i was interviewing a member of congress-- congress whose name i won't mention. at the very moment that we broke into the broadcast to announce that the president was bombing libya. you are of the same party of the-- as a president. what do you think? >> the president doesn't have the authority to do this, we all know that. were you going to do about it? probably nothing. that's when president. obama made the announcement and when the congressional break was over and the president returned from his trip, nothing had happened except that the constitution was weaker. he was about-- moammar gadhafi was about to be killed in an evil way. only congress can unleash those forces. madison could not have been clearer. what troubles me the most is the presidential value that comes about when congress looks the other way. i'm not here to present-- criticize president. trump and it's not an argument about politics. it's and argue about principle. he had reason to believe that congress would do nothing because congress did nothing in these other instances in which presidents

congress alone. and they are very expensive claims. and i think we thought the libya was aggressive and expansive as one could be. we with thenenyr. topped last and i do think it's a challenge for the senate to figure out how to use the legislative process to pair that back, to invalidate those opinions, and those relying on them, but ultimately that's probably going to require also using the power of the purse cutting off funds for unauthorized military campaigns. >> chairman paul, thank you so much for this hearing. >> senator lee. >> i want to thank you senator paul for organizing hand thank particular for you willing to come and offer urine sites. which is helpful. we are now this 17th year in deploy testament under the 2001 use of authorize force. it is not yet the case that most junior personnel deployed were not born as of the moment that 2001 aumf was issued by congress. but it will soon be the case. lo bore it's even fathomable that we will have retreated from the battles fields, it will be

onprobably hasn't been congress's radar screen, this is a prominent issue which congress has been aware of or a long time and has chosen not to do something about that. to make your bar higher doesn't it? >> this is a constitutional intern tatian. one way to look at congress is just what was announced today, the microsoft decision. sometimes this court will spur congress to act. in this instance it hasn't. we would not expect congress to come in but your point is ,quill, right or wrong was his court's decision. if time has changing tradition rendering it obsolete why should the court say we will let congress fix out -- fix up what turns out to be an obsolete precedent. >> it is. >> isn't it normal that we treat the closest same way we treat statute. i think the issues are legion. congress cannot overturn a constitutional decisions, but in this case is different. of course they do. i don't see a difference there. >> i would say there's a difference because the state constitutional -- this iseason we say because congress cannot act. .hey can act and therefore, there is no reason for treat

congress can act. congress can impose whatever solution it believes is appropriate. and, indeed, if states are giving greater latitude to experiment in this area, to devise different schemes that would balance the interest of out of state retailers against the interest of consumers within the states brick and mortar retailers, the state's own sfw in acquiring funds. if states can experiment, congress will have a wider varieties of models to look at and decide what aspects of each it would like to choose. the second thing i would say about start -- >> that doesn't do anything for the interest here and for the dislocation and lawsuits that will -- it will engender. >> the second thing i'll say about quill is quill will understand that an out of state retailer cannot be made to collect state sales tax unless it has employees or a physical employee within the state. that's the meaning that's been attached to the phrase physical presence requirement that the court used in quill. i think in context it's very clear that quill was not issuing at least an add vert ent holding

after all, if congress is going to pass laws and appropriate funds in order to run the government, congress and the people whom they represent have a right to know how those laws are being implemented and whether those funds are being well spent. on the other hand, the executive branch does focus on a number of sensitive issues, including ongoing criminal investigations that ought to remain free from political influence. it is also important that executive branch officials feel free to be open and candid in their views even when they're unpopular without an undue fear of public disclosure that might be personally embarrassing. as the supreme court stated in the seminal case united states rooted under it is the powers in the constitution. there's been a concern learning -- as far as how far congress should go and exploring the interworkings of the judicial executive branch and perhaps to a slightly lesser degree, judicial branch. here to offer his perspective is one of the senate's champions of robust oversight, senator chuck grassley from iowa. senator grassley has had a long and distinguis

and it's one that our constitution entrusts to congress. but for nearly 17 years now, that choice has been left to the executive branch, with the result that the united states has been almost constantly at war. in president obama's last year alone, u.s. forces dropped over 26,000 bombs on seven different countries and obama left office first two-term president in american history to have been at war every single day of his presidency. that's in large part, thanks, to a joint resolution that congress passed three days after 9/11. 2001 authorization for the use of military force, or aumf. three presidents in a row have warped that initially limited authorization into an enabling act for globe spanning presidential war. it's been made broad enough to cover everything from air strikes to boots on the ground in ton go, ton go. and the trump administration's position, like the obama administrations before it, is that congress has already had its debate on war powers 17 years ago, and it's one congress, one vote, one time. last sunday, memorial da

congress has levers as well. they have letters, chairman letters, that is different than a staff or a calling. and it is more powerful when you have a matter that is put into the legislation, into the intelligence operation like -- that is a matter of law, that will get done. i am happy to answer questions when we go to the q and a mama but i just wanted to set the stage as far as the difference between the inspectors general and the title v ig. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you dave. my years, as senator levin mentioned, my year and a half as staff director of the 9/11 inquiry brings back comments and memories of dealing with the intelligence community on oversight. as an ig and -- ig dod as well, we ran into this. the oversight of the 9/11 issues , with the intelligence committees, i think the most difficult area to do oversight is a black and the secrecy of the intelligence community. on top of all the usual resistance, you have and the issues you come into, you're dealing with highly sensitive and in some

the 114 congress, 329 bills became law. during the same period, the obama administration finalized more than twice as many rules and regulations and that doesn't count guidance documents or other forms of agency action, some of which have the same impact as regulation. not intended to, that seemed too. or some estimates, regulation plays a great weight on the economy is nearly $2 trillion in compliance costs. unfortunately, we in the congress enabled this. we authorized the government programs and get agencies to money and the staff to run it. it's no wonder there are more than 180,000 pages of administrative regulations. i'm glad that president trump has made cutting the regulatory burden one of his top priorities , but lasting reform is going to require some significant structural changes. think about this. more than 2 million people work for the federal government. that does not even include contractors and active-duty military personnel. according to a 2015 study, the actual size of the goverent workforce is estimated a

second is congress have that scheme and third are there any other indication that congress enter the issue in a different direction? with respect to all of those that were here to satisfy all three of those factors congress has a reticulated theme with that problem he has identified which countries are not cooperating it cannot coexist with the solution of a flat pan and makes sense the in person visa requirement which is for people who come from state sponsors of terrorism will have a group with a likelihood to provide information congresses you have to have the in person and will -- interviewer doesn't make sense to have a flat band for the visa waiver program which is all about countries that provide zero information to the united states as state sponsors of terrorism to say we will give you a tariff and then say forget about the visa waiver program. >> can you imagine any situation where the threat of the infiltration of the united states by terrorists was so severe with respect to a particular country that the other measures you have mentioned could have been deemed by a preside

congress will pass a new act giving more power to the president. today, john and i are going to make the case that the best way to avoid that danger is to wipe the slate clean. replace thed not 2001 aumf. recognize that the original authorization has run its course and sunset it. and for the president to make the case for any new authorization that he thinks is needed. if he does, he can make that case to congress the way the constitution envisions. our constitution's framers believed that war is serious business, and that going to war should involve a broad national housesus, across both and in multiple branches. james madison held it as an that the executive is a branch of power most distinguished by its propensity of war. the framers granted the book of the constitution's military powers to congress, including control of the decision to go to war in the first place. that did not leave the president totally disarmed. the president retained some defensive authority. but, absent an imminent threat or provocation, the constitution gave the president

congress is a scary place. especially if you've never worked for congress before. sometimes that is the thing, i have been that staffer where someone is getting screamed at. it is scary. i think sometimes ig's don't build those relationships that they should be building for whatever reason. congress, they are important. congress is paying attention and our work will get more change. thank you, i think we have some closing remarks, right now. >> well, i want to thank our panelists and our speakers for participating today in this educational and thoughtful conversation about the role of inspectors general and the role they can and should play in congressional oversight. we have showcased the good work that ig's do , in terms of the amount of money they save and the integrity that they bring to government programs. we have raised a number of issues that ig's face , issues they face in their work and congress. ig's have to be willing to be unpopular. as several of us have said, they have to speak truth to power. while that is an overworked phrase, it is a perfect fit w

congress is a scary place, especially if you have never worked for congress before. sometimes, again, i have been that staff are behind the member where somebody's getting screamed at. it is scary. sometimes i.g.'s don't build those relationships may be that they should be building, for whatever reason. but congress, if congress is paying attention, our work will, a lot more change will happen as a result of an inspector general's work. thank you. i think we have some closing remarks. >> well, i want to thank, i'm one of the washington codirectors of the levin center. i want to thank our panelists and speakers for participating today in this educational and thoughtful conversation about the role of inspectors general, and the role they can and should play in congressional oversight. we have showcased the good work i.g.'s do, in terms of the andnt of money they save the integrity that they bring to government programs. we raised a number of issues worki.g.'s face in their and for congress. i.g.'s have to be willing to be unpopular. they have to speak truth to power. a

reagan took over two years to work through congress. say the biggest lessons for us the inability to complete healthcare. repeal and obamacare. that case, congress started on january 3rd. on repeal andd replace so long. our administration didn't come in until end of january. by the time we came in, the effort to appeal and replace or tag as obamacare like by conservatives. we brought those conservative groups in the white house early on to make sure they were part of the process with us. was a much different process opposed to congress starting before we were involved and having fractured messaging on the same page. >> whether donald trump, barack obama or george w. bush when they're out campaigning for a piece of legislation, we've seen of them with donald trump. needle?move the >> i think they do. many members in congress are responsive to their constituents. needle? >> i >> when you go home at night, do you have a chance to kick back? thinking about the next day? >> i'm very blessed to have very threeing wife and wonderful kids. i'm

congress can fix this tomorrow. i think you were next. >> president trump as have a lot to say about immigration but he offered no compassion to the families being separated at the border. do you know why that is and why policy --all this called the policy until the long-term fix? >> he has been attending to work with congress and see has been in office and has made it clear that we will enforce the wall -- the law of the united states. as part of that, he is reaching out to congress to fix this. in the last few days, he has done that, told congress to please work with us, the system is broken, the only people who benefit from the system right now are the smugglers and traffickers, those peddling drugs and terrorists. less fix the sick -- let take the system. that's let fix the system. >> does he go compassion for the family separated that does he feel compassion for the -- does he feel compassion for the families? >> he wants congress to act to end the loss that require separate -- laws that require separation. tea

senate seats are up for reelection as well so congress may feel some pressure to do something because some of the seats may be affected by how they stand this issue although i'm doubtful that anybody would lose their seat over this issue although it's right now dominating the news lindsey graham only reason have to lose this seat have. you explain that part to us joe there's often a lot of skepticism and pessimism about whether a congressman wants to quote unquote take a risk to try and fix this why well because members of congress want to keep their seats and so often times they want to test how their constituents feel about a matter of asli this is a matter that is bothered a lot of people republicans and democrats because it seems to be so he inhumane and it's caused the first lady malani a trump to speak out about its cost because former first lady laura bush to speak out to write an op ed piece strongly condemning the policy and obviously there are democrats republicans that think that this is terrible policy the president on the other hand this said that it's up to democrats to

i think that is an issue coming back to congress now. they say about cars, every state is an auto state. they touch every part of our economy. that is an issue that will be galvanizing for the u.s. conference. >> do you think congress can have influence with the administration without the threat of legislation? there is uncertainty about what the administration will do. we don't know how well people outside are influencing that. >> i think congress has played a helpful role. many members of congress, over the past six months on nafta, have gone in and had a series of meetings with the president and others in the white house to convey the importance of nafta to their states. that has been very impactful. we have seen the withdrawal threats as a growing concern fade to a degree. that has been meaningful. but it is an unanswered question what happens next. it is one that members of congress will be speaking about. threat came out before the vice president met with senators for a regular lunch. reports, to the press this is something a numbe

congress can request i.g.'s to investigate specific issues and congress can use the work i.g.'s initiate to press for further information and reforms and to hold agency heads accountable. i.g.'s are an important tool for congress and the question today is whether congress is adequately using i.g.'s and whether i.g.'s are developing and maintaining beneficial relationships with congress. the chair of the levin center, former senator carl levin, had 30 years experience with the i.g. act as michigan's longest serving u.s. senator. for each of those 36 years, he was director of the homeland security which has jurisdiction over the i.g. act. he chaired the armed services committee and several subcommittees on homeland security and governmental affairs, including the powerful subcommittee on investigations known as p.s.i. he was deeply and universally respected for his commitment to bipartisan oversight, one of the major areas of interest by the levin center. i'm happy to introduce senator carl levin. [ applause ] >>> bob, thank you so much for the introduction, your great work at wa

-- his time in congress. many look at this event is the beginning of the partisanship in congress that still has an effect on washington today. it was a very significant event in congressional history. what we have here in the are some photographs and documents related to john f. kennedy's trip to dallas-fort 1963.in when he began that trip, he came to ft. worth november 21, 1963. we have photographs of president kennedy and mrs. kennedy exiting air force one and their arrival in fort worth. texaspent the night in a hotel in downtown fort worth. the next morning, john f. kennedy take a speech in front of the hotel and jim wright was part of the delegation that was with president kennedy at that speech. went to the fort worth convention center for the chamber of commerce breakfast that day that kennedy spoke at. there are other photographs of president kennedy and jim wright together on november 22, 1963. the two men had a relationship and knew each other prior to this, when john f. kennedy was running for con

there is no reason to think that thatat congress intended, congress would have intended the department of homeland security to stop their time by handing out a form that did not identify why the person was removable. can i ask about your assertion that this is definitional in nature? is that necessary to your argument. here is an alternative view to your language. this language is a notice of shorthand. something,call this this thing that tells you to appear and this is what we are going to call it. it does not suggest that isrything we say about this -- defines what a notice to appeal is. respond to that and then tell me whether it's crucial that i agree with your response to that. david j. zimmer: so i guess i don't -- i think maybe the word "definitional" -- i mean, what the -- this document is called a notice to appear, which in and of itself implies some indication that it will tell someone when, where, and why to appear. elena kagan: yes. i mean, it's obvious that the document is called a notice to appear. but the question is whether, if the document is flawed in some way, that i

what is percolating within congress. it is like an intel committee where you figure out, here's the information that we are hearing from staffers on the hill as to what legislative item becoming next month or next week. reporter: you hear from members of congress, democrats and republicans, the house and senate. how do you deal with their demands, questions, their concerns? marc: i think if we are true public servants, we make sure we are being as responsive as possible. whether they are republican or democrat. in many cases, there are needs that democrats present to us and we make sure we are fulfilling those. when we came into this office, i met with the people who preceded me in the obama administration, and i think they felt there was more they could utilize in the white house in chairing it. i think we've tried to take that to heart. we have had many different opportunities to bring democrats over here for meetings, ceremonial functions, and many democrats say we have been to the white house more times than in the w

30000 years in congress and made his home here after he left congress he did not stay in washington but moved back home and spent the last 20 years of his life teaching students at texas christian university. in a real sense the portrait represents jim, one the leader in congress and also appropriate placed right here in fort worth which he called home. lone star leaders was a project that my co-author and i undertook after we did a full-length study of the austin, boston connection which was the passing of power and house of representatives between representatives from boston and representatives from texas. it's a coalition that dominated politics in the us house of representatives from until 1989 when jim wright left the speakership. it was an interesting project but in doing that we were going around texas and going through archives of many of the influential people were from texas and had served in congress during the 20th century. once that project was finished up we thought it would be wonderful to do a series of short pieces on many of the industry people who served from texa

>> well, david, it's fascinating that the republican position was this was something that congress ought to decide in now when congress has an opportunity to decide with the congressional review act that has passed the senate in a bipartisan way and is now pending in the house that the republicans in the house and industry are saying no, congress should be separate. look, if the chairman of the fcc has the courage of his convictions that what he has done is right to for america and will stand up to a vote in the congress hehto pick up the phone, call speaker ryan and say schedule it for a vote in the house and let's see what the representatives of the american people say. >> watched "the communicators" tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> today the obama era fcc rule on that neutrality came to an end. after a trump administration decision to repeal it. on the senate floor majority leader mitch mcconnell celebrated the rollback of the obama arrow rule. later,huck schum edward markey spoke out against it. >> on another matter today marks another important milestone in our efforts to

congress and the courts created alone oblem and congress can fix it. until then, we will enforce very law we have on the books to defend the sovereignty and security of the united states. those who criticize the enforcement of our laws have offered only one countermeasure. borders. the quick release of all illegal alien families and the decision our laws.orce this policy would be disastrous. it's primary beneficiaries would be the smuggling organizations themselves and the prime victims who would e children smuggling into the machine. there is a lot of misinformation what dhs is and is not doing adds it relates to families at the border and i record. correct the here are the facts. first, this administration did not create a policy of families at the border. we have a statutory responsibility that we take to protect alien children from human smuggling, rafficking, and other criminal enforcing our immigration laws. we have a long existing policy, mull. administrations have followed, that outline when we may take protect children. we will separate those

congress.verage the white house, the supreme events nd public policy in washington, d.c. and around the country. by yours brought to you cable or satellite provider. >> next, debate from the house floor on a resolution requiring turn stice department to over documents related to the russian investigation. just over an hour and a half. you, mr. speaker, for the purposes of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from mr. mcgovernor earn, pepding which i'll yield myself as much time as i may consume. consideration of this -- it's yielded for the purpose of only.e mr. speaker, i ask -- extraneous resolution house 5971 under current consideration. so ordered. provides for consideration of house insists n 970, which the department of justice comply with the intelligence committees. one-hour debate divided between the chairman and committee.diciary yesterday the rules committee had an opportunity to hear from fellow man jordan and a judiciary committee member as well as ranking

congress who are upset. your job is to help make sure that you navigate the process and deliver on the president's agenda as best as possible. reporter: this is a town with a lot of egos. marc: there are a lot of egos in washington dc. a lot of people who look for their own intention. that can be frustrating sometimes. hopefully, the people on our team are here to do it to advance. -- advanced the president's agenda. make sure america is strong on the international stage. reporter: you mentioned the president's twitter account. does he give you a heads up that says, i'm going to focus on this topic? marc: yes, on many occasions he says, i have been thinking about tweeting on the subject. what would be most helpful? one of the biggest differences, when we came to office, members of congress would say to the president, i understand how powerful that tool is on the campaign, please put it away now that you're here in the white house. today, when you're in, i can tell you how many members of congress call in and

are not in congress today. how do we keep that going? and with that state of the union? what about those voters on the country? what is the answer to keep this energy with this initiative going? >> and to make a point at least i'm surprised that about 200 people have been sent into the senate since i was sworn in. 200. so there is some appreciation for the degree of turnover in the house and senate. and it has many parts but first you say we have an amazing story to tell. i don't know if it is as as well told today because there are too many things distracting us that we have to be persistent. but it was the first disease we could stop her cure today is incredible. and is a compelling argument. but this other issue is the extraordinary opportunity for the united states for our image abroad. there was a heart that went way beyond the issues and how we cared about the community and how much we wanted to communicate and tell our story. but for all kinds of reasons all over the world we just need to continue to mak

what congress gives, congress can take away. if we are talking about natural rights, it does not begin with government to start with, so government does not give you anything. it might declare or acknowledge it, but it is not coming from government. what makes the difference in our is that we arets trying to take what our natural rights and turn them into also protected by law. right? you have the declaration of independence, but it did not create a court system. there was no way of enforcing rights. one of the other things i learned in harvard law school, there is no right without a remedy. you can say you have rights, but if you do not have a remedy against someone who is violating your right, does the right really exist? let's bring that back to our constitution. you recognize this piece of art, those of you who work in the capital or work in the capital -- or go to the capital, you have seen it before. it is what we now think of as , and it was hall named independence hall because that is where the independent -- declaration

congress and the courts created this problem and congress alone can fix it. until then, we will enforce every law we have on the books to defend the sovereignty and security of the united states. those who criticize the enforcement of our laws have offered only one countermeasure -- open borders. the quick release of all illegal alien families and the decision not to enforce our laws. this policy would be disastrous. its prime beneficiaries would be the smuggling organization themselves and the prime victims would be the children who would be plunged into the smuggling machines and gain recruitment on the trip north. there's a lot of misinformation about what dhs is and is not doing as it relates to families at the border. and i want to correct the record. here are the facts. first, this administration did not create a policy of separating families at the border. we have a statutory responsibility that we take seriously to protect alien children from human smuggling, trafficking, and other criminal actions while enforcing our immigration laws. we have a long

code or congress wants to say solely by reason and congress says it. >> we think it is the best reading to reconcile the provisions. >> don't think this failure to vote cause bars the state from using confirmation procedures. it is not. can be a permissible part of the state program. that is your way to reconcile the two things. take it on its own, the failure to vote clause might bar confirmation procedures. those procedures say no, not these. >> that may have been one reconcile and our way. the states debated on this issue on the 1990's and congress intervened and reconciled with the addition of the have a provision. >> the clause is a part of a different provision in a different statute dealing with a related but different subject matter. there would be no reason to take one provision that says solely and saysau that provision says soli we're going to treat this one as also saying solely even though it does not. in fact we have a rule against that ieretation. usually, we say, look, congress knows a provision and it did not do it here. .> in the same law, >> it adopted a clarification

we're still waiting on congress to give us the ability to do that. >> unless congress acts, nothing is actually going to change? the administration is not changing anything right now when it comes to judges? >> you mean are we walking around making up laws? no, because we're not the obama administration. we are trying to enforce the laws that are on the books. we are asking congress to do their part in the process and pass new legislation that will fix our immigration system. >> so the president is complaining about judges and saying we shouldn't have all these judges and people would come out and just be put out but nothing is actually going to change, he's just complaining about the process as it stands now? >> things that we have the ability to do administratively, we are working to do. but again, congress is the only one that has the abili to write law, and we hope they will do that. >> on that point, i'm trying to understand what it is the president understands about the current policy. as you explained, expedited removal allows the government to remove hundreds of thousands of il

assigns to congress. so what am i talking about? i'm talking about the amendment that we've crafted, which would simply require that before a president, this president or any other president, can invoke section 232 of our trade law, which is the provisions that grant the president special powers when the national security of america is threatened, is at risk, gives him the power to impose tariffs, in that situation. and what this amendment would do is it would say that when a president makes that determination, that he wants to impose tariffs because it's essential for the security of our country, that he could do so as long as he has the ascent from congress, and it would require an expedited process, simple majority vote, couldn't be dragged out, couldn't be filibustered. but it would ultimately be congressional responsibility. now, why do i say that this would be restoring to congress its constitutional power? well, it's because the constitution is very unambiguous about this. article i, section 8, cla

congress and the courts created this problem and congress alone can fix it. until then, we will enforce every law we have on the books to defend the sovereignty and security of the united states. those who criticize the enforcement of our laws have offered only one countermeasure. open borders. the quick release of all illegal alien families and the decision not to enforce our laws. this policy would be disastrous. its prime beneficiaries would be the smuggling organizations themselves and the prime victims would be the children who would be plunged into the smuggling machines and gain recruitment on the trip north. there's a lot of misinformation about what dhs is and is not doing as it relates to families at the border and i want to correct the record here are the facts. first this administration did not create a policy of separating families at the border. we have a statutory responsibility that we take seriously to protect alien children from human smuggling, trafficking, and other criminal actions while enforcing our immigration laws. we have a long-exis

that is now making its way through congress. i think they need to do it like yesterday. >> i agree with you, sean. now that we know that at least three, three of the people that were on mueller's special counsel were removed for extraordinary bias, you know, clinesmith who was named by meadows apparently was just removed in february. we know peter strozk was extraordinarily biased and right now horowitz is actually investigating his role in the russia investigation. >> sean: in other words, it was legitimate -- illegitimate from day one. >> fruit from the poisonous tree, sean. >> sean: well said. >> this is what attorneys look at, at all times. >> sean: we got to roll. >> there needs to be something done. >> sean: thank you, both. a very sad day at the fox news channel. up next we'll remember the life, the profile in courage, the legacy of our friend and colleague the brilliant charles krauthammer. life, the profile i, the legacy of our friend and colleague the brilliant charles krauthammer. check out star spangled savings at ba

there is a movement against that from members of congress, activists and the american public. the other thing to remember is that they have a nonimportant impact on government policy if it's something they care deeply about. i guess i'm still somewhat an optimist. [inaudible question] [inaudible question] [inaudible question] [inaudible question] [inaudible question] [inaudible question] [inaudible question] [inaudible question] [inaudible question] [inaudible question] [inaudible question] [inaudible question] >> in the book i use the terms human rights because by and large political and civil rights. within the activist there's one exception that is a segment of people who are very active who somewhere former members of the study but others were more -- in their orientation. they were criticizing the u.s., not just for this but also the social and economic rate. so i'm using a more narrow definition then we would talk about today. that's because the activists at the time were focused on. josÉ up until this point academics who work on human rights talk about a boom of human

that feedback has come to congress and now it's resulting in all of these initiatives that congress is improving on. we're basically learning as we go. what we have learned is, it is multipronged. it's like buddy carter yesterday. you got to deal with how prescriptions are written, with the pharmaceutical industry as to what pain medications are out there. there ought to be non opioid solutions here, clearly. and sometimes an ibuprofen isn't enough, but you don't have to have vicodin. i'm over simply filing. it's stigmatism reduction. it's pharmaceutical. it's the way prescriptions are written, and awareness. all those things. this is an epidemic that is taking this country. so we have got to get on top of this. and what i have learned is not only are all these things going to have to be tackled at once, get the resources up to the communities so that we can test different models of prevention and treatment to find which ones work the best and replicate those models. reporter: will you be getting -- i think the big question is people have been saying it's a multipronged approach for ye

i had been some resistance from congress and from -- there had been some resistance from congress and the local populations, it's a big deal to lose a coast guard boat station. we recommended they put together a plan with time frames they could meet and what they would need to do to be able to close those boat stations. report on aou do a topic like that, you go back and explore how the duplication was allowed to happen in the first place and why would multiple boat stations be built to controhypothetical t thingsthat is one of the we do, we try to identify the cause for any problems we're finding. we try to make a recommendation is going to get at the root cause. in many cases, what has happened is your programs or services that have developed over time for slightly different purposes or for different audiences or and a different program they are trying to work together and we find ways they can do that a little more effectively and more efficie. e coast guard, their processes have changed and technology has changed and they probably have greater range now. these things have sort of

years and then0 in 1986, became the speaker of house of congress. 1989 he resigned from congress and came back to fort became a professor here at tcu where he taught in the political science department. he also authored many books and fixture around campus. we brought his paper here at tcu. we have them. we usually have several researchers a year come and do the paper and papers on his time in congress. politics of the cold war and ultimately, partisanship surrounding his resignation from congress and scandals. all those topics that people do research in. we do have a permanent exhibit here in library that is set up wright. of speaker it includes several artifacts his political life and also he personal life as a hobby loved boxing. we have a pair of his boxing and the exhibit and some of his shoes he wore in the ring. he ran for congress, there a business and entrepreneur in fort worth at the time named andy carter. was very influential and had a lot of power in the local scene.al he supported wright's opponent. carter was publisher of the fort worth star telegram newspaper. that ho

this congress deserves your thanks, and this republican congress deserves your support for reelection in 2018. [applause] the president and i have traveled all over the country. we have already been making great progress this year. men and women stepping forward for reelection and election. we need all of us to be in this fight together. the truth is, we all know how important republican congress is. how important it has been for this administration to advance president trump's agenda. the truth is, the democrats know how important majorities are, as well. the party of nancy pelosi and chuck schumer have been watching us dismantle a lot of the liberal legacy of the last administration. they have been working their hearts out to turn back what the president and all of us have accomplished with this congress. i get the impression they thought they were entitled to another eight years. eight years of progressive dominance, but instead, they woke up one morning to find out that donald trump was president of the united states of america. [applause] the passion we see on the other side, i t

does it take the heat off congress? congresses voting tomorrow on a couple different bills. >> both likely to fail. i think we saw earlier that there's not a consensus on immigration in either party. i think on the child and family separation issue, it's travel ban redox. we had a policy that was very important to the policy, zero tolerance but it implemented in such a way that left questions and let again to the president doing another policy, just like he did with the travel ban, that is likely to be challenged in court. he found himself on the wrong end of a 70-30 issue. the problem is for the democrat democrats. separating families may be unpopular. zero tolerance however is relatively popular. if the d themselves attacking a zero-tolerance policy while republicans are doing their best to unify the families to keep them in detention together, i think the democrats come up short. >> bret: house majority leader in the compromise. >> this is a bill that's has consensus on the president supports. it could become law. we

congress has a few avenues. i think congress is paying the price for blinking in the i.r.s. case where they held lois learner in contempt but didn't follow up. they sent a referral they knew would be ignored. part of making our system work is congress to act as a separate and co-equal branch of government and use its powers to enforce the accountability. >> sandra: it is amazing for the american people to look on at what -- the text messages alone and think what is happening at the highest levels of our government? >> right. >> sandra: a lot of trust has been lost through all of this. >> right. if you read the i.g.'s report, peter strzok has explanations for what he meant. i didn't really mean i would stop an election. that's troubling. f.b.i. agents have the right to their own opinions but in these 468 pages we didn't see a single pro-trump text, right? if you were in the trump administration would you trust these guys to be fair and impartial? even the inspector general, although he said he didn't find evidence of bias, he said peter strzok's decision to make the russia in