don't like the idea one congress tieing the hans of a congress. the whole idea is that you are able to sit down deliberate with the circumstances that you have the moment. i have no problem with saying we this, whatw as we do it cost, what do we anticipate the cost will be. that should not have any bearing on whether you decide to go to war or not. >> i don't know that i agree with that. think that how much is cost is part of the equation of what interests are. i'm not saying it's the deposited one. a factor. it's we are in the business of particularether a interest is important enough to go to war over. since there are a number of go intoations that that, i don't see that the financial one shouldn't be one of them. >> okay, let's try to squeeze it in if we can. >> i'm an attorney with the financial network. revisit. do a two examples that come up a couple of times. the korean war and war powers resolution. together, those tied underlying question we haven't directly addressed yet. while congress has a power under article one to declare war, we ha

we had the vote in congress. we wanted to give the president maximum iscretion on how to go against the perpetrators of the attack. we passed an authorization. it wasn't terribly controversial. now we see that authorization being used against groups that were not in existence. do either one of you think congress has authorized the use of our military force against the assad regime in syria? i hope that is yes or no answer. >> i don't think that is what congress intended 16 years ago. >> certainly not under the two umf's in discussion. >> we could get into whether we had authorized the use of military force against the terrorist groups isis. i don't believe we have authorized. i am in support of america pursuing these terrorists but i don't believe congress has authorized force. i guess my first concern, when we give the president maximum authority, looking at what three previous administrations have used our authorization for, don't we have to be concerned on how we define this so it is not misused? i agree with

of congress. guest: sure. of base salary for a member congress, the pace salary is $174,000 a year. been that way for almost 2009, was s, since when that number was reached. he way the law is supposed to work, congress enacted a law in he 1990s to say the congressional salary would increase by the cost of living every year unless congress voted increase.hat and every year since 2009, actually as done so, the bill, the appropriations bill the house will vote on this it again for ck another year. $174, only exceptions are the -- two majority leaders and wo minority leaders make i think 193 and the speaker of the house makes $223. that, they do get federal employee healthcare, play like employees, i think 78% is paid for by the rest by t, 20 -- the them. they are eligible for pension if they stick around, if they are and serve more than five years and become a certain age. office budget an that allows them to travel back and forth to their districts and staff, but not do anything to benefit them. the

with congress. they talk about the committee system changing and how weak they are. there are very timely things that can be done with his acre. i really encourage you to spend some time talking about its implications for the modern congress. let's talk a little bit -- i hate this comment -- that something you guys technology or that does read -- acknowledge here. one of the institutional factors. essentially you was being appointed to select committees. right now i think sections flow together decently well could flow together a little bit better. i also think i would like to see more on the front end, on the institutional and. -- end. that is my a personal bias. i would like to see a lot more discussion about what committees did during this period. it almost fell at the first half of this paper undermines the second half of the paper. you have good story about what lawmaking look like and how committees were used in this period. the bill was being drafted on the floor and then instructions are goi

congress just accept that. i'm on the board of a group called pogo, the project of government oversight and i talked to a group of senate staffers and was shocked because somebody got out, maybe one of you and got totally angry because they kept filing freedom of information act and their administration would not respond. i just said john dingell would've never filed that. he would said get dressed down here. so, there is an obligation here for members of the senate that it's nice to belong to a political club. i was on the bowling team, i've belonged to things too, but my oath, i took an oath my oath was to defend the constitution of the united states, not to defend my political club. so you're right. it has a lot to do with public pressure and it's how the congress response, doing its job, even if the majority of our constituents they were gonna run sunday against you or were going to primary you. tough. we can't stand that, don't take the oath of office. don't promise you'll bit obey the constitution if you'

the power of congress mr. rosenberg, one of the leading experts on congressional oversight said in the absence of a countervailing constitutional privilege or self-imposed statutory restriction upon its authority, congress and its committees have a virtual primary power for information needed to discharge the legislative functions. i think that is true but it is bounded by the respect of the criminal process. so, we are trying to find out where that boundary exists and how to navigate the problem and proceed in an orderly manner so that we do not get in the way. after having turned my phone off we will swear in the witnesses. could you please rise. could you raise your right hand, please. give each of you swear the testimony that you give for the committee is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? as i indicated, we have a incredible dearth of people that will be helpful to the committee on how we move forward. mr. richard is a fairly legendary hello from 95 to 96 exit as the chi

so, as congress considers a new aumf, ms. hicks, how should we consider what some have termed the president's delegation of civilian control to the military itself? should and how can congress effectively weigh in when the civilians who are supposed to be making critical decisions, including where to send troops and how many of them, have delegated that authority to the entities of which they are supposed to be in control of? >> i think this is a very important issue to be raising, so i appreciate you asking the question. there is always a debate to be had over the degree to which the president should be delegating authority down into in this case the defense department. i think you are well aware that there was a view from the military, broadly speaking, that the last administration held that too tightly. i think the view of most of us who look at the defense community in a pretty bipartisan way think we're going very much the opposite direction, sort of swinging as a pendulum. so, the good news, i guess, is that there is an

the power of congress. mr. rosenberg, one of the leading experts on congressional oversight, said in the absence of a countervailing constitutional privilege or self-imposed statutory restriction upon its authority congress and hit commit years have the power to compel production of information needed to discharging their legislative functions. think that's true but is i bounded by the respect for the criminal process. so, we're trying to find out where that boundary line exists, how to navigate the problem, and proceed in an orderly man sore we do not get in the way of mr. mueller but we discharge our duties to the public at large. after having cult -- cut my phone off i'll swear in the witnesses. please rise. do each of you swear that the testimony you give before this committee this truth, the whole truth, and nothing built truth so help you god? thank you. well, as i indicated, we have a really incredible group of people who would be very helpful to this committee how he move forward. m-richard ven -- from

congress. she is the first woman to serve in congress. there is some progress. it is so beautiful. four women served in a u.s. congress in 1921. by 1929. reached nine it is slow going. 1993, the woman vote gives a big bump to women's representation in congress. we are up to eventually $.20 -- 20% in 2017. women had better luck in state legislatures, these numbers and state legislators in the 1920's thousands. this is not many compared to the thousands of seats there were. there was substantial progress in the course of the 1920's. by 1929 there are 38 states that have at least one woman in their state legislature. we will talk more about that in just one second. i thought i would give you just a couple of examples that women who achieved national office in the 1920's. a sense of who they were. one very well-known woman who u.s. congress in new mexico was nina warren. she was the first latina to run for congress. she does not win. she is from a very prominent new mexico political family. she is

the administration tried to do secretly what the congress sought to prevent. the administration did secretly what it claimed to all of the world it was not doing. covert action should always be used to supplement, not to contradict our foreign policy. it should be consistent with our public policies. it should not be used to impose a foreign policy on the american people which they do not support. mr. macfarlane was right. he told these committees it was clearly unwise to rely on covert action as the core of our policy. as you noted in your testimony, in and i agree with you, it would have been a better course to continue to seek contra funding through open debate. you have spoken with compelling eloquence about the reagan doctrine. as laudable as that doctrine may be, it will not succeed unless it has the support of the congress and the american people. secondly, with regard to process, let me talk about accountability. what i find lacking about the events, as you have described them, is accountability. who was responsible for these policies, for beginning th

so there is a proper and safe course for congress. the easiest thing for the witnesses who are most likely, likely, most readily taking the fifth when they don't have an actual expectation of prosecution, is to wait until mueller himself immunizes them, as he will, as he must to get their information. and then in consultation with him follow up with your own immunization. there's no prosecution to be jeopardized in these circumstances. i have suggested in my testimony that as for the next higher tier of witnesses, you work in consultation with the independent counsel, who says of those four, by the four i'm saying, i'm talking about people of the category of, roger stone, carter paige, the today's excitement in the news, paul manafort and michael cohn. for them, you work with the counsel, you say isn't there going to come some point where you're make one of them plead or is one not going to take the fifth? i'm saying by the way, as for flynn, to immunize him would be the mistake we made with poindexter. in the judiciary committee you

there is a proper course for congress. the easiest thing for the witnesses who are most likely and readily taking this when they don't have an actual expectation is to wait until he himself immunizes them as he will end as he wants to get their information and then in consultation with him follow up with your own immunization. there is no prosecution could jeopardize the circumstances. the independent counsel who says of those four roger stone, today's excitement in the news but then you work with the council and say isn't it going to come at the point they will go ahead and not take the fifth i am saying by the way, that would be the mistake that we made with poindexter. i'm not suggesting that and i'm going to end with a brief comment in the judiciary committee you oversee the fbi, you oversee the administration of the law and define what is criminal. don't give them away to the intel. >> thank you very much. on that note, senator grassley. >> i would like a point of personal privilege to respond to something senator whi

congress should call -- republicans in congress should stop hiding from the truth and stop hiding the truth from the american people. in light of the actions this week, the emails that we saw a related to donald trump jr.'s meeting with the russians, now we know are counter intelligence person, it is important that we all electronic communication whether it is direct messaging, twitter, email, text, whatever it happens to be, among the members of the trump family and within the trump administration. message, the that spirit of that message, to the president? the american people have a right to know. are, house democrats are not going to let the republicans. vote for their complicity in this today we are announcing a new effort to force votes to get answers for the american people. will force republicans to take votes on the record to continue from hiding the fact from the american people. republicansse house an action for their willful, shameful, enabling. they have become enablers. ourhe violation of constitution, an attack on our integrity of the elections, the security of our count

congress. she is the first woman to serve in congress. there is some progress. for women served in a u.s. congress in 1921. by 1929, it was a low goal. there is an increase in numbers. the woman vote gives a big bump to women's representation in congress. women had better luck in state numbers and, these state legislators in the 1920's bring out thousands. this is not many compared to the thousands of seats there were. there was substantial progress in the course of the 1920's. by 1929 there are 38 states that have at least one woman in their state legislature. we will talk more about that in just one second. i thought i would give you just thatple of examples achieved national office in the 1920's. one very well-known woman who ran for are the u.s. congress in the new mexico -- in new mexico was -- she was the first to run for congress. prominent new mexico political family. she is a very average suffragist. she is a great advocate of women's suffrage. thewas elected to superintendent and cont

if all of that is true, why can't republicans in the congress see that? why are so many saying i can't vote for this version because i don't want to pay the cost at the next election? >> vice president pence: i think the president and i are very encouraged by how many members of the house and senate are saying yes. >> tucker: but the ones that are afraid, what are they afraid of? >> vice president pence: the house of representatives laboreb through a very challenging process. the president talked about the fact that obamacare is dead. the system is collapsing around us. there's the old saying that it's hard to turn a big ship at sea, but it's actually hard to turn a sinking ship, tucker, and that's what obamacare is. the reality is members of congress have been workingt' carefully, we've been very carefully compromising for the majorities in the house, and now in the senate to move the debate forward. it's all about making sure that as we transition back to free market, to a system of state-based innovation and reform, it would make sure it happens in an

most members of congress can make far more money when they leave the congress then they get paid by the government while they are in the congress. so you say, well, why do they want to get reelected? many of them,ly because it was true for me, want to get reelected so that they can do something for what they believe in. the only reason iran for congress was to be an a position to do something for what i believed in -- the only reason i ran for congress was to be in a position to do some thing i believed in. you may have agreed or disagreed with me on some of the things i believed in. but i think that is a tremendous motivation for members of congress. and some probably just like to be called a member of congress and like to be able to get on see their facesd on television. it is different for everyone. but there is a reality that when you run, you take on a tremendous response ability and want to get reelected. host: one more call, republican line. caller: health care system to other countries. canada.ne on and they did single-payer system. cons to both nd sides, it's a very extremely c

the congress. inevitably our perspectives will , differ. nonetheless, if i may say so, you have an extraordinarily expansive view of presidential power. you would give the president free rein in foreign affairs. you said on the first of your testimony and i quote "i did not want to show congress a single word on this whole thing." end of quote. i do not see how your attitude can be reconciled with the constitution of the united states. i often find in the executive branch, and this administration , as well as in others, a view that congress is not a partner , but an adversary. the constitution grants foreign powers to both the president and the congress, and our foreign policy cannot succeed unless they work together. you blame the congress as if the restrictions approved were the cause of the administration. yet, congressional restrictions in the case of nicaragua if polls are accurate, reflect the majority view of the american people. in any case, i think you and i would agree, that there is insu

to inimplement an international agreement and congress was offended by that and congress voted that congress should have international review over that issue. it's just the opposite. i did not support the agreement. senator carden did not support the agreement. senator menendez did not support the agreement. >> host: and all i know politico says that cork erin a -- corker-- >> i can't believe that someone with the background of the issue would not understand this. the president went ahead with this without approval which to me is absolutely inappropriate. other countries went to their parliaments. the united states, he went straight to the u.n. security council, waived sanctions that had been put in place by congress, add infinitem. not national security council, to waive an agreement that i thought was flawed. senator carden thought with as flawed and second menendez thought was flawed. secretary kerry in a moment of being really cute in a hearing answering questions from tim cain said no congress is going to have the ability to weigh in in eight years. and that was my breaking mom

the fact is the previous administration did not work with congress. did not work with congress. this is their national ocean policy. they never brought it to congress. if you're going to do something this sweeping you need to have congressional input. they never came to congress to develop its plan and have even refused to provide relevant information to congress, we can't be sure how sweeping it actually could be if left unchecked. that's why i support the language they have underlying bill and therefore oppose this amendment. but i understand their concern. but why not bring it to congress? why not have congress enact the national ocean policy instead of just relying on the executive branch to do whatever they want to do? that's the problem the resources committee has with this. the problem i have with this. that's why i oppose this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you very much, mr. chairman. if my good colleague could guarantee he could get me votes on the floor i'd b

congress created c.b.o. to give us our own sense of budgetary information and expertise so we would not have to rely on administration estimates. c.b.o. improves our ability to protect the power of the purse. and for more than 40 years, the .b.o. has done its mission informing our decision making. the director are apointed to their positions with regard to political affiliation solely based on ability and qualifications and show no allegiance to any ideology or party when preparing their analysis. it is all too easy these days to take refuge in information that tells us what we want to hear, but that does not lead to sound policy. c.b.o. does not exist to give us information we want to hear, its job is to give us the information we need to make informed and responsible decisions. it is one of few institutions in washington that serves that role. it is beneath congress to attack its role and should be embarrassing to my republican colleagues they are launching these attacks because they can't defend their dam

because there's a lot of support within congress for particular envoys. we don't want to diminish the importance of the particular area in which we have a special envoy. therefore, if we eliminate the concern is that congress is deterring the priority. on the other hand i would like to know what your priorities are. where do you think we should be looking at these special envoys with, where are you looking at not feeling envoys or suggesting perhaps even knew envoys? and, is it important to have those positions confirmed by the united states senate or not? can you share with us your thoughts on how you would like to see the congress working, the senate working with you on special envoys? >> certainly. i think senator, you hit the nail on the head. the topic of special envoys, it really depends on the issue we are talking about. the office we are talking about. we have, i think, approximately 70. some of those offices were created to address serious issues which, over time have diminished insignificance or importance. others, whether it be global women's i

can do. >> i agree on both points, one is that congress has authority to engage in congress, i think uml, perfectly fine way to do it. i don't think it means that you have the use the specific words. it's a pore. it's not a -- it's not an english test and the other -- but then on the korean war, a treaty that violates the constitution, that provision is unconstitutional and the united nations, no treaty, no president can sign -- no senate can improve a treaty that is in violation of provisions of the constitution, it can violate statutes but the constitution is our supreme law, so if there's absolutely no grounds that you can think of in my mind that would say that un treaty, you know, gives the president the authority, so we've had something. the swiss and and the french and bell gums all come together saying, yes, we can go to war and we will send our people to get killed. war ain't a game. those are body bags. we don't leave that to other people to decide whether we are going to do that. >> thank you very much. >> hopefully it's a yes or no question but you waited patiently, pleas

what role will congress play? rep. brady: a strong one. our new rules muscle up in these -- the constitutional role of congress in these negotiations that require 90 days of full consultation. not just on the ideas behind the trade to what are the trade objectives congress has given to the white house. that is occurring right now. secondly, those trade rules open the process of, make it more deliberate going forward. peopleves the american and representative of bigger say in how the trade agreements are designed and negotiated. all of that is very good. at the end of the day, the new trade representative has assured us that these negotiations will not disrupt existing agreements . that is vitally important. they're looking to modernize this in a significant way and that is what. whatever that end result should work seamlessly into the existing agreement. if they follow that path and can reach these trade objectives it's going to be a good , agreement and congress will support it. >> we have covered a lot of ground. health care, taxes, gove

congress, mr. rosenberg said, in the absence ora countervailing privilege a self-imposed restriction on its authority, congress and its committees have a power -- needed to discharge legislative functions. bounded by the respect for the criminal process. so, we're trying to find out where that boundary line exists, how to navigate we are trying to find on how to never get this problem and proceed f mr. mueller but we discharge our duties to the public at large. after having cult -- cut my phone off i'll swear in the witnesses. please rise. do each of you swear that the testimony you give before this committee this truth, the whole truth, and nothing built truth so help you god? thank you. well, as i indicated, we have a really incredible group of people who would be very helpful to this committee how he move forward. m-richard ven -- from 59 to 96 he acted as chief counsel on the whitewater committee, from 73 to '745 was chief hoff the water watergate task force. he because one over ten commissione

this is often known as the first continental congress. so this is a first printing of the journals of the proceedings of congress. in this case, the first continental congress held in philadelphia september 5th, 1774. and was published just down the street from where the museum will be located at the london coffee house. this is the corner of market and front street in old town, philadelphia. and this wonderful emblem that we have in the center, very symbolic. as you can see, there's the hands. each one representing one of the colonies with a pillar and a liberty cap at the top and the words magna carta again. still reminding us that these delegates even on the eve of the revolutionary war are still appealing to their rights as englishmen and to those founding documents of the english constitution. try to define their place in the empire and seek redress for these grievances. of course not everyone felt that this was the right way to go. there was still -- this is by no means the consensus of all colonial americans that we should be pushi

the 103rd,a peak in 104th congress. we want to be careful thinking about these scores, but the general trends stay the same name what you do. wasperhaps, gingrich successful in holding the party together. notother thing is they are allowing the minority to offer amendments. republicans say the democrats are not allowing them to get table, wes, so in the break those into final passage votes, suspension, and other things, and then partisan procedural votes and then a amendments and other things, generally, the mix of vote -- and othermendments things, generally, the mix of votes. and then right before the republicans take over, perhaps getting some,are but we do see an increase in partisan procedural votes as we get into the middle years of gingrich, at least, so this is fighting back against the democrats. the mix of votes. then, two sides fighting against each other, and we do see an increase in party unity. wouldr passage votes, i see an increase in party unity, and then a huge increase in partisan procedural votes, an

trump was elected as was the congress to fight this immigration. now everyone is trying to come up with a way to do it. dagen: thank you. special thanks to emily and adrian. adrian it was her first time here. the pan is setting their sights on the moon.eÑñ?ñ? why a new space race could the two profits that are out of thi? worldxñ?ñ? dagen: predictions. gary b, go. >> i bet you are like me. first thing you do in the morning is checked twitter. you have to. what did trump say in the last eight hours or so. he single-handedly spearheading this stock. maybe it's on the board of twitter but i think the stock is up 20% this year. dagen: jonas, you like it. >> i don't have many followers, so it can't be good. >> i follow you. >> you and five other people.iu? >> low prices benefit airlines. delta doc is up 20% this year. >> you like delta. >> it just keeps going up because it gets a gazillion miles. it was $10 a year ago now it's $50. it's just an oil play. i would sell it here. >> let's be honest, since the sony walkman has been launched it's been mo

bailouts for members of congress? >> i talked to the president at length about that exact issue yesterday. his attitude is pretty simple. keep in mind, he does have this way of channeling a large number of the american public. what he's saying is, look, if obamacare is hurting people, and it is, then why shouldn't it hurt insurance companies and, more importantly perhaps for this discussion, members of congress. there is a certain benefit that members of congress get as part of an opm decision a couple of years ago. the president is simply looking that the going, is it fair that obamacare is hurting people if you live in a county that is what we call a bare county with no coverage, if you're obliged by law to buy something that is not available and that's hurting you, should insurance companies and members of congress bear some of that burden as well? i'm familiar with that issue. we'll see what happens as we move forward. >> that's on the chopping block, perhaps taking away the health care plans, health insurance pla

caller: i think the healthcare by congress was so bad that congress exempted law.selves from the whatever law they passed, they if ld be subjected to it, they repeal and not replace, should not be allowed to return employee health plan which is what they ultimately want. retirement nd benefits are supposed to be for career employees, not short-term physicians, you eliminate benefits they may not to 40 years.r 20 host: sandy, to be clear, what we talked earlier with david of roll call, once again, members of congress were their healthcare through affordable care act exchange, the dc exchange is they and their staff go for their healthcare plans. a variety lect from of plans that are offered on the exchange, but that is the rule the affordable care act went into place. rob in pennsylvania, republican, ahead. retired, 67 i'm years old. i've always had health into it., always paid vinot used as much as i paid in, is not what i'm calling about. what i'm calling about is if want congress to get bill, then they must accept whatever they pass, congress will also be subjected to that same legislat

and that is the executive branch has to be accountable to congress and follow the parameters that congress establishes and way too often in the time that we served, we couldn't get the information that we felt was absolutely essential for us to do effective oversight. and i think that diminishes the intelligence community and puts in place a framework where you could have an executive branch, whether it is republican or democrat, it doesn't matter. the executive branch has to be accountable to congress for what happens in the intelligence community, because we -- at that time, we set the parameters and they implement. and you can't have a president moving and doing things -- and it is only a gang of eight that they wouldn't even share information with. and that is totally unacceptable. >> on the al qaeda question, nick, what is al qaeda's potential to carry out a mass casualty attack directed at the united states? >> again, i think i was talking about that a little bit earlier. i was not being very specific. but i think we have done a great deal to degrade and constrain al qaeda's ability,

if congress can dream it and congress can legislate on it. if congress can legislate, congress can have negative power over any state law. >> host: fabulous. fabulous. i heavy everyone reads the book. one of the beautiful things about it, it underscores i feel very deeply the founders were not political in the way we are today. this book is not political in the way we are today. democrats should read this bookt republicans, and actually children can read it.at it is written, i don't mean to say that pejoratively at all, a smart high schoolkid or junior high schoolkid can pick it up and read it. it is written in ordinarying like and big ideas. thank you so much for writing it. >> guest: thank you for saying that. that is one of the idea i wrote it, can be used for homeschoolers or anyone who wants to supplement their child's education or their own. >> every summer booktv visits capitol hill to ask members of congress what are you reading. here is look at some of their answers. >> just finished up "devil in the goof." it is a book by a named al

military, but did he also send a message to constituents to send messages to congress, members of congress? >> reporter: yeah, he had a very clear message for congress today, which was for them to do their job. as he was commissioning this $13 billion state-of-the-art carrier, he said that congress needs to do its job and pass the budget. this is a budget that would increase military funding, which is something donald trump has pushed for ever since he took office in january. let's listen to what he had to say to the crowd today. >> it's been a very, very bad period of time for our military. that is why we reached a deal to secure an additional $20 billion for defense this year, and it's going up, and why i ask congress for another $54 billion for next year. now we need congress to do its job and pass the budget that provides for higher, stable and predictable funding levels for our military needs. so call that congressman and call that senator and make sure you get it. [ applause ] and by the way, you can also call those senators to make sure you get health care. >> reporter: so you see t

bailouts for members of congress? >> yeah, actually i talked to the president at length about that exact issue yesterday, and i think his attitude is this, and his attitude is pretty simple. keep in mind he does have a way of channeling a large number of the american public. and what he's saying is look, if obamacare is hurting people, and it is, then why shouldn't it hurt insurance companies and more importantly perhaps for this discussion members of congress? there is a certain benefit that members of congress get as part of an opm decision from a couple years ago. and i think the president's simply looking at this and going is this fair? is it fair obamacare's hurting people? if you live in a county that's called a bare county with no coverage, if you're obliged by law to buy something that's not for sale that's hurting you or if you've got coverage but you can't afford to go to the doctor and that's hurting you, shouldn't insurance companies and members of congress bear some of that burden as well? we'll see what

that identifies that congress is concerned with property values and therefore concerned with cities. that also says that congress is equally concerned with employers who suffered from segregated neighborhoods, employees who are fired because the neighborhood suffered from white and shops and other things. if you take their standard which is look at the congressional report and figure out who's harmed from housing discrimination you would come to the same conclusion we do which is it would allow landlords and gardeners to soup. this also gets to your point earlier if you adopt on the interpretation, 3612 it allows persons to intervene as a matter of right and federal litigation. what congress did was empower direct victims to sue as well as some direct victims and the justice department. their interpretation says any city could in does not influenced by any city of miami can come in and intervene in a direct victims lawsuit and go off in any direction. that cannot possibly be what congress thought about when they used the word person agreed in the statue. to allow cities to come in an

so back to congress and the so back to congress and the winter of 1849. last session, zachary taylor has been elected president. still major issues to deal with. you could not understand what can thinking about slavery, you can not see the movie and wonder why he was so dedicated. even at the expense of a prolonged civil war. unless you are familiar with his time and career and 30 of congress, lincoln actually comes up with with a bill to abolish slavery in the district of columbia. . . and. >> he is landau to the u. s. government and at the end of the seminole war he can the fan basically escape and he is looking for money from them federal government to compensate him. l, so, congress handles all the claims. congress was in charge of hearing claims. there is a claim for the owners of this lame name antonio pachuco. he's a brilliant scholar and ends up as a slave. he is lent out to the u.s. the seminolering war he can the fan basically escape and he is looking for money from them federal government to compensate him. abraham lincoln said the law is the l

petitions during the first congress and up to this point, and the second session of the first congress had been based on individual claims. claims of revolutionary war soldiers trying to collect pensions and things like that. this was a huge issue, right? the quakers, in getting their petitions heard, in getting a debate in the sense, established that the federal government could take up moral issues. and of course the federal government would do that through the early years of the republic, through all kinds of issues -- temperance, the women's movement, further antislavery, all the way up today with issues like abortion's right -- abortion rights. this was a pivotal moment in this way as well. yeah? >> thank you very much. i am here from my book club, african-american literary guild. we are reading the new book, anti-slavery racist ideas in america. prof. polgar: i have that on my bookshelf as well. >> is quite a read. you talk about the northern states having abolished slavery in their jurisdictions by a certain date. that assumes that there was slavery in the north. prof. polgar: t

and congress does nothing. all we do is kick the can down the road and call for another report and then another report. mr. speaker, if we don't even act when the president actually does send us an aumf, the way president obama did on iraq and syria and the war against isis, we did nothing. we didn't like it but we did nothing. the republican leadership complained that they didn't like it. but then they never even tried to act on it. or to write their own aumf. they'd rather just stand on the sidelines, complain and criticize, or do nothing. absolutely nothing. except stop other members from taking any action that might require the house to debate these wars. hame on all of us for allowing this to continue. over and over and over and over again. i'm guessing that whenever the house takes up the defense appropriations bill, the republican leaders will find way to make sure that the bipartisan supported provision in that bill, the sunset to 2001 aumf on afghanistan, and vote on a new one within eight months will

congress are preserved and shared with future generations. thank you for including me in tonight's celebration, and my warmest wishes to the continued success of the u.s. capital historical society. with best regards. [applause] >> what a wonderful tribute to this great committee and its leadership. thank you. the role of the appropriations committee is spelled out in the constitutional requirement that appropriations must be made by law before any federal funds can be spent. in the early years, spending bills were sent to ad hoc committees and later to the finance committee. frustrated by the lack of coordination between appropriations laws and the spending actions of the executive department, the senate in 1850 passed rule 30. tied appropriations directly to spending for specific programs. to the present day, congress and the senate appropriations tomittee have taken steps centralize the process of allocating funds, getting congress greater oversight of federal spending. to further streamline the process in the 100 10th congress, the house

nobody has yet tried that with congress. going around the brady campaign what all the volunteers -- there were a lot of independence and a lot of republicans participating in the brady campaign and they said i, when we elect bernie what about congress. he won't get anything done. look at trump. he can't get anything done with his own party controlling congress. they said can't use what were doing here to throw the bums out and we said yes. steve: you're trying to get bernie sanders supporters into congress. >> no, actually not. the crazy -- i say crazy and people say that the yellow me when i say it's a crazy idea but the part of this idea that makes people heads explode is that were talking about running democrats and democratic districts and republicans and republican districts. here's the problem right perspective it's not about a problem -- it's not republican first democrats, it's not that republicans don't have any ideas the democrats don't have any ideas but the problem is the entire establishment and this is what you

at each turn, republicans in congress blocked our efforts. why are they hiding and being complicit to use the leader's word and keeping trumps conflicts secret and hidden? why is that? why won't republican members of congress use their authority in the law to provide oversight and make sure they president and his family are not hiding financial ties that could cause conflicts in the decision-making? we have no way of knowing whether mr. trump or his firms have received russian income or loans or entered into russian linked partnerships. we have a right to know that. the legislative branch has a responsibility in the authority to check the executive branch under section 6103 of the tax code. which allows for an examination of his returns. the authority put in place specifically so congress could examine conflicts of interest in the executive, following that great scandal in the early 1920's. by the way, in conclusion, it is not enough for a republican congressman to go to town meetings and say, yes, the president should give us his tax returns

of our one responsibilities as far as congress is concerned. e are fighting hard about health care, about medicaid and medicare and when you look at hat is taking place in the health care debate, when you look at republican plan that was medicaid from almost 22 million people, that is not that is saying, independent office of budget making that bo determination. we are fighting tooth and nail to make sure individuals that pre-existing disease is not put to the waste side and capos seniors for their health care, so children and don't have health care and not working can stay on their parents. that and hting for want to improve and make sure any problem we have with medicaid can improve it, we think that just because a money doesn't have any doesn't mean they should be given a death sentence because hey can't gets the health care they need. host: charles in charlotte, north carolina, a republican, air.are on the caller: mr. meeks, greta, good morning. host: morning. i want to call about -- he hypocrisy that i see in talking about the russians and

those threats demand serious consideration in congress. we should be making serious decisions about our national security mission. what is our mission? what are the resources that we need? we don't want to spend more than we need but we don't want to spend less. and we should not be posturing in the defense bill with false numbers and no real answers about the mission of the -- that these dollars would fund. we do not give certainty to our defense or competence to our troops when we legislate with phony numbers, when we refuse to make honest choices about our defense budget. instead of giving certainty to our heroes in uniform, this bill would breach the sequester spending limit by more than $70 billion. forcing a mandatory 13% cut to ll defense accounts. these phony numbers in this bill not only do violence to our defense budget, they starve the strength of america by ransacking our domestic investments. in order to be the strongest possible america, we must measure our strength not only in our military might but in the health, education,

it says congress can figure it out. -- it leaves it up to congress to breathe meaning into these principles. what it does is introduce the concept of equality for the first time into our constitution. the original constitution did use the word "equal" at in one point referring to the number of senators each state has. but that is not what we mean the we talk about equality. the 14th amendment makes the constitution what it never was, but what it became later, as a result of this, which is a document that americans who feel they are being denied equality , can appeal to. you could not go to court for the civil war and say i am being denied the right to equality. you did not have one. now you do, even though what that means has to be worked out. of course, there is nothing about race in this either. obviously, the status of the former slaves is on their mind, but it applies to everybody. the most important, recent case utilizing the 14th amendment was statese, was prohibited from denying gay people the right to marry. that is a 14 the minute decision by justice kennedy. it is based, that stat

we've already got an opinion by one court because members of congress -- congress say under obamacare this money was never authorized through the congress, so they would like an opportunity to do that, which is the normal cours of business. >> is the present going to come off the payments, the out-of-pocket payments? you can do it this month, this week. he's going to make only he can . let's go back to what we are really talking about. when you said yesterday a tweet about the of congress and the payments coming full start talking about this really sweet deal that members of congress and their staffers have what they are not beholden to the same health healthcare that so many americans say say is unaffordable and honest -- unsustainable. this is what many americans hat about washington dc. they feel like they have been nose pressed up against the glass. the special interests, the swamp . they want people to live under the same rules that they do. brinkley if people had the same roles on capitol hill, maybe they would have a stronger pace of what it feels like to choose between paying

vice president pence: to members of congress, our distinguished guests. members of the law enforcement community from all across the united states. on behalf of the first family, welcome to the white house. and welcome to american heroes week here in our nation's capitol. one month ago today, america woke to shocking news. that a gunman had opened fire on a baseball diamond just south of our nation's capitol. in the wake of that horrific attack, our nation was deeply inspired by the heroism of america's first responders. and we celebrate that today. today president trump will pay a debt of gratitude to the men and women who inspired the nation that day. and all they represent. this week, good news. the nation rejoiced with word that congressman steve scalise was released from the hospital. [applause] and, steve, i know you're watching. so let me say, we're inspired and relieved by your recovery. it's an answer to prayer. and we're especially honored to be join d today by your remarkable -- joined today by your remarkableable and courageous wife, jennifer