that message needs to be sent loud and clear all throughout this election. if you just to show a little more enthusiasm. [laughter] thank you all for coming out. thank you for taking time out of your schedule to come and listen to a true grassroots, courageous republican. [applause] the governor is extremely courageous because she says what's on our hearts and minds. ..

may not be the country for our kids and grand kids. that is the biggest issue. no, there's one more. that is the biggest issue because we worry about the yoke of big government, more spending, more regulations. i had one farmer out west, pat, i don't feel governed, i feel ruled. that is exactly what people are thinking about. governor, i offer to you the statement that people are losing faith in our government. that's a terrible thing. it is an eagan green just thing.

-- egregious thing. turn it around. our government doesn't have faith in us. that is what this is about. that is what president obama is all about. government knows best. like, i got to tell you, folks, not on my watch. that is not going to stand. [applause] the reason the governor is here because the republican party is united. united -- [applause] every square inch of the republican party knows what is at stake. we have to take the senate back as a first step to turning our country around, to kansas values as opposed to what is going on in washington. have to do it. [applause] there is only one person on the ballot that will go to

washington and kick harry reid out, as opposed to giving him a stamp approval, and change the direction of the country with the united states senate and in republican hands so we can come back to the constitution, come back to the foundation of our country that made our country great. celebrate hard work. celebrate kansas and what all about here in southeast kansas in the greatest state in the nation. that's what we're going to do. that is why sarah is here, the governor is here, pardon me, the mama grizzly is here. [applause] have you ever seen a mama grizzly dressed as a wildcat? [applause] you wouldn't be able to kick a field goal, would you? [laughing] sorry. sorry about 2456789 we're all

sorry about that. i make a promise to you. i have fought for you before. i have fought in virtually every issue that you care about with regards to agriculture. could get into crop insurance. we can get into all the vagaries of farm program policy and everybody back there would just phase out. i know what you do. i know what you do. you are producers. you're hard workers. we produced the food for our country and the very troubled and hungry world. show me a nation that can not feed itself, you have utter chaos. that what we're about. it is pretty damn important. i will be in the trenches fighting for you. i will be supporting your conservative values. i will never give up. marines take the hill. i will take the hill and win. [applause]

my opponent, greg orman says, he is an independent. well goodness knows everybody likes to be independent. once in a while. but you're not an independent if you give thousands of dollars to barack obama, hillary clinton, and yes, harry reid. you're not an independent, wait on it. wait on it. you're not an independent when you run against me in 2008 as a democrat. okay? he is not an independent. he will be a stamp of approval for harry reid and a continuation of the obama agenda. that's not going to happen came. [applause] winston churchill said that kites fly highest in the strongest of wind. there are a lot of wind blowing, contrary to our best interests in the world and in this

country. we're going to change that around. i promise you. thank you so much for coming. let's go to work, each and everyone of you, every phone call you make, every conversation you make, every bumper sticker you put on, every sign you put on, you're part of a wave to take this country back. god blows, symphony perfy. [applause] -- symphony perfy. >> one other thing. as the person who crawled through the barbed-wire fence, one more point and i'm through. that's a terrible, joke. we'll flip pancakes. let's have some.

>> later today on c-span2, a booktv presentation on the relationship of russian president vladmir putin. it takes place at the woodrow wilson center in washington, d.c. live coverage 3:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> on the phone is jeff mason, white house reporter for reuters to talk about a meeting today between the president and prime minister of israel, benjamin netanyahu. jeff mason, when will this meeting take place, where, and what will the two be discussing? >> guest: the meeting takes place around 11:00 in the oval office and the white house between the two leaders and the top picks are likely to include the main topics that come up between president obama and prime minister netanyahu. the stalled peace talks between israel and the palestinians. israel's concerns about western efforts to form a nuclear deal

with iran and latest u.s. and western efforts to, to work on or to form a coalition against the islamic state in iraq and syria. >> host: what will the united states, what wilwil the presidet be asking of israel? >> guest: well the president will no doubt push israel, perhaps not publicly to find a way again to get back into constructive talks with the palestinians on a peace deal. those talks have basically failed and have not picked up again after conflict between israelis and palestinians that ended recently without a clear victor on either side. net yaw had you bristled and has bristled on concerns that the president of the united states

additional settlements in the west bank contributed to break down in talks. that will be one of the larger topics. as i saidre before, the backgrod what is going on in iraq and syria will be a big, sort of backdrop what is going on, backdrop of concerns between the two men. >> host: what is their relationship like? >> guest: it has been a tricky relationship. obama andn'ex netanyahu have not exactly had easy relations the time obama has been in office.obama has been there are times when netanyahu come to washington and famously lectured the president on the long history of hardship that jews have faced. i think it is unlikely you will see today a lot of tension, at least visibly between the two men

something we've seen before and thorn in the side between obama and netanyahu in previous talks. >> host: finally, what will you be watching for? >> guest: i will look for signs of progress on middle east peace we'll see if one is coming closer to the other like issues on like iran. prime minister netanyahu is particularly concerned that the united states and western powers will give up too much in talks with iran about a nuclear program >> host: jeff mason, white house reporter with reuters, thank you. >> guest: my pleasure. >> last night democratic

candidate for governor, wendy davis and her challenger republican candidate greg abbott met for their final debate in dallas, texas. "the cook political report" has it likely republican and latest poll by "real clear politics" has abbott with the lead. this is been an hour. >> texas debate race for governor is brought to you by kera, nbc 5. telemundo 39, "the dallas morning news," the texas association of broadcasters, other partners and texas public media stations. >> >> moderator: welcome to the texas debates race for governor. we're broadcasting live from the kera studios and live on texas debates.org. i'm shelly kofler and i will be the moderator last hour as we bring you the last statewide televised debates between the leading candidates for governor. >> elect me for governor and i

will get texas moving again. >> moderator: 56-year-old greg abbott is the republican nominee for governor. he worked as a lawyer in houston after receiving a law degree from vanderbilt university. he was a state supreme court and justice before winning current seat as attorney general in 2002. >> i am running because i will be a governor who will fight for every single hard-working texan, not just some. >> moderator: 51-year-old wendy davis is the democratic nominee for governor. she is a fort worth attorney with a degree from harvard law school. davis served fon the fort worth city council before voters elected her to a current seat as texas state senator in 2009. and thanks to both of you for being with us tonight. we appreciate you're coming. you will be answering questions from each other and also questions from a panelists of journalists.

jeffers from the dallas morning news. brian curtis, from nbc 5. peggy fikac with the san antonio express news and "houston chronicle." and norman garcia from telemundo 39. she will have social media questions that have been submitted by the public. and you can join the debate on twitter. just tweet at kera news hashtag, texas debates. we'll share some of your comments during the broadcast. for this first set of questions candidates have a minute to respond and opportunity for rebuttal based on a coin toss, attorney general abbott you will get the first question and that question comes from brian curtis. >> good evening to both of you. abbott: good evening, brian. >> tonight the eyes of the nation are on texas and dallas with the news that the first ebola patient diagnosed here in the united states is here. attorney general abbott, if you were governor today, please

outline the immediate steps that would you take to protect the people of texas. abbott: as governor i would do what i did earlier today. that is to speak with the commissioner of health and human services here in the state of texas. do that first, to find out what our game plan is and where we are going. i learned that the texas hospital plan is one of the few locations in the country that is prepared to deal with ebola and the commissioner here in the state of texas is working with the cdc to insure that this situation's properly addressed. we need to understand both the concerns that people at home have, as well as the health of the person who has or may have this disease. but we've seen already the innovative ways in which the united states is able to come up with drug therapies that can effectively treat and even eliminate this disease.

so we are proud that we are national leaders in this effort but as governor, i will insure that we employ every possibility to keep texans safe. >> senator davis, if you were governor today, please outline the immediate steps you would take to protect the people of texas. davis: of course. first, brian, my sympathies go out to the person who has been affected by this disease and the people who love this patient. i had an opportunity earlier this evening to speak with our dallas county judge here, judge jenkins, and he reassured me with the world class hospital system here they have in place the protocals to make sure that medical professionals who treat this patient will be safe and that they will be able to contain this disease. he asked that we consider helping our public community to remain calm. this is not an airborne disease and we talked about the coordinated effort that should and will occur between the

county, the state, and the federal cdc in order to assure that we're taking all precautions necessary not to see further incidents of this disease in our community. as governor that coordination would be my primary purpose and of course helping the public to understand and to remain calm. >> moderator: we will give each of you another 45 seconds in the same order for rebutarks if you choose to use it. brian? >> attorney general abbott, under what circumstances might quarantine be necessary? where would the threshold be for you? abbott: i think the threshold has been met right now. we want to insure that ebola disease can not expand any further. it is my understanding that, for example, the ambulance that transported the person has already been quarantined. we need to mcsure that anyone who has been exposed to this is going to be quarantined. i think one of the first and foremost obligations of our state and of our nation is to

insure that this disease does not spread any further whatsoever that we bring to bear the medicines that were able to cure the doctors who came back to the united states last month. and insure that we're able to eliminate the disease for the person who has it now but make sure others don't contract it. >> senator davis, where is the threshold for you on quarantine? davis: again as i discussed with judge jenkins this evening there will be and is already a quarantine in place for this particular patient and protocols are being followed to insure the safety of medical professionals that will be treating the patient. of course utilizing those resources and drugs available to us that we know successfully treated other medical professionals who had been in west africa helping to treat ebola patients will be administered to this patient is very, very important. but as soon as we know that we have someone who is suffering

from this disease, and an immediate quarantine is of course necessary and called for. >> moderator: thanks to both of you. our second question now goes to senator davis first and comes from gromer jeffers. >> senator davis, there is not a topic that gets parents and teachers more angry than standardized tests. both of you say you would cut the number of standardized student tests but how should test results be used? and to what extent should test scores be used to determine whether a student graduates or is, advanced to the next level? davis: i have been a leader in making sure that we reduce standardized testing in this state. in fact was a coauthor after bill last session to reduce from our high school students 15 end of course exams to five. it is now time for us to decrease those pressures and in middle and lower school grade as well.

tests are important measures to determine where students strengths and weaknesses are and they should be used for that purpose so that teachers can understand where the holes are and what they need to do to help fill them. i, unlike my opponent, would never advocate the idea that we expand the use of standardized tests to 4-year-olds. however he has laid out a plan for his pre-k funding program that would include the use of those standardized tools in children as young as 4 years old. >> mr. abbott, how would you use, go ahead. abbott: first, if i could, let me respond and clarify to make sure that people understand that contrary to what senator davis said, i no more want four-year-olds to take standardized tests than i want a cow to jump over the moon. reality what i want to achieve in education to insure we build a strong foundation for education for our children

beginning at pre-k 4, going all the way through third grade, to insure every child in the state of texas will be able to read and do math, at or above grade level when they finish third grade. gromer, i've seen this first-hand. my wife has been both a teacher and principal. we've seen the ways that education can transform the lives of children so they can achieve things parents couldn't even dream of, the way we do that, gromer, placing trust where it belongs, that is with our teachers as opposed to these one size fits all mandates from austin, texas. >> senator davis -- >> moderator: this is rebuttal time, ggromer. >> yes. how much weight should standardized testing have with teachers? davis: they should play some role to determine whether students are increasing performance levels but not the

high-stakes standardized tests we have in place today. it is important to make sure we're measuring student performance but we're not discouraging good teachers going into classrooms that will be helping the most challenging of students, those that, making tremendous progress though they can't show incredible success on standardized tests should still be rewarded, teachers should be rewarded for showing that progress with their students. i disagree with mr. abbott. his plan on page 21 calls for standardized testing of our 4-year-olds. i can tell you in my time on the campaign trail and in all my years in the texas senate i have never had a parent tell me that they think we need more standardized tests, not less. i will fight to make sure that we have fewer standardized tests across the board in texas and that the high pressure that has been associated with them goes away. >> mr. attorney general?

abbott: sure, gromer, what i would like to urge everyone to do, go to gregabbott.com. check out midcation plan where i want to do, unlike what any other governor has talked about doing before. i want to genuinely elevate the texas education system to be ranked number one in the nation. we do that by starting with the fundamental building blocks for reading and writing from the very beginning. we continue that, by providing tools and technologies to students so they are able to get plugged in to the most advanced learning opportunities but also so they are prepared for the high-paying jobs of future. with regard to evaluation of teachers i think it is important that the decisions like that be made at local control. part of my plan that you will find at gregabbott.com will, an entire division of it focusing returning education where it should be, that is at the local

level. my plan will lead us there and will lead to us be ranked number one in the nation for educating our time. >> moderator: thank you. okay, we've been asking the public to email and tweet questions for the candidates. we're going to go to norma garcia who has a question from one of our viewers. >> let me tell you we have received hundreds of questions via social media and we will continue to receive them throughout the debate. you can see many at bottom of the screen. tweet us keranews #debates. the question is, what is your provision providing drivers permits for undocumented immigrants? attorney general abbott there is effort to reintroduce a bill to provide drivers permits to undocumented immigrants. this would be a state i.d. could not be used for federal purposes, would you support that bill, yes, no, and why? abbott: norma, i guess we've

seen, i guess martha asking that question, we've seen problems with laws like that. be challenged, if you would by the federal real i.d. act. i think that before we go down the pathway of trying to create these differentiated tripes of driver's licenses, we need to make sure that we are complying with federal law and not providing licenses that others could use for inappropriate purposes. >> senator davis, do you have, you have said you would be in favor of providing drivers permits. why should undocumented immigrants get special treatment and do you think this could create a registry of second class individuals. davis: i do not believe it creates special treatment for undocumented immigrants. instead what it addresses is a very real challenge in our state. the fact that people are driving on our road across this state today who do not have the appropriate training, and who are not insured.

unless, as a state create some system that provide a driver permit for every driver on the road, we can not assure those two things. other states have successfully done this, requiring in exchange for that permit, special training to make sure we have safe drivers on the road and proof of insurance. in my time as attention sass senator and before that as a city council person i heard repeatedly from people who are involved in accidents with uninsured drivers, in many instances who were not in our state or our country legally. and i believe these driver permits and accompanying requirement of insurance is important to keep all drivers safe on the road. >> moderator: we have time for rebuttals. norma. >> what should undocumented immigrants want to abide by the rules have insurance do in the meantime? attorney general? abbott: well you really raised the pivotal question and that

is, we're dealing with the challenge, whether it be with driver licenses or some other issues, we're dealing with undocumented individuals and so, the problem whether it to martha or whoever, this problem is never going to be fixed as long as we have the broken immigration system that we have. we want to fix the problem about insuring that those who are here are driving safely on the road with a drivers license. what we really need to do is fix our broken immigration system. once we do that, then all of these peripheral issues will get resolved. >> senator davis, what should the state do in the meantime with undocumented immigrants who need to drive? >> i support comprehensive i i m minimum graduation reform. to make sure get a background check, learn english, pay taxes owed in our state they have a come path to legal here.

that is modeled after president george bush's plan. we'll not see that happen anytime soon because congress failed to do its job to pass that kind of reform. i believe texas can't wait and that in this next legislative session we do need to address the issue of making sure that every driver on our road has proper training, and is insured to keep other drivers on our roads safe. >> moderator: thank you very much. we're going to return to questions for both of our candidates but right now we want to spend a little time and talk with both of you about something that is relevant with respect to your serving as governor. so right now peggy fikac has the first conversation with senator davis. >> senator, you and attorney general abbott both focused on ethics in this campaign. i like to ask about intersection of your public office and your private business. on the fort worth city council you sometimes voted on projects that used your title business. as a senator you voted on north texas toll way authority legislation while the authority

was a client of your law firm. and now as a candidate you've done a book tour that prompted an ethics complaint from your opponent. you say you have acted properly. do critics have right to say you should have gone further to avoid any appearance of a conflict? davis: i have always acted within the ethical guidelines and been very careful to do so. first and foremost as a public servant, my job has always been and my duty has always been to the people that i represent. it is not a surprise to me that general abbott has brought these accusations forward in a myriad of ways to try to divert attention from his own failed record, a record where he has sold out hard-working texans time and time again in the interests of people who make donations to his campaign. whether that is chemical companies who have given him over $100,000 and then received a ruling from him that they could now keep secret the

location of their dangerous chemicals. whether it is payday lenders who have given him $300,000 and then received a ruling from him that they can operate in a loophole in the law that allows them to charge unlimited rates and fees. whether it is taking money from the hospital board chair. when there was a surgeon operating under that administration and harming and hurting many patients and taking money and then siding with that hospital. we see it over and over again. >> moderator: senator, could i ask you to address the question about your own dealings if you would please. davis: yes. as i said i always operated within the ethical requirements and i've been very careful to do so. at every level of government that i have served. i think that people who know me and know my record know this, that i fight for the people that i represent. that i put the hard-working texans that i represent first

and foremost in everything that i do. and that i have been willing to stand up to the biggest, baddest, bullies in the world in order to fight for them. that is why i am in public office. that is my record as a public servant. and i'm very proud of that record. >> moderator: thank you. thank you very much. thank you, peggy. we now have a question, about ethics as well for you, attorney general abbott. your critics claim there has been a pattern of you using your attorney general's office to reward political contributors. the most recent situation involves the texas enterprise fund which has been in the news this week. it was designed to assist companies that will create jobs. last week we learned you received more than a million dollars in campaign donations from parties that received money from that fund even though an auditor says some never formally applied for the money and they didn't necessarily prove or could prove that they would create new jobs. state law requires you as

attorney general to oversee the fund. so i'm wondering did you know millions of taxpayer dollars were being handed out without adequate scrutiny? and if you didn't, why didn't you know? abbott: shelly, i think that no politician is above the law. frankly i'm pleased that the state auditor conducted an independent investigation to look at every last detail about what happened. and after that independent investigation, by the state auditor, he wrote a report and in that report it numbered i think 107 pages. in that07 pages where the auditor looked at the conducts about the fund and the conduct about the governor, as well as the conduct of myself and my office, there was nothing in there critical of either me or my office. >> moderator: he did say however, there was no scrutiny for a lot of these awards.

should there have been and why didn't we know, why didn't you know? abbott: first, there have been different iterations or time periods of the law that allotted this funding. when the funding was first allowed the way the legislature constructed it there were no rules or regulations that limited -- >> moderator: didn't anybody speak up? abbott: they did speak up, two years later when the legislature decided, wait a second, we need to place some more controls on this that is when it was reformed. and so those reforms helped put it on a better place. but i think there is a bigger point needs to be made here, because as you know from the beginning of my campaign i have been questioning this very fund and its purposes and uses. >> moderator: let me go back to one thing reporters really want to hear you answer tonight, and that is, your agency told reporters who looked into the

applications for the enterprise fund money they coin see them because there was confidential information in them. we now know in at least five cases where you were denying access to the applications there weren't any applications. can you explain that? why deny access to something that doesn't exist? abbott: sure. first, our office did issue an opinion biased on open records decision that certain of that information could not be disclosed because of laws passed by the legislature that prohibited them from being disclosed. however, our office ruled that other parts of that information could be disclosed. >> moderator: but there were no applications? abbott: if you go back and look, you see what has been released is a letter that is about nine or 10 pages long that is the equivalent of an application but shelly, this is very important. because at that time, there was no prescription for an

application and that is one of the things that the legislature corrected. >> moderator: thank you. thank you very much. we now go back to our questions for both of you and the next question comes from brian and it goes first to senator davis. >> you both say that texas children deserve a first-class education but texas ranks 46th in the nation when it comes to the amount of money we spend on each student, about $9,000. that is almost $500 less per student than we spent just a few years ago. senator davis, we know you support more funding for education. what is the price tag for your education plans? please give us a dollar amount and where would you find that money? davis: brian, i was broad in 2011 to filibuster the $5.4 billion in cuts to our public schools, cuts that my opponent has been fighting in court to keep in place ever since. cuts that he told a tv audience

last week that he had to continue to pursue when that is absolutely not the truth. my plan calls for investing in making sure that every 4-year-old in this state has access to quality, full-day pre-k. that we pay our teachers more in line with national average. that we dramatically reduce standardized tests and that we create better access to early college high school and dual credit close classes. that comes at a price but the question to ask is, at what price will we pay as a state if we don't? i will set a vision for this legislature to begin to move in that direction. it will not happen overnight. but it is a essential for the future of this state that it does happen. >> attorney general abbott, you say you want the number one education system in the country. how much additional money, per student, if any, would your plan

require and where would that money come from? abbott: brian, the amount additional per student varies from program to program. for example, in my pre-k-4 program i want to be elevated to be the premier high quality, pre-k program in america, i want to add $1500 more per student. but you also need to look at the big picture here. the amount we are going to spend on education in the next buy enyum in the state of texas will be $60 billion. it's a huge number. so the important thing is that we would be wise to and strategic about how we dedicate that funding. what i want to dedicate that fund something first and foremost on building a solid foundation for education at the very beginning from pre-k all the way through third grade. second is, i do want to invest in teachers. i want to insure that teachers both have the resources, the training, and the salaries to

insure we have the best top-quality teachers in america. >> moderator: rebuttal? >> senator davis, i still didn't hear a dollar amount from you? do you have one? >> mr. abbott you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. on one hand you are fighting to keep our students in overcrowded classrooms. teachers laid off across the state. and school closing in place. and yet you say you want to make texas number one in education. you can not accomplish that goal without making the appropriate investments. and when you talk about local control, what you really mean is exactly what has been happening today. pushing those costs down to the local level, increasing property taxes for families across the state. and unfortunately, keeping their children in a situation where they're not getting the education that they deserve. your pre-k plan will pick and

choose which children get quality pre-k and which do not and it does not offer a full-day pre-k. >> no dollar amount? davis: as i said, brian, this will he will be a vision set for the legislature and it has to be looked at in very important ways. if we fail to invest and by the way, i did file a bill to change the school funding formula in the last legislative session that would increase per pupil funding. if we do not make those investments, we know that we're going to continue to exactly where we are today. >> moderator: time. >> attorney general abbott. >> moderator: we'll give attorney general abbott extra time too. >> amount of money you're talking about increasing per pupil does not get us to the national average which is $11,000. should we be at least at the national average on spending per pupil? abbott: brian, i think we need to look at it from the opposite direction. the way that you're looking at

it and the way you're focusing on it is way a lot of people do. they say, well, how much should we spend? let me tell you, no business starts out by saying, gosh we need to spend x-amount and create a product. brian, what we really need to do, we need to create the best school system in america and then fund it. so before we talk about the dollar amount, we need to talk about what we are providing for the students in the classroom. my plan that i rolled out creates the best classroom environment for students in the united states of america from pre-k all the way through graduation. >> moderator: no funding behind it? >> number one education system in the nation by spending below the national average for per pupil. >> moderator: answer this quickly, please into. abbott: this is example put it into perspective. fornash spends a lot more -- california spends a lot more per

pupil than the state of texas. despite that fact, texas students perform as well or better on nape tests. more spending doesn't always lead to better results. >> moderator: thank you very much. our next question from gromer jeffers to attorney general abbott. >> attorney general abbott, a whole bunch of states rejected obamacare. several came up with plans to use the federal dollars to create their own flexible systems to cover uninsured. right now texas is turning its back on $100 billion in federal money. if elected governor, would you be willing to negotiate with the federal government, with the federal government on a plan that lowers premiums as well as lowers, reduces the local tax burden? or would you like governor perry, refuse to talk to washington and make a deal? abbott: well, gromer, what i think is the best strategy for the state of texas would be for the state of texas to be able to get a block grant where we would

have the little of flexibility so we could address unique health care challenges that the people of state of texas face. we know, gromer, that these bureaucrats in washington, d.c. they don't know how to address our health care problem. >> let me say i hate to cut you off. coin serve tis in the legislature say block grants are not a practical solution. abbott: block grants have been used effectively in states like rhode island and indiana and i think they can be used now. let's even get beyond this. i have laid out strategies in which i will improve health care spending on areas where we can genuinely improve people's lives. i want to increase spending on women's health care. i want to increase spending for veterans, for disabled, for mental health needs. what i don't want to do is bankrupt texas by imposing on texas the overwhelming obamacare disaster. >> moderator: time. >> senator davis, if elected

governor, you will be dealing with an overwhelmingly republican legislature, unless democrats get everything they want in november. how would you bring $100 billion to texas? davis: you know this is an issue about doing the right thing for the people of this state. i have to laugh when i hear mr. abbott talk about bankrupting texas. right now texans are ride writing higher tax dollars to the irs, $100 billion will never come back to work for us in our state unless we bring it back. as governor, i will bring it back. greg bab bottom's plan is to have you write the tax check and send it to california and new york. he is california's best friend in texas. but there is a reason republican governors around this state have found a solution to bring that money to their states. there is a reason that chambers of commerce around this state, all come forward, begging us to do the right thing and bring

that money back to work for us. it will create an estimated 300,000 jobs per year in our state. a true leader stops partisan posturing and does the right thing for her state, and brings her tax dollars back to work for her community. >> moderator: okay. time for rebuttal. >> attorney general abbott, county judges for the six largest counties in this state want some sort of solution. >> it is important for the people at home to understand this. if anyone believes that california is getting a penny more money because texas is not participating in obamacare, then they are the same people who believe the phrase by the president, if you like your doctor, you will get to keep your doctor. let me tell you the facts. the facts are that texas, by not participating in obamacare, is, california is not going to get one single penny more. another fact is, if texas does participate in obamacare, it will cost the taxpayers of texas

more than $10 billion during the first 10 years of implementation. but even worse, it is if texas participates, we are making a deal with a federal government that is $18 trillion in debt. that is a bargain i'm not willing to make as governor. >> moderator: time. >> senator davis, you're chuckling and shaking your head. >> what mr. abbott is saying is absolutely not true. our tax dollars will go to supplement health care dollars in california and new york if we don't bring them here. our check we write to the irs will not get any smaller. in fact the checks we write for our property taxes will grow. there is a reason that republican and democratic county judges in this state have come together and unified around the idea of bringing that tax money back to work for us because they know that their hospital districts will have to increase taxes in order to take care of that unfunded care. studies show that our

investments to bring those dollars down will yield a net tremendous positive benefit for this state, including the job creation that will come from it. >> moderator: thanks to both of you. we're going to shift gears now and we're going to give the candidates, each of you, an opportunity to ask each other a question. we flipped a coin and we'll start with attorney general abbott who has a question for senator davis. abbott: well the timing could hardly be better for this question. i notice that you said recently that you want to impose obamacare on the people of texas so badly, that even if the conservative texas legislature would not vote to approve it, you would go around the legislature and use an executive order to impose obamacare on the people of texas. so, senator, my question to you is, what part of the texas constitution gives the governor the authority to go around the legislature and use an executive order to impose a law like obamacare?

davis: what i have argued, mr. abbott, that we should bring medicaid expansion to texas. medicaid expansion is all about bringing our tax dollars back to work for us. and as a member of the texas legislature, i can tell you that every hospital association, every chamber of commerce member, and republicans alike in our texas legislature agreed that we should do the right thing by our state and bring that money back to work for us. what i've also said is that medicaid expansion included the authority to bring it to states through executive order but what i would prefer to do, and what i will do, is work with my legislature, republicans and democrats alike, who know that this is the right thing to do for their communities, who aren't afraid of being labeled as partisans and who are more interested in doing right by their citizens. and i will work with them, to

bring their tax dollars, our community tax dollars, back to texas and to keep property taxes from increasing. there is no question, no question whatsoever, that if we don't bring this money back down to work for us, our citizens across this state are going to pay twice. once to the irs with money they will never see again, and another time at the local level because someone will have to pay for the unfunded care somehow, some way. >> moderator: thank you. senator davis, it is now our turn to ask a question of attorney general abbott. davis: mr. abbott, your ruling regarding the texas enterprise fund kept secret the fact that tens of millions of dollars had been awarded from the texas enterprise fund to companies who didn't even apply. my question for you tonight is, will you agree to release any documentation, any

communications that represent communications that you had during that time in reaching that decision? abbott: you know, senator, i actually think you may be able to help in answering this question because if i recall correctly, one of the beneficiaries of that enterprise fund who's application can not be found was cabela's in fort worth. when you were a councilwoman on the fort worth city council you used taxpayer incentive dollars to attract cabela there, and, that cabela benefited from the texas enterprise fund. there is however one thing that you haven't disclosed, is the fact that when you used those incentive fund to attract cabela, and then closed the deal, it was your title company that benefited by closing that

deal. so you personally profited, you were able to -- davis: you are not telling the truth right now and you know you're not telling truth. i did not personally profit from that. in fact we actually did have an application we reviewed very carefully. and we also, unlike what your office did, clawed back when cabela's failed to realize the job creation numbers that they promised. as always been the case with me, my obligation is to the hard-working people that i represent. and when private partners don't come through on their promises, i make sure that our public dollars are clawed back. you were the chief law enforcement officer over the enterprise fund. it was your responsibility to make sure -- >> moderator: time. davis: 10 of millions ofdollars going to these companies were resulting in jobs. >> moderator: time. davis: you failed to do that. not only did you do it, you covered up the fact.

>> moderator: time, senator. davis: they were given money without even applying for those. >> moderator: that is time, we want to give you opportunity to respond if you choose to? abbott: sure, i would like to respond by knowing how much your title company received by closing the cabela's deal that was granted an award from the texas enterprise fund. davis: it was not my title company. i was an employee of a title company earning a salary that was never dependent on any deal that ever closed. mr. abbott, this is about your failure, your failure as the chief law enforcement officer of this state to review and make sure that these fund weren't being used as slush funds for your donors. yet he took $1.4 million. >> moderator: thank you very much. davis: from people who raised these moneys from the texas enterprise fund. >> moderator: we'll move on. davis: you looked the other way. >> moderator: we'll move on. we have a question, peggy fikac has a question first to you,

senator davis. >> on a different, different issue, traffic is headache around the state, even if voters approve more money for roads in november. transportation officials say they need another 2 to $3 billion just to maintain the current level of congestion. how do you raise that money? would you take new to roads or higher tolls off the table in coming up with the money that's needed? davis: peggy, i have long been a leader in the area of transportation. in this community and in the texas senate. i served for eight years on the regional transportation council and six years on the senate transportation committee and i was proud to be a coauthor of what our voters will vote on in november, proposition 1. asking that my opponent let go by for about a year before he weighed in on supporting it. i'm encouraging voters to support use of their rainy day monies for purposes of transportation. i also have a plan.

mr. abbott may have a 30-second commercial, but i have a plan to gradually end diversionings coming from the gasoline tax and i submitted that plan in the form of a bill last session. that plan would allow us to capture an additional four to $5 billion with a gradual step-down and a plan to fill the hole where those diversions would end. >> if you say tolls are off the table, are they part of the -- potentially. >> moderator: time? want to wait for rebuttal on that? okay. general abbott. abbott: i think i have a good commercial. my commercial shows me in wheelchair i can go faster than some of the people in cars on the road here in dallas or other large cities across the state. peggy, to answer your question, i have a plan, that will add more than $4 billion to building roads in the state without raising a single penny in taxes,

fees or tolls. where this money comes from is from three places. one, we stop the diversions away of from funding intend for building roads. money that is dedicated to roads, should be spent on building roads. two, we take a part of the oil and gas severance tax and dedicate that to building roads. three, we take part of the sales taxes you're already paying when you buy a car and truck and use it to build roads that those cars and trucks are driving on. >> could you address whether you think new to roads or higher tolls should be part of the mix when looking at transportation need in texas? davis: i believe it has been a poor solution for texans to have to pay twice. they're paying at gasoline pump and pay again to drive on to roads. they're doing that because we haven't had leadership in the texas legislature that is provided other alternatives for building them. i'm glad to hear that mr. abbott

approves and agrees with my plans, the rainy day fund money that comes from oil and gas severance taxes is proposition 1 that i coauthored and voters will be voting on in november. the end to diversions is a bill that filed in the last legislative session but my plan includes a way to replace the hole that's left by ending those diversions because right now much of that money is going to education, and health and human services. i do believe -- >> moderator: thank you, short. davis: we need to go back to pay-as-you-go system as a steak state and get out of the heavy deb load our state is carrying for transportation costs. >> attorney general abbott would you take tolls off the table? abbott: short and simple my plan doesn't involve any to roads, period. >> you would not add that to your plan? abbott: i'm not interested in adding to roads to my plan. >> moderator: thank you. i have the next question. go first to attorney general abbott. in the past year, texas home

insurance companies have imposed very big rate increases, as much as 30% by one company while still collecting fairly sizable profits. we have a system in this state that allows companies to increase their insurance rates before actually reviewed. do you think rates in this state are too high for homeowners? if so, what changes would you make? abbott: there is probably not a homeowner who doesn't think that the rates are too high. shelly, i do think that we need to find ways to reduce homeowner insurance rates. seems like, they're going through the roof, no pun intended. reality we have to have a marketplace that will attract insurance companies here to provide the homeowner insurance. and so -- >> moderator: do you think rates are adequate? are they right where they need to be or? abbott: candidly, i haven't looked at the math of it. i think it is called acutarial

information and i haven't looked at the acutarial information. mathematically i can't tell you. what i can tell as a homeowner myself, as person who talks to homeowners every day, we want to find ways to drive down the cost of our homeowner insurance. and i will be someone who will be a champion for homeowners to find those types of solutions. >> moderator: i want to say before we go to you, senator, we won't have rebuttals on last few questions. we're running really tight on time. but, senator, the same thing, are the rates too high and what would you do about it? davis: the rates are ridiculously high. homeowners are being gauged inn our states and they're gouged in our states because we have an insurance commissioner failing to do her job and responsibly review the rate increases and decline them. as a state senator, i have argued that we should have prior approval of rate increases in our state before they are our allowed. one of the first things i will do as governor is replace the insurance commissioner and put

someone there who has as her number one responsibility, the hard-working people of this state. i don't cotton to people who sell out our hard-working texans for the interests of big insurance companies. mr. abbott on the other hand has taken enormous contributions from them and most recently advocate ad settlement on behalf of farmers insurance that the judge accused him of laying down to the insurance company, refused to accept the settlement because he was selling out the claimants in our state. >> moderator: thank you, senator. thank you. we're going to go to norma garcia. she has another social media question, again there won't be rebuttal on this one. >> there is still time to join the conversation. we're getting lots of questions via tweeters. tweet us at kera news, hashtag debates. the question is following. if a 10-year-old girl asked you whether her two dads should be

allowed to get married what would you teller her? senator davis you are, you are for gay marriage. would you as governor push constitutional provision or push to repeal the constitutional provision that makes gay marriage illegal in texas, yes or no? how high is this topic on list of priors. davis: i favor, pardon me, norm that, i favor marriage equality. i want to make sure that people who love each other, who are willing to be in a committed relationship with each other and who desire to marry in our state, have the opportunity to do so. this is a constitutional provision in our law right now but it has been challenged. it has been challenged by mr. abbott. and we await the court's decision on whether this actually is in keeping with the u.s. constitutional and the equal protection clause of that constitution. if this is not remedied in the courts, as governor i will be happy and will welcome a bill

that would allow us to put once again before the voters of this state a decision on whether to repeal what is currently our constitutional ban against marriage equality in this state. >> attorney general, you are leading the fight against gay marriage. what would you say to that child? abbott: john, i want you to know that there are good and decent people on both sides of this issue. i believe in traditional marriage. that is what 75% of texans agreed with less than a decade ago when they passed a constitutional amendment in the state of texas saying that marriage in texas is a union between one man and one woman. now, for me personally, this is more than a constitutional amendment. i've been married to my wife for more than 33 years now. >> is that what you would tell to -- abbott: that's what i just told john. >> thank you. >> moderator: we now have a question from brian, this

question goes first to attorney general abbott. >> i would like to ask each of you to clarify your position on an issue that has been front and center since the start of this campaign and that is abortion. attorney general abbott, you have said that abortion is only acceptable to save a woman's life. you have also indicated that you oppose' borings even in cases of rape an incest. please speak directly to every woman in texas who has been a victim of rape or incest and explain your position. abbott: brian, it is incredibly important when we talk to a woman who is victim of rape or incest, that we start with the compassion and support they deserve. that is what i have done as attorney general. by, providing a record amount of financial support to victims and victims organizations supporting women who have been victims of rape and incest. that is what i've done as

attorney general by arresting more sexual predators than all attorneys general in history of the state of texas. but, you bring up the issue and you know, that i'm pro-life. and i'm catholic. and i want to promote a culture of life. that supports both the health and safety of both the mother and child, both before and after birth. in texas, let's be clear about the law. that is the woman has five months to make a very difficult decision. >> moderator: thank you very much. senator davis? >> senator davis you catapulted into the spotlight on this issue with our filibuster against abortion restrictions but you recently told editorial board of dallas morning news you might not have filibustered in the legislation only banned abortions after 20 weeks with allowances for rape and incest. what kind of abortion

restrictions are you willing to accept? >> i have always believed, brian , that for a woman, and woman guided by her faith and family and her doctor to make these very difficult decisions for themselves. i do not believe that the government should intrude in that most personal and private of decision makes. greg abbott, on the other hand, beliefs it is his right to intrude even when a woman has been brutal victim of a rape, a brutal rape, or has been the victim of incest. this should come as no surprise to us, given that mr. abbott's attitudes towards women have revealed themselves in other ways. he pays women in his office less than he pays male assistant attorney generals. he campaigned with a known sexual predator who has bragged about having sex with underage girls. >> what about your position though? >> moderator: time for one more

question. i do apologize, we're running very close on time. from this question from gromer goes to senator davis. only 45 seconds for each answer but we'll see what we do with this. >> senator davis, as you know texas has a law that allows undocumented immigrant students to pay in state tuition. why allow undocumented students such a benefit? does the law encourage the flow of undocumented immigrants into texas? davis: it is good for our economy to make sure that every person who lives here has an opportunity to be a vibrant part of the texas economy. during this campaign i have met so many extraordinary young people who are dreamers, who are here working hard, to become something. a young woman named danny who i met at texas state technical college working becoming a teacher. she graduated in the top 10% of her high school class. my opponent has called the d.r.e.a.m. act flawed. i support the d.r.e.a.m. act. and if there is any attempt to

repeal it, and i am sitting at the governor's desk, i will veto that attempt. it makes sense for our students. it makes sense for our economy, to make sure that every student in texas can be successful part of our future. >> moderator: thank you, senator. attorney general abbott. >> you said law was noble effort but flawed. would you veto a bill from the legislature that repeals this law? abbott: frankly as senator davis was saying i think that the goals of the law are noble but to make clear, i think the flaw under the law as structured is flawed because the way that it is supposed to work is that a student is supposed to be showing that they're making progress toward establishing legal status. and that simply is not being done. here is the real deal. and that is, all these laws like the in-state tuition law, those are only symptoms of a larger

problem. the larger problem, gromer, is we have a broken immigration system. >> moderator: thank you. abbott: until we fix our immigration system. >> veto, yes or no. abbott: i, say it again? >> veto from a bill from the legislature that repeals the law, yes or no? abbott: would i veto it? no. >> moderator: thank you very much. wish we had more time. like to give you opportunity to make a closing statement, based on a coin toss, senator davis, you will be first. >> the question that people will have to ask themselves in this election is who will fight for me. i have a history for fighting for people that i represent. standing against massive cuts to public education, standing up to powerful insurance companies, and payday lenders on behalf of the people i represent. i have stood for making sure women are paid equally for doing equal work. hard-working tensionance in our state can earn a fair day's wage

for an honest day's pay. i passed a bill to hold accountable the use of our enterprise fund which is meant to create jobs. my opponent, on other hand fought to keep our schools underfunded. . . and i want him to know that if

they give me the privilege of serving them as governor i will fight for them every single day. thank you. abbott: as your governor i've been fighting for your liberty against an overreaching federal government. i've elevate the texas child support system to be ranked number one in the nation and i fought to defend the 10 commandments monument on the texas capitol grounds. and we one. now, i want to fight for the future of texas as your next governor. now, texas is already number one in the nation for creating jobs. i will keep it that way by keeping taxes low and by making sure we don't let government grow too big. i will ensure that we build the roads and water projects we need to keep texas growing. and i will keep our communities safe from the rio grande valley all the way to the red river. texas is exceptional. and i am running for governor and asking for your vote to make it even better.

>> i want to thank both of the candidates and my colleagues for joining us for this texas debate tonight. election is november 4. good night. >> i got in a wheelchair can move faster than traffic and some roads in texas. i'm greg abbott and my plan at the billions for new road construction without raising taxes, fees or tolls. we paid for by ensuring that money dedicated for roads will be spent only on roads. and no more taking highway funds by the legislature to pay for their pet projects. elect me and i will get texas moving. >> in the texas courtroom, greg abbott made the case against our children. he fought for $5 billion in cuts to education made by his insider buddies, and now he is proposing giving standardized tests to

four-year-olds. heard enough? wendy davis, she would reduce the number of standardized test our kids take across the board. she will cut bureaucratic waste and davis will use education to build an economy for all hard-working texans. you decide who will be best for texas. >> wendy davis is embroiled in scandal yet again. as a state senator she used her influence for taxpayer contracts and voted on bills that helped her own law firm. davis profited from her day job by voting and twisting arms in the senate. she crossed from potential to real conflicts of interest. now her legal work as part of an open fbi investigation. wendy davis, unethical behavior, unfit to be governor. >> he was a texas surgeon performing operations while purportedly using cocaine. two patients died, others were paralyzed. doctors spoke out by the hospital did nothing to stop them. families and victims sued.

weeks after accepting a quarter million dollars campaign contribution from the hospital's chairman, greg abbott not involve using his office to go to court against the victims. greg abbott, another insider not working for you. >> we are live waiting for house minority leader nancy pelosi. she will be holding a briefing this morning expected to start in a couple of moments. live coverage here on c-span2 but one of the items we expect you will talk about his secret service operations. .biz tweet from congressman elijah cummings who is ranking member on the house oversight committee. they held a hearing on the secret service yesterday and he said i've not decided about julia pierson, the secret service operations director, but are not comfortable about the safety of the president of the united states of america. we expect to get house minority leader nancy pelosi in just a couple of moments. live coverage on c-span2.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> again waiting for the start of this briefing with nancy pelosi. she will be out in just a couple of moments. live coverage here on c-span2. president obama is meeting with israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu today. reat meetings had to happen thi' hour. a reporter told us what tooo expect. >> on the phone is jeff mason, white house reporter for reuters to talk about a meeting todayrie between the president and the prime minister of israel benjamin netanyahu. jeff mason, when will this meeting take place? were and what will the to be discussing? the t spent the meeting takes place around 11:00 at the white house between the two leaders. the topics are likely to conclude, the main topics always come up between president obama and prime minister netanyahu.

the stalled peace talks between israel and the palestinians, israel's concern about western efforts to form a nuclear deal with iran, and the latest u.s. and western efforts to work on or to form a coalition against the islamic state in iraq and syria. >> host: what will the united states, what with the president the asking of israel? >> caller: the president will no doubt push israel to perhaps not publicly to find a way akin to get back into constructive process with the palestinians on a peace deal. those talks have basically failed and have not picked up again after a conflict between israelis and the palestinians that ended we so it without a clear victory on either side. netanyahu on the other hand, --

concerned that the president of the united states has articulated that additional settlements to the west bank contributed to the breakdown in talks. so that will certainly be one of the larger topics. on the other hand, -- >> we believe is needed to go live now to capitol hill for a marks from house minority leader nancy pelosi. >> today, october 1, 2014 marks one year, almost one year since the government shut down. on that day the republicans chose to do great damage to the economy. for 16 days they kept the government shut down. even before october 1, i had said to the speaker, we will give you the boat to keep the government open even though we don't like your 98850. you recall that was a drop of

$80 billion from the $10.58 trillion, 1 trillion, zero, $58 billion we had all agreed to. and then how said not 1 dollar over 988. the senate agree. the president agree. house democrats agreed that the only people who did agree with the house republicans number with house republican members. and they shut down government. with glee. for 16 days they kept government shut down damaging to the tune of $25 billion, our economy hurting, our gdp, and when they finally came around after public pressure was too much, overwhelmingly the republicans voted to keep government shut down and the democratic votes for their number which we didn't like but we accepted to open up government. it's just stunning the for

policy with which the republican treat the economy. that was five years from the time when they had on septembe september 29 voted against a solution to the financial meltdown. president bush was president. six years from that, go back six years, and six years ago is when we were leading up to the election of president barack obama. when he took office in the year, the unemployment rate was over 9%. it is now 6.1. the deficit was $1.4 trillion in the year. it is now around $504 billion, a 60% drop in the deficit. the market then was around 7000. it's now around 17,000. we've had 54 straight months of

private sector jobs growth, to the tune of 10 million jobs, much more could have been done if the republicans had supported some of the java initiative that the president had put forth. we are not in a good place yet for most working families because they were scarred by what the president inherited, the greatest financial meltdown in economic crisis for us since the great depression. the president has much to be proud of in terms of is turning around the economy, but more needs to be done. and that's why it's hard to understand how the republicans could leave for a break the earliest departure for a break before an election. instead, we should be here for our middle class jumpstart. to build the infrastructure of america with build america bonds, paid for by closing tax

breaks for companies who send their jobs overseas. investing in education to keep america number one. supporting initiatives that enable families and students to renegotiate their loans at a lower price, at a lower interest rate. so that they can be entrepreneurial, they can afford college in the first place and the entrepreneurial, not straddled in chains by the oppressive step. and, of course, in our middle class jumpstart, the jewel in the crown, when women succeed, america succeeds. who can argue, the republicans do, that they should have equal pay for equal work. for women. raise the minimum wage, over 60% people making nearly two-thirds, making minimum wage are women. a lot of women throughout the balance between, and families, men, too, between work and home with paid sick leave and, of course, can be the missing link

in the evolution of these women in the workplace, and in our economy, affordable quality child care, children learning, parents turning. they reject the presence proposal for universal free gay, rejected by the -- pre-k. so if important work to do to meet the needs of the american people. best thing we can do for our economy is to empower, unleash the power of women in our economy. so that's part of the debate that we will be happy as a group go for their am looking for to the presidents speech on thursday, that's tomorrow, on that subject. some of you have asked me about isis and a vote in congress on that subject. congress has come with the first branch of government, article i, the legislative branch. congress has a role in defining

in how our country degrades and defeats isis. one of the challenges that we face to our national security. there's a conversation among members informally about what form an authorization should take that would secure our national security interest, as well as good past in both houses of congress. these conversations should be from the informal to the official. when this congress comes back into session in november, it is important that we are here, we are ready to debate and vote on such an authorization between then and now. we should be prepared. as you've seen in the news, on a day-to-day basis in recent days, the peaceful demonstration in hong kong. some of your been around for a while know that the issue of

pro-democracy and freedom and human rights in china and tibet have been an important issue to me since even before tiananmen square. these demonstrations are peaceful. they are young, and hopefully, they will produce a result. at the time of the great uk yielding back hong kong to china, a basic law was established. article 26 of the basic law of the constitution states, permanent residents of the hong kong special administrative region shall have the right to vote and the right to stand for elections. in accordance with the law. what china is doing now is

counter to that because they are saying the people they put forth by the people who have a right to stand for office. so we are all watching very closely to see what is happening. the chief executive has said we need to send a message of establishing chief executive which, of course, is counter to the agreement that took place in the 1990s. and so, again, i think that people throughout the world should speak up on what is happening in hong kong. it's amazing to see how young some of them in secondary school, some high school students. they have their demonstration. they don't run from tear gas. they cleanup behind themselves, and they show up the next day. because they want to have what was promised to hong kong.

on the subject of ebola, i just want to make a comment there because global health has been an issue of concern to the congress for a long time, and we have committed substantial resources to it, whether it's hiv/aids, whatever it happens to be, malaria, tuberculosis and the rest. on the subject of ebola, i salute the president for what he announced recently. it was well received, the one president that i had been speaking to on more than one occasion, the president of liberia same send hope that hospital beds. and my conversation to the president of the world bank see this is having an impact on, not only the people which is first and foremost, but the economy of these countries, resources will make a difference. if people are quarantined in

clean setting and they have care, they can recover. and when they recover it gives other people hope to come in to seek care. so it's a sad, sad challenge, but all, really in our interest from a humanitarian standpoint, but also for what it means to our own country. with that i would be pleased to take any questions. go ahead. [inaudible] director of the secret service? [inaudible] >> i have great confidence in chairman cummings, mr. cummings. i did not see the entirety of veering yesterday as i was at some events for the prime minister of india, which was wonderful, they were wonderful. but here's what i would say. in terms of the secret service

and the protection of the president of the united states, that has to be, there has to be an independent investigation as to what is going on at the secret service. the protection of the president has to be precise. it has to be flawless, and there has to be accountability when that is not the case. it is inexcusable that someone would jump over the fence and into the white house compound excusable that someone could get on an elevator with the president of the united states, with or without a weapon. and so i think an independent investigation is what is needed. not just to hold people accountable but to see how we should go forward in a way that they can has precision, accountability, and his flawless. because the protection of the president is really important to our reputation, the reputation of the secret service. and mr. cummings keeps making that point, and i agree with them. it's about reputation. this is the expectation, the

president will be protected to the president and his family will be protected. >> the senior democrat on -- is not comfortable? >> well, as i said, i've confidence in what he has to say. i think that the challenge may need more than one person t. i'd like to see an investigation of the culture and the procedure and the accountability in the secret service. because while i have confidence in mr. cummings, complete confidence, i do think that the challenge may go beyond her. because some problems existed before she was there. >> i think we should have an investigation it became we will learn more about what they have been learning and to will come forth. but i think, i think, i understand that she's the top person to the buck stops here,

and there are those were calling for her to step aside. whether she does or not, i think we need an independent investigation. her leaving doesn't end the need for us to know a lot more about what is happening. but again i would accept the recommendation of my ranking member on the committee. >> a point on the secret service. with the scandals a couple of years ago -- >> that was pre-her. >> you called the golden some of the things going on their disgusting. >> right. great disgusting. >> do you think those the culture change, maybe they fixed one type of problem, you know, the idea to bring her in versus some of the other issues that deal more directly with the security? >> i have no idea. that's why said we have to have, in other words, what was happening there was inexcusable and a weakening of security that

we need to protect the president. so it's not unrelated to protecting the president. so if mr. cummings thinks that she should go, i subscribe to his recommendation. however, i don't think, and i don't say that he is saying this, that's all that should be done. there has to be an independent investigation. has to be accountability. the president of the united states and his family, reputation of the secret service as ironclad in terms of protecting our president, any president, presidents to come, have to be one that the american people have that confidence, that anyone who would serve or run would have that, could have that confidence. so whether it's some of the disgusting behavior of some of the members, which is in my view inexcusable, but that's a minor

compared to letting a person on the bus come on the elevator with the president with a gun or without a gun. are letting somebody jumped the fence and have several lines of defense not work. but again this is important and it has to be dealt with. but we also have to deal with is the protection of the president, his security is the utmost importance to us but again, this president, any president. but we also have to be mindful of what's happening in america's homes, right of people have insecurities about their stability, their financial stability about their jobs, about their pension, but the education of their children, about the ability to have a home. because for all of the advantage, all of the progress that was made in reducing the deficit and growing unemployment and the success of the growth of the stock market to, but almost

10,000 points, and the job growth and the private sector, still too many people are left out of the loop. and their financial security, their financial stability is something that we have a responsibility to be dealing with, too. and we can do more than one thing at a time. >> madam leader -- >> what type of independent investigation would you support? is this something that would be done here by congressional committee or -- >> i think it congressional commits have completely company big supporter of the prerogatives of congress to investigate but i do think that there could be an investigation of people who have experienced directly in protecting presidents and the first family and all that they protect, visiting dignitaries and the rest. and that that expertise might be

useful in a no-nonsense, this is what this is, and what we recommend is what we want to see happen. this isn't a conversation. this isn't a conversation. this is more than a recommendation to it is a requirement that if people decide that they are going to pull back the curtain on the secret service, that is going to be acceptance of some of the, maybe very difficult suggestions that they may have to make. it is interesting but it started off as a collective custom. california was one of the places, the person who headed the coast guard collected custom secret service, part of the treasury department, now is part, it's evolves and as part of the homeland security when we established that committee.

and we have to do much better than this. much better than this. and again come to take it took place, a level of professionalism where there's no question of politics or anything else, just what do we need to do to protect the president? what does it mean when you decide to join the secret service? what is its level of professionalism. when i say professional, take responsibility, you take responsibility. but again we have to take responsibility for meeting the needs of the american people and their financial security. and that is what the president should be very proud of what has been accomplished and his administration, much of it because of what we did in the two years when we have a democratic majority with the recovery initiative and the rest. and about 50 million people now

have quality of portal health care which is helping to reduce the cost of health care costs in our country, health and -- helping to reduce the deficit. >> would you describe the recommendations, does that mean you think she should leave? >> i said i agree with the analysis, yes. but i don't, i can't, i'm saying that if that's what he's suggesting, i support his suggestion. but if you follow up and say, tell me why you think she should leave, i don't have the knowledge that he has. so i am subscribing to his superior judgment and knowledge on the subject. but i'm also further saying that this is more than one person. there were problems before she went there. they were problems come as chad was mentioning, before she went there. we will see what challenges the

secret service still faces to reach the level of professionalism that his conduct of their duties in a professional way, and professionalism in being accountable for the protection of the president. >> on isis, you are privy to a lot of intelligence briefing to the president understood the threat. do you share that opinion? >> the president, the president said in august which is what i think he reiterated, i think there's no doubt that they are advanced to their movement over the last several months has been more rapid than intelligence estimate and i think the expectation policymakers both, and that is more rapid than the expectations of policymakers both inside and outside of iraq, you. >> we had a lot of briefings appear during the course of the year, especially when the fallujah fell that suffices was a real threat.

is its biggest and that's what actions were taken but after fallujah mosul dam, the mountain, then actions were taken to -- >> is it fair to put that much going on intelligence community the? >> it's not a question of blanket it's a question of fact. the fact is, is that what mr. clapper said in his statement is, said that his analysis had reported the groups emergence and its capabilities with the deficiencies of iraqi military. what we didn't do is predict the will to fight. that's always the problem, and that is what he said. so he said, in the case underestimate, i sold the islamic state and overestimate the fighting capability of the iraqi army. i didn't see the collapse of the iraqi city force coming. i didn't see that. it boils down to predicting the will to fight, which is

imponderable. and that's what the chairman of the national intelligence said very recently in relationship to what the president had been informed in congress and had been informed earlier. what i do want to say about the president though is that while all of this was happening, and for a long time now, the president has been working diplomatically and politically to make sure there was a new government in iraq. because it's no use doing much in terms of military or diplomacy if you don't have a government that's going to be inclusive. so while all of this is going on the president and the vice president were working very hard to see transition to a government that would be inclusive, not just there to represent shia priorities, but shia, sunni, kurds, christians and the rest.

an inclusive government. the president has been putting together diplomatically a coalition of nato allies as well as allies in the region to degrade and destroy isis. the president has rallied humanitarian assistance in a very important way went isis was threatening genocide to thousands of people, isolating them on the mountain. the president came in and diffuse that humanitarian crisis. so a great deal has been going on. again, when mr. clapper said we underestimated isil and overestimate the fighting capacity of the iraqi army, the part of the fighting capacity of the iraqi armed -- army, sprang from also not having a government in baghdad that

really gave them the comfort that they were an up or in part of iraq. that has changed. and that is one way to degrade and destroy isis. >> it will be i think when you guys come back from election, it will be more than three months as president obama started this offensive. why shouldn't you guys come back sooner to debate isys -- >> i'm with you. i am totally with you. and i disagree with us because it went away for the president to give us an authorization so that we can vote on it. no. you don't -- if you want to define an authorization which defines the authority that you're giving the president, you don't wait for the president to write it. congress writes it because we are asserting our willingness to vote for a plan of action. i do believe as the speaker i believe is set for what the

president is doing now, he has the authority to do it. we have voted overwhelming over 300 votes in the congress on the government resolution that says there comes a time that the president goes further than it will require an authorization of congress. i think we should have stayed to do it. i think we should be getting ready to do it. people as they say are informally -- we the range -- we have a range of, two examples, senator nelson and congressman frank wolf, and many of the people within our own caucus are writing down possibilities of what an authorization would look like. i think it has to sprang from congress. congress has to vote on it, and it defines how we would limit the power of the press, or not, but it's our decision. it's not the president's decision. so i am with you. i think we should have never left.

i think we should stay to to debate and discuss what we would do to degrade and destroy isis. i think we should be here to do a jump start to the middle-class, to a job creation that gives confidence in our economy to the american people. to degrade isis, to give confidence in our national security i think there's plenty of work that we could've been doing here now, and that's why i am here and have been here each week since we have been out. i think we have time for just one more question. >> in 2007, there was an article in the el paso times and then director of national intelligence -- said that quote a significant number of iraqis had already come across the southwest border of the united states. if president obama does what -- take executive action to legalize illegal aliens to the

united states the are you referring to undocumented people for in the united states? okay. undocumented people, okay. >> what should this legislation include iraqis as we'll? >> we have many borders. we have the canadian border, the southern border. we have people coming by land and sea. we certainly have to protect the american people. that's a first responsibly to protect and defend but i do think it has anything to do with what the president is going to do next on immigration. i think it has to do with what we are doing for our national security. thank you all very much. yes, ma'am. >> can i stake in a political question? republicans are using a strategy figures before and house races which is featuring new and a lot of competitive races turn to link all members of -- [inaudible] >> president obama. [inaudible] what's your question? >> on this one in which you

think of this -- >> i have no idea. they have no ideas. they have nothing to offer the american people in terms of job creation, financial stability, lowering the cost of education, raising the minimum wage, stopping their tax breaks for their friends to send jobs overseas instead of the united states. so they use their politics of personal destruction, which is stock in trade. it comes from there poverty, and lack of ideas. and you know what? people are not responding to them. we have out mobilize them come out recruited them, outraised them to a shameful extent. and they are desperate. but there's a lot more in this election and what somebody, most people sitting why did ask about her? i that is between the two of you. what do you have to offer? what do you have to offer? but you know, we are in the

arena and that's the way it is, and i am so respectful because of what it is and what he's had to do the i'm more offended by any taxi might make under president of the united states. [inaudible] spent all, my goodness. they help me raise money. franklin roosevelt, i take pride in the night in this. how did he said? in such a way. if they have anything to offer they would be offering that. have nothing to offer. they are not here. they shut down government. six years ago, said she is ago that would've allowed our country to go down, financial institutions to go down the drain. this president inherited that very, very bad economic situation. turned the country around. that's what i think we have to be talking about in this election. and, i'm not here to talk about

them. we surround ourselves with people who share our values and believe in what we believe in him and we have great candidates. we have great enthusiasm at the grassroots level. and i remind you that for all these had to say, last election we got nearly 1 million a half votes more than they did nationally. didn't happen to be in the right districts, but nationally the public voted for the democrats, for the house of representatives by over 1 million, by over 1 million votes. >> are you still predicting the same pickup you predicted or your? >> i think we will do okay. i think we'll be okay. i'm going over to the dccc right now but we feel confident. the days are numbers. the days are numbered. i know in two years will be a democratic congress and a democratic president. i would like it to be in too much. i would like it to be in two months. >> sound that spent know, i'm not. i'm saying this all it's

important for us to come as close to that as possible. the last person -- we could lose 39 seats. let that be their prediction to let that be their prediction spent will you stay on for two more years if it goes back a democratic congress and democratic presents because i am staying on. i'm running for reelection. >> beyond that? >> when you say you're staying on -- [inaudible] >> meaning you're staying on enough but also as leader, correct? [inaudible] spent i thought the giants were important. [inaudible] >> how about the giants? >> how about the giants? [inaudible] >> who are you going to root for? [inaudible] i'm happy to see them do so

well. stay tuned. [inaudible] [laughter] i'm not interested in anybody's opinion. i don't even listen to the commentators of any. i just want to watch the score and the team and watch sports that way. that's what the only tv i watch. but these elections are just come to get your point again, i like the olympics. there's a game of inches, seconds. you can, a couple seconds behind or an inch behind. you might get a medal but it's just a question of where we come down come on what side, how many seats come down.

which i tell everybody. five weeks from today, this wednesday, we can have no regrets, that we've done everything possible to advance the cause. elections are about two things. they are about who wins, and they're also about how the debate is conducted. so that the public holds people accountable for job creation and college affordability and equal pay for equal work. so the debate is very important, to, for our country. and that is what is exciting but since we're talking sports, think olympics. one side or the other, a matter of seconds or inches. we are fighting very hard and we will have no regrets because we will do everything possible to advance the cause as well as the candidates. thank you all very much. >> thank you.

>> house minority leader nancy pelosi continuing her breathing even while congress is on break and touching on a number of items in this particular briefing reviewing -- revealing -- members of congress also reflecting on issues in this session. senator harry reid tweaks out today one year ago republicans engaged in a senseless and harmful shutdown of the government. and this from congresswoman lynn was born. born. one year a day-to-day obama to rolled out its disasters website. since then it's been more failures and broken promises. and the item minority leader pelosi touched on, this tweet from a logic cummings, ranking them on the house oversight committee, i have not decided about julia pierson but i'm not comfortable about the safety of the president of the united states of america, referring to of course to yesterday's housing on recent missteps by the secret

service. white house press secretary josh ardis will take reporters questions at a white house briefing started at about 12:15 p.m. eastern. live coverage right her here on c-span2. this morning washington job were joined by journalist who's written a book about breakdowns and concerns about these security at the white house and the secret service protection of the president. >> we are back with ron kessler is the author of 20 nonfiction books about the secret service fbi and the cia. his latest book is "the first family detail" did you been out and about lately talking a lot about the secret service and what happened on september 19 committed to make it all the way to the east room. yesterday we heard from head of the secret service. what is your reaction to protest money? >> guest: i think she came out sort of stony faced and not in tune with what's going on. you a cover-up mentality. a lot of absurd comments like it was darker, that's why we couldn't find him do anything

about the bullets. and she admitted that she actually asked for fewer personnel, which is outrageous because the secret service is totally overloaded now, understaffed. metal budget is $1.9 billion that includes financial crimes, tighter fitting as well as protecting the president, a lot of other individuals. that's about the price of one stealth bomber compare that with the fbi budget of eight or $9 billion. was more important than protecting the president? >> host: the secret service director julia pierson noted that she does not think that the security plan was properly executed. at the time to what was your reaction to that? >> guest: a lot of bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo. the fact is they totally screwed up, and let's just call it as it is. she issued a statement right after the intrusion saying that the officers exercised

tremendous restraint, and she even defended that during the hearing. she must think we are all fools because of course what they should've done is take this guy at the first, the dog should've gotten in, and failing that which i visit happen because the office of simply were not paying attention, they should've used lethal force because he could've been armed with explosives. he could've been armed with weapons of mass destruction. he was armed with a knife. and to say that the exercised admirable restraint is just laughable. >> host: let's listen to the directodirector in her own words yesterday testifying before the house government reform and oversight committee. >> is clear that our security plan was not properly executed. this is unacceptable and i take full responsibility. i will make sure that it does not happen again. as director, my primary concern is ensuring the operational readiness of my workforce. i've been aggressive in addressinaddressin g our human capital challenges come ensuring

professionalism and developing leaders. through active engagement with the agency's supervisors and employees i have made it clear my expectations for professionalism and personal accountability. much of what we do to protect the president and the white house and false information that is less sensitive or classified so i we lived in what i can say in a public hearing. on september 19 a man skilled the north fence of the white house, across the lawn while ignoring irbil commands from uniformed division officers, entered through the front door and the subsequent arrested on the state for. immediately that night i ordered enhancement around the complex and in consultation with the secretary initiated a comprehensive review of the incident and protective mesh to ensure this will not happen again. the review began with a physical assessment of the site and personal interviews. all decisions made the evening are being evaluated including those on tactics and use of force in light of the totality of circumstances confronting those officers. i am committed to the following comment complete and thorough

investigation of the facts of this incident, a complete and thorough review of policies perceived and protocols in place that government is a good at the white house complex, and the response to this incident and based on results of that review, a coordinated and formed effort to make any and all adjustments to include training and personnel actions that are necessary to properly ensure the safety and security of the president and the first family and the white house. >> host: ron kessler, what is your reaction to? >> guest: this is a charade. because she knows very well what the problem is and just glossing over it. the problem is that the secret service has a really corrupt management culture. meaning -- and that the agency the agents are brave and dedicated to they will take a bullet for the president. they are disgusted at and mismanagement. and what this means is that agents who call attention to any deficiency or even report any possible threat are punished, literally. they are damaged.

they are not promoted. whereas agents who go along and perpetuate the myth of the infallibility of the secret service are reported with promotion. and the culture colors everything. why did the agents at the white house gate let the party crushed into the state and as well as a third intruder, that was a story i broke. because they figured that management would not back him if he turned away this glamorous couple. internet that they were supposed to be on the guest list. in other words, the attitude is just go along. don't cause any problems you don't stand up for anything. in the case of the usher telling the agents to turn off the alarm, same thing. let's just go along. we know if we're going to challenge the usher we're going to be in trouble. so let's just put the president at risk and that's exactly what's going on.

>> host: that's what you write about and political magazine. something is rotten in the secret service and obama's life is in danger because of it. his life is in danger? >> guest: no question. the agents it's a miracle that has not already been an assassination. letting someone into an elevator, anybody with the president and it turns out he had a weapon. on and on. in the end, it's obama whose life is a risk as one of the lives of his own family, and he is the one who really is ultimately responsible for this debacle. because going back to the salahis intrusion he keeps defending the secret service and the director not replacing the director with an outside individual who could sheikh up the place is not beholden to inside interest, change the culture to make it a functioning organization. that's what to do with any organization when it's not come when it's failing to bring in a new ceo from the outside. >> host: you think that's what should be done.

u.s.a., other lawmakers are saying she needs to go? >> guest: sure. this is ridiculous. she's made the culture wars. you can tell that she is not going to admit what the real problems are there she knows what they are. she's actually perpetuated this culture. and on top of all that, the secret service is understaffed. agents have to work tremendous overtime hours so they get tired. there's a lot of turnover because of the poor morale. on and on. it's just a mass. >> host: this what you say today's opinion is. the secret sn overhaul led by someone from the outside before it becomes a national punch line. let's hear from jim in virginia, indepet call. indepet call. >> host: let's hear from jim in virginia, independent caller to you are up first, jim. go ahead. jim, you've got to turn the tv down. listen to your phone. >> caller: tal talking to me? actually i'm in gainesville, florida. i gave him three 2601.

sorry about that. anyway, first off it's great you're the author. i think has a lot of important things to say. i thought that with the president did cause a chilling the constitution, we heard the secret service has to take -- the reason i say that is if that's indeed true, they need to be given some authority to actually do something and not worry about political overtones. and it's really important they do that. try to really the secret service has all the authority it needs. it simply needs a good manager. it's very simple. we know in our own organizations that if you have a bad ceo, everything will fall apart and that's exactly what's been happening. this started back in 2003 when the department of homeland security took over the secret service from the treasury department the edges became more political, more compliant, more

subject to political pressures. that's when this laxness and corner cutting begin. in my book, "the first family detail" i going to dozens of examples had been ignored intel now. in fact, the secret service will allow people into events without metal detection screen. that's like letting passengers into an airplane without metal detection screen. you can have five terrorists come in with grenades but that alone is a scandal. it goes back against his compliant culture within management. you know, let's not offend the political staff when they say they want to have people brought into the event and just forget about magnetometer screening aspect in your book you had the first report of the 2011 gunshot, this person that was blocks and blocks her from the white house but had a scoped rifle. did anybody follow up on what you reported in your book? >> guest: no. the media ignored that antidote

a lot of other exposures in the book. for example, one thing that hasn't been, hit the headlines yet is that when bradley cooper, the actor went to the white house correspondents' dinner and obama's though, a high ranking secret service official just as a favor to bradley cooper and his security people ordered agents of the washington hilton to let cooper and his suv into a secure area in front of the hotel even though only secret service vehicles were allowed there. and even they had to be screened for explosives because anybody could attach explosive to the underside of the car. you could imagine the impact on the agents go to protect the life of the president, just forget it, i'm going to do a favor for my friend. that alone sends a message to everybody that you just take protection lightly and you certainly don't make waves in question management. >> host: east orange new jersey independent caller call back good morning. thank you for taking my call.

i agree. the woman should be fired. let's be clear. the alarm was muted and the door was open and the gentleman ran across the lawn and into the building. it was a black woman in a car with a baby in the back and she's dead. and all she did was lose her way and drive around in circles and she was shot host a kaleidoscope on that point, the paper is done at this point that he brought up the example of what happened at the capital not too long ago and said that's why some of the secret service agents showed reservation in not shooting the intruder guessed that she does know what she's talking about it she doesn't know why they showed that. i believe it's because the fear of management retribution overtaking any action whatsoever. and i think she should have been shot. that was the only situation where she could have had explosives, threatening the capital to you simply can't wait to find out if they'll blow up

the capital or kill capitol police, which is what happened in a previous incident to let's get real about this. when people say it's terrible to push back the perimeter of the white house fence, as if somehow we're not going to have access to the president. these on tv almost every day. he's on twitter almost every day. whether some looks at the white house from a block away further makes up silly no difference in terms of access to the president. so it is a myth to talk about that when the alternative is an assassination. >> host: what you secret service say about that fans? >> guest: again, they bowed to political pressures, white house pressures. white house political people never want block access to anything but they would rather have a one-to-one around in the white house but that's exactly why president reagan was almost killed, because back then, and this was before a lot of the corner cutting started the secret service did not want

anybody near reagan as he came out of washington hilton. but the reagan political staff and defense staff over both the secret service. again the secret service rolled over and played dead and went a long. the white house wanted people to have access to the president. 15 or 20 people have access to the president. they were unscreened but that is exactly what john hinckley was able to shoot president reagan. >> host: twitter, my guess is that the ss has become like the pentagon, a bureaucracy. stockton, california, democratic column. go ahead call back good morning. to the author, i totally agree that they missed the director, she should be terminated from her job. and i think that they were lied in their duty because they allowed this gentleman to

penetrate their defense and get into the white house. and i was just thinking that if it had been a black gentleman, he would have been dead. and i think that they should be across the board, anyone who penetrates the fence should be shot regardless whether he had a knife. because you never know, like you said, he could have had bombs on them than one the secret service said they knew of the intruder. .. i do know that threats are not investigated as thoroughly as they should be. paid,e attention had been they could have uncovered more information to show he should have been given mental italian relation as a threat to himself

or others. they would need some kind of additional information. how hard is it to protect the white house? one thing the secret service does, they have rejected offers to upgrade the detection systems for weapons. we can't spend the money. the dc police have detected gunshots. now the secret service doesn't have that. the secret service director said that as is a real good explanation as to why the white house has been shot up and what happened there is the uniformed officer reports the gunshots. her supervisor overruled and said it was something else. it was backfire. and she was afraid to pursue it because the same thing. the management culture stifled

any kind of dissent. >> host: the collapse and the budget side of the secret service has fallen in the last few years. in 2011 to 6900 staff positions and now has about 6600. if the budget fell to 1.9 billion in 201,220.8 billion in 2013. in part because of automatic cuts demanded by congress. the so-called sequestration. and it has gone up slightly since then. that cannot be the only reason for the errors. they said that it's led to the staff the staff burnout, low morale and unmonitored post. shelton connecticut. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. i want to give kudos to mr. kessler. he's right on the money. i spent 26 years in law enforcement and i can attest to everything he's saying as far as budgets and morale.

i was in that department and i can tell you that over the last quarter-century things have gotten worse as far as administrators. nobody has the guts anymore to speak up and told truth. for now even in the department like mine kept going down and down and down. we had just criminals and people that support them and nobody had regards to tell the truth. everybody was blaming the police for that but they did their job. >> guest: normally in >> guest: normally in the police department and also in the fbi they have regular training every year they stayed on the court rulings and lethal force policy and because all these things are changing all

the time. it's none of that. it's unbelievable. they do not do regular training. and when it comes to firearms or physical fitness tests, they don't allow time and then they ask to fill out their own test scores. this permeates the agency. another example is when members of congress go to visit the training center in maryland which i also visited with my wife who writes descriptions for the buck as a "washington post" reporter. the secret service will pretend to put on scenarios that show the great heroism and they pretend this is all very spontaneous and actually it is secretly rehearsed before hand when members of congress come. so what kind of message does that send to the agents? no dishonesty should be tolerated in any agency.

all of this is in my book and so it's a roadmap to what's wrong with the secret service. >> host: so now what? do we have to move the family to an undisclosed safe house every night? frederick wants to know what other functions do they perform and/or be in charge of counterfeiting? what should be done about the secret service? >> guest: you have to have a good manager. he came in and to change to the agency to become prevention oriented. it's not rocket science to protect a building. we have nuclear facilities that are well protected in other very sensitive facilities that are well protected. and this agency is simply corrupt. the culture discourages agents from doing their job. >> host: the department of

homeland security needs to be broken up. what a mistake to create this huge unmanageable agency. independent call hello. >> caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. and mr. kessler for all the hard work he's doing. i agreed with some of the previous callers. i was upset about the young woman who was shot with the baby in the backseat of the way that she was driving, that was an automatic. she needed to be taken down. why wasn't there a lockdown. >> host: you are referring to the intruder. >> guest: that's an interesting question. it happened so quickly i don't think that would have made a difference. i think that it went down exactly as it should. he was prevented from entering the white house grounds.

>> host: lockdown on september september 19 with the white house in truth her there was a lockdown when the woman was driving her car but why not recently? >> guest: i don't think there was any indication that went beyond the white house and obviously they were all asleep so the idea that anybody would take action like that is very remote. >> host: this came up at the hearing and the congressman who is leading the investigation into what happened and what is going on in the secret service, here's what he had to say. >> with the secret service touted that is not the objective. you want to see overwhelming force so the intruder cannot be stopped or intercepted by a person perhaps where the lethal force is necessary and i want those agents and officers to know and with a member of congress have their back. don't let somebody get close to

the president or close to the family. don't let them get in the white house ever. and if they have to take action that is lethal, i will have their back. in this day and age we don't know what is going on under that person's clothing. if they want to penetrate that, they need to know that they are going to perhaps be killed. that is the message we should be sending every single time and that's the kind of secret service but i would expect. i think then again for their service and dedication and we love them and care for them, but we need better leadership inside and out. >> we covered it on c-span if you missed it. also saying that ms. piercing should be fired. what about the snipers on the roof of the white house, why didn't they take action?

>> guest: normile dot correct action is on the ground really releasing really think dogs and that has been effective in the past but clearly these agents were not paying attention and then it turned out that a off-duty officer is the one that actually tackled this individual and he overpowered a female officer in the white house complex. you need to have the strongest individuals they are even though there even though it may sound politically incorrect. for the sake of political correctness to have people who can't take out someone. >> host: you are saying all females flex? >> guest: they needed someone who could tackle this guy.

this is a problem in the secret service they are emphasizing and promoting females and they say they would be in trouble if their action was an attack and the agents would be vulnerable. there's reasons to have the staff but in certain positions you need a male. >> mail. >> host: angel, democratic caller. >> caller: i'm glad i came on after that clip. the represented hearing remained what happened if he was killed as an iraq war veteran? the same people would have said you killed an iraq war veteran and it would have been all broken loose. >> host: let's take that

point. >> guest: i'm sure the whole thing was covered by what happened in ferguson missouri. but presidential, by implication they have the scenarios with videos and it is so difficult to make a decision about whether to shoot someone. just like that the officer could be killed and the family disagreed. so there are plenty of examples of police abuse but at the same time we have to recognize what a difficult job these people have. >> host: boston massachusetts. >> caller: good morning. i have a question and a comment. my question is i won't say

everyone but a lot of people are dancing around the issue. i think there's a problem with respect for the president. i think the secret service may be, i could be wrong but i think that they just don't care about his safety. yes i think that maybe she should be let go but as a culture surface navy has perpetuated a disrespect for the president and -- >> guest: it's the opposite. the officers and agents are willing to take a bullet for the president no matter who it is or even hillary clinton. the details considered a form of punishment and even with someone

to be compassionate and care about the little people but behind the scenes she makes their lives miserable and they are willing to take a bullet for that individual so it hasn't had anything to do with race. do you think the culture was happening during the george w. bush presidency? >> guest: it started under bush and homeland security took over the secret service in 2003. the president who is -- who doesn't have respect because he keeps defending the secret service over and over again.

again last weekend the national security adviser have confidence in the secret service and they have a hard job but they are failing at that job so who is the guy that is going to be killed. >> the follow-up teams in philippines in the investigation they've announced then on capitol hill saying that it's the chair and, the congressman is going to be announcing a full review of the secret service legislation to establish the panel to conduct a top to bottom assessment. you've got the government reform committee also looking at possible investigations and then piercing herself says she would

do an investigation. here is gerry connolly who was part of the hearing. the secret service director sounds that a radio operator with no sense of passion or outrage at the beaches. what to do next on the latest intruder and the breach of security on the elevator. good morning. i want to meet a few comments. the president first of all it's a very complicated and ever. the president travels all over the u.s. and all over the world so we are talking about the scenario in the white house but in their residency maybe we should consider if not being in the white white house and move

moved to different locations dynamically not everyday that in a every day that any pattern where nobody has an idea. leave the white house domestic assumption and maybe it won't be such a target. in the midterm a.b. we build in those around it but shouldn't we had troops around it? currently in a state of the war and if they killed him with a bomb as to what happened recently this is catastrophic. so it dictates something so important that this person who isn't qualified was head of human resources, this person needs to step down in any scenario in government where it's gone through catastrophically long and they need to remove this person. and it and maybe the leadership of the secret service for state out of the department of

homeland security. >> guest: beyond that, i don't think that any drastic measures have to be taken and the military doesn't have to take it over. it's a very simple matter of getting someone in there that knows what he or she is doing and these panels and reviews are all pointless. the director said we are going to fix everything. nothing ever changed. can you imagine if apple had a problem on microsoft and someone held hearings quick smell. if you get somebody that knows what he or she is doing that's why things work. >> host: patrick independent color you're on the air with

mr. kessler. click it. >> caller: good morning. this is a very important conversation and i'm so glad that there has been bipartisan support on the heels forgetting to the part of this. it isn't political anymore when you can penetrate the idea of the defenses of the united states of america. on the 19th, hollywood showed before white house down. it was just demonstrated a simple guy could run across the launch of an unlocked door. there are the automatic systems? there was one that was predicated on a human being when they could have added an automated feature. he talked about the defense measures between the sensors not

being updated. where is the congress looking at that part of it instead of continuously looking to the former chief of staff that is so politically indebted in the system that this isn't going to be resolved? >> guest: it is another example of how lightly they take security. the other idea as well in the great secret service we can take care of any problems so it is okay to unlock the door because we will take care of anything and we don't want to inconvenience the white house staff and have to use a key card any radio or tv host uses to get him in order to enter the white house. the reason that it exists is agents and officers are afraid

to voice their opinion and point out these obvious problems because they will be punished. there are many books about the secret service, cia and fbi. here are the numbers (202)585-3814, democrats (202)585-3880 and independent to 025-85-3882. if the secret service shot white house using excessive force and this has in my parents day he could walk you could walk up to the people's house and rosie into the front door. peter baker has a piece of the times this morning about the ever expanding list ever-expanding list of unwelcome visitors to the white house. in the history of how they've been able to get in over the decades throughout history into

the white house so we have peter baker in "the new york times." next democratic caller. >> caller: [inaudible] >> host: very hard to understand q. but he said the president shouldn't be responsible for the error of the secret service. i had a piece in politico with a headline that said obama's life is at risk and he is the ultimate ceo of the government and has a responsibility and obligation to all of us to replace with someone who will

change the culture of the agencies that we don't have another assassination. that's the last thing we want. it nullifies democracy. that's how important it is and any other consideration is beside the point. >> host: you said you think there could be an assassination. >> guest: that's what agents tell me and i think it is obvious to anyone. assassination is shocking. people think it could never happen. it could happen especially outside the white house. they are taking chances all the time. recently we found out in the "washington post" someone was allowed in the elevator with obama and it turned out he had a weapon. nobody but a procedure should ever be allowed in the elevator. i have an example in my book with mark sullivan when he was director he ordered agents protecting president obama" and when he took off from varying

one today began to go on and protect. it's unbelievable. she had been harassed by neighbors, called the police. the secret service has no authority to protect its own employees tab on top of that the agents were treating confidential records on the neighbor again not only illegal but a violation of the criminal law to do that when you have no legal basis and get this woman was the chief of staff and should be asked what she knows about that incident. >> host: what the president be able to go on his walks washington to shake hands with people and go to a local restaurant? >> guest: he should be much more cautious. presidents tend to forget risks. that's what abraham lincoln did.

despite the civil war raging he didn't want any protection and on the last day of his tenure when he was assassinated he didn't have a dc police van and he went to have a drink in a tavern and that's why he was assassinated. jfk didn't want agents in his limousine. he thought it didn't look good. if they were there they would have protected him after the first bullet which wasn't fatal. so there is a problem when presidents don't understand. >> host: manchester massachusetts massachusetts ivar: go ahead. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. it's wonderful what you do for this country with the information. i feel this is an ongoing problem with clinton at the head of the state and human services and other departments that take too long to let a person and a top position go when they

should. they drag it out and put them in a position in a different place. >> guest: president obama did understand given that scandal. he appointed james to head the fbi, very good appointment against somebody from the outside so he knows how to get good people and take action but i think that he is totally fixated and obsessed with the fact that the agents that protect him our very impressive people and he thinks this is all the secret service and so he doesn't want to take action. i'm sure these agents are claiming to him that everything is fine. maybe michelle always him up because i think she's more concerned about his security. >> host: hello to bite. >> caller: thank you for taking my call.

i wanted to say that i've had family who has worked in the ancillary positions in the white house the ronald reagan administration and the general consensus is that leadership reflects attitude and it goes from but down. >> host: similar to what you were saying. >> guest: that is exactly the point. it was a poor choice to put piercing in chief. she was chief of staff to the previous director sullivan and you can tell from her performance how out of it she is for example when she was asked about the fact that the uniform officer in 2011 reported gunshots but a supervisor overruled her and she felt she couldn't push it any further.

pearson's response was we are going to have a professional review of this and reenter view her as if it was some anomaly and an intimidating response we are going to interview her. pearson knows what the problem is and she isn't owning up to it and that is that her own management style has made this corrupt culture even worse. >> host: alabama democratic caller to last for mr. kessler. go ahead roger. >> caller: i worked on the beaches back in the 60s and i've met bill clinton. i am about four years older than him and i came back from a swimming clinic near his campaign and he was in birmingham and i left and had on the same suit i had at the banquet and let him a lot and i had a ten on.

when i walked over to stanford university to see if i could see him they waved me around the metal detector. i didn't know what was going on and when they moved up to the college they opened up the rope for me to come to the vip area so i went in and later on i met several other people on the board and everything went off good and finally he came over and talked to me and remembered me. ..what is your point? caller: the security. guest: that is something that they often don't do. this book i often go into -- under pressure from white house or campaign staffs, they will let people into events and rather than ruffle any feathers,

they will just let them in and that alone is a scandal. host: ron kessler, we appreciate your time. he has read and >> we have an update now on reaction from a member of congress. the hill report just a short time ago congressman allies you can today suggesting secret service director julia person should resign saying president obama is not well served under her leadership. the ranking democrat on how service oversight committee said it was difficult for me to sleep last night after the director's testimony before the committee on tuesday. he said he came away from the meeting extremely disappointed and i've come to the conclusion my trust in this director has eroded. i do not too comfortable with her in that position he said on msnbc earlier today. i think this lady has to go. he reportedly said referring to

pierson. these are the only lawmaker calling for pierson to be part. jason chaffetz said she should go in in a few with fox on tuesday night. i think it is time she should be fired. you can read the full article in the hill today. there's likely to be more about this turn the white house briefing originally scheduled for 12:15. it's been changed to 3:00 and we will have on the c-span networks. later today on c-span2, a booktv presentation at the woodrow wilson center. live coverage at 3:30 p.m. again on c-span2. >> our campaign 2014 debate coverage continues tonight at eight on c-span. live coverage of the minnesota governor's debate between mark dayton, jeff johnson and independence party candidate hand nicolette.

>> here are a few of the comments we have received from our viewers. >> i love c-span. i get up and watch it every morning, and then on weekends the whole book review, for the weekend is terrific. the other things i really watch very little of the major television channels, abc, cbs

and those. because i think that your programs have more to do with what's going on in everybody's lives. so thank you very much. >> i would just like to comment for c-span, particularly the c-span "washington journal" program. it's quite incredible to me is c-span has one neoconservative advocate or propaganda if it's not in "the wall street journal." it's from aei or foreign policy initiative will or that ilk. there's no counterbalance. >> i just want to say that c-span is a very good program, and very interesting program, and i love the event, the occasional -- because it is educational. and it's also just a way to keep abreast of current events. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching.

call us, e-mail us, or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> a short time ago president obama greeted israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu to the widest we. before they spoke they had remarks for the media. >> everybody all set up? well, it's good once again to welcome the prime minister of israel, bibi netanyahu. augusta he is no stranger to the white house. i think i've met with him more than any world leader during my tenure as president. we meet at a challenging time. israel is obviously in a very turbulent neighborhood, and this gives us an opportunity once again to reaffirm the unbreakable bond between the

united states and israel. and our ironclad commitment to making sure that israel is secure. you know, throughout the summer obviously all of us were deeply concerned about the situation in gaza. i think the american people should be very proud of contributions that we made to the iron dome program, to protect the lives of israelis at a time when rockets were pouring into israel on a regular basis. i think we also recognize that we have to find ways to change the status quo so that it's both israeli citizens are safe in their own homes, and schoolchildren in their schools, from the possibly of rocket fire, but also that we don't have the tragedy of palestinian children being killed as well. so we will discuss extensively

both the situation of rebuilding gaza but also how can we find a more sustainable peace between israelis and palestinians. our agenda will be broader than that obviously. i will be brief bibi on the work that we're doing to degrade and ultimately destroy isil, and the broader agenda that i discussed at the united nations which is mobilizing a coalition not only for military action but also to bring about a shift in arab states, muslim countries that isolate the cancer of violent extremism that is so pernicious and ultimately has killed more muslims than anything else. and we will also the opportunity to discuss the progress that is being made with respect to

dealing with iran's nuclear program, which obviously has been a high priority for not only israel, but also the united states and the world community. so we have a lot to talk about, and i appreciate it very much the prime minister coming. it's challenging i think for an israeli prime minister to have to work so hard during rosh hashanah and yom kippur, but i know that the prime minister's outpost priority is to make sure that his country is safe during these difficult times, and we're glad the united states can be a partner in the process. thanks. >> mr. president, first i want to thank you for the support you gave israel during our difficult days, difficult summer we had. expressed in so many ways but

also in an additional us to installment for iron dome which is saved so many lives, save many lives across the border. and i thank you for that, and for the continuous bond of friendship that is so strong between israel and the united states. i also want to thank you for this opportunity to meet with you and to discuss the enormous challenges facing the united states and israel in the middle east. there's definitely a new middle east i think that imposes new dangers, but it also presents new opportunities. as for the dangers, israel fully supports your efforts and your leadership to defeat isis. we think everybody should support this, and even more credible, our shared goal of preventing iran from becoming a military nuclear power. as you know, mr. president, iran seeks a deal that would lift the tough sanctions that you worked

so hard to put in place, and leave as a threshold of nuclear power. and i fervently hope that under your leadership that would not happen. equally, i think that there are opportunities come and the opportunities as you just expressed is something that is changing in the middle east because out of the new situation, there emerges a commonality of interest between israel and leading arab states. and i think that we should work very hard together to seize on those common interests and build a positive program to advance a more secure, and more prosperous and a more peaceful middle east. i have been committed to a vision of peace or two states for two peoples, based on mutual recognition and rocksolid

security arrangements on the ground. and i believe we should make use of the new opportunities, think outside the box, see how we can improve the arab countries to advance this very hopeful agenda. and i look forward to our discussions on peace and many other matters. >> thank you very much, everybody. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> and we're expecting questions about that oval office meeting today with the president and the prime minister during today's white house briefing, said never 3 p.m. eastern. we will have it o on c-span2. house judiciary committee chair congressman bob goodlatte spoke at the heritage foundation yesterday on president obama's use of presidential powers. he argued president obama is not fully executing laws by use of executive orders and taking unilateral action without involving congress.

following congressman good luck, recess appointment and delaying the individual mandate in the health care law. >> [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, welcome to the heritage foundation. of course we welcome those who join us on our heritage.org website, on all of these occasions. i would ask everyone here in house if you'll check that cell phones have been turned off as

is always appreciated. of course, our internet viewers are welcome to send questions or comments at anytime simply e-mailing speaker@heritage.org, and we will post the program our heritage home page following for everyone's future reference. also this is the fourth in our series of lectures this year on preserve the constitution. we're also taking the opportunity with this series to reintroduce and have a second edition of the heritage guide to constitution efforts produced in 2005, this addition adds the last 10 years of course cases and other citations so many may find it of particular interest. enduring a period of our preserve the constitution says we are offering it at a $20 fee for anyone who'd like to purchase. it will be available. we hope you all take advantage of that. hosting our discussion this afternoon and introducing our initial speaker is elizabeth slattery. elizabeth is our senior legal

policy analyst and admiral mies three center for legal and judicial studies. she researches on issues such as the scope of the casa commerce clause, equal protection, federal preemption and election laws. she also studies and writes about the supreme court, judicial confirmations, the proper role of the courts and methods of judicial interpretation. please join me in welcoming elizabeth slattery. elizabeth. [applause] >> the constitution grants enumerated lawmaking powers to congress and it assigns to the president the duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. the president does not have the power to make or suspend the law, but time and again that is precisely president obama has done. when his policies fail in congress, he imposes laws by executive fiat. when he disagrees with the law or find it politically expedient to not enforce it, he ignores it, or makes dubious claims to

prosecute you will discretion. for making sham recess appointments to waving the work requirement of the 96 welfare reform laws to implement in the dream act with the stroke of a pen, president obama has routinely bypassed congress and violated the separation of powers enshrined in our constitution. appointed -- president obama's says where they won't act, i will. he's got a pen and the phone and he knows how to use them. to kick off our discussion about the obama administration's view of executive power we're joined by congressman bob goodlatte. congressman goodlatte represents the six digit of virginia in the united states house of representatives. he has been an active member of the house judiciary committee since arriving in congress in 1993. he also serves on the agricultural committee, chairman of the house republican technology working group and co-chair of the congressional internet caucus on congressional anti-piracy. as chairman of the house judiciary committee congressman

goodlatte has been at the forefront of shining a light on president obama's executive overreach as well as conducting oversight of the administration on issues ranging from the irs targeting of conservative tea party organizations and assault on religious liberties. please join me in welcoming congressman bob goodlatte. [applause] >> elizabeth, thank you for the very kind introduction and for setting the right note about what the symposium is about today and it's a pleasure to be here at heritage foundation. it is a remarkable organization invested time to mess him up the good work, and i'm honored to be. i have so prepared remarks to share with you. before and i must warn you, we saw spoke to a high school class. at the end of class i asked the students if they have one hour left to live, what would you want to spend it doing? a lot of students raised their hands and interesting ideas about places that like to go

things elected you if they had one hour left to live. finally, one young lady racer and. she said, if i had just one hour left to live, i would want to spend listening to you speak of mac you laugh -- [laughter] you laugh but i was for isa to get one hour left to live you want to listen bespeak? yes, because each moment seems like an eternity. [laughter] so unless you like you will live for ever let me get started with a quote from abraham lincoln. abraham lincoln is often paraphrased as saying the best way to get a bad law repealed is to strictly enforce it. while that paraphrased summarizes the gist of what lincoln was saying, the full text of his remarks is worth repeating. in 1838, are lit in his career, abraham lincoln delivered an address to the young men's lyceum of springfield, illinois. it was entitled the perpetuation

of our political institutions. then it, he said, let every american, every lover of liberty, every well wished to his posterity whereby the blood of the revolution never to violate in the least particular the laws of the country, and never to tolerate their violation by others. as the patriots and 76 did to the support of the declaration of independence, so to the support of the constitution and laws to let every american pledge his life, his property and his sacred honor, let every man remember that who violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father and to tear the character of his own and his children's liberty. let reverence for the law be produced by every american mother to the listing babe that prattles on her lap. let it be taught in schools, in seminaries and in colleges, let it be written in primers,

spelling books and in almanacs, let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. he went on to say, when i so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be misunderstood as saying that there are no bad laws. but i mean to say that although bad laws if they exist should be repealed as soon as possible, still why they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed. while lincoln refers to religiously observant the law, for the sake of example, he is referring also to the example of the american republic itself as an example to the world. without enforcing a law, there cannot be unaccountability under law, political candidate is essential to a functioning democracy. we and the house of representatives who face reelection every two years under

the constitution are perhaps reminded of that more often than others. and while there is at least one political branch willing to enforce the law, we cannot fail to act through whatever means we can to successfully avail ourselves up. article ii section three of the constitution requires the president to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. this clause not as a take care clause requires the president to enforce all constitutionally valid acts of congress, regardless of his own administration's view of the wisdom or policy. the clause imposes a duty on the president. it does not confer a discretionary power. the take care clause is a limit on the vesting clause that is granted to the present of the executive power. the united states court of appeals was d.c. circuit an opinion handed down just last

year striking down the president's assertion of authority to disregard a federal statute provided a distant description of the president's obligation under the take care clause as follows. under article ii of the constitution and relevant supreme court precedent, the president must follow statutory mandate so long as there is appropriated money available and the president has no constitutional objection to the statute. so, too, the president must abide by statutory prohibition unless the president has a constitutional objection to the prohibition. if the president has the constitutional objection to a statutory mandate or prohibition, the president may decline to follow the law unless and until a final court order dictates otherwise. but the president may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections.

of course, if congress appropriates no money for a statutorily mandated program, the executive obviously cannot move forward. but absent a lack of funds or a claim of unconstitutionality, that has not been rejected by final court order, the executive must abide by statutory mandates and prohibitions. so says the d.c. circuit court. when the president fails to perform his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, the congress has appropriations and other powers over the president, but none of those powers can be exercised if the senate, controlled by the president's own political party refuses to exercise them, nor with the exercise of those powers solve the problem at hand because they would not actually require the president to faithfully execute the laws. and, of course, the most powerful and always available means of solving the problem at

hand is to vote out of office supportive of the president abuses of power, which i hope the american people will do in november. in the meantime, however, they need to pursue the establishment of clear principles of political accountability is of the essence. as lincoln said, let reverence for the laws be enforced in courts of justice. it is the courts duty, too, to uphold reverence for the law and it is a specific duty of the courts to call foul when the light of constitutional authority under the separation of powers established by the constitution have been breached. a lawsuit by the house of representatives would grant no additional powers to the judicial branch over legislation. indeed, what the statute says or does not say would remain unaffected. but it would be the appropriate task of the federal court to determine whether or not whatever a statute says, a

president can ignore it under the constitution. and let's be clear. whatever the result of such a lawsuit, this president and in all likelihood of future presidents, will continue to nullify congresses legislative power in the absence of our seeking now the establishment in court that they clear principle to the contrary. the stakes for inaction or hi. the lawsuit will challenge the president's failure to enforce key provisions of the law that has come to bear his name in the popular mind, and was largely drafted in the white house, unlike any other piece of major federal legislation enacted in at least 100 years, including the federal reserve act, the national labor relations act, the social security act, the civil rights act, the voting rights act, a national environmental policy act, the tax reform act, and all of the major federal legislation over the last century. the obamacare law did not garner

significant bipartisan support. indeed, and uniquely, it had none. there was no bipartisan political compromise. what provisions of obamacare have been enforced have not proved popular, and what provisions the president has refused to enforce have been delayed until at least after the next federal elections. how convenient for the president. yet how devastating to accountability in our republic. imagine the future if this new unconstitutional power of the president is left to stand. presidents today and in the future would be able to treat the entire united states code as mere guidelines, and pick and choose among its provisions which to enforce and which to ignore. the current president has even created an entirely new categories of businesses to which is unilaterally imposed exemption would apply. in that future if a bill the

president signed into law was later considered to be bad policy and potentially harmful to the president's political party if enforced, accountability for signing that policy into law could be avoided by simply delaying enforcement until a more politically opportune time, if at all. no longer would presidential candidates running for reelection have to stand on their records, because the records could be edited at will. signed one bill into law, and force another version of it in practice. rings and repeat until the accumulation of power in the presidency is complete. whatever the odds of preventing a nightmarish future through the reaffirming of constitutional principles in court, it would be a duty to pursue it. earlier this year i joined with representative trey gowdy to introduce h.r. 4138, the enforce

the law act to put a procedure in place of including expedited court procedures for congress to initiate litigation against executive branch for its failure to faithfully execute the laws. while that legislation passed the house with bipartisan support, the senate has failed to consider it. a house been considered and passed a resolution to authorize litigation by the house to restore political accountability and enforce the rule of law. this up in courts have squarely rejected the authority of the president to refuse to enforce constitutional law. as early as the courts 1803 decision in marbury v. madison, the court recognize congress' authority to impose specific duties upon the executive branch officials by law. as well as the officials corresponding obligation to execute the congressional directive. the supreme court articulated this principle began in 1838 case, kindle versus united

states involving the president's refusal to comply with an act of congress. observing that to contend that the obligation imposed on the president to see the law as faithfully executed implies a power to forbid their execution is a novel construction of the constitution and entirely inadmissible. the court further noted that permitting executive branch noncompliance with a statute would, quote, investing in the president a dispensing power which has no countenance for support in any part of the constitution, and is asserting a principal which, if carried out in its results, to all cases falling within it, would be closing the president with a power to control the legislation of congress and paralyze the administration of justice. ..

nation and trusted the lawmaking power to the congress alone in both good and bad times. as the court stated just this past term, in the case of utility, air regulatory group versus epa the power of executing the law does not include power to revise clear statutory terms that turn out

not to work in practice. the constitutional case law regarding standing to bring a case can be murky, one thing is absolutely clear. the supreme court has never closed the door to the standing of the house of representatives as an institution. it has had the opportunity to do so many times in the past and each time it has refused. individual members of congress often have difficulty establishing standing to allege an injury but the leading supreme court case on legislators standing as it has been described by one federal district court judge does not stand for the proposition that congress can never assert its institutional interests in court. as another federal district court judge recently pointed out the supreme court decision was premised in part on the fact that the legislators in that case did not initiate their

lawsuit on behalf of their respective legislative bodies. in fact the supreme court noted in green's itself that it attach some importance to the fact that plaintiffs have not been authorized to represent their respective houses of congress in this action and indeed both houses actively oppose their suits. the supreme court decision in reins was promised in part on the fact that the members of that case did not enact the lawsuit on behalf of their respective houses of congress. they routinely hear lawsuits, and federal legislative bodies. the subpoena power of each house of congress derives from legislative powers under article 1 of the constitution and if congress is to have power to legislate it must have the power to collect the information necessary to inform the legislative power. when the executive branch refuses to give the

congressional body the information that it requests it impedes the legislative power and the federal court here those cases. today the president is not only impeding the legislative power, he is negating it by failing to enforce clear central provisions of major domestic legislation and if the federal courts can hear cases in which congress's legislative power is hampered by failure to comply with the subpoena sure the nation be able to hear cases in which legislative power is completely nullified. finally there is nothing unusual or inappropriate about federal courts weighing in on separation of powers. as the supreme court has stated our system of government requires federal courts on occasion interpret the constitution in a manner at variance with the construction given the document by another branch.

the alleged conflict that such an education may cause cannot justify the court avoiding their constitutional responsibility. the court has also stated that deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the constitution to another branch of government or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation and is a responsibility of this court as ultimate interpreter of the constitution, the federal courts have a long history of resolving cases involving the allocation of power between the political branches and addressing separation of powers concerned. those cases include bowsher versus signar. and regarding the legislative veto. humphrey's executor versus united states, morrison vs. roles in and myers versus the

united states regarding removal of appointed officials. and the supreme court just last term unanimously rejected the president's recess appointment that occurred when the senate had announced it was in session. the house of representatives, the branch of our federal government closest to the people has voted many times to repeal obamacare which remains as unpopular as ever but the senate and the president have ignored americans's dislike for the law. they have gotten away with ignoring it so far because the authors of the paraphrase of clinton, that the best way to get a bad law repeals is to enforce it strictly is true as well and aptly summarizes current danger to democratic government posed by the current administration, that is the best way to keep a bad law on the books is to allow its selective

enforcement. the house of representatives will do everything it can to get bad laws of the books. we ask for your support in those efforts, thank you. [applause] >> a few ground rules for questions. please wait for the microphone to come to you. please identify yourself and ask a question. >> my name is julie, i was wondering, since lawsuits are very slow and the president has already announced he plans to do an executive amnesty right before the holidays and government funding runs out on december 11th is there any plan to use that as an opportunity to

make sure he doesn't? >> when this issue began to build up during the course of this year and i and the judiciary committee are active in advocating for an aggressive use of the courts to pursue the literally dozens of different areas, different federal statutes if you will that we think the president has either rewritten the law or refused to enforce the law, immigration matters and there are several including the current deferred action for childhood arrival was among the many considered. we settled on one related to obamacare, but we also know that there are others. we have by no means limited ourselves by choosing this one action as an appropriate place to start. i and many others have spoken out consistently about the abuse

that we think the president has taken with the concept of prosecutorial discretion which is what he uses to put forward the deferred action for childhood arrival program, refusing to enforce law and taking it further, granting work authorization and other benefits to people using an exception in the law, a good exception for those hard tough cases where a prosecutor might not want to prosecute and using that to swallow the law itself and approving almost all the cases people have applied for for this program. if the president were to take further action and to expand some say by 10fold or more to cover 6 million more people on not lawfully president of the united states using that same theory of the law i believe it would be important for the congress to undertake a challenge to that. i would hope we would even go to

court very quickly and seek an injunction restraining the administration from being able to grant those kind of work authorizations, i don't think the law provides for. to the dairy -- the very point made by abraham lincoln 170 years ago, this is exactly the a problem with presidents acting on their own. most people believe we need to have immigration reform. there's a great deal of disagreement about what that immigration reform should be but when you are trying to bring legislative bodies together, 435 members in the house, largest legislative body in the united states, and you have to work out the differences and in the middle of that the president says here is my list of things like all presidents bring to the state of the union address that at the end says something different, if you don't do it, i will and later says i got my pen

and my phone and if you don't act i will, those who agree with the president's policies can sit back and say i don't need to enter into tough negotiations about what needs to be done to enforce the law or reform the law, and instead i will wait for the president to act. those who do not like what the president is proposing to do or in many instances has already undertaken, in those circumstances they say why would i enter into negotiations to change the law when i can't trust the president to enforce the law that exists. not only is it a good way to get bad laws changed to enforce the laws but it is also a vitally important principle of our separation of powers. the president does not have the authority to act, we should

challenge. the power is always on the table as well, we have on numerous occasions attempted to use that sometimes successfully but generally with smaller matters. when you have one legislative body that is going to act and the other that is not, many of these powers that the congress has under the separation of powers doctrine under what the constitution authorizes r e effectively nullified if you will by failure of the senate to act. would that change with a new senate, possibly, i would hope that would be the case. i would hope in order to uphold the constitution of the united states, both branches of congress and i would argue this should be the case no matter which party is in control of either branch of congress when the president made the statements that he made in the state of the union address and members of his party stood up and gave him a standing ovation, i thought that was a sad day for

our republic when people were standing up and applauding the president's saying he was going to reach out and with his pen and his cellphone take away their power is, the powers they were elected by the people who they represent to take to washington d.c. and exercise under the constitution and they were happy to see those powers to the executive. any executive in the future of either party or any party could take that step further and the meaningful nature of truly having a representative democracy would be lost. >> my question is tweet 2-pronged and i apologize for taking this on a tangent but has to do with the defense of marriage act which the administration declined to defend in court and did claim they believe it was unconstitutional and that was why they decided not to try to defend it. in your view was this justifiable for them to decide

not to defend it in court if they believed it unconstitutional, and will this lead into the legal profession and create a certain culture of the head of the law firm says you on this case territory about giving this guy a vigorous defense because he is probably guilty so what does the matter and setting bad precedent where defendants are arguing vigorous defense because the attorney general says we don't need to defend it if it is not good so i am a lawyer and don't need to worry about defending this client too well because he is no good. >> that obviously is something you would worry about with any individual family, business, law firm, the code of ethics of attorneys is to represent their clients zealously and i would hope our societal ethics would continue to demand that of attorneys but with regard to the actions taken by the administration in not defending the defense of marriage act

which i felt it was constitutional, and it has ruled conversely on that. you heard the quote i give you from the d.c. circuit, and if the president believes the law is unconstitutional, that is the basis for not enforcing the law. i think that is a correct position to take. and we did not think the president had done that and was acting for more political reasons than what was a cherished view of what the constitution provides for, the congress itself decided to defend the case. we were allowed standing in the case because the administration refused to defend that law.

having lost the case, obviously first of all is very disappointing but also i think a part of the problems that we have with the president being able to stand behind it so the congress as one of its oversight powers, one of its checks against abuse of power is i think to step in and bring suits or defend it suits that involve laws that we believe our constitutional and that the president is not upholding and that brings us back to the lawsuit we are getting ready to file now and that is there has been no allegation whatsoever by the president that this particular action that he is taking it under this law is in any way and constitutional, so that is the challenge the congress always has what we have tended to not utilize the courts as aggressively as i think we

should. no guarantee the court will agree with us but it is an opportunity to involve another branch of government in trying to uphold what in my opinion right now is a very shaky status of the separation of powers doctrine. we do not stand up and if we don't get the courts to join us it is very concerning where we may be headed in terms of abuse of power by this president and future presidents. >> time for one more question. in the middle here. >> i followed one of the briefs on behalf of your colleague trent francs. coming back to the dream act issue, does your objection collide with the president's power to grant pardons, which at

least my understanding cannot be circumscribed by legislation, is an absolute power. pardon everybody or i pardon 6 million illegal aliens, what happens? >> two things here. the president did not do that. the president basically used a provision in the law to say it gave him the authority to draw distinctions but let's assume you pushed that aside and he said that didn't work so we're going to pardon everybody. pardoning everybody, pardons them for the commission of a crime. it does not confer upon them any lawful status in the united states. doesn't give them the authority to work. all the other things that statutory law says should be enforced under the law of the land that we think the president is obligated to do.

he does have a very broad pardon power but is limited in terms of what remedy it would give to people who are looking for not just let me stay here but let me work, let me do other things, give me legal status. that is only conferred upon congress. i will take another one. >> i am a very strong supporter of what you are trying to do and i wish you every success. i note, however, that most of the emphasis seems to be on the health care law. there are numerous other areas, one i happen to be interested in

is in environmental areas where there are some very strange things going on. and i am wondering how you decide where to put your priority? >> excellent question. there are a number of other areas. we mentioned immigration laws, environmental laws, drug enforcement policy is where the attorney general has instructed the united states attorney's to not disclose the amount of drugs to the jury in cases thereby negating the mandatory minimum sentencing laws. there are many areas where we could choose to take action.

we try to look for areas where it would be less likely an individual would bring the lawsuit based upon their own -- if a private individual has a cause of action as many do in many of the environmental areas lawsuits are being brought to challenge the interpretation if you will of the obama administration of a number of our environmental laws, clean air act, clean water act and so on and i support and encourage the briefs in those cases, but our purpose is not to take every single one because there are scores of them and to bring a multitude of lawsuits but rather to take this in a step-by-step process including beginning with establishing that in this area, a single body of the congress

should have the standing, the court should recognize and make a determination on with the president uses his authority or not. will it happen? that would put an expedited process can't that the we see in five or six months. we don't know how long the courts will take. sometimes they expedite things like this that they drag out so it runs the on the president's remainder of his term but but principle is the main thing we are trying to establish. once we establish that we can do additional work in this area. having said that if there are immediate and major abuses of power that calls out for an immediate response and i would identify one of those as the dramatic expansion of these immigration legalization is, unilateral that are not in my opinion allowed in the law, that

would prompt that response. a number of variables have lined into looking at which case would be the best one to bring regarding different opinions, i am definitely content with the one we are moving forward on because clearly the president does not have the authority to accept for lack of resources or you simply can't get something going in an appropriate amount of time, delaying the imposition of the employer mandate under obamacare but nowhere in the law does it say employers above 100 employees, you got to do it now but between 51 and 100 you don't have to do it now, that has nothing to do with lack of governmental resources or necessary administrative time to put into operation, it has to do with a political policy decision made by the administration and we should challenge that. >> thank you very much.

[applause] >> two experts continue our discussion, to execute the law. we hear from stuart gerson who is a member of a firm where he concentrates on the defense of complex, civil and criminal cases, antitrust and securities cases and class action. stewart hasn't argued numerous cases before the federal court of appeals as well as the supreme court. before entering private practice to where it was head of the justice department civil division and the attorney general of the united states and the beginning of the clinton administration. he served as assistant u.s. attorney and debate coach for george h. w. bush during the 1988 presidential elections. stewart is a frequent commentator on cnbc and other outlets and his commentaries

have appeared in the wall street journal and the los angeles times among others. was a graduate of pennsylvania state university and georgetown university law center. next we hear from nicholaz rosenkranz who is a professor of law at the university law center where he teaches constitutional law and federal courts. he served as an adviser and a variety of capacities, he worked for frank easterboard for the seventh circuit and justice anthony kennedy at the supreme court. he served as attorney adviser at the office of legal counsel and the department of justice during the bush administration and testified before congress numerous times most recently before the last judiciary committee in a hearing on the president's duty to faithfully execute the laws. his bachelor's and law degrees from yale university. with that i will turn it over to stewart. >> i love these introductions. they have all the benefits of a wake without the one detriment.

a few months ago an independent poll was conducted by quinn of the act university asking which of the 12 presidents since world war ii were the best and worst? heritage will be glad to know if it doesn't know already that the winner on the best side was president reagan but by a large margin 33% of the vote helped president obama was the worst president since world war ii. one question came to my mind which is have they really forgotten the jimmy carter administration? the second question was this, discontent about the obama administration, the product of a belief that he has exceeded hours and aggregated powers that did not belong to the executive or is not good at being an executive. i think probably the bulk of the

book was -- the more important question is the former and that is what we are talking about today. i am asked to compare this precedent with the rest of the presidents. i am not going to go one by one but that me say that looking back over the history of the presidency and in fairness to president obama is accurate to say on the overall continuum of executive activism obama falls within a large middle. even with respect to congressional and separation of powers relationships but i will tell you there is a difference. every president has issues about war powers, i am less eager to have courts decide issues like this perhaps then the congressman because i know we are one vote away from a very bad supreme court and i don't like judges to aggregate legislative power to themselves

and argued lot of war powers cases. that said, every president has a problem in this area, none has lost it and that is not what we are talking about here. we are talking a narrower range of issues. if you want to talk about all the presidents perhaps our greatest president, abraham lincoln, arguably served as a virtual dictator and actions like the emancipation proclamation, suspension of habeas corpus find no parallel in any other administration. even thomas jefferson who oppose the federalists and hamilton as to the powers of the presidency into a remarkable unilateral action in negotiating the louisiana purchase for which he received great criticism at the time. having previously refused to expand appropriated funds for worship saying it is a matter of the lay. i will come back to in pound meant in his second because the definitive list and we will learn about the take care claus

comes from looking at impoundment cases. the new deal, the closet itself probably tickets greatest beating during the new deal, the creation, vast expansion of the administrative state made it virtually impossible for any president to control the law and a sure what is normally in the executive branch is well taken care of so you would have to give president franklin roosevelt credit or blame for erosions fair and president truman absorb of seizure of the steel industry as the congressman pointed out receive probably the greatest and strongest leverett ministered to a sitting president by the supreme court but coming close is the incumbent case as to president nixon. i don't think president obama can be named the leading volume offender but in examining the take care claus or to me and

like another name of it better, of the faithful execution claus because i think that describes what we ought to be demanding of our chief executive. in terms of that, there is a difference about president obama. i have read a lot of nicholaz rosenkranz's writings on the subject. she is i think for leading scholar in this field. i notice that the take care claus or faithful execution claus is rarely mentioned in supreme court decisions and when it has is generally in the context of assuring that the president has sufficient resources to execute the law. nicholaz rosenkranz and i believe there ought to be greater reference to the faithful execution claus and while i am a stronger believer in the political question doctrine than congressman goodlatte is i think the faithful execution clause is an avenue to at least a limited

range of cases in which the legislature affectively might regain some of the power that has withered away coker the last century. is an important area. nicholaz rosenkranz will speak for precisely about it. let me tell you where i think the obama administration, and why, runs particularly afoul of the take care faithful execution clause. proposition 1, to take care that a lot be faithfully executed there must be a lot to execute. that would seem to make logical sense. if you want to look for evidence of that fact you look to the steel seizure case in which the court held that there were a lot of opinions in that case, the majority opinion is rarely

cited, of justice jackson. at the heart of it the president lacks the power to seize private property or to act constitutionally in the absence of either a specifically enumerated authorization or statutory authority conferred by congress. president obama ran afoul of this tenet with respect to the dream act and other unilateral activities related to immigration in an unprecedented way because not only wasn't there a lot to execute but congress refused to pass such a law so that is a real difference and if you worry about how a relatively unimportant president, i cannot do at length as to why that is the case with president obama whose policies will be long forgotten 50 years including most of what constitutes obamacare, why he poses a danger is because of the breed of that sort of thinking rican in essence write your own law, create your own veto. if that represents something new.

proposition 2 where there's a lot subject to execution, the thick of make exercise a certain level of discretion but may not contradict the stated specific intention of the legislature. that take care is not absolute. there are all kinds of discretionary things an administration can do. prosecutorial discretion is one of them. i will show you the second there's a limit to it. that second has arrived. in training against the city of new york the congress held -- the supreme core matter held that the president cannot frustrate the will of congress by killing a program, in that case through impoundment. that would be a constitutional veto. that is where it ends. the example -- the gentleman asked about department of a little bit earlier. the answer congressman goodlatte dave is correct, the extent of the pardon. i could even foresee a limitation if you view conflicts

within the constitution between the pod power and take care power. where would apply? if the pardon power was used universally to avoid some other congressional mandate. that is the lesson of the training case and that is right. an example of where there has the unilateral extension is the employer mandate were the effective date for employers was extended and the effective date the discontinuities, rewriting obamacare. in the event that the executive is to act without execution of the law, it must be in conformity with an overrated power. i take out of that war powers so i look with a jaundiced eye, now

find an ally with respect to this administration, president obama has exceeded his for power's authority, and bomb the hell lot of isis, i hope they continue to do that. every case must reach the supreme court on any particular subject. as the best example of an obama offense to the proposition i just laid out either recess appointments were in essence no law out there and the administration decided it would define for congress when congress is in recess, that is an unprecedented case. let me say one thing about that. most of these cases that have

been cited were brought by individual with human beings, people with undoubted standing. noel canning kiwanis an employer who was affected by a variety of national labor relations board policies, definitely had standing. cases that were challenging obamacare are brought by people who have standing. the one exception to that, the one place where if i were a supreme court justice and thinking of not applying the political question doctrine because i don't want to aggregate to myself legislative authority, i want the political branches to fight those things out and not reach what justice jackson in his concurrence called the loggerheads' where the supreme court would hear a case and from time to time the supreme court does hear a case involving disputes between political branches but the one place where i would yield our these cases related to immigration. and amnesty, i don't know any

human being with standing to challenge it. it would seem an individual legislator is being frustrated in terms of policy and likely would have standing. i have taken enough time. i can answer some questions. let me pass the ball to nicholaz rosenkranz. >> i am delighted to be here. you were promised an open bar after i am done. i agree with a lot of what has been set but let me try to put this back to constitutional text. i always tried to wring as much meaning as i can out of the actual words so let's start with the clause we were talking about. the president shall take care, faithfully executed. let me draw a few things to your attention. congressman referenced, notice that this is the duty, a

requirement. the president is obliged, he shall take care. note that the duty is personal. the president shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, actual execution of the laws is delicate and the president delegates the actual execution. but the duty to take care that they be faithfully executed, the president has to do that personally. to be fair, notice, it would be impossible, it require infinite

resources, it requires they be faithfully executed, that is our deep interpretive problem. what does the word faithfully mean? what does that entail. one observation i will make is the historical observation. bear in mind the historical context for this clause. english kings, suspends unilaterally. the context of writing this clause, the framers were going to reject that practice expressly and requires that the executive take care that the laws be faithfully executed. that is the historical context. with that in mind we circled back to a few examples that have been discussed already. my first example is the obamacare suspension bridge you heard discussed. this is crystal clear. on july 2nd, 2013, just before the long weekend. the obama administration announced the blog post that the president would unilaterally suspend the employer mandate of

obamacare and notwithstanding the unambiguous command of the law and i want to say the statute is perfectly clear. this is not about filling in gaps, not about resolving ambiguities, the statute provides these provisions become effective on january 1st, 2014. that is as clear as a statute can get and this blog post is written under the breezy orwellian title, quote, continuing to implement the a c a n a careful, thoughtful manner quote, it makes no mention of the statutory mandate. i want to say that faithfully poses some deep interpretive problems. it is a deeply constant to -- difficult constitutional problem but whatever it might mean it simply cannot mean decline to execute a law at all and that is what is happening here. the law is supposed to kick in

on a particular date, is the clearest possible case as far as i am concerned. the suspension is not enough, the president's comments about this at constitutional insult to injury. the president said that the normal thing he would prefer to do is seek a change to the law. he could change the law. he wishes he could request a change to the law. that is the normal thing he would like to do. president obama said he would not have to pick a fund because the house have already passed a bill that would do that exact thing, suspend this provision of the employer mandate for the amount of time the president

wanted to suspend it yet far from embracing this legislative change, the president actually threatened to veto it. this is kind of startling. the president almost preferring to flout the written law rather than get the legislative change that would have achieved the policy results that he wanted. a shocking example i think in a way. my second example is the immigration story. has been discussed before so i won't say too much more about it. what is startling here is this is almost a mirror in a way of the obamacare example. here it is the president actually enforcing the peace of legislation meticulously. the only problem is this one didn't become law. it wasn't a lot. in the obamacare context we have a lot of president is not enforcing, something which is not wall which the president is treating as of it is law,

congress considered the dream act and declined to pass it. once again the president simply announces in 2012 that he won't enforce the exact category of aliens described in the dream act, he announced he would behave as though the dream act were law as though the dream act were law. once again i want to say broad prosecutorial discretion faithfully gives him discretion, it cannot be discretion to enforce things which were not law. to put it another way back to constitutional text the president shall take care of the laws to be faithfully executed, not those bills which fail to become law. we have a law on the books, the naturalization act and something which failed to become what, the dream act, the president prefers the enacted bill to the supreme law of the land and i will give

you the president himself on this question 20 months before, quote, america's nation of laws which means i as the president am obligated to enforce the law. with respect to the notion i can suspend deportation through executive orders that is just not the case because there are laws on the books the congress has passed, there are enough laws on the books that are clear in terms of how to enforce our immigration system than for me through executive order to ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my up for free at lot as president, that is president obama. that is president obama. i hope you will hear is that quote over and over as the president considers further immigration decisions. i will give you two minutes on one other example. you don't often hear this example in this context but the i r s targeting actually fits

within this constitutional discussion as well. the reason is this. faithfully executed, what does faithfully mean? i want to say at its core what it means is nondiscriminatory. that is the most important idea here for faithful execution. the president can say i can't enforce this law against all bank robbers because i don't have enough resources so i will only prosecute the big bank robbers, violent bank robbers, repeat bank robbers, the president does get to say that but he cannot say i am only going to enforce this against the catholic bank robbers. he is not allowed to say that and moreover, that example horrified the framers, the idea of discriminating on the basis of religion in the enforcement of the law. i want to say there is an example of oil would have horrified the framers even more than that example, which is

discriminating on the basis of politics in the enforcement of the law, i will not enforce this bankruptcy -- bank robbery statutes against the republican bank robbers or the democratic bank robbers. the reason is this. if the president can, through discriminatory enforcement of the law put a thumb on the political scale, the scale of the electoral process, he casts doubt on everything that follows. if you can't trust the results, the president can suppress the voices of those who disagree with him by selective enforcement of the law, you cannot trust your e elections after that. the single most corrosive thing that can happen in a democracy is for incumbents to use the levers of power to stifle their critics and entrench themselves and that is in effect what the story of virus targeting is. admitted leave there is no evidence that president obama

himself personally gave this order, but i want to remind you all again this duty, the duty to take care that the law be faithfully executed is personal and supervisory, take care so in a sense what the president knew and when he knew it is beside the point. he should have known. he should have been supervising his irs. those are my three examples. very tough claus to get to the bottom of but there are at least a few clean lines. it is a broad grant of discretion but you can suspend laws all together. that has got to be rule 1. you can favor and enacted bills of duly enacted law and third, can't discriminate on the basis of politics in enforcement of the law and i think this president cross all three of those lines. i will stop there. >> i will note one thing, you are on particularly strong

grounds when talking about selective prosecution because in the criminal area the supreme court has spoken to that very issue so we know that is the law, prosecutorial discretion is generally held not reviewable with one exception being discrimination and that is old case. in addition the court has held the government has to keep its word. the plea-bargain context. it is a fairness argument. you are on very strong ground there. you, point out in the low was, what is the hardest job for any president, the president said humphrey's executor early on and one problem it and chevron and the like of that creates for a president because agencies the crusoe much power it is difficult for a president to truly take care that agencies are effectively administering

the law, where that has to occur is in the appointment process but also -- and here i have litigated this before, in the removal as well and of course the lot is equal to:the president's power to remove certain kinds of appointees but we are citing the same examples so we tend to agree. all of what nicholaz rosenkranz has said finds supreme court vindication in the impoundment case. it started with jefferson, roosevelt did it a lot. using discretion to time the

expenditures of appropriated monies. that is not why nixon lost the impoundment case. and russell train, to vitiate an entire effort by the state of new york to wipe out the legislative mandate. that is the law. rampant suits brought by legislators, i don't want the court to make legislative decisions in most cases. my experience as a litigator is you generally confined human beings who are affected by this kind of thing not to say congressman aren't but individual private citizens who clearly have article freestanding and it doesn't take a legislator to vindicate a position under the faithful

execution clause. >> to be clear the constitutional question of what the presidents behave inconsistency is different from the question of whether a court should intervene, whether a court should answer this question. i am speaking to the queue or constitutional question of spending, whether the congressman's loss is a good idea is quite different question. i am more skeptical of that. >> before we open it up for questions from the audience i have one. we identified the problem. what is the solution? g. you think this lawsuit we have been talking about in the administration. >> i am skeptical of this lawsuit and its prospects for success. i think you are talking about a president violating the take care claus is primarilyy laurel

and this should actually be an even election issue. heritage doing very useful thing by having this panel and the committee is doing a useful thing by having this hearing. >> albert the alligator described the american electoral society. hazmat the enemy and he is us. we need a more responsible electorate. i think nicholaz rosenkranz and i certainly agree. in the limited range of cases which could be brought that are different from the status quo and the first one i will tell you, what nicholaz rosenkranz has advocated in his writings, in sufficient intellectual force that ought to be exhausted. the courts ought to be a taint attention to take care claus. the take care claus is very

rarely referenced. you almost never see it. it gets watered down a lot. it was a 6-3 decision has had and there are five opinions in the case and the one that gets cited is not the justice black opinion. president truman was so upset by that, justice black who served in the senate, nutriment, social decided to have a party at his house. this is a true story to bring the administration back in harmony with the court. was a different time. truman showed up at the party and justice black asked him my things better now and truman said i am still angry at that court but the durbin is good. and perhaps that is a place to

go. >> we have a few questions. this question is from one of our online viewers. it was for representative goodlatte but we didn't get a chance to ask himself why will ask you. if the president has failed to execute his duty and the constitution why is no one talking seriously about impeachment? >> i don't know the answer to that. high crimes and misdemeanors is an elusive term. we're close to the election, every president has been friends with impeachment at one time or another. i don't know if it is and answerable question. i said earlier i don't view the obama administration as consequential. if we were going to have this discussion 50 years from now i think president obama will be remembered as the first president of his race.

that is appropriate and it is a good thing. his singular production, members of his administration would say so is the affordable care act but the affordable care act doesn't solve two of the three major problems with respect to the delivery of american health care. it is the program that will evolve and not look anything like it does today. in respect of of who gets elected. this administration hasn't done that much in the for removing sense. terrible job in terms of the execution of the foreign affairs power, commander in chief power, mistakes all over the place, terrible of claimants, the most introspective president that i can think of and i know a fair amount of presidents. that said, we live in dog years, it is close to the election cycle, plenty of people on both sides are lining up and the answer may lie in that. >> high crimes and misdemeanors

is should be a very stout--very high standard. what i would like to see is a real pattern, a pattern of lawlessness and violence to see some evidence of willfulness. willful pattern of violation. quite a high standard. that is the legal reason why you haven't heard that many people talking about impeachment. the political reason is nobody on either side of the aisle wants to see a president biden. >> any other questions? we already heard from you. what about over here? >> i am a member of the federation for american immigration reform board of advisers. the question i would have for you is if what you have described this president doing

an example of -- i would like you to address, for example, one of the bills in particular that you objected to is the dream act that he just sort of enacted by policy. yet he did so just before the election and the general run of the pundits consensus is that this won more votes than it lost him. how would you propose to parlay political response to and abuse of power that seems to have won

him votes rather than losing them votes? >> constitutional law is not majoritarian. obama may have said something like that. if someone can satisfy a article freestanding this, it is difficult in these immigration cases and congressional standing may be the answer. the constitution will and should be applied irrespective of how something might fare at the polls. that is true up and down the constitution. that is the answer. >> a matter of political and constitutional rhetoric, the important thing is to separate out these questions. you may like this policy results but you cannot approve of this method of achieving that result and the way to drive that home to people who don't agree about policy is to offers them the

alternative policy hypothetical so offers them president cruise suspending the estate tax or whatever it is that will trigger the instinct of folks on the other side of the aisle. explain what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. >> please join me in thanking our panel. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> coming up in an hour today's white house briefing with joshed ernest who will answer reporters' questions likely to focus on secret service protection of the president and u.s. air strikes against isis. live coverage starts at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. turning to our campaign coverage

and the minnesota governor's rays were to the incumbent democrat mark dayton, jeff johnson and hanna nicolas will face off in debate, live coverage tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span and your the campaign ads currently running in that state. >> a few years ago things in minnesota were not going very well. we got a new coach. we made tough decisions and now things are looking up. we added 150,000 new jobs and one of the fastest-growing economies in the nation. cut taxes while increasing our rainy day fund and investing in education. a good record. a good coach. >> i am jeff johnson. as governor i will audit every state program and i am pretty thorough. >> did you eat is this?

>> he should be accountable for wasting our money. politicians and bonuses, proved that he is out of touch with middle-class minnesota. jeff johnson for governor. >> partisan discussion and special interests, and tina extraordinary candidate stepped forward to restore minnesota's governor back to its people. ..