reflects on the cold war 75 years later. all weekend, every weekend on c-span3. sunday night on q&a, university of texas at austin sociology professor sarah brian talks about the use of big data and new surveillance technologies by law enforcement. glowing a pool long and policenew and making -- are increasingly collecting information on those who have no direct criminal justice contacts, and part of that has to do with this variety component of the three d's of big data, that they are increasingly purchasing information, where you don't have to get pulled over by the police for your data to be put into their system, for example.

atsarah brain, sunday night 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. election law codirector at william -- william & mary ann professor of law from william & mary. good morning to you. guest: how are you? host: you're here to talk about the trump campaign challenges of the 2020 20 presidential election vote. every presidential election has a timetable, but there are 50 different states, obviously, and 50 different ways to count and certify the votes, and that is the phase we are in now with eagle challenges mounted -- legal challenges mounted in several states. professor greene, how did all of these different 50 states come together? what is the end results here in december on december 14? now -- happening

guest: so it's happening now is they are in the process of canvassing their votes. each state has a different deadline ranging from november 10 and december 11. on december 14, the electoral college will meet in each state and the electors will cast their ballots required by state law to be the popular vote winner in each state. those electoral ballots will be transmitted to washington. the new congress will be sworn in january 3, and on january 6, congress will count the electoral votes. that is how the process unfolds and how you get to inauguration day january 20. host: what is december the eighth, the safe harbor deadline. -- deadline? define that. guest: it comes from something called the electoral count act. that's a deadline that's all it

does is say if a state has certified its results and appointed its electors by the deadline, congress is required, by federal law, to accept the slate of electors dictated by that certification, and it cannot sort of -- that is the play that gets counted for the state. host: i don't have the exact number of legal challenges in front of me from the trump campaign, but how likely are any of those to slow the certification dates or push back the certification dates in those states affected, michigan, pencil for -- pennsylvania for example. you know georgia with the recount going on there. guest: so far, we have not seen any evidence there are widespread problems with this election. we have actually seen the opposite, officials from the state level up have all sort of exclaimed with some surprise how

well everything went, given the election was run in pandemic. so evidence of a problem, it does not seem these lawsuits will be successful in changing the march towards certification. host: there has been some talk legislator -- legislatures in states can possibly change the intention on what the electors are supposed to vote for. is that possible? that: so the idea is article two of the constitution allows state legislatures to appoint electors, so the theory is that maybe they can disregard the popular vote and just decide on their own who they think the electors should be -- which electors should be appointed, and that would be extraordinary. if they just decided that, you know, our votes no longer matter and they will cast them aside and do their own thing. i don't think that will be

tenable or legal. circumstancesare where you can imagine state legislature having to take such an extraordinary measure. for example, if for some reason the popular vote in state could not be measured, like there is say some huge weather event or some reason why, months after november 3, you couldn't have a vote for some reason, there was something catastrophic that happened. there is nothing catastrophic that happened. we had an orderly election that followed the law, states are counting the votes carefully and methodically, and it does not seem there is any obstruction that prevents the popular vote from being recognized. host: we are talking about legal challenges to the 2020 election, the presidential election, and the road ahead. about it with rebecca green, the codirector of the election law program at

william & mary. questions.your (202) 748-8000 if you are supporter of biden and kamala for trump02) 748-8001 and mike pence, and every other, use (202) 748-8002. who is responsible in a state recertifying an election? guest: it is varied by state law. again, it is hard to generalize when it comes to election laws, because it is a process in the sense that each state has its own rules. usually the top election official or secretary of state or some statewide official that is required by law to certify the results. host: the november 20 issue of the atlantic, one representative rights atlantic trumps state and national legal

teams are laying the groundwork for postelection maneuvers that would circumvent the results of the votes count in battleground states. ambiguities in the constitution bombs in the electoral college count act make it possible to extend the dispute to inauguration day. that would bring the nation to the precipice. the 20th amendment is clear the president's term in office shall end on new and on january 20, but two men could just show up to be sworn in. is that at all i likelihood, professor greene? guest: i think under catastrophic circumstances you can imagine that unfolding, potentially, and certainly lots of people have gamed that out and tried to figure out how federal law would respond. again, there doesn't seem to be anything catastrophic underfoot. we have not seen any evidence of widespread issues of this

election. the lawsuits filed, there doesn't seem to be anything there. so again, if you can catastrophize -- certainly federal law is airtight when it comes to how disputes in the electoral college would be resolved, but it does not appear we are in that environment. host: the supreme court ruled to themmer in regards faithless electors act. what was the case there and what did the justices decide? guest: that was the case about whether or not a state can bind its electors to the popular -- to cast their votes for the winner of the popular vote in their state. there were some electors, a handful in 2016, that opted to vote for someone besides the popular vote winner in their state. a bunch for hillary clinton declined to tap their ballots

for hillary clinton. the question was, could states sanction those electors? could they remove and replace them? how much independent, content driven discussions do electors have? the supreme court sort of decided for clarity's sake and to save us from what could be a splintered electoral college vote, the supreme court last summer held that states could bind electors and remove and replace them if they failed to follow the popular will in their state. host: so i want to go back to the timelines of things here. assuming the states wrap up their certifications by december 14, those electors meet in their state on december 14, the deadline for delivery of the electoral votes to the designated officers on december 20 third. the earliest we will officially hear the results of the

electoral college votes will be january the sixth, correct? guest: these electoral college meetings happen on december 14 in public. it is not as if it is tried it in secrecy. if there are any issues that sure c-span will be there too, if there are any issues or controversies arose. it's not like we wouldn't know that until january 6. but that is the process that unfolds. host: we are seeing some of the video, and i believe this is pennsylvania that the legislature in pennsylvania counting the votes in 2016. let's get our callers. christopher is in north highlands, california on our trump line. good morning, christopher. caller: good morning. rebecca, withk the variations from state to state that we currently have, can we expect realignment on some federal voting level to set

federal laws to mandate new set oned procedures to standard in voting, to a -- to avoid the dilemma we are currently in? guest: the constitution does authorize congress to pass federal law that would standardize more aspects of our elections process. there has been resistance in the states. they sort of guard jealously their ability to set the time, place, and manner of their elections as the constitution authorizes them to. it partially depends on whether there is political will in congress to address some of these issues. lot ofly, there is a interest in doing so because of some of the problems we have seen unfolding. i do expect there will be discussions. i don't know whether there will be a consensus.

we shall see. what's interesting, often, people are very set by how elections are run. they think they could be run better. as soon as the election is over, people think about different policy issues and move on quickly. so often times, election reform gets swept under the rug. host: here is barbara on our biden line. caller: good morning. i'm calling to suggest a way of helping to heal the terrible divide we are in. it has to do with the use of technology to move humanity forward. have this very amazing situation we are in, the most precise technologically-driven election result process, from the computer technology, and similarly, the incredible preparation of the vaccine in unprecedented times. meme for that would be

awesomeising. awfulising that with which is another wonderful word. so we have the awfulness of the pandemic and splits politically, and we have the also my xing -- awesomeising i'm getting to this incredible result verified by dhs last night. getting -- this horrible split has given us this amazing educational opportunity, run and headed up by "washington journal" and c-span. washington journal down to ourto see toenails how this whole process works. and we have this awesome result of 100 -- how many is it? over 150 million people voting. and the covid brought us the

mail-in ballots, becoming a mega breakthrough. host: barbara, we will let you go there. some thoughts for you, rebecca green. the sides of the vote, were you surprised by that at all? guest: i think it was extraordinary. i think a lot of us were concerned that the pandemic conditions would prevent people from accessing the polls, and we saw states take extraordinary measures, some more than others, to expand options for voters. we definitely learned a national lesson, which is the more options available, the better in terms of addressing whatever contingencies might arise, which can be multilayered. i think it is quite extraordinary that we had such a high turnout election, and one of the perennial complaints about you elections -- about elections in the united states is that not enough people show up. i think it is great that we had such good participation this year. host: from butler, indiana,

walter on our trump supporter line. caller: thank you for taking my call and good morning, rebecca, how are you doing today? reason i called, i am not a trump line -- on a trump line or this, i am an american, and i came up with one conclusion. when you have an option to make something simple and you deliberately make it convoluted with smoke and mirrors -- we have all these ridiculous rules where would you can -- where you can mail in matching signatures, on and on, it opens the door for trouble. if you can put the man on the moon, you have to go on an airplane, you have to show identification. if you go to the pharmacy to get thatine, you have to get show identification. how crazy is it in this world that people can mail-in ballots without proof of who they are? you have dead people voting on

and on and it is crazy. election day hasn't changed. it is the same day every four years. if you don't get your vote in by election day, it doesn't count. it should be across-the-board in each state, the same rules for everybody. all this is is opening it up for corruption. host: rebecca green, do you think mail-in ballots are here to stay? guest: mail-in ballots are not only here to stay, but it has been the direction, even before this pandemic, that the country has been moving in. if you look at a graph of mail-in voting over dozens of years, you see it is increasing, even before the pandemic happened. that is why five states in this country vote exclusively by mail. reliable form of

voting and states have different ways of ensuring that the vote is accurate and people are who they say they are when they vote by mail. a direction we have been heading in and so far, there is no reason to think there is any widespread problem. host: from our biden supporters new jersey. caller: good morning. first, i have two questions. who goes to the electoral college? who points them to go? guest: i can jump in there. state law governs how electors are appointed, and every state has decided, every state legislature has decided that the winner of the popular vote in the state determines which slate of electors goes to the electoral college on december

14, usually in the state capital, to cast their vote. the process is driven by the popular vote in that state. host: did that answer your question? did you have another question you wanted to ask? caller: yeah, i have another question. i can't understand how all the problems seems to be with the in states that trump won, but not in any of the states that he lost. that just doesn't make sense. not quite sure i understand the question, but essentially the way our system takesis, when an election place, if it candidate believes there has been a problem, there has been official misconduct or some irregularity, the candidate can try to forward those claims to the state processes and otherwise -- in the court and

otherwise. it is really up to the candidates and whether or not they want to try to prove there was a problem. host: there is some news this morning on the legal efforts in pennsylvania by the trump campaign. a law firm stops representing the trump campaign in the pennsylvania suit. leading the charge a rep. lee: -- abruptly withdrew, "plaintiff sent porter right have reached a mutual agreement that plaintiffs will be best served if porter right withdraws. withdraws." go to gym in highland, texas on our trump supporters line. jim, you are on with rebecca green. go ahead.

jim, you are on the air. caller: oh, i am out of midland texas. i have a question -- is your democrat or republican? it seems like the voting discrepancy is a little downplayed. with the software problems they are finding, it seems like there could be millions of votes, and she's saying that it's a small problem -- i don't really think it is. that's all i had. thanks. host: rebecca green, professor answeryou don't have to your political party, but the cybersecurity agency, a firm say they have certified the election or said the election was one of the most secure in election history? right.that's there are a couple of different

ways of looking at it. if there was widespread fraud, ballots that should have been included that word or a computer glitch, you would expect to see big voted.es in how people those anomalies just aren't to be and that just seems that we have no evidence brought in the claims so far that we have a widespread problem. that theextraordinary elections unfold and millions of votes are cast and counted, it seems like there could be openings for problems. election officials spent quite a bit of time making sure the process is as airtight as possible, working out contingencies, running audits to make sure machines are working,

and doing everything possible to make sure large-scale problems don't arise. effort,is is a joint joint statement from the government coordinating council and the election infrastructure sector correlating executive committees. they're write in their statement, the november 3 election was the most secure in american history. election officials are reviewing and double checking the entire election process to finalize the result. "when states have most elections, most will have close ballots. we all have paper records of each mode, allowing the ability to go back and count each ballot if necessary. this is an added benefit for security and resilience. this allows for the identification and correction of ."y mistakes or errors we go to easton, pennsylvania to

hear from mary on our biden supporters line. caller: yes, hi. fed morning. my question is this. when our forefathers formulated the electoral college, they did it because we were severely undereducated nation. there was no type of mass media, no telegraphs or anything else like that, and they did not feel we were educated enough to just allow the popular vote. with allst century, the media that we have, being that all of our people are basically literate, we can read, we can write, we do have the news, isn't it time to eliminate the electoral college? haven't we outgrown it yet as a nation? i think you are singing a song that a lot of people sing these days.

it does seem antiquated, it seems odd that you would stick with this process that was put in place in a very different information environment. i think there really is growing consensus that the electoral college doesn't work, although i will say that it does have some benefits, like making sure that people don't just campaign in population centers. a raginghink it is debate, and i do wonder if there will be a greater public appetite for adjusting it either through the constitutional amendments or otherwise. host: i was going to ask you that. the electoral college has not been static since it was written into the constitution. it has been changed over the years, correct? guest: well, yes. it was changed very early on, the 12th amendment addressed some shortfalls, but it hasn't really been updated for the

modern day. ande are moves afoot to try either, through the national popular vote compact or through the idea of having a constitutional amendment, to try and sort of rectify some of the parts of it that are antiquated. wasn't that on the ballot in one state this year? guest: i haven't actually kept up with that. i am not sure. the idea would be that you get 270 electoral college votes worth of states that agree to assign their elector to the winner of the national popular vote, as opposed to the winner of the election in their state. to get thatoal, is number above 270, but i am skeptical that if push came to shove, particularly in the

dictated,n the state it would be pretty incredible for the state to disregard the winner of its popular vote. i think the voters in that state might not be so happy. i think it certainly would be litigated and i wonder if it would actually work. host: professor rebecca green with us from william and mary law school. we are talking about the electoral college and the challenges to the 2020 election. for those of you who support joe biden and kamala harris. (202) 748-8001 if you support donald trump and mike pence. all others, (202) 748-8002. let's go to kathy in gainesville, new york, a trump supporter. caller: thank you for taking my call. i hear there was a lot about, there was no widespread fraud during the election, but how about individual fraud? like one person changing their vote disenfranchises my vote.

you don't hear about all the dead people voting, who voted for them -- does anyone go about , trying to find them and prosecute? speeding, you can get away with it under 10 miles an hour and guest: states will exchange data. there is a national organization printing data to determine whether states voting lists are accurate. social security administration records and death records and

all kinds of records to ensure that states have accurate data about who is eligible to vote and who has moved, and all this data that is put together. what happens after every election, states call their last lists and look at who has voted versus who should have voted. they notice someone hasn't -- has, someone who has dea been dead for many years votes, they go after it. the people who are prosecuted when that kind of investigation unfolds, it starts out as a potentially bigger number, in the dozens, then dwindles down as we figure out what was really going on. >> let's hear from anna rose in sunset, arizona. go ahead. caller: good morning.

thanks for c-span. one of the trump supporters called in and casually throughout the accusation that mail-in ballots in some states were accepted without any signature verification. does that happen? if so, how does that happen? how can a mail-in ballot be accepted without signature verification? any statesre there that don't rebecca: different states have different rules on how to verify mail-in ballots. there is interesting controversy over signature matching. it is a really sophisticated science. for states that vote by mail, they have significant signature matching software. the first cut is done by a computer and there are multiple signatures on file for the

voter. in other states, there is potentially not as high volume of mail-in voting. firerocedures came under because of what was happening, younger voters and minority voters and lower income voters. were being tossed at a higher rate because the signature matching was not done as well. it has been a controversial issue. i will say that states all have of verifying the absentee ballots, whether it be barcodes or with witness requirements are whatever the state of your has decided to do. those policies are all in place and being verified as we speak. question, i am

forgetting what you asked. host: i know that she asked about the mail-in ballots. anotherthat is interesting aspect of the election. anything, having an increased volume of absentee or mail-in ballots is a paper trail. verify whenasier to you have a piece of paper in front of you. we have had this problem in the country where people were voting on machines that lacked a paper trail. that created a lot of concerns. veeredly every state itself away from that. with absentee ballots, you have lots of paper to verify it to go back through and verified the count. host: in some states, you have a paper trail and the mail-in ballot. the voter contract the paper trail and attract the ballot by a barcode or a code that was sent to the voter's email.

you can get assurance that the ballots had been cast. rebecca: i think the ballot tracking has been a big innovation. ofis enabled voters to sort check the status of their ballots, weather has been received and counted. that is a technology that i think is running a law of competence in the mail balloting process. host: i want to ask a little bit about the georgia recounts. can you recall the last time that there was a statewide recount? the last time that there was a statewide recount in a presidential election? wisconsin think and there was a recount of votes prompted by joe stein. by 500anged that results votes or fewer. host: the new york times this morning was writing about the recounts with little detail on how they would do it. the headline says that the

recounts or audits confusion in junior a day after the georgia republican secretary of state process as the hands recount. and every county is being asked to tally a new and they wednesday, times writes, the trump campaign can still request an official recount if the result is within half of a percentage point. tallyrgin in the first gives joe biden an edge. election observers do not believe that any number of cows will alter the outcome. --ey are required to finish auditors will sit at tables and count the ballots. most of what will be reviewed votes countedson

on machines. county officials will also review absentee ballots. -- does this process, rebecca, sound similar to the recounts processes across the country? host: the times is correct. it is sort of a hybrid. usually under audit provisions, you count a sample group of ballots, but here this is essentially an audit of the whole election. all of the ballots. you can see why he even for to do that. publics a lot of confidence in the results. this is one way that an election administrator can satisfy members of the public, that the count is accurate.

to be quite an undertaking, but hopefully it will serve the purpose of helping people feel confident in the vote in georgia. from craig hear calling from tulsa, oklahoma. the trump line. caller: i think we are missing the point as to why the electoral college was put into existence by the founders. the founders were very wise and the sense that it is not based on the technological advances of their time or our time. it is based on human nature. that is why they put checks and balances in. human nature is not as pure as the driven snow. sometimes there are people who cheat, and they know that. sometimes there are tyrants who might come in convince the masses. they are very pro-american. within information may come to light. maybe they are going to sell the country out to a foreign power.

the founders, to prevent tierney, put in the electors for the purpose of a final safeguard. that would make us angry. i would be angry. if my popular vote says this and the electors of my vote with the other way, why would they do that to me? they werend out that in possession of information from the high levels of the state and that something very terrible was going to happen. they put it in as a final safeguard against tierney. the other thing is, these elections, we have proof of dead people voting. have confessed a computer glitch were 6000 votes could change our not get put in. and we also have the ability, and i'm glad there is privacy in voting. nobody needs to know how i voted. so my name is not my ballots.

the problem is, that there is a lot of unique identifying numbers on ballots. you can run a stack, the person that i voted for. i could collects 20 of those and run them through the machine was what times. i can get a response from our guests and just a moment. the comment on the glitch. that was reported and proven false. no glitch in the wisconsin county system. this claim as false. there was no glitch in the election system. there is no thing that would move the votes over to trump's column. rebecca: i want to make a point about the electoral college. the founders were wise. they inserted this protection against foreign interference or corruption of some kind.

the problem is that after this evolved, electors are not people with superior knowledge that access to information that the rest of us do not have. as this evolved, electors are people that political parties appoint. they are unknown individuals who donna actually have any better sense anything than the normal average joe. the idea that they would somehow protect us from something that we did not know does not quite did the same weight as it during the founding era when electors were sort of scene as this class of enlightened and educated citizens who have a better sense than the popular vote which show, in terms of what is best for the country. it is involved in a way that makes that layer of protection a little less salient as things exist today.

host: a couple more calls. here is rene from louisiana on our biden line. caller: good morning. s.have a question for m rebecca. earlier she talked about a slate of electors and that the legislatures pick the electors. his one slate republican and is one democrat echo -- democrat? rebecca: yes. political parties select electors. and once the popular vote comes in, electors appointed front of local party that won go to the electoral college and the state capital. caller: i have a follow-up question. facelessu deal with electors from the opposite party , when the penalties for not

voting in line with the popular vote are so minimal in some states that the electors just ignore that and pretty much say, screw the people. i'm going to vote this way. how is that a democracy, if they are not voting in line with the popular vote? rebecca: the first answer is that it is extraordinarily rare that electors defect, that they vote for someone other than who they were appointed to elect rate usually, the parties choose someone who is loyal to the party through demonstrated political action. so that does not tend to happen. renate, are you still there. renee, are you still there? rebecca green. you are there, go ahead and

finish up. states can take out and replace electors. the supreme court gave states that power last summer. to the extent that we were worried about faceless electors. the supreme court did a lot to sort of bind them to the popular vote in states. as a law professor and codirector of the law program, visit continue to surprise you that we are always finding these nuances about the electoral college and how it operates every four years echo --four years? amazing to me that some of these issues were not thisved long ago and that one has not been resolved until 2020. with the election system, you do not know what will come up, and

a lot of times, our law it does not anticipate the contingencies. from we have emma calling ohio on the trump line. hi.er: thank you. to back president trump. he is a wonderful president. know how they got over top of him. he was way ahead, and i could not understand how they wanted to steal that from him. rebecca green, as he saw election night take place and the boats, and -- and the votes coming. is this where you sort of anticipated as to be ahead of the election? this is something that was talked about a lot. how the election night total

would change. what is extraordinary about this is that in the past absentee voters have tended to skew older and further to the right. this election, one of the most amazing things about it was the political divide reaching people who are sort of told not to use a mail ballots and those who were told vote by mail and vote early. -- what's thated created was the election night -- derived arrived mostly from election day totals. it took a little longer to count the votes that came by mail. like pennsylvania and michigan, you could not start counting or processing those ballots until shortly for or on election day. the vote total changed as those votes were counted. there is nothing strange, nefarious, or surprising about that.

unfortunately, there is this big divide unhappy which is about this year. green,rofessor rebecca codirector of the law program at william and mary. vicki so much for being us with us this morning. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> we take you now to the white house where president trump's briefing reporters on covid-19 vaccine efforts. [no audio]

[no audio]

>> todd harrison is with us. he is the defense -- and we will get to the discussion on the defense budget. what may be ahead on the biden administration. good morning, todd harrison. we wanted to start with your thoughts on the notable quick firing of the defense secretary earlier this week, mark esper. thet: certainly within presidents prerogative to change out members of his cabinet. it is hardly -- it is unusual to see faye firing like this during

eight transitional. . period.itional way the election came out, i think there was an expedition that he would finish out the term, until january 20. that has been custom, that most of the senior people within the administration would normally continue until inauguration, to ensure a smooth handover and be able to coordinate with their counterparts in the new administration that are going to be coming in. his departure right now is a bit unusual. of moves,hese sorts first of all, are they unsettling to the rank and file -- reagan file service military members. thesere allies abroad see changes in transition periods,

what are your thoughts? todd: it creates uncertainty. it will not be good for morale within the pentagon and within the military senior ranks and civilian. the career civil service workers who are there between administrations and not potable. it is very unsettling. for allies and partners around the world, it puts them in this awkward. -- this awkward period during this transition and they are not sure who they should be coordinating with. a lot of things will have to stay on hold until january 20. unfortunately, bad things can happen during that time period, and we still have to be prepared . there's so as to be a national command authority in the event of an emergency. that is why these positions do have to be filled by people at least on an acting basis. that is what we have right now. host: it is not just mark esper.

other officials as well. did any of these changes affect the efforts going on right now, the work that you focus on in the development of the pentagon budget for the next fiscal year? and wrapping up work on the current fiscal year. congress has to do that in the next couple of weeks here. todd: we are already into fiscal year 21, and congress has still 21 orted the fiscal year any other budgets for 2021. those are still in limbo -- those are still in limbo and waiting on congress. they make it around that in the lame-duck session or they may wait until jamie. this change of our personnel at thepentagon does not affect 2021 bridget. budget right now the pentagon is putting together

it's 2022 budget request. since there is going to be a change in the administration, that will probably be delayed until april or may. it is this administration, and all of the current people who are working and governments, senior positions, that are putting together that budget request. they will hand over to a new administration on january 20. the changeover of senior people, like secretary esper and others in the pentagon, right now at up critical juncture -- the works, in terms of finishing and making key transitions. there have been rumors that the trump administration might try to hurry up and submit that budget request to congress before the biden administration takes congress create -- takes office. that used to be the tradition

back as recently as 1989 when the reagan administration was leaving. the outgoing administration did submit the budget request just prior to inauguration. since then, that has not been the case. it is always been the new administration coming and crafted to their liking and submitted to congress. be seen if the trump administration will submit the budget request early. if they do, the biden administration comment and change it and read submitted to congress. to congress.tted the important thing right now is to have continuity in the planning of the budget between the outgoing administration and the new administration. the continuity in jeopardy is the changeover. host: there is much to get to. but let's open up our calls and phone lines for our callers.

if you have a question that you want to send, you can send a text. tell us your name and where you're texting from. let's go to the current issue at as you mentioned the defense budget of 2021 the house we passed by congress. the area -- explain the difference between that authorization and why there are potentially some troubling aa that could nd cause president trump to veto it. todd: the basic difference, the ndaa is an authorization bill. agencies have their own authorizations. it is a policy bill. it will set things, like rules on how money can be spent and how money can be transferred between accounts.

reporting requirements before money can be spent. is theropriations bill bill that actually gives you funding. at the end of the day, we talk about the budget. it is the appropriations bill that sets the budget. kinda sets the policies and rules that go around that. at a minimum, you just need appropriations. and authorizations can come whenever they come. the authorization bill, for the most part, it tends to be a nonpartisan bill. pres. trump: thank you very much. thank you. beautiful out here this time of year. the past nine months, my administration has i