-- hollywood. thank you to our sponsors and all of you for coming out thank-you. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

this is a dramatic acknowledgement that they are unable to repeal the affordable care act the decision came one day after delivering the ultimatum to the lawmakers they released a statement saying i am proud to stand with president trump we have fought hard for the repeal but i am not discouraged with the pro-growth tax reform and degeneration and the chair of the house intelligence committee that

former trump campaign in manager has volunteered to be interviewed by the committee. >> good morning i appreciate you being here on short notice want to be sure it got here as quickly as possible for i have for announcements this morning the first is the ranking member and i agreed to request the fbi reach the level committee and information would be ongoing counterintelligence investigation previously limited to myself and then the director appeared enclosed session with a

previously scheduled hearing to make time. so was seeking additional misinformation from monday's hearing i know we are wondering about the documents we were supposed to receive today and has kept us completely inform the entire time mitt is possible to receive documents today from the nsa has requested the original deadline march 15 by 1 to caution and the entirety of everything that we need today so by early next week for what the nsa can provide us. in just with the information today and yesterday's the

council contacted the committee yesterday to offer the opportunity to interview his client anything can for volunteering and encourage others the knowledge of these issues to voluntarily interview with the committee what i want you to be alerted this morning. >> dennis his name appear in the new files you have received quick. >> not from this week. no. >> are you calling director kobe because he was not forthcoming quick. >> and has nothing to do with the documents that i have seen the there are questions that we have for

the director and the admiral probably just what they could not answer but it is necessary to get both of them back down before we move on to others. >> i want to be clear not on the basis of the new documents and that i pull been to get our over the weekend and other agencies. >> we don't know that the voluntarily offered to come to the committee we will work out we will work with his lawyers to see exactly what he wants to do if he wants to have the of public hearing they are will come to do that. >> use said there was the reason why to brief the president from the news

media. >> this is even more questions today. >> how many names were unmatched quick. >> i don't know that. just to be clear it is the documents that from the other day i don't know who last for them i just know that there are more in before i read the documents. >> at vat may have done for appropriation reasons quick. >> i think i appeal the one that has seen the documents as far as i know.

so is that a whistle-blower? >> as you know, a couple of times we don't talk about that we continue to have people come forward then that will not happen if we show you who the sources are. >> i will not get into that. and we will protect. >> did this on the of full extent of you have seen greg. >> we're hoping to get the documents today doesn't

sound like a full accounting from those that were due on march 15. >> and it should encompass everything that we need. >> to have an ad validation. >> i have been very clear on this for many weeks there was no wiretapping of trump tower. >> the members of congress have suggested of the record that this would be orchestrated by the white house. >> exactly as i told you, i cannot hear to tell you all

would go to the white house i talked to the white house my staff talk to the of white house to request a meeting with the president i have not talked to him before that. >> for the monitor just mentioned greg. >> we won't know that until we receive all of the documentations and get the report in have time to go through them to look at the documents. >> there are dozens of reports. >> will you start a separate investigation? >> i don't know about that yet it is the scope of but masking the names in it is all in in that same body.

>> [inaudible] >> so there are reasons and i can say without question at least i don't know what that reason would be faster be a good reason for it. >> is baffling that you did not brief him or that you could not rule out the source.

can you categorically say? >> and i will continue to say the same thing to ask me every single name on the plan enabled not tell you who's our sources are. >> and. >> it appears like this was all legal it was all legal surveillance until we get the documents i will not know for sure. >> who has the authority to build - - pull the trigger on these intelligence reports? >> for the most part they are valuable intelligence however there are questions

that i wonder if there reaches that threshold. >> just a follow-up it does not seem of the the ordinary to you but it was so widely disseminated quick. >> there are two issues that i think it would make me uncomfortable to inform the president and second is the issue of additional handbasket. >> [inaudible] can you summarize? >> yes. as you go this is not any c process as their politics of

both sides and i am trying to navigate as best as i can. we have a very successful to have people to continue to come forward to provide information. we still in encourage whistleblowers to come forward if they had been formation top-secret or not or anybody who has registered their name their welcome to come forward to be interviewed as we heard yesterday. >> you cannot tell if the communications are directly

involved? >> we will not get into the specifics other than mr. trump and the transition team. >> will you call them to testify publicly quick. >> if they want to we don't know that yet we have to work that out for the legal counsel to allow people to come forward especially if they come in free the. there have been many names mentioned by a members of the congress they will not get into the mccarthyism era because they were mentioned in the press story and i am highly concerned about that

in me will do that for additional witnesses i will work with him i am sure i will have witnesses in hainaut the staff yesterday's and today's how we move into phase two of this investigation. >> we are asking mr. rogers to comeback to get them into a closed session id is not worth it to have the open session. so with that time block miracle pond that they can come next tuesday so all the members have a chance to interview them and told a hearing in closed session. >> what did your response to that?

>> [inaudible] >> i will not get into the specifics of that. >> worry a or weren't say what. >> we will find out when we get the information i am quite sure i am uncomfortable with the entry will be that that. >> to be so committed. >> my note they applied still come forward and encourage others to come forward. >> [inaudible] civic weirdest at the beginning of this agreeing to cut involuntarily. -- to cut involuntarily

. >> good morning. i want to address the cancellation of the open hearing with directors clapper and the dates and but then. this is a serious mistake. the chairman and i assigned a bipartisan written agreement to conduct an investigation we both have recognized this several times to the scope of our investigation is important to bring in the public so the country would understand

what we were looking at in the progress we were making in the issues and why the people should care about how russia intervened and the seriousness of this issue not only for our own democracy better round of world. we agreed many of the hearings are done in open session we invited four directors and sally yates to come testify and they all agreed. but with scheduling we broke up the hearing into the two parts. the second part will happen on tuesday. they have all agreed to testify in open session to share with the public what they know about this investigation. there are many questions they cannot answer but at the same time as resaw monday there is a lot

republicans should learn about this with all the different methods in did europe right now in and the allies is an important component will be have seen this week is the following chronology. on monday we have the first open hearing for about to get a sense of why we're so concerned about many things but this particular if their u.s.% civil did the trump one can paid to be coordinating with the russians. natalie to give the public some significance but we heard for the first time the fbi is doing counterintelligence investigation in association with the trump can paid it

has been going on since july and continues to this day. that is a very significant and permission from the public on tuesday and wednesday in the dead of night excursion with those documents he has not shared with his committee he has assured the republicans that they are all in the dark. what is most concerned about the whole incident is taking that information to the white house. it is the associate of the president of booz potentially the subject of the investigation if they colluded in any way with the russians that they may or may not be related to the investigation was wholly inappropriate with the

ability lived -- ability and investigation. we are here now all on friday and on thursday be learned the chairman wanted to close the hear rave or cancel it been altogether of course, this was not in our view in the public interest in the chairman has announced been hearing is cancelled. also to bring back director kobe -- comey n. rogers as these three very important and what is this are willing to testify in open session. also to be projected by the majority to have them testify in open session and

if the members wanted to ask inclosed session rica go to a closed portion of the hearing. in then to have testimony in closed session the reason that we do that is there are questions that can be inserted public is in the public interest to build the parts they face even if they cannot be answered in closed session. the session that follows is important to the members to understand those details behind those threats some of this should be done and needs to be dead in the public eye we strongly object to cancellation of this hearing and we still urged the majority to reconsider the witnesses have made it clear they are available for bewildered

sheath it is allowed to go forward. none of us have seen the the chair and i requested documents of the nsa and cia to unmask the procedures as a normal part of the oversight to be perfectly e appropriate. . . finally with respect we

welcome his test money before the committee we would also welcome that that test me to be done in open session so that the public may be informed of what he has to say. it is necessary to have any of the enclosed session that can be arranged but as much as we can do in public i believe that we should do. with that i'm happy to respond to any questions. see mac the hearing on tuesday well now be closed and classified will you urge him to make that a public hearing. we have a public hearing with director james comey and rogers already. i have no objection to bring them back and if there is additional information we can make public and do additional public hearing with them i don't think anyone should be any question about what is going on there. it's not a desire to have them

come back and closed session. it is already scheduled witnesses who had agreed to appear that is at most a dodge. we welcome them coming back anytime. i think the rest is designed to simply distract from that point. >> he said that that was canceled. i think there must've been a very strong pushback from the white house about the nature of monday's hearing it's hard for me to come to any other conclusion about why they would be suddenly canceled. clearly it has to do with the events of this week. the cancellation have nothing to do with these documents that he saw. so we know that was not the issue. what other explanation can there be. there really is none. when the witnesses are ready and available. >> with the excursion that you call this. i don't know.

i am concerned that the chair has been unwilling to roll out that the documents came from the white house were in coronation with the white house. >> members on your committee and the ability to be chairman. she said this could be an obstruction of justice by denying the public hearing do you believe you can sell still run this committee. ultimately the as is a decision that the speaker needs to make. i think the speaker needs to decide whether they want a credible investigation be done here. the events of those weeks are not encouraging. i think anyone watching them has very legitimate and profound concerns about whether this congress indeed can do a credible investigation i think one of the profound takeaways of the last couple of days is we really do need an independent commission here because the

public at the end of the day needs to head confidence that someone has done a thorough investigation untainted by political considerations. it had been my hope and a mighty hope against hope that there some way that we can do this. i have to say i'm deeply discouraged by this week's event. i think that at this point it would give the public more confidence than anything else as if we didn't stop what we were doing but we established a truly independent body suffered apart from the economy. that they can say okay lease there. we can be confident someone is doing an investigation unhampered with political pressures. i think this week's event might be all that more necessary.

given the allegations that they have made against the former president. have you have any contact with the president obama or anyone from the former administration. about the allegations. >> i haven't have any conversations with the president. one thing is to begin with the director comey's testimony. there is still absolutely no basis for what the president has accused his predecessor up. that was just pure nonsense and i think what has happened here i think people need to understand what is going on here is the following. the president made a slanderous accusation against the predecessor.

his predecessor engaged in felony crimes. in one after another the republican chairs of the house committee and the senate committee and senators on other committees in the speaker himself said we have seen no evidence to support the president's statement. and then we heard test mice testimony from the directors this week saying there is no evidence of this and then we have this peculiar excursion in which they said there's still no evidence that his predecessor wiretapped him in any way. and although that midnight run caused some confusion and still does the bottom line is still the same. and what has happened as it has no damage that relationship with the british

allies. i think the statements were the case list i've seen in a meeting of heads of state and can only be damaging to that relationship in an effort to further justify the unjustifiable he is now interfering in this investigation. and i think the fact that the press conference was at the white house is not only symbolically important it's important in terms of understanding what is really going on here. that effort to defend the indefensible has let us down this terrible rabbit hole and threatens the integrity of the only investigation that is authorized and that is where we have gone to today. how do you explain the association. [inaudible]

is there any level of political trouble that would cause you to walk away. the democrats feel that if were not engaged in this investigation no one will be. there are some i'm sure in the building that would like nothing more than this investigation to go away. that would be irresponsible of us. i think we are going to do our best to investigate this regardless of the obstacles we are encountering. we will continue to encourage the majority to work with us to the degree that they are willing but we do feel the need when the majority makes mistakes like today by canceling an open hearing to speak out and speak loudly because in the minority the only parrot power we had is the power of public persuasion. i hope they will contact the

members of the house intelligence committee and encouraging them to go forward with this. you don't want this hearing canceled you want to be informed. and you will demand that of all of the representatives. >> what is your understanding of the nature of how the names were released. for the unmapped and the other conversations. let me make this the last question. this deals with the issue of unmasking. because of the extraordinary way that the chairman has introduced this issue that is by viewing something and telling the press in the white house about it without telling his own committee what is really involved and we don't

have it so we can't say i have to read between the lines. and reading between the lines of what the chair has said i would assume and again this is just been an assumption that this is a subset of what we had requested from the nsa. and again, significant question about why this would be done in this manner for you to be can we getting these documents from the nsa. what we've asked them for his documents that are the results of incidental collection. that is collection not as the president has suggested that was targeted because there is no evidence of that but surveillance that may be targeted for foreign spies. and in the midst of looking at foreign spies it could be as simple of a matter as them mentioning the name of an american. they might mention the name of an american running for president. that would be considered incidental collection. i assume without knowing any better that he has looked at

communications that were incidentally collected that is not targeted at the president. so no defense for the president not a full validation not a partial validation. a zero validation of the president even if you accept what the chairman has said. thank you. house leaders. history unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. it is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider.

sunday night on afterwards university of pennsylvania professor lisette survived reports on alternatives too traditional banking and the unmaking of america. with the book in a nutshell i cannot understand originally why if alternative financial services like check cashers and payday lenders were so bad for each other why 70 people were using them and in the course of my research which took a few years i learned that banks were not really serving the low end and the middle class i also realized that there were some good alternatives come in on board. i wanted to tell the whole story.

house leaders pulled the replacement belt from the floor today after determining the votes were not there for passage. a couple of tweets from house members this from democrat ted live of california. the american people had spoken. their voices heard loud and clear. our fight to protect the aca or obama care continues. this tweet from republican mike boston of illinois. today's decision to postpone the vote does not dismiss the fact that obama care is broken. the supreme court this week unanimously ruled that schools must provide more than just a minimum. they must provide educational programs that are reasonably calculated. the coat court's decision.

there was a lower educational standard set by the tenth circuit court of appeals and supreme court nominee. in a different 2008 case he held that the law required a program merely more than de minimis. here is the oral argument from january. in case 15827. mr. fischer may please the court. it does not permit the school district to provide a child with disability at the minimus educational benefits. rather, the act requires for the school to provide instruction and related in related services to the child that are reasonably calculated to provide substantially equal educational opportunities. the school district's primary response to our argument is a standard that i just described to you. it does not appear anywhere in the operative text.

>> it also didn't appear in the original petition. i'm looking at footnote eight. you note that substantial educational benefit was a standard that was discussed in the petition. and a significantly different one in your opening brief. what we do intent is to get more detail onto how the standard works. your asking us to adopt equal opportunity that does recuse someplace. and the thought itself did not adopt that formulation. it was not substantial equal opportunity. your asking us to adopt a standard that the majority didn't adopt.

>> it was 1982. they have amended it twice. in 2004. it raises a concern under the spending clause. they have to agree to these provisions. they're saying that's changed by new legislation. the states had agreed to these provisions. i don't think it does. i think it's critical. we note from alec that there is a substantive guarantee and we know that even in 1982 the

way the act was put together that that guaranty must track that is page two or three. they start with the fate definition. we all agree on that. the school has to provide an education quote in conformity with the ie. and then to understand what that means 52 a and 53 a. of the governments appendix and in a nutshell what they say over and over again was that standards generally speaking show the disability should be aimed at that

curriculum. what you do is start with a general educational curriculum that applies to all kids then you identify in the child's disability and how it impacts that. how does that work. with students whose disability generally would not allow. i understand how it worked in raleigh we were dealing with someone with a particular disability one that was rather easily addressed. given very different context. consistent with the general educational curriculum. most likely not. it was answered in the statute. on the bottom of 52 a. what the iep provisions as that children's that take alternate assessment the

description of benchmarks or short-term objectives are appropriate. and the rest are prescribed. what they are referring to and let me just emphasize this. it's laid out. in the governments appendix. the no child left behind act. and he has been aligned with the ie da. if you look at page 79 a there are four subdivisions that describe what you do for the child that you are asking about. the most important is sub three and four. because the text is so important i will read it to you.

the standard must quote professional judgment to the highest possible standards achievable. they make absolutely clear for the states that this is required. those standards must be designated an individualized educational program under that. the question is is expressly answered in the text. it was answered there. to bring me back to the standard substantial educational opportunity are the words congress used in the findings and purposes to encapsulate what was needed. encapsulate what was needed. that's what we see throughout the law. dc in any function for that word and in addition as part of that.

is there any place to discuss that. what would be incurred to the severely disabled students. reasonable yes. the essential feature of the act. the plan that the iep team puts together needs to be reasonably calculated to achieve the level of educational benefit that should be guaranteed. if you go into court and if there's gonna be a dispute what a parent has to show is that the plan the school adopted that no reasonable educator would have adopted. reasonable is an important part of the way they would look at it. the specific reference to costs. let me say three things about cost. costs. first of all the vast majority

of iep's and programs put together don't cost much at all. they involve things like the braille textbooks. by a staff member who is already on staff. there are going to be some extreme cases and they someone several years ago. it involves a situation where a child with a ventilator needed nursing services and they quite clearly said that even their it was in a cost 30 to $40,000. the act does not permit cost to trump but also requires that. congress expressly thought about this all the way back to the 1975 act. yes it cost money and that is why it causes legislation. it is cheaper to provide services to somebody father being educated than it is to be out of the public disk. and make up the deficit.

it's here at $70,000 tuition. >> at the time it was litigated it was more like $40,000 of the private school. to put the child in private school. with the proper iep plan. what should have been done for this student. to figure out why the behaviors were so dramatically interfering. that something that everybody would have done it is a vital first thing.

that was never done. what is striking justice kennedy in the spring of his fourth grade year. the parents came back to the school district again six months later in november and now that we have these what we do because we actually would like to have an educated the public schools. all they did was offer it. the exact same failed behavioral plan that they had been using. the conference that the parents didn't expend. i thought it was part of that. there was two conferences the first one in april that the same old plan was presented with no experts. they offered to have another conference a month later in may with the parents divide

--dash make deciding that at that point. they were falling so far behind they have a put them in a private school. but what my friend on the other side leaves out of his brief is what i just described. they did return in the fall once he had been stabilized and did offer to meet with the school district. the same plan. that they offered back in the fourth grade. no choice reasonably to lead through in private school. it returns me to the question about costs. there are going to be extreme circumstances where children are going to be put into a private school and need significant resources.

the statement that it has to be. it has to taste on peer review research when practical it would would be provided to the child to advance appropriately towards the annual goal to making progress. in the general education curriculum. you just described it. the situation is that with that have not been violated. what you be able to go to court and say there is the iep and they did not live up to it. we also had two arguments under the statute. if we adopt a new standard all of the country well had judges and lawyers and people interpreting it differently so what is the present situation not there. they don't know that much about it. creating a new standard out of

legal materials. from the people i think the critical reason why the court gestured towards the meeting the need for an overall standard. and the reason why is there today. and every brief in this case everyone agrees that the school districts i believe they agree that the provisions had to be followed. everybody agrees that. the difficulty is it just doesn't happen. what are we supposed to do. to make it happen. they have a system for enforcement. with the equal opportunity. they have history from a lot of different areas.

a huge range of individual students they are taking the money. let me address. this is why we need a standard. we need a standard it is best to encapsulate what the provisions are required. i'm giving you the word that congress use. it's very much the same thing and rally. they would be tailored to allow. the faith requirement of the act to design to allow the

child what is a child we can't do much for them. and if they can do something for them do it. measure that in terms of their ability to progress from grade to grade maybe some well. and how does that seem appropriate. and why do you want to recognize that. you can't ask for more than is reasonable. what words do we use. there is flexibility to accommodate those. if i could give the full answer to the question we think it would be fine at the court to said it should be tailored. and when that is not possible

when it goes back according to the language i described. it takes the word equal out. if you don't think that i'm actually doing that. >> i understand what an equal outcome would be. when it equal outcome is not plaque practical. what it means is you are giving it. with the academic side. with the functional and developmental goals.

the standard is highest possible standards achievable directly in the text of the statute. for those of us that have some feeling that the word quality is a poor fit for the statue statute and its focused on that. what would you say to those of us. how would you describe what you think is required without focusing on equality. >> for the typical child with disability. the standard that the school district has to try to meet in the progress in the general educational curriculum. they are the highest possible achievable by the student. those are the exact words. if i could reserve the remainder of my time please.

>> mr. chief justice. the requirement of a free appropriate education is not satisfied with the program that aims at barely more than that progress. it is a program that is aimed at significant educational progress in light of the circumstance. >> how did it different from the one that was offered by mister fischer. i think we would take the same position with respect to the similar students. his grade level confidence for students who are in the regular classroom. were talking about somebody that the standard does not

apply. so that is where we have a slight area of disagreement we would say significant progress not as close as possible we are not committed to any one particular terminology we think that significant is synonymous with progress with reasonably can be expected. it was a word used. and the only reason of all of the terms and i will give you one more which is appropriate in light of the circumstances. the only one i would urge you away from actually is the reason as it has baggage in various courts of appeals it means different things to different courts and it has been applied in different ways by different courts so i would

urge you to pick although we think that captures it. i think the most important thing for you to say is that this is not at the minimus standard and it's not a maximization standard. what it is and i would leave it to you to choose any of those additives. >> the problem is you say leave it to us. they had experience with it. we have far less. i must rely on people that have connection. i go back to look at two words it is filled with the word progress so the word progress seems like something that should be there. the other would you see a lot is appropriate.

you have a spell that out in light of the needs and abilities. i think that's what you're doing with appropriate. if you think in that sentence somewhere does that matter. we are happy with that. one of the formulations we have now the other thing i have looked at in years the required school districts to provide i begin to think everybody well had to sue about that. i'm thinking while maybe it should be something like a reasonable calculated amount. that is what rollie said. that is what it means to require. and all of us may be a little slow. now tell me what the new standards you are proposing to the adversaries position.

i do think it provides enough to set a clear standard the words are what we are trying to come to that would be less confusing to everyone. >> one formulation that i think would be consistent in light of the circumstances. >> how does that actually work in practice. someone has a disability that is ratably address. that they can keep track of great progress. that is not a realistic goal in light of that child's potential you are sitting on at the meeting with the provisions it tell you what to start. you look at where the child

currently is in terms of academic performance what are the present levels of achievement. then you examine the disability and you ask to what extent has this impeding in the general curriculum and what you do was there someone at that meeting. >> you've educational experts who will say make an estimate of how much progress towards grade level standards that child can make in light of where they are now. >> i would think in many situations this would largely be irrelevant. here's what we mean by that. you start with the building blocks that are missing underneath those grade level standards and you set those out. so if you can't multiply and you can't add maybe you need

to learn how to add first. you set forth what are the building blocks that they are missing. >> the basic -- the basis of my concern is that even though you have a lot of different adjectives to describe that standards when you're asking the courts to undertake this. is that clear what they're supposed to be doing. as the light of the circumstances and we think that this is just what most school boards are doing. with court enforcement of the standards in the risk of this in educational decisions but the response to that is not to adopt a barely more than the minimus standards that nobody reports to supply. that the role is limited to ensuring that the states program for progress isn't

based on reasonable educational judgment. no matter how many they have. they would be on the general population. they are disregarding cost entirely. there could be two different programs. and they would take into account cost surely. but more generally i would say the answer is no in the usual case. that is what the court said. you can consider costs in deciding what the standard should be in the first place.

that they're working to be some significant expenses associated with some and that's why a gave money and made an opt in program. at the very least it seems to me that cedar rapids in the structure tell you that in the usual case it can't be cost friendly. >> do you know i think it is 15% or something. >> the federal government pays 15%. i could be corrected. they realize that they were going to give money and they made an open-ended choice of the school district. i think that cost should be measured against the possible result to be achieved. so not in the usual case. i think they took cost of the table. you would say for very little

gain for extreme cost no. not appropriate. the school district has not raised a cost of defense. and more importantly the cost gauge with significant properties. the cost of them resulted in the benchmark is what to is to be achieved. as long as they make significant progress towards the grade level in terms of the child circumstances this was barely progress. i think what the court of appeals said the only thing it said was that there was the public education because drew have made minimum progress on

some of the goals in the prior years. and that is clearly not enough to meet the standard that we are talking about. >> think you counsel. thank you mr. chief justice. they have to overcome three different things. they must overcome the spending cause which requires that any standard be imposed. seth get we must have rally. nervously absent at the education including any standard based on the inequality. they must overcome the fact that they have read and affirmed the faith. in the systemic requirements without touching the subsidence standard. i think he was referring to

that. the appendix. so he has two different arguments about the changes to the amendments we think neither of them is going to come close. nothing is unambiguous with the spending cause required. these are changes to the procedural protections and an additional goal found in 1400. none of that comes close to this. i think the best barometer as it's taken until the creativity for any court to really entertain the notion. they changed the standard. he has not let a single case to site. the standards certainly are

the measure by which a court can determine whether or not the procedures were adequate. we agree than my doesn't automatically make that. we agree with them that in 1987 they really changed it in a significant way. to the extent that the procedures are not met i don't understand your disagreement with mister fischer. it's very large. these are residual checks less. it is exhaustive want to be sure. are they not procedures to the review. that is actually what congress have in mind. the idea that you have to go through the checklist here. it's very detailed and extensive. 131 to 142.

as long as the process is considered. of the three appropriate public education. i can't readily agree. because what it does is it sets up a next administrative process. it goes to the mistreated process. the decision made. that is what the dispute is ultimately going to be about. about some procedures along the way.

just follow the right procedures. often what they are told to do. is to decide whether they have received a free appropriate education. we do think that there is a subsidence standard in the ida is just a some benefit standards and there's nine different standards now that we've heard just in the last half hour. that they are saying. we do think there are reviews. that is what that provision is about. the substantive standard is so low and easy to meet. don't worry about it. it's all in the process. but this provision the idea of what a hearing officer is supposed to do and what a court is supposed to do said it's not all in the process. there is a question of whether

a student is receiving that. >> we disagree and two different respects. the experience almost every circuit both the government and petition a great that they had been applying that those benefit standards there are those. schools are doing fine. to the extent that you're concerned about some really low standard in the courts that's actually not split materializing. this is not some total one there. it says some benefit. you are reading it as some benefits. it makes a difference.

rally just doesn't say some benefit it tells you what it is. that's enough to keep track with great progress. and if that's what the standard is there is certainly more than that. now obviously you can't take that actual standard. it's not just some benefit. our position is that it doesn't have to be at grade level progress. that some settings are not suitable for the participation of some handicapped children. it can express the center. there are a lot of different ways to try to understand what the statute means. as the state that is entered

into the contract. the extent. it was really clear. it is just some benefit. and that is a natural thing. there is a little bit of ambiguity in that. let's just say this is no ordinary english work. if i have duty to do that. if i give you no benefit i think the courts can easily do that. if i have given you some benefit i have let it led my duty to benefit you. it can't just be just that. it can't be that the standard is if i benefit you significantly that is a standard that is all adding words. as i see one way of looking at

what were doing. two things that occurred. one is somewhat ambiguous. it is amended. so what we are doing is going back and looking at those words in raleigh in light of the statue. when you're looking at the statute that is amended you do see and it leads to and maybe more places that that iep is designed to be a statement that will produce the child's need and make progress in the general education and then further advance appropriately. in the general education. so now what they have done is go back take those words. make progress and put them in a phrase which in fact i think

without much modification says let's read what they said in light of these additional words make progress which are statutory words while taking account of great differences by using those words. in those all come from there. >> we don't want to great that it has been interpreted for 34 years. they can't cite any cases showing that there is any problem. the reply brief admits that things are working just fine. the idea that there is some need for this court to get involved i think there is no case law or anything to support that. the idea that they somehow changed the game i think it is not is not nearly enough to be the clear statement that pinehurst requires. this is been hit there.

listen to the things. at least it should say that the formulation sets the level that is a is a formula that you see. we disagree with that. but almost every circuit is easing right now has worked in it follows naturally. you might disagree. we think it means the same thing. there is a long history of that. is some concern about the standard. that really has to be up to congress. if it were to change the standard just look at what mr. fischer said they started

with a substantial equal opportunity and then it became an equal opportunity center. they were let's say that during the school year the school district sent someone to work with the particular student in this case and that is all they do. that is some benefit better to have the person there for two weeks the not at all. it is not. there are two different provisions of the statute.

five minutes a day it would not meet that standard. some he could tell us whether it's beneficial. i think most people would agree. are you saying that the judicial review is supposed to be whether that is the minimus. that is all you have to do. it would flunk it. they were to put the emphasis on that. as long as they could shine a light by creating an iep team process where they trusted teachers and parents you are assuming that the process will

yield significant results. we have a hearing. you need to head somebody there. six hours of the day to help the child learn. i am assuming that is going to work. that was congresses judgment. there is going to be a bad result. as it goes. the question as to impose a new center. >> i'm not sure i understood you. he have a hypothetical. he makes a recommendation.

>> i feel like there was a five minutes. everyone agrees is a contract. it says that it can come in and enforce the iep. i understood the hypothetical to be about a new level of benefit there is to some benefit standard. that has been interpreted in court after court to actually have a bite with three cases just in the last year alone about that. the question is the spending clause do you want to actually impose something new. they gave you three different new standards and then at the merit brief. i get it from page 200. what do you think is meaningful.

they did not adopt that as a sinner. but the really important baggage it does not inspire that. and it was just pointed out. with some progress. as you point out that most courts have interpreted what is it thing. there is really no problem. there's really no problem. there is still a problem with the language and some of the courts. now have the statute which again and again looks to progress.

they take that word. it was enforceable anyway and say look at these two words of ambiguity and we think they should interpret them in light of the iep requirement which is pretty close to what they suggested. >> they are not citing cases that show that there is some rate of hypotheticals that we've heard. in congresses judgment was that the procedural protection would do a lot at the front end to a void that problem. there might be some situation at the back end. no child left behind. what they say is that the department of education can off funds. can acquire annual courts all sorts of things happening in your reports have been required. they never change the statute. again they admit the standard

is generally working. what is frustrating about this is that we have blizzard of words. and if you read them literally i don't see how you can have a benefit unless you're making some progress. significant, meaningful. if something is significant or meaningful it is more than the minimus. what everybody seems to be looking for is the word that has just the right nuance to express this. we think that you should look to what they have there. and actually follows from the text of the statute itself. starting with that.

it applies to all statutes. there is nothing about the significance or qualities. i think is straightforward. i think if the court is to ask if there is some benefit. ..

>> >> because this is so full package to allow other to keep up with their peers. >> i don't think that is what he said. but the great crater was procedure they have to consider that to make sure for example high-school kid is not put in first grade little thing that is part of the test several types to reject the idea. >> but your position you have a passage in your brief rampage number 47 which says to have the general education curriculum to the extent possible to enable her to be educated in regular class is to be that sells a with a chief justice just said that that ibp has to be reasonably calculated and if this not then?

>> it is a procedural guarantee they have to think about to consider progress. >> but it is not just a procedural guarantee. yes it has procedures in a bear all geared to the substantive result landed is the focus of the administrative process and judicial review of what comes out of the ministry of process. >> i think all those standards say what the iep must address not how they deal with it. look at the second circuit recently a couple months ago decided those standards like that you have to consider that grade level progress. >> but if we do none of them that is fine? >> congress judgment was.

>> serious answer is you consider everything but do nothing bad is okay quick. >> no. if you do nothing and there is some substantive but, in the context you cannot do more than that and once you throw into the sick and begins with the years of society there is more acridines of the new find gold berry. so that kind of thing is not where a federal generalist maybe that is not the right policy and that should happen and clearly in the

context of spending that it applies to this provision of the statute. and any number of standards. and among the accord to buy my friends on the other side. and that is something that congress deals with. >> and dbs substandard and some are interpreted by most. the then you satanist --

diminimus is enough. >> circuit after circuit has said that the educational benefit means more they and diminimus that there is a whole variety of cases have interpreted this and justice ginsberg with florence purses carter came from the circuit that was a more than diminimus standard day corps about the iep substantively did not meet the projections of the son of the benefit. >> so how does that work? before that you have to bite the iep then it says what it is. so it is a statement of the services based on peer

review that will be provided for the child to a dance properly and make progress in the general education curriculum. so with that statement called the iep can they do did ministry did thing? so let's suppose that they write it but they did not do it. so again they go to court? >> correct but in 1414 there is not something the sense to have a significant benefit. and in the general education

>> have to follow the checklist. >>. >> we are not saying anything different. >> details that as what those two words were? this is inconsistent there could be some educational benefit. >> in the wake of those have been enforced the documented area is the consensus of certain standards or methodologies?

and the courts in reviewing today prefer to those? we my guess. to say that education is one of those areas people disagree about the most simple things. >> so we have gone nowhere. >> sa to put the courts and the business to decide which philosophy is appropriate to generally there is no consensus to the methodology for a hearing impaired student? >> i did amino agreement with the case law does say there is disagreement that the congress this judgment of those considerations so

it is absolutely right there was a lot that was given up and course firefight is not the mainstream school for. >> go back to justice ginsberg question to see that this standard is applied is that this standard were with the bite quick. >> it does have some bite. some might? -- bite. [laughter] specs some educational benefit ride a standard with

a bite i'm sure you would not come up with the words more than merely diminimus but substantive bite is a small feature above much bigger statute. >> but don't take those policy concerns but the congress he indeed work is to say the procedural protections of the iep process that will yield the right results. >> to use that notation is unjust words to express the idea that is emerging. and as he has the chance to address it we don't see very

many of these cases but looking at what they have been doing in general that they apply the statute appropriately and is consistent with that interpretation? >> is working sometimes it has some bright but as justice -- justice breyer has said. >> was the origin of the phrase? >> it goes back to latin. >> igo what diminimus is. [laughter] >> this data old formulation of. >> but to apply in this context quick. >> i think justice rehnquist

talks about some benefit. and that should require all statutes. >> the term more than merely diminimus. >> but it is diminimus is not enough is merely diminimus flow invented that >> it came directly from the circuits right after but some benefits that is what the court has interpreted. >> council you have to minutes. >> three points to about the statue down one about the practicalities the procedure that has been used by french to describe the teeth -- iep prohibition even he and ms. they are enforceable the way justice breyer describes

it has to meet the requirements if the services on the ground on page 47 day of his brief. >> what is the practice today? most sports use more than diminimus standard. >> that is an important question on the ground. >> put aside the word giorgio comes are appropriate or do the lower courts need a kick by. >> and think they're scattered because even the courts themselves don't believe barely more than diminimus but point to the and meet this brief -- amicus brief with the standards proposed with that

left behind act with that important revolutionary so educators on the ground as it maximizes the benefits so what educators are doing in a very rare case so the last point that congress left this alone after a rally but what it has said is the iep rules is the centerpiece to put forward. the provisions were quite hollow and that has dramatically changed now that january -- general educational curriculum and mr. chief justice you agree under the standard.

and that lass little piece of the puzzle economic and integrate level standards so that is directly in the text the alternative achievement benchmark was required taking you to 79 if you want to use that formula we think that of the proper question in this case. >> the case is submitted

1979 treated as a public-service and brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. >> the prime minister. >> mr. speaker yesterdays the acts of terrorism tried to silence our democracy as

generation have done before us to deliver a simple message we are not afraid and we will never waver in the face of terrorism and read to hear that we know that democracy and the values that it entails will always prevail free-speech liberty and human-rights are embodied here in this place. that they are shared by people round the world a terrorist came to the place of the nationalities and culture gathered to celebrate to take out his rage indiscriminately against innocent men and women children and on behalf

of the british people with friends and allies around the world to make it clear that they stand with us at this time what happened on the streets yesterday afternoon while there is an ongoing police investigation to be updated by a police and security officials at approximately 240 and attacker drove his vehicle into innocent pedestrians killing two people and injuring 40 more. in addition to the 12 britons three were children children, four were south

korean and former german one polish one irish one chinese one italian one american and two greeks and brcs enclose contacts with all of those affected the injured also included those returning from an event to of the three-year and the serious condition. the attacker left the vehicle and then shot by an armed police officer. the 48 year-old was killed. polymer had devoted his life to the service of this country as a member of the parliamentary over 15 years

he was a husband and father killed doing the job he loved. his actions will never be forgotten. i know the whole house will join b-2's said their deepest condolences to the family and friends of all those killed in the awful attack. i know also the house will wish to thank the professionalism from yesterday to secure that we are able to meet as we're doing today. has 730 last night i cheered the emergency committee the threat level has been set at severe meaning the attack is highly likely this is the second highest threat level

the highest level of critical been specific intelligence that the attack is imminent the independent joint terrorism center has decided the threat level will not change in the light of yesterday's attacks. the whole country will work to know who is responsible for this atrocity, but we're taking here. the terrorism investigation is already a under way. the security officers are working through the night to establish everything possible about the attack including the preparation and whether any associates are involved in the plan. a can confirm to make eight arrests.

it is still believe the attacker acted alone and that they're eminent further attacks of the public. his identity is unknown that the operational considerations will be publicly identified. but i can confirm that some years ago was once investigated by mi in relation to concerns of extremism the case in is historic he was not part of the current intelligence picture of his intent or the plot but the investigation continues. into be confirmed last night that the attacker was inspired by the ideology and we know the threat is very

real but while the public should remain vigilant they shall not be cowed by the threat to. >> as acting deputy commissioner has made clear to protect communities across the country and reassure the public is so mean increasing the number of patrols with more police on the street. police and security and intelligence agency successfully disrupted separate terrorist plots in britain with a security review we protected to have cross government spending by 30% in real terms and over the next by fears to invest

an extra 2.5 billion of the global security intelligence to employ over 1900 additional staff and more than doubling the counterterrorism experts with africa and asia. in terms of security that the attacker attempted to break into parliament within 20 yards of the gate if it was to gain access to the building we should be clear that they did not succeed they heroically did their job. and that is the parliamentary est. you have responsibilities and security measures all of

this in this house has a responsibility of the staff for those who need it. yesterday we saw the worst of humanity but we will remember the best. to save the life including those of my friend and we will remember the exceptional bravery of the emergency services and then encourage the others to move the of their way a lot to pay tribute for the work they're doing to reassure the public to bring security back to the streets of our city the they have lost one of their own in yesterday's attack to make that all the

more remarkable. since terrorists struck london yesterday much more will be said but not in the words of politicians with those of reactions so beyond these walls today millions of people are going about their day to go on with their life the coffee shops and cafes to board the trains and airplanes with the greatest city on earth millions of axe of normality to find a response to terrorism. and a victory that refuses to let them win to show we

will never give in. the response to a good buy that same spirit that drove a husband and father to put himself between us and our attacker to appeal to apprise with the responses to the men and women that propagate you will not defeat us so let this be the message today that our values will prevail and will amend this statement to the owls. >> colleagues i advisor behalf been joined today by the french foreign minister who is the company by a member - - number of his colleagues in the right honorable gentlemen. sir we appreciate your presence and your display of

solidarity with us. >> a light to associate myself with the remarks the chief justice just made and has an appalling atrocities pulling together what took place it behooves us all not to rush to judgment but to establish the facts to stand united in our communities to not allow fear are all of voices of hatred but today we are united by our humanity and our democratic values and by the shield and impulsive solidarity.

to stand together in times of darkness and adversity. mr. speaker my condolences to friends and family members of the police officer who gave his life yesterday in defense of the public and our democracy. those sticky plus save every day to pay tribute to the bravery of those to to action to stop the perpetrator of yesterday's assault. and to fulfill that despite the shock and the grief that was expressed to be late last week. the collies and fellow workers and neighbors. as it takes place and then

for their own safety with those cent -- services we are grateful yesterday's and today and every day they put on their uniforms. and to express the operations in with the special commendation to tried to save life. as many millions have before them and as solid as in the chamber have the injured include people of 10 nationalities. we send our deepest condolences to our loved ones and those in a critical condition including the

french school children and our sympathies to the and the people of their town and community. to all the dedicated national health service staff and all of those who rushed out straight over at the scene in the instance many people would be traumatized not just all of this year but watching for the safety of their friends and loved ones and look after each other and the of one another through humanity and love.

>> prime minister correct. >> and thanks to the gentleman to express our gratitude of the suppress and solidarity of the french government has shown at this difficult time i'd like the other - - other countries they have been at terrorist attacks we have been grateful for their support. and with those police officers did not know what they will confront in the course of their duties of people simply saw officer working on the street and put their lives on the line and we're grateful to put them all and also to the

emergency services and others to have been injured to what else might have been -- be happening to put themselves in danger. at this time it is so important to show it is our values and the terrorists will not win to show the unity of purpose and the volumes that we share to assure that the terrorists will be defeated. >> mr. speaker my right honorable friend of those injuries have taken place

and also to the injured. those us who are privy to the information and the background of these matters over the course of of last year's indy hideous parts of the evil we are fortunate that in the security services to be helpful to protect such attacks but she may agree with me to be resolute in excepting they cannot always be prevented

with there are no shortcuts to do that. >> it is easy to forget when the pratt lovell is that severe -- the threat of level isn't possible to enter to prevent any attack from taking place but precisely to try to prevent the attacks from taking place. in doing a good job to keep us safe and to the future but if we are to defeat the

evil through the democracy and values with that terrible ideology leaving them to conduct the attacks. >> but today of all days we are reminded of our differences on the political and constitutional issues with the rule of law between peoples personally by wishing that pride minister as they worked on period hard on our behalf on the intelligence services of the indiscriminate terrorist act and our hearts go out to all

other casualties we are grateful on to the staff los first responders and that includes those numbers. sold well but the pie minister accept and huge debt of gratitude from staff who are working so hard to get ready save that no terrorist r.h. -- outrage that we can reconsider selves of tolerance and understanding. >> end of our colleague with

the love of bravery of the victim's of the attack. >> so now is the time to come together for what he has referred to to recognize it is a warped ideology to destroy the values that we share that underpinned the democracy with tolerance and understanding to be sure that the values prevail and we should remember the bravery of the of victims of those to keep us safe day in

and day out. >> mr. speaker may i commend my right honorable friend for those in new have died and are suffering for the wonderful and brave police officers. we have faced such threats before with those five went ideologies of the databases to time and again they have failed because we are a beacon of freedom and that is why they targeted to us. i urge my friends to insurer in the face of such evil. with tolerance and help --

hope. >> i share what my friend has set out as a beacon of freedom and we should never forget that. to be absolutely resolute in our determination to defeat and be optimistic so they somoza 10 downing street last night. and we always know to know how true that really is. and we are beyond painful to the police to keep us safe

and to their roles. with the democracy the openness as it works out to unravel by the allies and the actions and we should have more of them. and he is right as others have said to ensure that our values so with his of way of life of those millions of

citizens going about their lives that each and everyone of that. >> while the dreadful events of yesterday to a place in my boundaries, but for those many millions. and toothache of prime minister and that the greatest tribute that could be paid to those to ensure me go about our business as normally as possible with of values and the of the release we work so hard to win. >> i agree.

but not just value for the tears to wish to attack. and that there is many arguments. and but we showed in our actions. >>. >> and on the steps just today it is very difficult time and i think her for that. to be proud of the bravery to be so grateful for what he did to keep us safe to

add a tribute of the parliamentary staff of professionalism and also paid tribute to the king's college hospital for the injured. but with an act of terror because we are here to about our business. and because the prime minister so rightly said as a pretext for this division and hatred that this democracy is strong and robust this was a horrific crime but an act of terror.

>> the lesson to be learned of a single person with the house of prayer and peace can i suggest those who actually work in their favor >> and to make an important point the metropolitan police are meeting with them today to show the importance of coming together and working with communities up and down the country that

they will be concerned of possible reactions of the job of the police to keep us all save. >> mr. speaker to commend the of prime minister and her tone and substance and also we must not allow in the coming days and weeks anyone to divide our country on the basis of faith or nationality after these attacks because the reality is that across the country we are a country and i did against these attacks. that is to we are. >> the right honorable gentleman is right to go about their business in defiance of the terrorist to

have a very clear message that very clearly today that the country will not be cowed by the tear it -- terrorist. >> by those injured in the attack yesterday is it time to consider the police should routinely carry personal protection weapons and even when not part of the uniformly targeted. >> it has been nearly 20 years i have been in that house in the parliamentary status and to be harmed significant a.

and to undertake the particular duties that is the operational matter. they are the best able to judge the circumstances for the individuals to have. but of course, we have seen an increase of the officers this the reflection that has then necessary to do that so that is the question my friend raises. >> mr. speaker i would commend the prime minister when speaking for all of us for the entire country. and the reason that we are here today and any of their day to embody the rule of law that we stood in harm's

way for all of the of victims to suffered yesterday. also with the emergency services of the parliamentary staff with the decency of ordinary members who died from their own safety. we must approve the values we have learnt the way to overcome terrorism is to work together and in every other way to ensure the democratic values of human rights are all lapel and every way that they can. >> i agree with the gentleman and we are here today because of the bravery of our police officers.

and then to insure but was saved yesterday and to refer to that experienced by working together. >> this seems to be both of prime minister in the opposition has set the right tone with the values that unite the kingdom. with this chamber was destroyed to decide on a single day and the prime minister has shown today the best way to defeat terrorism is to prove from our values and our place.

with a specific example the parliament upheld our democracy. >> can dealing with this in the outrage so the effect of counterterrorism designed to prepare and protect to be inadequate but kidnap that they'd well he assure that there is neighborhood policing teams the crucial strand to the council terrorism. >> the gentleman is right to

to indeed embody that plant -- the plan to prevent terrorism and violent extremism that come in many forms. those individuals within the communities that they are able to get information with their concerned perhaps within their family. into a the other opportunities to get the information. but also to the benefit. >> a very fitting statement. when they die they leave behind has been sent lives.

with the brutal murder of three police officers. and with the police dependence trust i very happy is the bible organization but the families behalf to live with ever with the family member of that tragedy. >> and the prime minister's words to speak for all of us today to say this was the attempted attack of parliament and democracy in

to do the job with others to keep people safe it is also with the head tax on our freedom and as our hearts go out the attack pales with resilience and determination they are all parts of the country that should be crucial to make sure the terrorist never win. >> morris of a cowardly attack to be the ticket refocused with that attempt

of the descent men and women and children to enjoy the great delights of the wonderful city that is cowardly and appalling. and with their police and their communities with that partnership and dupont continues. >> to reassure the dignity why she is proven to be superb by the prime minister our hearts go out to the victim's and the police to risk their lives every day to keep us safe and so what did give up their lives and

to usher us they will have the resources they need to keep us safe. >> thank you for your comments and as indicated in my statement retaken steps available for security and intelligence agency with the resources available for those working in the counter terrorism area with the armed response vehicles here in london and other parts of the country as well. we constantly look to make sure it is appropriate but we are very conscious of the job our police do in and out to give them the support that they need.

>> i commend the prime minister not a show of defiance of respect for the dead and injured in democracy and our constituents. one man cannot shut down the city. did she agree we must not react to the ideology. >> i think that was absolutely appropriate. it is a show of gratitude for our police and emergency services to show respect and concern for those who are the victim of the terrible attacks that took place but also to show normality and

that is what is important as we defy the terrorist and to defeat them. >> mr. speaker i think the prime minister for her statement. every 25 years has seen the police played many roles around westminster to give vice where to go and other occasions to see the mess members of the public is one of the things that they do one of the other things is to protect our democracy which we saw yesterday had consequences. with everything that they do to defend our democracy palmer's was one of us the police protectors are one of us.

i hope the substage the tribute that we are here today with the proceedings to go on but to have the option that we spoke about before is a memorial to those who pay the health of a sacrifice for our democracy i hope that an appropriate time with discussion with the family that maybe we can look at that arboreal to remember people put their lives on the line. >> for those who wish to consider that point but it is a particular characteristic here in united kingdom that the police are able to have that bond with the members of the public at the same time to with the very difficult job to keep us safe.

with major defense taking place but absolutely right day in and day out they keep us safe. >> as we mourn those who word taken done yesterday began a very thanks to police and emergency services for the exemplary courage and to show by our determination to carry on so that she agreed we need to show the same determination to stand up against anyone who will stir up hatred in the wake of these cowardly attacks greg. >> did you agree with the right honorable gentleman haight will not divide us that should also be a clear

message from the house today. . . .... .... >> about his ties to russia. the congressman talked to reporters about the meeting and his committee's investigation into russian interference in u.s.' elections. >> good morning. appreciate you being here on short notice.