investigation. i should also say, my experience in the government i have found the appropriations committees have done very good oversight, not the traditional oversight if you will, where you can expect an adversarial relationship from the beginning but instead in part because of the process, much more collaborative relationship with experienced congressional staff and internal folks in the agency working things out and in recognition to carry's point that at this meal of the day the money has got to come and so there is a good incentive for working things out. ..

in my experience when you move away from toward the traditional oversight committees, my experience has been that this has not been a very good relationship between an administration and the congress. what i've seen, i will give two or three quick examples, are quite broad fishing expeditions, truly driven by partisanship, in context where it appears clear that it's all about partisanship. in other words, not moving towards a result of will affect policy in a significant way.

and i think that's an important litmus test for what those investigations are all about. had a tendency to go nuclear quickly, to go to the subpoenas and this is the next thing since benghazi and we will go all out. really? and i will just say i think it's ineffective. many of these investigations are ineffective for all those reasons but i will give one more. the tendency has been in my experience to have one or two big ones, try to get the big hit. and it takes all of the effort of the committee staff and internally in the administration to respond to these. win, you know, there are 70,000 employees to the department of the interior. a lot of things going wrong. there should be much more, let's not try to get the big one. let's start to make government work better and together or.

i'll give you three quick examples of the former situation where i think, well hopefully it will speak for themselves. one of them was there lies a in the summer of 2011. -- there'll ice. he called a lisa jackson the head of the epa, and meet. the title of your was something like how the obama administration is raising your gas prices. that was the summer when the prices were going up like this. the night before, the morning of the hearing it is an investigative report that were given. all one-sided, just the republicans. ranking chair comings had no knowledge of it. and it was a silly hearing. you know, mr. hayes, why are you not allowing oil driving in the -- oil drilling in the alaska

wildlife area? that cheapens the process of an oversight hearing. sorry to be so explosive about it, but i still remember that hearing. a couple of other quick examples that are where i think the initial inquiry was legitimate and appropriate, but then it just got carried away. i'll give an example of the gulf oil spill. we have a huge oil spill a great in the summer of 2010. interior department is obviously in the middle of it. we are the regulatory agency involved. one of the early questions was will the president and secretary salazar put a moratorium on deepwater drilling into we find out what really caused the problem and are convinced that we are safe? the secretary salazar ordered a 30 day report. this is literally while the oil is still flowing in the gulf,

and we pulled together a terrific experts to help us figure out how in the short term to make sure we make the cut of safety and adjustments that would allow us to continue to do deepwater drilling. the independent expert give a great input. it's clear that we need to do some things before we can continue the drilling, that the president later, in part based on this report, says we are going to do a six-month moratorium before we do drilling again. now here's the confusing part. the cover letter that went from the interior department to the president in for because of poor editing literally in the middle of the night at 2 a.m. that all of these independent experts were proposing that the be a six-month moratorium. that wasn't the case. it was clarified quickly. we were not rely on those independent experts. yet ultimately it was ken

salazar's recommendation to the president two-and-a-half years later, that investigation continued as to whether there was white house interference in this decision, on this moratorium. meanwhile, the is a final decision on a moratorium it. that's taken to the courts. the courts ultimately uphold that. it's clear the final decision is not based on those independent experts. there's no question about it. there's a record, it's a final agency decision. the course of prove it but yet literally in august of 2010 subpoenas are coming to the department of the interior to a half years later about this. this is clearly the concern that there was a moratorium for too long and it was politically-based. final example is something that still going on right now do with mountaintop mining. at the end of the bush administration there was a rule called the extreme buffer zone rule that define the types of

practices that those who were coming down the mountains in west virginia and filling the streams, but they had to do in terms of protecting the streams. our view coming in was that this was not a strong role so we started a new rulemaking. ultimately, by the way that 2008 rule was overturned by the courts so we needed a new rulemaking. early i in the rulemaking, thisl be an apa rulemaking following all the strictures of congress and subject to judicial review, early in the rulemaking, and incompetent contractor was hired by the department of the interior even before the was anything, we ended up firing this contractor. that contractor made some allegations about how many jobs would be lost if he took a different approach to mountaintop mining. uma, thatcher political issue.

-- boom that is your political issue. there were obviously interested in whether the department was biased or whatever or what was going on. fine, let's answer those questions. here we are though, there are seven letters on the oversight committee. obviously, a lot of interest from a lot of congress of folks. there's finally a draft eis. there will be a final eis and a final decision. look, and issue has been identified as a sensitive issue but let the process continue. we have an apa related process here that this is a sideshow issue, and, but it took the mountaintop mining in the moratorium took all the oxygen out of the room in terms of the issues oversight vis-à-vis the interior department. it's not time well spent. what i hope will come out of this discussion and perhaps it's

a mars in the situation, although i don't like the analogy. are remember the books, okay? you can look at your own personal life and see how that works out for you. but i hope, i do think that we do need to work better together, the congress and the british edition. we need to be smarter about it. but it is these kinds of things that put people in the trenches and put their defenses up and lead to litigation that i agree with kerry, it's no way to solve the problem for all those reasons. so i look forward to -- okay. there enough. and we go again, the administration putting words in your mouth. thank you. >> thank you, david. morton, your thoughts on this. >> well, i come from 35 years of

trench warfare. and i see these problems and what's been going on lately, and, obviously, a tremendously different perspective. i grew up, as i say, in the trenches. i worked with amazing members who are oversight or is, like john morris, john dingell, ben rosenthal, jack brooks, henry waxman, carl levin and chuck grassley. and all of them brought, and staffs that were loyal by long-standing. and they came to me for

perspectives on how do we get things done. did we ever do this before, kind of questions. but over the years i learned a lot, i think. i think i got a reputation as a zealot for congressional oversight, and it was well learned. i learned three things. first, the constitutional basis of congress' oversight power is virtually plenary, and that its investigative authority is irrefutable. courts have consistently recognized that in order to perform the core constitutional responsibilities, that congress can and must be able to acquire information from the president,

the departments and agencies of the executive branch. the structure of the checks and balances rests on the principle that congress has the right to know everything that the executive is doing, including all the policy choices and all the successes and all the failures in the implementation of those policies. the supreme court has made it absolutely clear that article i presupposes congresses meaningful access to information so that they can responsibly exercised its obligations to make laws requiring or limiting executive conduct, to fund programs supporting executive policies to which it approves, to deny funds for those policies for which it disapproves, and to pursue investigations of executive behaviors that raise concerns. i found in those years that

committees wishing to engage in successful oversight had to establish their credibility with the white house and with executive branch department agencies that they oversee ear early, often, and consistently. and in a matter of invoking respect, if not fear. although stand and special committees have been vested with a vast array of formidable tools and rules to support their inquiry, including, including cyprian court and appellate court approvals of practices and processes, including that congress has adopted for the conduct of its oversight and hearings, that do not accord with his is with the full panoply of procedural rights enjoyed by witnesses into adjudicatory proceedings. it out slowly critical to the success of investigative power

that there be a credible threat of a meaningful consequence for refusal to provide necessary information in a timely manner. in 1795, that threat has been the possibility of a citation for criminal contempt of congress or trial at the bar of the house, either of which can result in imprisonment or fine. and there could be little doubt that such threats were effective in the past, at least until 2002. in particular i would point out that between 1975 and 1998, there were 10 votes to hold cabinet level officials in contempt. all of those resulted in complete or substantial compliance with the information demands in question before the necessity of a criminal trial. it was my sense that those

instances established such a credible threat that a contempt was possible, at least until 2002, even the threat of a subpoena was sufficient to move an agency to an accommodation with respect to document disclosures and the testimony of agency officials and the white house to allow executive office officials to testify without subpoena. the last such instance was the failed presidential claim of privilege during chairman dan burton's 2002 investigation of two decades of informant corruption in fbi's boston regional office. i would add that it was a bipartisan effort, which was unusual for chairman burton, in which a contempt vote in a bipartisan manner was a certainty if the president did not cave in. and he did.

i'm kind of surprised that, you know, the session relates to simply these two cases, the myers case and the holder case. it's as if everybody is thinking that it came out of the blue. but those situations represent and underlie a congress that is presently under liberal siege by the executive. it has not suddenly come out of the blue. it is a calculated offensive. the last decade has seen, and i catalogued as, among other significant challenges, and unlawful fbi raid on a congressional office, the department of justice criminal prosecutions of members of congress that have successfully

denied them speech or debate protection, a presidential call option of legislation come of legislative oversight and agency rulemaking, presidential refusal to ensure the faithful resolution of enacted statutory discretion, the direction, an unsuccessful attempt at usurpation of the senate's appointment power, and with respect to investigative oversight of the actions of executive branch officials, the adoption of a stance that was first enunciated by the office of legal counsel of doj in 1984, that the historic congressional assesses of the criminal hearing contempt decide to ensure compliance with its information gathering prerogatives are unconstitutional and unavailable to a committee if the president

unilaterally determines that executive officials need not comply. such an instance, the department of justice will not present contempt citations to a grand jury as required by law. that's where we are today. these two cases that have come up are a reflection of a concerted effort to undermine congressional oversight. and the only thing that congress can do is to step back. i agree with the utilization or attempted utilization of confirmation powers, the appropriation powers, et cetera, et cetera. but they are not targeted. they are not going to frighten anybody. one of the panelists talked about transactional, you know, methods of settling disputes

over information. what that is, when translated correctly, is an ability to negotiate and stunningly over a period of time. congress have to look at what powers it has and get back to finding a credible threat that will bring the executive to the table and to negotiate. and if not, issue either a contempt of congress criminal action or revived the inherent congressional contempt. inherit congressional contempt stopped in about 1934, 1935. not because it was an effective. it was. it just took too much time and to criminal contempt process was

thought to be more expeditious. neither of which is true. the inherent contempt process can be made better, more acceptable. there is no reason now -- the supreme court has for over 100 years in four different cases established the constitutionality of inherit contempt -- inherent contempt. it has been deemed unseemly because it requires a rest, incarceration. and that isn't necessary anymore. the supreme court has, you know,

made clear in a case involving the senate's power over impeachment, that the trial can be, you know, preceded by conduct of the investigation it would be able to present to the senate at its trial and cut down on the time it takes for a trial. the same thing can be done by in total rulemaking, to make the inherent contempt process seemly. you can provide for an investigation, a presentation of recommendations to the floor of the house. and the penalty doesn't have to be imprisonment. it can be a fine. there is certainly dissident for.

secondly with regard to criminal contempt, that is also still necessary. the olc opinions this state -- misstate the history of criminal contempt. criminal contempt is also a necessary as, to be revived. there is no doubt an analogy to criminal contempt that is issued by courts when there is contempt of course. the supreme court in 1987, in the louis vuitton case, accepted the right of a court to appoint a prosecutor, to criminal prosecutor somebody who has been found to be in contempt of course, to bring a private

attorney, to bring a prosecution. the next year in morrison versus olsen, that louis vuitton case was cited prominently as a seemly and authorized means for a court to appoint somebody. when there is a criminal prosecution. it should be understood that it is constitutional for congress, congress has the same soft protections that the courts have. and the analogy is appropriate and i think in the next time that there is our refusal to bring a contempt of congress to

a grand jury, there should be a resolution that authorizes both an inherent contempt at the same time that there is a criminal contempt, and that the supreme court, in morrison v. olson, we'll come and support it, that there should be an injunction because there was only, what the justice department is saying is really that there is a a conflict of interest because their client is the president and also the executives. justice department in such situations has rules which is as if we do have a conflict of interest we will appoint a special prosecutor, either somebody within the department of justice who is walled off or somebody private, like an independent counsel.

over of those should be looked at because there needs to deleverage. this is all about politics. that's what it is. congress has had it, and needs to revive it, and not go to court. the court process, as kerry has experienced, means delay. delay for oversight means ineffective oversight. it goes away. thank you. >> i'm going to open it up to questions next, and i actually wanted to take moderators privilege and start with one. you started talking of setting you start with legends, senator dingell, senator levin, senator grassley. we heard from david and others on the panel about the contrast between oversight being used well and being misused. i was curious, on this panel but

can one as well, what do you think enabled that strong, or does enable that strong good use of oversight leadership and the figures who exemplify that in the past and what is limiting it now? in other words, why aren't we seeing more of the type of leaders in oversight hadn't we have seen in the past? what has changed and what can we do to maybe bring some of that leadership back? >> a sense of institution is gone, missing, and taken away. there is no sense today that if we enable effective oversight and enforcement by contempt of congress or inherent contempt, that there is not any thought of it because at the forefront will

be the other party will use it. you know, and we want to be sure that that doesn't happen. there is no sense of the responsibility and a duty of members that's common that there is a need for cohesiveness, i need for underlying, you know, maintain the integrity of the institution itself. it's a result, and it's not there. >> well, i want to go on record as being in favor of effective oversight. so anything that will contribute to that i am in favor of. i guess one thing i would say on this point is i suspect some of the breakdown if you will, and

let me start by saying, i don't agree that there is a lot of effective oversight going on. i think it is but there's a lot of high profile oversight matters that suggest that it's not doing well. obviously, it's not doing as well i think as it has in the past. i think at least in part as a function of the more polarized political world that we are living in that affects a number of things. we are living in an age of more tribal politics. i think it makes it harder for the minority to trust the majorities in congress and the majority to trust the minority. this in part is probably one i product of that. if we can figure out a way to make our politics more nice, then i suspect more bipartisanship oversight will probably flow from that, but i don't have an answer to that. >> it's worth noting that we

have this sort of sense there was this great historical moment when bipartisanship flourished everywhere. to some extent that's a function of the moment in which we are living right now, which is to say from much of the 20th century a partisan coalition were possible. the reason is there were races ago. the reason bipartisan coalitions were possible for much of the twisted is the democratic party was split down the middle between his northern and southern wing, and the republicans could make common cause with usually the northern democrats on very species and so when you look at the votes quite often you'll have some democrats and some republicans. that's an anomaly. if you look at the dates certainly leading up to the civil war, the fact that the whigs started their life as a party called the anti-jacksonian should tell us something. look at the election of 1800 which puts the current election

in some perspective in terms of historical nastiness, you can look at the investigations arising out of the great corruption scandals of the 1890s which are almost entirely done along partisan lines. there are few moments in american history in which bipartisan, this great kumbaya happens to it turns out it's not for reasons we want to emulate today. i want to push back on the idea that bipartisanship is something we should see is necessarily an indication of could help the politics. sometimes one party controls a lot of the levers of power and that's because they're engaging more effectively with the public, and in a situation it's not entirely inappropriate for them to present those claims to get more of what they want to use the mechanisms of power. other times where divided government because the public hasn't trusted either party and the conflict we see playing out in our government institutions at those moments isn't a result of democratic break-in. it's a manifestation of the

fights point out in the public at large. look around you. we are a somewhat divided polity at the moment. why should our institutions not reflect the friction that we have out in the world? that would be sort of a limited some part of our political diversity. that doesn't seem desirable to me. >> since we are all guessing, i'll put my own guess out there. two of the three examples i mentioned were oversight initiatives from our authorizing committee, the house natural resources committee. the reality is there's not a lot of legislation going on. the complete absence or near complete absence of a dialogue with the administration and across the aisle on legislation i think provides a bit of a vacuum that promotes this kind of thing. i served in the clinton

administration as well as the obama administration. i think it's getting worse, not better, in that regard. >> we're going to get you a microphone real quick. >> my question for the panel is to get a sense of your advice to congressional staff on carrying out effective investigations on a day-to-day basis. i've seen this as an investigator on the senate side, working for a private law firm, seeing this at an executive agency in the white house. and in a very practical way some of the lessons that i learned in the senate are not necessarily carried through, things like keeping investigations confidential until they are ready to be final, making them confidential, treating materials that are sensitive as sensitive. and in doing other things in a way for congressional staff to establish credibility.

i may be using that in a different way that you used it, morton, but in a way that there is, despite differing interest on either side of a congressional investigation that is a balance of power, and that those parties can establish credibility. as a lawyer yes, we do have different interest but we do believe that facts should carry the day and the truth should be the truth, and that's what investigations are bit to get after. if you were giving advice to congressional staff, keeping in mind many of them are young and under 30 and not necessarily lawyers, what sort of institutional advice would you give them? >> i advised him first to pay attention to the more senior folks in their ranks rather than going off half cocked. i mean, i'm of the school that the executive branch takes inquiries like this very

seriously. and in my experience it does. predecessor of mine in the bush administration went to jail because he lied to congress. so there are terrific incentives to be careful about how administration officials work with congress. and i just, i think it's like any other potentially challenging situation. professionalism really pays off. when both sides recognize that they have institutional interests, but ultimately they have the same interest in government working well. and ensuring that we are serving the american people. but obviously completely one-sided reports that, you

know, since chairman burton is taking it on the chin, the opening remarks of chairman burton in one of his oversight hearings was, you know, amazing to listen to. because untethered by fax, but on the other hand, chairmen dingell and chairman grassley and others not that way at all. let's start with the facts. let's talk about the facts and let's develop the facts. so i do think that maybe part of the problem is that has been a little bit of a churn. obvious on both sides of the equation and some of the real pros in terms of staff, congressional investigators have moved on and you do find some of the chairmen of house resources committee bringing in new groups of investigators who don't have the experience and who are think of this as i would guess more of

a political exercise than anything else. >> i'll tak take a brief crack t that from the standpoint of some who work in the general counsel's office as opposed to a committee oversight investigator or oversight lawyer. two things i guess i would say. number one, because of my background as a litigator my advice would be litigation century. you need to be focused, precise. i'm talking about subpoenas and requests for information. you need to leave as little room as possible for the departments, the executive branch departments to concoct objections. so you come at it from that standpoint. the other thing i think i would advise is given, notwithstanding my advice that litigation is probably not a great option for the congress, i suspect it's going to continue to be an option that will be used, and so

i would be giving advice on how to shape information requests and how to conduct the investigation in a way that makes it more salable into judicial context when we get there down the road. >> one thing which maybe is sort oof the flip side to what you were saying, which is it probably makes sense to think about it from a sort of lawyerly litigation like perspective some of the time, but also it makes sense to think about in terms of public politics. if you think about some of the most successful, like in the broad scope congressional investigations in american history. so think about the 1920s munitions investigations which almost certainly delayed american entry into world war ii i creating a large public peace movement, a movement that was skeptical of the warmaking capability of the administrative

state, or think of the church committee in the '70s. these are committees that were careful other also highly cognizant about the fact that their work didn't just faced toward the executive branch, wasn't inward but this out to the public. their reports are written and the hearings were structured so as to convince members of the public to adopt a certain perspective. it's a reminder that facts, facts are in some sense found but in another sense they are assembled. there isn't a sort of situation out in the world that your job is just defined. your job is to construct a narrative about the world and convince people of that narrative. that would be my advice in so far as you want the investigation to the real public punch. >> i've always experienced working with those people who were legends in oversight, that

they all viewed as a staged process. that you start with a problem and try to identify it. and construct relationships with the agencies that you were dealing with. at the same time. that's the importance of having long lasting staff, staff that's still there, and going from case to case and being credible as a long-standing group, that information comes in, there is some attachment to the agencies that are being overseen. and before those kinds of relationships develop, it

resulted in calls back and forth trying to avoid being a particular situation suddenly showing up in the "new york times" or the post or anything like that. and working through the kinds of problems that agencies to have in order to fulfill their objectives and the objectives of the president as opposed to the sense that congress has in vesting this power after the stage process usually went from one level of pressure to another, never starting out with a subpoena. the subpoena was, for a long period of time, it was there was a big event, and a subpoena, scheduling a subpoena conference, to vote for one,

triggered reactions, triggered some of the negotiation necessary. and if a subpoena was issued, that was a big deal. this is no longer there. subpoenas are, more committees in the 114th congress, committee chairmen have authority to issue subpoenas on their own that was never there before. it results in trigger-happy kinds of actions. going forward without having the full, you know, facts before them. brings that ford and is part of the public panoply their, getting information to make that

kind of oversight process really work. helping with whistleblowers, providing the background information that's necessary for going from one stage to the next. but i think that's important. i try to teach the people who were calling me, read this, here is, it's been done before and this is why it was done before, and where you can go at particular times. we don't have that institutional memory anymore in the committees or even in some of the support organizations that are there like crs and gao, which have been cut by the appropriations process and can't keep a steady people there. we've lost a kind of sense of

how oversight should be conducted in a way that is supportive, both back and forth. >> another question from the audience. microphone. but. >> thank you. thank you very much work i work for the department of labor. i am an economist by trade, not a lawyer. just listening to this passing conversation, it seems to me like the executive branch federal agencies are being asked to do more and more with less and less. i don't know how much of this is a function of the elections or more programs are coming online, but where are the resources to fund these programs, particularly in terms of human resources. civil service are being asked to do a lot, handling hundreds of millions of dollars worth of project. in the heat of getting something

managed it's hard to get, to look at committee oversight has been positive. i was also very pleased in the last session to hear that resources from a professor write may be a problem affecting congress also am in a lot of these things talk about institutional memory or in what has been a congress knows this is an army of unpaid staff but any member of think would say that is the backbone about this institution runs. so there seems to be resources lacking as well to keep people to maybe do more meaningful oversight over a long-term. my question is how much is resources at the end of the day may be something as simple as that causing this where lack of resources causes people to fight? and if so, how are you having these discussions to try to increase salaries, to try to

hire more people, to maybe even promise less to the american people of what government will do so you can get a better place where you can have programs that are effective, have the proper oversight and bring this together in a way that is less, seems more on the legal side, subpoenas and things. i'm just hoping to never experience. thank you. >> steve, send him a subpoena. [laughter] spent i'll be real quick. you a racing i visited questions about the overall funding for congress and for the agencies because the really big issues, and beyond the scope of this conference i suggest. i will just say that resources are an issue, and went to our investigations that are very broad ranging and with lots and lots of document requests, and it appears to be clear from administration perspective that this is really partisan driven

and not seriously driven to improve government and get a better result. it adds to the resentment and it makes the accommodation process more difficult, and i think probably along gates the process -- elongates the process and makes it difficult to the professionals like you would have been a lawyer situation where you have a tough negotiation. just get to the bottom line more quickly. i think it's an exacerbating issue. i do not think it's, the relatives administradministr ations find the resources that they need to get these things done. but when there is not a lot of respect on either side of the aisle, not the aisle, the administration, the avenue, then the resources issued exacerbating the problem. >> i think i agree. it probably contributes.

i don't really know. i don't have any empirical data. i suspect you are probably right that there are resource issues on either end of this. i doubt if there were adequate research on both ends everyone was happy with resources, i don't think the problem goes away. i think it's a more calm at the moment at least i think it's a more philosophically driven conflict between the branches. >> its concerns about congressional staffing levels and specifically having adequate congressional staff to do oversight was one of the main driving factors of the 1947 congressional reorganization act which did increase the staff resources. one of the more robust public polling findings is that people across both parties think members of congress have too many staffers and to think members of congress have like an order of magnitude more staff than they do. people think there's this giant army of congressional staff. everyone in the room knows that's not true, and you want to see it cut.

at least since the 80s it's been hard to push for more congressional staff because of those two intertwined misconceptions. >> there was a third less staff at least over the last two decades. it's tripled actually. people don't state enough. pay has been cut and that's important. incentive for having the institutional memory that allows for more effective oversight and comfortable this between the branches. and on the hill itself. >> we have time for one more question.

>> brandon sawyer. i had a question, we talked a lot about committees and subpoena power. if you have insight into the role of individual members who are not chairman of the committee, how can the exercise oversight in one of the things i thought of was in the senate, the use of holds on nominees to get information wholly unrelated to that individuals, the merits of their nomination, if you think that's into seemingly category or is that going nuclear category? >> it's not going nuclear. it's conventional warfare. [laughter] and it's very effective. having been held up twice for many months and both times i was confirmed, but don't tell anybody how effective it is, please. [laughter] >> rand paul figure this out effectively.

he did it with dci, is that with a lot of people and he's gotten in many cases a lot of what he wanted out of the administration. i think, okay, i should qualify this. what i said i think it's great what i mean is i think it's great as it's a way of members of cars getting what they want. i don't necessary agree with paul's goals in those particular cases but it's what i start off talk about. congress has all these different levers, ma houses of levers they can pull. individual members have levers with a couple. another thing they can do is try one brought up -- leaking state secrets is one way members have influence in public policy and but helpful ways actually. so, for example, -- >> don't go there. [laughter] >> so, for example, a senator lee the pentagon papers to the press. in the 80s, action in the

'70s a lot of what led to the creation of the church committee was leaks that had come out of congress. in the '80s flicks about cia activities came again out of congress and ways that a been tremendously helpful. as long as its members doing on the floor, which in many cases it has been henry councils in the early '90s in the run up to the first iraq war, they had, that is one of the constitutional tools they can use. >> yes, and you understand the executive branch's argument with respect to anything that might be since it is we can't give it to you because you will leak it your spirit but that's the argument no matter what happens. if you look at all the major leagues briefly, that's the argument the executive branch relies on. then you look at who's leaking the most harmful stuff, it's all the executive the. edward snowden was an essay. chelsea manning was military. that's the argument they're going to use but they would use that argument whether it's true

or not. >> next up we have the vice president of the constitution project with a few remarks, but before we get to start, please join me in thanking this really distinguished panel of experts. thank you all. [applause] >> thanks very much. i have to say i didn't think that was the discussion i was going to follow, but in any event i want to take two or three minutes to offer a few concluding observations on the basis of what i think were too terrific panels today. i want to start by taking a step back to comment senator levin at the outset. and effective and well functioning oversight system is critical to our democracy. i think we've heard several panelists that go it's important to both congress and the executive branch. in that regard they should be important to all of us, not just immediate stakeholders in the process. we've heard different folks on both panels sort of touched on some of what makes high quality

oversight and that kind of obstacles that stand in its way. i think it's worth highlighting a few of those things on our way out, particularly given that moment in time that ron white flag on the first panel, congressional presidential elections coming up with uncertain results, a particularly good time to reflect on all of these issues. some of the characteristics of high quality oversight i noted folks identified, probably the number one it is fact based and not politically driven. that it's not partisan. so what has an objective legitimacy to it. that is bipartisan, although josh might disagree that's an important condition. that it's in depth, so that there's a mechanism for if there's an investigation, so oversight could then be ongoing, there can be follow-up, regular monitoring beyond whatever the initial sort of investigation is.

that executive branch folks who are the subject of oversight feel like they are being treated fairly, even if the process is adversarial. some of the challenges or obstacles that i noted that folks raised. low-quality oversight might have been the most repeated one. when the executive branch fuels or there's some object of, that oversight of politically driven or its unduly burdensome in some other way, that it is a bipartisan. again, josh, excepting you out. that it is a bipartisan the insufficient resources or capacity for committees and staff or the members who are carrying this out. andy's point about is the just and inherent philosophical difference between the branches in terms of the roles and responsibilities with respect to oversight. i think both of those sort of

characteristics of high quality oversight of the challenges and obstacles that stand in the way suggest some potential conditions for facilitating better oversight going forward. some of them are going to be obvious from what i flagged already. avoiding low-quality partisan oversight. in part i think senator levin flak vests out the outset so that courts don't have to step in and fix rights and the sponsor of both sides in ways neither branch they find acceptable going forward. making sure committees have experienced professional staff with appropriate resources and training. ways to build relationships between executive branch personnel and the committees who oversee them. maybe there needs to be more opportunities for that particularly if staff turnover is happening at a rate that it wasn't previously. and then i think one i find interesting that was brought up numerous times is that the sort of 80/20 problem.

if 20% of the oversight is what the public sees and a lot of the really sort of problematic are what the public feels is partisan driven oversight is in that 20%, they don't know about the 80% that is working. is there a way to raise the 80%, old so that people see that as more of a functioning democracy and so that there can be lessons learned from the 80% that perhaps are not leading into the 20%. so again flagged this all because it's an important time to be thinking about it. as david said these are not issues that we sort of built into in depth today and got the scope of this conference but i do think it's, i hope we can have, this one was wonderful. i hope the various stakeholders who are now are in the room and may have tuned in remotely will fix serious about this stuff in ways in which they can help facilitate more effective

oversight in the next congress and administration to. without i want to again thank the leaven center, senator levin, all of our panelists, the pew center for hosting us. i really thought this was a terrific event. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> the southern poverty law center called a press conference with civil rights leaders today urging president-elect donald trump to denounce acts of hate in the u.s. following the election. see it live at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. this afternoon senators chris coons of delaware, amy klobuchar of minnesota and james lankford of oklahoma discuss congress and governing with the new trump administration. we are live from the event posted by the george washington university at 6 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> we are asking students to participate in this year's studentcam video documentary competition i telling us what is the most urgent issue for our next president donald trump and the incoming congress to address in 2017.

the competition is open to all middle school and high school students grades six through 12. students can work alone or in a group of up to three to produce a five to seven minute documentary on the issue selected. up grand prize of $5000 will go to the student or team with the best overall entry. $100,000 in cash prizes will be awarded and shared between 150 students and 53 teachers. this year's deadline is june the 20th, 2017. that's inauguration day. for more information, go to our website studentcam.org. >> with donald trump elected as the next u.s. president lonnie a trump becomes our nation's second foreign-born first lady since we say catherine adams. learn more about the influence of america's presidential spouses from c-span's book first lady's. the book is a look into the personal lives and influence of every presidential spouse in american history. if they continue to c-span's well-regarded biography tv

series and features interviews with 54 of the nation's leading first lady's historians barbara face of 451st ladies and archival photos from each of their lives. aske.. in just a moment.

[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] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> ladies and gentlemen, our program will begin in a few minutes. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> hi, good morning, everyone. my name is chris goretti, vice president communication and event here at the post. thank you for being here today and i want to thank the people watching online. hohmann's newsletter and sure you've read every morning, but it has become a must-read for sharp analysis of our and

politics in washington and were really excited to continue the series today with james interviewing house majority leader kevin mccarthy about the top priorities in a republican-controlled washington. i would like to think our presenting sponsor for the series, bank of america and welcome tony allen to the stage, head of corporate reputation at the bank and he's going to say a few words for us. [applause] >> thank you, chris. good morning, everyone. thank you for the "washington post" to bring us all together. we are excited with our relationship and the opportunity to support me in dialogue about the path forward and responsibility we all have ensuring the future. today bank of america employs more than 200,000 help one out of every two households and small businesses.

we have a presence in the top markets and maintain more than $909 at monday's in the marketplace. we learned several years ago what happens with our success and that of our customers and communities and we've taken those learnings to become a better more connected company. the simple recognition that our success directly ties to help the american economy and help the american community and that includes taking care of our veterans. since 2012, bank of america has donated more than two 2000 homes to returning to and that is more than any other u.s. bank. our driving belief is growing responsibly, supporting communities we serve and align interests with those of the american people by definition make us a stronger, better organization. it is in that spirit as the night on her and her important responsibility to be in this conversation with all of the today and for years to come. thank you very much.

[applause] >> thank you, tony. i would now like to introduce national to impose political correspondent and creator of the daily 202 james hohmann with house majority leader kevin mccarthy. thank you. [applause] >> thanks, chris. i feel very lucky to have house majority leader kevin mccarthy with us today. good turnout in the audience on a rainy day in the lame duck session. >> if they feel tired, i just flew in from california. >> is a lot going on. the lame duck is in this exciting as could have been. let's start with the news overnight, tom price, congressman from georgia is going to be the health and human

services secretary whose a staunch opponent of the affordable care act. was your relationship like? >> we couldn't be closer. the chairman of the budget committee, orthopedic surgeon. he's the republicans putting together a better way of how to repeal and replace obamacare. i believe this is a very good decision. i thought this would happen early on. which is nice that we got my pompeo going to cia, tom price within their. i talked to the administration elect almost every other night and how many are you going to take from all of this. there's a lot of good people that have been working hard on these issues that are going to make it in my perspective easier to get the job done.

>> who were you talking to in the administration? >> president-elect donald trump. i talked to mike pence. >> are they eager to work together? >> i feel everyone feels close about working together. one thing i want to do, i've been on a couple morning shows and sometimes my mouth says something that had us thinking differently. i think i said today is put in a calendar out today. i'm putting the calendar out on wednesday and i've been redoing the calendar come especially for the first hundred days this year. it's not just the idea of what day should we be in session in concert with working with the new administration and working with the senate, what would we be doing that week, the next week and the other week? the house bricks faster than the senate timelines. we don't have this great work.

so our movement will be faster, the planning out one of the roles of majority theater and managing the committee. seeing what we can do, what we should be doing at this time and mapping all of this out knowing things change and you have to be flexible, but you'll never get all this done if we don't start working early. >> we will comment early on the third. two and a half weeks before we get sworn in. are they going to be more legislative days next year? >> i'll explain not all to the members i will walk them through everyone else. >> members are eager about that. weeks will be longer. the first 100 days will be more. there's certain times i wish we could be a paid one week right before the not grow security wise. they've got a couple retreats. democrat or republican retreat.

those are helpful. ours are done with the senate as well so to me that is working in the process. >> let's talk about the first hundred days. you are mapping out your calendar. what is the benchmark for success in the first hundred days? we came back. >> i'd like to see progress. first thing you find at the very beginning. what i found in the past administration and his frustration with the country and lack of growth. one of those elements if you look at the economic project to be down in america three straight quarters. you are hiring people to do with regulation. we no longer have coequal branches. reorganizing where we have coequal branches, bringing the article went back to the sea the very beginning ransacked, but midnight rule of their others going through. we have some element of certain things we can do from the prospect of a check and balance.

we have a congressional review act in the senate based upon regulations that have passed. the first six years of the obama administration with almost 500 new regulations. so how do we really not back in doing congressional review act? does take 15 legislative days to be privileged in the senate so you can't start i'm not until the 24th. we have not done a budget for 2017. you'll see a budget start in the senate. as many of you know from being here, that is your reconciliation. that is some element of how you deal with the deficit. one of the elements you can do with obamacare in the repeal of it. you can't replace it but you can start the process to repeal. you also have a budget for 2018. when you want to do tax reform.

when it comes to the border, the administration and others want us to get that done quickly. you'll see movement on not. you the talk when it comes to infrastructure. we are looking at ways we make the economy start working again. the administration you have to feel. the supreme court will have an appointment they have to fill in there. we've got to get work being done and we cannot wait any of the weeks. all of these things we've been working on and a better way ahead of time so you've got a lot of that work through committee dad and you finish populated. we are in a stronger position than all the others. democrats how to pick their leadership yet. if there's one person i can root

for, nancy has more support. i'm just seeing if your weight. >> he said last week the house majority will have the lead. >> to know some people in the senate always say one term to long. i don't want -- i want to help her. i think that's a good place for her to be and it's the same majority. can you believe she put out that she wants to keep the current dccc? outlook about filing but she wants to keep them. >> i want to talk about the issues, but you were prior to the integral in charge of recruiting the 2010 past. you were one of the young guys.

if you were giving advice to young democrats, despise the pellucid point, what would you tell them, how you come back from the wilderness? this is the first time you got elect did. >> the country has already decided policies are not where they want to go. they rejected your maturity, but she kept the same leadership. the leadership is 75 and 76 years old. that is not the future when you look at what we did recruiting, you've got to stop washington from recruiting. you don't want to talk somebody into running. you want to ask them why they want to. they have the right reason that they want to enhance that you don't want to prepay. you want to represent their own area. we always put measurements so people have measurements of where to get.

and 2010 were defeated 63 in comments. the story always love to tell. i'll finish this one. i go out and i'm recruiting and barack obama at the time a 70% approval rating. i sit down with stephen and he tells me he's from fraud to tennessee. he said i'm just a farmer and i'm watching the country change before my eyes and i don't know how to tell my children. i said that's a good reason. he said i don't know if i'm the best person. he says they've never been elected to anything. you don't have to be elected. i've never even been to washington d.c. on vacation. as of right now you're my top recruit in the nation. he announced he was going to run. i came back to my conference.

i found the person that defines this election. here he is having never been to d.c. having never run before they decide to risk all his finances all his life as he watched his country change. it frustrated him that far that he was willing to do it. truthfully a lot of the media laughed at me. so once he got in, the democrat opponent stays in and backs out and is other people got billions of dollars. you know what? when you look in congress, he's retiring. the first are the jobs act which people say was one of the best bills. tenet of the author about was? >> let's unpack some of the issues with the first hundred days he mentioned several starting with obamacare. what sort of mentioned it but tom price. you mentioned backstage you are putting something together.

>> we will repeal obamacare. one thing i've always found is the argument once you need to change the health care system. obamacare will not stand on its own. 23 co-ops when they passed obamacare, what were they given? $3 billion, now 16 of them failed. you go through all the ramifications of people leaving the market. a lot of states only have one option in there. we never thought that would succeed. repealing that you want to make sure you replace it properly. this is the problem that they close ranks and didn't listen. they made it a political decision instead of a policy decision. we've done a lot of work when it came to king burwell when we thought there'd be a supreme court case. there was a supreme court case that the decision was going to go differently. we put a group together to map out where we would go in at the time it was the chairman ways

and means paul ryan, but the other thing we did, we brought governors and, listen to governors. what we thought would work at the very beginning is not where we finally ended up because we sat there and talked policy. what is the best policy you can get through it and it happened to work process. i'm putting letters out this weeks while the governors and insurance commissioners. give me your ideas on replacement. we have to make sure we get this done right. >> when they think it gets done? >> repealing is easier and faster. replacing is going to be 60 votes. i don't want to set a time limit that this has to be done by this certain day. i want to make sure it gets done right. >> what do you envision a bunch of things that are really

popular, some of which aren't that expensive, but some of which are geared >> to talk about preexisting conditions and your children 26. where did those ideas stem from? i believe those today. we've got an idea in a better way. that's one place to start. i sat around the room many times trying to come up with the replacement plan. it wasn't until king burwell forced us to start making decisions and i think that's going to be very helpful. i also want to have to want to have the states out there because i think having more competition, having options for people. i was used the analogy when i want to pick a cable company to watch what i want to watch on tv, i love the options i have.

i love the ability to switch in the different packages that i like a certain sports team. i want to watch hbo or something else. i could make it tailored to myself. why can't we have help care in a manner? >> immigration. a high priority to do something about the border. what does that look like? is that the wall? >> you have to secure the border no matter what you do appear the administration cares about it but i would say that the bipartisan issue. i looked at the democrat plan in the senate when they did their bill they've put billions of dollars for border security. you've got to have a secure border and to see people work on not. there can be a good thinks the system works. if you believe the current system works and we perpetuate. 40% of everyone who is here

legally came here legally on a visa. if somebody comes here and they get an engineering degree and we tell them to leave but we do this just luck of the lottery and his chain migration where you bring your whole family in, i don't think that's a system that's working right in america. we are a country that assimilates and believes in would have greater control over what that means. >> d. since there'd be an appetite for larger comprehensive reform >> i believe there is, but i don't believe there's any believe there's any trust to do in comprehensive immigration reform without proving the border first if there is a lack of trust, people believe you have to start with that. so let's start with that. >> you have a lot of relationships. the main employment not there.

immigration is obviously important to the issues you just mentioned. how important is the immigration component to what they wanted to talk a lot about your innovation agenda? >> it's very important. in california i'm in a very diverse district. cesar chavez is in my district. so i thought the guest workers program from the agriculture where i come from. two families in my district grow to 80%. did you ever eat a baby carrier? you want a secret? there is no such thing. we don't charge you more, but that's what we do. we are sending people. we want an economy that grows and people that want to be part of america. >> there's some tension here in the republican party.

jeff sessions wants to reduce illegal immigration. not just securing the border. there is some people who supported the current president a black who want to reduce legal immigration. he would have no appetite for that. there is a place for legal immigration. >> there's not one person in this room who can't trace their family back. we have the best rates in the neighborhood. guido palladino came from daily in 1921. it just so happens it's my grandfather. jeremiah mccarthy came in the 1860s from ireland. and they made a great contribution to this country. one of the grandchildren became a leader in the house of representatives. we have to keep that dream alive and i believe we can keep it alive but we also have to secure our parties.

there's a logical way we can go about this that we maintain this and maintain the core tradition of america but also protect dean that people want to have nothing in brandon. you cannot keep a country strong without the rule of law. if you don't have a secure border and people are breaking the rule of law by coming into the country illegally, and you'll break down society. you want to keep that value and people went through the process to make that happen and what to make a legal system that works. >> moving onto tax reform. big ticket item, president-elect talked about tax cuts. do you see any prospects for tax reform in the coming year in congress than what that. >> article i with all tax reforms so you know it starts in ways and means.

we've already started working on this. look at a better way. it will be simpler and fairer. you end up with three rates, not five. there will be a reduction in rate. it's kind of how it's crafted for the process. if i look at across this country the frustration, the movement of what we saw in this last campaign, the middle class less today than we were eight years ago. the number one thing we have to do is grow this economy. they have a 3.5 or higher annual growth rate. 1.5% growth. you do not solve the problems. he did not solve the challenges by cutting government. we have to grow this economy and

tax reform, these are the key elements of making the economy began to grow with all the things people try to scare you about having become president find they are not true. the market was going to drop on not election night. they if you look at the economic factors before, business investment was down, credit committee was down. we could get business investment and get a return and a good place to make an investment. productivity for people working. tax reform. writenow we have a system or structure that tate's behavior. usually you have the benefit to have a foreign country, by. we punish you to bring the money back to america. it is all backwards. some of my best friends create

companies someone took them over because our tax advantage was a distant image. >> republicans have been nervous about deficits in the last eight years. they were nice nervous when george w. bush was president. a lot of members in the last eight years to put a high priority on deficit spending. the >> i'm one of them. >> you can do dynamic scoring. the budget came in with high expectations of growth. how serious are house republicans going to take deficit spending? >> we are very serious about it. you cannot have a debt equal to the size of your economy. every great society has collapsed with the overstretched themselves. you could manage that, but it's different. the size of the debt that i have on my home is one i can manage. i still live in the very first time i ever bought. instead of going by his military

house. how to resolve this problem? it's what i talked about earlier. you have to grow the economy. we were very successful in 2010 when we put the caps-on discretionary spending. it is mandatory spending. discretionary 10.67. a trillion dollars, but medicare, social security, interest on the debt, that is 66% of the budgeted on its way to 75. during ronald reagan's term that was 75%. so we've got to get a handle on mandatory. we've got to grow the economy to get it out of the problem. that is why tax reform is so important. >> how important is it that they will be rather natural? we are talking about an infrastructure spending package that will be hundreds of billions of dollars. >> you wanted to be paid for.

they are the different philosophies if someone is keynesian or not. i believe government lowers taxes. i'm going to say will get less. what will we do with money? they could grow faster than government. we are going to get more revenue. history has proven me right. it's the way you want to look at it. if you go to an infrastructure company want to pay for things. another key element we find in our conferences we are frustrated. we put in, but some of the things is why does it take 10 years to build a road you voted for a decade ago. population doesn't stop growing and it moves right by it. can't we bring commonsense reforms where we can streamline the building of that road and others? let's be able to have the benefit at the same time.

>> is part of the infrastructure package. you think infrastructure can get done in the first hundred days? >> i'm not going to put a timeline on it. i will give results and i want to get it done right. i put more days until we get this done. there's always the window we know that an election year things are harder than the first year. we want to get as much done correctly as soon as we can. there is an ordered base to do it. >> you feel like obviously you weren't down during the previous republican administration. i guess you were. >> i came in the minority. there's only 13 of us. >> that's amazing. 2006. >> that's right. do you feel like house republicans are getting to service that this agenda or to what extent -- you are obviously in touch. >> we all work together.

i think the house has a greater working majority. i think the house by creating a better way is better prepared for some of the issues we are going to deal with. the senate has some odd rules. i think the 60-vote is guaranteed gridlock rule, but i also look at democrats who are sit in states that donald trump carried that will probably be more helpful in this perspective schumer will be newer than harry reid. maybe schumer is more likely to work and negotiate on something. our committees are often better prepared. >> on this bipartisanship point or a democrat from indiana, missouri, west virginia. you set on the obamacare replacement you're going to need 60 in the senate. what else do you think you can get democrats both time not just in the senate but also the house.

>> i've always found if you study history the first nine that's the length of the president kids. there is a 61006 and people see identified down. it depends what were moving. if there is a big challenge right now, yeah i think nancy wentz, but i think she started lost the base of her conference. so they are going to be more willing and realize they are sitting in districts were a lot of their friends have often people voted for wanting to get this country moving again. tax reform is interesting to see how many will vote for repealing obamacare what this repeal by would they be willing to vote for a replacement. yet no other options are just going to play politics with it. i think you'll find quite a few that are coming from rural america and others watch the administration put in where they

took out total industries and they watch their own constituent lose their job. you will find quite a few willing. >> talk about governing bigger picture. the ideological spec trim. there were 20 members or whatever the number was. they kind of wooden boat for anyone even when it was a pretty good deal negotiated because it was voting to raise the debt ceiling. how are those folks because you know them while going to respond when a doj cut to get to 60 or whatever, 70% good. do you think now that there is unified republican control and the guys are going to come along or do you think you will still a dozen, two dozen members who just are going to let perfect be the enemy of the good.

>> we are a microcosm of society. members are all different. i think structure dictates behavior. there is a perfect structure where you had a different party in the presidency. you could do those things. and if you utilize the freedom caucus to do that, in that the house republicans weaker because then you had to negotiate with nancy pelosi. if we stuck together, we are always stronger. i think you'll see a sticking together more. there is flexibility for the freedom caucus to do those types of names. i'm sure those districts, donald trump probably did the best end. it would be hard to stand up if president-elect trump is asking for this fundamental change and they say no to it. i think that is harder. i think we are more united, too.

>> speaker ryan has done a great job uniting the congress. >> is sequestered. you have military resources in your district. obviously the sequestered has been hard. >> sequester part is difficult because that came from the obama administration and the challenge of it was we should do our own work to avert that out. if we were able to be together. we saw above that. >> can use the lifting of sequester? >> you're not going to let the cats. you can ta about where you make investment. in a sequester, you are not being able to prioritize and i look at the thought that if you

get elected you should take responsibility i don't want to go in debt. only a certain amount of money i want to invest in the right place and not solve some of the problems. >> let's talk about california, your home state. you are lucky to the most republican district. >> california is one of the few states where hillary clinton did better than barack obama. >> if you talk all about this popular vote and electoral college vote first of all, you cannot have been an election where you determine the outcome one way and then argue after the election you did better here. if the game game of baseball is you have the most scores u.n., but i got the most home runs, it doesn't work. but if the game is played, i would've played it differently. she beat donald trump by

3 million votes. so if you take california out, donald trump won the popular vote could order united states. there are things they can make an argument one way or another. if we elect our president by the electoral college, whoever got to 70 is going to become the president. california we did not lose one congressional race and the democrats played every hard. we came close to winning one in sacramento where scott jones wasn't decided until last week. i still think california has a place we could see how republicans win. i'll give you an example. the district next to mine is one that is 72% hispanic. david validator represents that district. david won by 60% of the vote in

a year where hillary clinton did very well. i think we have abilities to expand. >> on the popular vote question, one of the things he treated if not for millions of fraudulent accounts was. any sense of fraudulent voting. >> the election is over. i'm not into this recount. we have the campaign. i think everybody was ready for the campaign to be over. we made our decision. what is interesting is how the arguments prior which you respect the election or not. less government, let's move on. >> to close the loop you didn't see any sign of fraud in your home state? >> i say less government. we have elected officials that

carry this. county by county is different. i can go through every aspect. absentee ballot in one. anyone can make any argument you want and you can put a fact based upon the argument. the election to me is over. they want to govern now. the recount is not going to be any different as you go through. maybe a few votes one way or another on the town and to those that it has. >> again which are saying. the public does want to move forward. but it's important for the legitimacy of the election that the american people believe the votes were counted fairly, that there wasn't widespread fraudulent. >> yeah, let's move on. >> or was there? >> i looked at the election, felt the results come in. trust but verify. i don't have a problem. i think it's time to go. >> moving on. donald trump you agree to be a delegate at a time when a lot of

republicans here and around town were not willing to do so. you kind of helped in a lot of ways. now is president. he is coming in. we talked a lot about the policy agenda. there is some conservatives a little bit worried about some things about him. kind of touching on a couple of the issues that have come up a lot in the last few weeks, the potential conflicts of interest, the fact that he is not following the traditions that some other presidents have followed, does that worry you, bother you? >> i don't think that is fair. let me tell you why. i see this on a micro level where there will be somebody runs for congress who has never been elected before. a small business owner by name because they never think before they run all have to change

everything. they don't know. they haven't had to do any of that. when they get elected the ethics committee comes and says he got to do this or this and they tell you this and they tell you to do the this and excited to do certain things or they change their the other way. they just want to go serve. we set the rules that to really punish you if you've been in business because we start with the idea go do something corrupt. the aspect that when he did don mckinnon, he took this seriously. most of you know him. no one is in the tummy is not one of the most ethical attorneys have ever seen. he knows the law very well. it is not the role if i want to run for president. it is laying out the agenda and worried about what i'll do it my business. if i won, here's the legal vote. i did well in business. i'll let the legal counsel

figure out what i'm supposed to do and not do. by appointing him kind of sounds that answer. >> could you envision house republicans and oversight obviously trust fund. >> i would assume take donald trump out of it. oversight committees is not you only do oversight. the save game for the attorney general and others at the same as in my offices across the supreme lord and there's a blindfold on them. this country has got to come together. we've got to stop it red and blues dates just because you're one party or something else. oversight is oversight and i want to oversight to hold me accountable to. it's not based upon donald, what is the role of your job and put blinders on it. >> the party is more unified.

we have to back up in the next two or three months. the majority six years ago. if you talk to kevin mccarthy and the end of november 2010, what advice would you give yourself. now that you've been in the majority in the banner around the track a few times. >> i would ask our members not to make expectations higher than you could actually achieve. i always believe surpass expectations. we told the american public certain things we could do that we couldn't do. we should route the public along each step of the way. huckabee says. the senate never would've been a republican majority had the house not become a republican majority. you would not have cory gardner, you would not have from louisiana now others.

you've watched where this country is trying to end if you watch where republicans were when barack obama took over from a number of governors, a number of legislative seats and others, we've never been stronger. but we did not run to win a majority. we went to change a country, so we should not miss this window of opportunity. when you ask about the number of days am i going to judge, i'm going to get the policy right. i'm going to judge on how they been honest and fair government. it's not are you going to use your power to benefit one person. i watched that. i didn't like all that they took place. so why don't we leave a legacy that brings us back to three co-equal branches because that keeps people more honest in then check. the power benefit to people. for everything said about this election, i don't care what side you are on should feel good

about the country. so what does that tell you? nobody controls the government, but if the people get frustrated, they can change direction regardless. that's exciting and i feel honored to walk into that building and be a small part of it and went with history right for this window, for this moment in time did we achieve what we said to the public we would achieve? >> kevin mccarthy, house majority leader, thank you for your time. thank you to everyone who came in thank you to everyone in our television audience watching online and east van. >> i read this every morning all the way through because it puts a lot of night and supreme picks up. the bank issued following an agreement. >> no one does my aunt to grab

at me. if you like it, give me credit. if not, tell me to improve. >> thank you again. >> thank you. pleasure. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> a look at the lobby of trump tower in manhattan here meeting with advisers and cabinet members again today. the president elect announcing the nomination. tom price and secretary of health and human services. congressman price is a medical or having worked as an orthopedic surgeon before he was elected to congress in 2004. he has been a strong supporter for repealing the affordable care act. president-elect trump nominating the head center for medicare and medicaid services.

she's out all of the consulting firm in indiana. she also helped to set up the healthy indiana plan that provided health insurance to 132,000 uninsured people in the state. a live look at the lobby of trump tower continues online. you can watch it at the span.org. >> in about seven minutes at 10:00 eastern, the u.s. senate will dabble in good lawmakers require the health and human services department to study dna

and health care programs in areas among other items. >> until then, admiral mike rogers has the military cyber command the national security agency sat down at a conference hosted by "the wall street journal" for a conversation about cyberthreats facing the country. [applause] >> good morning, everyone. thank you for joining. i have to clarify coming your admiral rogers, director of the nsa commander of the u.s. cyber command from chicago. >> not a congressman from michigan. >> we have that out of the way we can make her own headlines here. how worried should the ceos out here be about the state of cybersecurity? >> clearly do we have a challenger that requires attention?

yes. clearly is very well for ceos to play in this? yes. i spend a lot of time talking to the private sector is as a of commission assigned to cyber command at nsa. one of the things i will ask talking to ceos talking about the conversations you're having. talk about how you as a leader are setting expectations for what you expect them to do. put another way as the guy who defends the networks. you don't want your network security team deciding unilaterally was an art to you. you need to set the tone. i need to execute the mission assigned to us. here's the areas where i a ceo perspective can take the risk.

this is what i want you to focus on. this is where he think we need or should be willing to take level of risk. you have to set that tone. when i asked the department of defense what they think is important and purses when my cells answered that i get totally different answers and you need to shape the discussion. you have many other challengers for your time. i don't pretend for one and it that this is to totally dominate your life, but i do think there is a significant role to play. >> two years ago when the sony hack happened. apparently remember well. you got a call one thanksgiving. so what can we learn from what happened? >> the positives that take away from sony, the positives for great collaboration between a private company, the computer

network expertise that they brought on. they knew they were dealing with some paint and so they went out and hired expertise and capability from within the private sector. he then came to the conclusion that they had initially potentially thought and they needed to reach out to the government. i give them big kudos for that. they could've said to to themselves we need to minimize this. we need to go blow a bubble on this. it's not really confront this publicly. i thought it was a real positive. they were very up front when they approach the government. we realize something is happening. we would like your assistance to truly understand what is happening to recharacterize it accurately and got a sense for what occurred and also we would like your views on how we make sure this doesn't happen again. they were very open, no, very direct. i remember early conversations with the leadership as well as the general counsel.

one of my concerns was i and others is i'm part of the government team. the only way this will work if i get full access where you can construct this and the only way you expect from us. i realized you are opening your structure and not works and data to the government. you have to be comfortable with. we are comfortable with that. you inform us of what you're doing and exactly what you're doing. and you stick to that. but as long as we do that, we have no issue. it works out great. the dialogue between sony and the company, the private entity that they hired and the u.n. government response team,

largely yourself, fbi and dhs with great information flow. >> it took a long time to detect this. >> at not unusual. while we generally find them quite frankly it doesn't matter if it's a commercial about her. it doesn't matter if its government not work in networks that been accountable for defending. we generally find a thick desiccant timeline for most organizations between discovery of activity and the actual time it is normally if you look at statistics, that is normally some period of time anywhere from three to six and that was certainly the case that continues to be the case. >> how concerned should we be there to say that there is an earth korea has one in the sony incident. >> so the challenge in this

complements the fact that among them is the fact that the set of factors is so large and so diverse. depending on what source you want to use, probably 60% to 65% of the total at unity we see is criminal. it's not a nationstate. if individuals looking to access systems for access to personally identifiable information about social security numbers, credit card information because they sell it and they used it to generate revenue. criminal activity could intellectual property. we see criminal groups and nationstates doing this, the criminal groups to steal information. >> we will leave this conversation at this point as the u.s. senate is about to trade to and on the agenda,

legislation that would require hhs to expand health care programs in rural areas. a vote on passage is that her 11:30 a.m. this morning. live now to the floor of the u.s. senate here on the stand to you. -- c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black , will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o god, our help in ages past, our hope for years to come, thank you for the spirit of contentment we can receive from you, bringing quietness and faith to our hearts.