we do it. and article one of the constitution says we took an oath to defend and says congress has the power to establish uniform rule of naturalization and the subject of bankruptcy to the united states. those are not intended to be together but the whole point is uniform laws created by congress and that is what the fight is about here. and i don't think the gentlemen from pennsylvania or the gentlemen from alabama are saying we don't want to deal with this issue. we do prefer to deal with this in a step-by-step approach. i think that is these two and three thousand page pills haven't been good for america because they are hard to implement and don't seem to work. the gentlemen, i think are here trying to solve the problem of the fact this was done in a way that i don't think conforms to our constitution. i respect what they are trying to do. i respect the points the other

representatives made because i do think we have got to reform immigration. i believe we need to reform it on a step-by-step bases. i know that we have disagreements about how we do that but i think you will see that things will start to happen on that with regard to border security and we passed a bill in this house last year with i think, 350 votes, that dealt with legal immigration. and we have got -- we didn't do everything but it did a bunch of things to get it started. and i know the member from utah is going to reintroduce that and expand and do things on that. i appreciate all of the witnesses being here and your points of view. we clearly are a diverse country with diverse views on many things including this issue but i think the bottom line is this is a fight about how we will get to a solution not necessarily rather the people want to get a to long-term solution on these

issues. >> the gentlemen from colorado. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do have an amendment and would like to be able to present it. it is an amendment to actually include last session's bill on immigration reform as an amendment. there is a lot of talk about how doesn't solve the broken immigration system and there is agreement on both sides so i hope to put a solution forward and i hope that is included. and it is important for us to address this issues. both sides acknowledge this doesn't, i think, the president has certainly taken some steps, not to address the issue of the broken immigration system but to do the best he can as the chief executive with the hand he has been dealt by congress namely a set of facts where we

have 10-12 million people illegally. we don't know. and i think my colleague in florida is correct in saying it is going to continue to go up. if is 11-12 million it will be 13-14 million in five years. nothing is changing until congress changes it. and i think what the executive action tries to do is say let's focus on keeping americans safe. let focus our resources on criminals. on criminal aliens. and we know we don't have enough resources. congress hasn't given us enough resources to enforce the law across the board. and i would like to ask with regard to prosecution discretion, it seems to me it is already being used in immigration. it is just used in a very disorganized half hazard way at the local level. all that seems to be happening

here is there is just a set of rules replacing a selected enforcement that has to occur because there is only so many debts compared to the number of people. if anything it is applying more organization to the manner with which we use our prosecution discretion. i want to ask you about that use and how it fits into precedent of the use. >> in answer i would ask consent to place into the record an analysis prepared by 135 scholars and law professors and confirmed by four former general councils to the immigration naturalization service, including a general council during the bush administration, that outlines the precedent for this action pointing out there is nothing that is

unconstitutional or nothing that is a departure from past precedents and some people may not like what the president did, i understand that people can disagree, but it isn't unconstitutional or a massive departure from what prior presidents have done. i would note this although i very much disagree with the litigation, it might be wiser for people who disagree on the subject to allow the litigation that is currently pending in the federal district court in texas to proceed and find out the answer to the question rather than tying up the entire budget of the homeland security department. >> and i heard, i cannot remember whether it was -- i can it was the gentlemen from pennsylvania referred to the president's actions as amnesty. has the president granted am

amnestty to anyone? >> the president doesn't have to authority to do that. he has defered prosecution for people who are eligible in some categories. this has been the case for some number of years. the spouses of american soldiers in active duty and the defense department was concerned by this fu situation and the president said he will give defered action. he said those cases fall to the bottom of the list. we are not going to round up the wives of the american soldiers and deport them. we are going after the felons

instead. and i think that is smart. >> but if they have violated the law that is still on their record. >> the president lacks the authority to do that and i would note the memorandum include people from relife from their committed crimes. >> the president doesn't have the ability to do amnesty did you agree it is a mischaracterization to call this amnesty? >> it is prioritizing enforcement. >> doesn't this occur anyway? >> it will happen in a way on the street where individual officers will make determinations without a strategy. and that is not what the constitution requires and not what we would want. we want a national strategy that is smart and that is directed in a cohesive way and that is what the president was attempting to

do and i think succeeded in doing. >> the final note i want to make before you lean back is i believe, it was mr. hastings entered the statement of administration of the veto into the record and it is ironic because we are dealing a bill about homeland security at a time of increased risk of terror and we saw the recent events in france and we have a president who disagrees with some of our colleagues in congress over this. if this were to lead to closing down the department of homeland security and putting americans at risk over an unrelated policy issue it would reflect not only poorly on this congress but it could put the lives of americans in danger. and i urge my colleagues to change course and to pursue a

department of homeland security appropriations bill that will president will sign or that has two thirds support if you are able to get two 3rds support by all means. i doubt with bill will have anything close to that but one way or the other i hope the policies being pursued by my american colleagues don't put american lives at danger by closing down the department of homeland over an unrelate policy issue, one that i will be offering an amendment to address given both democrats and republicans agree this bill doesn't solve the broken immigration system. >> gentlemen from texas. does not seek recognition. mr. collins, do you seek recognition? >> yes i seek recognition. i think the interesting thing is here and let's go back to the

real heart of this. i think as my colleague from florida said the heart of this is a general disagreement on how this was carried out. and i think one of the things and even in this discussion on attaching the homeland and attaching to a funding bill as we saw in the occurances most of homeland is deemed essential and this is an issue that would not play out in that. it goes back to what was done and how it was laid out. i believe, again in the context of where we are working from and you brought up a point saying this discussion and we talked about this before and other administrations have done this. all i will say is it was wrong then and wrong now and pointing become do a wrong action to make a right now isn't the way to do things >> mr. gentlemen yield? >> i will yield to my friend

>> we worked often together. my point is it wasn't wrong when eisenhower reagan and bush took actions. wasn't wrong then and isn't now. >> i just disagree. when it is done unilaterally no matter who does it. and that goes back to the point i tried to make earlier. this is a matter that should concern all of congress,both sides, about the state of this body is doing and elected to do. and this is making hard vote and decisions and when we are sidetracked by this it makeatizes it difficult to have these conversations. that is problems we have now. and i yield back. >> i want to thank not only members of our committee but also this panel.

mr. berleta and so forth you have both done yourself proud tonight and you have represented the spirit of what we are really trying to accomplish here and that is a sharing of ideas in this process. i want to thank all of you. we will move on to the next panel. i want to thank you all. if you have anything in writing, please leave it for the awesome stenographer that is trying to stay up with all of the words we have here. we have that i am aware of two additional members. and i would like to note the gentlemen from wisconsin has been attending this hearing for a couple of hours and i think it is rather telling of the new

freshman who has taken time not to try to barge their way up here to get in front of the camera but who is taking time to get a good view from the back row today and i would like to pat him on the back for coming up to the rules committee and watching us as we proceed. ms. lee it is all yours. and we are now at the end of about six hours. we are going to try not to show it. but i would hopefully express to the gentlewoman that she is welcome to the committee she knows she is welcome, and we would hope she gets to her point. she is recognized >> i thank the gentlemen very much. and with certainly the long time frame that the committee members have been in and thank you for the opportunity just to briefly make known my opposition on the

amendments that have been put forward. i assume these amendments will be taken separately and i will not ask for on open rule when i would. i would like to offer as an amendment the save america act which was introduced since the 1990s. i want to respond from the perspective othe homeland security committee -- of the -- i want to make a brief point and yield my time back and i thank the committee for its courtesy. i want to site two points that were made in a article one being from the chairman of the appropriations committee that said it is a very dangerous time. of course he continues in that by saying he wonders rather the

president would veto the homeland security bill but his most important point is this is a very dangerous time. secretary johnson came before our committee and indicated he could not function but more apparent apparently with a bill that could have been delayed. i think with the testimony he gave and the acceptance that we live in a world of franchise terrorism i would caution our colleagues with the kind of amendments that will draw a veto. i will finish by saying that as my colleagues indicated. i would like to see this isn't new. all that is in the executive order is a framework that is more stringent than what the

president required because it requires a detail processed for anyone who is not granted legal status, but permission to be in this country. and i think we are clearly going in a direction that jeopardizes the national security of the nation if these amendments are allowed to be in line with the secretary of homeland security who said they will have a difficult time planning, dealing the atmosphere in which we are in, and we will be short changed on some of the major elements like coast guard, secret service, and many others that are necessary. so i ask consent to put my statement in the record. >> without objection. >> but i want to emphasis the climate of the terrorism we are in at this time.

i hope they are rejected. we will appeal them on the floor and i would suspect we would have a veto and i don't think the shame is on the president. it would be on us. and the president said the executive order is there until we pass legislation. this isn't a permanent document. all we have to do is begin the process of passing legislation that maybe bipartisan or maybe not but it would parallel the need of funding homeland security which i think is a must today in the backdrop of what we are facing. i will yield back. >> i will giv myself one minute. as you finish reading the bill you will see there is some $10 million also withheld from the secret service pending which they provide which has been

requested the information about how to secret service is going to adapt, adjust and change their overseas operations where we have dignitaries. we have found in the united states of congress, i cannot tell you why the president of the united states and this administration doesn't like to respond back to us when we have questions, this is one avenue: withhold money and we will withhold 10 million. we were wise and smart to do that. we care about the president and the security issues and we care the president is running the government right now and the administration but they should be required to come up with a plan and tell congress not just whatever they chose to do. so does anybody on your have a question for the gentlewoman?

does anybody have a question for the gentlewoman from houston? none. thank you very much. if you please make sure you leave anything you brought in writing for your statement we appreciate it. >> i will sir. i thank the generosity of the ranking member and her humor. let me make sure i correct and say executive actions and not executive order. and i hear your point about the secret service and this would be overall veto in all aspects including the misdirected approach of not allowing them to use the fees which have been a mainstay of homeland security, for many years. >> yes, ma'am. >> with that, i yield back. >> we have that i am aware of one additional member who is a member of the committee who

would seek time and he is recognized >> thank you. i will offer amendment to the rule to add a section to require the house to consider a bill consisting of the text of a bill we talked a lot about in the 113th congress and it will be new in this congress and as hr 15 which was passed in the last congress by the senate by more than two thirds looking at the changes, there should be enough to reach the 60 vote threshold. i don't think if it would pass the two third but i think it would have north of 60 votes and i think it would pass the house. if it doesn't, at least we know we tried to bring a solution to immigration. one thing i am really struck with is both everybody who testified acknowledged that whatever we are doing with homeland security this doesn't fix immigration. and people on both sides said they want to fix it. they want to fix it.

i am offering a solution and i hope that we make it an order and i hope we make other solutions in order. i really think that what our frustration here is we are dealing with this underlying issue of a broken immigration system. there is no easy answer about how you use this discretion. whether you use it or not there are still 11 million people illegly illegally. it doesn't go up or down through the executive action. i think it is reasonable way to deal with it and i think it is reasonable think to do. but i agree just as they do and everyone has that it doesn't fix the broken immigration system. i do have a bill to fix it and hope they allow a vote. i will be happy for questions >> questions from the democrat side? questions from the republican

side? >> one brief comment. this isn't an immigration bill. i don't think s-15 going to fix anything. i think it is going to further create a broken immigration system. but the only thing that would compound the bad process that is going on because of what the president has done is if we tried to stuff the immigration debate into the this homeland security bill. i would hope my colleagues would vote no on this amendment. >> the gentlemen yields back his time. thank you very much. how chose to kick off time are we? >> oh kick off time was seven minutes ago. thank you very much. i am sure you are not paying attention. thank you very much for your amendment discussion. this now seeing there is no additional members who are here to seek time this now closes the

hearing portion of hr-240 the homeland security appropriation act 2015. the seat will be under the voice. >> i move the committee to grant the promoting job creation reducing small business acting. the rule allows one hour to divide the ranking member and committee on financial service. the rule provides the bill shall be considered as read and throws away against all order and provisions. section two of the rule pro provides the regulatory bill of 2015 with one hour of debate. the committee gives consideration to the bill and provides it shall be considered as read through all points of

order and gives provision in the bill. the rule orders only those amendments printed in part a of the report. and each amendment maybe offered only by the member in the report shall be considered as read and debatable for the times specified in the report and equal control by the proponent and opponent shall not pea subject to an amendment. it rules all points of order against the amendments printed in part a and allows to commit with or without instructions and the department of homeland security appropriation act 2015 structured rule and the rule provides two hours of debate equally dividing control by the hair and ranking member and consideration of the bill and it shall be considered as read and rule points of order against

provisions in the bill. only those in part b of the report might be offered only in the ordered printed and by a member allowed to read the report shall be considered as read debatable for the time specified in the report equal divide and control by the proponent and opponent and shall not be subject to amendment. the rules weighs all parts of the order and the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. and section four of the rule provides that the chair of the committee committee on appropriation may insert the record not later than january 14 such material me may deem to explain hr-240. >> the gentlemen from north carolina carolina. thank you. i would ask for an amendment or discussion. >> the resolution to remove the

special wavers of points of order to the amendment of the homeland security appropriation bill. the rule says that republicans don't have to comply with the rules of the house. the five amendments couldn't be offered on the floor without the rules committee giving waivers of certain points of order. they are trying to sabotage a bipartisan deal and defund the homeland security department. if they were laws they could throw the broken immigration system into even greater reer chaos. it is irresponsible to give them special protection from the rules of the house. as we noted last week in the last congress this committee handed out 97% of these kind of waivers to the republican and 3% to democrats. i ask that we give a vote on this amendment. >> thank you very much.

the gentlewoman is correct. i have made a determination they should be in unless they are in the rule. but the gentlewoman recognizes that she has an opportunity to amend that with a vote. for the discussion of the gentlemen? recognition? now ready for the vote. those in favor for the amendment say aye. those opposed say no. noes have it. recall requested. >> mr. fox, no. mr. cole no. mr. burges no. mr. steinber? no. mr. collins, no. mr. slaughter, aye. mr. hastings aye. mr. polis, no.

mr. chairman no. >> it is not agreed to. the gentlemen from colorado for further discussion. >> i have an amendment to the rule. i move we add a selection to require the house to consider the text of hr-15 from last congress. it is from the 113th. the text of that which is a bipartisan immigration reform bill. >> thank you very much. the gentlemen has made regular comments relate today this so i believe the committee is aware of had legislation they speak of. >> i would just like to put in the record that it is my undering that bill although passed was never sent to the house for its consideration because of the concerns of constitutional issues. >> if the gentlewoman would

yield. the gentlemen is recognized >> thank you. this bill this congress 114th hasn't passed the senate but it did in the 113th congress. if we were to pass it and this amendment was made in order and were to pass on the floor it would need 60 votes in the senate to become law. >> i was referring to the last congress. not to this congress. i was well aware that bill passed in the last congress and that is what i thought i said. if i didn't i was correcting the record that it has been made often that this bill had passed the senate and sent to the house. was my understanding it was never received in the house. ...

it had a further -- the language of this amendment is slightly different than the version that passed the senate. if we were to pass this it would goo to the senate and they would need 60 votes for cloture.

>> roll call vote is requested. miss foxx. >> mr. hayings. mr. -- mr. chairman. >> no. >> mr. chairman, no. clerk report, three yays seven nays. >> the gentleman from colorado. >> move the committee make an order and give the necessaryfires the amendment to hr-37 bit representative allison, issa, and myself number 8, which would strike title 7 of the bill. this is a move towards transparent say, provides an amendment that improves the bill. u.s. regulators are lagging behind with regard to

implementing new technology. for markets to function people need to be able to starch for identification. unfortunately hr-37 would make so it that public companies with rev fews less than 250 million would not used standardized digital reporting when submitting paperwork to the fcc. it's less physical paper. when done directly it should reduce costs, not increase costs, and investors benefit by being able to search databases. unfortunately the bill is written without the issa amendment would reverse the progress towards transparency and towards efficient markets we have made. so digital formatting helps businesses and investors. this amendment would strip the

language out of hr-37 and improve the bill and i urge my colleagues to allow a vote on this amendment. >> the amendment from the gentleman from colorado for further discussion. >> seeing none. the vote will be on the amendment. >> aye. >> those opposed no. >> nos have it. >> roll call,. >> gentleman asks for roll call. [roll call] >> three yays, seven anyways a. >> not agreed to. further amendment or discussion. seeing none the vote now will

be on the motion from the gentlewoman from north carolina, miss foxx, for -- say aye. >> aye. >> opposed no. >> no. >> ayes have it. >> gentlewoman asked for role call vote. [roll call] >> report total. >> seven yays, three nays. >> i want to thank the members of the committee. i am well aware that this is a difficult hearing. i'm well aware a lot of staff

time went into this. i'm well aware also that a number of the members of this committee have lots of things they wish they were doing other than sitting here another at least mr. stivers wishes that. with that said the committee had a duty and an obligation and i believe our witnesses in many instances took the clues directly from the members. i think we were judicious and careful. i didn't agree with everything said. i'm not sure you had to or not. but i thought we handled all the witnesses very well, and i appreciate us making this committee work to the betterment of the body, and i think that is what we're about. i will be handling this for the majority. mr. poleus, my dear friend from colorado will happen this for the democrats. i do not anticipate further work this week up at the committee so we have now completed or work for the day and i thank you very

much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

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

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

>> the house rules committee wrapping up nearly four hours of work on a monday evening because of the short week in the u.s. house with the republican retreat later this week. the measures they debated this evening will likely at least begin to get debate tomorrow in the u.s. house. here's what is ahead. the homeland security spending bill with security funding running out at the end of february. also they day baited here in rules a bill that would delay the implementation of the voelker rule under the dodd-frank act. >> coming up on c-span 2 the communicators" features martin cooper, investor of the cell phone, and then a discussion of the separation of powers and the president's immigration order, and later transportation secretary anthony foxx discusses issues facing his department.

>> host: marty cooper is known as the father of the cell phone and also very active in spectrum management. in fact serves on two advisory committees, one for the fcc and one for the commerce department. what is your role on the spectrum management advisory committee? >> guest: well both of these committees advise their respective organizations on what to do about spectrum in the future. they have each of them have subcommittees. the subcommittees face very specific problems things like receiver specs the internet of things various issues on which

the fcc and the department of commerce are looking for input. >> host: what's your reaction to the 40 billion or so that is currently auctioned on the aws-3 auction spectrum auction? >> guest: i have some strong opinions about that. i think that the people that finance spectrum are getting a bargain because the spectrum will be so valuable for the long-term. but i think the auctions are really the wrong way to do it. >> host: why? >> guest: the auctions don't really reflect the fact that we the public own the spectrum and when we auction the spectrum off, the people that buy it really just get a license to use it, and they're supposed to use it in the public interests, but nobody ever takes a spectrum back again, or very rarely and

that's issue. using the spectrum in the public interest that is the most difficult problem we have today marx -- in my view. >> host: do you agree with the idea of getting -- take something of this excess government spectrum and getting into it the public air waves? >> guest: no, i don't. i have very simple issue i just repeat over and over again. if the spectrum is used efficiently, if the people who use the spectrum use the most modern technology, there won't be any question of having enough spectrum. there will be much more than we require. but the congress has created an environment in which there's not a lot of motivation to use the spectrum efficiently, and for that reason, we have this myth of the spectrum scarcities spectrum shortage. >> host: that goes to cooper's law, doesn't it? >> guest: it does. the history is that technology

has always just moved our ability to but bandwidth through the spectrum. downed in 110 years and we know enough now to know we cannot only continue that but maybe even go faster than that. so, there is really the potential to have more than enough spectrum. >> host: let's bring paul kirby into our conversation. a lot of agencies don't always have the latest systems because they rely on the federal budget and the federal budget often is a bit scarce itself? >> well, of course that's the case and that's why i'm not sure that it's in the public interest to take that spectrum away from them. all these entities, both the government and private, ought to be motivated to use the most modern techniques to use the most cost effective techniques. so for these government agencies, maybe the latest spectrum is not in the best

interests of the public, but that ought to be the issue. any business -- of course these are all businesses -- we ought to optimize, ought to use whatever gets the end job done right. and i'm not sure that we do that now. there are a lot of other motivations. so i think all these things have to be done on an issue-by-issue basis. >> host: let get into specifics. modern technology is something you have been pushing many years. give us some specifics for those who haven't seep you before, what can allow folks to use spectrum more efficiently. >> guest: oh, well we started the smart antenna work over 20 years ago, paul, and that technology has already been proved -- there are systems all over the world using them. lte amazingly the standard that

is -- the cellular standard today is just starting to accommodate the mimo the latest word for hard antenna technology. so that's the first step. the ultimate in the spectrum efficient technology is what is called dynamic spectrum access. that includes a whole bunch of things. includes mimo and includes cognitive radio, and you have heard about that. and it includes some new technology that is just starting to become laboratory available, where we can use satellites to actually create a model of the world so that when somebody transmits, they will know whether they are going to interfere with somebody else. you put all these things together, i hesitate to tell you hutch more efficient we're going to be because you would laugh me out of this room. but we're talking not about tens

of times improvement or hundreds or thousands, but millions of time improvement. that is not as crazy as it sounds because from the time of marconi until now we are trillion times more spectrally efficient than we were in marconi's time. so the thought of being a million times more efficient in the next 20 or 30 years is not as crazy as it sounds. >> now some would say dynamic spectrum access is good particularly if it allows folks to share spectrum like government agencies and wireless carriers. they content it's not ready for prime time wide scale. you have to have perhaps test that over time. what would be your reaction to that? >> guest: of course. none of these things happen quickly. that's why this observation i made that there's been a continuous improvement. it happens in spurts.

cellular was one of those spurts. a big improvement in spectrum efficiency. but the smart antenna technology you talked about is available today, and in fact the people that are writing the standards for lte have announced that this month, the standard will include enough technology to improve spectral efficiency by at least 37 times. that's today. that's not the future. makes you wonder why we make a big fuss about these auctions you mentioned peter when they add a few percent on to the amount of total spectrum, and yet the standard has the implied availability of 37 times more spectrum. sounds a little crazy to me. >> host: well, marty cooper,

given the fact that these auctions were -- they were looking at $20 billion and it's already up to $40 billion, doesn't that say that this is valuable real estate? >> guest: it says that somebody thinks it's valuable and in the present environment it is because there's no motivation for people to do this 37 times improvement that i talked about. somehow, the way the congress has set these things up, it's a lot easier for somebody to buy some spectrum than to worry about the technology and to take the risks involved in new technology. so if there's anything that i would do to improve the way we do these things is for the fcc and ntia to do things to motivate people. wouldn't it be nice if they said to somebody, if you don't use the spectrum more efficiently we're going to take it away from you.

you just have a license. your don't have ownership, and that's public property and if you're using that public property in an inefficient way then it's not in the public interest and we're going to take it away from you. if somehow that motivation occurred we would be using the spectrum better, and it's not just a matter of solving a spectral efficiency problem. the fact that the spectrum is a glue of commerce, it makes things happen better. it increases the public good, increases the public wealth. that really the important issue. the congress ought to be getting people to use the spectrum more because it's going to solve things, for example, like the poverty problem. the way you solve the poverty problem is by making the total gnp big sore there's more of a share for everybody. the whole issue of spectral

efficiency to me is making everything more efficient, making commerce more efficient. making government -- and education and medicine, all of these things use wireless spectrum in ways that make the result come out better. >> host: are you an outlier on the committees you serve on at ntia and fcci with your opinion? >> guest: well, i think everybody has good intent but i'm not sure there other people who are prepared to criticize the fcc and the government. only advantage i have is i don't have any other association. i don't have a company. i only have to worry about what marty says, and i'm old enough now so i don't worry about that too much as you already noticed >> often seem frustrated at the direction of the -- based on a

year and a half in working groups look at ways to free up a government spectrum. was that process -- should those energies have focused more on the technology and not inspection for more options. >> guest: i don't want to blame me committee and won't bottom line in the commerce department. that's what they're doing, but the committees take their direction from ngia the specific issues of both the fcc and the ntia there are specific assignments othe committees so they don't have much choice in what they're doing and the ntia is following the instructions of the administration, and -- >> if you were king for a day how would they have spent that year and a half instead of focusing on freeing the spectrum up. >> guest: you know i'm a techy. i think that the engineering

profession the -- new technology is not represented adequately, certainly not on the because of the nature of what the assignments have been, these are in general no -- not technically oriented people. they're expert in responding to questions brought up. the fcc advisory council is more technically oriented. but they're also responding to the questions brought up by the fcc. there are some committees on the fcc that are facing the spectrum problem more directly but in my view, nobody is doing enough. >> host: marty cooper what about the verizons and at&ts. are they using their spectrum efficiently or more efficiently than they were ten years ago? are they looking at this issue

others as well or simply buying more spectrum? >> guest: off of the above. -- all of the above. they are absolutely using the spectrum more efficiently but they're operating businesses and are trying to optimize in the environment that the government created, and that is why i don't fault them but i do believe that they probably motivated, could be ten times -- properly motivated could be ten times better at least how they use the spectrum today, and they don't really need that additional spectrum. in fact the government shouldn't make it that easy for them to get it. they ought to be motivated to use what they've got more effectively and new concepts be brought into play with this additional spectrum. the biggest problem in my view about the existing carriers, they don't have any competition. lte doesn't have any competition.

and i believe there's an opportunity, given the right environment, to create a competitive wide area coverage system. wouldn't that be the right kind of motivation to get people use their spectrum more effectively. and i could describe it to you and -- by the way, i'm not trying to solve the problem myself. i'm just giving an example. suppose you took wi-fi and made -- integrated all of the wi-fi that exists. well if you think about it, almost everywhere that you go with your wireless devices, wi-fi is available. if you can integrate all those wi-fis and make them available, you would have an alternate wide area of coverage. wouldn't be available everywhere but then the verizons and at&ts are not available everywhere, and that could be a

much lower cost system than exists today. it would have advantage and disadvantages, but existing carriers would have some competition. now they've got some motivation to use this other technology, get their prices down and that has got to happen. wireless broadband is just too costly today and if there is a spectrum problem, that is where it is. there are some of the new services that are arising that are being served by wireless main my in education, in medicine, that are essential services. they're not conveniences, not things that make our lives smoother but they are as an example in education we have now determined that people who are challenged more than others actually have their brains grow

faster. we have some new techniques that are internet-enabled that challenge students much more effectively than lectures and classrooms do. now, could you major a world in the future where we have one class of people who have internet wireless -- wireless enter it in available, have their mines challenged have bigger brains and another class who don't have that advantage. that's not acceptable. we can't have a society with two classes like that. somebody has to figure out a way to make the wireless internet available to everybody at a cost that everybody can afford. >> oh would you aggregate the wi-fi networks? the cable industry has consortium to deploy wireless across at the country. how would you aggregate them to

one competitor. >> guest: good question. some people are actually doing that nowed specific areas. they take the access points people have in their homes and businesses and they split them into two accesses, if you will. one for the local person the person who has it in their home or business, and another when it's available to other people. and the one that's available to other people is based upon subscribing to a general service, and that service is an integrated wide area service, and that's actually being done today in some areas. not in a large scale but they have actually created cell phones that are primarily wi-fi cell phones but that will go off into the white area network only when there's no wi-fi service available. >> kind of opposite of a lot of

phones they seamlessly go on to a wi-fi network. >> guest: you got it. why not just have a wi-fi only radio? have a service with a -- more inexpensive cell phone, and service cost of a quarter or a tenth of what the existing services. i love competition, if you haven't got that message. >> host: marty cooper when you give this message at the fcc as part of the advisory committee you serve on, does tom wheeler, do the other commissioners, hear you? >> guest: i haven't had much opportunity to do that because we -- first of all i have enormous admiration for the fcc. they're trying to satisfy everybody, who when you're trying to satisfy everybody it's hopeless. whatever tom wheeler comes up with on net neutrality you now

there will be a bunch of unhappy people. they're doing a superb job, but they have not accepted the fact they should take on harder problems, and the one example is when you tell people they should use the spectrum more efficiently, you say well, how do you measure efficiency? that's a really hard problem. and my answer to that is, first of all just because a problem is hard doesn't mean you shouldn't attack it. the second is, look at what happens when they attacked the efficiency problem at automobiles. we have standards now for miles per gallon. they are -- not precise. they keep changing them all the time. very hard problem but they solved it. look what happened to our fuel efficiency. i think the same thing could happen to spectrum efficiency. >> the fccsed a risery

committee has look at receiver standards, which you mentioned earlier. that would allow for those who don't know -- the ftc doesn't have jurisdiction bit the idea is that receivers could basically not get the interference fill their that out, and spectrum would be used more efficiently and it's come out more and more in washington latefully proceedings. tell us what you think -- what you like 2001 do on receiver standards. >> guest: the fcc doesn't create the technology and they are primarily focused on interference to other people. so, i think they've got to go to the essence of the problem, which is sharing the spectrum. working on techniques that allow people to use the spectrum in ways that don't interfere with other people so what they've done with the receiver standards so far has been excellent but they haven't yet gone into the

dynamic spectrum access area and that is what has to happen. the interesting that's going to happen when you have this ultimate dynamic spectrum access? no more licenses. think about a world where anybody who follows a set of rigorous rules can just come in and operate. no licensing, no auctions, and spectral efficiency that is millions of times better than what we have today, and those are numbers. that's technology not wild statements. >> host: mart where cooper, you mentioned net neutrality and the fccs current deliberations in that area. what's your take on net neutrality and should wireless be treated differently? >> guest: well, i'm glad you said the wireless part. i have no idea what tom we'll sheer do about net neutrality. i know the long-term solution is not regulation because anytime

you regulate, you imperfect. the only systems that are optimal are self-organizing systems where everybody is motivated to do the right thing naturally. my issue with wireless is a question of prioritization. and having the only prioritization be how much money you have, doesn't make a lot of sense to me. so, somehow or other we have to create a neutral system that allows us to solve the education problem, that allows medical applications to come in, in ways that everybody can afford them. and that's a really hard problem. so i really sympathize with tom and i know that whatever he is going to do is going to be the best that can be done. one thing that i think that the fcc should do with regard to net

neutrality is to use the threat of regulation to get people to operate more efficiently. so if the fcc, for example said, you licensees, we're not going to regulate you at this moment. we're going to let you run with certain reasonable requirements, and that's the word that people have been using -- for five years. but at the end of the five years we expect you to be x times more efficient than you are today. i think maybe we make some progress. i don't know if that's a practical thing but the fcc does have some weapons they could use that would not make them totally popular with everyone, but it would move us forward. >> host: when you picked up that ten-pound brick of a phone in 1973, i think, and called the at&t engineer, making the first cell phone call the official first cell phone call ever did

you foresee these problems you were creating? >> this is for him i think. he just blamed all this on you i think. >> guest: you can't do that. we had very narrow issue then and that was to make sure that there was a competitive and hand-held -- we knew that everybody was going to have cell phones some day, and remember there was no internet in 1973 and no large-scale circuits no digital cameras, so we did not have that kind of vision in those days. telephones is what we were worried about. >> host: does it surprise you there are more cell phones today than there are people? everybody has a couple different devices? >> guest: that doesn't surprise me at all. i think we have only begun. i think at some point in the future you will be -- have self devices on your body to do various different functions, all of them connected efficiently,

and all of them serving you in some really important way. so we've only ground. >> host: it's shame when you made that first call you couldn't have tweeted about it to folks. >> guest: that's right. >> host: we have been. >> we have been talking about spectrum efficientty si and ways to use spectrum in a better way. the fcc is looking at, can we take spectrum above 24 gig ahirst and start using that for mobile broadband which to date is thought to be not usable for that. give us a sense -- realizing you want to make better use of the lower spectrum, what is the spectrum frontier for that spectrum do you think? >> guest: i just think the way we use the spectrum today, we assign somebody a block of spectrum and they do everything in their block of spectrum. well does it make sense for

somebody in a city who is communicating to the person across the street to use a piece of spectrum that has the capability of talking ten miles? so part of dynamic spectrum access is that you use the optimum piece of the spectrum for each conversation. i'm talking to somebody ten miles away i might be talking 150 mega hurts or talking to somebody across the street, why not 28 gig ahertzs. people do that. they talk in the same room to each other and use long-range frequencies. so dynamic speck truck access is a catch-all term that includes all of these techniques. that's the way this new spectrum she shoo be used. trying to make each piece of the spectrum do everything doesn't make a lot of sense either. >> you have fan, the ftc

commissioner has subpoena lot lately about spectrum. you were at an event with you and she was give you credit forked an, she calls it the race to the top where you basically incentivize someone to come up with a way to use spectrum, perhaps 50 or 100 or more times better and then if they do that they get a license for some spectrum. is this something you have proposed and give us a sense what you hope this would accomplish. >> guest: well, the issue is to motivate people to use this new spectrum and what commissioner rosenworth and i suggested is literally a contest. it's a process that would take perhaps ten years because they have to have various steps, but we're suggesting the objective is to demonstrate that you can separate the spectrum at least 100 times more effectively than it being done today. i now think that we were much

too soft. there ought to be more than 100 times. just think of what happens. if you go through this process where first of all you ask people to demonstrate on paper that they can do this, and you sort out the people who have the best solutions and then you go to next step and they have to demonstrate in the laboratory and then you good on, each time culling out people. in ten years you could have two people left each of whom has probably spent a billion dollars, but you might be prepared now to give each of them ten megahertz. that's nothing? it's 100 times more efficient than was done before so it is the equivalent of a thousand megahertz. more than any carrier has today. >> worth a lot more because of what they did. >> guest: you got it. >> host: marty cooper what are you thinking about today besides

spectrum? what's on your agenda. >> guest: well, if you think about spectrum, a very techy thing, and what has happened in my search for getting people use the spectrum more efficiently discovered all kind of ways that people are improving humanity, and when i look at what is going on in the medical community, we have the potential using wireless technology, along with a whole bunch of other stuff, to virtually eliminate disease. now, talk about objectives. that's a lot more real than trying to get people to be more spectrally efficient. the one that most excites me is education. i touched on that before. we tend in almost everything we do to treat people as classes. people are not a class. they're individuals.

and if we can have an educational system that is tailor made to each individual and the example i give when i describe how this could evolve, is the way children play games today. i don't know if you are game players, but these games are intricate, complex, multilevel challenge, and if you can visualize an educational system where a child is continuously challenged, if they can't achieve a level asked to do it over again or shunted off to a different challenge you. now have education that is tailored to the individual and i am absolutely convinced that is going to create a class of smarter people. our children are going to be smarter than we are, and their children will be smarter than they are and is that a good

thing? yeah, i think so. smarter people do everything better and we could solve some really important problems like eliminating war. so i've gone out a little bit from the spectrum issue. >> host: finally, what kind of cell phone are you using today? >> guest: i always have the latest cell phone. >> you better. >> guest: but the difficulty with cell phones today is they're really aimed at techies. and i want to have a cell phone that anticipates my needs, may ask me a few questions but actually examines what i do and responds to that and tailors itself -- sounds like familiar viewpoint -- to my needs, and so the latest phone i have this moto x. i'm not promoting any manufacturer. but they've got some features in the moto x that are moving in that direction.

so when i take my cell phone out and wiggle it, it becomes a camera. when i just take it out and look at it, it tells me what time it is without my doing anything. we're starting to move in the right direction. these are just baby steps but i appreciate those kinds of things. i. >> host: marty cooper, thank you for being on "the communicators," paul kirby as always, thank you. >> next, discussion on the separation of powers and the president's immigration order. then, transportation secretary anthony foxx discusses issues facing his department. and later a look at the week ahead in congress.

tuesday, the house foreign affairs committee holds a threat assessment hearing on north korea. state, treasury and homeland security department officials will testify live starting at so a.m. eastern on c-span3.

>> here are a few comments we received on the 114th 114th congress. >> the thing that really needs to happen is going back to what the income and majority said they need to get back to regular order. if they go back and pass the 13 bills it takes to fund the government, then everybody can see who voted on what who put what amendment up, and then send it to the president and let him pass it or veto it. >> i hope it's a more mature responsible congress that we will see emerging in the next two years. i think emblematic of this situation of an irresponsible congress, we can see that reflected in this john boehner challenge today. it's time for both parties to put aside the bitter partisan battles and get on to the task

that they're constitutionally required to do, and that is to govern to legislate, and i think what the american people said in november of both parties is it's time to see that finally start to happen. >> i think -- i don't know -- this 114th congress what can we expect of them? with citizens united, all the politicians are bought and sold really. >> prepared to get passed the polished language, the false promises, we need you to understand sir you work for us and we have seen nothing but foreclosures, people in the street and, frankly, we're tired of the silly games being played, and we don't believe

anything we're hearing any longer to include create jobs. that is so overworn out. >> and continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. >> next, debate on the balance of power and president obama's executive action on immigration. the american enterprise institute host evidence -- hosted this discussion,ing and whether mr. own0ss obama's, as are continued with the powers of the executive branch. >> good afternoon. good afternoon. good afternoon. and thank you for joining us on this rainy and cold day in

washington georgia. enough gary schmitt, the resident school here at the american enterprise institute and director of the program on american citizenship. we're here today to discuss president obama's recent discussion to extend protections from deportation and extend the right to work to an estimated 4.1 million illegal aliens who are parents of u.s. citizen or legal residents. although it's inevitable we'll be talking about the policy implications of the decision the primary focus today on the issue whether the decision by the president is constitutionally appropriate use of his president's executive power. a reasonable assertion of the president's independent executive power or, a violation of his duty to faithfully execute the laws. joining today to discuss this

issue and its broader implications are rot douthat. columnness for "the new york times," author of three books, the latest being "bad religion: how we became a nation of heretics." i asked ross to join us today since before the president's decision was announced and when there were news leaks about his plans, ross and "the new york times" op-ed with the title, quote, the great immigration betrayal, describing the president's decision as a power grab and precisely the kind of power grab that former senator and candidate obama once criticized the bush white house for engaging in. next up will be bill galston professor of the university of maryland and former domestic policy advisor to president bill clinton. bill is also the author of several important books not all but mostly on modern liberalism.

i've been reading bill's works for four decades now. matter of fact i remember sitting in the stacks of the university of chicago library reading his dissertation in the mid-7 associations which -- mid-70s, which means awas only 12. bill is a columnist for "the wall street journal," whose op-ed, the law is with obama on immigration, was written shortly after the president's announcement and obviously bill has a different take on the decision. he cites recent and past supreme court decisions that support wide executive branch discretion in these matters. our format today is straightforward. i've asked ross and bill to speak for about eight minutes, and then we'll probably have a bit of a discussion back and forth between us but die want to give you -- but i do want to give you in the audience a chance to ask questions so we'll

save enough time for that to happen. before i begin, i just want to take a second to note the passing this past saturday of walter burns, a long-time aei scholar and former professor of political science and government at yale, cornell, university of toronto, and last, georgetown university. walter, as many you've know was a remarkable scholar of american constitutional order and a wonderful colleague and friend. aei had posted on the web site a number of items on walter's life and scholarship, and it's on the home page today, and i commend you the link that there as well to walter burns.org which has a bibliography of his work introduction to his scholarship, and also a

biography of walter who is quite a scholar and quite a colleague, quite a friend. now, turning to today's topic the topic which walter would have found supremely interesting, ross if you would kick us off. >> sure. thank you so much gary. thanks to bill for being here with me to explain why i'm mistaken and thank you to you for being here as well. this is -- i'm fully very grateful to garrett for the framing because the think the language of constitutionally appropriate is a lot more helpful to my side of this dispute than the strict language of illegality, because i think that in this issue of presidential discretion on immigration enforcement, you are in an area where it's very hard to bring the issue to so sharp a point on the question of sort of

the written material of the law to prove once and for all that what the president has done is illegal. i think it is very clear, however, what the president has done is constitutionally inappropriate in the sense of representing a violation of norms of executive power that have existed in many areas but particularly in this area, for some time basically throughout the entire era of modern immigration policy. and it's constitutionally inappropriate in a way that is connected to a broader pattern under numerous recent administrations but particularly this one where you have seen an expansion of unilateral executive authority beyond the arena of foreign policy and deeper than previously into domestic policy arenas as well. and i think this is something that most people on both sides of the partisan divide tend to concede, we're seeing in this presidency a great deal of

striking creativity, shall we say, in how particular domestic policy areas are dealt with in the face of congressional opposition or congressional gridlock. this ranges from what you might call sort of defensive operations with the healthcare law, obamacare, around the individual mandate, and the employer mandate and other provisions, where you have sort of temporary bureaucratic suspensions of the law to keep the law working, keep it running effectively, in a climate where the administration would be hard-pressed to get congressional fixes. you see something similar or related in areas related to climate change greenhouse gas emissions and so on, where there's been a very creative use of the epa and related bureaucracies to get a version of carbon taxation in season,

although it doesn't work exactly that way. implemented, again, in the face of a congressional either inaction in the case of the congresses of president obama's first -- the congress of president obama's first two years, or simply against straightforward opposition in the case of the congress that existed since. but i think that the case of immigration is distinctive which is why i wrote several somewhat shrill columns about it before it happened and how it's actually happened, so we can tack are talk about it in a less shrill way. it's different for a variety of reasons, but it's basically different because it sort of an intersecting combination of factors that makes it distinctive, unusual inappropriate, and troubling. and i guess one -- the place to again, obviously, is with the sort of fact of the existence of a clear presidential reversal on

the issue. the fact this is a case where the executive power being claimed, the power to grant legal status work permits and so on, to millions of illegal aliens in the use is a power that president obama expose sitly and repeatedly, through surrogate, disavowed in the face of pressure during the early stages of the immigration debate. you have a situation where at one point, not so very long ago, while he was president of the united states, not as a senator or some previous political incarnation, you have plea statements from the president this was a violation of his own -- to act in this way would be a violation of his own constitutional obligations. and i think it's very easy to see why the president would have read the situation in that way. first of all, it is clearly true that the presidency has wide latitude in certain regards in

terms of its enforcement of the immigration laws. this is a point that bill makes in is lex lend "wall street journal" op-ed on the subject and it's a point that i think is clear generally if you go back over the last 40 or 50 years of presidential action on immigration, you find a great deal of ewan lat'll presidential action on immigration in which versions of the kind of legal status of the white house just granted are granted by many different presidents to different groups. what is distinctive about the current move is twofold. first the sheer size of the move being undertaken. the estimates of how many people affected, range variously but it's safe to say it's around 4 million, 3 million to 5 million. close to half of the entire illegal alien population of the united states. and in that sense it bears no resemblance to the vast majority

of kits cited as precedenceful all of those involve narrow small populations of migrants and immigrants who had usually some clear and present situation in their home country that made it impossible or extremely dangerous for them to return. so essentially you have the use of presidential discretion in a lot of different situations where you're dealing with basically small refugee populations, where sending them back, whether to countries in southeast asia or africa or lattin america would amount to a kind of death sentence. and you're dealing in most cases in numbers 25,000, 50,000 sometimes into the hundreds of thousands, but again, nothing comparable to the size of the move being undertaken here. then the size issue intersects with the level of political controversy involved. the fact this is not an issue where the president is acting in

a political vacuum. it's not an issue where congress in some sort of de facto public way, has given the president permission to do this. it's a case where immigration legislation has been hotly debated in the united states congress, in many different situations over the past decade under republican and democratic presidents alike and has repeatedly foundered usually in the house of representatives, around some of the very specific issues that the president is addressing head on in this move the current and future status of aliens who have come to this country over time, again, not some particular refugee situation but over time and who have come here illegally, usually across our southern border sometimes overstaying visas and so on. so it's clearly the case that the president is acting in the face of in some form -- clearly acting in the face of political opposition and clearly acting in

the face of strong congressional opposition and cannot claim to be filling in some kind of opening that congress has created and so on...

the path available that i would like. obviously not not supposed to find the kind of immigration legislation that could pass the house and the senate right now without the controversy among the republican majority. again, is there any law on the books this is the

president cannot go in front of tv cameras and threaten? no, their there is no such law, but using expensive expansion, expansion, if you will, presidential authority in order to bully and blackmail congress into particular policy options has constitutionally inappropriate implications. and i think that there is a whole lot of short lower-level policy leaves that we can get into in a back-and-forth. i will save it for them. the only issue, you will often hear this move described as just essentially in recognition of the realities of enforcement policy as it actually exists. the united states is somewhere between ten and

12 million people here illegally. the united states has only provided with sufficient resources to support somewhat smaller numbers for 400,000. he can cast doubt on that particular number. there is not the resources nor the political will to actually attempt to deport 11 million people, 12 million people, however many. the issues are, at least, maybe they will disagree but there is a big difference just in terms of policy between saying, we are going to effectively concede not everyone here illegally is being reported and take the following steps to lead to a situation in which they have work authorization. again, that authority exists

and exists precisely because of these sort of smaller population situations if you're telling 10,000 refugees not to go back to cuba you want to give them the capacity to work but for the much larger illegal alien population i don't see any evidence to say we we will have those 11 million stay here indefinitely and have absolutely no labor market cost or everyday cost of their being here illegally. it is it is perfectly reasonable to have an immigration law that says look you said enforcement priorities, but people come here illegally are going to have to bear some of the consequences of being here with our authorization crossing our border in violation of laws and so on. with with the white house has done is essentially remove the primary burdens. and i do think that is a

much bigger policy shift that simply saying, we are not deporting 6 million, 7 million, 9 million so on is the active removal of the burden and elizabeth of observances. all aspects only welfare. so you wind terribly mistaken clicks well actually i'm not going to spend a lot of time telling you why your chair with mistaken. that leads to a broader. like what you frequently billed as debates oxford union debates, hold your positional costs of for the

year is up there with not given to algorithms it feels almost an aesthetic category. having said that one of the preliminaries, i would be derelict in all sense of duties if i did not begin where gary schmidt did, invoking the memory of lessons learned for the privilege of studying constitutional law at cornell 51 years ago.

i will never forget that experience. and i will never forget the solidification here when i discussed or debated with walter. i never knew whether he would agree or disagree with what i was saying. he was a surprising man in all sorts of prospects but i can tell you one thing for sure i always cared about what he thought. as the only democrat running a weekly comment in the "wall street journal," it is not something that i can say has everyone responding. but in walter's case certainly.

so just to put my cards on the table as frankly and tersely as walt put his, let me state six propositions some of which engage what walt said and some of which are as social scientists would say somewhat orthogonal to it but to establish parameters proposition number one is that the obama administration's action is consistent with the governing constitutional understanding of the appropriate role of the executive branch. this is not not a lecture. i am not going to go into detail except some.you to the lead case in this area which is headquartered in cheney. an opinion by justice

rehnquist, and the chroma of that decision which i quote i quote is, this has recognized on several occasions over many years that an agency's decision not to prosecute or enforce whether through civil or criminal process is a decision generally committed to an agency's absolute discretion. does that mean that it is never reviewable? no. but it means, as the heckler court went on to say that there is a presumption of unreviewed ability which points us to something important about the political situation that brought this up more than once, essentially a struggle struggle between the executive branch and the legislature and that is the

terrain, i suspect, during which this will have to be thought of. here's my 2nd proposition. the administration's action is consistent with the governing constitutional understanding of the role of the executive branch and immigration policy specifically and hear the lead case handed down this two and a half years ago with the lead decision by justice kennedy in which chief justice robert or others joined. and to give you that decision, here are a few quotations from it. a principal a principal feature of the removal system is the discretion of the -- discretion exercised

off of continue with the discretion of the immediate human concerns. unauthorized workers like to impose less danger than smugglers are those who commit a serious crime. and then the court went on to make an important. some discretionary decisions in this area involved policy choices that bear on this nation's international relations. the dynamic nature requires the executive branch to ensure enforcement policies are consistent with the station's foreign-policy with respect to those in the realities.

okay. proposition 103 on which i do not need to spend a lot of time because it has been laid out accurately and fairly is that this action is consistent and so as not to beg the question i will say it is formally consistent with the established executive branch practices and the enforcement of immigration policy and as well as indicated administrations going back have done things of the sort all get to the size question in a minute. congressional research published for the less. but then they focused a minute on the one that was singled out in 1990 the immigration and

naturalization service implemented a a family's famous program that authorized extended voluntary departure and risk authorization to the spouses and children of the aliens who have been granted legal status. ins commissioner jim berry in 1990 and the bush 41 administration one administration estimated that up to one a half million individuals were potential beneficiaries. work authorization, one half million individuals which leaves a a distinction the issue of political version get back later to the question of the existence of political controversy is or is not responsible for controversy. proposition number four the

administration's action is consistent with explicit skiers congressional directives concerning priorities. most recently in the 2014 department security appropriations though directed ghs prioritize the area of criminals convicted of a crime and the severity of the crime. the immigration reflects congressional concerns about family unification. there is a long policy debate as to whether those concerns serve the country we will but the existence is undeniable.

proposition number five given the mismatch between the scope of the immigration and nationality act and the least forces available to enforce it the choice is not between complete and selective enforcement. selective enforcement is forced on what used to be the ins and is now three different divisions of the department of homeland security. the the question is what kind of selective enforcement. so so the real choice is between establishing coherent enforcement policies and proceeding. those are the only two choices. and to give you an idea the current estimate of illegal aliens in the united states

ranges from 1,132,115,000,000. resources available to dhs to engage in illegal proceedings at the maximum allowed for 400,000 a year so keep that in mind. 11.5 versus 400,000. the only administration that has ever reached that level is the ever reached that level is the obama administration which has done so repeatedly so this is hardly an instance of the obligation to take care of the law as faithfully executed. it seems to to me that establishing clear enforcement priorities is much closer to what one would ordinarily name of the rule of law than the determinations and let me call for defensive

proposition, brandeis said and i and i quote, the president cannot secure full execution of the law if congress denies to him adequate means of doing so. the president performs his constitutional duty if the means and instruments provided by congress debtors to secure the faithful execution of the laws enacted. proposition number six, this gets closer because the constitution is what the distinguished he wants to an

invitation to struggle. immigration is a classic case of more than 60 years. the supreme court is so. so results in the executive power to control for affairs of the nation. nation. we are dealing with the area of immigration was not the executive as the errand boy of congress but having article to power as the supreme court has interpreted it because of the foreign relations dimension of this issue. as i said earlier because

enforcement decisions and enjoy presumption with unreviewed ability to struggle of the principles between the executive and legislative branches as the court declared the danger that they may not carry out the denigrated powers with sufficient vigor does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that courts of the most appropriate body to police this aspect of their performance. that decision is in the 1st instance of congress to make. which leads me to my political quota. i don't think that it is unreasonable or unconstitutionally inappropriate for the president to challenge congress to respond to this action if they don't like it

with actual legislation. legislation. he has hit the ball into congress' court and i think it is now congress's responsibility to respond. i. i think it is very unlikely of the courts will bail the congress out. and let me say one other thing in a minnesota in spirit. this great machine machine is in some respects a hydraulic machine. the constitution, like nature affords a vacuum. if one branch is weak and fails to perform its constitutional responsibilities, then the others are likely to lose -- likely to move to fill that gap. the solution is a functioning congress, and it is about time we had one.

>> i mean, i guess working backwards and starting with probably the. i think your final.can simultaneously be correct and still can be an environment of pres. obama that he has chosen to act this way in terms of, yes, our system is a hydraulic a hydraulic system, but it is one populated by human beings with the freedom of action, not to be simple to have there division simply determined by what vacuums are left reasons are exposed, gridlock said dysfunctions exist. again, this is where i see a difference in between what has happened here and what has been happening a lot and healthcare legislation and around climate change legislation. there legislation. there is an issue that would always be adjudicated by the

courts. it had a certain kind of arbitration available but here you have the case of the white house not just responding to what is going on in congress. in fact, seeing the vacuum and decided to exploit it in a way that yes, reflects existing varieties of politics that are messy and unfortunate in various ways. internal dysfunctions in the republican party, but is also a freely chosen thing and has been built by the president to dramatically expand power over a certain area of law and policy but also by extension the powers that future presidents are likely claim. the fact that it is happening in the context of this type of dysfunction should make us as observers and commentators and analysts

say, say, yes this reflects dysfunction but as i tried to say before people don't, presidents -- this is obviously true in the judicial wellness as well as so on but politicians and political actors do not have to take all opportunities afforded to them for power grabs. when politicians and lawmakers do take those opportunities as presented when they are not bound by as they should be, certain norms you can have a kind of hydraulic effect and things can balance each other out, but you can get into a dynamic way for essentially the constitution order just changes which is what basically happens in the united states of the last 50 or 100 years hundred years depending upon how you define terms and foreign-policy. things like declaration of

will and so on is essentially drifted out of the cost to civil order. that that is a move that has basically happened that we just take for granted. another are many who think it is a good thing. sometimes i do do as well. but it is a reality. significant change if a domestic policy you have to acknowledge that there is change in our public that is implicit in some of these movements, and to need to talk about what that means and just how much power it ends up concentrating in the hands of the executive branch. generally, we are living in an age when power in general has moved in different ways to an unelected branch, the courts and an elected but less to the critically

accountable in certain ways the executive branch. and this is a big step in that process. it should be recognized as such again usual saying with you that their are many things that can be done to push back against this and essentially try and restore a partial balance. that is sort of a big picture. what has happened since the decision was made in the case of those points and my anxieties. you can see the republican wants nothing to do with -- they don't want this to turn into a big extended political debate for all kinds of reasons, and the press being the press just sorts of sort of moved on. another controversy is something else happens. in my weekly or daily which is the reality of how we cover politics of the

reality of how politics works. if we don't have immediate push back against certain things that they just become locked in presidents, part of the political landscape which is what i basically expect to happen with this. i don't want to take too long. those earlier points enforcement prioritization and what the administration is actually done. the reality is enforcement prioritization both legally acceptable and practical necessity in immigration policy that kind of prioritization has existed past -- tacitly.

it was not combined with the specific statement of deferred action that then enabled the white house to offer the kind of work amendments associated with the generally much smaller bore moves in administrations going back to decision was made to go beyond the enforcement law allows for that does amount to a substantive change in actual policy. again, there is a reason these issues are the substance of so many legislative debates, the issue of the debate in congress not the case where

you can simply look at the money allocated in the way the laws are written. but congress can do that was right. little bit wicked the one great presidents the george hw bush president because in the end that turned out to be a much, much smaller number of people who actually applied but that does not necessarily tell us that much because it could be that by that argument before 5 million dollars estimate could be. but in that case i do think my argument and the arguments of other critics for why the president is different does come down to convergence.

you have the convergence of the size issue with the fact that it is alive political debate. american history is long and complicated. if you go back beyond you can find that immigration law was handled in a different way with much more direct executive control and very little executive influence. congress has asserted more control and up until recent years in a version of that conflict you can find cases in the 1940s the program authorized by congress initially, the authorization, fdr, fdr or truman who ran the program for a year or so so you can find lots of particular examples where you have the white house doing something without the congressional authorization and you can have one big potentially of the white house doing something big without

authorization, but the tendency has for it to either simply be small or if it is larger to be a situation where you have clear and implicit agreement which simply does not exist in this case. that is an invitation to a struggle there is a constitutional discussion. i would like to respond perfectly to the big picture is opposed to the small because i think they're absolutely right that the big picture is what matters constitutionally speaking. and 25 years ago i think it was the american enterprise

institute that published a book called the fettered presidency and this was a book that faithfully represented the experience that many republicans and conservatives have had especially during the reagan administration dealing with the congress that was handling the presidency in on all sides. sides. given what happened in the late 60s and early 70s with the nixon administration was understandable starting during that time there was a congressional reaction which was, in a way, my. congress reasserted itself big-time especially in budgeting and anti- impoverishment act. to put the war powers act