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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

running for congress in north carolina. a teacher running for congress in tennessee. republican pearl kim, former prosecutor running in pennsylvania. democrat gina ortez jones. running in washington against senator can't well who i should mention i worked for. former democratic party chair running for congress in new mexico. katie porter, law professor running for congress in california. there are a lot of you. that's sort of the point. thanks, everyone, for being part of this conversation. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, ari. >> thanks for having us. >> fantastic, i heard at least four thank yous. >> thank you. >> we want to go around the horn and do this because it does look like something really different in terms of what voters can choose from on tuesday. johanna, let me start with you in the upper left. why are you running this year? maybe in a couple sentences, we'll go around the horn. >> because i'm tired of waiting for other people to do what i'd like see government do, to have my issues and my voice reflected. so why not me? i need to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

as a member of congress, what steps did you advocate that congress could take that would ease the situation for people in this country? rep. finkenauer: first of all, we are talking about, especially when it comes to taxes, the tax reform package, it added 1.9 $1.9 trillion to the deficit, it gave 83% of it to the top one 1%. it isn't the way you do it. the tax cuts for working families weren't permanent. the fact is right now, any type of tax we package we need to be looking at should be looking at leveling the playing field here. making sure that we are closing the corporate loopholes and corporations are paying their fair share. we also have to raise wages here in this country as well. so that every single person no , no matter where you live, if you're working 40 hours a week, you're able to make, not to make a living but able to make a life. it's incredibly important and something we just haven't seen. also should be investing in trade schools and apprenticeships programs. and that includes looking at expanding even the perkins act, which was just reauthorized, i think it's great and s

he faces a congress where the republican majority is promised. the first thing they will do if they win the midterm election is once again try to repeal. >> i will give you 30 seconds. >> it will be controlled by the republicans or democrats, and i think the most important force will be those of us that are in the center of the i think that our views will prevail and i certainly don't favor mr. malinowski moving towards a european-style healthcare system. >> this question is for you. you said that, quote, believe every american, no matter their age, should have the freedom to buy into a medicare program. the estimated cost of bernie sanders medicare for all his $32 trillion over ten years. what's the difference between your plan? >> completely different. medicare for all is an idea of the abolished health care system to push everybody into a medicare style system. >> i'm for keeping the present system does giving everybody the freedom to choose a public auction on top of all of the private options. medicare could be one of them and when this was

congress. jodie: we are in the montana historical society in the state archives. the archives is one of three programs that makes up the research center at the historical society. today we're going to be talking about jeanette rankin. a woman from montana and born in 1880. her biggest claim to fame was that she was the first woman elected to the united states congress. that was in 1916. she was elected again in 1939 before we got into world war ii. she served two different terms, but lots of years in between them. jeanette rankin, when she came into the congress, she came in with a bit of fanfare, so there was a bit of a honeymoon in which she was given a standing ovation when she walked into congress. she was given flowers. it was a positive time. that quickly ended when she voted no for u.s. entry into world war i. this is a letter from anna garland spencer. she is from pennsylvania. in it she talks about how difficult it must have been to be the first woman in congress period, but also the f

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

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

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

white isn't congress operating? -- why isn't congress operating? it could be the presidency is taking the power, but that is not the interesting thing. congress is divided and not acting because they are divided. they have adopted and elector real focus on things because that is how you achieve your progress. you are always just waiting for he doesn't show up. you talk about gun control or gun rights, health care, you pump issues because they divide the party. they divide the party the country -- the country. becomes, what did they do? they point to the presidency and courts because it keeps them unified and they think being unified is how you win elections and make progress. they see conflict as a bad thing. you get to the courts and presidency, and you raised the stakes and reinforces the cycle. the whole thing reflects a change or shift away from the proper understanding of politics . if we do not have the understanding, we have hard time understanding how the structure operates and how they serve to fulfill what the famers -- framers ultimately

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

control of congress on c-span. see for yourself candidates and the debates from key house and senate embers. -- members. c-span takes you to minnesota second congressional district between jason lewis and democrat , they debated each other in st. paul, minnesota. >> jason lewis versus and to create. race.l profile the senate activists are gearing up for a high-stakes election. we will talk to candidates in the other senate race. >> i am focused on the 2018 election. minnesota.% that's who i am. >> this is made possible by this tablet television station and .upport is provided by energy a touchstone energy cooperative. and education minnesota, more at educating -- education minnesota.org. hello and welcome to a special night of congressional debates. it features reports on conversations exploring the values of our democracy. the two candidates who represent the second congressional district. >> the second congressional district includes the southern suburbs of the twin cities and points south and east. a good to the

i believe that congress, this particular congress has failed to act and hold this president accountable. about what they have allowed to have happen is repeal things like the power plant or put into the farm bill the repeal of the clean water rules. these are things congress must pass. the environmental protections we rely on and when we talk about this president or any president overreaching into this president has overreached to push back and pass laws that will protect us bottle may now put into the future. >> she is misinformed and we have an authorization for the use of literary force in the authorization use of military force. given that we are facing additional security threats around the globe it's been a strong suit and i think that he was correct in acting to strike syria in response to the chemical weapons on his own populations. i've been one of the leading voices in taking back the congressional authority and passing a opposite of solutions that it is fixing the broken visa program for the agricultural workers or whether it is providing increased border security, which is a

it is part of the solution congress can deal with. we can put more money where our mouth is with regards to mental health. we do not find it properly. people are not getting the help they need. congress has done absolutely nothing under this current leadership. all we do when these tragedies happen is have a moment of silence on the house floor and say that our thoughts and prayers are with the people that were killed. that does not cut it anymore. until the american people demand that their member of congress start to pay attention to these kinds of common sense gun safety regulations, these kind of events are going to continue to happen. host: i know it has been a difficult 24 hours. thank you for spending a few moments with us on c-span. congressman michael doyle, thank you. >> seatac was the topic of discussion on the sunday news shows we begin with the pittsburgh mayor reacting to president trump's suggestion of armed guards at religious facilities. we also hear from oklahoma republican senat james lankford and california congres

congress does not fund it. you don't hear somebody that is mentally disturbed with 30 days of treatment. there are moves being made not to cut the programs that pay for mental health in the medicaid program. sayisturbs me when people the answer to violence is more violence. i don't believe that is an answer at all. host: we are talking to congressman mike doyle. his district includes the tree of life synagogue, the site of the shooting yesterday. you represent a state that has a lot of nra members. how do you balance the second amendment, the nra, and more restrictions you are calling for with regards to firearms? guest: these are common sense laws we are talking about. people want to have a hunting rifle, that is fine. people want to have a handgun in their house to protect themselves, nobody is talking about eliminating that. you are not allowed to own a bazooka in this country. you are not allowed to own a machine gun. i think that should be extended to these military style weapons. why would the nra defend

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

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

this congress does nothing to take on drug companies. you have a congress, the white house looks like a retreat for pharmaceutical representatives, drug company ceos. also, the congressman, more than 20 times has voted to eliminate the consumer protections for pre-existing conditions. 5 million ohioans, more than half of the adults in the state, have a pre-existing condition. he has voted 20 times to take away, as mr. thompson suggested, those protections for pre-existing conditions. if he had his way, if john mccain hadn't stopped it with his vote, insurance companies would be able to deny coverage to people with cancer, to people with parkinson's or diabetes, osteoporosis. it is morally wrong, bad economics, bad health care policy. you will never get the cost under control if we don't take on the drug companies for spiking costs, and if we don't fight back against insurance interests trying to allow cancellation of policies of people with pre-existing conditions. moderator: your rebuttal? rep. renacci: the senator is lying. i never sai

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

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

congress and democrats. folks in to have congress come back. david: one of the people who will decide, darrell issa. nine term representative from california. he joins us today from washington. thank you for joining us. >> thank you, david. the president said half of the story. yesterday the secretary of state and others in the administration began doing the first steps. the ones that can be done by this administration unilaterally. you reported what the cia director comes back to brief the white house. i expect to brief congress thereafter. we will begin to understand how far this goes, and appropriately , is this a rogue operation, which would have one response, or doesn't go all the way to the top in which case there would have to be more severe repercussions? >> you have had quite a few colleagues on the republican side, on the senate side make statement about sanctions that should be taken, such as suspending arms shipments. the president has made sure he doesn't want to do. what range of sanctions might be appropriate? what's i do want to

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

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

and congress is no exception. and so, in this fable, the rats come up from the catacombs and they get into the toilet bowls of the lawmakers. you can imagine the frenzy, the fear, the cover-up, the overreaction, and then the expose by an intrepid reporter who could have come out of damon runyon. and that led to huge derision, which led to huge public attention toward congress, which is a rarity, and that led to active citizens mobilizing a realistic, strategic movement to take congress back under the rubric of we the people instead of the rubric of wall street's corporate state. and i hope that you will have sufficient interest to read one or the other of the two books and the -- how the rats reformed the congress can be obtained by going to ratsreformcongress.org and the website goes into great detail on how you can develop these congress watchdog groups in every congressional district based on practical experience that we and others have had other a half a century. and so, we close this conference and this mater

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

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