represent in congress. originally the text says there can be no more than one representative for every 40,000 people in the house. george wanted a motion that the number be changed to 30,000, the only time during the convention he voiced his opinion and the other delegates unanimously agreed. if you go on line you'll see the very first amendment to the constitution that was proposed but not adopted in what became the bill of rights said there should be one representative in congress for every 30,000 inhabitants. had that passed there would be 4,000 congress people today. a couple crucial changes, here it is, the appointment power. the framers decide to allow the presidents, the courts or department heads to directly appoint inferior officers as designated by congress. that's the source of the president's power to appoint some people without congressional approval without that it would be hard to get anyone appointed. a call for yuunity. ben franklin on the last day of the convention encourages unanimous sup

teach about congress, what congress is, how congress works, what congress does. we also have a book called america and the world that looks at american foreign-policy from the spanish-american war up until the eve of world war ii, using these cartoons to look at foreign policy in the beginning part of the 20th century. there even drew most of his pen and ink drawings much larger it his penman drew most of and ink drawings much larger than they appeared in the newspaper. this is much larger than shown in the facsimile of the washington evening star. this is a cartoon he drew on december 2, 1912, welcoming congress back into session. elections.911 of ais a facsimile library. the story is that roosevelt went to settle a border dispute and was on a hunting trip, but was not able to, was find and kill a bear. his aides did not want the president to be successful, so one of them tracked down an old bear, incapacitated it, tied it to a tree, took the president over and said here, you can shoot despair. and the president said no, i will not shoot that there. and berryman

it requires a bill passed by both houses of congress so the endgame always deals with congress and because you are considering the congress the endgame is mostly some form of politics it can garner the support of the members so that is the endgame and it's important to think about. with the promise to renegotiate wasn't a compelling coalition in support of that and so you will recall when the president decided to launch and notify the congress most of the comments everyone was quoting the hippocratic oath please do no harm so there was a lot of resistance initially. the second element is the republican house, senate and the president there are things they want to do together and things where they disagree into their spin a tendency early on to focus on things that they want to work on together specifically tax reform. it's somewhat controversial. so now you are beginning to see heryou here february, 2018 you e beginning to see the hearings happening this week as the committee met with the ambassador and members of the republican side they had a meeting in the white house on trade. it's bee

the congress. it became a family conversation on the site for a long while, at least all of 2017 until the tax reform bill was signed into law. now you are beginning to see, here we are february 28 teen come you see the things happening. the house ways and meansnspp committee met with the members of the republican side of the senate finance committee had a meeting with the president in the white house on trade and just the quotes are not. all of a sudden, congress is beginning to exercise its appropriate and constitutional role of not just oversight of the executive, but ultimately the power to determine what is in nafta. it's been slow coming of frustrating for those who wanted to see it sooner but at least it's happening now. let me stop there. >> first of all, i am from johns hopkins. sais, thank you for hosting this panel. the constitutionalal responsibility of oversight, but there is another dimension entirely political in what i mean by that is the start of, but it picked up speed in late sum

. -- the second aims to reform the anti-russman claims congress -- claims in congress. here is the 50 minute debate. ask mr. speaker, little more than three months ago you task the committee on house administration with a great responsibility. to understand our review to guard against sexual harassment in the workplace. i believe the legislation we are considering today, the congressional accountability act of 1995 reform act and immediately find to -- .mmediately following that i would like to thank speaker putting trust in us to conduct this review. i would like to take time to appreciate the work done by our conference chair cathy mcmorris rodgers. i would also like to thank every member of the committee on house administration, particularly mr. brady who has been a great friend and colleague over the last decade and i appreciate being able to work closely with them on this. this reflects the dedication and commitment of a bipartisan group of members including andesentative burns representative do each others. i also want to thank representatives disanto's and chris

was a thing that congress could not do what it wanted. congress could do whatever it wants so madison's legacy was of a constitution that is in the middle. limit power and protect liberties but also allow the national government to act. that was and remains extremely popular. there's a great letter from adams to jefferson written the week it ended where one former president called the other and despite the mistakes madison's product presidency had greater glory in the three others combined. there is a judgment of the age. it was a high point, naÏve in retrospect but a high point for nonpartisan rational government at least in madison's view. >> that's interesting. you recently gave a ted talk where you mentioned partisanship and compared it to the founding and suggested that even though much is made of partisan politics there were not so different that brings me to some of the audience questions i wanted to ask you to do is to channel madison a little bit or at least help us think through them through a different lens. one talks about ca

a future congress. for institutional reforms to stick, they have to be widely accepted as legitimate so that future members will actively want to the preserve the new arrangements. reforms that are perceived to stack the deck in favor of one party's policy preferences cannot be expected to survive a change of majority party control of congress. reforms also rely on the political will to make them work. the budget process established by the 1974 act was extraordinarily complex, and in fact, more complex than it is today, but congress was committed to making it work. and congress went on to do so, despite the difficulties for 20 years up until 1998. every year, congress succeeded if passing a budget resolution for the first 20 years of the budget process. the current reform effort seems to be off to the right start in stri striving for tr broad consensus, and in developing its reform recommendations the convergence process brought across ideological spectrums for building the broad consensus that is made

it gives congress only innumerated powers. there is no reason to fear that congress would abridge free speech. dangerous madison said because people might assume if a right wasn't written down, it wasn't protected. our framers believe our rights come from god or nature and not the government and to try to reduce them to a single list would be folly. in the face of objections from the three anti-federalists and the state ratifying conventions, mattson changed his mind. he was a practical politician. he almost lost a house election in virginia and he came to support the adoption of additional amendments to prevent further abuse of powers. what we're now going to do in the final section of this wonderful american treasures gallery. we've been seeing these incredibly rare, priceless earliest drafts of the constitution lent by the pennsylvania historical society. the first public printings of the bill of rights lent by david rubenstein and see how the original amendments were whittled down to the 12 proposed and the 10 that were ac

congress write thes the law and at the president must follow it, and in 11.82f, congress did give the president a power to suspend for a period of time the entry of noncitizens but he is subject to the restrictions both on the face of 11.82f, having to make the finding as chief judge gregory noted and he is still subject to the constitution, in sale versus haitian centers counsel, the supreme court reached and considered on the merits a claim, a statutory claim about the president's action under 11.82. did not say that is not lee view -- not reviewable and contrary to what the government proposed, sale actually just said that congress -- that at the president was acting purr student the powers -- >> seems to me in sale they did just the opposite of what you're saying. >> no. >> supreme court said that's the president's prerogative. we're not going to review that. >> actually, your honor, what sale was about was whether the president was comporting the statutes passed by dong and the court said we construe the statute,, and the u.n. protocol on refugees to the -- >> ask you something a

it is that congress cannot buy future congress. for institutional reforms to stick they must be widely accepted as legitimate so future members will want to preserve the new arrangement. before stacking the deck and one party it cannot be expected to survive as changes in the majority part of congress. reforms rely on political will to make them work. the budget process was extraordinarily complex. even more so than it is today. congress was committed to making it work and they went on to do so despite the difficulty for two years. every year's congress succeeding for the first 20 years. in developing this reform the convergence process brought together from the ideological spectrum. the new reforms joint select committee on reform contains an equal amount of republican and democrat and recommendations for both parties. this is a start the process. second, past successful reforms another pattern that emerges as members of congress can come together around reform even though they might not agree to what the reforms will do. successf

of congress auxiliary. the auxiliary consists of former members. we bring together a bipartisan group of over 600 congressman and senators who work together on a wide variety of projects. we strengthen the work of the current congress by promoting a deeper understanding of our democracy and encouraging public service. if you would like to find out more about our project and collaboration, please visit our website. tonight's panel is an example of smc's work to engage the public in a conversation about issues that affect our nation and our democracy. in the partisan era, where tweets and soundbites drive new cycles and politics is seen as an unkind profession for the power-hungry, it is important to step back and remember that our elected officials and their family members make selfless and ground decisions to enter the public eye and dedicate time for serving in public office. here to moderate our discussion tonight is dr. laura brown. dr. brown serves as a board advisor and director of the graduate school

we can proudly say now that me to congress. we are changing the face of employment in this building and making sure that everyone can be safe. for all the women who have seen me as i walk through the hallways and have flashed smiles, i hope you can grant now, because you are safe. >> it has been a pleasure for me to work with you. i did not come to this topic [inaudible] the committee i'm a 30 year practitioner of labor employment all. when i got here i did not know we had the problem we had. things became public last fall i took it upon myself to go through the laws that apply to congress and compared under title vii i was aghast this is not the same standard applied to people in the private sector. inside voice my concerns to chairman harper and he invited me to speak and we could have just given the same testimony. we saw the same problems and solutions. everyone work together to come up with the details solution in the bill. everybody in the congress has to go through training. every office will have a policy that defined s

in general, congress passes -- yes, actually congress gives us -- the first congress the words of the first amendment. what happens within a decade? congress passes a lawmaking it a crime to criticize, you guess it, congress, with the sedition act of 1798 and courts willingly uphold that. there is a lot that the constitution actually says and courts actually don't initially implement. only later do they finally catch up to it. mike might say that about affirmative action. what he thinks is prohibited and courts aren't prohibiting it now,but he is hopeful that day will come. what explains that? it's not unique to hate speech. i would say many ideas in the constitution are radical ideas. amazing. radical in a good sense. it takes sometimes america a long time to catch up to these commitments and promises that really are in the tax. -- text. and it's because they are really in the text in the end they prevail in the long run because people take seriously what is in the text of the constitution. in part because there are great institutions like the national constitution center and c-span

congress doesn't regulate state election. jeh johnson, whom i've been critical of in the past tried to put the states on notice in the fall of 2016. it didn't get a lot of media coverage because there was "access hollywood" tape that came out that same day. you're better able to speak from your line of work as to why, what jeh johnson warned us of in the fall of 2017, didn't get much media coverage but i don't think you want congress regulating the states in their election. >> you do have control, for example, over legislation that could require more disclosure from people on social media about who they are, who is backing them when they air ad online, for example. >> yeah, i had that conversation with the three media giants, you and i just got through discussing the second amend. that is the first amendment. i ask facebook, i asked twitter, i ask all of them how does a functioning democracy benefit from false information? i can't imagine how we benefit from someone perpetuating lies. but i got silenced. that's a first amendm

is one of the things that slows our economy down are our huge deficits twenty billion dollars i left congress feeling that i had let people down in two thousand and eight with such a large national debt and so we have a twenty plus trillion dollar national debt. it's outrageous now concerning that the g.o.p. was the one that always complained about the national debt and now to the republicans i guess deficit is not a dirty word anymore no it isn't but remember under ronald reagan he was willing to have deficits and under george w. bush we had deficit said we've kind of ignored it partly because we tell people they're bad but they don't see it and it it happens in the future with some other president and some other congress so you kind of can enjoy the fruits without having to pay for it and that's tragic and and frankly the news media allows members to get away with it they don't talk about it as well because it's not romantic right it's not romantic it's hard for people to visualize but they know intuitively in their own household when they have large that it's not a good thing so i take one

why would congress put it in 11.52? sounds like it's already colored, gender and race is covered even with the issue shoe of this visa and entry. why is it in 11.52? >> yourself, the point i was making to judge keenan -- ime question is why is it in 11.52 if what you say to judge keenan, that gender doesn't apply because it's one of those classifications they can't do it, an insidious, i like race, you can use nationality. why have 11.52 apply to race and gender because you don't need it there. >> a lot of statutes that president hunt thing -- >> why is it in 11.52. >> because congress was passing a statute that bolster what the constitution in part also prohibited. the other important point is 11.52 is focusing on the issuance of immigrant visa. what they were trying to wipe out he prokeis. >> didn't kneed. already had. om forgot you gave the answer to judge keenan, already had that. >> you can't use raise, the presidents can do this, he can do it also in this instance as judge prager indicated on this basis, too. >> y

of congress these days. though we won't have time to do it in that hearing, i look forward to having that conversation. i think congress could benefit more from your work if it was less the object of political conversation more policy. >> let me say one thing about that. that was a conscious decision. when we put out the estimates, while the debate was going on, i got so many offers, we got so many offers to go appear on tv and talk about things. we deliberately chose to let our report speak for itself. that would be like interviewing the referee at halftime. right. made our estimate. . we did our best to describe t then it was up to you to deal with the politics and decisions about it. that is consistent with the idea we are providing advice. we are not trying to get attention at all except by you because we want to help make you good decisions. >> from massachusetts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you director for being here. i appreciate your presence and your work. i'm reminded of when i lost my dog,

part of it is also the impulse of congress to legislate more and more and more. one of the things we don't understand is they really didn't pass anywhere near as many statutes back then as they do now. even in this dysfunctional congress, they still crank out the statutes. >> well, thanks to both of you for being our inaugural guest in this series of landmark case ands for helping us understand the history and the importance of mccullough v. maryland. we appreciate your time. >> thank you. >> thank you. and >> and to our viewers thanks for being with us this first of 12 programs. and thanks to our partners at the national constitution sender for their assistance and putting this whole series together this year. >> next week on landmark cases, we'll explore the civil rights cases of 1883 that struck down the previous civil rights act of 1875. that granted people regardless of race access to public accommodations like trains and theaters. join the conversation. our hashtag is landmark cases and follow us at cspan. there are resources for each case and series. go to

i would also say to improve the credibility of congress. congress has a low approval rating. the best way to deal with that and bring about more credibility and trust from the american people is to make sure you are working with everyone as best you can and to find commonality. host: there is a story about idaho, the state regulator who runs health care there wants to make changes within the aca, saying that the department of insurance became the first regulator where injuries began offering state-based plans. that practice is banned under the aca. what you think about that approach through the aca? guest: i think state health insurance commissioners need more flexibility. when the rubber hits the road you have the 10 essential health benefits under the affordable care act. i think those 10 essential health benefits should be part of every health insurance plan. on pre-existing conditions, i do not think that a state should carve out pre-existing conditions so that if you have a pre-existing condition a health insurance company would be able to charge you more. to the extent

congress is at the -- half of congress is that the gop retreat. julie hyman is with us halfway into the trading day. why is the selloff gaining steam? breaking these to big streak we have seen without a 3% pullback in the s&p 500. it has been nearly three years since we saw that kind of a cold back from a peak to a trough -- pullback from a peak to a traveler the s&p down 500 -- s&p 500 down. part is because of the bond market, the stronger than estimated job market and wage growth going up a little bit. we thought the 2.8% handle on that is theyield, highest it has been since january of 2014. that is putting pressure on stocks as our disappointing earnings. to put it in perspective, look at the bloomberg, we talked about the margin by which the s&p 500 has been trading above its various moving averages, indicators of momentum. we have the spread between the s&p 500 and its 200 day moving average. it is still at around 10%. a breaking of the huge upward trend we have seen in stocks. but a reflection on more caution and trepidation, more questions

congress approved its own to your spending deal that the president signed into law . keeping the government open with boost to defense of domestic spending that congressional deal essential overrides the budgets released by the white house the president has merely when it comes to the budget the power to propose but it is congress that appropriates and decides and congress decided and appropriated last week but what is consistent about both proposals is unrestrained spending trumps budget projects a deficit of more than a trillion dollars with no plan for reducing america's spiraling debt kimberly help al-jazeera washington where margaret carlson is from the georgia institute of technology she says trump's proposed military spending increase isn't as big as he would have americans believe budget is posed is more like a throwback to the two thousand the mid two thousand and two the bush administration and in fact what then proposed for missile defense is very similar i think it was nine point three billion in the f. why two thousand and five so we're looking at a fairl

congress is making congress is making it clear that we will protect our communities and combined with the walters amendment which reinstates victims' centered provision fathers my original bill last april, this legislation is now a guarantee of the fundamental rights of the most vulnerable members of our society. it's a message to the children and victims who have been robbed of their basic dignities that congress hears them and is responding to the injustices that they all have faced. it has not been an easy journey to get to this point. to find middle ground with tech industry, the victims' advocates, to incorporate the concerns of prosecutors and the law enforcement community, to move this bill through committee and to get both fosta and the walters amendment to the floor today. so i am very grateful for the many, many people who joined my crusade to restore justice to the brave children, women and men across our country who have been sold online. i am grateful to chairman goodlatte and his team for going the extra mile in helping us include a strong new crime that will enable pros

members of congress are trustees of the people. we have a solemn responsibility to do well by the people. both the people who sent us to washington and those who serve by our sides here. our values and our humanity compel us to take action and to finish this fight so that every woman, man, and child can live free from the fear of abuse. again i thank you, mr. brady, for your leadership on this issue and for yielding.

by congress to protect congress. that as you said, have been on the books for decades. so what the house did and overwhelmingly bipartisan way was essentially flip those rules on its head. once -- sorry, these are still the rules. they still have to pass the senate. if this bill becomes law, if you're a staffer and wanted to accuse your lawmaker of sexual harassment, you had to go into mediation with that lawmaker. you had to still work in the office. there was no option for you to leave or have some money to go home and take a break. the lawmaker has congressional lawyers to protect him or her. you do not. this would essentially flip all that on its head and as you pointed out earlier the kicker is lawmakers would actually have to pay out of their own pockets for sexual harassment. >> think of that, right. so here is the thing, there's already taking some changes that are happening now, right? >> yep. >> this still has to go to the senate and then to the president's desk. what are some of the changes, where might we

the ,nitial reward of the benefits benefits congress has , provided for judicial review but if congress didn't, i think the answer as a constitutional matter would be you have no due process clause. >> mr. stewart, is your argument about the new people coming to the border premised on the idea they simply have no constitutional rights at all? >> it is premised on that. >> if it is premised on that, justice scalia talked about in one of his hearings, surely that couldn't be right. could we torture those people? could we put those people into forced labor. surely the answer to that is no, is that right? >> i should be precise they have no constitutional rights with respect to the determination whether they will be allowed to enter. >> they do have some constitutional rights not to be , tortured or placed in hard labor. it's pretty close to that not to be placed in arbitrary confinement. arbitrary detention. >> if by arbitrary you meant -- >> arbitrary means nobody gave them an individualized hearing so we don't know whether they're being held for any good reason. nobody's made that decisi

this will be a busy week in congress and it starts today. mr. scalise: we're doing important work to pass a bill that properly funds government and most importantly removes the uncertainty that our men and women in uniform have right now. by including the d.o.d. appropriations bill in this funding of government bill it actually gives real certainty to our troops, our men and women for too long in military that serve our country, that sacrifice for our nation have not had the certainty because we've been operating under c.r.'s. the generals will tell you that's one of the most dangerous things. the biggest threats to our military is not having the certainty that they're going to have the tools they need so we can not only have the ability to go out and confront the enemies all around the world, but that our men and women in uniform can have the safety in understanding and knowing we are giving them the best equipment that's available. it's about time we do it. it's about time the senate actually takes this up and hopefully in the next day or two

what congress can do, what congress can't do, what the president can and can't do. what questions are important, but even more important is the how questions. do you do constitutional? how do you make a constitutional argument? what counts? only judicial precedent? what about text? what about the history? the original intent of the constitution? what about the structure of the constitution as a whole? is a beautiful example of all the different tools and techniques of proper constitutional analysis. holistic constitutional analysis being brought to bear. want to teach -- i want to teach my students more than anything how to make arguments. is a great place to start. >> wow! high praiseso have for mccullough. in this books, the constitution, introduction, you say that it the court'se for decision to uphold the affordable care act. come toabout how it's such a broad interpretation of national power, which has jackson's although veto stands for the proposition that the separate branches have interpret the constitution on their own. >> you wouldn't think that the case a

suns congress has no power to infringe speech, there's no reason to fear that congress would an bridge free speech. people might assume if a right wasn't written down, it wasn't protected. they believe they come from god and nature not government and to try to reduce them to a single list would be folly. in the face of objections from the three anti-federalists and state ratifying conventions madison changed his mind. he was a practical politician. he almost lost a house election in virginia and he came to support the adoption of additional anticipates to prevent misconstruction or further abuse of powers. we're now going to do in the final section of this wonderful american treasures gallery, we've been seeing these incredibly rare priceless, earliest drafts of the constitution lent by the pennsylvania historical society. we're now going to see the first public printings of the bill of rights led by david rubenstein and see how madison's original list of 19 amendments was whittled down to 12 proposed and the 10 that were actually passed. let's go see those now. we're now about to see

who desire to be productive and -- in congress. so easy to say, we know oh god, that this is difficult. thus, it is all the more noteworthy that his successors in government have chosen to honor him this day with the congressional gold medal. bless our world with peace. bless senator bob dole and his wife elizabeth, and god bless the united states of america. amen. >> please be seated. ladies and gentlemen, the honorable lynn jenkins. [applause] rep. jenkins: it is truly an -- a great pleasure to be here in the capital today honoring not only a great kansan, but a remarkable mentor and my dear friend. on this historic day, i am pleased to be joined by so many to award the congressional gold medal to senator bob dole in recognition for his service to the nation as a soldier, a legislature and -- a legislator and statesman. i am moved by the support and love the congress and our entire country has shown for this man. i think the good senator is fond of saying that you can take the boy out of kansas, but you cannot take kansas out of

when it comes to congress, you were a member of congress. do you think it's dysfunction or inept tud or do you think they're actually scared of the political consequences from important groups like the nra? >> some people just feel strongly about this and if -- i support the second amendment. i don't know anybody that really doesn't but are there limits to it and the fact is what -- >> you're saying the answer is yes? >> well, here's what i'm trying to say -- yes. the answer is. if you're a strong second amendment person, you need to slow down and take a look at reasonable things that can be done to answer these young people and frankly, my hope is in the next generation. think about how bad it is in congress. they condition decide anything. they can't decide that a kid that was brought here at five years of age who's been here for 30 years ought to be able to stay. they can't agree to anything down there. wake up! our country's being hurt because of this. >> you're talking a lot about congress. they're obviously is a man sitting at 1600 pen

i ensure that congress does its part. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. mr. harper: may i inquire of the time remaining for debate. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi has six minutes remain, the gentleman from pennsylvania has 9 1/2 minutes remaining. mr.harper: i yield one minute to the gentleman from florida, mr. santies. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. desantis: when news broke that there had been a series of sexual harassment settlements paid for by tax dollars, i think a lot of american, even by the low standards they have for this body, were shocked to hear that and it's almost as if the rules to set up to allow members get away with this i'm happy that the provisions of my bill have been adopted in this. i think it's important. taxpayers should not bail members of congress out for misconduct. and this bill fixes that and makes them personally liable. we also need a full accountin

congress approved its own to your spending deal that the president signed into law . keeping the government open with boost to defense of domestic spending that congressional deal essential overrides the budgets released by the white house the president has merely when it comes to the budget the power to propose but it is congress that appropriates and decides and congress decided and appropriated last week but what is consistent about both proposals is unrestrained spending trumps budget projects a deficit of more than a trillion dollars with no plan for reducing america's spiraling debt kimberley health kit al-jazeera washington. story we continue to follow for you the extent of the damage to a tiny pacific kingdom hit by a tropical cyclone daylight are surveilling the damage inflicted on tonga including its parliament house it's among the buildings now lying in ruins tropical cyclone hit the capital overnight tearing roofs off buildings downing power lines and causing extensive flooding as they storm caused havoc on the neighboring island and samoa over the weekend

that for all of the failures of members of congress, republicans in congress, to hold this president accountable, we actually are seeing citizens get engaged in a way that they haven't before. they're prepared to take matters into their own hands, consistent with the constitution, to make their voice heard. that, i think, is a powerful statement. in some ways the most important repudiation of trumpism possible. the only downside to this strategy, lawrence, is, of course, we're going to have to wait at least a year for it to take effect. >> and max, tonight, as rachel was talking about at the end of her hour, the beginning of this one, we are seeing in missouri, in state legislative elections, a real pullback from republican margins there. a big loss of ground. some of these districts that donald trump won by massive margins, the margin is now half that. one of the districts, a democrat has actually beaten the republican and that's in a district that donald trump won with a massive lead. and so we keep seeing this evidence around the country of a wave going against republicans. >> wel

in 1991, just like in every congress going to 1974 to today, there was a bill put forward to congress to add sexual orientation and the bill sponsor said that was necessary because federal law did not cover it. and despite that, congress did not enact that bill and has never enacted that bill. and that's what's fundamentally changed, is different from the pbgs opinion that the eeoc relies on and in that situation, that they had taken a certain position, there was a bill in front of congress to ratify it, they didn't end up passing the bill and what the supreme court said we don't know if they didn't pass the bill because they already agreed or whether they disagreed. that's totally distinguishable from a context like this where every circuit court for 50 years has said that this is not covered, every year from 1974, congress has had a bill before it, to overturn that and every time they don't do it. >> can i go back to the associational argument for a minute? i'm sympathetic to your point that the laws are fundamental aspect of white supremacy, and that is not-- we can't say that abou

from outside congress than you do inside congress these days. though we won't have time to do it in this hearing, i look forward to having that -- congress could benefit more from your work if it was less the object of political conversation, more policy. >> right. may i say one thing about that? it was a conscious decision. we put out these estimates while the debate was going on. i got so many offers. we got so many offers to appear on tv and talk about things. we deliberately chose to let our reports speak for itself and not be -- that would be like interviewing the referee at half time. we did our best to describe it and it was up to you all to deal with the politics and decisions about it. we're actually not dry tri-ing to get attention at all except from you because we want you to make good decisions. >> i'm reminded of when i lost my dog, whom i loved very much and i said no, no, no, i just have the freedom from my dog. that's how i looked at it. can you tell me, what are some of the transparency initiatives that you have taken to better

, we can undo without congress. that means we have a chance to get something done. >> so let's switch gears and talk about the budget. you served on both congress and the executive branch. you have seen both sides of the spectrum. many conservatives were disappointed over the 2019 budget proposal from the president because of the significant increase in spending. one thing that seems to be the case is that democrats and republicans don't have a problem spending money. how do we cut spending? mr. mulvaney: here is a challenge we face. nobody was more disappointed than i was when we offered the budget that we could not figure out how to balance it in 10 years. here are the cards we have been dealt. when we sat with the democrats to talk about the money we needed for national defense, secretary mattis has spent his first eight, 10 months trying to figure out how much money we needed to fix the department of defense, not just some of the damage done by the previous administration, but deal with north korea. the number f

canada is on both sides of this both praising congress and asking congress to do better. i think you'll make negotiations tricky moving forward. >> how do you meet the needs of if what they approve is going to affect negotiations that are ongoing themselves? what will have to emerge is something that looks a lot like coalition politics. some group of affected industries are parties are going to have to take a look at the negotiations as they stand and decide what they think about them as in terms of the effect on their businesses, states, markets, whatever it may be. and begin to form a set of coalition that will actively build support on congress. this happens every time you want to pass a bill in the house and senate, you have to do this work. it often emerges after negotiations start, so the fact it hasn't shown up now is not a surprise, but you there is usually an inkling of it beforehand. the u.s. korea free trade started with a-- discussion -- and when they make comments they are taken with a fair amount of weight, but the emerging idea quickly built in to a substan

and congress got close earlier. they did not get there. we desperately need to modernize our legal immigration system. what we haveid, right now is a man-made crisis, right? these kids have been fully vetted. all of a sudden, the rug was pulled from under their feet, and they are in a sticky spot march 5. at that time, we are already seeing people lose their status. there has been a court decision that has kind of provided some reprieve, but that can be gone at any moment, and that is what we need to remember. on march 5, the 122 or so dreamers that we have seen loose status every single day now goes to thousands of day. youth who have grown up here, who go to our schools, who are first responders, who are in our -- they are in all segments of society. those folks start losing status. .hat is why this is so critical what happens when you go to the emergency room? you take the most critical patient first. i totally agree. we desperately need to modernize our legal immigration system. unfortunately, like stephen miller in the white house has

host: you covered congress for a long time. talk about the history of immigration proposals in the senate going nowhere in the house. guest: how long do we have? the one that will stand out in everyone's mind is the so-called gang of eight from 2013. it was what they call comprehensive immigration reform. it had a broad series of proposals for dealing with legal immigration, illegal immigration, the whole list. is thatost interesting marco rubio, the florida senator who is gearing up to run for resident was a member of that team. they were negotiating that bill. then he basically joined the house of representatives in opposing it. to push forward in the house of representatives. the senate hassett and it died in the house and that was the end of it. he ended up still getting pummeled by conservatives for being part of the gang of eight that produced that bill. this time around, we are told he is not involved in these centrist negotiations to come up with a bill. he got burned so badly these stepping away. a taste of how toxic t

congress writes law. what i fear is that the president is trying to reframe the argument, essentially trying therovide some cover for leadership, republican leadership in the house and the senate, whichever peter usually and consistently blocked any meaningful piece of gun legislation from coming to the four -- floor of the house or senate. host: what's possible now? have to deal with closing the background check loophole. fix nix is important but it closing the with 40% of gun sales that are not subject to any background check whatsoever and that's a significant problem. with three other members of congress, i introduced a bump stock bill. we took a few weeks after the las vegas shooting. we didn't write it right away. we put together a really thoughtful piece of legislation. , denarott from michigan titus, a democrat from las vegas, nevada, brian fitzpatrick from pennsylvania, the four of us sat down at my office sent but together really thoughtful legislation that was not an thateach and simply said if