re are a large fraction of homeowners underwater. i think if you look at the aggregate numbers, just the increase in house prices we have seen, and i think that is in part reflecting accommodative fewerry policy, many borrowers are underwater. the numbers have diminished substantially. i know the las vegas area particularly as one of the most the hit and still has about highest numbers on this, but i really think that's helping and eventually we will see greater progress in the housing market. many impediments that servicers face in the aftermath of the problems, the foreclosure problems we've had during the crisis. things have not yet settled out there. c-span,g up on

republican leader comments on the 2014 midterm elections. house democrats present their economic agenda. then the house rules committee considers a lawsuit against president obama. >> on the next "washington journal," immigration and the influx of unaccompanied children from central american with two members of congress, iowa republican steve king and texas democrat eddie bernice johnson. washington journal live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> we are here at salisbury house in des moines, iowa. it's a home that was built by karl and edith weeks in the 1920's. he was a man of many and varied interests. nonone of the most notable are

his amazing collections in terms of artwork, sculpture, the library collection is an amazing collection of rare limited first edition works. it's incredible. he collected the books that he collected not only because they are important historical works but also because he believes that books themselves were works beyondand had a worse the words on a page. he collected almost every edition of "leaves of grass." it changed over time but for him , it was the art of collecting. he also collected a variety of first editions of ernest hemingway's work. this is "the green hills of africa."

this is a great piece because it illustrates the personal relationship that existed between carl weekes and ernest hemingway. this inscription -- explore the history and literary life of the des moines, iowa, saturday at noon eastern on c-span 2 cost "book tv." tv."span 2's "book >> the heads of republican election efforts held a news conference today to talk about the 2014 midterm elections. they talked about their efforts to raise campaign funds come a build grassroots networks, and develop online strategies. this is one hour. >> good afternoon, everyone. think you all for coming. i want to welcome all of our

guests here today. matt walter with the republican state leadership council. obviously, today, the goal is to the you an idea of where republican party is from all levels from local to federal stand as we head into the midterm elections. each of the folks up here will give you about a 10 minute committeen as to the they are doing in the races they are overseeing. when that is done, we have time for a brief q and day. raise her hand and we will call on you. state your name, the organization you are with, and we will go from there. we will try to hold this to is close to an hour as possible and there will be time afterwards if you want to talk to any of these individuals. miket to introduce shields, chief of staff of the rnc.

>> thank you to my colleagues for joining us here today. around the party committees most of my career and i can tell you we have an unprecedented level of cooperation that goes on between all the people you see working up here and their staff. feel so reason we confident going into this election season, how well we work together, the amount of information we can share. confident going into this election season and how well they work together in the amount of information and share with one another. when he done at the white house and you have different groups that are all working sometimes there is not that unifying force that i think we all headed in the right direction. we'll believe they are very confident about what we are going to see this ball and i think another thing you're going to pick up from is the theme from all of us is how competent we feel going into the fall elections about where republicans are and where we are headed. there are common themes we are seeing in a lot of different races that make us feel good about where we are headed. we have a lot of work to do but we still feel very good going into the fall elections.

this isn't working. that was the first . we are working together like i said from the rnc perspectives it's been a pleasure working with the house and senate and governor's campaigns building out the national ground force we have working on the solutions they need for the campaigns. it's truly been a partnership working with all of them. here you can see a map of where ground data is. we have built out following their lead, we do are targeting where we need to put the troops that we have on the ground based upon where they are telling us that they have target races and if they need help. so there are a lot of rules to play on the team. we are all teammates here together.

as many of you have heard from us in the briefings we decided in the start of the cycle to ask yourselves what are some existential questions of the rnc. what is our role and what can we do best and what can we only do? we have decided there are two things we have to focus on building out the ground game and working on her data infrastructure. there's a lot of tv ads running and you will hear from my colleagues on how they focus on math messaging and they do recruitment in a lot of things well. what the rnc knows we have to do is provide the backbone and start a full-time national ground operation. we launched operation. the launch will be called bigotry be called victory. at 65 this ear an update at the old program at the rnc. we started in june of 2013 and you see the states on this map. we have staff across the country that are permanent staff. they are there to work year-round in precincts in local areas. it's essentially community organizing and it's not an rnc that waits until five months

before an election. that can work when you are buying television and you can buy ad time and work towards the end. in the past the ground game had the dumbest same way and we have heard that doesn't work that if you are going to put people in communities building relationships you need to be there a lot sooner. we have been spending our money throughout the entire cycle following their lead us to where to get the hill. i think you can see some of the numbers. we currently have 16,000 precinct captains recruited in the top precincts working with our colleagues we determined are the key places when he could have volunteers. these are folks. we are not trucking folks who really can. these are folks that have relationships in these communities. they know where to knock on the doors and they are with local boaters on the ground. the volunteer force. we have paid staff with over 200 staff over the country. 91% of the political department does not work at the rnc so this is big and led by paid staff. we are building a true volunteer

army to build this in elections. there you can see there are three or four field staff, 24 state directors 280 field staffers across the country. we have opened up 147 different offices and supplemented that with regional field data operatives who work with state parties and campaigns to help train them and utilize the data we have been putting in the fields of the campaigns can work with us on that. we have 30 hispanic engagement staff across the country 15 african-american engagement staff and eight asian/pacific islander staff. built in the background game is something that goes back to our growth and opportunity report republished last year addressing the demographic challenges the republican party faces. not just looking at hiring hiring someone of the coalitions director down the hall but putting our engagement staff as part of our field staff so they are no skin in a tease to get those voters. again something you can't do if

you wait until the end is build a relationship that a minority community that the republican party may not have before. we have been taking that leap once again from our house and senate gubernatorial campaigns where they have seen the need for that and working with them to hire staffers. as i mentioned we have by far most of our political staff don't work inside the beltway. we mentioned a number of precinct captains we have recruited. we think we have got 30,000 by the end of the election we need to get too to get to so we are well on her way considering now we would be standing up a lot of victory offices around the country in a typical election cycle in the past. we abari made 1.3 million voter contacts so those volunteers are not just out there learning the ropes and getting involved in putting on a t-shirt. they have been out doing voter contact in utilizing some of the tools we have put out in the field. a primary focus of what we are working on are the 10 million plus voters. we know and our job is to focus

on turnout. the democratic party in the past has done a good job of focusing on those low propensity voters. both parties have lower propensity propensity voters who need to focus on in this field staff allows us to zero in on those voters and of course using the voter score so we have on line that are available in all 50 states. we used to put voters in one of five buckets low or high propensity with republican or democratic. we now have the survey backed voter scoring system that puts every voter in a one to 100 score. we can zero in a granular way. we use that in the florida 13 special election which lisa lisa lisa can talk about what the nrcc. of course the canvassing tools we have put in the hands of those volunteers. we now have a system that her state parties have been purchasing where we have a canvassing at the goes on a smartphone that loads the

information there an api augmented system. together information at the doors. admittedly gets put into the rnc voter file and database and shared with the campaign so we have real-time data generated by the volunteers. they are not only on the field working to persuade voters and talk to them, they are gathering data and making our voter file more robust and more accurate. the voter scores are being enhanced now through the election weekly. we will be doing thousands of poll questions to give us a running track of issues across the country and continuing to enhance those models that we have on the voter scores. talking about our strategic initiatives,, i mentioned this with their asian/pacific islander and latino and our 1414

program working 14 weeks back from the 2014 elections to get women the volunteers more engaged in republican party politics. this is a proactive program. our co-chairman susan dey, share and excuse me is heavily involved in this. working to recruit women to get them involved in republican party politics. we want to get you off the sidelines and we think that will eventually help generate officers and candidates in the future. and our youth program. we now have a youth director that is working to organize college campuses. in the past i think republicans have looked at college republicans as a group of volunteers that we could shift somewhere else getting deep into college towns. we look at them as here's an army of folks we can help in local areas where they are to our inner to our end and roll them into her victory fitted 65 programs so they are using the same tools and doorbell and phone calling strategies. the florida 13 special lisa can talk about this.

we talk about at the rnc. i have to say the nrcc did a brilliant job of going in early and doing a lot of persuasion mail and running a fantastic campaign with david jolley. we were working on the ground game. they spent $3 million into some very smart things but we were working hand-in-hand to provide a canvassing tools, the voter scores and volunteer base. it was really the first way that all the things things i talked about were able to be implemented and we won the race by less than 4000 votes. we beat the democrats at their own game. they talk a lot about their voter scores in the virginia governor's race and they suddenly quit talking about the things they were doing in florida 13 because they so we were able to implement a lot of the single incident election. now what we are working hard to do is was implement this across the country in all of the races that we will be involved in. just talking briefly about the gop brand. 53% of americans believe it's

more important to have republicans in charge and act as a check and balance and on president obama and his policies. it looks a lot like 2010 in terms of how independents break and the windows that are her base in this election. the gop holds a 15% advantage in the midterms midterms and our pace is much more motivated. 27% believe the country is headed in the right direction. these are all very bad numbers for democrats and one of the reasons we feel optimistic. also even with minorities, we would never say if they are and see that by putting our strategic initiatives program together in hiring an african-american field staff that we are suddenly going to carry 50% of the african-american vote in the 2014 election. we have never said that was our goal but her goal is to cut in the way the democrats have.

as you can see in the survey here going from 11% to 16% is a good improvement for us. we think showing up in being part of the community matters. there are certainly congressional districts where she took 5% of the democrats they can't win the race anymore. we think it's a significant thing to continue to do. fighting the war on women working within rcc. we did a national survey to provide our candidates with tools on how to push back on the false narrative of the war on women. the gop wins when we stop allowing the democrats to set the false narrative on this. women's priorities the economy governmental spending education and health care are things that when we actually manage to get our message through the women they cut in our favor according to the survey data. they are not happy with the status quo and they are looking for really a pragmatic solution and republicans can offer that this ball and we feel like our candidates are now being armed with those tools. and then of course kerry reid is busy plucking families bills being sent to him and our

engagement efforts as i mentioned the 14 and 14. obama's approval rating stands at 40% of these considered the worst president since world war ii. of course 40% approval is the economy and 4040% as obamacare. we don't really see away the democrats are going to be able to shake these numbers. you see this when you see senators and people completely avoiding the president. it's only july and it's only going to get worse as we continue. just to let you know in terms of the messages and research pieces that will be coming out from the rnc it shows you where focus is. obamacare energy the economy government missed management and the weakened democratic brand. i want to turn it over to my colleague at the nrcc the executive director lisa. >> thank you mike. this first slide i think demonstrates where the house

planning field is right now. actually a surprise when nancy pelosi made her comments this morning about where she's sees the election heading in november. she obviously wasn't briefed on this. charlie cook has got 11 democrats and two republicans in tossup seats. up is that those democrats are top targets for the cycle. i can tell you the numbers we are seeing in these districts these democrats are in trouble. not long ago we launched something called our drive to 245. it's obviously an ambitious and aggressive goal but the generic ballot that we are seeing in our battleground districts, obama's numbers, obama's job approval they are much worse than what you are sitting in national surveys. our battleground districts i'm probably seeing plus five to plus seven then you are seeing in the national polling. we have -- to get us there. today we have 235 in the house.

we are going to pick up two seats won in utah with the retirement of jim matheson, one in north carolina with the retirement of david bowser. this puts us where we need to pick up nine in our 31 target races. these races, as we put this map together clears a path to victory in all these races we have got to win as candidates in these districts. i think this also demonstrates kind of where the landscape is. recently the dccc expenditure lay down their fall reserve. we lay down our fall tv reserve. 68% of our spending is on offense than 40% of nurses on defense. their mission is to stop the bleeding as they go into the fall. ours is obviously to expand and maximize opportunities and that's going to be our goal. really quickly want to talk

about a few of our candidates. don't want to spend a lot of time because i know rob stuff is much more interesting to you all. i will just quickly highlight some of them. and this is one of the most exciting recruitment classes we have seen in a really long time. i have got here about 15 candidates that i'm going to run through really quickly starting with martha mike sally. she's in arizona to district in tucson. she is running against ron barber for the second time that she came with only 2000 votes last time. she is the first female pilot in combat and she has outraised barber for four quarters in the road. this is one of our best pickup opportunities in the country. this is jory western. this is who we are paying attention to. collin peterson has never had a race against him.

we never had a research book on this guy. he doesn't know what 4000 points of tv feels like dropped on his head in the fall. we have a great candidate on top of a story of perseverance. he was blinded in a farming accident at age 14. he is a successful business owner and a state senator. the fargo newspaper said that he was -- worst nightmare. carl tamayo and california 52 running against scott peters. he won in the mayor's race in 2012 and one that part of the congressional district with 57%%. there is not than one poll since he entered the race last year that has them losing. elise stefanik if elected would be the youngest thing i'll elected to congress. she is 29 years old in the onc. this became a great pickup

opportunity for us. she just came out of a tough primary fight and we are excited about her election this fall. evan jenkins was a democrat until last year. he switched parties. he is running against neck rheault. obama's approval rating in this district is 22% so neck rheault is in a fight like he has never been in before. carlos carballo running against joe garcia in the southernmost district of florida. he's a rising star in the party. who do we have next-paragraph ryan costello. he is in the turlock open seat a terrific candidate running against a three-time loser who ran against spurlock in the past several cycles. barbara comstock and others are interested in this race. there's not a candidate who works harder than barbara. this is going to be a great race

for us. i am bullish on illinois. i know phil will talk about illinois some. the numbers we are seeing there in the governor's race and our two candidates they are bob dole in the northern part of the state in the chicago suburbs and mike bastin the southernmost district down there. they are both running ahead of their opponents. interesting in illinois and in california last cycle we have a lot of freshmen democrats to none other voters left. they just check the box and voted for the democratic at the congressional level and their numbers are very weak in these illinois districts and in the california district. bob dole recent public polling had him beating brad schneider. this is in the new jersey run up and see. tom went up on tv and came up with a great primary fight in june. richard thursday against john

tierney. john tierney ethical policies have not gone away. john tierney is in a serious primary fight of his own. it's a late primary where he will have to spend a lot of money. stuart mills running against rick noland in upper minnesota. this guy for a first-time candidate he has such natural ability and instincts. i have never seen anything like it. he has got a great shot against noland. once again going to california.ocie running and sacramentally -- the sacrament and jeff correll this is the seed young people's radar right now. he has an afghan war vet. he is unable reserve duty as we speak and he said assemblyman who wins a tough district there. lastly we have lee zeldin who came out of a tough primary

fight in long island new york. he's running against him bishop once again another democrat for serious ethical problems. and we represent senate district that was part of the district and we are really excited about his chances. was i under time? i will turn it over to rob. >> thank thank you. good afternoon i'm rob collins the executive director of the nrsc. when we started this 18 months ago the question was always could we recruit candidates and when their state? could we get them through the primary process and could we train them up to run a campaign that was moderate and ready to take on the democrats? i think by most standards everyone would say of recruiting class turned out to be pretty darned good. the primary process like any primary process is always bumpy but starting back in september

and continuing today we have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in training and travel and time to make sure our candidates, we don't tell them what to believe but just making sure they talk in a way that's relevant to voters. so a real quick overview of the senate. history. presidents lose 6.6 seats on average going back to the 50s in their second midterm elections. obviously 6 feet except the majority. democrats have also had a geography problem. we have had 14 incumbents up for re-election and 13 are in states that romney won. one is in a state that obama won and that susan collins. of the seven contested democratic seats six of those obama got 42% or less won all seven of them. the democrats have a historical problem in a geographical problem. this election is going to be

allow president obama. two factors that factor into that. one come in midterm elections are about the current state of the country. going back to any midterm election in particular as i said historically speaking a midterm election of a second term president but also with harry reid essentially shutting down the senate, you don't have a lot of senators who have passed legislation. mark begich has never had an amendment or a roll call vote on the senate floor. i want to say kay hagan has only 15 bills that she sponsored and cosponsored after signing the law. the sportsman's package last week was one of her first national initiatives. these candidates have fewer and fewer things to run on. they have to run on big national priorities like obamacare so how is the president doing?

people remain pessimistic about the track of the country. approval continues to be in the wrong direction. double digits in the wrong direction for obama. you can see independent voters decidedly oppose this president. when a president gets a cold nationally he gets pneumonia in the states that we care about. how does he look historically? to conceal bomb is trailing one past president and you can see historical trends. unlikely we see obama get up to them the mid-45 or 60s but we can make a legitimate case. what is dominating? economy jobs deficit obamacare is still in the mix. you can see the track heading back towards march has been fairly stable.

.. >> as we said, our party is tied, but if you look at interest, seven to nine, six to seven, zero f. five, if you are 89 we have a significant lead that trickles down.

it and what you are seeing is if there is support or opposition. here is what we are seeing. the president is that a significantly higher amount of people. and when you overlay intensity, here is what you see. they want to send a signal. there seems to be an enthusiasm gap among democrats. i know i am ripping through this . and just something that we track that we are very focused on, state-wide races, you have seen us tighten it up. we have seen it move our way since june and july. the border crisis and other factors driving the national narrative. but we have a problem.

the problem is that democrats have a lot more money, so we fight that every day. this is the environment that we are in. the democrats to a great job of talking about the help that we get and the money we spend. important to put any contextual context and understand how one where they are spending. they talk a great game. let's see where their money is. colorado, michigan. six months to a year ago, it $10 million in colorado and michigan. we see north carolina, where the priorities are. you know, this is a cycle where the democratic allies in the senate are extremely active and well funded.

when you have the president and majority leader of the u.s. senate going to fund-raisers and sitting down with major donors -- the new york times yesterday, the very wealthy man from san francisco in the white house in may. it tells you they are focused on raising money. nrc, we have not put down everything. obviously we have a different strategy, and our math has changed so much when you look where we are. scott brown dec. 301st. you will see more of that. we always talk about we have 12 races that are tied or in the margin. these -- a quick run through the. a bunch of slides that we will not go through.

but eight polls in a row. yes, some of them are republicans and some are not, but that is an important factor. there is the spring time lag. if but we are up in that race and will stay up. she won the primary, that is important to gives you will see the same thing in new hampshire. a bit of a gap. that will tighten up. i think that is significant in that we have been involved heavily. a tremendous fund-raising quarter. public polling, that is a big gap obviously. north carolina, another state where we have been -- the

outside groups outspent her heavily last year but have done a great job catching up. it clearly in charge. and we will run through states. for the sake of time. i would like to turn it over to one of the most important people at the nrc. iowa, arkansas, michigan, new hampshire, alaska, mexico, minn. to by his strong governor candidates will help pull us up and create a unified ticket. feeling good about their governor candid it's. one of the people i think will help us take back the senate, i love it. >> thank you. it really has been a great team effort between and among all of the committee's command it will continue.

obviously a big year for governors, 36 governor races defending 22 of the 36, including 19 incumbents. we are in a strong financial position as a committee. we continue to out raise 2-1. after spending 25 million we have 70 million on hand and are in position to spend a hundred million. a very strong position financially, and as you will see from the map year, we are also strong in our political position . thirty-six governors races, 19 incumbents. eighteen of the 19 are either tied or currently leading throughout the country. we have spent 25 million the first half of the year. the goal was to narrow sense we are defending so much territory. you look at three states, iowa, south carolina, new mexico where

we have sent -- spend money. about one to 2 million. we have taken those races from single digits to help the double-digit leads. it has allowed us to play a little more offense. there were three states that, frankly, were not competitive at the beginning of this year that within the last month are now competitive. leading by one point. you look at massachusetts, the poll for this week as baker down five. locked in an expensive primary. and hawaii, a state where we will have a 3-way race. governor abercrombie has had one of the most disastrous implementations of the health care exchange of any governor in the country. and currently anywhere between

six and eight points. there are nine states that would describe as the most competitive six states. not surprisingly a lot of canaille battleground states. pennsylvania, florida, maine. and three, what i would describe as tremendous pick up opportunities. you just break down the six. florida and ohio have been two of the biggest turnaround of any incumbent governor in the country. florida four months ago rick scott trailed by 15 points on the ballot. he spent over $17 million. an ohio the governor's job

approval was in the late 30's. today it is in the high 50's. he leaves by eight to ten points . in michigan and wisconsin we are in a strong position. states that public-sector unions care about him. these are going to be competitive states. again, to states that we are in a strong position to win our two most challenging, pennsylvania and maine, states were governors have great records. there will be challenging races, territories for republicans, but i can tell you, the argy a is fully committed. and three pickup opportunities i mentioned.

it has been a tremendous turnaround. obviously a very important competitive senate race. now, conn., that raises tied. a repeat of five years ago. lost by 6400 votes four years ago. that will be a highly competitive race in connecticut. in illinois the public-sector unions did their best. they spent about $6 million before the primary trying to knock him out. he won. he currently leads by 12 points. an astounding 17%. a very strong wrong direction

sentiment in the state and the great tradition of the illinois governor's. spending public money to support his campaign in 2010. and so i think we have a great shot in all three of those states. i am optimistic for some of the reasons folks have already mentioned for four specific reasons. first, a strong position financially. we have the ability is spend a hundred million dollars. the political environment is good and getting better. we have a capacity advantage without question. looking at the senate, we have 25 senate races on like 2012 where governors were dismissing themselves. we have a great crop of u.s.

senate candidates, a great crop of gubernatorial candid it's reinforcing one another. there are four states where our candidates for governor are running at relatively significantly ahead of our candidates for u.s. senate where i think they will be a help, iowa, michigan, georgia, and south carolina. four states that we will continue to engage in. the last and most importantly is the fact that governors are getting results and states are moving in the right direction, turning deficits and surpluses, reforming education, pensions, tax and regulatory regimes. most important made job creation is job number one. voters are giving them credit for reforms made in improving conditions in their states. despite having to defend the 22-36 races, again, we have 18

of the 19 incoming and governors who are currently tied or leading and are in a strong position to maintain a majority. >> and i you want to say a couple of things before we do questions. >> absolutely. >> i am the president of the republican save leader committee. we have the fortune of being in all 50 states. we are underneath all of the races you see here today and are fortunate to have the operational capacity and execution of each of these committees as well as the lead from the rnc. it is the kind of thing that we see and feel on a day-to-day basis. thank you for the leaders command we commend you on it. that is fortunate because we are, as i say, spread across 50 states. each of the three branches of government.

we are close to the ground and are able to hear a lot of the feedback that is out there and understand what the localized conditions are. because of that execution and leadership will we are seeing is a tremendous opportunity based upon all of the factors that my colleagues discussed. and just to give you a finer point, we will start our legislative national meeting beginning tomorrow. the 93 leaders from all 50 states, the largest collection of state-level legislative leaders ever in history, and we have an opportunity not only to exceed our all-time highs in the legislative chambers, but to get a super majority across the country. think about that. a supermajority of majorities and legislative chambers across the country. that is achievable and right around the corner. and we want to do that in a way that not only makes them leaders now, makes them effective, helps

the governors and the other federal offices out there, but to put them on the escalator to higher office and make sure that we are putting our best foot forward. we have over 750 new female candidates and candid it's so diverse ethnicity, and they're able to interface with their constituents and voters through new medium's that the rnc is taking the leadership on the data friend and partner in with our friends. and so there is great opportunity right now to have those folks kate into office and make a tangible difference. but if you look at the maps of congress and the u.s. senate right now, more than half of those officials have served. and each of our races, not only do we want to make sure we are getting the best possible panel to execute at the state level, but folks who create a terrific

team of terrific team for these other offices down the line. we are looking to recruit the next governors, congress members , senators, presidents and make sure that those are the right candid it's. and each one of those representatives in congress right now are either republican that we have helped move through the leadership escalation to higher office or a democrat that we could have spent a lot less money in defeating at the state level. that is our goal, build the team and wipe out the next generation of democrats. i will do you all the courtesy of not going through the 7,500 races we have in front of us this year. happy to talk about it afterwards. we get granular real quick. >> questions. raise your hand. [inaudible question]

>> very similar to the one that president bush had, or do you think you are different in some way? >> a comparison of those, but i think you saw from historic data polling that they are kind of in a similar neighborhood. that could, you know -- historical trends are powerful. some folks say they don't count as much. they do. so you look going back -- well, since 1906 that president -- they lost on average just over six seats. i think that this president's, his popularity -- you will hear talk of legacy brands and the legislation.

so they are forced to legislative agendas that are unpopular newhall and to a president that has directed their political career [inaudible question] >> disappointed in president obama. and even worse view of congressional republicans , which is true in many of the state's. what do persuade the voters do if that is there choice? >> send a message to the president. we are winning that on go votes right now command a think it is important that we have a positive agenda that highlights the confidence of this administration and offers an alternative. and i think every campaign is in the process of developing that thought, but, you know, this election will be driven by where

things are. people are smarter. presidential elections are about the future. so the president is going to be driving this election candidates really have to present a credible alternative as a candidate and have to have the resources, not to and spend the democrats because we won't do that, but have enough money to get out an alternative message that says there is an alternative direction to go here. [inaudible question] >> that list, and illinois the white house has already said that president obama is placed to help governor quinn. they had breakfast together. can you assess what the impact will be in this big battle of having the white house and obama active in its? >> i think that remains to be seen. it is pretty clear that the

governors' races are a little bit different from congressional races. the voters view them through a somewhat different plans. more local issues are involved. illinois is a state with the largest unfunded liability per capita of any state in the country. it is a fiscal train wreck. and i think the most recent public polling has literally less than to entertain people in illinois think the state is moving in the right direction. this race is rough. i think we have a great change argument to make. we have a great candid. so the president can come and campaign wherever he wants. i think these governors races -- i think the one area where we see the obama impact in governor's races is on the

intensity, and you saw that slide pointed out without question across the board whether congressional races, senate races, gubernatorial races. republican voters are simply more motivated right now. >> a question for you. it is a 2-partner. we have yet to hear anyone talk about that tea party. because of those senate races there are a bunch of independent third party that libertarian candid it's, if it is not close, how do libertarians affect this race? in general, what is the status of the relationship between that party and the tea party on senate races? [laughter] >> first, look, you know, the

grass-roots -- primaries are always, you know, religion and politics are the things your mom said not to bring up at the dinner table. if you look at the races, a tough primary in iowa. the team came together quickly and tightened up. a very tough primary. get through it, and you see his polling going in the right direction as a result, the republican base coming home. the for-profits conservatives based here in d.c., we are never going to get along with them. there are some that will have a role to play in a general election, but some of the louder voices, it does not in your to their bottom line to get along with us so they choose not to. but where we can work together we will. i think at the grass-roots level that intensity is only moving in the right direction as we get through more and more primaries.

we have exciting republican candid it's forthcoming this fall. so i feel pretty good about where we are with that. what was the second part of the question? [inaudible] >> oh, you know, i was on the ground in 2002. i understand the impact personally you know, it is a challenge. something that we factor in and it is incumbent upon us to model our research and polling accurately so that we can build elections and political plans that allow us to win. you know, we would love to get their support even if they are libertarian or otherwise ideologically band. we will try to talk to them in a way where we can get their support in the chicken cross over and back the republicans.

if you look at the senate right now is a diverse group of folks demand we have a lot of senators and national leaders who can speak to certain segments of the population that may not be -- whatever word you want to read to -- classic establishment republicans. we recognize the many voices in this senate, where everyone fits in. the great news about that, our senators are extremely engaged. how are engaged they are and how willing they are to really step up. use of the democrats yesterday , senator mccain engaged immediately and say, you know, what is going on here. that is something i would not discount. >> i have been through election cycles where the base was not motivated, and it was not fined. coming out of 12 we had been a

party that was of little, quiet party that did not have a robust conversation with itself. it would have been bad for republicans. we have had that conversation, some in primaries. what has come out the other end is a motivated base. i dare say the democrats wish they had a two-party in their base to help them. he looked at the polling we just showed you. the primary process, and a few competitive primaries left. we are through with that stage of the election cycle. what we will see his support for republicans up and down through all of these races, all the way down with a very motivated group of republicans that will turn out and vote and a not as motivated group of democrats. the end result of the question is, we are in a good position because we have the motivated base. >> right. and at the local level we are seeing that enthusiasm swing behind the republicans. i sometimes have my d.c. hat on

too tight. when i speak kagan not mean to be critical of all of the groups, but i think there is lot of energy at the state and local level where registering voters get folks out, talking to neighbors and doing a really, really impressive job. you see it weaving through these races. sometimes people say, oh, this big, national group this year. they don't understand that at the local level how it impacts our races. >> thank you. [inaudible question] >> you just described it. [inaudible question] >> because of redistricting people are pretty much in the district where they belong. so, you know, where the field in 2010 was over 100 races, 12,

about 75. fifty is pushing it. so i think, you know, 50 would be pushing it. how many races are in play this cycle, it has made the field much smaller. >> that is exactly it. [inaudible question] >> you used the term community organizing. data mining, trying to get out low propensity voters. you know how sarah palin disparaged. are you emulating the obama 2012 ground game? >> i would say we are rebuilding the republican party for moderate political elections. you know, in 2004 we had an incumbent president, a technological lead on the democrats, and a superior ground game. i think we all admit that those are two areas we need to improve

coming out of the 2012 election. our goal is not to catch them but surpass them. this is sort of like a space race. data and technology, leapfrog each other when it comes to how robust and efficient the ground and can be in the tools you can put in hand. i would say if we build the right. so we are creating a moderate political party that is full time creating data and technology tools to take advantage of those volunteers and help us win elections. it is not a matter of emulating. it is a matter of surpassing. [inaudible question] >> well, i think if you look at their growth and opportunity part, there is a whole section on looking at what we could have done better and what we need to do better from the mechanical perspective. the person who is running our latino voter outreach program, there are things that we -- we

brought in private sector talent from silicon valley. we looked at seeing where we could do things that we have done before. so, again, we are building a moderate political party based upon what we see that we can do to help complement the great things that our colleagues are doing to take a advantage of the political winds blowing in our direction. >> thank you for all -- thank-you all for coming. if you have any questions -- we look for to seeing you soon. thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ..

>> tomorrow night, live coverage of chris christie at davenport, iowa. it is part of the road to the white house 2016 coverage. is that 7:00 p.m. -- it is at 7:00 p.m.. >> 435 years, c-span brings public affairs events from washington directly to you. theing you in a room at events, briefings, and conferences. and offering gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house. we are c-span created be the -- by the cable tv industry and brought to as a public service. watch us and hd. follow us on twitter. >> house democrats gathered on

the steps of the capitol to talk about their proposals for helping the middle class. they also put a size to a republican proposal to sue president obama. this is 20 minutes. >> good morning. are you ready? because we're ready. i have the privilege of being the chairman of the house democratic caucus. and we are gathered here today to send a very clear message to america. you can either sue the president of the united states or you can do your job here at the house of representative and pass laws that help the middle class and working families. you can shut down the government taking 800,000 workers and $24 billion taxpayer dollars with you, or you can enact the

president's job agenda. you can vote more than 50 times to tear down america's new health security and patient law, or you can make the law even better so every working family in america has a doctor and a peace of mind that comes with it. you can pass stop gap measures that merely kick the can down the road on our nation's budget, or on the construction and repair of our roads, rail and bridges, or you can do it the right way and pass stable, long-term laws that give our businesses and employers the confidence to hire and grow. you can do nothing other than block a vote to fix a broken immigration system, or you can pass the bipartisan fix that the senate voted out 384 days ago. americans don't have the luxury to watch the house of representatives waste time and taxpayer dollars. it's time to give americans who work hard and earn only $7.25 a raise. it's time to pay women the same as a man for the same work. it's time to reward companies

that grow jobs in america, not ship them overseas. and it's time to make college affordable once again for the middle class. democrats have a straightforward, ambitious agenda. but we will not waste america's time or taxpayer dollars. give us a chance to lead the people's house and in 100 days we'll accomplish the work of america, putting the middle class first. let me now introduce our friend and chairman who helped us put together the agenda that will put america back to work, chairman steve israel. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you. the defining issue of our time is middle class economic security. it's all about who's got your back. and the house republican majority has turned its back on the middle class. it's time for somebody to stand up for the middle class and get to work for the middle class. that's house democrats, that's what we're going to do. house republicans have stacked the deck for the special

interests, they have turned their back on the middle class. they have stalled the middle class. today behind these doors they will waste an entire day and taxpayer dollars plotting to sue the president of the united states. meanwhile we are out here announcing our solutions to support the middle class. this is the middle class jump start. it is jump start middle class. 100 days of action to put the middle class first, ahead of the special interests. now, you couldn't have a more vivid contrast in priorities. they have passed maximum subsidies for the special interests. in the first 100 days, we will increase the minimum wage for america's workers. first 100 days. they have protected the profits of the big banks. in the first 100 days, we will allow every student in the middle class and working families to refinance their student loans. in their house majority, they have supported putting bosses in charge of women's health

freedoms. in the first 100 days, we will require bosses to pay a woman the same as a man for equal work. that's the difference between them and us. 100 days. putting the middle class first. more jobs, not more subpoenas. more jobs for the middle class, not more jobs for partisan lawyers. supporting women and families, supporting affordable and accessible education. today the middle class, they feel stalled. they do feel stalled. we do not need on that same day another republican lawsuit to advance their partisan aims. we need solutions to protect the middle class' pocketbooks. that's what jump start middle class is all about. you give us this majority, we will protect the middle class first and stop house republicans from putting the special interests ahead. thank you very much. let's jump start the middle class. we need solutions, not more politics.

thank you, mr. chairman. and let me turn it over to our distinguished minority whip, who as the majority whip will make sure that these first 100 days we produce solutions and results for the middle class, as majority leader, steny hoyer. >> thank you so much. the middle class needs a jump start. the middle class knows they need a jump start. and they know they need a congress that is on their side, not a congress that says you're on your own. that's what the american people want. that's what we're going to give them. democrats have a strong agenda for the 114th congress. the republican majority has squandered their chance to create jobs and grow opportunities. they have wasted taxpayers' time and money with costly government shutdowns and frivolous lawsuits. it's time for a change. a new democratic majority that will hit the ground running, with legislative agendas that supports a strong and growing middle class.

the make it in america plan is a broad agenda for jobs and competitiveness and is a central part of this jump start the middle class. we want to provide tax incentives to encourage companies to bring jobs home rather than send jobs overseas. we want to invest in increased exports, improved infrastructure and skills training programs to help attract jobs and support a strong manufacturing base. democrats, democrats have a real plan to get things done. and if we have the majority in january, as i fully expect us to have, we will be introducing the 21st century make it in america act. i really garbled that, didn't i? >> say it again, say it again. >> we're going to introduce the 21st century make it in america

act. [cheers and applause] they knew i could do it. americans are tired of a republican do-nothing and do-bad-things congress focused on simply partisan divisions. they want a congress that helps everyone make it in america. and jump starts the middle class. now i want to introduce my colleague, a real leader in the democratic party, and in this country, my friend, the congressman from south carolina, and the assistant leader of our party, jim clyburn. >> thank you, thank you very much. mr. whip, thank you, mr. chairman, mr. chairman. thanks to all my distinguished colleagues. i'm pleased to join the house democrats today to unveil our 100-day action agenda.

house republicans have stacked the deck for the wealthiest few at the expense of working families. in the first 100 days of 2015, a democratic house majority will act to jump start a middle class agenda. an agenda that starts with jobs. good jobs. jobs with livable wages. jobs that will expand the middle class. and move the families of hardworking men and women into the middle class. democrats, steny, democrats will pass the 21st century make it in america act. to provide tax incentives to companies that create good-paying

jobs here at home. republicans voted to give tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. house democrats will pass the build america bonds act, to boost job growth and modernize america's infrastructure by building roads, bridges, broadband technology and investing in clean energy. and we will pay for it by closing corporate tax loopholes. republicans have blocked legislation to make long-term investments in our nation's aging highway system, and opposed creating clean energy jobs for the future. house democrats will raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour and pass the tax fairness act, to deny c.e.o.'s

the ability to claim tax deductions for pay over $1 million, unless they give their employees a raise. republicans refused to raise the minimum wage but give massive tax giveaways to corporate special interests and the ultrawealthy. america needs an economy that works for working people. house democrats are ready to deliver on that vision with our 100-day action plan. and with that it is my pleasure to yield now to the chair, soon to be chair, of the house budget committee, chris van hollen. >> thank you. thank you, mr. clyburn. as we work to shut down those special interest corporate loopholes that encourage americans, companies to move

jobs overseas, as we shut those down and invest those savings in jobs here at home, we need to make sure, as mr. clyburn said, that those jobs pay a decent wage, a living wage, a wage that can support american families. because when american families succeed, all of america succeeds. so there are two things we're going to do. in that first 100 days. the first is end the scandal that in america you can work 40 hours a week, all year long, and still have to raise your family in poverty. that is simply wrong. we need to make sure we raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour and get that done once and for all. but we cannot stop there. we need to make sure all of america has a shot at a wage. what we've seen over the last several decades is large increases in worker productivity. we have seen skyrocketing increases in c.e.o. pay and

bonuses. what we have not seen is increases in the employee pay. they have been left behind. even though they are working to boost that productivity and boost those corporate profits. so we have a very simple proposition. we have a proposition called the c.e.o. employee pay fairness act. and that is this. if you're a corporation, you cannot give your c.e.o. and top executives, you cannot take a deduction for their pay over $1 million unless you're going to give your employees a raise. it's pretty simple. it's pretty fair. after all, the taxpayers should not have to subsidize big corporate c.e.o. bonuses for corporations that are not providing their employees with a wage and pay increase. so let's get the job done, let's

invest in jobs here, let's make sure they're jobs that pay a decent wage for all americans and with that i'm very pleased to turn it over to mr. tierney who has taken the lead on making sure every kid has a shot at the american dream. mr. tierney. >> thank you, chris. i want to thank leader pelosi and all of my colleagues for including my bill in the house democratic economic agenda. it is simple and it is straightforward. what this bill does is provide existing student loan borrowers the opportunity to refinance their debt at a lower rate. banks can do it, businesses can do it, families can do it with their home ownership and students should be able to do it. it would save students and parents and graduates thousands of dollars on their loans and that savings no doubt will be will get spent right back into the economy, giving it a boost. the nonpartisan congressional budget office states clearly that it would reduce the deficit by $22 billion in 10 years, so

taxpayers also benefit from it. right now the house republicans are in there trying to find out how to sue the president. we're out here making sure that we're fighting for tens of millions of parents and students and graduates, to make sure that they have an equal chance. this is all about whose side are you on and we're on the side of students and graduates and parents. so again i want to thank the leader and my colleagues for putting this bill in the plan. we're going to make sure it passes. with that i turn this microphone over to my colleague and chief deputy whip, mr. crowley. >> thank you. education doesn't start at college. we also know that our children only have one real shot, one real shot at a quality education. and it's imperative that they get off to the right start. the right jump start. decades of studies have found that quality preschool not only leads to higher academic achievement and stronger job benefits, but it also lowers crime and delinquency levels and more importantly it reduces poverty.

which really is the cause for the prior two issues. so while house republicans voted to limit access to early childhood education and essentially squashed the hopes and dreams of america's children, house democrats will pass legislation to expand access to education and make the investments needed to set our children on a path of future success. our legislation, the strong start for america's children act, led by ranking member george miller, is a bold 10-year -- george miller. we look a lot alike. it is a bold 10-year federal state -- federal-state partnership to expand and improve early learning opportunities for our children. this will expand access to preschool for 4-year-olds and make critical investments to improve the quality of child

care for infants and toddlers. we want to jump start the middle class. and that must include jump starting our children's education. not when they're going to college, but from day one. and with that now, let me introduce to you our leader, a leader for all working class men and women in america, leader pelosi. >> thank you very much. good morning, everyone. >> thank you all for being here. our middle class jump start is a tribute to the middle class. the most productive workers in the world. it has policies, our jump start middle class, jump start has policies that reflect make it in america, thank you, mr. hoyer, building in america, a and b, american-made, build it in america, infrastructure, small businesses. this is a tribute to american entrepreneurship.

to the innovation that keeps america number one. it is the recognition that that innovation begins in the classroom, that's enabled by congressman tierney's bank on student refinancing act, that kids can have a shot at the american dream and make their contribution to our economy. and as mr. crowley says, that education begins at the earliest time in a child's life. children learning, parents earns. but one of the best actions that we can take to increase and then grow our economy is to increase the role of women in our economy. our agenda for families, women and families, is when women succeed, america succeeds. this is not just the title of our agenda. this is a statement of absolute fact. and our agenda presents a stark

contrast to what the republicans have done to roll back women's rights and limit women's opportunities. you heard our three categories. one, make it in america. two, affordable education, to keep america number one. this is all about our country. and three, when women succeed, america succeeds. when republicans have refused to ensure equal pay for equal work, reduced access to affordable child care, and voted against paid sick leave for men and women. when we unleash the full potential of women in our economy, we strengthen the middle class and empower families to thrive. and that's why we have legislation to make this happen. thanks to congresswoman rosa delauro, the sponsor, the chief sponsor of when women succeed.

and the author of legislation, paycheck fairness act, ensuring equal pay for equal work. we've heard about the miller-harkin bill on raising the minimum wage. we saw what mr. van hollen discussed about giving america a raise. if we're going to give the c.e.o. a raise. again, rosa delauro's healthy family act, to guarantee paid sick leave for men and women and of course, as mr. crowley discussed, george miller's bill, to increase affordable child care. this is so important. children learning. parents earning. it's about men and women, it's about families. house republicans have voted to weaken domestic violence laws and threatened to shut down government rather than fund planned parenthood. democrats will strengthen the violence against women act and expand women's access to comprehensive health care planning.

as we gather on the steps of the capital, as my colleagues have referenced, republicans are inside wasting time and taxpayer money on partisan lawsuits against the president. republicans are about process, democrats are about progress. republican process, democratic progress. [applause] thanks to our colleague from kentucky, mr. yarmuth, where are you, mr. yarmuth? thank you, thank you, mr. yarmuth. he has kept us disciplined on a path of a middle class jump start, instead of the stalling that the republicans have done at every effort to increase jobs in our country. good-paying jobs in our country. today with this action plan, we reassert the truths of our history. and this is not just about better jobs, about more employees.

this is about entrepreneurship and our women and our middle class initiatives for entrepreneurship, to create more employers, to create small businesses and that entrepreneurship, that innovation's connected to education and opportunity by the make it in america and the build america brings us all together. so today, with this action plan, we reassert the great truths of our country, of our history, and of our future. when the middle class succeeds, america succeeds. when families succeed, america succeeds. and when women succeed, america succeeds. thank you all. now i'm pleased to yield back to our distinguished chairman. >> thank you. we want you to have a choice. continue the shutdown, do-nothing politics, or move to jump start the middle class. come join us, america. let's jump start the middle class together.

thank you all very much. [cheers and applause] >> leader pelosi! >> leader pelosi! >> leader pelosi! will you answer questions? [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> on the next washington journal, we will discuss the influx of uncovering children from central america with members of congress. livengton journal begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. 40 years ago, the watergate

scandal led to the only resignation of an american president. american history tv revisits 1974 me final weeks of the nixon administration. weekend's, opening moments from the house judiciary committee. >> selection of the president occupies a unique position within our political system. whichis the one act in the entire country participates and the result is binding for four years. occupantsnt of that -- office serves as a symbol of the office -- national unity. bethe majority will is to undone, it must be for substantial and not trivial offenses supported by facts. >> watergate, 40 years later. sunday night at 8:00 eastern.

on american history tv on c-span3. -- in can keep on touch touch with current events using c-span radio on audio now. call to your congressional coverage, forums, and washington journal. listen to a recap of the day's of ends at 5:00 p.m. eastern he read you can also hear audio beginning at noon eastern. c-span radio on audio now. long-distance or phone charges may apply. house speaker john mainer along with other republicans is asking congress to sue president obama, claiming he exceeded his authority. legal analysts discussed the thets of this lawsuit at

meeting of the house rules committee. this meeting begins with pete sessions. >> good morning. today the rules committee is holding a scheduled hearing to discuss a draft resolution provided for the authority to initiate litigation for actions by the president of the united states of america. inconsistent with his duties under the custody notion. -- under the constitution.

the president is proper ly and faithfully executing the laws. live coverage here on c-span1. >> specifically we're here to discuss an unwarranted ongoing shift of power in favor of the executive branch. under president obama the executive branch has increasingly gone beyond the constraints of the constitution. in fact, in a number of instances the president has gone beyond his article ii powers and has infringed upon article i powers of congress to write the law. today's hearing is an original jurisdiction hearing, so instead of having members of congress here to testify before us today, we have four expert witnesses who we have welcomed to the rules committee this morning and all of whom have constitutional law scholastic understandings.

their expert testimony will be in response to questions and will allow this committee to better understand the questions at hand as well as our role in rebalancing and carefully understanding the separation of powers. first, we have jonathan turley. second -- excuse me, and he's the jb and maurice c. shapiro professor of public interest law at george washington university law school. thank you very much for taking time to be with us today. i know you are busy and have schedules that you've got to attend to this afternoon, and as you have previously been a part of our discussion, we're going to try and make sure you're an on time delivery there, professor. thank you very much. second is professor elizabeth price-foley from florida international university school of law.

professor foley, thank you for taking time to come with us -- to be with us today, and we look forward to your testimony. third, we will hear from simon lorantz, senior counsel at the constitutional accountability center. we thank you for taking time, and i've enjoyed our discussions before we walked in today and we're delight that had you're with us. finally we have walter dellinger, the douglas b. maggs professor emeritus of the school of law at duke university. we did not bring a basketball for you this morning, but we have a goal in mind today. professor is also a lawyer at o'mevley and myers, and thank you very much for joining us. today's hearing will be structured as follows. i'll share an opening statement before turning to our ranking member, louise slaughter, so that she can provide us with her opening statement. i will then ask each of our witnesses to provide us with their testimony that will help

these members of the rules committee to better understand their thoughts on the issues that are before us today. as we hear each witnesses' testimony, we'll then open up the hearing to questions, and i encourage each member of the committee to make an opening statement as they choose at the time they have their question. we need to remember that we are attempting to ensure that the members as well as each of our guests have an opportunity to fully vet and give their ideas, but i would ask that we stay after the mark of understanding that we're trying to make sure that we stay after the timing that we have previously discussed. additionally, members should feel free to enter longer statements into the record allows us to stay after this agenda. at the beginning of this congress each of us took an oath of office in which we swore to support and defend the

constitution of the united states. similarly at the beginning of each presidential term, the president takes an oath to faithfully execute the office of the president of the united states and to the best their ability preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states. while these oaths are different on some of the margins the crux of each oath is the same. the president and members of congress each have an obligation to follow and defend the constitution of the united states. the text of the constitution that we have sworn to defend provides separation of powers for each branch of the federal government, article i, puts the power to legislate, to write laws into the hands of congress. article ii, on the other hand, requires that the president take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

the difference is important. the founding fathers knew that by giving one branch the power to write -- both to write and to execute the law would be a direct threat to liberties of the future of this young and fledgling nation when it began. the separated powers between these branches are there in order to ensure that no one person would trample on the rights of others. my fear is that our nation is currently facing the exact threat that the constitution is designed to avoid. branches of government have always attempted to exert their influences on other branches, but the president in my opinion has gone too far. rather than faithfully execute the laws as the constitution requires, the president has instead selectively enforced the law in some instances, ignoring

the law in other instances and in a few cases changed the law all together, all without going through the required constitutional law-making exercise. the law as written by congress and signed by the president must be enforced by the president as written. if the president wishes that the law be changed, article ii of the constitution provides him or her with the power to recommend to congress consideration of such measures as shall be judged necessary and expedient. the constitution does not, however, give the president the power to re-write the law by himself. if the president wants a change in the law, the federal government must follow the process as outlined in the constitution and understood under the rule of law that the american people count on.

any approach in which the president can ignore, selectively enforce or unilaterally rewrite the law tilts the balance of power away from legislation and rule of law to the executive. presidential overreach also undermines the rule of law which provides the predictability necessary to govern in a functioning and fair society. when the executive branch goes beyond its constitutional powers and begins exercising the role of the legislative branch, it is important that the remaining branches of government, in our opinion, the judiciary, play its role in rebalancing the separation of powers. after all, the constitutional limits on government power are meaningless unless judges agree

and also help us to enforce the limits. it is vital that the judiciary engage with the constitution and play its essential role in the system of checks and billioalan think that were crafted in the original constitution thought of by our founding fathers. it is important, i believe, that we acknowledge that this is not a political issue. this is not an issue that should pit republicans against democrats. this is an issue where we must hear testimony from constitutional experts who are able to give us the guidance, and the testimony that we hear today will look deeply into the crux of our constitutional system and the rule of law. any person interested in our constitution, and what i believe is our brilliant system of separation of powers, should be worried about what is currently happening in this country, and

that is why we are here today. i look forward to the testimony of each of our witnesses and have assured each of them that their obligation to this committee is to give us the very best of their thinking, and they are here exactly to do that. i want to thank each of you again. at this time i'll yield to the ranking member of the committee for any opening remarks she would choose to make. the gentle woman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and let me also welcome our witnesses here this morning, mr. jonathan foley, elizabeth foley and to mr. walker dellinger and simon lazarus. we're happy to have them here and their collective wisdom about the constitution i'm sure will serve as well. the rules committee doesn't often have outside witnesses so this is a very rare occasion for us because we have two of the premier constitutional scholars in the united states with us to give the testimony for the

minority, and i'm so happy to have them here. mr. dellinger has testified before this committee before, so this is a return visit. among other laudable achievements mr. dellinger served in the white house as an adviser to the president on constitutional issues in 1993, served as acting solicitor general, assistant attorney general and head of the office of legal counsel. from 1993 to 1996. he knows how we work here as well because he has testified more than 25 times before committees of congress. mr. simon lazarus is currently serving as senior counsel at the constitutional accountability center, served as associate director of the white house domestic policy staff from 1977 to 1981. he has extensive background in lawsuit surrounding the affordable care act, and mr. lazarus writes frequently

for the american constitution society which has published several of his issue briefs including, quote, mandatory health insurance, is it constitutional?" which was released during the senate health care reform debate in december of 2009, and the health reform law lawsuits unraveling a century of constitutional law and the fabric of modern government published in february of 2011. both very highly received. and i'm pleased they have both agreed to appear here today as well as our other two witnesses and we're delighted to hear from you all. i know that we'll have some illuminating arguments against what we believe on this side, despite the fact that the chairman has stated otherwise, we think this is purely a political exercise that we have before us. the jurisdiction of the rules committee includes this resolution, and we will be the only committee to hold hearings and to mark up this resolution. that gives us a special responsibility to weigh these issues carefully.

the lawsuit is preposterous. it is a political exercise, and if history is our guide we'll have little chance of surviving in the court. it is based on two false premises, first, that the president acted outside of his authority with respect to the affordable care act is the firm opinion of the rules committee minority that he did not act outside his authority, and, second premise is that a lawsuit against the president brought by half of congress is possibly the correct way to resolve a political dispute which it certainly is not. and, in fact, if this suit were successful, the result would be to implement the affordable care act faster which would be contrary to everything the majority has been fighting and messaging against for the past four years. the whole exercise is incongruous. perhaps alice in "alice of wonderland" said it best, quote,

sometimes i believe in as many as six impossible things before breakfast, end quote. not only was there no single vote from a member of the majority party to pass health care reform, but they spent four years trying to kill it, to repeal it, to derail it and now they are suing the president to implement it faster. it makes no sense. the lawsuit is clearly being used to appease members of the republican party who will not rest until president obama is charged with articles of impeachment. this is a partisan political stunt, time to peak in the house of representatives in november right as the mid-term elections are happening. the house majority is suing the president simply for doing his job. this incredible waste of time will also be a colossal waste of money. the rules committee will mark up the resolution and before we do we will want to ask and have asked for a full account of the cost of this exercise, and would i like to insert a letter from

congressman robert brady, ranking member of house administration committee to house speaker john boehner which addresses this need for transparency. i'd ask unanimous consent. >> without objection. >> thank you. if outside counsel will be employed, how much will they charge? how long is the process expected to take? cost is not a hypothetical question. there are real consequences, and, remember, that the majority's legal efforts in support of a discriminatory defense of marriage act cost the american taxpayers $2.3 million. what will this lawsuit cost? is it just another example of the house majority squandering the taxpayer funds to investigate the non-existence benghazi scandal, there have been more than 13 hearings, 15 briefings, 25,000 pages of documents produced, and the

majority came up with nothing and even after they came up with nothing they created a select committee on benghazi with a $3.3 million budget. and let's not forget that the government shutdown was foisted upon the country as another attempt to delay the affordable care act, costing the united states economy $24 billion. republicans took the american people and the economy hostage because they did not want to give the people health care coverage. the house is more that be 50 votes to repeal or dismantle the affordable health care alone has cost an estimated $79 million. all of this to repeal a health care law when the polls last week from the commonwealth fund found that 77% of people were pleased with their new coverage. the republicans polled had a 72% satisfaction rate with the new plans that they had bought. the house majority is spending billions upon billions of

dollars to stymie a law that their own party members support which is truly a classic case of obstruction, and further evidence of the foolishness of the whole pursuit. furthermore, the constitution gives the congress the power to write the laws. this legal -- the legal theory put forward by the republicans to explain why this lawsuit should prevail relies on the notion that somehow president obama has nullified the house's legislative power. this is simply not the case. speaker boehner is not proposing to sue the president because he has not let congress introduce, hold hearings on, mark up or pass bills. the speaker is proposing to sue the president because he hasn't executed the law in precisely a certain way. remember, the president implemented this massive health care law by phasing it in which is not illegal in any manner.

it has been done by numerous presidents in the past. it bears repeating that the legislative branch consists of two houses and only those two houses together can pass laws, and the president does the executing of those laws. this lawsuit has it backwards. re republicans want one-half of the legislative branch to run through the judicial branch to tell the executive branch how to enforce the law, a responsibility the constitution clearly commits to the executive. congress's legislate power be nullified itself if we were somehow prohibited from passing bills that repeal, bills that overturn regulation, bills limiting the use of appropriated funds for certain purposes and for going to war. and the fact that the bills that the house majority pass do not usually become law is not because the votes have been

nullified, it is because they do not have the votes in the senate, and one of our witnesses, former acting solicitor general walter dellinger argued the leading case in this issue raines versus byrd in front of the supreme court and i trust him as much as i know anyone to know what is and what is not vote nullification. it's also important to note that the house is not the congress. congress is a branch of government that has the legislative power. the dividing line in this frivolous lawsuit is not the legislative versus the executive. it is republican versus democrat, and i hope that the courts will see that. future historians and legal experts will examine this haphazard congressional action, and i want it to be perfectly apparent on behalf of the people who sent us here that we deplore on our side, the democrats, what is happening. we're wasting precious time and resources.

republicans are causing us to fritter away billions of dollars that could go to high speed rail, infrastructure, schools, a thousand other things instead of this ridiculous waste. the rules committee has a duty to reveal this lawsuit for what it is, and i believe we will do that today without witnesses' help. thank you, mr. chairman. >> miss slaughter, thank you very much for your opening statement. i'm delighted that you are here today. you look marvelous. >> thank you. >> we now would turn to our panel, and mr. turley, you're our first witness and the gentleman is now recognized without objection. anything you have in writing will be entered into the record. >> thank you chairman sessions, ranking member slaughter and members of the committee, it's a great honor to appear before you on such an important subject. it's a particular honor to appear with three friends of mine who i have tremendous respect for, and while we don't agree on this subject, i found even the opposing testimony to be very compelling. it's an honor to speak with you with what could be an historic

moment. there's a growing crisis in our system, a shifting of the balance of power within the tri-part hide system in favor of a now dominant chief executive. while both congress and the courts have lost authority over the decade, it is this body, the congress, that has lost the most in this rise of a type of uber presidency. frankly it's difficult to discuss these quaint constitutional issues in what is often a poisonous political environment. as a people we've become -- we've come to the point where we can't just simply disagree. we have to despise each other. we subscribe to the worst motivations of our opponents and elevate our own proposals over process, and put it simply we emigresed what the queen mother said in richard iii. we think our baby as sweeter than they were and he who slew them is fowler than he is. i don't believe the president

has a desire for trap call authority. i don't question his motivation. i question his means. our system is changing. and this bodied is the one branch that must act if we're to reverse those changes. we're seeing the emergens of a different model of government, a model rejected by the framers. a dominant presidency has occurred with very little congressional opposition. indeed, when president obama pledged to circumvent congress, he received rapturous applause from the very body that he was proposing to make practically irrelevant. now many members are contesting the right of this institution to even be heard in federal court. this body is moving from self-loathing to self-destruction in a system that is in crisis. the president's pledge to effectively govern alone is alarming, and what is most alarming is his ability to fulfill that pledge.

when a president can govern alone, he can become a government unto himself which is precisely the dangers the framers sought to avoid. what we're witnessing today is one of the greatest crises that i expect the members of this committee and this body will face. it has a patina of politics that is hard to penetrate. it did not start with president obama. i was critical of his predecessor, and certainly this goes back long before george bush, but it has reached a tipping point. i've long advocated action by this body to aggressively seek to regain the ground that has been lost over decades. as many of you know, i represented members of this body, democratic and republican, in opposing the libyan war. given that history, to quote dorothy boyd from jerry maguire, "you had me at hello" when you asked if i think a lawsuit would be a good idea. i do. i think it is a good idea to

recommit the judiciary to a core function of defining the lines of separation. indeed, i think that is something that all members should ultimately agree on, even if you disagree on the interpretations over the aca. what is important to remember is that people misconstrue the separation of powers regularly. it is not there to protect the institutional rights of the branches. it is there to protect individual liberty. it was created by the framers to prevent any branch from aggregating enough power to be a danger to liberty. it is not about you. it is about the people that you represent. ultimately what we're debating here is something the framers were very much familiar with. before we came together as a nation, we had history of our predecessors in england with king james who argued that he had a royal prerogative in terms of how laws would be interpreted, how they would be executed, insisted he could use

natural reason to change laws. that is precisely what the framers rejected. if you look at the testimony of myself and some of my colleagues, you'll see the framers repeatedly objecting to that type of notion, that the executive has the right to essentially rework legislation, to use what we would call an executive prerogative. that is why we have the take care clause. the national reason cited by james i is very close to the reasons you're hearing from the administration, that the changes make the law better, make it more efficient and more fair. that's not the issue. i happen to support most of the changes that president obama has ordered. i voted for him in 2008. this is not a question of what should be done. this is a question of how it should be done and more importantly who should do it. the president suggested he can go it alone, but there's no

license in the maddionian system to go it alone. he said he'll resolve the deadlock in congress, the division in congress, by ordering changes on his own terms as a majority of one. that's what makes it dangerous. now for those that remain silent in the face of this, i will say what is obvious. this is not going to be our last president, and in a couple of years there will be someone else in the oval office and the arguments that are being made today could be used then to nullify or suspend or change environmental laws, employment discrimination laws. that's what happens when you have an uber presidency. now, i can't speak as to what will happen in this litigation. i can speak to what should happen. in my view congress should have standing. to me, that's the most important thing in this case is for this body to reinforce the right to be heard in the judicial branch.

the courts have removed themselves from this process, and the result has been the dysfunctional politics that we see. i don't believe that the challenges in front of this lawsuit is an excuse to do nothing. we are and we will remain a divided country. when we are divided fewer things get done. you have a choice in our system. can you compromise or you can change the makeup of congress. you don't go it alone. i believe the aca is a great example of the problem with this. this is probably the most important program in my generation in terms of size and impact. it happens to be something i support of national health care, but it should be unencumbered by questions of legitimacy. it should go forward with the court's defining the line of separation, so this body taking a stand is a welcome change. as much as i respect the president, the arguments he is making over presidential authority are extreme, and they are devoid of the limiting

principle that characterize our system. for generations we have been bound by a covenant of faith, and i'll simply end with this. that covenant of faith has been no matter what our divisions are, that we will remain faithful to the limits that we imposed upon ourselves and the branches. it's that very covenant that members of this committee reaffirm when they lift their hand and give the oath of office. what we are seeing today in my view is a crisis of faith. we seem to have lost faith in our system. we've grown impatient with the constraints of the system. these arguments seem quantity and antiquated when you look at immigration or health care or other pressing problems, but it is always tempting when one person steps forward and says that they can get the job done alone. that's the siren's call that the framers told us to resist. we remain a nation of laws, and the place for those questions, the united states courts, and that is where this authorization

will take us, and that's why i think it's a worthy effort. thank you. >> mr. turley, thank you very much. professor foley, you're now recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member slaughter, members of the committee, my name is elizabeth price foley. i'm a professor of law at florida international university college of law, the public law school in mime, and i'm honored to be here today. i believe that the house would in fact have standing to litigate the constitutional claims against the executive branch, and i also believe that the house would have an excellent chance of winning on the merits of a claim that the executive branch has failed to faithfully execute the laws, especially the affordable care act. in the interest of time i'm going to limit my reparticular, to the issue of standing. i provided a detailed legal analysis to the house judiciary committee when i appeared before them earlier this year, so i've included that analysis as an appendix to my remarks before

the committee here, but to summarize. existing case law indicates that the house would have standing to a certain institutional injury if the following four elements are satisfied. first, the house should explicitly authorize the lawsuit by a majority vote. second, the lawsuit should assert as an injury in fact the nullification of a specific act of congress, such as the aca. third, the lawsuit should be carefully tailored to target a constitutional transgression for which there is no private plaintiff available. and finally, the lawsuit should target an executive action for which proportionate and tailored political self-help is unavailable. now, let me back up and -- and talk about the big picture of legislative standing. i'm somewhat amused by the critics who suggest that the house sin capable of suffering an institutional injury

recognizable by courts. an institutional injury cases, courts are understandably demanding. they want to make sure that the plaintiff that's before them is speaking on behalf of the institution. they are not open to lawsuits that are brought by an ad hoc group of legislators who lack authorization to speak on behalf of the institution. that's why most of the attempts have failed. and, of course, this is common sense. it's why institutional authorization for litigation to allege institutional injury requires that authorization. the courts are also rhett isn't to adjudicate inner branch disputes that can be resolved by other means, so if there's like a private plaintiff waiting in the wings to bring the lawsuit, the courts sort of prefer to wait for that case to arise. that was the situation, for example, in raines versus byrd, a supreme court decision in 1997, where the supreme court

was acutely aware of the fact that the line-item veto act that was being challenged by six congressional plaintiffs was a law that would injure private individuals and those individuals would have standing to sue. and, indeed, the following year in clinton versus new york, a private plaintiff brought such a lawsuit, and the supreme court declares the line-item veto act unconstitutional. all branches are capable of suffering an institutional injury of having their constitutional prerogatives trenched in some way, and all branches should have standing to vindicate their power under the right circumstances. states, for example, have standing to challenge federal intrusions into their constitutionally reserved powers. in fact, they have been quite successful in a series of supreme court cases, including new york versus united states, prince versus united states and most recently the health care decision by the supreme court, nfib versus sebelius.

even more to the point, state legislators have standing in federal court to assert institutional injury when their state executive nullifies their legislative acts. this is evidenced by the supreme court's decision in coleman versus miller and also by unanimous circuit panel decisions from march of this year called kerr versus hickenlooper, but let's go beyond states. article ii, our executive branch, is the very entity that seems so offended by the prospect of being a defendant in a house lawsuit. but article ii is not shy about resorting to the courts to vindicate its own constitutional prerogatives. article ii re tuny will sues states for violating federal laws claiming preemption of those state laws in cases like arizona versus united states decided by the supreme court in 2012. in these preemption cases article ii is vindicating an

institutional injury inflicted on both congress and the executive. likewise, federal agencies routinely have standing to litigate against entities that don't comply with their lawful orders, agencies like epa, nlrb, on and on. the essence of these lawsuits is that the agencies have standing because non-compliance with the statutes under their jurisdiction injures or diminishes those agency's institutional powers. institutional standing is routinely granted to article ii in all of these standings. it's part of the executive's duty to faithfully execute the laws and the executive branch can resort to litigation but it's important to realize that the take care clause itself not s not a grand of jurisdiction to federal courts. standing is something the supreme court has made abundantly clear, something that

emanates from article ii section 2 case or controversy language and something all litigants, all branches of government have to satisfy to litigate in federal court. the standing requirements, are the same for all branches of government. litigation certainly isn't the only way that the executive branch can enforce the laws, but it's a very good and freely available option, as it should be. so why wouldn't litigation also be an available option to congress when it suffers an institutional injury? members of congress are expected to defend congress' law making prerogative by all means available. in fact, your article xi oath demands this, and litigation may be the best and most tailored proportional remedy when the executive branch fails to faithfully execute one of your laws. now, you may not want to impeach. you may not want to cut off