congress. the u.s. capital historical society hosted this 50-minute ev ent. [applause] >> good afternoon. yes, i am delighted you are all here. it is miserable hot out there. i took a cab over, and i still felt miserable. but we are here, and we will talk about congressional staffing and the history there of. as indicated, i and lee created the legislative branch working group a couple years ago. our rather cheeky motto is "make congress great again." there are those who will ask me, when was it ever great? and i say episodically. that's an important thing to remember about a legislature. you can only expect it to be episodically great, not relentless the great. but humorous side, our undertaking -- humor aside, our undertaking is serious. with congress being the institution supposed to most reflect the diversity of the country and serve as the wellspring for the laws that govern us, and direct our spending. lee and i were concerned about the health of congress, and troubled that it seems to in

despite congresses pennypinching, many still think congress is over staff. we have a survey data that shows that. elected officials be the notion , the rather quaint notion of the citizen legislator who needs only horse sense, not a bunch of staff, to govern wisely. so yes, the mindset endures despite the fact that the amount of money congress on staff is generally a rounding error. it is less than what the lobbyists spent to influence progress. what is the flood -- where does the power lie? what congress? legislative staffing is no small matter. commerce needs staff to carry out its duties and to respond to public demands. congress needs staff who are as smart as the executive branch officials, interest group representatives who have their own ideas as to what policies should be made. this me for help however has to be balanced against the value of representative governments. for national legislature -- staffing to serve the members and not imagine themselves as unelected representative who should direct policy. they are not the ones that have to face the v

a court can decide what the congress said, the significance of what congress said. they can decide to some extent what congress intended but to say whether the agency is doing something that is reasonable as a matter of policy brings the courts into exactly what we don't want, which is the courts to decide on policy. so that's why i think it was wrong. >> let us talk about non-delegation. as you said, about filling in details, that's one way to look at the non-delegation doctrine is drawing a line between the issues that are of such magnitude and scope that they really are legislative and congress has to decide them, or issues where the executive branch has just delegated the task of making a factual finding, or filling in small details. how would you -- there's other ways the supreme court's done this much more recently. i mean, i guess the last century. they said -- >> that's recent. >> relatively speaking. they said there needs to be an intelligible principle. int that's good enough. what would your non-delegation doctrine look like? >> frankly, i have no idea. w

we elect a a congress that is going to fight for it. we did get a little bit of money in the budget last year to start the process of paying for this time and congressman lance is correct that we got it primarily because congressman feeling house and is now the chairman of the appropriations committee which writes that budget. he is retiring, getting up into the republicans retain the majority, and next chair of that all-important committee that will decide this question will be some either from texas, oklahoma, or alabama. those are the candidates. we are not going to get federal funding for the gateway tunnel if we reelect the leadership that congressman lance supports in the united states congress. >> mr. lance, 30-second. >> yes. i am hopeful that the new chairman of the appropriations committee might be caucus the goal of oklahoma and is a perfectly reasonable man. he's been in my own residence in new jersey and i think you'd be favorably disposed to helping us. i do not discover against members of congress based upon the geographi

here, congress set forth all the rules. it made judgments about all the requirements. >> what do you say that under your view, congress could have simply enacted a statute with respect to post-enactment offenders that mirrored the language of d and said well, it's up to the attorney general to come up with a comprehensive and feasible registration regime in the public interest? you would be here defending that, wouldn't you? >> justice gorsuch, it would be a much broader delegation under this court's cases, you would need more of a general policy. it's not clear why congress wouldn't apply -- >> what's the difference? half a million people are affected by this delegation. >> yes. if congress found there are real practical problems with applying it even going forward, here's our general policy to the attorney general. i don't know that it would be importantly different from saying to the attorney general which drugs will be controlled substances under the act, or which bridges will we think obstruct the rivers, or who will b

we see liberals on the coast trying to buy a new congress. michael bloomberg wrote a $100 million check himself to defeat republicans in congress, another guy in california wrote in $100 million check to defeat republicans in congress so you see the monies being opened by. to try and drown us out. montclair mikey is getting all of this money not from this district but from all over the country to try and put herself and nancy pelosi back in charge of congress, you're not going to let that happen, are you? as one in 20 days you got to make sure, this election is so important you need to talk to your neighbors and your relatives in this election. this election is so important , you need to make sure people understand the states and the consequences. you have a very good man and jay weber, was important to him is he's proven, he's tested, he's known, he's from here. you know him, he knows you, he knows north jersey and he's the kind of talented person will hit the ground running when he gets to congress so thank you for being here, thank you for

that's not how congress works. in congress what happens is you have a dispute among parties, among factions that is taken up in an institution designed to achieve accommodations so we can revolve disputes in ways that could be more enduring because everybody gets something and you win arguments by persuading people not by persuading a third party that the other guy is crazy which is more or less what you have to do in court but by persuading the second party they have something to gain by working with you. that is why democracy works in way he can endure and we want fewer of the differences to be resolved bit courts even when those are resolved and happy with the outcome. it would be better if it had been reached by some kind of democratic accommodation than by did he sigh sif result that for the other side is simply a loss. >> victoria you worked on the hill for senate judicial committee in the late 1980's at the time i doubt very many people thought it was an era about which people would look back with no, sir ta

lance, 30 seconds. >> this congress has passed gun control legislation that -- a democratic congress did not pass. repealing the dickie amendment. when barack obama was first president and the democrats controlled the house and the senate by 60 votes, the administration did not bring former the assault weapons ban, because it would not have passed the senate. i think we should work in areas where we can be effective and i believe the next most effective step is the background check. limiting the gun show loophole. i am committed to doing that. my views are based upon my views and not political considerations. moderator: one more rebuttal. >> you weren't for any of those things until you got afraid of losing reelection. and your past campaigns you probably campaigned on your opposition to universal background checks and to everything that you now say you are for. the dickie on then that languished in the energy and commerce committee which he sat on for years -- it's the law after the parkland massacre. >> i'm so proud of my support by gabby deferred's and i think she is the important

and who will control congress come january 2019. the eyes of the world and the nation are on us. are we going to deliver for them or are we going to let them down. we got to deliver with the people of this country and not just for the people of the united states but the people of the world who count on americans, count on americans to be strong and free and prosperous. so here's what i'm going to ask you to do. for 20 days i need you to help us get out that vote. republicans vote in this district, we win. we don't vote we won't win. starting now i need your help. conveniently we have phone banks set up right across the way. we are going to get together and hear from the next, the speaker of the house but immediately after i invite you to come on over. i'm going to do it. you do it. grab the phone make some calls, get out the vote with us. it's never been more important. fight hard for for a backyard d delivered the seat for the house of representatives, okay? [applause] all right. now, i know you all heard from me plenty over the la

congress is broken right now. she is the leader of a congress that has blown a huge hole in the budget, not dealt with health care or immigration, and even left town without a farm bill. we can do better. to congress and work with farmers, veterans, students, seniors, and defend our health care, workforce solutions, not just talking points. eastern washington deserves an forcate that has more getting things done than simply standing up for party priorities. it would be an honor for me to serve you in congress i and -- congress and im asking for your vote this evening. >> thank you. we begin our debate tonight with the economy. the u.s. is currently experiencing robust economic growth locally -- growth. is at a 28employment year low and consumer spending is going up. the federal deficit is also growing by 17% this past year. trade agreements with our long-term trading partners are undergoing significant changes. lisa,rst question to you, what do you see as the direction of this economic growth? the current has cong

where as congress could write something that's generational. it could clearly be so much more enduring. and so, you know, to think that ten years later, three administrations, five congresss, and we're pretty well exactly back to where we started is a proposition that i just -- you know, i'm just not at peace with it. i can't abide by it. and again alongside you and others, i've been fighting this battle for the 16 years i've been in congress. i hope somebody smarter and better might succeed where i have not. but i don't know who's going to take up the fight. ed royce is leaving. i'm leaving. richard baker has left. and i haven't found the person who's going to take up this fight. but it is a fight worth fighting. and last i looked, housing is still roughly 80% of our -- 18% of our economy. and again, there's no reason we ought to have a government guarantee in the second mortgage market. none whatsoever. as you know, most oecd nations don't have it. they don't have anything remotely resembling of fanny and freddie. most of them have, you know,

that is not what congress did. instead, congress wrote a statute, 1226 c as an exception to the general detention scheme in 1226 a which applies except as provided in subsection c. not as except -- not as except as provided in section c 2. as the government would have it. congress wrote section 1226 c in two paragraphs. the first paragraph says who gets taken into custody and when. and the second paragraph says, of those people in paragraph 1 who can be released. now, the government claims instead in a stretch of a reading with, that you focus only on paragraphs a through d and paragraph 1. in other words, they say section c 2 stands alone as an authorization for mandatory detention. but that's not what congress. it except as an alien described in paragraph 1. not an ail yaen described in paragraph 1 a through d. and the government's reading trying to pull section c 2 out as that free standing authorization leads to three serious anomalies that they struggle to explain as they did with you, justice kagan. the first

i believe that congress, this particular congress, has failed to act, has failed to hold this president accountable but what they have allowed to happen is repeal things like the green power plan or put into the farm bill the repeal of the clean water role. these are things that congress must pass. the environmental protections that we rely on. and what you're talking about peter is this president or any .resident overreaching and this president has, in my opinion, reached and it is the duty of congress to push back and to pass laws that will protect us not only now but into the future. disagree with i my democratic opponent. she is misinformed. we have an authorization for the use of military force, it is under the 2001 authorization use of military force. i believe that should be updated given that we are facing additional security threats around the globe, given the rise of isis. i believe president trump's foreign-policy has been a strong suit. i think he was correct for example in act to strike syria in response to the syrian presidents use of chemical weapons on his own population

the idea is that members of congress have things they want to achieve. the political scientist richard fratto identified three, and we argue that a candidate is more likely to get the vote of a lawmaker if they feel the candidate once chosen as leader will help them achieve one or more of these goals or objectives. how do they know that? they can figure that out in a number of ways or estimate it with the campaign itself or, if a candidate is saying our party is doing poorly, we need two more sure at more vulnerable candidates, that message may not mean much but if you're in a swing district it might mean more and you might be more like me to vote for the candidate. candidate characteristics, background, gender, ethnicity, these can be important to members is respect to their goals and the larger context. for instance, if you're from the south and everyone else in the party is not from the south and someone who is running is from the south, you may feel you need someone in your region in leadership and that might help the person with southerners. this is

that is not what congress did. instead, congress wrote a statute, 1226c as an exception to the general detention seeing in 1226 a. it applies, except as provided in subsection c. not as except as provided in section c2. as the government would have it. congress wrote, section 1226c into paragraphs. the first paragraph says, who gets taken into custody and when. the second paragraph says, of those people, in paragraph one, who can be released. the government claims instead, in a stretch of a reading, that you focus only on paragraph a through d. and paragraph one. in other words they say, section c2 stands alone as an authorization for mandatory detention. but that's not what congress said. it said, except as an alien described in paragraph one. not an alien described in paragraph one a through g. the government's reading tried to pull section two, c2, out in the freestanding authorization three serious anomalies. they struggled tost explain. the first anomaly is, as you notice, that the transition rule, which were

i was a new member of congress. we had the biggest new member in 1993 next 93 -- because of redistricting and things like that. i didn't get to know tom very well because i was a new member trying to find my way around the castle. my joke is what i found where the restrooms were at, a wind up with newt gingrich as speaker in 1995. steve: what was he like? rep. green: newt was another very thoughtful person. but coming from a democratic perspective, we didn't agree on many things. steve: what do you think your legacy is in washington, in congress and texas? is. green: i hope my legacy the work i did on education we changed the federal formula to provide more money to poor school districts, including schools in the district i represented, even though it's a houston independent school district, to provide more federal money to schools. in 1997, i moved to the congress commissioned to work on energy and health care. i district has always been health care challenge. before the affordable care act, 44% of my constituents

for congress are going hard left. they want to get rid of controlling our border. they want to have socialized medicine and take over and undercut medicare. they want us to move so far left we wouldn't recognize themselves. they don't call them progressi progression, they call themselves democratic socialists. and we need to have a record that needs to be advanced. in just the last less than two years, we have taken a military that was being hollowed out, a va that was a disgray, that was sweeping this -- all of these things under the rugs, and we've turned it around. our military now is back on track and being rebuilt. our va is being overhauled. and i was there with our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines [cheers and applause] we were there to thank them for keeping us safe and they were saying, thank president trump and this congress for making us whole again. [applaus [applause] >> they just said it. having this kind of economic growth, that doesn't happen by accident. having this kind of economic growth where t

the premise of the question is the congress used the definition in the ss la. it's on the first page of the government statutory appendix and it is entirely different from this definition. why did congress used a different approach in title vii when everyone understood at least everyone who was talking about is understood that the person wants to mimic what title vii did. i'm attributing rationality to someone who wasn't doing his job very well, that title vii began with different language pre- amendment from the language. it began with language that was not as expensive about the definition of person so here we have an extremely expansive definition for any organized group of persons. it's the most expansive definition the court has ever seen. >> that entire list all apply to private entities. >> they followed municipal corporations. this language to corporations and associations every time the court has encountered that phraseology it has concluded the political subdivisions. it did in the city of chattanooga and even without a definition. >> it's not just pe

do that in congress. moderator: prior to this debate each candidate was asked to submit a question to be asked of her opponent. for this portion we will have , each candidate answer in 60 seconds without a rebuttal from your opponent. lisa, your question is why do you choose to ignore the will of the people and sue the voters of washington state to make it easier to raise taxes? mrs. brown: so this is about an initiative that required a two thirds vote to even close a tax loophole. i believed it was unconstitutional and our state supreme court found it was unconstitutional, but the real has balanced budgets, who has made tough decisions in a recession to cut programs, work with others sides of the aisle and get things done, still living within our means? that is what i have done. i have always supported fair taxes not taxing the middle , class. moderator: thank you. there is no rebuttal. your question is, protections for people with pre-existing conditions came about because of the affordable care act, wh

it should come before congress. again, i disagree, my democratic opponent is misinformed because there is an authorization for the use of military force and it should be updated. i have been clear on that an d active in the discussion on the house armed services. ms. kahn: 17 years covers both republican and democratic administrations. this congress and all of those before have failed their constitutional responsibilities. they have violated the oaths, the pledge they made to defend and support our constitution. article one section eight -- our congress is responsible for declaring war and it is not just about having a congressional conversation but having a conversation with america. why are we going to war? why have we murdered more than 4 million people? why are we in 76 different countries around the world with active-duty troops? what are we doing in africa? these should be public conversations. we should be part of the conversation about why and where we send our sons and daughters off to war that do not need

debbie mucarsel-powell is the woman running for congress. my husband, it was reported in the miami herald, he was at the -- an attorney at a u.s. based company. kolomoisky is an investor. we have nothing to do with this man. we have not been subsidized by someone you are accusing me of. it is truly shameful and tone deaf for your party to now show a negative attack with a man with a gun pointing at the screen. my 13-year-old son was watching the baseball game with my husband the other night and saw that ad. for someone whose lost my dad to gun violence, to have an ad like that shows the tactics your party and you are using because you are desperate. you have nothing to run on. mr. curbelo: i think she said something dishonest again. federal court documents show clearly that her husband has received hundreds of thousands of dollars -- this is not just some shady character. this is someone accused of murdering people, hiring people for murder. we all have to be responsible for who we decide to associate with. your family has decided -- ms. muc

you're a highly respected member of your congress. you were mentioned as a potential speaker at one point. so i'm puzzled why you want to leave the congress at this stage. your time with the house financial services committee ends by house rules or republican rules. but why do you want to leave kopg entirely? >> well, before i address that, if i could just thank you for the invitation and i guess milton friedman didn't get it wrong. i'm having to speak so i didn't get a free lunch, but at least i got lunch. the rest of you, please enjoy your lunch. again, as a member of congress, i'm used to speaking and having no one day attention to anything i'm saying. in other words, please enjoy your lunch. so to answer your question, you know, i think more people should be asking the question, not why are you leaving, but why did you stay so long, probably is the more appropriate question to ask. so, yes, i am term limited as chairman of the house financial services committee. and it's hard for people in this town to believe it, but a lot of us

-- his bills to the floor of congress. they will not bring a gun control bill. they will not bring environmental regulation bills. they will lock them up and never see the light of day. if you wrote a bill on the carbon tax, 24% which is less than the exxon bill which is $24. both parties voted to ge get a n balance. >> three days before you introduced the bill, paul ryan rand on the floor of the house saying under no circumstances will the house of representatives ever even consider the concept of the carbon tax and by the way, $24 per ton is far less than exxon mobil build utheexxon mobil bui0 tax per ton. we have to have a change of leadership. the secret is not just a label and photo op trips to see. the secret is as i said in my opening statement bipartisan fact gathering. the stories are real people from ben and sprayed by agent orange and have problems that are not curable. examine the facts and the science and from that will come bipartisan consensus. this is where we bring people together. >> mr. wallace. this is

we see this reflected in congress. democrats have more women before,than ever republicans have fewer. the marriage gap is growing. , socialave race, gender interactions and values dividing us, amplified by politicians and that nature of tribal media, it is not easy to find ways out of it. a lot of the talk about reforming congress to bring it back into the game does not take into account that things that work when you have parties with goodwill willing to work together may have serious unintended consequences when you don't have that working. john lawrence, a great historian and former chief of staff to nancy pelosi had a piece on this yesterday, throwing a little skepticism and shade on the reforms that many of us would like to see happen, some of which include restoring the office of technology assessment, laudable, butre we have to keep in mind we will not get out of this mess for a very long time. >> the three of you have not mentioned the regular order. francis lee says 51% of the bills do not go through the regul

scuse me what can congress do to have a a forceful say and how this all plays out. well congress a number of senators have already invoked the magnitsky act that was obviously named for a russian dissident basically what that means is the white house has one hundred twenty days of four months to come back after an investigation and say whether mr. human rights were violated if they were by whom then those people will face sanctions the united states they can have their property forfeited one thing that people in congress are talking more and more about and there were calls for this even before this incident they're saying that it is time for the u.s. military to stop helping the saudi arabia coalition in yemen. right now the u.s. is supplying some bombing targets refueling capabilities it's not at all clear that saudi arabia would be able to continue the pace of its bombing campaign in yemen without that crucial u.s. support so we could see a resolution from the senate saying that needs to and we could see bills from both houses of congress if they get enough of maj

could you comment and evaluate his legislative abilities with congress? >> the principal issue i see over the last year and a half has been in the face of a divided republican party that the president doesn't seem capable of either focusing or being disciplined or finding or having sufficient political capital to choose a way forward. to provide political cover that is uncertain. and absent, some sort of providing of a compromise within the party, even on issues where they choose rules where they don't use the minority, i am not surprised that the only thing they could accomplish was the tax cut. >> doesn't it help to have a clear strategy, work with leaders and repeated. obama, in his first two years had a 93% presidential support scores, phenomenal if you accept those. he got a lot of things done, we have unified pretty government now, it doesn't seem that maybe the president is a legislative leader. >> i think the broader issue, i go back to 1960, does the president have sufficient -- do people worry about -- does he have sufficient power within the sy

watkins: this is why i am running for congress. if people do not like your policy and do not have a voting record at which to swing arrows at, they go after your character. we have seen that at the national level. we have seen that with the justice kavanaugh with 36-year-old allegations with no corroborating evidence. this is what democrats do when they don't have a voting record in which to critique. every single one of those allegations is at the very best a half-truth, an inaccurate portrayal. i went to west point. a lie isa code -- defined by an attempt to deceive. mr. davis knows these articles attempt to deceive voters. voters are smarter than that and they can see through that and we are tired of that. thanks. >> thank you very much. moving on to run next question. several states are making their own laws regarding marijuana. recreational pot became legal in canada this week. where should the u.s. moved to decriminalize marijuana? we start with paul davis. mr. davis: i have supported merrick of marijuana -- medical marijuana

>> again, why hasn't congress been able to do it? there was a time when the democrats controlled both houses of congress, when president obama was elected. now it's the republicans. so why haven't you done it, either party? >> because there is a disagreement on a fundamental issue, which is what is the scope of the authorization given, authorization for use of military force. there are those who believe that if you are going to give an authorization to let the commander in chief send sons and daughters into ward war that it should be an authorization without constraints. and i fundamentally disagree with that. i'm not going to vote for an authorization for the use of military force without some appropriate constraints. and there are those who join me in that view. that tug is a very principled one and but consequential in trying to come together on authorization. i'm willing to compromise to a dreg but not for unfettered authorization especially for this president. >> of course it's relevant to the conversation because again the unit

and what is the role of congress? if the whole point here is to at least with respect to the president to prepare potential articles of impeachment, congress is waiting for this investigation to take place and pulls the investigation. john can screw up like .dexter and oliver north, but is congress to wait in the back while the special counsel does it work or would it be better if they were more aggressive in terms of uncovering these facts and having oversight hearings? and my last question, ken, i will direct towards you. i was struck in your book that you made the point that you considered that the president has an obligation, i assume it was an ethical obligation, not a legal obligation, to cooperate with this investigation against his activities. and i'm curious as to why you particularly o, give yep the potential jeopardy that a president does so. and if you think it's so, throw that all out there and pick and choose what you would like to choose to. >> might encumber an investigation. here on i think down plane

i've been accused of gaining great wealth in congress. a family held business is hardly an active congress. it is an act of commerce. shawn: we have run out of time for our questions tonight that we do have enough time for closing statement. i believe the first 90 second closest in goes to mr. dinicola . mr. dinicola: so, most of the cases he referred to in his advertising for 25, 30 years ago. i was assigned to those cases by a judge or by my partners. but that is not really the point. that is not the point at all, actually. it me say this, my friends, is fitting that we need in this institution of higher learning, this place of high purpose in deep faith. i'm on this stage tonight because the highest courts in our land determined that we needed to have a new district and by their action, they placed ower overands greater p your future, and that was their intention. my responsibility tonight is to give you a choice in the exercise of that power. i make this simple pledge. send me to congress, i will not disappear. you send me to converse

cudgel to get the congress to take the hard choices. i have some ideas. one, i think the president should have something president obama did not do, which is follow up on how to reformat -- reform our spending. two thirds of our budget is not discretionary, and that reform needs to be led by the president. that will lead us to a more fiscal path. secondly, we need spending caps for the domestic discretionary spending program. if we have caps of 2.5% plus economic growth of 3%, that will put us toward a sound fiscal footing. the reason i supported this 2018-19 budget was in the past two years, 77% of the cuts have been to defense. i wanted to see our defense department rebuilt. it is very important to camp robinson, and it is the first pay raise in eight years for our men and women in uniform. we need structural reform, and i think a balanced budget amendment is at the heart of it. mr. swafford: thank you for this question, steve. as you and i have talked about, we are both deficit hawks. i agree with the balanced budget amendment. more

butre not a partisan group we're asking congress. not onhe president is the ballot but his policies may be. in 2016, the president one evangelicals so -- what is your pitch to evangelicals who voted for president trump in 2016 and, what do you say to them? guest: every election has its own set of conditions. in 2016, voters the likelihood a binary choice between trump and clinton and a lot picked donald trump. we are asking them not to live in 2016. we are asking them to live in 2018. they have a choice to make. if they support this trump agenda, for a lot they could not go as far as voting for hillary clinton. a lot feel like there is no way they can continue to support this presidency and a complicit congress that would be just as happy to separate families at the border in order to send a message to refugees to not come to the united states. we're asking them to pay 2008.ion to conditions of host: how is your organization vote for common good funded? guest: vote common good is funded by private donations. families have contributed

i am the republican candidate for congress i am running for congress because i think the people of western minnesota any true conservative leadership. t11 after years being conservative over pro-life and pro-gun but his campaign is given money to democratic candidates who were wildly against those values. to be very anti- second amendment and pro- abortion so why vote for somebody who is conservative when you can have a true conservative represents values of western minnesota? evo 69 percent of the time i'm sure i am closer to 89 percent of the time that if you want a real conservative or the majority party working with the ag secretary and the president? or somebody who has no relationship i would ask for your vote november 6th because we are growing in the economy with the annual growth but if you vote for congressman bost you will put nancy pelosi and the democrats in charge then they will investigate the president. >> as time t8 thank you to the public for this debate and aarp and want to tell folks in the seventh district it has been proud to represent you in washington i tried to do

become a candidate for congress. we need is someone who will work to lower health care costs and get our economy working again and make sure congress will be accountable for us and not the special interests. >> we appreciate your time with us tonight. 6, it will be up to the viewers. see the look of care -- libertarian candidate. voting is already underway in some parts of the state, including jefferson and wily counties. the general election day is tuesday, november 6. to 7 will open at 7 a.m. p.m. >> you will be able to see this entire interview on our website if you want to recap this evening. thanks to the candidates for taking the time and all of you for watching. have a good night. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> campaign 2018 coverage continues this afternoon for miami university in oxford. two candidates will take part in their third and final scheduled debate. you can watch live right here. and we will

dysfunctional congress. working every day to fight the opioid epidemic, helping first responders, getting clean drinking water and cleaning up the hudson river. that is where i am focused. the proposal to put 43 new river,ges on the hudson that would have been an archipelago of storage facilities from yonkers to kingston, i killed it. you can talk to an animal who runs the first department at the coast guard and he will tell you what happened, a lot of people got involved in the fight. those are the results i have been getting to you in washington despite the gridlock and partisanship. if you give me your vote on november 6, i will go back there and fight every day, working with the president when he is right and standing up to him when he is wrong. i am asking for your vote and thank you. richard: mr. o'donnell? i will release my taxes from last year and you will see how much money i donated to different charities. the carpet -- i called on the congressman to read -- releases taxes. rep. maloney: mine are a

williams: i'm not going to congress to follow. i'm going to congress to lead. first thing i want to know is what is the outcome of the investigation? i'm not going to make a choice on impeachment without hearing all the evidence. that's nonsense. that's not the american way. i'm going to capital hill as an american first. i am not going to discuss impeachment of anybody because , until we have a full investigation -- mr. wittman: i believe transparency is the key. i do not believe that information we have to this point in any way, shape, or form leads to an assumption of high crimes or misdemeanors. this is a high standard in the constitution, and it's about looking at the constitution and applying the constitution. and i will unwaveringly measure any determination about impeachment of anyone by the high standards in our constitution. [applause] >> with that, we'll turn in a moment to closing statements, but before we do that, i want to thank the many people who made this event take place, and now, i'll suspend the limits on applause. you'll be able to applaud

wise and congress operating? it could be because the president is taking its power, but that's not the interesting thing to me. the interesting thing is that congress is not acting because they are divided. they have adopted a very electoral focus on things. that's how you achieve your progress. as i say often in the middle of the year, you're just waiting for -- because he never shows up. so, you push issues like immigration or gun control. you punch these issues because they divide your party and you don't know how to deal with it. they divide the country because we live in an extended republic. you don't have two parties and represent everything. that is impossible. so what do they do? they punt to the presidency and the courts. why? is it keeps them unified. they think that being unified is how you win elections and how you make progress. is a conflict is about thing. then, all of a sudden, you get to the courts and the presidency and you raise the stakes of the elections. that reinforces this cycle. the whol

controlled democrats congress, both houses of congress, the super majority did nothing. say we will take a step-by-step process but they never take the first step stop republicans and democrats have come together to try to bridge the partisan divide in washington, d.c. and we have come up with a plan. one of the things we are going to force is reforming the billss that would allow a with 290 cosponsors to come to the floor. right now, we have a bill to lift the discriminatory cap for on the h one visa program and it has 329 cosponsors and cannot get a vote because one person is opposed to it. we believe we can change that enforce those changes in the next congress. i believe we have to secure the --ders, it's not a ball from it is not a wall from coast-to-coast. it's enforcing existing barriers and drones in a area where a wall is not feasible. also increasing border patrol. i believe we have to be realistic and we have a lot of people that have been in this country for a long time that have not violated laws other than immigration laws. i think we should give them a win

to empower congress, congress has a lot of power. it has a lot of power to do all of the things we're complaining about. a lot of the problem is that congress has chosen not to use that power and has chosen to allow the other branches to step in. a lot of members of congress want to do that, and then they step back and cannot wait to get on the floor of the house was and find a camera and complain about washington. they prefer that as a way of doing politics to actually taking control and saying "this is our responsibility. we are insiders, not outsiders." a change in that culture is what is necessary. that is just a way of rephrasing your question, because how to change the culture -- i mean, at some level, it will take a level of public dissatisfaction that leaves members saying "this cannot be what we do." you cannot change the budget crisis. congress could reassert some power in foreign policy. but what is lacking is well, and that it's very hard to change. i actually, you know, i am still a believer in the notion of the people o

what that says the agency can do it unless the congress approves it. and then to have more power to legislate. so there is more legislation and the lobbyist for the situation that we should not allow that with those administrative procedures act gave them that power and some of us try to bring that in. that is one positive for the trump administration to take on these regulations i am 100 percent to support the endangered species act. and to get along with the dnr and working on that for a long time. hughes: at the very beginning of this administration the president and congress use the congressional review act two / regulations. and then to accelerate and do better. but here's the problem. but nancy pelosi aggressively wants to go the opposite direction so for the voters and listeners out there. if you vote for mister peterson you are voting for nancy pelosi and all of those leftist in her pocket they want to bring that back they don't want to scrub it they had two years to get rid of it and it still exists. i said two years ago we need to permanently

that is not what congress did. instead, congress wrote a statute 1226 -- not as in c2 as the government would have it. congress wrote section 1226c into paragraphs. the first paragraph says, who gets taken into custody and when. and the second paragraph says, of those people, in paragraph one, who can be released. the government claims instead, in a stretch of a reading, that you focus only on paragraph a through d and paragraph one. another was a sick, section c2 stands alone as an authorization for mandatory -- but that is not what they said. they said except as described in paragraph one. not an alien described in paragraph one a through d. and the governments reading tried to pull section 2, c2 out of the freestanding authorization leading to three serious anomalies. that they struggle to explain as they did with you justice kagan. the first anomaly is, as you noted, that the transitions rule, which were meant to be a ramp up to the permanent rule, are completely superfluous. if, the government really could del

the administration first hoped to bypass congress. congress did not like that idea. next, the administration decided to go slowly. it would have proposals for feed grains. corn is mostly used to feed animals, and wheat. congress rejected the corn proposal but pass the wheat provisions. since the new deal as david was saying, you cannot just impose a production regime on farmers. they vote on a on a referendum and what's more they have to vote by two thirds. the super majority at the local level. farmers rejected that wheat provision in may of 1963. there were going to be given high prices in return for restricting output. they rejected it, not by a lot, passed by a majority but not by two thirds. this was the first referendum defeat since the new deal. the kennedy farm program basically failed for two reason. first, feed grains, corn, is a long shot. meat consumption was growing, dairy was growing. areas like the south were switching into meat, poultry and dairy production. representatives from the south and midwest were not going to support actions where they worrie

without the consent of congress part of that. could congress clear this issue out today if they wanted to? >> yes. that's what the lawsuits about. if president trump wants to do this, in advance to seek permission from congress to congressional vote.s it's not a flat prohibition. it is permitted if congress authorizes.. >> has president trump asked for that. republicans in congress and we would give that permission if you ask, what is the state of play there? democrats are moving forward the lawsuit. >> their argument is we have a constitutional duty to be a if it's going to be and have an actual live controversy to move forward and federal courts. >> host: in illinois. good morning. >> i've got a big problem with wendy's parking about. they had stacks of papers on a table in front of him, had everybody around him, all of these news agencies around him and he signed off his businesses and i haven't heard weissman say one thing about that. you obviously don't have a problem with iraq obama taking billions of dollars and is enough

and i believe this will be a change inthere is congress. bythe elections this year if some strange chance the congress anotherhange over to party we would have some impact ine and but generally indiana we are pent folks and with our program we have moved ahead with whatever congress does. make sure we operate and responsible and business-like which and the federal government helps us out. that is great. if they don't, we will continue now working we are with them also. i i the democrats should control congress because i believe country needs to bring more left particularlyes issues pertaining to women and women's ability to choose and women's right in the workplace. thank you. >> part of c-span's 50 capitals tour. voices were the states part of c-span's 50 capitals tour. fox news host tucker carlson book "schiphols" how the selfless class is bringing to the brink of revolution. i could not get past the idea for the country voted donald trump. how would you do that? it is not attack on trump? i think trump is right in the sense and a bun of