it aired only once, but generated a new era in negative advertising. can i get your thoughts on that? guest: it is a good lesson. now we go through the cycles, it is part of the political game. it started 50 years ago. an ad that aired over the weekend. guest: this was an incident where mark begich was running against and sullivan. mention the

campaign. they actually murdered a couple and their granddaughter. you had a police detective standing outside pointing to this, insinuating that this was somehow the fault of dan indicating that infamous willie horton ad. there was an immediate outcry from the victim's family, saying that they didn't want this out there. sullivan released a response that named the alleged murderers names. they pulled down the response. seen as awe had pretty well oiled campaign therefore mark begich, this was a significant misstep that they have continued to have to explain. why was this an issue? when you went back to the facts of this, this was a clerical error that was done even before

sullivan took office. them rating this as a pants on fire ad. host: meaning ally. -- meaning ally. -- meaning a lie. guest: yes. this was very much out there in the news. the victim's attorney took it out there before begich took it down much later. attempting to correct the ad. they pointed out in that letter that to be clear it was your ad that was the one they were unhappy with. they had put the community on edge, and away. into the race that we had not seen before. jessica taylor, her work is available online. here is how sullivan responded to it.

[video clip] >> millions of dollars are flooding into alaska pet -- alaska, paid for by special interests. pretty soon you will want to do this to your television. i've proposed a plan to stop the mudslinging from outsiders to keep the selection focus on the issues. unfortunately, mark begich said no. i am dan sullivan and i approved this message. he should tell his friends to stay out of alaska. it points out the fact that in these closely watched races where just a few thousand votes can make the difference, one misstep or another could determine the direction of the campaign. guest: republicans are trying to demonize mark begich as being too close to the president.

but if you can choose a different opponent, if you don't like outside spending or intervention, there is another opponent that you can create and maybe try to create some momentum. from one of our viewers on the twitter page -- i think that kentucky is going to be one of the most contentious. earlier we mentioned that there is no love lost between mitch mcconnell and allison lonergan grimes. there have been accusations back and forth. the campaign bus purchased by her father with controversy over the mitch mcconnell campaign manager. the ron paul campaign, he had to step down amidst questions. every race, we get closer and closer. what we have seen from the

pushback is that this is going to be a closely fought battle. it will be highly negative, not just in kentucky, but in louisiana and north carolina. stake.s how much is at congress returns this week. they will have as few as seven legislative days before another break to campaign for the midterm elections. the president will be sitting down with congressional leaders on tuesday. what is it going to get done? nothing major. it will be the bare necessities to keep it going. another government shutdown will be unlikely. a enough republicans learned lessons from the last one. but that is something to watch.

the more times that they can get voters to the focus on republican obstructionism, i think that is better for democrats. they want to get in, do what is necessary, get out and get back on the campaign trail. we are dividing the phone lines between political parties. you can also make comments online. connie, north bergen, new jersey. good morning. good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a few comments. and discuss it.

i believe that the issue will out. about the borders, they come to the borders for the recount. they come to the borders to pick them up. the spanish people should get together. the one thing that i blame or is the humans. they come to this country like before. and then we have senators against it. i saw the father on television myself.

i will say that he should go back to canada. where are you from? i am from spain, european, i have nothing to do with this. guest: one thing that she pointed out that i think you will have a lot of voters feeling is this frustration with negative advertisement. seeing as much. cory booker in new jersey, should win pretty easily. the cell of an advertisement from earlier, lots of people may want to shoot their televisions by the time the election season is over. as nathan said there is no way to get away from these executive ads that get more and more prevalent. another thing that she mentioned is that mcconnell, she was afraid he was going to work against the president if he does become majority leader. it is true,, has laid out some of the things he'd could do in

the republican house and senate, pushing a path to legislation that the republicans will not be happy with. this week we had an interview with paul ryan and one of the things was that if we win both houses of congress, get ready to veto. we are only going to see more gridlock if republicans take full control. that will set up an interactive dynamic for 2016 the democrats. hillary clinton likely running on dysfunction. i don't know that the president doesn't want this, pointing to dysfunction in congress as he continues to do, i think it will be even more dysfunctional if we have more gridlock in congress. host: iowa is one of those states that is a tossup. speaking of, hillary clinton will be there today.

i want to share with our viewers and with you one of the latest ads from the koch brothers organization. it is on the congressman's attendance record. [video clip] missed 79% of the veterans affairs committee meetings. veterans risked their lives for our country. he didn't have the respect to show up and support them. joan harris is a true iowan who keeps her small-town roots. to care for troops. that is what you would expect. >> freedom partners action fund is responsible for the content of this advertising. example ofer negative advertisements and outside funding? guest: i think that this is a specific issue that we will see from now until election day. there are republicans believe

that this is an effective way to tie him to service and why he should not have a promotion. the next caller comes from pennsylvania. frank, independent line. do you explain to me how someone would spend $50 million, $100 million to get a job that only pays $178,000 per year? guest: they are not actually spending their own money. some will come you are right. we have seen the numbers grow astronomically. a lot of times the investment has not worked out. sometimes the return on the is -- return on the investment is not what you hope it would be.

clearly they see their influence rising. it certainly brings up the stock for some of this. the prestige. a genuine call to service. a lot of these people are independently wealthy. they are not resting on that 170 $8,000 per year, certainly. we are entering an age where you cannot just have anyone run. donors that are willing to back your campaign. to some people it takes out that citizen politician element. host: charles, good morning. -- caller: morning good morning. i am the veteran of two wars and a proud democrat. i can't understand why at this time we would ask anyone to vote for the republican party.

i can only remember the big depression climbing out of this one. been horrifying. we are just now coming out of it. we will be back in the same place that we were in 2007, 2008, 2009. i hope you can convey this message to the people and let them think about that. host: thank you. is the message that democrats across the country are trying to make. why go back to having more publicans and power and this is what happened? the president has been in office for six years now and enough people are dissatisfied, the president's job approval rating is in the low 40% nationally, but in the states and districts that are the most competitive, he is in the high 30's. there is an uneasiness, and

unwillingness by some voters to keep blaming republicans and democrats are having to answer for more than they did. a lot of attention on new hampshire, where two former senators are on the ballot. as to whether scott brown will win the nomination? guest: that would be a major shocker if he was not the nominee. there were some comments about it being a big surprise. i am not exactly sure what he has in store, but that is a race that we have had to read on jeanne shaheen being favored for, but there is evidence that this has closed some and it may be becoming more competitive than it was a few months ago. host: what is the track record senators, one current and one former, running against each other? i mean, it has happened in the past, but someone who has moved

from massachusetts to new hampshire and tries to run as a favorite son? --host: guest: this is not scott brown moving to hampshire , a lot of people do go back and forth between the states. of as made some kind little gaffes along the way. maybe a couple of times he has messed up and almost said massachusetts or something. that will continue to of course be a line of attack against him. as nathan said, there is an indication that this is certainly becoming a more and i thinkrisk that one thing that is is the numbers of

jeanne shaheen have not moved much. the president has seen his approval ratings drop. if he is a drag on places like new hampshire, iowa, states that he carried twice, imagine how bad that will be for democrats in places like louisiana, arkansas. alaska. responding to the earlier point about the job and how much it pays -- stanley, myrtle beach, california. hello. my name is stanley and i am from orlando, florida. i have worked for the citrus for 12 years. the people that hire the mexicans to pick citrus in florida. i think all of you people are theseception having about

mexicans. these mexicans are making $700, $800 or we. years ago they got paid on what they picked. now i have seen them in the mountains of tennessee, doing the tobacco where white people used to work, my family used to work there. take people have come and over these things because we have too many lazy americans, too many people on welfare that will not work. we need to change that. --host:hank you for thank you for the call. immigration is a complicated issue tied to the economy and other people's welfare. i hot issue now, it might be a hotter issue when the president untilhis initial decision there is a balance between border security and immigration reform in general.

roger, good morning. were talking about negative ads earlier. who do they work on? they are a turnoff for me. negative on they are not better than their opponent. what do your guests think about the turnout in the houses of the senate? is he going to go in the majority? one question is who they turn towards. parties are gearing this a lot towards their base. traditionally when you see more of the base voters turn out. ads are targeted

towards giving those people more . you will see democrats the same way. they need their base to turn out in places. arkansas is especially a place where the president didn't have an infrastructure and democrats could rely on that osa model that the president had used. you saw the democratic senatorial campaign committee going in there to essentially create something that had not been there before. the emphasis is really on democrats to turn out their voters in places they really need, but in both of these places they need to sort of anger these voters to get to the polls. turning they do risk off these independent voters in the middle who if they don't turn out the advantage still goes slightly more towards republicans. phone lines are open -- the: we are joined here at

table by jessica taylor and nathan gonzales. have people walk through negative ads, media consultant do not just wake up in the morning and think about the worst ad they can make today. polling that goes on where they ask voters in each district what issues they care issues, if they had certain information, changes their mind. the reason you see so many negative ads is because negative ads crafted in the right way work, influencing the person's opinion on how they will vote. most people are inclined to say they don't like negative ads, but then they see one and say -- i didn't know that. it starts to influence their vote. host: let's turn our attention to the house. with 435 members of congress, you point out there are 174 listed as safe.

200 10 republican seats. of the seats in play, 25 republican seats, 25 democratic seats. only seven complete tossup races. including arizona. the seat formerly held by gaby giffords. her former aide, ron barber, facing a republican charger. this was an extremely close race in 2012. sally, one of the first woman to fly in combat. with somed advantages, like higher name identification. often a challenge to a candidate is getting known. negativestarted with because of being attacked.

this is also a border district. if the president were to decide coulding here, that influence the race as well. it will be clay -- the close. another one, west virginia's three in what is becoming a pretty red state. ,> congressman rahal representing one of the most republican districts. evan jenkins, the republicans really feel like -- they have always tried to go after rahal, but never had a good candidate against him. there was heavy republican spending earlier in the spring. the congressman's numbers started to crater. now it is kind of bouncing around a little bit. democrats have been emboldened by this race.

they feel like they pushed back on specific elements of the affordable care act and they feel emboldened by it. can use thatey blueprint in districts across the country. tossup, whypublican is he in trouble? it is a competitive district. the former democratic nominee and speaker of the house, a tremendous fundraiser, i think it will be a great race. what surprised me was that coming into the race, mike cotton, the congressman, his numbers are surprisingly strong. as romanoff starts to spend more money and make his case, we will see it tighten a little bit. very competitive gubernatorial election there. in the sixth district it is one of the battleground districts of a battleground state. this morning in "the new york times," the sunday review, this piece, "why democrats can't

win." one of the points is pennsylvania, the state has been solidly democrat, but the democrats cannot win a majority .n the house districts >> they took a district in pennsylvania --guest: they did a district where they try to defeat him for years, they said they were just going to pack democrats into this district. what it did isidore democrats from the neighboring districts and made that more republican, made a few of these members safer. that is an example of republicans using redistricting in order to hold the majority they already had. that is why 2010 was a difficult .eelection for democrats they lost control of the

redistricting process in key states. myrtle beach, south carolina, good morning. caller: you had an advertisement in iowa there about a race, 79% of the meetings for veterans affairs. is that true? if it's true, why is it negative? what's your point? --host: what's your point? caller: the press, rather than finding out whether it is a true ad, says it is a negative ad. negative, if you are informing the public, it depends on what those people are doing. guest: republicans would not see this as a negative ad, what campaigns call this is a contrast ad. you're giving more information that may be negative but contrasting it with the other

person's record. anie is a veteran, she's running on her service. she had to leave the campaign trail for part of her reserve duty. so if you have a member of congress who has missed this many votes, then brailley certainly is coming under a lot of scrutiny for meetings that he has missed there. contrasted with a female combat veteran. that's exactly the kind of contrast that they were wanting to make and one that is certainly contributing to why this race is so close host: another contrast can be made by this. in response to the koch brothers here are the coke sisters. >> i'm karen around i'm joyce and we are the coke sisters. we're not biological sisters but sisters in spirit. >> and we're not related to the koch brothers those right-wing

billionaires. we're just two average women who raised families. we don't have billions to spend on political campaigns but we do have our convictions and voices. we think that's important. >> if you agree then join us with an all be a nation of coke sisters. host: we have been focused on outside money including the koch brothers but does this resonate with the general public? guest: i don't think that it does but this ad is certainly designed for the democratic base. the koch brothers are democrats boogie torry reid's men. this brings in money if you know especially as we get close to the end of a month you are inundated with pleas for money, the coke brotters are going to take over this race and this is something that certainly people who may not know as much about these races, oh my goodness all

this money and the coke brothers want to do this around democrats have painted them as the evil sort of funding machines and things too so they're trying to contrast this with these average everyday women who have worked really hard and their names happen to be koch. one thing that confused me they're not actually sisters. it's confuse bug this is more so designed to try to continue to get money to sort of grow their email list and again going back to turnout. democrats need these people that are sort of frustrated and angry about this money and the millions that the coke brothers are spending through many different venues. >> if you're just tuning in or listening on c-span radio, our focus, the mid term elections less than 60 days before voters go to the polls and early voting in many parts of the country.

ac from missouri. good morning. go ahead. caller: i've always considered myself a democrat. ok. i'm 56 years old. and a taxpayer. from a single man's point of view, missouri i've been clearly, cleared for medicaid. but missouri being having opted having medicaid come through. since i'm legally by medicaid i am not eligible for obamacare. as a u.s. tax citizens, as single, a 56-year-old man, where should i swing my vote to

get the most impact? i said this time i want to know should it go to a woman, should it go to -- i'm right now, i'm always considered myself democrat. ok, i'm at this point in my life where maybe i need to switch my way of thinking. host: thanks very u much for the call. nathan let me turn to you to talk about the impact of health care and the affordable care act. but first to his point. guest: well, living in missouri, this cycle, there aren't a lot of hot races. so in terms of change being able to switch your senator, switch your member of congress, it's not one of the battleground states. but health care in general, the affordable care act there's been a lot of discussion. it's not a hot issue any more. but this is an issue, jessica was talking about things that rile the base. it still gets the republican

base very excited and we're still seeing it trying to fuel some of the energy by the republicans get out the vote effort. and that's something one of the keys in this election is the result is one thing, but what lessons do both parties learn coming out of the election? and which party believes it's either a mandate to continue or a mandate to repeal obamacare? i know the president is in office so it's unlikely but the lessons coming out of november is very important. host: let me ask about another race. montana, senator warble appointed expected to run a formidable campaign. he's now out of the race because of majorism charges. the republicans putting up another candidate. >> this is a huge break for republicans. i think this majorism scandal really shook up the race, certainly, there.

and this is almost one of the three open seats that we really fully expect to flip to republican column along with south dakota and west virginia. open seats now retiring democrats in red states and they've put up a state senator there who if she doesn't have the time or the money certainly to make this a competitive race. democrats know this is off of their list. and i think what more so it does, even before walsh dropped out dane had the edge there but now they don't have to spend resource there is. so you're seeing them move the money out. i think it certainly frees up money for other places. but this is a race where that certainly that was an absolute game changer and certainly hands this to republicans. guest: she's young, she is a woman. i don't think there's a lot of competition to jump into this, to be the one chosen to take over. and she already -- republicans were quick on the draw to find

you tube videos, being of a younger generation she's been more active of social media so she has more opinions out there that might be attractive to one side that also gives more for her opponents to go after and to criticize. and i think this is one, this has even gone into the safer column where even south dakota where there's multiple candidates in the race and the math is a bill bit challenging. montana looks like a safe republican takeover host: here on c-span will be your place to watch the debates in all of these races and you can follow us on social media. you can like us on twitter and you can get all the information 2014 pan.org/campaign also at facebook.com/c-span. bobby, texas. good morning. caller: good morning. i was a republican for years

and years. hen george w. bush and his son messed it up so bad we all went in depression. ow i had a heart attack. the man before i could file my social security had filed bankruptcy. month to ave 1100 a live on. it's hard for me to make it. and i think all this congress spends, [inaudible] the way we have to. they could trouble find getting food or shelter or anything like this. i worked hard all my life. i was a painter. i killed myself just to make six -- while they're making six

figures a year. and hollering they don't make enough money. and i don't think they all to -- any of them, i don't think they ought to be able to run for congress being in there 30 years. i think they ought to have a limit on how many years they can run and then get a new one in there. host: he brings up two issues. term limits, which has been talked about extensively over the last 20 or 30 years. and also, one of the issues we focused on friday in the "washington journal" really class in america and the divide between rich and poor. guest: well, term limits goes up and down in terms of we go through cycles becoming more of an issue. some candidates will bring it up now on their own, self--term limiting themselves. i think that's about as far as we're going to get. i don't think we're going to have a law. you're not going to have people that are directly impacting

members of congress voting to kick themselves out after a set number of terms. i just for some reason don't think that's going to happen. >> and his point about class and wealth? guest: i think it's a concern for a lot of people. it's part of the democratic message more than the republican message. but i think it's really it resonates with a lot of people. and i think that's one of the democratic things that they have. the republicans are just in it for the wealthy they have these wealthy donors, they have these wealthy outside groups spending money and that's part of the message. host: henry, good morning. caller: good morning. host: you're on the air. caller: i'm calling about they keep saying about the immigrants and the reason why you have to bring immigrants in to work, farmland, whatever business there is, is because local people don't want to do nothing but be on welfare. that's not a fact. the fact of it is not the idea

you cannot get the local people to work. the reason with why they're having a problem with local people, let's say the man who is making the six figures goes to the gas station pay it is same thing for his gas as what the man pays for gas that's only making minimum wage. the man who is making in the six figures, he says he can't make it off minimum wage. well, how do you figure a poor man can make it off minimum wage? then they keep saying about the immigrants. you've got to back this train up. it started a long time ago. and congress keeps doing the same thing over and over. leave those people where they are and try to do something with the people you have over here. try to help them. but to keep from paying the top wages, what they do is get immigrants. let's back the train up. a long time ago they went over in africa and got ault african americans from over there and brought them over here to do thimmings they didn't want to

do. and we constantly keep doing the same thing over and over. you'll never get a change. right now we're talking about over here in isis. leave that alone. try to straighten your own people out you've got people here in the united states starving. they're on tv, they're starving. and we can take millions of dollars to go over to bomb people which doesn't make sense. and then you bring them here. once you bring them here then you holler about immigrants. ost: we'll get a response. congressman cassidy, senator land rue among the top two candidates in what could end up being a runoff in early december but have you decided who you're going to vote for? caller: i don't see anybody capable to deserve my vote because they all lie. these lies that they're doing is deceit. so i wouldn't vote for either one of them. she lives in washington, d.c.

and still wants to represent in louisiana and look what she's living in, look what i'm living in. and you take it for cassidy he gets up on tv and starts lying and saying what he is going to do for the people and knowing he's not going to do anything. it's time to change the whole system. guest: i think this gets back to the question of certainly class and things too and one of the things he mentioned is how much he's liing on versus politicians. i think that's why you are seeing democrats push minimum wage initiatives, this is something that harry reid has said he still wants to bring up in the senate. and this certainly is a democratic base issue that they will do. but i think you see a lot of politicians trying to show how they are relating to these people and even going out, a lot of them have tried to live on minimum wage for a week showing how difficult it is. but i think as an earlier caller said, $178,000 to a lot of people is a lot of money.

it can go very far in a lot of plastes. and for them seeing maybe we're not sending people up here that are doing a lot and still making that, and whereas their constituents are just barely getting by. so i think that's what you're going to hear democrats continue to push. but again, his concerns with immigration i think goes to what republicans are, the sort of fear that they're going to be taking away people coming into the country, taking away these low-paying jobs. and people do need them and are wanting them. so i think that it really does sort of sound an independent in the true sense. and also he's very frustrated with both places. he doesn't like cassidy, doesn't like land rue, that sort of frustration with inaction and people is why we see congress' approval rating at an all-time low. host: and in the first and presumably only debate in the californiagoer nove's race, the republican candidate who had

spent time with the homeless going after the slow recovery in california where jerry brown becoming one of the youngest governors ever and now the oldest elected governor in california history. at the end of the debate a call for another debate and jerry brown saying i think we've seen the differences here tonight. guest: and this is, we've gotten this far with cash cari and the republican nominee. there was concern that someone else would be the nominee in california and that would totally submarine any republican efforts to take over some of the critical, the most competitive house districts down the ballot. but now there's at least a sense that it won't be a complete blowout and jerry brown won't completely cruise and there will be at least competitive enough of these republican opportunities in the 52nd district, maybe the 7th district, that those are at least possible because brown is not going to blow them out of the water. host: from texas. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i wanted to say that the reason

r the jobs that the people are low-paying jobs, that the people do not have the training. some of these people aren't worth $2 an hour let alone $7.50 an hour. they need training. the infrastructure of america is dead. do you see our roads and our bridges? and everything out here? instead of putting money into all these politician's pockets, we should be getting these people on welfare and disability and stuff that do not have jobs and cannot have jobs. and going on disability because of it. taking some of the pay out of the government and putting it into the infrastructure. get these people out there on these jobs so they can get experience in jobs and this president is turning the country into a pot hole. he's degrading our system. this is not america as we know

it because of this president. the president is the problem. it's the democrats, too, because they allowed him to do it all these years. we need to clean house in every part of government it's 90% fraudulent. host: thank you for the call. guest: i think she's touching on something that i think is a vicious cycle that there is such a low view of government right now that when the government tries to do something, i think democrats and the president would point to the stimulus bill saying hey this was where we were trying to inject spending into the economy. spend some money on infrastructure, spend money on roads. but because people have such a low view of government, there is an immediate, well, they're not spending it right or correctly. and it sort of becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy in this vicious cycle. until people view government, have a higher view of government, there's always going to be the skepticism that

everything they do is wrong, fraudulent, corrupt, and that's i think a problem in general. host: kentucky, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. host: before you make your point i want to get your sense of what is happening on the ground that showed mitch mcconnell at about 50% and alison grimes at 46%. the plit report listing this as a lean republican race. you're calling on the republican line. what's your sense? caller: well, sir, to tell you u the truth i wouldn't vote for either one of them. but i have to vote for mitch mcconnell because alison grimes will put the commonwealth of kentucky back so far if she gets elected that we'll never get back to any kind of status in this country. mitch mcconnell's been there too long but the reason i called was because of the term

limits that the other gentleman talked about. you've got to educate your public to tell them what a term limit is. that's their vote. and you can't complain if you don't vote. like i said, mitch mcconnell, he's not the best but he's the best we've got. host: ok. caller: we'll lose out education, job, if he goes. that's just the way it is. that's the facts. and your other caller there mentioned the koch brothers and stuff. why don't you all mention george soros and all his organizations that put out money, the big money? he wants open borders and open drug laws. so let's be fair about this. i appreciate your call. caller: have a nice day. host: who would like to take that? guest: i think that he as a republican especially these are the type of voters mcconnell

does have to get and he is going to be a reluctant voter. senator mcconnell's biggest stumbling block is he is certainly seen as a creature of washington, has very staggering approval ratings but sounds like the caller exactly is -- their message certainly is resonating that grimes is going to come here, be a vote for president obama, and as he said, he's not the best but he's sort of the best we've got. and mcconnell isn't going to win overwhelmingly. he does need to continue to sort of drive home that message. and i think that is certainly what is happening. d but again, he also sort of hit on the message grimes has had in a lot of her ads that mcconnell has been here too long. but as you are sort of seeing this race, the poll this week, he is sort of starting to pull away. the republican lean of the

state is starting to win out. >> new polls in a couple key races we'll have that coming up. but first tony from pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. ok. i used to be a democrat. but the reason why i switched over to independent is because for mocrats i thought -- one thing they [inaudible] they're scared on the social security. if they backed they would be in a strong position on it. and talking about this race of mitch mcconnell. now, in history kentucky was one of the last states to join or get rid of the slavery. mitch mcconnell to black people represents one of the most

racist views that anybody can put forward. o therefore when people come when mcconnell is running and the way he speaks and talks it is automatically a turnoff. but i want to emphasize that the democratic party, if they were to get behind president obama on a lot of the issues and the things that he put forward, they would be in a much better position and they wouldn't be so timent and scared that they're going to lose the senate. host: direct contrast to what we heard a moment ago. guest: it sounds like he does want democrats to get behind president obama on a lot of these things but he said they're scared and timid. i think this shows again that everything that happens is going to be political especially when you are less days 0 days out -- 60 out. i think they're going to be in session for less than three weeks coming up here you're not

going to see a lot of things get done but voters on both sides are going to be frustrated with the fact that congress has been out now for five weeks, they're coming back tomorrow but not a lot expected to get passed and things too. so that's why i think you're just going to continue to have this finger pointing with president obama saying congress isn't doing anything and congress saying well we've passed this president obama hasn't taken any of this up. guest: i think toni brings up the democrats that aren't supporting the president enough. if we go back to the affordable care act when the president took off democrats in the house and the senate that they wished the president would have been more assertive on the affordable care act but he wanted to stay above the fray, tried to be nonpartisan and he punted it to the hill who kicked it around for over a year and it became a much more polarizing issue as it got further and further along down the trail. so i know that there's still those house and senate democrats wished if the

president had dealt with this and not been as timid in the, the 2010 elections might have been different and we might not be in this position. >> there's lingering resentment between congress and the president. they don't think he has reached out to them even though he was in the senate he never really developed that sort of legislative skill making, certainly isn't johnson was sort of the master of the senate and could go up there and certainly leverage things. but the president and the white house has taken a very hands off approach to congress. this is what we're going to do. we want you to get behind it. so they seemed kind of shocked sometimes when the senate and things don't do this and they haven't gone up there sort of lobbied them tried to ease tensions and things like that too. you mentioned earlier, i think that is why it's important to note that the president is going to meet with leaders on tuesday. certainly not enough to sort of ease the simmering tensions between them but i think it is

a step that on these issues that he is going to have to have some backing from hill leaders. host: back to the house ratings and one of the results we'll be looking at tuesday in the massachusetts primary is congressman teerny who faced a tough reelection, narrowly winning two years ago, facing a primary challenge. you have this listed as a toss-up tilt democrat. what's happening? guest: so two years ago congressman teerny faced with some ethical questions particularly about his wife and brothers inu law faced a very significant challenge from former state state senator. he's running again but now there's a democratic challenger who raised a considerable amount of money for a primary challenger. now he's been up on tv criticizing congressman teerny. teerny is now on tv calling him a republican trying to label him as a republican to democratic prismery voters.

and on tuesday, there isn't a lot of date avementteerny started the race with a significant lead because no one had any idea who his challenger was. now that gap is starting to close. and republicans are -- republicans want to face teerny. they want to see him get beat up but they want to face him because of this baggage that they can continue to bring up. it will be interesting on tuesday and still a race in november. guest: i don't know, if he wins i think this becomes a harder seat for republicans. that they need that baggage to sort of beat up on teerny. and we've seen him really go negative against moleten. i think this indicates that he is very much in trouble. there was at least one poll that showed this within the margin of error. but within that matchup, moleten had a much more comfortable lead over the others, the matchup was much closer. he isn't your typical

challenger. he has some very well respected democratic strategists boo hind him. he's an iraq veteran and stanley ms crystal one of the made one of his first endorsements wading back into politics. and i talked to some democrats they said that was maybe a turning point certainly in the race. >> and the boston papers endorsing his opponent. >> they've mixed words in those. >> let's go back to the phone calls. david from florida. we'll have the results from those primaries on tuesday here obc-span. and on line. caller: good morning. please don't cut me off. let's go back to the point where we were talking about the farm workers who were taking the jobs that the americans wouldn't take. the reason why americans won't take these jobs, gentlemen, ok, ladies, is because they are paying slave labor. none of the american people can

actually make a living off of working any of these jobs. any of the jobs. none of these jobs will give anybody a liveable wage. we all know that. you keep saying this, you keep saying these are jobs americans won't do. but you keep leaving out the fact that these are jobs that will not pay enough money for anybody to live on or raise a family on. so what's happening basically is you're bringing in slave labor. we all know it's slave labor. you won't admit that it's slave labor. but here's where we really stand as a public. now, americans will not do these jobs, ladies and gentlemen, and the people out here in the united states, because we all know one thing. you cannot make a living off these jobs. now, please address that part of it. the jobs that we will not do. we will not do because we're americans and we can't make a

living doing that because these people will not pay enough. would you please give me a comment to that? i would love to hear what the answer is to that because that is the real truth here. the truth is they will not pay anybody enough money to have to be able to put your kids to schools or to eat. ok. so that's the real truth here. host: david thanks for the call. guest: i think the point he's getting to is some of these jobs that are minimum wage even maybe a different hourly rate does make it very difficult. we've seen studies and certainly things on that. that's why you have seen democrats push the minimum wage they want to get it up to 10.10 or some type of living wage. that's certainly not going to go anywhere on a federal level this year. but some places i would look where it could have an impact, states that are trying to implement a minimum wage increase, arkansas had an interesting move this week where they got this on the ballot for a state-based increase. mark pryor in a very tough

senate race there. pryor opposes a federal minimum wage but did -- has backed the state minimum wage increase. that certaintly could help him but also his opponent did come out backing it too. that sort of mitigated any attacks. but these concerns for wages, for jobs, also we had the friday jobs report that came out was the lowest of the year, exactly not what democrats wanted to hear going into november. but i think for a lot of people with hids concerns, it's not just the number of jobs out there or the numbers of jobs that are being lost or fewer jobs being created but it is a lot of these low-paying jobs still it doesn't make for a lot of people to be able to feed their family to just have a base of living wage. host: another race in georgia where michelle nun, the daughter of former senator sam nun, a democrat, being challenged by the republican candidate david perdue and we covered this from david perdue

not only going after michelle nun for her connections to the president but also to harry reid. >> this race is very simple. the decision in this race. if you like what's going on in washington, then vote for my opponent. because you know she will be nothing more than a proxy for harry reid and barack obama and nothing will change. but if you're as outraged as i am by the size and scope of this government, by the airingen policies that are failing this administration, and by the sheer magnitude of the debt they're piling on the backs of our kids and grandkids, then stand with me. ndlet take our country back. to a position of strength and prosperity. guest: he was on message there. he is trying to -- he is on what voters to be focused on.

georgia is one of three i think question marks that we could be asking after november and that's if no candidate gets the 50% in georgia there is a libertarian who might get a few percentage points. if no candidates gets 50% it moves to a january runoff. >> and who is he going to caucus with? so there is some question marks that could leave the control of the senate in doubt after vember host: good morning. caller: good morning. my concern is this and the followup on comments that have already been made. nd that is american spending

versus what we're spending at home. military spending versus what we are spending at home. we have one of the strongest miltriss in the world and -- militaries in the world and we have been in one of the longest wars we've been in. my question is this. when are we going to hold the republicans accountable for the fact that they cannot give the working man a minimum wage and as much as the drabts have fought for this, as much as the president has fought for this, there's -- they're sending the message that we need to take all over our country and the things, attack isis because they are a threat. et we cannot focus on spending

money right here where we've en spending billions host: thanks for the call. guest: i think that's a sentiment a lot of people have. why are we focusing so much overseas instead of fixing what's going on at home. i think the white house is trying to make the balance between the threats that are overseas but focusing on the economy. and i think that's one of the challenges of the mid term election for the president's party. if there's a sentiment that things aren't going in the right direction, people aren't satisfied with the economy, that they -- the base democrats will blame republicans but the voters in the middle they city see the government. there are different branches but they're in charge. if they don't like what's going

in, it's a natural thing to be disinclined to vote for a candidate who would be with the president's party. host: steve. caller: i just don't understand the american people because they go out and vote for these republicans. they vote for the millionaires and billionaires who have all the money in the world. they don't have -- and you know they cut down the president and say he's not doing anything. it's the house of representatives has the purse strings. and they're the ones that aren't doing anything because the republican party is the ones that hold the purse strings.

guest: he mentioned these millionaire candidates and going back to that georgia clip. that's one of his biggest weaknesses that he is going to have to address. a 2012 ad who was running, someone who was laid off from his company speaking veryforthwritely about the chal edges and thinks they faced similar to what we heard callers here today being very

frustrated about wages and things. so, if they can successfully paint david perdue as this out-of-touch businessman, that is his biggest weakness host: one viewer said do you think you could afford a home in d.c. and back home? guest: it would be very difficult. home prices are not what they are where i grew up in tennessee. and, you know, i think that it is certainly a concern that both -- numbers do have to face. >> that's why i think we see a lot of members of congress they sleep in their offices or you have seen them, you know, have these group homes almost of members of congress on the hill. it is absolutely not cheap living here. it's not cheap whether you live on the hill or the suburbs and commuting. do they move their whole family here? put their children in school

here? you know, and that's what i think a lot of these members do have to realize. they can be hit for moving their families to washington you, but, you know, you want to go home and see your family. >> that's why we see a lot of members, you know, maybe have family problems and different things, too. i think they have a lot of concerns they have to balance, especially depending upon where they live and how much commuting they may have to do back and forth but this is not a cheap town to live in and it is a concern certainly that they do have. >> host: raven from west virginia. bob, what's going to happen in your state? caller: there is. he specially the senate race. >> leads me to my question to the panelist. i would like to hear their insight on how candidates do receive endorsements, whether for trade unions, business groups, newspapers, and then just how effective that really

is. guest: i will separate that out but in terms of interest groups, interest groups endorse candidates they think will be froenltd their cause or incumbents who have already voted, taken votes that are friendly to their cause. i think to varying degrees on whether they matter or not. if it's a democratic group, organized labor endorses adan democratic candidate, i don't know if that changes things if a pro-business group endorses a republican. but if you start to get those crossover endorsements, for example, the chamber of commerce endorsing congressman scott peters in the san diego area district. >> that's a very competitive race. he is a democrat. >> could have voters in the middle saying, i will take a second look at him because he may not be the type of democrat in the my mind. so, i think the crossover endorsements are more important than kind of the

typical party endorsement. host: something you said earlier, one of the points that mary landrieu, if she is re-elected, she is key to the louisiana energy issues. here is an ad now in the air in that state: >> i am mary landrieu, and i approve this message. >> my name is travis and i have worked places like this. people in washington have no idea what service is about. come down here and see. after the spill, we had only 12 people on a rig going in to the gulf. she took it on to make it easier to drill. >> led to almost sixty rigs and thousands of jobs. now, the energy committee, i am rick paris. >> in the december run-off, the republicans have control room of the senate. what impact does this have? guest: that argument would seem to evaporate if she is not going

to be the chair of that committee and her clout is taken away by being in the minority, i think that's significant. >> takes a significant chip off of the table for her. >> that's why i think louisiana is one of the most difficult races to handicap because it's more complicated if it all rests on louisiana in control or if democrats or -- or if republicans have fallen shorts, then that argument she is making, i think, would resonate very well. people say, absolutely. we need her in that position. so there is a lot of uncertainty in the louisiana race host: steve is joining us from ocean shore in washington. good morning. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. host: certainly. caller: i just find it really ironic or obvious how the democrats and the republicans seem to disagree on about everything there is but yet they do end up compromising, and it

ends up screwing the working class. everything except like syria, chemical weapons, the democrats and the republicans couldn't wait to go there. thank god, the american people stopped it. and now, the beheading of the journalists. oh, they are bar barribaric. is it any less barberic to the cut heads off than to drone attack a wedding party and kill innocent people, children. host: thank you for the call. guest: it's easier for the two parties to come together when we are talking about a threat overseas or a foreign enemy because there can be agreement that well, we may not agree with each other on spending or the minimum wage, but we can agree that these people, something needs to be stopped. so, i think that's why you see the compromise over -- over international issues.

i think that there, you know, most people would say there isn't enough compromise going on here in washington on domestic issues, and, you know, frankly, i see that even though voters say they want compromise, that they are not often rewarding compromise at the ballot box. if you are a republican or democratic member who compromises with the other side, you are probably going to be met with a primary challenger and you may not be coming back to congress. i think it goes both ways on who is to blame for the lack of compromise compromise. >> some news on this sunday morning, courtesy of nbc and chuck todd, the political director releasing three new polls and the headlines from mark murray from nbc news as the republican senates open up leads in a couple of key races. let's look at arkansas where according to this cpnt cotton compared for 40% for mark pryor taking another term. mitch mcconnell at 47%. allison grimes at 39% and in

colorado, senator udall at 48% over cory gardner at 42%. your reaction? guest: in arkansas, that lines up with what can the public, non-partisan polling and republican polling tends to show. democrats released an internal poll that had senator pryor up 47-45. but i think the majority of this lines up with the rest of the polling. in kentucky, this is definitely the rosiest poll i have seen for mcconnell but it still plays into the trend of the senator starting to build a little bit of a lead. it will be interesting to see what his favorable ratings are and what grimes' ratings are. colorado is the most pessimistic poll i have seen in colorado. this race is still developing. but democrats have been on the attack trying to define congressman cory gardner specifically on the personhood and choice issues and if they can do that, they can then, you

know, i think this is the kind of result. colorado is a much more difficult state structurally for republicans than in arkansas or kentucky. >> joe is joining us from augusta, west virginia. your reaction in a moment. good morning, joe. >> yes, i wouldn't to make a comment about what wern person was talking about. i hear this all the time. and being from west virginia, knowing rockefeller has been in west virginia all of these years, at one point, david rockefeller was the wealthiest man in the world, and the fact that the democrats just viewed so much misinformation talking about the we think, not to mention what they get out of hollywood and i feel like they always are throwing lies and they know that they are going to stick with the public because they have the majority of the media in their pocket. and so they just rely on mis information and watching c-span lately, i just believe there is a whole lot of democrats that call in on the independent line and the republican line.

and so i just, the main thing is their mis information about so many things, and it's just sickening. guest: okay. joe, we will get a response. guest: i think the theme we have heard through these calls is such frustration. i think that's what republicans are bank okay at the ballot box is that, as nathan mentioned and i know stu always likes to say, one of the biggest hampering blocks for democrats is if you want to voice your dissatisfaction with a president in a presidential election, you can do that, vote against the president. >> that's why we saw heidi castro be able to win in north dakota and the win in montana. this year, if you want to vote against the president, you only can vote against the democratic incumbent. >> that's why we are seeing mark pryor now at just 40%, why udall still faces a challenge and why you are seeing landrieu insomuch

trouble, but people, i think, are certainly pessimistic. with government, pessimistic of the media and i think they are just generally in a pessimistic view in d.c. but around the country. >> we have a minute less. one senate race you think will be a bellweather. >> i think you should look at north carolina, you know. we have talked about louisiana before. i have to separate louisiana because louisiana, i don't think it's going to be decided until december. i think north carolina is a very critical fight. it's a very tough state to at this in because of multiple media markets but you have a first-term speaker, a speaker of the house who has taken on some water from the legislature, a polarizing legislature, i think north carolina is going to be a very critical state. >> jessica, the last word. guest: i think alaska where republicans were intain about. i know nathan have them in the top democratic category but this

is interesting because this isn't a state where maybe culturally >> that's one reason why you have a leg up. i was interested early on. he is campaigning on the back that he is pro-ch has planned parenthood out there with him. this is not what you would see, been doing in traditionally red states but i think we are seeing it cut into that. i would be interested to see polling out of that. i think i was struck by, you know, that does seem to be tightening up and arkansas, we have seen conflicting poll numbers on this. you usually see a democrat poll with them up, republican poll with them slightly up but if you are going in to november, 40% is not where you want to be where you are an incumbent. i think mark pryor has run a good campaign and he is not going to be the blanche lincoln. he hasn't written it off as we did in 2010. i think this is maybe one where you could see a republican start to go away in the next couple of weeks. >> our listeners and viewers, if

they want to follow you on twitter, how can they do so guest: @jessska can ataylor, very simple, and the hill.com, we are going to cover this thoroughly. the primary we will have a story up on that tomorrow morning. if you want to read more about that. and thet check us out host: for you? >> at nathanlgonzalez and role

>> vice president joe biden le marks the 20th anniversary of the violence against women act. you can see that live today starting at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span-3. >> with congress back in session here's a message from ngress from one of the student cam winners. >> water makes up 75% of our body. take water away and humanity would perish within a week. water is the most vital substance to the human body yet nearly 50% of all waterways are unsuitable for use due to pollution. in the u.s., we have learned to take water for granted.

fauseets, bottled water and flushed toilets all reinforce the same idea, water is an unlimited resource. but step outside to our local waterways and their diminishing condition tells a different story. water pollution kills marine life, kills an eco system and disrupts a food chain. and animals aren't the only ones who are affected. you must provide federal funding to water water treatment agencies across the country, the lifeblood of our nation is tainted. and it must stop here.

this is an hour, 30 minutes. closed committee will come to order. thank you very much. our star witness has now arrived. i'm delighted that the honorable bill schuster is here. and i want to welcome everyone back from a month-long reprieve of being home, and working with constituents and doing the things which we all need to do. and we want to welcome you back. do you have anything you want to say today. >> nice to see everybody. >> you can see the three from florida look great. the guy from texas has a big old

smile on his face. >> he's always got a smile on his face. >> mike, i saw where a few of the tree leaves began falling in dallas yesterday morning. so fall may be in the air, even though we didn't have any rain to prove it. [ laughter ] he's befuddled right now. you want to make a special announcement. >> although doc burgess may be at a loss for words, i never am. i want to give a shout-out to two wonderful people here today with us. the first one is lieutenant kristen hahn. she's a graduate of the coast guard academy, served two years in coast guard sector miami. and is now at johns hopkins where she is completing her masters in foreign affairs. thank you. thank you for your service. >> thank you. >> and secondly, shawn mcmahon

who has completed his masters in international relations at cambridge. the real cambridge over there. sorry. sorry. and is an intern with us. thank you, mr. chairman. it is a delight to introduce these two wonderful young people to you. >> shawn and kristen, we're delighted you're here with us. kristen, thank you for your service to our great nation. we're delighted that you are here. speaking of stars, we also have the chairman of our committee who is here, the gentleman from pennsylvania has arrived just in time. as always, mr. chairman, as you know, we appreciate you being before the rules committee. rules committee council, not only your feedback to us about the exceptions of the bills, but really about how on an ongoing basis, you're doing a spectacular job to make sure our roads and bridges and highways are -- and waterways, and

transportation issues are all taken care of and funded. we're delighted you're here. without objection, anything you have in writing will be entered into the record. and the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. sorry i was a few minutes tardy. when you were talking about the folks from florida and texas, they always have better color than those from the northeast have. the sun seems to shine down there more. >> it rains on us. >> exactly. but i appreciate the opportunity to come before the rules committee. and i would want to thank congressman steve sutherland, he's been a leader on water issues since he came to congress, and since his district is on the gulf coast there in florida. his legislation that he's proposed before the supreme court could halt only what can be described an end run by the executive branch around both the legislative branch and the judicial branch of the united states. twice the supreme court has told

the administration that there are limits to jurisdiction under the clean water act and they've gone too far in asserting their authority. although it wasn't brought up on the house floor for a vote, there were a number of amendments of appropriations, and when our colleagues controlled both houses, chairman overstar tried to move the same type of bill through the transportation infrastructure committee, and was not able to do that. i would also argue that the democratic majority twice -- not twice, but on a few occasions were able to stop this from moving forward. while the supreme court keeps ruling against the environmental protection agency, the administration has taken those supreme court rulings and is cherry picking discreet language from them in an attempt to gain expanded authority over new waters. and in some cases, dry land. rather than heeding the directive of the supreme court. it is the responsibility of congress, not the administration, to define the scope of the jurisdiction under

the rule making proposed by the administration is yet another example of a disturbing pattern of a presidency that seeks to use brute force, executive action, while ignoring congress and the supreme court. i would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we've got to stop allowing this to happen. we have to stop whether it's a republican administration or democratic administration, taking and usurping or ignoring congress in a unilateral way, by broadening the scope of the clean water act. the federal government's reach into every life will have adverse effects on the building and development of landowners, of our agriculture, state and local governments have a huge concern about this decision, about their lands. this massive federal jurisdiction grab was the subject of failed legislation as mentioned in the 110th and 1evat congress.ç now the administration is trying

to achieve this federal power expansion through rule making. the proposed rules supposedly aims to clarify what water bodies are subject to jurisdiction under the clean water act. some could argue it brings clarity. it simply clarifies that all waters and in many cases dry land are subject to federal jurisdiction. regulation of the nation's waters must be done in a matter that responsibly protects the environment without unnecessary and costly expansion of the federal government at the expense of state and local governments. we can continue to protect our waters without unreasonable and burdensome regulations on our small businesses, farmers and families. mr. sutherland's legislation holds this rule making, ensures current practices are protected, and simply requires the administration to consult with the state and local governments when developing a regulation. i appreciate the opportunity. and again, would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take this serious. this bill will stop the executive branch from taking

away the constitutional powers, which i believe are here in the house and in the senate and the congress. so this is a serious issue that i think all of us should be concerned about. whether it's a republican or democratic president. this is a piece of legislation that will stop that expansion of executive powers. and thank you. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. mr. chairman, being from texas, we are concerned about water. we're concerned about our -- how we're able to effectively have clean water and manage our resources. we try and work with the epa. we try and work with the corps of engineers. but what we try and do is do that in a balance that would allow all of these regulatory agencies with teq, which is in texas, and other agencies, to be able to work together for the best interests of the state of texas. i would want and expect the same thing in new york. i would want the same thing in

pennsylvania. and darn sure would want it in california and other states. i am for the balance. is this bill helping that balance out by allowing the state the opportunity to fully participate? >> absolutely. it maintains the balance. i think if this rule making goes forward, it will put it out of whack and have states and locals that testified before us, they're very, very concerned about what this is going to do about their ability to manage their land. and i think this notion here in washington that the people of pennsylvania, texas, massachusetts, oklahoma, florida, texas, don't care enough about their water, or their land, to make sure that it's done in an environmentally sound way. i think it's wrong-headed thinking. >> i agree with you. i've heard from lots of people in texas about the balance,

about how we as texans will attempt to follow the law as best as possible, but that balance allows these agencies to work together. you also have on the other side private landowners. and private landowners will find themselves, i believe, on the wrong side of fighting the federal government, as opposed to someone that they would know, someone that they would respect, and somebody they can work with. and there's almost nothing worse than having to go to federal court. it's expensive. it's time-consuming. and it's a disadvantage to an individual private property landowner. can you talk with me about some of the things that you would anticipate that are advantages to that, along that line? >> i think the point you make is correct. the ranch owner, the farmer, the land developer across this country, they're very concerned that they're going to be stopped from developing that land. someone who might want to put a

pond in their -- on their farm or backyard, they're concerned that the reach of the eepa, the corps of engineers will come in and stop it and regulate the building op the pond when it does not feed into a navigable waterway. there's great concern out there. and rightly so, that when this -- if this rule making is allowed to go into place, it will expand and it will have a chilling effect on development of land in this country, and on our agricultural community. >> as a member of the texas farm bureau, long-term member, and a member of the southwest texas cattle raisers association, i hear from my fellow members about how it will also have an adverse reverse effect in that people who are trying to effectively utilize, capture, use water that would be for their own cattle, that would be for their own resources, all of a sudden are going to find

themselves under the arm of the federal government. is that true? >> that's very likely to happen. as someone who grew up on a farm, still lives on a farm, family still has a farm, farmers were the first conservationists. a farmer does everything he possibly can to make sure he's protecting the water, the land, the soil. so again, there's great concern out there that somebody in washington's going to tell them how to do something that's going to, as i said, have a chilling effect on their business. >> i'm delighted not only that you're here, but mr. sutherland is once again pushing this bill. i agree with your statement that people who own their own land, people who live in their own state, have a greater opportunity, should, to love the land, to protect the land, and to be able to use that land as opposed to somebody in washington, d.c. mr. chairman, thank you very much for being here today. i will support this bill. and we appreciate you being here. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized.

>> chauthank you, mr. chairman. i want to tell you, mr. schuster, how much i appreciate you bringing this bill forward and certainly appreciate mr. sutherland for offering it. i can't tell you how many groups i've talked to over the course of the break that had something to say about this legislation. very supportive of it. extremely concerned about the overreach that, you know, is behind this federal effort to regulate waters far beyond what anybody saw coming. so it's timely. i'm disappointed to see that the president, the administration policy would be that it would be recommended to veto. i think that would be a big mistake for him, quite frankly. if i was the president's political adviser, i would say, don't do this. the state and localities are doing a great job on water. frankly, our private entities in this country, particularly farmers and ranchers, value it

as much or more than anybody else. most of our conservation efforts tended to work locally and work up. they weren't federal and worked down. the overreach, you know, by the federal government is extraordinary. it's a good piece of legislation. i appreciate you bringing it forward. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. by the way, tom, good to see you. i'm sure you'll look at me and say you can't wait for the second weekend of october when you'll be coming to dallas, texas. [ inaudible ]. >> it's good to see my friend. [ inaudible ] always a big day. thank you very much. mr. slaughter? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i know you think by now we would be accustomed to bill's telling us the truth. but i can never seem to do that with everything we need to do in the united states, that we're doing it. i have a four-page --

>> it will be in the record. >> the government is not going after dick's water and overflow. but one part i think i need to say here is, this rule making was requested by congress, industry, agriculture, business, hunters, fishermen, and more. the stakeholders were not consulted, that's not true. this is just a proposal that they made. agencies are seeking public comment. participating extensive outreach. the state and tribal partners regulate the community for small business and general public. so let me put all the myths on this bill. they're saying we can't deal in the truth. i'd like to put that in the record as well as a statement of the administration. >> without objection. >> i have no question. >> i thank the gentle woman very much. >> if i could say two things. >> excuse me.

does the gentle woman yield back her time? >> does the chairman like to make a statement? >> yes, the guidelines that came out said that the agencies needed to clarify it. this is not clarifying it. this is changing the definition of it. if you want to change the definition, i firmly believe, let's have this debate in congress. >> i couldn't agree with you more. but the fact is -- >> just the gentle woman seek time? >> i want to respond. previous to obama, they clarified. obama tried to clarify, he was told by the house that he had to do rule making. he had to do the whole schmere. so here we are. i've never in my life in some of this stuff, what they're saying -- the federal government is going to regulate puddles and water on dry ground. that's actually something that people are putting in about this bill. gaining power over farms and

ranches. no. all historical exclusions and chem shons for agriculture are preserved. the proposals does not remove the normal farming exemption. it adds 56 beneficial conservation practices, which are self-implementing. the proposed rule is a meth, will apply to wet areas and erosion areas on field. water field areas on crop fields are not jurisdictional, and the proposal specifically excludes erosional features. here you are. it's like watching some of these programs in the united states where it led to each one of my constituents to come in in the contrails of jet planes, are spray painted on as mind controllers. i think this falls in the same category.

>> thank you. there is a way forward, and that is to get together with the states, to have a say in this, and they're not doing that in this bill. some of what you said i disagree with. but i'll have to leave it at that. >> mr. nugent does not seek time. judge hastings, do you seek time? the gentle woman from florida does not seek time. the gentleman from -- mr. schuster, thank you very much. we appreciate you being here. >> thank you. >> i think there's a he said/she said argument here. the bottom line is, i'm delighted you're here. i think people back home who are in our state agencies, and landowners, are worried. and that's why you're here. we'll look forward to seeing you on the floor. the gentleman is now -- >> i'm glad you're here, mr. schuster. you often bring great clarity to what we're doing today.

and we'll overlook this one. thank you so much. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. we are now going to move to h-res 644, and i've seen the chairman of the armed services committee, the gentleman from california, mr. mccann none. i know he will be arriving very quickly. i know also that the ranking member, mr. smith -- >> is on his way. >> -- is en route. we are aware -- >> he should be here by 5:30. >> perhaps what we can do is get our californian to speak with clarity and stretch it out then. welcome to the rules committee. we're delighted that you're here. welcome back after the break. i know that you've been -- >> mr. mckeon? >> i know you've been very busy. the saying goes, i love you,

too. we're delighted you're here. in fact, the piece of legislation that you're supporting today is one that comes as a result of a lot of work, a lot of looking back and seeing, i'm sure, a number of things that are disturbing to you. but h-res 644 is what you're here today to talk about. and i appreciate you taking the time with us. without objection, anything you have in writing will be entered into the record. and the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. smith is held up in traffic. >> it won't bother anybody if you talk like a texan and talk a little slow for a minute. >> i have a very, very long statement. and mr. smith will be happy to miss it. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. chairman, ranking member slaughter, thank you for meeting

aenlded. a resolution offered by mr. ridgeel of virginia, condemning the obama administration's failure to comply with the requirement to notify congress before transferring guantanamo bay detainees out of that facility. i want to thank mr. ridgel on his work on the deeply disturbing issue. he reached across the aisle for a resolution spops erd by 94 members of the house, including myself, focused on the obama administration's clear violation of statute, passed by the legislative branch and enacted into law by the president. i also want to thank ranking member smith, though he did not support this resolution in its entirety, i appreciate his candor, and his commitment to fostering a thoughtful debate within our committee. this is something that people felt strongly about.

but the whole debate was on a very high level and i want to thank him for that. consistent with how rules and our committee's practices, the markup of house resolution 644 was publicly noticed three days in advance, and members were provided the opportunity to submit amendment. the markup was open to the public, and video was streamed live. after thorough consideration, the resolution passed out of committee with bipartisan support. the administration violated the law, and house resolution 644 articulates this simple message. section 1035 of the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2014 requires the secretary of defense to notify the appropriate committees of congress at least 30 days before the transfer or release of any

individual detained at gitmo. there are no waivers to this cl. yet, on may 31st, at the request of the taliban, and in exchange for sergeant bergdahl who was held by the ha kaqani network, e detainees were sent to qatar. the administration took this action without notifying congress. this is an obvious violation of law. there can be no confusion on this point. in fact, the nonpartisan government accountability office recently determined that the administration violated the law by failing to notify congress. but also, by expanding funds to carry out the transfers without an appropriation for that purpose. the statutory provision of the nbaa was written and approved by

a bipartisan majority in congress, because of genuine concerns that dangerous terrorists were leaving gitmo and returning to the fight against the u.s. or its allies. by requiring the secretary of defense to convey detailed information to congress, the provision is intended to allow members to have a complete understanding of the risks of sending gitmo detainees elsewhere, and how those risks might be mitigated. in transferring the taliban five without lawfully notifying congress, the administration deprived congress of the opportunity to consider the national security risk that such a transfer could pose, or the repercussions of negotiating with terrorists. if congress did not speak strongly now, to condemn such blatant disregard for the law, any future administration may come to believe that obedience to statute is not a requirement

to the executive branch. this is intolerable, and for this reason, i support this resolution, and will ask my colleagues in the house to adopt it. on a final note, in considering the rule for consideration of this resolution, i would ask that any potential amendments focus on the administration's violation of the law, and not the circumstances of sergeant bergdahl's disappearance. the army is currently conducting its investigation, and there will be an appropriate time for members to be heard on this matter. thank you for the opportunity to testify this afternoon. i appreciate the committee's consideration of how resolution 644, and respectfully respect that it issue an appropriately structured rule for the resolution. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. you bring in congressman ridgeel's resolution to the

committee is important. i'd like to just see if i can ask a question or two. the administration, as i understand it, was required by statute, by law, to come to the united states house of representatives, at least leadership. i believe that would include you as the chairman of the armed services committee. is that correct? and to the senate? >> it just says to the congress, which would include the house and the senate. but no member of the congress was informed. republican, democrat, leadership, minority, majority, nobody. but 80 to 90 members of the department of state, the white house, the department of defense, the department of justice weren't informed. >> so the reasoning is, is that we believe that if we're going to work with the white house, we're going to work with the

administration, if we're going to be able to carefully understand and be thoughtful leaders with them, which many times our committees on a bipartisan basis are, on an intelligence basis, a foreign affairs basis, and armed services. it would allow our members a chance to be thoughtful and work with the administration, but knowledge is key, isn't it? >> there was a reason why we passed this. in november of 2011, the administration came to the congress and told us that they had opened negotiations with the taliban, that they were starting to deal with a post-war transfer, and they wanted to start negotiations. and they wanted to let us know that as part of that, they were talking about releasing these five taliban. there was strong pushback from

both bodies, both sides of the aisle to this. you know, they have now around 147 detainees at guantanamo. many of them have been vetted and have been approved for future transfer if they can find an appropriate place. these five were not on that list. they were very dangerous individuals. and when they talked to the congress about it, there was strong reservations against it. in january or february of 2012, the administration came to us, the taliban had opened an office in qatar, and president karzai went ballistic and the negotiations all blew up, and they came in and informed us of the fact and said, before they proceeded any further, they would get back to us. they never did. i think the feeling was that they knew they would have

pushback based on the previous experience, and they just avoided it. pretty clear the law stated in fact mr. smith pointed out in a hearing that we with secretary hagel, that when the president signed the ndaa act, with that provision in there, he pointed out that he didn't agree with that. but the way the constitution works, the way our government works, you may disagree with it, but it's still the law until tested in the court. so while you disagree, you still have the obligation to follow it. and so they just decided to do this. and they did it. and this resolution calls them on it and says, no more. >> well, i think as you've

suggested, it's a clear violation of the law. and the problem is, they didn't intend to comply with the law. and the ramifications, in my opinion, there's very little that can be done, because you just don't get back five people. not like a federal judge could order them back. >> well, at some point we may get them back, but it may be on the other side of a gun. there's very high likelihood, that all five, if not most of them, will enter back into the fray, they're that caliber people. and, you know, it -- we put people in jeopardy every day to go out and protect our freedoms. and to have them go through the process of capturing somebody like this, and then letting them go and having to capture them, or fight them again is, i think, just more than we should ask

people to do. >> and that's on the other side, because the law is the violation. we've now been joined by your very dear colleague, my very dear friend, mr. smith. just so you know, you have not had the luxury of hearing the opening statement from mr. -- chairman mckeon. but we're sure that you'll catch up very quickly, so we would like to offer you the opportunity to make any opening statement. i would defer to the gentle woman to welcome you, if you would choose. would you like mr. mckeon to give any summary or do you think -- >> oh, no. >> without objection. your statement will be entered into the record. >> i'm familiar with the issue. and probably familiar with what the chairman would have said. and i just think it's something that is not necessary to be brought before the house. we had several hearings on the

prisoner swap that brought sergeant bowe bergdahl back in exchange for five taliban prisoners from guantanamo. and there's much to be discussed about it. the bulk of it comes down to sort of a policy decision. was it right, was it wrong. and that's a debate that we will often have with the executive branch when they make a decision. the one area of focus is on -- i forget, i think it was 2013 ndaa -- actually 2014 ndaa, the call for 30 days' notice before any inmates were transferred from guantanamo bay. there's no question the president did not give that 30 days' notice on this transfer. and i have said publicly on a number of occasions, i think he should have. i think congress can absolutely be trusted with that type of information, and i think it was a mistake not to. the focus of this resolution is to basically condemn the president for violating the law. and i think that is wrong.

what the president did is he, as countless presidents, i wouldn't go as far to say as everyone, but certainly more than half, have at one time or another have said that under article 2, the president has assertive authority that is contrary to a piece of legislation that has been passed. and the argument is, that article 2, and the president's national security responsibilities specifically in this area supersedes the piece of legislation that was passed. we have two laws that are in conflict. and they made a choice. and they chose, and felt that the article 2 was paramount. therefore, they believed what they did was legal. and to call out and condemn the president and say that he violated the law is over the top, unnecessary, and further exacerbates the already bad, i would go so far as to say a poisonous relationship that exists between congress and the president for no reason. as i pointed out in committee,

many presidents have done this, and we don't have to go back that far in history. president george w. bush did wireless taps, indefinite detentions post-9/11 that were in clear violation of existing legislative law. and he did it, and justified it, in the exact same way that president obama justified this action. president bush said, article 2 gives me the power to do this. over and above those laws. and certainly, if you're talking about something as strong as warrantless wiretaps, indefinitely detaining people, that is certainly a far more substantial step than doing a prisoner swap in a time of war. there was no resolution of condemnation for any of that out of congress. not even a discussion of it. to pull up this one instance that president obama, making the same argument that president bush and others did, i think is

partisan politics, pure and simple. i understand the argument. i think it's perfectly okay to do what i've done and others have done, the president should have given notice, but to call him out and say he violated the law when president bush just before him did the exact same thing repeatedly without a peep out of congress. you know, just sort of makes it clear it has more politics in it than it should. the argument that notice should have been given is legitimate. the condemnation of going to a piece of legislation that formally calls the president out as a lawmaker, is inappropriate and over the top. and once again, you know, pushes us into a bipartisan place that, frankly, we've been in far too often between congress and the white house. i don't think this belongs on the floor and i don't think the piece of legislation should be put forward. but it is. and we will deal with it accordingly on the floor. i just don't think that it's an appropriate piece of

>> mr. smith, president bush did not provide congress, the intelligence committee, with information of, as you suggest, the wiretaps? >> well, the issue -- >> and the people who were being held? because as i recall -- >> that's not the issue. >> no, hold on. hold on. this is my question. >> okay. >> the question is, providing notice to congress. in my opinion, hiding things from congress, not following the law is only the question, as i recall, because there were vigorous debates at the time. and i know we have a member of this committee who sat on the intelligence committee. there was information given, and it was identified with fisa

courts and others. but i don't think it was that congress was not provided the information. >> notice is not the issue. >> it's not? >> no. a violation of the law is the issue. >> the violation of the law -- >> let me explain. what this resolution says is it condemns the president for violating the law. >> right. >> now, in this case, the law was that he was supposed to notify congress. >> correct. >> in the case of president bush, that was not the law that he violated. it wasn't a matter of notifying congress, it was doing warrantless wiretaps on people. it was a matter of doing indefinite detention. it's about violation of the law. certainly not notifying congress can in some cases be contrary to the law and we'll have to deal with it. but it can also be contrary to the law to warrantless wiretap people and indefinitely detain.

that's the issue. that's what this resolution is all about. it says he was supposed to notify congress. he didn't. therefore, he violated the law. the argument that this president makes, and that president bush made, and many others is that, no, he did not violate the law. he followed article 2 of the constitution which is a law. >> i'm glad you're here. i think it's apples and oranges. i think that we are here to say that notice was not given to the congress. and that, to me, that's what this legislation is about. you and i, even at the time vigorously discussed, as the gentleman knows, i held some views about what are the problems that we were having, security problems that we were having. but i believe that the president, while he may have used a justification, information was given and provided to congress. >> but this resolution doesn't

just weaken the president for notifying congress. this resolution says the president violated the law. >> you said the administration. >> administration. but back to the issue of, is this just about notice. it's not. it says the administration violated the law. >> spending money that was unauthorized. i'm delighted that you're here. i'm delighted that you have successfully told us what you believe. i simply disagree and believe that's what we're here today is about the notice to congress. and i am delighted to speak to you. >> it's good to be back. >> and delighted that you came here to be with us today. excuse me, just a moment, please. >> i would like to respond -- >> the gentle woman is recognized. >> i'm glad you're here, too. i think you make some very interesting clarifying remarks. and appreciate very much that

you did that. obviously you've said these issues early. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> mr. wood all? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. smith, you said we'd have to -- the law was -- the president made a choice between two competing laws and we have to deal with it. what does that mean for us? there are very abstract laws that we pass from time to time. there are very specific laws that we pass, knowing as the chairman laid out in his opening statement, that the release of thinks five prisoners had been a topic of discussion. and a topic of disagreement in the past. so it was specifically added to the ndaa to specifically prevent exactly this kind of thing from happening. >> that's not entirely accurate. >> share it with me. >> what was added to the ndaa was added not about these five prisoners. it was more about the efforts to

close guantanamo. they wanted this in the ndaa to make sure that the president didn't start the process in closing guantanamo without giving congress adequate notification that they were transferring the inmates. the ndaa 2014 was not specifically about these five prisoners. it doesn't mean they don't fall within it, but that was not the purpose of what we passed in 2014. it was not more than that. >> mr. chairman? >> not specifically the purpose. this is an issue that we've been fighting on for a number of years. the president's made no secret about his desire to close guantanamo. he's kind of gone around to do different things to make that happ happen. but it probably wasn't the total issue. but it was an issue. and i don't think all of us can

get in everybody's mind as to why an issue gets in. the important thing is, it was in the bill. and it was the law. and, you know, we can go back and talk about president bush, or president clinton, or president bush, or president reagan -- the important thing is, that none of you were here when -- well, maybe you were -- when president bush was president. i was not in this job when president bush was president. it came out in the discussion in the bill that if this were president bush, we probably wouldn't be doing this. my comment was, i don't know. i would hope that we would. because i look at it as -- it doesn't matter what president violates the law. i would hope that we would, as members of the ledge slatgislat, protect the rights of the legislative body. because that's what it -- that's what happened in the

constitution. the way i understand it. this guy's an attorney, and he knows a lot more about this stuff. >> mr. woodall, if i could address your broader issue, and that is, when the administration does something like this, does something that congress feels like they have legislated against, what do we do? i can tell you the history is, we get very, very investigative it. it is the constant separation a resolution.