it doesn't get around the factt social media has had a tremendous impact on how congress communicates with its constituents. ten years ago they didn't even havet a digital media staff and today almost every committee has won including hours and given these changes in the way congress and the american people communicate, today's hearing is important. if history is any indicator, the platforms will continue to rapidly evolve, and congress needs n to adapt so that members can communicate as effectively as possible with the people they represent, and i know representative susan davis put a lot of thought into these issues and have ideas about how to modernize it carried members need to understand the differences between the platforms so that they can make smart choices about how to best communicate. it comes with a geographical constraints in some social media platforms, advertising the frank male doesn't. so the bottom line is communicating is a lot easier today but also a lot more complicated. i look forward to what the witnesses have to say about these issues and it's important to unde

congress was the usurping legislature. it was definitely not a legal body in british political discourse. a dull, melancholy silence for some time succeeded to this speech, reported the annual register in the house of commons when lord north announced the peace initiative. even the government supporters seemed stunned. in the words of one observer, to treat with those who denied and took up arms in opposition to the authority of parliament had long been out of the question, yet that was exactly what britain was prepared to do. one can certainly see why the proposal caused such consternation. by repealing the hated impost on tea and giving up the right to tax and revenue, parliament abandoned what lord jermaine and other hardliners had insisted was the government's central war aim. and here we see hardest hardliner of them all, lord germain, on my right, your left. and another british cartoon in the center. of even greater moment, the royal instructions that carlisle carried with him to america envisioned a union where parl

body hanging on the edge of government pretending to be a congress of the united states? would you trust the army to someone like that? would you feel safe with someone like that? most republicans did not. that was one reason why in 1867, they tried to protect the secretary of war stanton was dismissed from the war department by andrew johnson, sending acting general lorenzo thomas to have him vacate the premises so that the defense department would be put in andrew johnson's hands. in the course of three days, the house of representatives overwhelmingly, by more than a two thirds vote, voted to impeach andrew johnson. it is a striking and remarkable moment and you have to ask yourself why. nobody thinks of a present president firing his secretary of state or the like, there would be impeachment resolutions brought. nobody in the past has occurred on this. why would this happen in the case of stanton of all people especially when you consider with a thoroughly unpleasant person he is? we have to understand that the only way we can understand the impeachment trial. that is

of comprehensive bipartisan bill that passed the congress, signed reagan, he then said to congress, you did not do enough. instituted family fairness which protected -- gave a higher to percentage of people than resident obama did with the daca order. highest. president reagan. george herbert walker bush. and then the continuation of on with idency going president clinton, president bush, obama, all, all supportive of that point of view president. very sad. would -- the court president reagan's decisions court. upheld by the i would hope that this court would use that as precedence. see.ll we don't know. i heard different versions of one eople interpreted what judge said, another judge said, and the rest. but i do know one thing. that is if the court supports president trump on this, they harm to oing great hundreds of thousands of people country, andin our i hope that pain will be a part because consideration, they have to consider the impact. they will understand the blessing to america that our newcomers are, and i hope the senate will pass h.r. 6. thank you. [captions copyright

of congress more about history, though i know members of congress already know a lot about history. a great supporter of the smithsonian thank you for coming as well. the idea was i would try to find in appropriate person to interview about american history like members of congress we would ask them to bring one of the guests. we had dinner at the library and a recession where members can come and this is the interesting thing about it. members of congress do not generally socialize that much with people from the opposite party. occasionally they might, but it's not something they do is maybe they used to say this is a chance without the price being there they can mingle with people on the opposite party and because they don't have as much legislation, we don't have as much conference committee so there isn't as much interchange between the two bodies as they used to have so they come and look at documents that related then we come down and have a dinner and members are encouraged to sit with the opposite party and opposite house and then i will interview one of the authors and so f

in that context, congress allocated the $391 million in a bipartisan fashion. in february, the administration, wrote the congress and said the aid is on the way. but it never showed up. and then in may, the trump department of defense wrote to congress again and said the aid is on the way. and in that letter said, all necessary pre-conditions have been met by the new ukranian government, including the implementation of anti-corruption protocols. that was in the letter that was sent by trump's department of defense in may. and yet the aid never showed up. twice during the summer, mitch mcconnell called up the trump administration and said where's the aid? mitch mcconnell couldn't get a good answer. and then on july 18 at the white house, the office of management and budget holds a meeting and mulvaney is there and said the reason that the aid hasn't been released is at the explicit direction of the president of the united states of america. on july 25, one week later, we understand why. his own words, do us a favor, though. pressuring a foreign government to tar

and now not even congress. now, nixon, it's important to know, was told by the supreme court as you say, ari and unanimously that he had to turn over the tapes. but there were other subpoenas that he had his administration deny and papers that he didn't turn over. and that became article three of the articles of impeachment. the judiciary committee didn't want to have more court battles. it had enough. that's, i think, what adam schiff is recognizing now. he's got enough. the congress now knows that the president has committed impeachable offenses and adam schiff, a very brilliant former student of mine, clearly has decided not to play rope-a-dope and let the courts drag matters out. >> you mentioned the past precedent. it's very important as we come into this. andrew johnson did face articles on denying congress, much of that fight was about what they viewed as him flauting his tenure of his office. nixon denying congressional subpoenas. in the clinton case, lying to congress was both put forward by the house

i didn't really lie to congress. when you're on trial for lying, using the defense you're a liar is probably not the strongest defense. >> that's a great point. although maybe the one honest thing stone has ever said. glenn kirschner, thank you for joining us. >> thank you, chris. >>> when we get back the first election of the impeachment era is in the books. there's a lot to learn how america is voting in this moment, and steve kornacki has the most important results for us. he will be with us right after this. after this great presentation, tim. could you email me the part about geico making it easy to switch and save hundreds? oh yeah, sure. um. you don't know my name, do you? (laughs nervously) of course i know your name. i just get you mixed up with the other guy. what's his name? what's your name? switch to geico®. you could save 15% or more on car insurance. could you just tell me? i want this to be over. only one thing's more exciting than getting a lexus... ahhhh! giving one. the lexus december to rembember

this is the question whether or not he has to go before congress and answer congress's question in an adversarial setting and sets significant precedent for the impeachment now and will make much harder for them to claim they don't have to recognize the subpoenas at all. >> i think that's true. we are going to see everyone fighting a subpoena come up with their own unique argument for why they are special and they should not necessarily have to comply. when it comes to the national security position and make that argument whether they can provide that because of his role. when it comes to mick mulvaney, i don't think he will say, i will show up and testify before congress because of this judge's ruling. if they were brought to court they would argue he is currently a white house employee and make their own arguments. while members of congress will hold this up as an example why everyone should come forward and testify i don't think we will see officials lining up to do this. >> jeffrey toobin is going through this decision by this federal judge. what's jumping out at you? >> this is a

these procedures are guided by underecedent congress set previous impeachment. they guarantee protection for the president, his counsel, that not expressly provided during prior impeachments, and a full path forward so the american people can hear firsthand the alarming allegations about president trump's abuse of power. i'm proud of the resolution we put together. it will stand the test of time. i'm proud of the work of the rules committee. and even though it got somewhat contentious last night, i want way all'm proud of the members, democrats and republicans, conducted themselves. there was no live streaming during the markup. nobody stormed the committee. microphone.d a people behaved, i think, in a way that is respectful of this i appreciateand the cooperation of ranking member tom cole, the other republicans as well. i want to thank all the committee chairs here for their uncover the truth on behalf of the american people. this vote is a victory not -- victory not for any of us but on behalf of the us hereents who sent and who demand that we follow the fact

in writing frameworks congress is used regulate. number consecutive would medications the building block. it's information about legislative activity for members of constituencies. joint policy judgments and professional action and budget was about members. likewise, the constituents cannot easily communicate preference to members and congressional action is less likely to reflect a public opinion. for most of the 19th century, postage free frank now can only be semi- members, but to congress by constituents. the frank privilege dates to the 17th century england and has existed tenuously in the united states. so for a brief period in the 1870s when it was temporarily abolished. the water system basic comprehensive forum passed in 1973. subsequent reforms m when reforms were made in the 1980s including many familiar restrictions, using private money, limits on overall frank expenditures, public disclosure individual member costs and be election band on mass mailing. the past 20 years house regulation of email and other electronic com

much like i did as a member of congress. i will make sure we hold at least one meeting every month to check on issues that we are working on. we will try to resolve differences that we have so that we can actually move forward in passing legislation that will serve the best interests of all americans. i will bring this same culture of leadership to my cabinet. making sure that all of those focusedpoint are solely on serving the interest of american people. not their own selfish interests or lining their pockets or getting a good bullet on their resume by doing the job of the people in this country. taking this oath of office to heart. together, by coming only by treating each other with aspect, not seeing each other as deplorables, not seeing each other as i am on one team and you are on another team and therefore we must oppose each other. what is thinking about -- whatge of allegiance does our pledge of allegiance say? this pledge we have taken throughout our lives. that we are one nation, under god, indivisible -- indivis

when members of congress make speeches before congress, they usually don't show a graphic. they say sally in my district was affected by this policy in this way. we try and make sure we're using machine learning in a lot of ways to try and process that overall view and give you a good view of what constituents feel in your district but also giving your staff the ability to identify those important stories. as you know, probably a lot -- half of the communications that come to congress are all templated, and their constituent clicks on, yes, i support this measure somewhere and you get kind of a templated message. you don't need your staff to eyeball those. that's where a machine can look at that and say, yes, we'll put that into the overall sentiment tally. when somebody writes in saying, i'm having trouble with getting case work, i'm a vet, i'm not getting the support that i need, and that needs to be handed off to caseworkers, that's where you don't want that to get lost in the mix and you want to make those personal connections. >> so you're talking about kind of taking

congress, not just the house, congress said absolutely not. i think your honor again a commonsense reading against the backdrop of what cocounsel said remember section 8005 in which you are quoting was meant by congress as a restriction on the ability of the executive ranks to reprogram and transfer money. under those circumstances when it's absolutely clear to everybody we are talking about a border wall and indeed your honor why would the administration shut down the government portal along period is a dead. if it knew all of this is just theater because we can and will move the money from dod. they can't possibly be what was meant. it's just impossible to believe that congress decided to provide a statute whereby the president can't be denied so publicly and specifically in a way where congress said ultimately we will give you a certain amount of money but we don't think what you want the money for is not accused -- good use of taxpayer funds, absolutely clear their. if i may want to add one item on the gao report and the expert major the g

congress has directly amended it many times. congress could have amended it to provide for this and actually if we back up and you ask yourself, just in the abstract how would go scuba providing for access to impeachment? it would not put it under the label of judicial proceeding. also would not require it to show it particularized need. >> we don't knock on this would act as you say could. >> i suspect, of course we don't, that would be desperate if congress, with the exception of rule 6(e) like not put the court in position of policing the period so rule 6(e) allows for one federal grand jury to give information to another federal grand jury without going through that gate keeping. >> wasn't it the position of the department justice in 1985 that such a thing, adding exceptions would be unconstitutional or would it infringe on the executive control over grand jury material? >> i'm not aware of whether that's the case. >> i think in 1985 -- >> i think that the reasons why one might ask about the constitutional scope of granger i

but that doesn't prevent the congress from deciding that building that wall was an obstruction of congress itself, a high crime and misdemeanor. >> i want to ask you about the state of the evidence actually. this is something that mark meadows said not in the depositions where he said next to nothing, but he said to reporters that even if president trump made the request for investigation of joe biden, it appears that ukraine did not deliver that investigation, therefore there is no offense. >> well, that's crazy. it's like saying that somebody who tries to rob a bank and gets halfway is not a bank robber. it's simply not the law. the law is clear that attempting to interfere with the proper functions of government and trying to shake down a foreign government, which is our ally, by preventing it from defending itself against an adversary, unless it does your bidding and helps you get reelected and digs up dirt and does various things, in your own personal favor, that that is an abuse of power. it's a betrayal of the president's oath, and it's corrupt. and the fact that he's not succeeded

which congress is supposed to do. so, i can see a scenario in which we pass those 11 appropriations bills and do a continuing resolution for homeland security alone. i think that would be great progress. it would be a nice christmas present, to be able to get that out of the way. cristina: with the budget deal over the summer, treasury secretary mnuchin has been emerging as a key player in these latest negotiations over spending. is he essentially the only member of the administration that democrats can deal with on these budget issues? rep. yarmuth: well i think right now you would ordinarily say mick mulvaney would be one as well. but i think mick has other distractions. i think right now that is probably the case, that secretary mnuchin is the only one. i have not heard of any other administration officials who has been part of the negotiations. >> you mentioned mick mulvaney. have you been in touch with him at all lately? i know he is someone you're close with and you have gone to campaign with him and other membe

if congress wants to solve problems congress should act. congress has the power to make policy. this is about gotcha politics. i would remind my democratic colleagues this reality is at the root of the scotus decision in the current debate on the dock a class with respect to approving status for people who overstated their existing visas. we have deferred action which is by definition pressing tutorials status. we can't give a status to a group of people in the name of prosecutorial discretion. for perspective is hearing involves a situation that affects roughly 900 current people in the policy is currently at the status quo. let's think about what's happening right now. border patrol agents along the southern border encountered millions of people cited two equally into the country. they were talking about 900 it's important for each of these 900 but that number 977,509. their 1.148 million enforcement actions. putting in perspective numbers we are talking about 900 versus 851,000 and apprehension. we are not talking or hearing about the tune in 24 pounds of sentinel seen crossi

just what we will see on a congress as. well big barri yes the congress men and women not really trying to negotiate something with jenny or her party and what we will see will be a really conflictive scenario and you ask assembly what right my big concern is is that the left in bolivia is going to. it will it will have like a big work in the next years to reconstitute itself so it's very concerning because a democracy right now democracy as we can see it like the constitution and everything it is only justifying one side of politics and believe you are in does one site is right wing politics with bibles which religions and putting in danger for example the secular state and believe you're so it's really concerning what is going to happen in the next years because we are going to be to see like a competition between only lived sort. only right wing parties does really concerning what will happen to the left wing parties then i wonder catherine are is the suggestion on this show that they're going to be generated from parlia

members of congress already know a lot about history and a member of congress here - right here. we have a member of congress, a member of the smithsonian board, please stand up. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much for coming, a great supporter of the smithsonian, thank you for coming as well, former chair of the smithsonian. the idea was this, that i would try to find an appropriate person to interview about american history and invite members of congress and ask them to bring one of their guests if they wanted to so we have been doing this for -- since 2013. once a month when congress is in session, we have a dinner at the library of congress, a reception where members can come and this is an interesting thing about it. members of congress do not generally socialize that much with people at the office party, not something they do as much as they used to but this is a chance where they can mingle with the opposite party in the opposite house and because they don't have as much legislation, we don't have conference committees, there's not as much interchange between the

what factors make it likely congress will impeach? a case study to see when the stars will align where that can be possible? and nixon did everything sort of wrong. by the end of his political career, judgment almost completely escaped him. choosing gerald ford on the theory no one would be willing to make that man a president. oops. he referred to him as insurance policy, turns out insurance of something quite different and other respects, sabotaging relationships with the press, digging in rather than admitting wrongdoing, fighting to the end, destroying relationships with his own party. nixon at the end, though not at the beginning did everything wrong, and a sign of how power can corrupt, but power can reveal, and in that circumstance, nixon's pretensions to absolute power and the manner he responded to the impeachment investigation was itself evidence of the fact he should have been removed. and this is a point we emphasize in chapter three, we talk about the risks of impeaching too early, that the manner in which the president r

the two most polar opposite things in the congress. that would pass. my climate proposal would be the carbon tax and dividend proposal i proposed in the congress on a bipartisan basis. the only bipartisan bill on climate. my bill for digital privacy was the only real digital privacy bill in congress. there is a pathway forward on all of these big issues. you know it. most of the american people agree with each other on these big issues. we just don't have the principled leadership the nation needs. i believe the nation is yearning for this. they are yearning for someone to basically reestablish that .iddle where everything happens we have allowed the extremes on each side of the aisle to hold this country hostage for decades. who has paid the price? the american people. we failed to do the basic thing. that is why we have all this nationalism and isolationism going on. that is the wrong question -- answer to any question we can ask ourselves. running fory person president to that supports the tpp. idea.as a bipartisan so many citizens have been left be

congress is not doing anything about mandatory spending. there is no real leadership in dealing with that part of the federal budget. you are not going to be able to quit a trillion dollar deficit unless you are into the manual programs. day think there will come a when the congress will have to .ccept the responsibility it is in article one of the constitution that that is our job. david: you're talking about entitlements. rep. womack: clearly. david: that is a third rail for republicans and democrats alike. sometimes in the history of congress, they have addressed byrd shells -- third rails abutting a bipartisan committee to go away and come back and make a recommendation. could it go anyway like that? rep. womack: there are several levers you could be turning when you need to. the congress does not have the appetite because of politics to start dealing with those. an 2019et i championed when i was chairman of the budget committee did go into some of those programs and -- we never saw that, the floor, so congress never had an opportunity

no, i am concerned about the congress itself. at the end of the day, one of the greatest concerns, deepest concerns we have about this whole sham, we keep using that word, is not an epitet, it is what is actually happening. if the american people don't have faith in the impeachment inquiry in a fair way, they give up on congress itself and ultimately the republic. we are still an experiment on the world stage. a constitutional republic. we don't know how long it can last. one thing is presupposed is that you will have fairness in the system and that justice will be blind and you will have the rule of law that applies equally to everyone and we haven't had that this week and the last few weeks. host: when the white house put out the readout of the phone call, noted in the notice to the public that it was not a word for word document and it was a memo and not a transcript of the phone call. colonel vindman has testified there were words not included in the readout or the memo given to the public. should the president release the en

the library of congress provides a lot of functions for this historically. one of them has been the copyright office. i think initially that was to be sure the library would be a recipient of the great treasure of the copyright documents that will become a part of the library's collection, but the copyright office has always been a part of the library. today we are taking a deeper look again. any discussions you want to have about the challenges you are having more success is that you are having as he moved into more up-to-date protection cyber threats are real. we got to know each other well in 2016 when we were able to work together to be sure she became the first library in a long time to be th the library f congress and we have been pleased to be able to work together since then. prior to the arrival of all three of you in these print jobs, the gao was critical of the office of technology. the government accounting office identified the lack of storage for strategic planning and information security and priva privacy. they recommended that the library hi

so what has congress given up? i'd like to get your sense of one what has congress given up? two is it problem what congress has given up? is that a problem for the american people and what would you do about it? go ahead. >> i'm happy to start. again, thinking about the convergence discussion, i think, yes, it is a problem. and congress has given up some of its institutional authority in all of this. for many of the reasons you just said in your question, at the end of the day we do have -- congress not frankly taking ownership of some of it oversight responsibilities and funding the government. and digging deeper. just in my limited career of little over 20 plus years i have seen that erosion time and after time where i used to be called in and talk with committee staff about what's going on in these programs for student financial aid. those conversations don't happen nearly as often as they used to by the appropriators or -- especially there isn't time because they are too busy fighting about what's going to be the next allocation, what the appropriation will be and that w

the congress did not call. just dropped a proper balance between the coordinate branches by preventing the executive branch from accomplishing its constitutionally inside function. apart from this, their overzealous brawl interbranch disputes, the courts have increasingly engaged directly in the use of patient a presidential decision-making one way courts have effectively done this is by expanding both the scope and the intensity of judicial review. in recent years, my lift side and the fact that many critical decisions in our life are not amenable to the model of judicial decision-making that cannot be reduced to tidy evidentiary standards has specific quantum news approve in an adversarial process. they require always call financial judgment. and they are decisions that are frequently have to be made promptly and incomplete and uncertain information and necessarily involve the length of the wide range of competing risks and making predictions about the future. such decisions frequently grow into play the so-c

congress really democratized wall street... i wanted to have a firm that wanted to get everybody in. because people couldn't access wall street. we wanted to be agents of change. for the better. ♪ was in an accident. when i called usaa, it was that voice asking me, "is your daughter ok?" that's where i felt relief. we're the rivera family and we plan to be with usaa for life. see how much you can save with usaa insurance. see how much you can save but super poligrip gives him a tight seal. snacking can mean that pieces get stuck under mike's denture. to help block out food particles. so he can enjoy the game. super poligrip. brown-bagging it. so why you paying so much for wireless? i don't know... the new tracfone wireless gives you all kinds of control. leftovers? tracfone lets you keep your leftover data each month. what are you doing? unlimited carryover data! hey! do you know you can get unlimited talk and text on america's best 4g lte networks for $20, no contract? unlimited talk? i like that! because on sundays you know

to appear before the committee would be considered further evidence of the white house obstructing congress in its impeachment probe. from the capital, this is 15 minutes. >> good morning. today we have scheduled depositions where the top lawyer from the national security counc chair schiff: good morning. today, we had additional scheduled depositions with the top lawyer for the natnal security council, as well as mr. blair from the office of management and budget. mulvaneyf them defied congressional subpoenas and refused to appear for scheduled depositions as has been the case with other witnesses who have done the same thing. this will be further evidence of an effort by the administration to obstruct the lawful and constitutional duties of congress. we expect the witnesses who have been subpoenaed also to be no-shows. this will only further add to the body of evidence on a potential of obstruction of congress charge against the president. indeed with the nixon impeachment there was an article based on the obstruction of congress that itemize each of the subpoenas that the white house had

infrastructure of the library on congress and the copyright office. digital technology is crucial to the library's evolving operations. i'm encouraged at the pace with which the recommendations have been implemented. i've worked on federal i.t. reform on a bipartisan basis for many years, and i know it's not easy. big i.t. projects are tough enough in corporate enterprises, but federal agencies face a much different budget process and unique organizational issues. federal chief information officers have learned a lot of lessons and developed best practices in recent years. i lurch the library and copyright office to seek out those best practices and work together for success. i look forward to hearing about the progress to improve the library's infrastructure and operations, progress in improving accessibility of the library's unique collections and historical artifacts like thomas jefferson's draft of the declaration of independence, and the contents of abraham lincoln's pockets the night he was assassinated. tangible pieces of some of the most signi

these authorities will expire unless reauthorized by congress. the administration supports permanent reauthorization of these provisions. three of the authorities, roving wiretap, business records and lone wolf provisions have been over a fisa for well decade. most recently the usa freedom act of 2015. but before that these authorities were reauthorize multiple times between 2005 and 2011 and each renewal gained bipartisan support. today i will give you a brief overview of three of the legal authorities and i will turn it over to my colleagues to address how they have been used in practice and their value to national security. my colleague from the nsa will address the fourth authority, the cdr authority senator feinstein described in which nsa -- ingage in metadata and counterterrorism investigations. the roving wiretap authority, this enables the government to continue surveilling the court-approved national security target when the target takes affirmative steps to thwart surveillance. these individuals rapidly and repeatedly change communicat

are you working with the library of congress? it's got to be a lot of intersection there of all kinds of not just history but documentations and other things. >> we started to work more effectively with the library of congress. i partnered with them when i was the director of the museum. tomorrow i think the librarian of congress and others are sitting down to begin to look at what are the things we can do. >> right. the national archives does have an exhibit on the ratification of the 19th amendment that's very good, and i know they've put a lot of resources into that. i'm not going to ask you the resource question. i know that's the big question. you can do anything if you have enough full-time, money, and resources. so i appreciate what you're doing with the resources you have. thank you for being here today. >> thank you. thank you for the recognition, and welcome, again. i'm going to focus and follow up a little bit on senator cortez-mastos question in the a latino museum question. they've played an important role in over 50

have you rethought your position enters their any chance congress -- and is there any chance congress would rethink it? so. think we have to think about the dangers and the benefits versus the burdens on society. these uses of technology become more and more prevalent in society. what we are going to have to establish is protocols around. protocols we the use in everyday civil society the same that should be used for the pentagon? you know, these are the types of questions we have to answer. >> representative yvette clarke, democrat of new york, vice chair of the energy and commerce committee and also cochair of the smart cities caucus. joe marx of the washington post, thank you both for being on "the themunities -- " communicators." this episode and all other episodes available as podcasts. ♪ >> the house will be in order. beenr 40 years, c-span has providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country so you can make up your own mind. c-span is brought to you by your local cable

where congress has not has declined to provide a remedy and congress is telling, they've addressed this issue in that a ftca which bars foreign claim. they've addressed it again in the tort statute and they addressed it again in westfall that carved out an exception for bivens. the new context in this case is not only the transnational aspect but also the utilization of the fifth amendment's newprocess clause . the new context itself fails in the argument that there's a lack of a remedy, fails when the court takes into consideration the special factors in this case. intruding on the separation of powers where congress and the executive, that is their domain and national security and the border patrol is national security. the border patrol is the forefront of our national security. the border patrol much like the military is a parent paramilitary organization charged with protecting our borders. congress has chosen and not inadvertently to create a damages remedy and if the remedy is appropriate it's the unique domain of congress to consider the public policy, the balance, the projected

i do like being a member of congress. i think being a public servant is the greatest honor of my life. >> congresswoman, the bronx's own congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez. thank you so much. thank you, all, for joining us tonight. we will be back here next friday following another week of public impeachment hearingsment also, a debate hosted on this network on wednesday night. if it's anything like this week, there will be a lot to talk about. plus, we have big news about the final stop of our fall tour of why is this happening? we can now announce a second guest. jeremy harris was the young actor and playwright. he will join tony kushner. you do not want to miss that. get those tickets now. they're available on ticketmaster.com. you can search for my name. "the rachel maddow show" starts rietd now. you're there. good. >> i am indeed. often times not here at this moment but i am here. >> we were -- just to take everyone behind the fourth wall here, we had -- [ cheers and applause ] >> we had to decide whether we were

as you know there are bills to establish latino pending for congress. as deemed in the public interest to move forward with these proposals it's important that the smithsonian is considered in light at the priorities. a new museum will need funds for the creation and long-term operation of the facilities, the care of our collections and the ongoing success of the museum. our work is also increase knowledge and never ending. as we continue to make new discoveries we have future generations and therefore i plan to reimagine the smithsonian role and lifelong learning by making the institution a leader in k-12 education. finally, what i want i want people to see the smithsonian as a resource and help them understand their lives, their universe, their history and our shared future. his for us to be a more universal voice, when the earned the american people and trust in us in a convenient power to increase our relevance and research. we want to be the place that matters for all americans. and thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify, i'm happy to a

said to congress, you did not do nough. so he instituted family fairness which protected-- gave protection to a higher percentage of people than president obama did with the daca order. highest. president reagan. vice president george herbert walker bush. and then the continuation of that presidency going on with president clinton, president george w. bush, obama, all, all supportive of that point of view until this president. ery sad. so we hope the court would-- president reagan's decisions will be upheld by the court. i would hope that this court would use that as precedence. we will see. we don't know. i heard different versions of how people interpreted what one judge said, another judge said, and the rest. but i do know one thing. that is if the court supports president trump on this, they will be doing great harm to hundreds of thousands of people and families in our country, and i hope that pain will be a part of their consideration, because they have to consider the mpact. and i hope they will understand the blessi

things >> we've started to work more of actively with the library of congress. i partner with them when i was the director of the museum. we are sitting down to begin to look at the things we can do in common. >> the national archives does have an exhibit on ratification of the 19th amendment that is very good. i know they put a lot of resources into that. i'm not going to ask you a resource question, because that's the big question. you can do anything if you have enough time and resources. i appreciate what you are doing with the resources that you half, and thank you so much for being here. >> senator udall? >> thank you for the recognition and welcome again. i'm going to focus and follow up on the question on the latino museum. letting us have played an important role in the history of our nation for over 500 years. in my home state of new mexico it is celebrated, to recognize the important contributions of latinos and latinos in our country. self identified hispanics and latino's make up one fifth of our population and represent the largest ethnic group in

comes before congress and says there was a quid pro quo. he's a republican operative. kurt volker, arguably tried to finesse and manage a very difficult situation. didn't exactly cover himself in glory, has also delivered a verdict that, yes, there was something very dodgey going on here. john bolton in a record to the press -- i don't want any part of this drug deal. john bolton, nobody's idea of a progressive liberal democratic operative. republicans are the ones coming forward and basically providing the noose of which this president is going to hang himself. the devin nunes jim jordan line this whole thing is political conspiracy, it's nonsense. it's nonsense on stilts. i've known fiona hill for several years. i've followed her work for a very long time. this is one of the most professional scholarly russia analysts there is. by the way, she's described often in the u.s. news cycle as a kremlin hawk. not exactly. very nuanced in her appraisal. her biography, which is one of the more insightful biographies of vladimir putin, very cleverly it's almost a post-modern a

, this congress, previous congresses, to get information and witness testimony and documents from the executive branch about what the executive branch is doing, that's one of congress' chief responsibilities under the constitution in our separation of powers system. and part of what we're seeing now in the impeachment inquiry is a sort of advancing of that goal. in this case, the house may decide that this rises to the level of impeachable conduct, but at the end of the day, a lot of what's important about this is uncovering the information and sharing it with the public. host: let's get one more quick call here. we go to elizabeth in turner falls -- turners falls, massachusetts. caller: good morning. my question is about what to do about ignoring the subpoenas. it seems the general consensus of opinion, and you confirmed it yourself this morning, is that to turn to the courts would take too long. but ever since this has started, i've been wondering about susan macdougal and the white water hearings. she went to jail right away, if i remember correctly, and i was wondering what proces

is there any chance congress would we think it? >> guest: i think so. again we have to look at the dangers and the benefits versus the burden in society and these uses of technology become more and more prevalent in society and we will have to establish protocols. protocols we use in everyday of a society the same should be used for the pentagon and these are the type of questions we have to answer. >> host: represent yvette clark, chair of the smart cities cauc caucus, joe marx, thank you both for being on "the communicator communicators". >> thank you. >> guest: thank you. >> host: all episodes of this program are available as podcasts. >> book tv continues on c-span2. television for serious readers. >> next on book tvs "after words" were bobby and senator rand paul of kentucky divides a history of socialism and argues that there is a new threat of socialist thinking on the rise in america. he is interviewed by brew public encouragement get matt gates of florida. "after words" is a weekly interview program with the relevant guest hosts interviewing to

it's congress place to determine what should be made to u.s. law governing those who serve desperate last week that sharon mentioned he and i along with other colleagues from across the political spectrum introduced hr 4803, citizenship for children. [inaudible] this exposed a loophole. some children were not automatic acquire citizenship because of their parents deployment prohibited them from eating the statute. this would fix this unfortunate loophole. it is important to remember that immigrants wear the uniform and have since the founding of our nation. historically the average number of foreign nationals have been around 5000 a year and that number jumped to 7000 in 2019. many will go on to be naturalized for their service and from fiscal year 2001-members in the military including more than 11000 deployed overbroad. our immigration laws organize the immigrant layout provisions of the expedited naturalization of foreign nationals. in foreign national who serves in hostilities is a level eligible to apply for naturalization for honorable se