the basis on which analyze this is we didn't have a port. orlando doesn't have a port. some went to tampa and money went to miami. they have ports. we tried to change the area. mr. desantis represents volusia county, we try to get cut in brevard county and we were denied that. so my point here is somehow a threat assessment isn't dealing with the reality of what they are doing. ..

>> this is when you gave us okay, so don't say that i'm incorrect. that's what you gave me, now, sheriff demings, he summed a lot of this up for only as good as the information that we have in intelligence. we have got to go back to

getting better intelligence, connecting the dots. getting that information, obviously, they missed the mark had. we're only talking had been this program. but they missed the mark with our particular that was identified multiple times, put on a list. taken off a watch list. sheriff demings you have to have that information right to know who poses a risk either coming into or in our community. is that correct? >> congressman, mica you are correct, i have to say that we have a wonderful collaborative effort between our federal, state, and local law enforcement authorities in orlando as i indicated. there is classified unclassified information that is responding to counterterrorism efforts as well as our day-to-day crime

prevention efforts. >> well, the other thing too is mr. perdiic it was you we have to change the paradigm to san bernardino, the orlandos, chattanoogas, the bostons. they aren't done with us. this isn't over. we've got a responsibility and if we're going to spend even one penny it has to go effectively and i'm calling today for again, we have a billion dollars sitting there in that's another issue. a billion dollars, some this is 2011 we have to get that money out. it shouldn't be sitting here. so if they don't use it, we should find some way that they lose it, it goes to where people can use it. but you saw the chart. i saw it this morning. the first time it's stunning almost a third of the money sitting there. thing is wrong and we've got to change it. but my time is -- is over.

extended, let me recognize -- gentleman and rank aring member mr. lynch, thank you mr. chairman. >> all right. so as the chart showed a third of the resource rs authorized but not impended. i'm surprised to see that people of boston left half a million dollars unspent. we're not known for that. but could you explain to me why, why the allocation -- there's two problems here. one might be the am of resources that we're allocating other is effective use how we deploy and whether we deploy those resources to protect the it people. that's my first question. so can you explain why there's that residual amount not spent. >> i'd be glad to congressman lynch and i believe the word that chairman mica used money is idle.

there are three timelines to keep in mind respect to this money. the first is, it is one year funding when it is provided to us from the congress. meaning, we need to make the awards in the same fiscal year in which they are appropriated. so we announce the awards. >> i don't you to burn all of my time on this. a small question but please if that's the case so that money is going to be spent, is that what you're going to tell me? >> so the money is all booked against projects that they are spending against. you can think of it as your own budget when you have a budget at the beginning of the month, then you put on your ledger that you're going to pay your mortgage on 25th it means it doesn't get paid. >> targeted to spend later. >> say that in a short amount of time. thank you. i appreciate that. so we're going to spend that money later but it hasn't been spent yet. okay. what about the factors that we're using here, orlando.

you know, disney world and all of that going on. i'm sure they have huge fluctuations of population, manhattan same thing. i worked there. manhattan has very little population maybe on a saturday morning but then monday morning all of the millions of people come on in. a huge problem there. so do we -- in the factor, in the formula, do we consider the inflow like, you know, some of the areas in orlando area there's a certain season when they get you know swamped with people. >> we do. >> population counted as nighttime census million people who both live there, who -- are visitors overnight. and then people who commute during the day and leave. >> okay. >> we count all of those folks and count the infrastructure that you're well familiar with in orlando. >> yeah. the other -- it was quite surprising to me that the pulse nightclub, in orlando was attacked.

just, i mean, come on. who could predict that? say similar thoughts as someone from boston, the marathon i've run that a couple of times that is not somewhere where you would even think. but now we have to, right? so -- so if we're going to start protecting soft targets, the list is endless the opportunities are endless, and you just almost gave into this sorts of whack mole, and there's no pulse spectrum are surveillance of america's society that could even approach addressing that problem as far as something problematic in terms of giving people out money you know across the

jurisdictions to make sure nothing happens in their district. it's just -- i don't know . that's a tall order for a law enforcement and for our intelligence services. and i'm just wondering is there a better model out there. i know that the british have brought a lot of money into surveillance, cameras everywhere, especially their transportation systems. we haven't done enough of that yet. but is there another model out there mr. perdi you think offers some help? >> congressman i'll per to sheriff and police chief on what best policing tactics are to address threat on financing in pungdzing levels, you pointed out something very important in your opening statement which is a direction that congress gives to the secretary about how many jurisdictions to fund. how -- how far to spread the funding, secretary takes that guidance very seriously. so congress has a choice about --

the breath of jurisdictions you wish that department to cover with the funding. so i would encourage you to have discussions among the committee and with the appropriators about the appropriate intent that you'd like to convey to secretary. >> i would like to say in closing from our own experience in boston, the fact that we had a very robust, public safety infrastructure there, we've got great superb police department, fire department, emergency medical services, hospitals, they were all on site. they were on site. we have a great joint, terrorism task force where fbi dhs, state police, local police, so ting that a lot of people were sthaifd saved that day because we have infrastructure in place, great leadership, and that

continues to this day so that sort of a first line of offense. and then the stuff that we're doing here with special programs. so we've got to support the sheriff and the chief and in their basic jobs and then plus that up. plus that up with enhanced resources at this level. >> but -- about thank you for your courtesy mr. chairman. i child yield back time i don't have. >> i thank my friend from massachusetts i recognize myself for 15 minutes. amount of people coming into central florida every year, what's had the ballpark estimate of how many people come to visit? >> in 2015, it was 66.1 million people came to visit. and then my county our permanent resident population is 1.3 million so effectively on any given day our county population

doubles and that's a service population that we have to deal with. >> probably in top five in the country for visitors is that your understanding? >> it was certainly move us up from number 34 where we reside on the list. >> so you combine a huge influx of people with -- a lot of different soft targets. people think oh good at disney world oh, that's one but amusement parks everywhere. there are really a high number of soft targets, and probably more soft targets in orlando than just about any other city certainly in the southeast i would say, is that -- do you agree with that? >> certainly because we have now had an attack in orlando, i believe that we will remain at risk. that's the unfortunate thing about it. we want to simply be prepared and prevent something from occurring and then if it should

happen, we want to be able to respond quickly. >> but huge number of people and the proliferation, the soft targets, that's not really reflected in how fema analyzes this presently, correct? >> as best as i can tell that is perhaps some of the factors that they look at. but we are seeing a paradigm shift in the way terror suspects are identifying their targets as chief mina indicated and they're looking more at the soft targets. >> so chief, how would the funding -- status changes and you guys are getting more funding what would be your first order of business to use that in order in terms of terrorist ares preparedness. >> back to formula and amount of visitors and maybe factor in. but we believe since we are such a target that the number of visitors in our venues should hold greater weight.

but secondly, you know, that funding has provided us with much needed training for our response and much needed equipment. but training skills perish, and equipment you know is needed to be replaced. so you know, just looking at the pulse incident, there's so much more equipment that i would have liked. there's thermal images to see where suspect was behind those walls. sir, i've met with officials from france to discuss the paris attacks and they had ballistic protection for their face shields for their s.w.a.t. officers which we do not have. so there's all kinds of equipment out there. >> you guys have the dallas police use the robots that deliver a bomb to kill the guy who was shooting the cops, do you guys have access to that type of technology? >> we do have a similar robot. but again, we haven't had the

training to deploy such a device as you know the first time you use ever to kill a suspect in that type of situation. but that's again, training that we -- could be provided with that funding. >> sheriff demings, you talked about in your testimony having brevard and volusia be included in that. why is that important? >> excuse me. it's important because it is really -- speaks to more of how our metropolitan area functions. the infrastructure, the roadways, how we advertise our tourism destinations. how our commuters travel to and from work. we truly are one big metropolitan area. wherever there's an incident let's say in volusia involving the raceway, we support the efforts. when there's something that's going on at nasa, kennedy spacer in, we support efforts there is as well, and so even with the

pulse incident, we had a reasonable response. there were police agencies and sheriff officers from throughout the region and question who responded to assist us in our recovery efforts. >> i agree, and join chairman mica in supporting your efforts to get that changed. how -- this is just a little bit off this particular subject. but there's, obviously, been a lot of issues going on in our society that dallas shootings. so how is the morale with the orange county sheriff's department for officers? are they feeling the support that they need from the community and the public? >> i've got to tell you, you know, for the last two years law enforcement across 89 the nation has been criticized mightily. sometimes justly, sometimes unjustly. but what we saw happen immediately after the pulse incident was this tremendous jot pouring of support shown to all

firstened spores not just law enforcement officers and there were various random acts of kindness to our personnel that has continued right through today. and i'm sure that chief mica can echo my comments and sentiments in this regard. >> that your misdemeanors >> -- experience? >> tough time for law enforcement the past u few years but the morale is good because of the great support, and we're lucky we have a rich history of community policing, and community engagement but a huge support from the community and certainly any time a police officer is targeted because of wearing that uniform is concerning to them. so they're very on guard and aware and concerned about their own safety. but the morale is god and they feel support from our community. >> thank you. and i'm done, and if i guess

we'll now recognize palmer from alabama. >> i want to thank witnesses for being here, and echo the sentiment that we've already here about our support for law enforcement and first responders at every level. we really do appreciate you guys want to help any way that we can. fema has capabilities to do the evaluation to region preparedness. >> we have extensive reporting by our grant recipients by court capabilities for preparedness. we've done a great many things to advance our ability to prepare. >> how long have you been doing these? >> the president issued presidential policy directive 8 on national preparedness in 2011. we've been working since then identifying court capability on working with our state and local partners to align investments,

these grant funds against those capabilities. >> prior to orlando attack consider the high profile of that city and of that region, was there a preparedness evaluation report done for central is florida an specifically for orlando? >> at the urban area security jurisdiction orldz has reported to us -- >> i'm asking this is famous responsibility there's a gao report you mentioned the presidents initiative. i want to know was there report done for central florida and specifically for the city of orlando. >> i have to follow-up with you congressman? >> i would like for you to respond to committee as to whether or not a report was prepared and like for you to provide that to the committee. could you do that please? >> is it responsibility of the program to make sure that programs go from that? >> that the program -- >> golds -- [inaudible]

>> one of the goals is to make that these regions are prepared in what i'll find stunning and i wases at at the classified breeching in which mr. mica laid some documents on the stage for secretary johnson. it's stunning to me that more wasn't done to prepare orlando for this. to view orlando as a target. it's stunning to me that orlando was turned down for the grant. and particularly considering the thriftses that we face and it's been in an escalating nature. i mean, it's not like one happened five years ago and then something else happened. i mean, these things are escalating. almost as, though, the federal government particularly this administration -- is tone deaf or blind to it, and i just don't understand why

there's a billion dollars that wasn't used in it. i heard your answer a while ago there's other things going on. but they're critical needs in orlando should have been one of the top areas of this. what accountability easer oversight is fema exercising that it is effectively. >> monitored 100% of werdz an see indications that additional monitoring is need, we do site visits. we work both on the program monitoring and financial monitoring to make sure it is spent to which it is appropriated. >> when you look at the fact that there's -- over half a million, 662 million dollars, half a billion dollars that was unused from 2011 and you couldn't come up with some -- award amount $662 million.

>> say there's half a billion 1.1 billion spent that leftover. and it's accumulated over that time. thank you for pointing that out. >> it's not idle or leftover. the grant is for 2015 have three years to spend the money so they're in progress with that $585 million. and they'll spend against it until 2018. in 2014, they had a two-year period of performance they have until august of '16 to spend down that funding and conduct or complete large products they then request reimbursement . >> are you saying most of the funding spend on the back end of that? >> i'm saying that timing for which they request reimbursement can accelerate towards the end of period of performance. so it's a reimbursement grant so they submit bills to us, we pay them. so that $585 million for '15 is ongoing. 445 a million period will close in august.

some problghts will get legitimate extensions to their period of performance because they're still in progress. that billion dollars is very actively being spent right now. it's not leftover. efntle well, what i was asking is -- it lookses like a lot of this is spent on the backend. if you've got 2014 spending you have $445 million dollars left, and it closes out in august. >> we rebill ors in august and jurisdiction has a large amount -- i want to look into this a little bit more and make sure that i fully understand how this is done. but i want to get back to this. i understand senior group receives allocation determines actions for increase region preparedness and response capabilities as well as reducing vulnerability to terrorist attacks, the group compromised

of senior emergency management officials from the district of columbia, from maryland, from virginia. why isn't there more diversity in the context of regional representation on that or is there? i'm asking this in the context of i'm trying to learn something here. about -- >> policy group for the district of columbia urban security initiative? >> no -- >> that is saying -- >> senior policy group. i understand -- they oversee the allocation implementation of the funding and they determine the priority actions. >> not nationally so in every urban area there's an urban area working group whether jurisdiction call it is senior policy group or other name but every urban area has a government structure to determine the priorities among the jurisdiction. but i have no senior policy group from those jurisdictions that govern nationally what priorities are.

>> that came from the gao report and indicated it was for the whole country. the whole uasi. >> congressman will take a look at that. i'm not familiar with that senior policy group. >> you're not familiar with the group? >> there's no senior policy group that sets the urban area security initiative priorities nationally. i think that is likely referring to a specific urban area jurisdiction. >> okay. then who does determine it? >> so -- i go back to thes preparedness policy identify 42 court capabilities that are the priorities how this administration is defined preparedness against which all of the grant investments should be invested. they're very broad. they reign from prevention capabilities such as information sharing and interdiction. search and detection, all the way through to response and recovery capabilities. so we have administration determined priorities for

preparedness grant funding. we work with grantees to make sure funds are spend against priorities and monitor how the funds are spent. of course, the department inspector general audits grant recipients and where we find that funds have not been used prop orally we take enforcement action. >> frying trying to figure out how you make a dernlings to orlando not getting a grant. is there a ranking process, a committee or an individual -- who -- i tell you what. for sake of time and i've gone over my time, could you -- give us a report and outline that time. chairman you've been generous with the time i yield back. >> thank you. i appreciate your questions and participation. let me yield now to the ranking member mr. lynch.

additional question. >> mr. kamoy getting hung up again on this allocations and the unspent amount. what happens, you know, so we've already -- joining in a letter to have the inspector general look at this and see how much money has been lingering and unspent for how much time. obviously, if something has been sitting there for five years and hasn't been spent, probably not going to get spent, an if we could somehow reall locate to our tear two risk jurisdictions that might help with some of the problems we've identified here. >> why i mentioned money and one year money. i can't reallocate it if grant recipient doesn't receive it. i don't have authority. >> well, we need to do that and general transportation budget if we don't use money we take it back after a certain period of time. we could have a similar provision in this, in this grant

program that either puts the money back in the part for reare issuance or automatically goes to these -- underserved jurisdictions that don't have the robust -- security apparatus that some of us do. how much -- how much control does the state have? you know, my governor is pretty good on this stuff. but in terms of allocation within areas, how much involvement does the state have in where to allocate resources any of that tied in with the government? >> in state homeland security program designates state agency and they have control over the state online security program funds. urban area security initiative funds packed through a state which by chute is allowed to keep up to 20% of the funding. and passes the 80% down to the

urban areas. who again -- >> are they earmarked? >> all of those urban areas? >> they're directed to the urban areas yes when an award is made to orlando. it pass through the state to orlando. >> they can take 20% out. >> 20 -- >> administrative costs or -- >> for activities and projectses that benefit the urban area or benefits statewide. >> i see. okay. okay. >> and you have -- i have a few seconds left here. any other points you want to make? >> i'll just go back to something you mentioned in your opening statement, congressman which is the guidance on the number of urban areas that the secretary provides the funding to is critical. because congress has a choice to make as to where the line is drawn in the top 100 metropolitan statistical areas that congress can draw the line.

they can provide discretion to the secretary to draw the line. >> okay. thank you. >>i yield back thank you mr. chairman. i thank you mr. lynch, and delaware and as we wind this up, let me ask sheriff demings if there's any points he would like to make having heard what has transpired and information about the program and go to chief mina and mr. perdi. >> last comment by mr. kamoi has merit in which some discretion should be given to the secretary to term where the line is drawn because if the secretary has discretion, perhaps the secretary can make that, use that discretion based on current events and what is happening today and not what occurred one, two or three years prior.

>> chief. >> just again we ask that more weight be given to formula to 66 million visitors and also i think it was important to mention that orlando, fbi officers run out of tampa. so that -- those investigations and intelligence received through orlando are actually attributed to and out of the tampa office. so we would like that to be looked at as well. >> thank you mr. perdi. >> i think one of the issues is metrics, factors, formulas of risk and threat. and maybe it the secretary of homeland security had had more discretion maybe some of those funds would be then able to be allocated to maybe those tear two cities and cities and regions that maybe need some of these things. congressman lynch wases spot on the money when he talked about

soft targets. you know, terrorists are looking at targets. we harden stuff with money and then they look at nightclubs and paris. a stadium, nightclubs, restaurants, a concert hall. so they're looking to see what we're doing and they're very adaptive so we spend money to harden something but we have to think about an einvolving process so maybe secretary needs more discretion and congress can give them that. >> thank you. >> any quick comments? >> hi. >> we look forward to continuing to work with the sheriff and community and other urban area jurisdictions to secure our community. >> okay, let me always have these hearings and then people wonder what -- what is coming from it. so i want to thank mr. lynch, he's agreed to sign on with myself, chairman last night

agreed to be a cosigner of a letter to the inspector general. and we're going to ask for three things to follow-up this hearing. one, we're going to ask for a review of the assessment process. somewhere we're missing the mark. the assessment hasn't caught up with what terrorists are doing and hitting us in the soft targets so somehow we've got to do that. we also have the issue of the discretion for the secretary. we need to look at that congressionally. we have with the amendment that i've offered which is in the dhs appropriations bill, some look see from congress. but we may want to go beyond that. we have the secretary thing we want to inspector general to look at is the leftover money. we have money back to 2011. maybe if you don't use it, you lose it. or if he comes redistributed when i saw the chart again this morning what they had shown me

when they did the final analysis. we have got a third of money over a billion dollars sitting behind. that's not acceptable. these people are after us. we've got to stay ahead of them with every resource possible. it can't be sitting somewhere. so that's a second thing. and then we've seen some wasteful spending that last report was 2012. we want that updated. poem can't waste the money it has to be effectively extended to target our needs to combat terrorism and get the funds to the local government. so can't afford not to get it right here. we have to get it right there have been multiple failures to this hearing only looks at one of them. i have a letter and will make it part without objection. i hope to chairman goodlat also to chairman chafis i don't have jurisdiction.

your sub committee might be under the judiciary looking at the fbi and some of the failures there, our watch list that failed. the identification of somebody who posed it -- a risk and months of investigation and then nothing done to track them. so we've got to get that right. so i want to put in the record letter that i submitted on june 29th to chairman goodlat also to chairman chafis to look up at that. other items. i just wanted to put in too in the record people wonder sometimes with me mr. lynch and others are doing to combat tri.. and i got this just this week as summary of the homeland security committee >> these are select counterterrorism bills.

every one of the bills. three, four -- must be 20 of them i want to put this in the record these are bills that we passed. voted on to deal with terrorism. unfortunately many of them are sitting in the senate, but we have not neglected trying to change laws in our approach from a legislative standpoint. so without objection i want to -- i would like to put that in the record. thank you. and then finallies this was just released it that says for official use only i don't know if we can put this in the record or refer to it. this is the -- 2016 -- all a location of grant funds and threat levels. this is just released a couple of weeks ago. orlando -- not on the list. [laughter] we've got something wrong needs to be corrected. so we have some challenges people are counting on us.

our nation is under attack. our communities 'under attack ii can't end without thanking law enforcement guys. they've been there before that attack took place in orlando. the worst terrorist massacre since the 9/11. they were there. they warned us, the federal government didn't hear it. and now we'll probably get something. we'll probably make the changes, 49 people aren't with us and their families are suffering. and we've missed the mark in boston that we missed it in san bernardino and others so we've got to do a better job. i thank everyone on behalf of the committee, behalf of the congress for coming, testifying and working together. very confident we can get it right to meet this challenge. there being no further business before the joint sub committee hearing today, again, thank you

this hearing is adjourned. [silence]

[silence]

[silence]

[silence]

[silence] [silence]

>> if you missed any of the hearing, you can see this house oversight committee hearing again on our website go to c-span.org. coming up this afternoon it's a discussion on overall u.s. policy towards syria, and what's likely to happen in final days of the obama administration. former ambassador zelma shares center for national interesting. we'll have that live 2. eastern. >> the republican national convention from cleveland starts monday. watch live every minute on c-span. listen live on the free c-span radio app. it's easy to download from the apple store or google play. watch live or on demand any time at c-span.org on your derveg top, phone, or tablet where you'll find all of our convention coverage and full convention schedule. follow us at c-span on twitter and like us on facebook, to see video of newsworthy moments.

don't miss a minute of the 2016 republican national convention starting monday at 1 p.m. eastern on c-span. the c span radio app and c-span.org. >> c-span makes it easy for you to keep up with all of the latest convention development with the c-span radio app. available as a predownload from the apple app store or google play. get audio coverage of every minute was convention as well as schedule information about important speeches and events. get c-span on the go with a c-span radio app. >> a look now at republican national committee rolls committee meeting yesterday they met earlier this week to discuss the party platform and roles for the convention next week. last night committee members discussed the issue of binding delegates.remarks. >> all right let's move now to amendment number 37.1.

number 37.1 this impacts rule 37. and it has been proposed by mr. ross of nevada who is recognized for the purpose of making a motion. >> thank you madam chair, i introduce 31.1 as presented. >> is there a second? [inaudible]ec >> i hear a second. all right. mr. ross would you like to address your are amendment.. >> thank you madam chair. i'm going to use the b word, binding. i think it's fair, i think it's what millions of voters expect. now, while i have enjoyed up to this point the many and very theological discussions on how many parliamentary angels can dance on the head of a

parliamentary pen, it's time to put an end to those discussions and clarify once and for all. this amendment and one for following rule that is inserts the identical language into that rule is meant to do just that. it's to address arguments that have been going on for years about whether or not the rules of our party permit binding or not.les this amendment in a companion amendment for rule 38 will do just that. and this particular case, the arguments that the rights of certain delegates demand role call somehow allow them to invalidate their binding would be put to rest. i'm a politician. but voters in my constituency at the caucuses in our constituency voted overwhelmingly for

mr. donald trump. i have no intention of returning to those people who i rely on to keep me in office. by telling them i had some part in shredding their vote. it's time after all of these years to put an end to this. let's give the people what they expect, let their votes count. i don't mean to be bitter about this. i don't mean to be confrontational. but for heaven's sake arguinghe needs to be settled one way or another. madam chair. >> thank you, sir, i've beento asked to remind you by counsel that 9:30 deadline is rapidly approach, and if you are in line at the help desk, at the stroke of 9:30, they will help you finish your amendment. if you walk up at 9:30 in ten

secondses, you will not have the opportunity to have your amendment drafted. is everyone clear on that procedure? excellent. all right. we have had a motion made and seconded. is there anyone who rise it is in opposition to the amendment? is there anyone who rises in opposition to the amendment?se o seeing none. is anyone supporting in the amendment. >> madam chairman, members of or committee, in 56 contest across the country, into the caribbean and out into the pacific, donald trump won almost 14 million votes. he nearly doubled the vote total of his nearest competitor. he surpassed the number of delegates required by over 300 delegates. and yet, among some there seem

to be some sort of questionn whether or not he is the presumptive nominee. there's been a lot of battling become and forth. there's been a lot of e-mails that we get, and constant harass ment from various people across the country. in arizona we had a presidential preference election where donald trump received over 50% of the votes cast in that election, t contest. by state law, all 58 delegates in arizona are required to vote for donald trump on the first ballot. donald trump is the presumptive nominee. there should be absolutely no question as to who we're going to cast our votes for. as republicans, we oftentimes -- give our elected officials als hard time about campaigning one way and governing another.

as delegates, we were selected, elected by our state is conventions and whatever matter in which we arrived here. we only had to have -- we only had to perform one function and that was to vote for the candidate that we were bound to. i urge all of us to vote for this amendment and for the following and to get this this r finally understood across the country. thank you. >> thank you mr. ash. is there anyone who would look to rise in opposition is there anyone who would like to rise in opposition mr. hogland. >> yes. madam chairman, i rise in opposition to this because primarily because it seeks to link a preconvention rule to a convention rule. >> uh-huh. >> and soon i just submitted

a -- an amendment to this very same topic that provides satisfaction within rule 37 within the convention rules completely and without mixing preconvention rules with convention rules so therefore i would urge defeat of this one in anticipation. >> they will debate the proper way to do this. thank you mr. hogland are there others who wish to rise in support of this report?hank you mr. blackwell. >> thank you madam chair. this, obviously, have been the subject of more preconvention publicity than any rule matter

ever in living memory. it is, obviously, an important issue. people have changed sides on the issue. there were people like me who wished to repeal the requirements in the rules tharm passed by the romney campaign which prevented legitimate delegates, votes being counted if they casv their vote for somebody who hadn't met the greatly increased threshold.th that position -- i attempted in april of 2013 to pass an omnibus repeal of all oe the amendments that the romney people pass that we could repeal.al. but circumstances changed. i moved at our meeting in apriln

it's a rightful shot amendment to the rules. focused just on that disenfranchised delegate which caused hundreds of delegates to not have their votes countinged at the tampa convention. as the primaries progressed, it became clear that the operation of the rules was going to have both -- have two candidates who would qualify, trump and cruz. and suddenly from the establishment portions came the idea there are no rules to be changed. the con convention writes its own rules and that lasted untilu it was perceived that cruz andha trump people might have a majority of this convention. and the the establishments position changed and chairman priebus said we should amend the rule and should not amend the

rules. in my judgment these rules for the nominating process of the convention can be amended in only one of two ways. one -- >> gentleman time expired. >> or seconds after a battle which could split this party and i think -- >> mr. blackwell i'm sorry -- >> madam i retire. >> staff handed me the following sticky. two minutes to the 9:30 deadline. we're going to strict isly enforce this. two minutes. thank you mr. blackwell is there someone who wishes to rise in opposition. anyone wish to rise in opposition? see none. are there those who would wish to speak in support mr. shefler. >> thank you, steve from iowa, i too like mr. blackwell initially opposed to binding, but based on

the fact 22 of the 28 delegates at the national convention in 2012 from iowa voted for a candidate who came in third place.e. even though they did everything legally by the book who is an embarrassment i don't to see that happen again.ain. in any state it's a purple state, there was a new poll that came out i think just a couple of days ago. d that donald trump is leading by 2 points. and i understand that we hadrs these candidates all vetted. but i want to remind everybody what phyllis conservative or more so than anybody in this room is she said if you're looking for a perfect candidate you find jesus christ name on the ballot in november 8th an the people that have been sending these e-mails -- it'ses over folks. we need to get behind our candidate. and i guess it all came -- all the birds came to roost when i was informed bit wall street journal about three weeks ago they were going to run at negative ad against me on one of

these unbinding of the delegates. and no offense to anybody who lives on east or west coast that your dialect is different than mine. but for pete sakes why somebody have come into my state who understand how people's talk in midwestern accent and bring somebody from new jersey with a distinctive harsh, new jersey accent to beat up on me?e? and it isn't like i wasn't transparent from day one. i told people when this binding took effect where i was at. people my state support me overwhelmingly. and i just had had to tell you it's an insult it's over let's get behind our nominee right now. thank you. [applause] >> thank you.. are there others who wish to speak in opposition? opposition. see none. are there those who wish to speak in support. the lady right here -- >> i lean -- lean towards rhode island. as many of these people find

people have received, i personally have received 440 e-mails to vote my conscience to unbind, et cetera. i want you to know that i answered every single one of them, and the responses back weren't nice. i was very are -- respectful. let me just say this, i will nob turn my back on 14.1 million people that voted for donald trump. i will not -- i was elected to be a trump are delegate by our state law, i cannot do anything to unbind and my constituency at least 300 texted me and e mailed me i mean from my state that vote ised -- voted for donald trump and said you better not vote against donald trump. so i strongly urge us to begin

going, hugging the person next to us did a kumbaya be happy, we have a better nominee than the in democrats. [applause] >> thank you. >> are there any people who wish to speak in support or excuse me in opposition? anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? all right. gentleman who writes support -- >> support. >> yes gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, my name is matt hall i'm from are michigan. it's an hon or nor to be here, and i wanted speak in favor ofi this motion, donald trump won michigan overwhelmingly under, and we had rules as a convention body what -- in a party that those voters came to the polls in reliance on those rules.

that included binding. and so our voters, our state party when we made rules, our state when we had a taxpayer funded primary, and all of the candidates in their strike that is strategies replied upon thos. rules which included binding. when i was elected as a delegate what was clear to me is that we have a responsibility to honor that commitment that we made to our voters and the rules that we will honor their vote and their vote will count.d and therefore, i fully intend to support mr. trump and support the binding under the current rules. and i call the previous question. >> thank you, sir, previous question is in or order. we will immediately move to a vote on closing debate. all those in favor of closing

debate on number 31.1 please say aye others anyway. ayes clearly have it we will vote on that one -- i'm going to call for standing vote on this. won't that suffice mr. blackwell? [inaudible] well on previous question -- all right. we will hold a standing vote. we are moving to a vote on the main motion. all of those in favor of adopting amendment 37.1 please stand. ... please be seated.

se >> please be seated. others oppose, please stand.ank >> thank you. please be seated. the tally of the vote is as i i follows: eighty-seven yes, 12 at no. [applause]. >> >> yes, sir name and state. >> doug oc, california. i would like to move to lay on

the table in motion to reconsider. >> the par momentary told me the form of motion is incorrect or quit is that you would like to achieve rex. >> i wanted to and discussion on this thing we just voted on. i do not want to have a motion to reconsider 10 minutes or 10 hours from now. >> so, you would like to make a motion to reconsider at this time. >> i would like to late on the table. >> i'm afraid we can to do that. you would have to reconsider and we would vote again. >> with that and for the discussion clinic yes, it would. >> so i understand if the gentleman were made the motion to reconsider and you voted with majority and you decided to vote no on reconsideration ballot and things once and for all? >> correct. >> okay.

>> request for information. , i not correct, madam chair, that in a motion to reconsider only those persons who voted against can vote for it? or do i have that backwards? >> no, the motion must be made by those who voted on the prevailing side, so if mr. oc is voted in favor he is eligible to make a motion to reconsider. >> so, only the people-- the people who voted against the motion cannot vote for this motion to reconsider? >> they cannot move to reconsider. >> okay. >> did you move to make a motion to reconsider? >> i moved to reconsider. >> is there a second?de 's been moved and seconded and we will move directly to the motion to reconsider. >> point of information when wea say this discussion is over,

what does that mean? >> name and state, please. >> fred brown from alaska. c >> it means we cannot reconsider this particular amendments. >> thank you. >> others in favor? in favor of reconsidering this amendment, please-- mr. oc, you have another point to make? >> port everyone's edification, a trend to vote on this means that we take up again. >> correct. >> a no vote means we don't take up again. >> correct. >> thank you for the clarification. >> all those in favor to reconsider meaning a aye vote means you want to reconsider and reopen debate. all of those people please say aye and those opposed nay. not at all close.

all rights. just for everyone's information, we have passed our 9:30 a.m.ha deadline. my understanding is that very few amendments came in at that point. there are still a few coming through the process. we will just continue to move forward. amendment to number 38.1. 38.1. amendment to rule number 38 has been submitted from the lady from colorado who is recognized for the purpose of making a motion.

>> and from the state colorado and i would like to move-- i can't read it anywhere here. okay. i would like to add the language to rule number 38 to add that-- let's just read insert the following new sense of the in the 38: notwithstanding any other provision of these rules or any rule of the house of representatives the right of each delegate and alternate delegates on all matters shall not be infringed or impaired by any state party rule, state law, ruling by the national convention chair or any other method. >> is there a second?re a it's been moved and seconded.

would you like to address your mimic? >> i would. does anyone need any information about the conscious cause? obviously this is a important topic to the hearts of many americans because we have all been inundated with e-mails that have flooded our e-mail boxes about heartfelt convictions from americans and patriots and people from all walks of life who truly believe in the right. the right to conscious is not just something we have decidedog is a cool idea, but he is a is a very basis of our nation. it is why the pilgrims came here and pounded our nation. it's a god-given. it's why we have the bill of rights. it's why you cannot force a doctor to perform abortions when it's against his right to conscience. you cannot force the mennonites to go into the draft. it's systemically the core of everything the american and whaf

this does is a less evil to exercise that right and not to be bound by state laws. the supreme court has actually ruled cannot happen within a private organization, but beyond that this is a process and this is literally how our founding fathers set up the rule of law s the way our government operates in the party itself is modeling what has been established as the rights to delegate who take extraordinary seriously thet sanctity of their votes and all i am asking is that you regardeg this as the sanctity of the vote that is reflected in the duty and obligation of each delegates to cast a ballot according to their conscience. that's a god-given right and should not be taken away by the rn c, by any party or by the state and its beta ruled that even with the recent court ruling in virginia, that the

state cannot actually overstep a boundary and determine the outcome of a vote that is to be left to delegate alone. >> thank you. are there any who wish to rise in opposition? gentleman from michigan. >> thank you. my name is matt hall from michigan. donald trump can win this election and be our next president of the united states, but in order to do that we need to allow the record number of republican voters who voted for donald trump in our primary to have their voice heard and that means honoring the rule in the commitment of our party to bind the delegates and make the rule count. accordingly, i moved to call the previous question. >> previous question is in order and we will move immediately to

a vote on the previous question. all in favor of previous question and in debate on this matter please say aye. any oppose, nay. that chair is in doubt and we will have a standing felt. it requires a two thirds majority to pass. all of those in favor of ending debate on this matter, please, stand. goodness.

>> thank you. please be seated. all those opposed the previous question, please, stand.

>> thank you. you may be seated. the votes are as follows: in favor of the previous questionio 77, those opposed 21 with clear two thirds majority. previous question passes and we will now move to an immediate vote on the amendment. all those in favor of adopting amendment 38.1 as submitted by ms. unrolled zero colorado please say aye.se all opposed, nay.

clearly the nay's habit.ill taka okay. we will take a standing vote. oh, they tell me i don't have to because i party declared it and it's clear. have with uncounted. we stood. we are going to move forward. >> madam chairman. >> yes. >> i moved to reconsider. i was on the prevailing aside and i moved to reconsider. >> mr. oc has moved to reconsider. is there a second? there has been motion and second. all those in favor of reconsideration, which means a aye vote means we can reopen and continue to discuss this amendments.er a nay vote means we have finally concluded any debate on this amendment permanently. in favo all those in favor of reconsideration please say aye. all those opposed, nay. that nay's clearly habit and there is no further

reconsideration on this amendments. let's move forward now to amendment 30.2. this impacts again, rule number 38 and has been proposed by mr. ross of nevada who is recognized for the purpose of making a motion. >> thank you. i have decided to introduce a logo. [laughter >> just waiting for the amendment to come up. by the way, if anyone is asking i despise this logo and i have since i was 13. i apologize. at that was out of order. let's get a new one. big tough mean looking elephant with tasks. >> you need to check out liberty, which is that elephant on the cleveland 2016 logo. he's not mean looking, but he is standing on a guitar.t >> that's on improvement, but my

job title-- i like mean. >> can we get staff to bring this up. >> the sooner they get it up, the sooner i will shut up. [laughter]y i intr >> madam chair, i introduce rule 38.2 as presented. >> thank you. is very second? is been moved and seconded. mr. ross, would you like to speak to your amendment thank you madam chair. the language in this is precisely the same as an the member-- the moment i introduce and for those of you that voted in favor of that i think you and i ask you to support it again.se for those that did not support i want to go on record saying i understand your concerns and i feel that when this is all over there is no more division on this work we are all republicans and republicans are very individual. that's a fact of life. we can have honest differences.

when we walk out of here we walk out of here together. i'm asking to have this to clarify on the issue-- we did clarify the issue in the role: this clarifies the issue on the unit-- i have to put my glasses back on. there has been contention for some time that the unit rule inherently prohibits binding. i have said for years that it does not, but there have been arguments on both sides. again as i said before with rule 37 is time to put this to rest. let's go ahead and simply settle the question once and for all. i need to know that my constituents and understand, the millions of people who vote, they are not like me. in a couple of the people in this room. they are not playing inside baseball. they go in and vote for bill jones and if he wins the majority of the votes theyhe

expect him to be the candidate. that's all i'm asking here. i ask for a yes vote. thank you very much. >> thank you. would anyone like to rise in opposition? >> madam chairman, i would like to move on amendments to this motion. >> state your amendment. >> i would like to amend the entire rule 38 to reveal it.epe >> that is not germane to this particular amendments. you would need to move to strike the entire clause after we have >>alt with this particular item. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there anyone else who wishes to rise in opposition or support for this amendment? mr. lee. >> i rise in opposition to this amendment. think it's important to remember that has never said this committee we can make any change to any verbal we want. as delegates we can choose to

vote for whomever they choose on the floor, ultimately, assuming the rules allow that. in a lot of the focus today has been understandably on expanding our party and making its appeal broader, making those who havemi self excluded from a few more included. that's important. we sent the opposite signal every time we take our rule and clamp down our rules further. we make it less possible for delegates to exercise their right to to have a voice in this process. now, i think our elections are absolutely important to their essential and fundamental. delegates traditionally, historically have considered honorbound to follow the outcome of their state's primary and overwhelmingly have done so. but, historically it has also been the case that delegates

have retained some option, some choice on their own to make their own decision. in the unusual event that they find subconscious binding reason why they cannot do that. at the end of the day we have to remember that it's important foo our presidential nominees to win on to level-- levels covers the primary than the delegates. it almost always happens that i hope whoever our nominee will be this time were in fact went ovet the delegates. bench, rules like this are not quick to help that. a this problem, this ranks as we will seen a few days isn't just going to go away because we are overweight with rules, so i think mr. trump and those that align with him, make the case to those delegates who want to have a voice. make a case that they should use their voice to support him. don't make the case that their voices should be silence work that's not going to help. that's not going to help elect him president's. it's not going to help our party

in the long run. thank you. >> thank you. t is there anyone-- yes, please. thank you.of the is there anyone who wishes to rise in supports of the amendment? yes. >> i have great respect for senator lee, as we all do for representing our conservative values, but sir, i have to take issue with you on something my understanding is that you represent the grassroots. yet, what i don't understandoo about your logic is you want to ignore what i really the grassroots, which are millions and millions and millions of voters who voted for donald trump and instead transfer the opinion and expression of that opinion three votes to a couple of thousand delegates. now, to me if we are really representing the grassroots and we are really representing conservativism we listen to those voices and we exercise our

responsibility, but more importantly we advance the conservative cause. the only way to advance the conservative cause is through a strong republican party that is united to defeat hillary clinton and the democrats this fall. that's the only way to do it. [applause]. >> so, there is no one else running for president in this party right now than donald trump. no other person has said i am running and i will accept your nomination. no one is that in a vice presidents. no one is raising money with republican national committee to prepare for the battle, which begins with two months with early voting.ovement i have been involved in the conservative movement since 1972 , 44 years, a precinctrecinc chair, a door knocker and i will tell you that the most important thing to me is that we don't let the left wing takeover our country this fall and the only thing that is a standing between

that happening is our victory with our nominee and our ticket. it is time, sir, for you and everyone else to come together to say this party will be unitee and we will defeat the democrats and these emotions are a way to do it. thank you and i do applaud you for your service. >> thank you. is there anyone who rises in opposition, in opposition? are you rising in opposition? >> yes, madam chair. i'm from idaho as at a matter of decorum alike to prevent-- say see the future vice-- as future speakers be directed to the chair. i've a question if the sponsor would yield. >> would the sponsor yield to the question? >> if it's a clarifying question >> ask it through the chair. asked to the chair and i will directed to him. >> with regards to the language

in the amendment. nothing in this rule shall be construed pursuant to rule 16 a. mi rule-- read numeral 16 a6 correctly at the binding could be there through state law, state rule or just the result or the primary absent any state law or state rule you are still bound by the result of the primary. are those all three ways that you can be bound under 16 a that were in shiny with this amendment? >> s seems to require a legal opinion. mr. philippi, would you like to address that? the gentleman is correct. because the national party rules always serve as primary. of the national party rule incorporate the primary, national rules always supersede any state law to the contrary ot

in this case where there's a contrary rule any state party rule to the contrary scenic irregardless, if there is no state law and the state rule that binds delegates from not stay to the outcome of their primary they would nonethelessuo be bound to the result of the primary pursuant to the national rule? >> that is what the national rules provide. >> thank you. >> would anyone like to rise in support? are you rising in support or opposition? anyt am in supports. >> would you like to say anything else, sir? >> yes, a house divided against itself shall not stand. when i came into this, i was asked by one that was helping mr. cruz, if mr. cruz or senator cruise when would you vote for him and i said absolutely, yes. then, i said when mr. trump wins

would you because i know the binding is only as good as our word and she said i would. i need to ask all of you-- excuse me, because i'm very emotional about this. i need to ask you, are we going to do this together or are we going to be divided?lly the law says, the rule says you are legally bound to your candidate to whom you are standing with to whom you are walking with.i' i'm only as good as my word and i ask you to be good at your word. a house divided against itself shall not stand. he is the nominee because he won 1500-- 1543 delegate votes and 14 million people came and voted for him, so why cannot we as a body come together with the rnc and everyone else and get

together and show the whole world and the universe that we are a party, not divided, but a party of one. thank you. >> thank you. >> donald trump has made it official. he says he is pleased to announce his chosen governor mike pence to be vice president of running. a news conference coming up tomorrow at 11:00 a.m. eastern. also john at putting out that governor pence will be the first governor to relinquish his renomination to join a national ticket since illinois governor adlai stevenson in 1952 and we will have live coverage of donald trott's official announcement about governor pence tomorrow on the c-span network. watch c-span line coverage of the republican national convention beginning next monday in cleveland and a saturday

night at 8:00 p.m. eastern. we will take a look at past republican conventions including the contentious 1976 republican convention in kansas city missouri starting with the rules debate where he proposed rule would require your ford to select his running mate prior to the presidential balloting process and also feature speeches from the convention from president ford and former cow 20 governor ronald reagan. >> we have just heard a call to arms based on that platform. and a call to us to really be successful in communicating and reveal to the american people the difference between this platform and the platform of the opposing party, which is nothing but a revamp and reissue and a running of a late late show with the thing we have been hearing from them for the last 40 years. >> in 1952 convention in chicago with wright eisenhower. >> you have summoned me on behalf of millions of your fellow americans to lead a great crusade, for freedom in america

and freedom in the world. i know something of the solemn sensibility of leading a crusade. i have led one. >> known for his military career rather than political expertise, he was selected as the republican nominee and later won the 1952 election. in 1996 republican convention in san diego with former kansas senator bob dole. past national conventions a saturday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. the u.s. senate is about to come in for a brief performance session today with no legislative business conducted today or for the rest of the summer. these sessions will continue every few days through the month of august. the senate resorting for legislative tuesday september 6. live now to the senate.

the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 1:00 p.m. on tuesday, july 19, 1:00 p.m. on tuesday, july 19, >> the senate stands adjourned until 1:00 p.m. tuesday, july 16 , 2016. >> senate wrapping up its brief session with no legislative business today or for the rest of the summer. we expect to see these sessions every few days through the month of august the senate will be back for legislative work tuesday september 6. according to a letter obtained by political. but by mishkin senator gary

peters the democrats are asking the president to use the federal government to push the international atomic energy to publish details about iran public-- nuclear program. read more about this a politico.com. quick reminder that coming up at noon we will have a discussion on us policy towards syria. former ambassador to the un will talk about his views at the center for national interest with live coverage starting in about 25-- actually, 28 minutes from now and we will have it live on c-span2. coming up, before live coverage at noon today a portion of today's washington journal focusing on comments by by supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg and donald trump about each other. >> joining us now is jonathan truly, a law professor at george

washington university where he has been on the faculty since 1990. he is here to talk about the war of words between supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg and presidential candidate donald trump. good morning..ni >> thank you steven pinker joining us? guest: my pleasure.words st host: gives a rundown about how this war of words started between a supreme court justice and republican nominee for president. guest: this was breathtaking because there is in fact a codea of ethics that judges and this is the distinction that the justices draw, but the code ofw, ethics for judges says you cannot make these types ofof speeches opposing or endorsing a political candidate, so people were really taken aback when justice ginsburg when after donald trump and not one but three separate occasions and this can only be described as a tie rates. i mean, this was calling him basically dishonest that he lacked control and was driven by eco-. it was really quite

wrong and on top of that she criticized the republicans in congress for how they were tweeting president obama and not moving on his nomination of judge garland. all of that is well beyond the line of what people consider to be ethical conduct for any -- any judge. host: in today's "wall street journal" attacks a little bit about the origin of this spat between ruth bader ginsburg and donald trump with three media interviews over the past week justice ginsburg, 83 years old and senior liberal manor-- ever criticized mr. in increasingly sharp terms.um she said she thought it was funny and went on to call him a faker who has treated-- who is treated to jelly by the media. for instance, she said he had gotten away without releasing his

past returns. now, ginsburg has since: apologized. yesterday she released a statement-- she regretted. she released a statement that she regretted her comments, but she did not exactly apologize.t is right guest: that's right and i think your point is a good one, whicht she wanted to the extent of actually repeating a talking point for the clinton campaign which is you need to release her tax forms and that's really brought us to an unbelievable level work she did not apologize. she said this was ill-advised, which is rather mild because this was unethical. i mean, this was a very serious violation. a lack of judicial decorum that a lack judicial restraint. she did say that she would not let this happen again. what was troubling about it is that this was not the type of outburst-- i was very critical ofof justice alito when

during the save the union he started shaking his head and mouthingadou not to. i thought that was an outrageous act on histh parts, but it was a spontaneous act. he just-- the president just criticized the stream court. sandra day o'connor was criticized because she said it was terrible that gore was going to win florida, but she said that at a private party produces very different in the degree and in the form that she shows. in fact, she chose three forums, so there was this intentional and known aspect of it. and the report in thing to remember is that justice ginsburg was a court of appeals judge and was very familiar with 10 and five, which is a touchstone of judicial ethics. host: pocket bit more about the rules. do the same rules apply to supreme courts appl justices as applied to other federal justices or other federal judges tri on trial and appellate case level courts threat

united states could to you put your finger onob the problem and that is the supreme courtur justices and may come as a surprise to some people in the country, they believe they are built on or above the code of ethics applied to lesser jurists and their position is noterving entirely self-serving. it's what they areay saying is that the constitution creates the supreme court by name. it is in article three of the constitution creates it took us out great constitution of congress. congress is allowed to do that and that the conference that controls people-- legal ethics is a creature of those courts that those rules, that conference applies to lesser jurists. what that means is that the the united states supreme court is the only part of our government that has no enforceable code of ethics. many of us have been critical of that. i have been critical of it for years. i think it's outrageous and what's really troubling is that thein

justices have proven to be truly horrible in regulating their own ethical conduct, even though it came from the court of appeals. when they get to the supreme court they violate some of the rules that they used to live by and the result,he i think, is it lowers the integrity of the court. a majority of numbers of the supreme court have been accused of what most of us would consider serious ethical breach. host: we are talking to george washington university professor jonathan's early about the recent war words between ruth skater been stricken donald trump the republican presumptive nominee. we are taking your calls on this conversation as well. a bit about dom comes reaction to these events is played out today in the washington report.

those additional comments made by ruth skater bins-- ginsburg and trump fireback seenng in a tweet that the 83-year old justice should be resigned in her mind was quote shot. after her latest comment expressing regretshot." mr. trump said in a radio interview that ginsburg did not really apologize, but that he acknowledged mistakes and he was ready to move on. do you think this will be the end of this? guest: well, i hope it's not the end of it when it comes to the legal issue. first of all, i don't think there is any need and it's not anns appropriate question of is no the mental faculties of justice ginsburg. she has continued to write extremely found opinions. you can disagree with them, but there is no evidence at all that she is diminished in any way. that doesn't take away from the fact that she committed in my view a serious ethical violation, but her

apology, non- apology should not and they are. the american people need to look at the supreme court and see its flaws and not just the great aspects of that institution. there are a number of flaws. i've suggested to major reforms for the supreme court one is a code of ethics. the others i believe are the court is too small. i've advocated for the expansion of the courtme to about 19 members. we have the smallest court of any major nation and its creates serious problems like the one we're having now with the nomination that is frozen in amber. a justice who creates a great dysfunctional impact and issues onl amount remaining eight, ali byproduct of the fact that our court is to socially too small. host: on our democratic line we have mark from miramar, florida. mark, you're on with the professor. caller: good morning.ctive.

he's on record for being a gift for nuministration.. number two, clarence thomas and his wife have spoken numerous times at republican functions. he's a supreme court justice.rties. they had political views ms. ginsburg broke the law. she did not break a law. host: okay. let's let the professor -- caller: elections-- host: let's let the professor respond to that. voted guest: first of all i voted for president obama the first time.f i'm from chicago.public the fact is i don't think people whether they are republican or democrat should make excuses or draw finalized for what justice ginsburg did. what she did is extremely serious and saying that's not a crime doesn't answer the question. it's unethical. she is one of nine.

now, one of eight. we went through a period in this country when our course worked over political, people who supported the federalist or jeffersonian views. they actually would try to kill opponents. we turned the corner on that and in 1924, we adopted the code of judicial ethics, but even before that alexander-- alexander hamilton said one of the most importantimportant developments that we have is a system to guarantee the integrity of what he calls the requisite integrity needed to be a judge or justice. so, i know we are now in this red state blue state phenomenon and everyone has to either go with one team or the other. this is one time when we can as americans say, that is not right. i did criticize justice thomas and i criticize justice thomas, justice to guido, justice roberts, justice breyer i have been critical of them all because they are violating court

compcal rules. the price of the ticket to be on the court should be that you comply with ethics. host: is the court truly apolitical?but th i know we had that view when it was designed to be as such, but these are human beings that have opinions and this is a presidential year. should we expect them to give opinions? guest: they are human beings and we have to recognize that they make mistakes. justice ginsburg made a fairly large mistake, but they are largely apolitical. despite my criticism, if everyone treats the left or right, whatever view you don't agree with the other side is ideological. i think they try to get it right, but a lot of people object to that they have a jurist and consistency about them and that's a good thing, but there is a serious problem going on right now. years ago i wrote about the rise of what a call that celebrity justice. justices were beginning to speak publicly.

appeared to throw red meat to advocates like our last caller and justice ginsburg has been one of the leaders in that trend with her friend and now the late justice glia. they crisscross the country like rock stars and she goes to liberal groups and he would go to conservative groups and other justices have done the same thing and they love it and they develop this sense of an ideological base in my view, that's incredibly t disruptive to the court. i like the old model like david souter who spoke primarily through their opinions they did not go on these presss tours and speaking tours host: among her followers she is the notorious rpg from her followers. x, we have a caller calling in from west virginia on our republican line. good morning, carl. caller: good morning. i want to start out by saying i have lost all faith in the justice

system in washington dc. you guys live by different set of rules and you expect the restt of us to live by and i would like to say something about congress oversight.t. it's a joke. it is a joke. until somehow congress has some authority to indict and the conflictt wrongdoers in the federal government there will be no justice because whoever is president has the attorney general when interference for them. host: do you have any reaction?s guest: i think this is a common complaint and should not be dismissed. i mean, we do have this growing gap between washington dc the rest of the country and i'm not too sure the major parties have even registered that and i think part of it is that feeling anything is wired, that this is one big dance in washington.

i'm not sure he was entirely inaccurate. i think there are serious problems the way the city runs and i think it is driving much of the term campaign. it can be quite positive in one important ways that it has really shocked washington dc, but i think what we will have to do is take that anchor and try to put it towards productive direction and stc summer form. i don't necessarily disagree through toor jerry from naples florida on our democratic line. caller: ruth ginsburg, i think is correct because-- and honorable and nominal sum acquiescing fascism started by the debt-- republican party. if you're historically accurate you'll know that presidents have also been supreme court justices and in the

passive and political. all these politicians in supreme court judges are political. they make statements in public. they say the president lied right and congress. kaman. host: let's let the professor respond.m alwa caller: m always astonished it h with citizens like jerry that think it's okay for judges to be political. it's the worst thing we could have. we have had a code of ethics since 1924 that says you cannot be ended this business is about justice is running for president shows a disconnect with history. yes, justices have runav for president, but we adopted the code of judicial ethics in 1924r and judges adhere to that. i mean, the court judges as a touchstone of

ethics. even justice ginsburg has acknowledged that what she did was wrong. democratic leaders denounced ginsburg. once again as part ofou like wh this phenomenon of the red state blue state that if you like what someone says you find a way to excuse it instead of looking at the principal as saying wein have lots of people that could call out one c candidate or the other. if you think there is fascism in the worldview just spoke on c-span and that's a good place to speak, but we don't need the nine justices to go forward on politics. they have very few restrictions in their life and one is to remain apolitical. i don't believe that you seriously want to go down that and by citing the lido and shaking his head no and the state ofof the union is bizarre.ed many of us including me criticized him heavily for what he did. what he did was wrong or quito say, well, since he did it been ginsburg's right to do

it. when you do is say we want justices and judges to comply with 10 and five, which is the most fundamental ethical rules for federal judges. host: jonathan, does it go the other way as well? we have seen donald trump criticize a federal judge in his trump university case very strongly suggestingly, he was not even able to rule impartially. what about situationske like that? guest: many of us criticized trump or that, but it's a different question. he's not subject to a code of ethics. is a politician, not a judge. you does not have lifetime tenure. that's the price of the tickets and believe me politicians have beenan criticizing judges and justices were a long time. there was a movement to impeach earl warren and that's what you givelican them life tenure. he was wrong to attack the judge in terms of ethicist is the. many republican leaders exit called him out for that, but we need to distinguish between what's a matter judicial ethics and the context

of politicians. host: we are talking to a professor at gw law school and also former us-- sorry, served as a counselor in a number before the us supreme court including the clinton impeachment litigation. out next week at joanna calling in from maryland good on her independent line. of mori,. caller: good morning. i would like to remind professors that justice glia sat at the fox news table. he went hunting with dick cheney during a time when they were taking up a case involving dick cheney. i think he was pretty clear about his-- these on the internet there is, as was interviewed on the rush limbaugh show and his wife is the head of some sort of women's tea party group. this is not unprecedented and i think the hyperbole of seriously wrong and this

extreme of whatever-- professor turley is republican and has been on various political shows and is very very evident his republican. host: let's let him respond to all this. guest: i'm actually not a republican. i come from a long line of democrats and i'm'm i pretty liberal, but it doesn't really matter. what this is a type of call that really chills me to the bone and that is we criticize those justices for those w ethical violations. it is not a fair or a productive way of argument to say everyone else did it when those justices did what they did i call them out, plenty of law professors call them out and said this is wrong and this is why we need a code of ethics, but this is part

of the corrosive effect in today's politics that everything has to be t personal. we can talk about the principal. you would think we could at least rally around this very basic idea. none of them should be doing this. it's not enough as when we were kids to say well, he did it. all of those incidences that were cited for controversies that most of us condemned, but it takes a degree a principal for people to say i'm not going to get caught up again in who is supporting my side and who is supporting the other side.beyond we all need to support a code of ethics. these justices as i said at the beginning, a majority of them have committed ethical violation. that's not supposed tole be how it is an justice ginsburg acknowledgeho that in a statement. host: in fortune magazine, commentary by roger perloff says ruth bader ginsburg did step in it, now get over it according to this piece where he essentially says her remarks were inappropriate. of a mean she's human,

no denial. are we making too big of a deal out of this? guest: no, we didn't make too big of a deal of it over justice roberts who is involved in a case that he had financial interest, justice breyer. these are all important issues, all ethical violation. the idea of getting over it is bizarre. that's exactly what people in washington want. and went to have scandal and then they say they are sorry and they hope people walk away. we should not walk away. the problem here is that the supreme court is the only body that is not subject to enforceable code of ethics hereli there's not much for the public to require that none of these types of t incidents should occur and if people can just put away the partisan political stuff and looke at the principal that we have a right to recordt that applies with judicial ethics, the most basic than a question. what justice ginsburg did, what some of these

other justices did would have brought them before a very serious hearing in terms of ethicalof violation. host: next we have jean calling in from charlestown, indiana, on our democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. mr. turley i have to agree with the other lady. i think you are righthi wing and showing more than normal this morning. i want to know how much exactly did you criticize the fbi director for his personal opinion aboutna the other candidate?his thin guest: first of all, you have to distinguish between judicial ethics and the ethics that apply to other people, politicians and executive branch officials. we are tagamet judicial judges where we had gone a very bright line. none of this is a ambiguous or unclear line in terms of conduct lower court judges live

according to these rules. these injustices lived according to these. now, you can attack now you want. i'm an independent work i support many things that president obama has done. i just zero support how he is done them, but you, can attack me personally, but it doesch not change the fact that what justice ginsburg did was wrong and unethical. she has admitted that, but that should not endd the question. just as we had that alito controversy in the robbers controversy in the thomas controversy, all this controversies are people just walking away. it doesn't have to be this way. way. we can actually have a supreme court that complies with a code of ethics, but citizens are their worst enemy because they can't move away this partisan lens that they see everything. there are such things as physicals in this country and one of the most basic is found in the code of judicial ethics. host: let's switch topics of it, but still staying on the subject of ethics.

give you explain whatre and these universities are in their connection to bill and hillary clinton. guest: laureate is a for-profit educational group that makes a great deal of money. the company is an enormous and worth billions of dollars. a friend of former president bill clinton is the head of the founder of laureate. laureate has been shrouded in controversy with other for-profit educational. i have to admit a bias here that as teachers and professors have long opposed for-profit corporations because they turn education into a type of commodity, so many of us i would haveac to say the majority of us in education including the teachers t union have tended to oppose these companies.wh but, what was a shocking to many people is that president clinton received over $16 million from laureate to be a sort of

honorary chancellor. this was at a time when people were suing some companies that are subsidiaries or enacted to laureate. it also occurred when hillary clinton was it secretary of state, so there was a concern that most of laureate schools are abroad and that it'sth really helped to have that connection, so these various people that have raised the laureate connection. some academics, some educators have raised it because of the connection to what many of us view as a dubious business model of a for-profit education organization. others have raised thehe question of grants going back and forth and payment to the clinton crundation etc. that has created yet another controversy in this election. host: talk about the fact that it has not been reported as much for example as trump university issues with people complaining about that. does this raise the the

same sort of ethical issues in the case? guest: i don't think they are the same issues. i think trump university raises legitimateer questions of potential fraud. having the people there are saying they gave money under false pretenses, a donald trump was supposedly going to be a big part of it and he wasn't. they suggested that they did not get virtually anything for what was a large amount of money. bill clinton laureatenton-lau controversy has not received as much attention, but it's beginning to grow as people are wondering what did you get for $16.5 million, why do you have a connection to a for-profit company when later hillary clinton spoke out against these type of companies when she was just about to run for president and bill clinton resigned. then there was this question of all of these connections of moneyey going to the foundation and some organizations associated with laureates, so there's a

different set of questions and i think they ought to go to more per question of judgment in terms of the clintons. host: next we have larry calling in from spring granite, texas ot her independent line. caller: mr. turley, i thank you very much for your honesty. to me, money and politics go hand-in-handthe clin the clintons are a fine example of that. my question is, would you accept a seat on the judicial supreme courtco on tne of our judges? i wish they would nominate you. thank you and i will listen for your answer. guest: i accept your nomination and i will go directly from here to the supreme court and assume my office.m now, that is a great honor and not one that ii will ever see, so the issue really for me and i think for you and i thank you for your comment, is whether we

can get democrats, republicans and independents to step aside for a second in the superheated sometical environments and see if we can agree on something that i we hght was very basic and that is we have a right to a supreme courthe that complies with a code of ethics. we have a right to judges that are ethical and what they do. what we have seen unfortunately in the supreme court is when they became judges of their own case, something that we had long rejected as a a standard, they fulfilled every stereotype of that. rather than doing what i had hoped that they would which is a we are voluntarily assuming a higher standard and we will be more demanding of our self. that has not happened. five of the past nineas h have committed what i v consider serious ethical violations, both conservative and liberal because they had this immunity and what thatat does is create a type of arrogance and also creates this appearancece for the public that they

have been anointed, not appointed and that's a problem regardless of where your politics life. host: of next we have justin calling in from ohio on our republican line. good morning, justin. guest: good morning. i want to say that my comment-- i think justice ginsburg did donald chubb a huge favor and mitch mcconnell. is the merrick garland nomination and if it's any legal advantage for the democrats i would just say she completely neutralized it.et .. effective it is as a political tool, but i think she just tossed it. guest: i think that is true and no, asee garland going, she turned to him on the list of political statements and that this is not a good thing.