 1907 corporate ban that was passed and the aftermath of the railroad scandals, into the 1940's, where there was a ban on campaign contributions, this was after world war ii and the steelworkers strike. after that, in the aftermath of watergate, and a series of

>> because congress specifically said and we merely carry out the will of congress. congress said we should issue a report, do a study, issue a report, and then act in terms of addressing arbitration in light of that study. >> your intention to perform the will of congress. when 80 members of congress write to you and ask for a specific question, do you believe that you should answer those questions? yes or no? >> i pay close attention to what members of congress tell me. it's my job tone force what congress has enacted. >> when 80 members of congress ask you a question, do you believe you have the responsibility to respond and answer those questions? >> i respond to individual members of congress but i enforce the laws that congress enacts. >> so the answer is no since you did not say -- >> no, that's not correct. the answer is yes. >> you do. well, we sent a letter back on june 17th of last year. we're still waiting for a complete answer. the bureau with regard to that so-called comprehensive study. the bureau ignored requests to disclose the topics that would be c

cord considered because congress specifically said and we carry out the will of congress, congress said that we should issue a report, do a study, issue a report, and then act in terms of addressing arbitration in light of that study and report. mr. garrett: -- [inaudible] -- perform the will of congress, when 80 members of congress write to you and ask for a specific question, do you believe that you should answer those questions? yes or no? mr. cordray: i pay close to attention to what members of congress tell me. it's my job to enforce the law that congress has enacted. mr. garrett: when 80 members of congress ask you a question, do you believe you have the responsibility to respond and answer those questions? mr. cordray: i respond to individual members of congress but i enforce the laws that congress enacts. mr. garrett: so the answer is no. mr. cordray: the answer is yes. mr. garrett: we sent a letter back on june 17 of last year. we're still waiting for let answer -- complete answers. you have disclosed all topics that have been covered by this study? that's a yes or no. mr. cord

that's why this will come back to the congress. you fix it for us, but fix it in a way that we like. i think we should fix it, but we should fix it in a way that protects the american taxpayer, the american consumer, and protects our economic system that is built upon having businesses able easily to do business across boundaries without being regulated by a multitude of different states. we see this not just in sales tax, but california right now is regulating the production of eggs, telling nevada and utah at any state that wants to ship eggs into california, if you want to sail -- sell eggs in our state, you have to raise the chickens and the eggs in a way that meets our regulations. all 50 states, if they decided to get into that and have conflicting regulations, it doesn't make sense. that's why we have the commerce clause in the constitution, and why we must make sure when we try to solve this problem that we don't do it in such a way that gives states the ability to regulate interstate commerce. peter: chairman goodlatte is

yet congress resisted. even after americans became more fully aware of the horrors of the not see death camps, congress resisted. can anyone tell me why congress would have been so resistant at this time to accommodating displaced persons? anyone want to venture a guess? bear in mind that at this moment in time, the national origin quotas are still in place. admitting people outside of those national origin quotas was a highly controversial idea. when the displaced persons act finally passed, it passed three years after the war had ended. even though president truman had advocated on behalf of the displaced person, he was tempted to veto this personal bill that came out of congress because he felt it was wholly inconsistent with american's sense of justice. in the end, he signed legislation because he wanted to be able to assist some segment of the displaced population, even though it was not the bill he was looking for. why did he consider this to be inconsistent with american sense of justice? the buildin

congress? i think finally, i want to address a concern that both congress, representative bejarano and peralta raised i think from a very thoughtful level, and i wanted to bring it down to the island. you mentioned self-determination, and in this debate it seems to be missing the will of the people in puerto rico in this process. it's been mentioned as the responsibility of the congress or the united states or how the congress can act but i'm very curious that only because of one controversial site in 2012 that seems to answer the will of the people and i wonder if the entire panel feels that that was addressed completely there or the will of the self-determination of puerto rico still remains to be exercised. thank you all. >> representative bejarano, would you start with your answer? >> i'll be very brief. i'll answer a little bit of the last comment. i don't get too stuck on the result of the 2012 site, important as they may be because i think that moving forward only garnered a little over

into office, he have a democratic congress. dick bove neil, that is a relationship he needs to cultivate. he says give me priorities and we will work on them. carter says here is 12. we will do all of them. no, i will do what worked with me in georgia. he ends up being aggravated by little slides. even nixon gave them breakfast. what winds up happening is gets primary by ted kennedy. a sitting president who has to fight for his own renomination within his party. that is a direct consequence of the way carter failed to nurture those relationships with democratic leaders in congress. he overestimated his speaking powers. he did try to govern over the head of congress on the subject of energy. he gave five national addresses. each to a smaller and smaller audience. grossly power underestimated. the move issues opinions. carter didn't recognize that. great quarterbacks? i imagine you are going to say modern quarterbacks. tom brady. peyton manning. someone would have said dan marino. upy would have tried to suck to me and that would

those hearings i think were very helpful at educating members of the committee and other members of congress and the general public about the importance of this issue. interestingly we have already scheduled a hearing on encryption before the apple fbi controversy broke out to the public's attention and we were right thing pleased with the presentation made by all of the witnesses at the hearing but i think the number one thing that comes across is encryption is a good thing and a very important thing and we have got to find our way through this not be weakening encryption but by continuing effort to strengthen it and you only need to look at the problems that we have had with foreign governments, with criminal enterprise, with hackers stealing millions of documents from government agencies and alleys of credit card records from retail establishments, financial establishments to know that we need to be moving toward stronger uses of encryption and stronger encryption itself so that has got to be the foundation upon which we look at this. having said that it's also important to recognize the

but then in 2008 guests who controlled congress in 2008 come , the democratic congress. they extended it to protecting plants but not just united states plans that any -- everybody around the world. so you can't import a plant that is in violation of another country's law. do you remember the story flex >> guest: yes. it's really interesting and has to do with whether you can import certain kinds into the united states or not and this completely turned out to be illegal under the law but this was according to the regulators illegal under the american law so these people were prosecuted for basically importing the wrong kind of seafood. >> host: and evidently they didn't even know because later -- but they got six years and the woman got two years. >> guest: so you have to ask yourself why, this is the other thing there are so many problems in the country, so many things that demand government attention. why is the government sending prosecutors after people of course i live in berkeley whether you have paper or plastic seems to be one of the most important public policy

congress decided to tighten the rules on this. that the deduction available to presidents for this was too valuable. in 1969, they moved to scale it back. in the tax reform act of 1969, did scale back. up until that point, president could deduct the appreciated value of the papers against his income. he never had to pay any tax on that value, he never had to treat a value of those papers as income. and then there was a huge deduction available at the end. congress scaled this back in 1969 to limit it to essentially the cost of the paper on which the materials were prepared. johnson chose not, when the deadline of july 26 -- he chose not to rush another gifts through the archives, but nixon did. the summer of 1973, long after this point, comes out the nixon actually gave a substantial number of boxes of material to the national archives, it took a very substantial deduction on his 1969 tax return of $500,000, more than he could deduct in a single year. initially only did acknowledge that that was the value of the papers he donated.

cord considered because congress specifically said and we carry out the will of congress, congress said that we should issue a report, do a study, issue a report, and then act in terms of addressing arbitration in light of that study and report. mr. garrett: -- [inaudible] -- perform the will of congress, hen 80 you have disclosed all topics covered by this study? that's a yes or no. mr. cordray: i'm not sure what and forth cords there has been. i know we responded to that letter. work with you further. mr. garrett: i also -- you also failed to provide the general public with any meaningful opportunities to provide input for the thing. was there a reason why you decided that certain information would be held confidential and not disclosed to the public? mr. cordray: some of the information, depending on how we obtain it from the american arbitration association and others, businesses have deemed confidential, may involve trade secret information and the like. those would be the obstacles. wouldn't be any desire on my part. mr. garrett: are those the only sections that are precluded from

they took it to congress. they appear to be getting a nice reception today, generally pretty shery are members of the senate saying it is probably time for the government to get involved. if they do not want road bumps or hurdles in the future. emily: there was a warning by an expert from duke that set the national highway transportation safety administration does not have the expertise to properly regulate this technology and that people are going to die eventually and what happens then ? tim: it is a matter of time. the question is when. she is pushing for transparency. one of the sharper moments during the exchange with some of the senators with these representatives is over the idea of what they support a minimum standard for safety and privacy? members of the companies were sidestepping that or they want the government to clear the way for technology but do not want to necessarily agree to roles that will limit what they can do. emily: tim higgins joining us from washington. thank you so much. i got the c

again as congress. instead of the scenario, the founder sphere, which is congress standing up too much and pushing too hard against the other branches of government. >> it is as though the polarity has been switched suns the time madison was federalist 10. and i believe you wrote something about this a couple of years ago. talking about how congress now has an incentive and has reacted to the incentive. to not only accumulate more power, to accrue more power to itself or get rid of it as much as possible, to not exercise that power. for the simple reason it tends to be a political insulator. we don't exercise the law making power. we can pass it along to somebody else. imagine a hypothetical or not so hypothetical scenario where congress passes a law or considers a law that says we shall have clean air. what idiot will vote against that? everyone wants clean air. they want to breath clean air. they understand that clean air or dirty air moves from one state to another. that there is very much an interst

sheparding the marshal plan through congress. these things were seen as essential members to forestall soviet expansion throughout europe. truman's demeanor, his uponesty, plain spoke b ways, we gained greater appreciation for that when he was succeeded by lincoln johnson who lied to the country about the involvement in vietnam and richard nixon who was not a crook when he actually was a crook. eisenhow eisenhower, another press who has been improved, whose ranking improved over time, when eisenhower left office, people thought he had been a nice guy but he had not really worked hard at his presidency. he had spent more time golfing than leading. he was a presider, not a president. new archival evidence has shown that was an image that eisenhower allowed people to have of him. he worked extremely hard behind the scenes to point of pushing himself to heart attacks. he claims to not engage in personalities. but he manipulated people left and right. and generally speaking, we have developed an appreciation for his political skills t

he will do an address to congress every year. they don't call it the state of the union yet, but his address to congress which he writes with his cabinet. he will come to the senate for his inauguration for his second term as president. he kind of keeps it low key. he doesn't do the bigger event that we saw downstairs in the house of representatives with john adams which was a much bigger deal. washington just going to a second term basically comes in and takes his oath of office and more or less goes back to work because he didn't really want the big public ceremony to take place, but that's something that would change with adams' inauguration and of course when you move down to washington you start having inaugurations at the new capitol building so that would be a change. so we're growing into what the united states is today. as you look around this room, a lot of the guys that sat here in the senate were the architects of our constitution because senators being chosen by their states, a lot of the guys that had a big impact o

with the ely with congress to make invasive species a priority in this congress. while i'll be leaving congress at the end of this term, it's my hope we'll continue to work together this year in a bipartisan and constructive manner to protect the great lakes and i'm willing to partner with anyone who is is willing to do that. thank you, ms. kaptur, for doing this special order hour, and i'll yield back my time to you. thank you. ms. kaptur: thank you, congressman benishek, very, very much, and thank you for your leadership on great lakes issues. that is a vast district that you represent and one that is vital to our country and we thank you for participating this evening. before i call on congressman mike kelley of the third district of pennsylvania -- mike kelley of the third district of pennsylvania, i just -- mike kelly of the third district of pennsylvania, the great lakes, actually if it were a country on its own will be the third largest economy in the world. we are talking about a vast and important part of our nation with more fresh water than any other pa

there's a battle, of course, with congress. we all know that. congress has their own ideas about who should be responsible for reconstruction and the terms under which those states should be readmitted. even though the way davis bill in fact is not as radical as bill is portrayed as being. people at the time thought it was fairly modst changing 10% to 50% and requiring an ironclad oath instead of the oath that lipping con required. still lincoln decide to pocket the wade davis bill and takes the extraordinary measure of explaining why he's pocket vetoing it which led to a response from waive and davis. in 1864 again you have this public dispute about reconstruction that appears to be a battle over presidential versus congressional authority although in lots of ways it wasn't because lincoln always accepted the way, the reality that it was congress who had the power to see the elected representatives. that the president as the executive would go about the business of helping the states to organize the governments but congress would review the cre

congress could probably been some of them out of existence if it wanted to but congress hasn't. >> host: .frank purposely allowed payday loans. >> guest: general attitude of the criminal law is not to be read to extinguish a whole line of business unless it clearly says so. instead what happens is the administrators, fdic infused with other agencies, ultimately the justice department with the very vague law and regulation about protecting the reputation of the banking industry. host hotel at reputation risk was originally. >> guest: and originally was you didn't want to risk and reputation in a way that might harm the stability of the financial system to colitis to protect the stability of the financial system. part of that might be what if the banks start lending to industries which are very high risk and so people might doubt whether the banks are financially stable. that's not something i'm sure they should be regulated. even if it is, the government through this interpretation that doesn't really have any grounding in whatever congress wanted to do since they can not dance to regula

congress. i want to be one of those people, i know my colleagues in congress share my view and my optimism. with your help we'll get it done. thank you all and god bless you. [applause] >> thank you. i'm ron desantis, i represent florida's sixth district in the u.s. house. mr. desantis: i'm running for the u.s. senate to succeed senator rubio. u guys can check me out at desantis2016.com. when i was in the navy, you had to do a lot of different things, one is conduct yourself with honor, courage and commitment. another thing you had to do is be protective of the nation's secrets and classified information. let me tell you this. any one of those people that i serve with or myself, if they had taken top secret information and put it on a private email account, they would have been removed from their post. they probably would have faced court-martial. and they very well may have ended up in fort he venn worth, kansas. so what i say to you is, why should that be any different for the secretary of st

with, which congress, decades ago, people in congress now didn't pass then laws but the anymore congress now can pass laws to stop it, to take away the power, and to conduct oversight hearings and to hold people responsible and they're not. and part of the reason -- there's a lot of ropes d reasons why. part is perhaps the voters don't demand it. they worry more about the pork being brought home to the district instead of asking about, are you following up on the irs? some of the congressmen andwomen don't have an individual incentive because this is not going to help you get re-elected or help you raise money for your campaigns and some has to be the congressional leadership. they see the irs as an issue but they're not pursuing the issue after tissue pull it back. >> host: i don't think the runs know how to hold hearings. i don't. they're not tactful at it. the benghazi hearings were one of them. it was almost a disaster, and yet i had all kinds of information about -- real simple concepts leak the security personnel went from 38 to 9. you can take that one away and just pound on it th

had.ent my that congress he raised the size of the military without the congress's approval. but he preserved the union and gave the civil war in more of the tests with the emancipation proclamation. he never lost sight of what the united states was fighting for. of pressure in 1964 -- 1864 to call off the election. what lincoln said, if the united states did not do so, the country would have lost its character as a free democratic people. the whole class has been leading up to this point. we have been studied presidential leadership, trying to understand how presidents are , or can overcome obstacles. the whole point is to achieve greatness. i want you to think about how we might conceptualize presidential greatness, and you are going to look at different scholars have tried to rank presidents from one to 44. we are one to talk about have greatness is more difficult to achieve. we may never see another person like abraham lincoln. the modern presidents, they have been weak, and not achieved the like lincolntness did. one thing we know, americans love to rank things. i estima

on congress to pass sweeping voting rights legislation. he was moved by the march. he said at the time, to congress, at times history and faith meet at a single time, in a single place, to change the search for freedom. so it was at lexington and concorde. so it was at appomattox. and so it was at soma, -- at selma, alabama. i'm so honored that he said that. his words are recognition of what we all now -- all know. that wasn't just about black history, it was about american history and any other event in our country. selma was an act of courage that challenged the conscious of the country. lisa's mother was the one who answered the challenge, saw it on tv, the march, the treatment of the marchers, and went down to alabama. she was shocked, as you know, a martyr to the cause of helping out. we were asking her, as children and as family, this year family ever asked the question why she went -- does your family ever asked the question why she went? she says no, her family wonders why everyone didn't go. [applause] rep. pelosi: with your heroi

congress. that is us. even if congress doesn't act, that doesn't give the executive ranch burger king authority. ask for 30 seconds more. mr. session: one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman virginia tech for one minute. mr. poe: that doesn't give the president -- mr. polis: did you say burger king? define that. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman controls the time. mr. poe: stick around and listen. burger king philosophy is, the president wants it his way. he can't have it his way. he's got to follow the constitution. he's a former constitutional law professor, he ought to know better. and that's what this lawsuit's about. that's why it's a constitutional issue. and that's why we should join in with those other governors in filing this lawsuit with an am mi cuss brief to support the -- with an amicus brief to support the constitution of the united states. the executive branch should take care of the constitution not tear up the constitution. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speak

how will congress respond to these conversations? rep. mccarthy: well, congress's responsibility would be to appropriate the money. and i will tell you, from a bipartisan basis, there is more commitment, especially after the iran agreement, let's make a longer agreement here, a stronger agreement where there is no doubt, israel mr. sesno: -- mr. sesno: longer and strong? rep. mccarthy: yes. rep. hoyer: frank, our premise has been, for a long period of time now, that our investment in israel is an investment in our security. that premise needs to be maintained. hopefully we will achieve a new memorandum of understanding in the short-term and again, indicate the bipartisan consensus that we have in defense of israel. that is an important message to send to the middle east and to the world. mr. sesno: and when do you think this will happen? rep. hoyer: sooner rather than better and we need to make sure that israel has what it needs to defend itself, remains secure and sovereign. mr. sesno: kevin, when you talk about this agreement, this arra

this congress seems pretty dysfunctional. i'm willing to - but it's dysfunctional - accept the white house. - because it's not being led. - i'm willing to accept the white house is responsible at least for half. - you can have an irresponsible herd of cats if nobody's herding it. you can have an irresponsible herd of cattle, to be more appropriate to texas, if nobody's herding it. and so, it looks like it's the cattle's fault, but it's the herder's fault. and we have no presidential leadership, no willingness to spend the capital. this president, george herbert walker bush, sat down with congress and swallowed, "read my lips: no new taxes", - no new taxes. because the country needed a five-year budget to strengthen the dollar and to provide a budget for the young men and women that he had sent to deal with saddam hussein. otherwise, we'd have gone to a defense sequester. when we got stuck on the americans with disabilities act, this president got himself involved. this was not a president that said, "go get me a piece of legi

especially when the branches are so paralyzed that nothing is getting done in congress and congress and the executive clearly are not seeing eye to eye on those things, the supreme court is best with this outsized amount of fiber -- power. and this court sitting on the 30 years, it is not good. we want 18 years. every two years a new nominee. not an election year. to harken back to mitch mcconnell and harry reid, i want in an odd-numbered year, in the summer, not when the court is in session, and it would be staggered. every two years there is a new nominee. over time, these regular nominees would mean that comedy trailer appointments, god for awaynother justice pass unexpectedly, you would have a protocol and you know when and how vacancies would be filled. brian: what does require amendment to the constitution? gabe roth: i don't think it would. there is argument about this, but federal judges hold their office during the behavior, and office to be defined as office as federal judge, they would be federal judges for life especially where eight of the nine are federal judges. it makes

this would help congress -- this would help ensure congress budgets and therefore governs by setting priorities and respecting its fiscal limits. a budget is meaningful if not followed while american families shoulder the responsibility of balancing their checkbooks and living within their means, washington continues to spend money that it simply does not have. mr. chairman, i look forward to working with you and other members of the committee on budget process reforms so we can better ensure policies set out in the budget resolution become a reality. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. now please to yield to the gentleman of wisconsin mr. grothman. >> thanks. some things have been said about, you know, who this vision benefits more, does it benefit one part of america against another part of america. one thing that jumps off the page on this when i compare it to barack obama's budget, in the next ten years we will wind up with a balanced budget, he does not. but even more he seems proudly to introduce a document that will increase the total debt over $6 trillion over the next te

>> yes. >> yes. >> i defer to congress on that. >> i also defer to congress. >> if there's a specific provision you suggest the committee include in an fcc reauthorization bill, i hope you'll feel free to follow up after the hearing with any suggestions that you might have about that. it's something i think would be useful in making a relationship between the congress and fcc more product trusted and more understood for sure. >> we don't want to threaten the vibrant market for video programming. so mr. chairman, how do you respond to the concerns that i raised about the impact your proposal could have on existing copyright and contract provisions nor video content? does the fcc -- do your proposal s impact third parties, whether they'll be able to alter or add to programming? >> thank you. i think there are probably several responses to that. wirch r one, that which the operator puts out should remain sacrosanct and untouched and nothing in our proposal creates an opportunity for that to happen. because copyright law remains in place, because the language that we used actual ly was li