truck deeply opposed to the citizens united decision which removed restrictions on corporate spending and politics. he supported affirmative action. and voted to uphold the roe versus wade decision legalizing and believe the death penalty to cruel and unusual punishment. stevens retired in 2010. has 30 for years on the bench, with the longest serving import justices. and after stepping down he had more to say. well into the 90s, stevens called for gun control suggesting he spoke out against the nomination of conservative justice brett kavanaugh to the supreme court. is still issuing opinions. even from the sidelines. mola lenghi, cbs news. >>> local calling it a shark park. why we are about to see a whole lot more great white sharks along the california coast. >> before we go, let's take a live look outside. that is the moon. a full moon from our camera we will be right back. it's no ordinary day for our family at denny's. it's crepe day. a family tradition we started about 22 minutes ago and now we can continue that tradition at home with denny's delivery. see you at denny's or denny

they appealed to the supreme court and a decision few saw coming, the court agreed with citizens unitede rights as individuals. the court also ruled that political spending was a form of free speech. >> were you surprised by the decision on citizens united? >> i was shocked. i hadn't heard anybody really say that that was a legitimate thing to do. and, yet, the court went ahead and did it. >> the flood of political money unleashed by citizens united led to the rise of what we now know as super pacs. they can accept unlimited money from basically anyone, including corporations, labor unions and billionaire megadonors. donors names are disclosed and super pacs are not allowed to work directly with a candidate or campaign. >> i don't think there is any question. it's all a wink and a nod. these are former staff members who know exactly what to do. so the idea that somehow this is separate, that it's independent is an absurdity. this is why disclosure is so important. the record is built. people can follow the money. >>> at least super pacs are required to disclose the names of the donors s

one is money in politicsavecause wethe controversial citizens united decision. g corporate money is floodto politics, which dissociates legislativors from indanidual votersbig data and information, to us that is not accurate. that was not the case 30, 40, 50 years ago. laura: orhln 1787. kim thanks for joining us. thchinese ambassador has been onsumm to the foreign office in london over his comments on protests in hong kong. he criticized britain's foreign secretary jeremy hunt for supporting the recent demonstrations in the chinese territory. the ambassador said that britain seem to have forgotten that hong kong was no longer a u.k. colony. the u.s. trade deficit hasisen h to ihest level in five months. the deficit now stands th more $55 billion. the gap with mexico, of which president trump has been particularly critical, has to levels not seen in 10 years. saudi arabia has announced that american hip-hop star nicki mina j will headline a show in jeddah . follos a number of performances in saudi arabia by western pop stars in recent months. now to japan, where

the citizens united decision set us back in a lot of decisions in the supreme court. as you know, we're going back in a time warp, so any time we have a chance to make a decision in good policy that is really going to disclose some of dark money and some of the things that are happening in our political system, we ought to be able to do that. and i want to thank supervisor mar for stepping up and all the colleagues that supported this initiative or ordinance because it is important for us to know who is giving money toward races, so we can shine a light on what's happening in our campaign. so thank you so much, and again, i appreciate all the public comment and everyone for coming out this morning. >> chair ronen: supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: thank you, chair ronen. and i just wanted to thank everyone for being here today and actually for many years, as judge kopp mentioned, this work goes back to the 1970's, and really for standing up against dark money, standing up for transparency and democracy. this is all about us knowing about who's trying to buy our elect

>>few decisions in the 200 and some odd years of this republic have threatened our democracy like citizens united. >>citizens, united was a 2010 supreme court decision that corporations have the same right to free speech is individuals, it paved the way for large corporate donations to flow nearly unchecked into political campaigns, democrats say much of that is dark money from unknown donors and sometimes from overseas. >>this idea that the wealthy and powerful can control our government and have far more say than the average citizen is eroding face in this great and grand democracy. >>but a constitutional amendment requires support from at least 2 thirds of the house and senate then must be ratified by 3 fourths of the state's constitutional amendment is a long shot you confident get that is more of a symbolic. >>i'm confident the people of this country overwhelmingly our side and while an amendment like this probably goes nowhere. supporters here say they'll continue to push for its passage. >>reporting in washington, i'm trevor shirley. another big story we are following that made a massive d

speak of the justices the citizens united case in a ruling back in 2010. save effort to pull back that decisionech and suppress political activity. "listen them is total hypocrisy. democrats putting against the amendment at the same time. they also raise and spend hundreds of millions of dollars in special-interest money to defeat president trump. this is likely to play a big issue going into 2020. speaking of president trump, democrats say if the president wants to drain the swamp that he should back this amendment. harris? >> harris: thank you very much. we will continue to follow it. some wealthy parents may have found a new way to save money on college. is it legal, or does it give them a leg up that isn't fair? ♪ newday va home loan for veterans. the newday va loan lets you refinance your mortgages, consolidate your credit card debt, put cash in the bank and lower your payments over 600 dollars a month. it lets you borrow up to 100 percent of your home's value. not just 80 percent like other loans. and that can mean a lot more money for you and your family. so call newday usa. they look at

it was a cry of frustration, frustration that the supreme court's infamous citizens united decision had killed the bipartisan work that i saw here on climate for three years, frustration that the fossil fuel industry's death grip had tightened around this chamber preventing action, frustration that our democratic administration, our democratic administration had abandoned leadership on climate change and would barely even talk about it. so it's been a run. and here i am still at it seven years on. some things have changed. some things have not. let's start with what has not changed. what has not changed is the scientific certainty about what is happening in our atmosphere and oceans. scientists have understood that burning fossil fuels causes our planet to heat up. since the days when abraham lincoln was riding on washington, d.c. in his top hat. this is not new news. nearly four decades ago exxon's own scientists reported to exxon management that, quote, there is little doubt that atmospheric co2 concentrations were increasing due to fossil fuel burning. they said back in 1982 that the

that started when i was attorney general and that citizens united decision first came down.hat i take will be disclosed. so anybody can judge. but here's an example, my brother does safety and environmental-related work for a contractor that deals with fossil fuel industry. should i not take money from my brother? ultimately what we should be doing is, disclosing the contributions and we have seen about a billion dollars of money spent in our elections since citizens united. where none of us know who's making those contributions or spending. >> right now, you don't meet the thresholds for that third debate in september the abc debate, you need to get 2% in two polls, need 130,000 donors it's an uphill fight, are you going the to make it? >> i sure hope so. i mean, it's one of these things, you know, i been in about seven weeks and made six trips to iowa and i think for all these debate rules that it's still going to be the early states that take a large field and make it smaller. and hearing folks on the ground and what their concerns are is also my best debate prep. i had a

that is in part because of the supreme court's controversial citizens united decision that held, essentially, that corporations have first amendment rights, like you and me. isause of that, the congress arguably working more for these profit-making centers than for constituents.al so it is that merit that the normal desire to expand power, for some people, and no bar pulling back on that power, no ticket on the windshield, right, in this one parking spot, that says it is illegal, they never take it, so you park there every time you go to the coffee shop, because you know you will not get a ticket. the day you get a ticket, you will not park there anymore. not get aesident does ticket or barack obama does not get a ticket, bill clinton does not get a ticket, that oftefice gets additional power, and i hope that comes across regardless of where we are in political spectrum, because we are, ultimately, americans together. host: let's hear from hannah in california, republican line. caller: good morning. theve a question about enumerated and implied powers of each of the branches of government, a

i am supportive of a constitutional amendment to .epeal the citizens united i think that decision was misguided. has seen the advent of the super pac's. they can simply flood money into a district. i have been supportive and a cosponsor of a bill by a congressman to establish a citizen financed system. not unlike the system the city of seattle has started up. where you have small dollar campaigns. bill calledor of a the disclose act. if you are going to see these groups influence elections, they should put their name on it. we as americans should have a right to know who is trying to influence our elections. there are some bills frankly -- right now. the conversation is publicly disclosed. ad on radio, that information is publicly available, right? three democrats and republicans. as most of your viewers can comestand, every decision out 83-three stalemate. there was an article, i think it was in the new york times, when they celebrated the 40th anniversary of the creation of the election commission, they stalemated whether to serve bagels or doughnuts. the concern is in the absence o

that is in part because of the supreme court's controversial citizens united decision that held, essentiallythat corporations have first amendment rights, like you and me. isause of that, the congress arguably working more for these profit-making centers than for constituents.al so it is that merit that the normal desire to expand power, for some people, and no bar pulling back on that power, no ticket on the windshield, right, in this one parking spot, that says it is illegal, they never take it, so you park there every time you go to the coffee shop, because you know you will not get a ticket. the day you get a ticket, you will not park there anymore. not get aesident does ticket or barack obama does not get a ticket, bill clinton does not get a ticket, that oftefice gets additional power, and i hope that comes across regardless of where we are in political spectrum, because we are, ultimately, americans together. host: let's hear from hannah in california, republican line. caller: good morning. theve a question about enumerated and implied powers of each of the branches of government, and

sandra: senate democrats will see and propose a constitutional amendment to overturn the citizens united decisiont. the 2010 ruling loosening regulations on campaign funding. we are live out the supreme court with that. >> good morning to you, sandra. a handful of semidemocrats will be here within the next 45 minutes or so. they will be here to unveil what they are talking about a constitutional amendment, democracy for all, turning over part of the citizens united ca case. senate minority leader chuck schumer is expected to be among those today. backers of the amendment say they are trying to get big money out of politics. if passed, it would become the 20th amendment to the constitution. the supreme court in 2010 as you mentioned ruled in the case, laws that limit corporations from using their cash for political ads. violated the first amendment. democrats argue it is harming democracy. >> we have too much of a problem with corporate policy -- it is about time that we have a president that fights for the people in this country. >> we also heard back from citizens united. we will hear that part

since the 2010 citizens united decision allowed outside groups to spend unlimited sums on electioneering activities, the chamber has funneled roughly $150 million into congressional races, making the chamber the largest distributor of undisclosed donations, dark money we call it, in congressional races. am i up against the clock? the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent for an additional five minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you very much. i appreciate that courtesy. blocking action on climate has been the central focus of the chamber's campaign spending. they ran this ad in pennsylvania in 2016. two moms watch their children on the playground. one comments on how much energy the children have. the other says oh, don't say that. the candidate wants to tax that energy. the ad gets even weirder when a faceless woman arrives in a car and steps out toward the children. alarmed, one of the mothers yells the ad punch line, run, jimmy, run! classy stuff. i wonder who the chamber was

citizens united. i think that supreme court decision was terribly misguided. it has seen the advent of the super pac's. at the end of a cycle they can simply flood my into a district. i have been supportive and a cosponsor of a bill by a congressman to establish a citizen financed system. not unlike the matching funds systems the city of seattle has started up. you have citizens financing small dollar election campaigns. i think that would be better than the status quo. i am a sponsor of a bill called se act.clo if you are going to see these groups influence elections, they should put their name on it. we as americans should have a right to know who is trying to influence our elections. there are some bills frankly that have bipartisan support that i hope it be able to cross the finish line. i'm a sponsor of a bill called the honest ads act. if you're a political candidate or a group trying to influence electoral outcome, if you run an ad on television, that information is publicly disclosed. we as americans have a right to know who is trying to influence the

since 2010, citizens united and related decisions, this number is even greater today. the massive amount of money flowing into our political system corrupts the political process. that's why i introduced a proposed constitutional amendment to reform our broken campaign finance system. my amendment would eliminate political action companies and dark money. funding for a candidate or ballot measure would be limited to be used for a public financing system or donation given directly to the campaign by individual citizens. this would end much of the corruption in washington. i urge my colleagues to do everything possible to help limit corruption in washington including supporting this legislation. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2019,, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, madam speaker. it's now my privilege to yield to my friend, also from texas, lso a former district judge, udge carter. for such time as he may consume. mr.

the citizens united this was january 2009 i guess that's a very important decisions prim court decision but it has a history and you got to think about the history. of 14th amendment has a provision that says no person's rights can be infringed without due process of law. and the intent clearly was to protect freed slaves said ok they have got the protection of the law i don't think it's ever been used for freed slaves if ever marginally almost immediately it was used for businesses corporations their rights can't be infringed without due process of law so they gradually became persons under the law. corporations or state created legal fictions. maybe they're good maybe they're bed but to call them persons is kind of rages so they get got personal rights back about a century ago and that extended through the 20th century. as they give corporations rights way beyond what persons have so if say general motors invests in mexico they get national rights the rights of the mexican business well the notion of person was expanded to include corporations it was also restricted if you take the 14

in his dissent for citizens united versus federal election commission, he wrote the decision "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation." he said at the end of his tenure on the court his one regret was his 1976 vote upholding a texas capital punishment statute that revived the death penalty. stevens later opposed most death penalty sentences. he retired from the court in as the second longest-standing 2010 justice. and 10 protesters were arrested inside the ice headquarters in washington, d.c., tuesday after staging a sit-in at the agency's building. thousands more blocked entrances to the building and nearby roads for hours. the protests were organized by the jewish-led never again action and the immigration justice group movimiento cosecha. the activists are demanding the government shut down all immigration jails, abolish ice, and provide an immediate path to citizenship for undocumented people. similar protests took place in other u.s. cities including los angeles philadelphia, and , boston. and those are some of the headlines. this is democracy

. >> maybe there is no correct answer but mentioning citizens united which has as much logic as the dred scott decision when the conservatives rule on gun control they have a convoluted theory. so where does the justification for a strong executive come from a strong conservative in the constitution? because as a lady in my understanding is that it is designed to limit executive power. so what do they look to to say this is what the framers envisioned? with our current attorney general because of his theories and clearly he was hired recently to become more fervent in his convictions so where does that theory come from quick. >> i love the question because it is theoretical. talking about constitutional law because nobody cares and come up with these hypotheticals now will be made up before is happening currently but the question you are asking is the unitary executive theory. and translate the stuff because i've been studying it for years. so the idea is the framers did not commit - - create a committee but a person because they gave them power they have to make decisions in a moment on the battlefiel

unlimited amount of spending that candidates can now engage in as a result of a couple of decisions, recently citizens united. >> very much so. i interviewed one legislator and in a term limited state. he was the leader of the senate in that state, a republican and quite conservative. he said i believe in the first amendment but we have to do something about independent spending. he said we live in small communities, and these are ads that are uniformly negative and makes it difficult to come back to congress and work with the other side. >> perhaps this committee, or another relevant committee could have a hearing on the corrupting impact of unlimited spending. one of the things that can happen with term limits is that people have to run for other offices, and in a lot of term limited states, members who are term limited simply run for another public office. is that what your research shows? >> yes. our research shows that. i can read you something that exemplifies this. in california, the most professionalized legislature, an assemblyman said that you thought that term limits would bring in your basic legi

citizens, noncitizens and illegal aliens are in the united states of america. not too much to ask. this will greatly inform a wide array of public policy decisions. this information is also relevant to administering our elections. some states may want to draw state and local legislative districts based upon the voter eligible population. indeed the same way the supreme court handed down the census decision, it also said it would not review certain types of districting decisions which could encourage states to make such decisions based on voter eligibility. with today's order we will collect all of the information we need to conduct an accurate census and to make responsible decisions about public policy, voting rights and representation in congress. in everything we do we will faithfully represent the people of the united states of america. i would like now to introduce attorney general bill barr to the podium. thank you. >> good evening. thank you, mr. president, and congratulations on today's executive order which will ensure that we finally have an accurate understanding of how many citizens and noncitizens live in our country. as the supreme

really the event that wased the decision for me when i decided to announce my oral dissent in the citizens united case. for some reason, i had trouble making the oral announcement. i struggled with some of the presentation, which i felt was unusual. i thought i was reasonably articulate over the years before. i seemed conscious that i did not do a very good job on that particular occasion. that maybe i have to give a little thought to changing my career. >> you still have an office in the court? >> i do. >> have you sat on any cases? >> i haven't. one of the important bits of information about retirement --t i learned from the chief solicitor to the chief, mike chambers, my locker, my secretary, even if i did not sit on cases. if i don't sit on cases, i will not be qualified for a raise in pay. i think the clerks deserve their pay, but i will not lose any sleep over the likelihood that there will be a salary increase. >> william rehnquist was therefore 19 years. a system we do have , in which cert pool first five, then six, seven, now eight of the justices pool law clerks to write memos about the

these designations are made and a unit around -- unilateral decisions are being made, it restricts that area's ability to develop their local economy and for the citizens to have certainty. host: as far as legislative efforts, have there been any to make changes or things that you think the improvements to the act? guest: recently there have been efforts to exempt utah from the antiquities act just like wyoming and alaska, and those have not made a ton of headway. thannk more promising state specific exemptions would be broader and clearer limits on the president's decision-making authorities. that might look like me -- requiring congressional appraisal -- approval or consultation with local stakeholders. host: tom from california. hello. caller: good morning. i would like to talk about something that happened under the last administration. under the grounds of wild horses. they looked for uranium all over the place of our federal lands and sold it to the russians. as a tribal member on some of a schemeds, it was against the american public to look for uranium and sell it to russia. happens, like the national park systems that have been set up. the tri

the sense that it might result in arbitrary decisions as opposed to decisions that have consistency to them where united states citizens and the world at large has a clear sense of what the position of the united it is. my theory that case-by-case approaches in effect well tend to produce very arbitrary actions. >> thank you chairman grijalva for the question. i agree with doctor mkono that since march 1 2018, they have decided trophy import decisions on a case-by-case basis and essentially they are making these important conservation decisions behind closed doors shielding the public from any opportunity to provide input including that from independent scientists. and these decisions as i said in my earlier testimony are of great interest to the majority of the american public. 80% of them including republicans and democrats oppose the importation of lions and hunting trophies. it is within the agencies statutory duties and also legal obligations under the esa as well as freedom of information act to provide real-time information on the applications, permits, and also findings to ensure that these decisions are based

as opposed to diseases that have consistency to -- decisions that have consistency to them. where the united states citizens and the world at large, a clear sense of what the position of the united states is. so, my fear is that case-by-case approach will tend to produce very arbitrary actions. nk you, chairman grijalva, for the questions and no, thatwith dr. mko since march 1, 2018, the fish and wildlife service has decided e trophy import decisions on a case-by-case essentially, they are making these important conservation decisions behind closed doors, shielding the public from any opportunity to provide input, including that from independent scientists. and these decisions, as i said in my earlier testimony, are of great interest to the majority of the american public. 80% of them, including republicans and democrats, oppose the importation of lion and hunting trophies. and it is within the agency's statutory duties and also legal obligation under the esa as well as freedom of information act to provide real-time information on the application of permits, permit importations, and also enhancement findin

united states. he objected to the majority decision to shut down the recount of votes in florida, warning it was hurt the american people's confidence in the judicial system. another was his dissent in citizensted, which gave corporations the right to contribute to political campaigns as part of the right to free speech. joining me now is the person i always turn to for these interpretations, president and ceo of the national constitution center and law professor for george washington university, jeffrey rosen. he's also the author of this book "the supreme court." jeff, good to see you. thank you for being with us. what do you remember most clearly about john paul stevens? >> i had the remarkable opportunity to interview him in 2007. and he talked extensively about how he believed that he had not become more liberal, the court had become more conservative. he still called himself a judicial conservative. he insisted on the government's duty to govern impartially. to gerrymandering to other forms of corruption and also his strong dissent in bush v. gore. it's really remarkable to read his book, the makings of a justice, reflections on my first 94 years. he gives an inside account of bush v.

here it is, recent strained decisions by the united states supreme court, some so simple as allowing the question, are you a citizentates, on our very expensive census report, or the even more strained decisions, to allowing the world's most expensive and pathetic health care, obamacare, to stay in place when it would have been replaced by something far better, shows how incredibly important our upcoming 2020 election is. that is a very long sentence, mr. president. i have long heard that the appointment of supreme court justices is a president's most important decision, so true. all right. let's look at twitter's stock price. why don't we. more breaking news on that company. a court just ruled that president trump cannot ban his critics. what is that? >> a second u.s. circuit court of appeals in manhattan basically has sided with a lower court judgment that president trump, basically he violates the first amendment when he blocks critics on twitter. this is incredible. so basically the first amendment group at columbia university sued on behalf of seven individuals blocked by president trump. they say that under t

citizen question on your census? >> very few. but if this continues down the road, the president of the united states flouting a supreme court decision. the judge said, what do you want me to do, issue an injunction? >> i think they have to come up with a better argument? >> that's what they have to do. >> can they be honest, we are doing this for political power? >> that was a theory after the decision last week. not only did that come down but the partisan gaerrymandering decision came forward. they could come forward and say, yeah, we did this because we want to help republicans. >> are you laughing, or do you mean it? >> that was a pen ten shal argument that they would make. whatever justification offer they have to square with what they said before. they are basically admitting what they said before was total nonsense and not their justification. >> you know what this reminds me of? the muslim ban. first they said, we better fix that. now we'll have countries with active terror watches going on. >> john roberts left it. he said the secretary of commerce has broad authority to put questions. they just have to offer justification.

accurate count of how many citizens, noncitizens, and illegal aliens are in the united states of america. not too much to ask. a widell greatly inform array of public policy decisionsoormation relevant to administering our elections. some states may want to draw state and legislative districts based upon voter eligible population. indeed the supreme court handed down the decision. with today's order, we will collect all of the information we need to conduct an accurate census and to make responsible decisions about public policy, voting rights, and representation in congress. in everything we do, we will faithfully represent the people of the united states of america. i would like now to introduce attorney general bill barr to the podium. thank you. [applause] >> good evening. thank you, mr. president. congratulations on today's executive order, which will ensure that we finally have an accurate understanding of how many citizens and noncitizens live in our country. as the supreme court recognized, it would be perfectly lawful for the federal government to ask on the census whether individuals are citizens of the united states. it is entirely reasonable to want to

unite and recover. also he says he hopes the decision will reflect what the people want, the will of the citizens.e says he wants peace and progress. and again you're looking now at a live picture from san juan, puerto rico, where there is apparently a lot of cause for celebration at this hour, as we mentioned that the embattled governor there ricardo rossello, has now decided to throw in the towel and go ahead and resign, and we also have fox news corespondent jeff paul there in san juan who has been watching the protests as they have happened this week. jeff, if you can hear us, can you tell us what the mood is there right now? >> well, you can probably hear, there is a bunch of people out here very happy and they are singing right now as they celebrate what they have worked for nearly for two weeks, demonstrating, protesting, marching in the rain. and now, as you see, they erupt in celebration knowing that they wake up tomorrow morning in a new era of puerto rico. no longer will they have ricardo rossello as their governor. they wake up with possibly a new leader. now the line of succession goe

decisions. but at a certain point we need to take seriously claims when an individual claims he's a citizen of the unitedt just didn't happen here. this natural-born u.s. citizen was just not treated properly. >> we hear about the squalid conditions down at the border a lot, elliot. we do not hear stories of this kind of treatment of american citizens. all that often. something else we don't hear that often is stories about u.s. active duty troops now just feet away from migrants in texas. here's an nbc news quote i want to read to you. active due to u.s. troops are stationed inside the facility to provide welfare checks on the migrants, but the officials say that has evolved into a continual presence watching over them. i don't like to use latin on television, elliot. but isn't there some principle posse comitatus? is this not either a violation of law or something pretty close? >> i'm a lawyer. you can use all the latin you want, john. but this gets back to the fundamental question in the united states. we regard immigration as a public safety matter and not an economic matter or a humanitarian matter

citizen of the united states? how horrible and ridiculous is that? so we are looking at that. >> do you know -- >> because it wasn't -- it wasn't a real decision that that's the way it is. >> lawyers for the justice department furiously backtracked today saying they're once again looking into whether the trump administration can add a citizenship status question to the census. the stunning reversal came after the president this morning blasted reports that the commerce department abandoned its efforts to add the question as fake. the president's words, by the way, calling it fake, directly contradicting his own commerce secretary wilbur ross, who announced tuesday he had given up his quest to insert the citizenship question. in a heated call today u.s. district judge george hazel set a friday deadline on the citizenship question and told the justice department attorney, "if you were facebook and an attorney for facebook told me one thing and then i read a press release from mark zuckerberg telling me something else, i would be demanding that mark zuckerberg appear in court with you the next time because i would be saying i don't think you speak for your c

citizens, noncitizens, and illegal aliens are in the united states of america. not too much to ask. this will greatly inform a wide array of public policy decision decisions.also relevant to administering our elections. some states may want to draw state and local legislative districts based upon the voter eligible population. indeed the same day the supreme court handed down the census decision it also said it would not review certain types of districting decisions which could encourage states to make such decisions based on voter eligibility. with today's order, we will collect all the information we need to conduct an accurate census and make responsible decisions about public policy, voting rights, and representation in congress. and everything we do, will faithfully represent the people of the united states of america. i would like now to introduce attorney general bill barr to the podium. thank you. [applause] >> good evening. thank you, mr. president. congratulations on today's executive order which will ensure that we finally have an accurate understanding of how many citizens and noncitizens live in our country. as the supreme court recognizes, it

citizens and illegal aliens are in the united states of america. not too much to ask. this will greatly inform a wide array of public policy decisions.formation is also relevant to administering our elections. some states may want to draw state and local legislative districts based upon the voter eligible population. indeed, the same day the supreme court handed down the census decision, it also said it would not review certain types of districting decisions which could encourage states to make such decisions based on voter eligibility. with today's order, we will collect all of the information we need to conduct an accurate census and to make responsible decisions about public policy, voting rights and representation in congress. in everything we do, we will faithfully represent the people of the united states of america. i would like now to introduce attorney general bill barr to the podium. thank you. >> good evening. thank you, mr. president. and congratulations on today's executive order, which will ensure that we finally have an accurate understanding of how many citizens and non-citizens live in our country. as the supreme cou

citizens, noncitizens, and illegal aliens are in the united states of america. not too much to ask. this will greatly inform a wide array of public policy decisions.information is also relevant to administering our elections. some states may want to draw state and local legislative districts, based upon the voter eligible population. indeed, the same day the supreme court handed down the census decision, it also said it would not review certain types of districting decisions, which could encourage states to make such decisions based on voter eligibility. with today's order, we will collect alls of the information we need to conduct an accurate census and to make responsibility decisions about public policy, voting rights, and representation in congress. in every we do, we will faithfully represent the people of the united states of america. i would like now to introduce attorney general bill barr to the podium. thank you. thank you, bill. [ applause ] >> good evening. thank you, mr. president. and congratulations on today's executive order, which will ensure that we finally have an accurate understanding of how many citizens and noncitizens live i

citizens, noncitizens, and illegal aliens are in the united states of america. not too much to ask. this will greatly inform a wide array of public policy decisions.formation is also relevant to administering our elections. some states may want to draw state and local legislative districts based upon the voter eligible population. indeed, the same day the supreme court handed down the census decision, it also said it would not review certain types of districting decisions, which could encourage states to make such decisions based on voter eligibility. with today's order, we will collect all of the information we need to conduct an accurate census and to make responsible decisions about public policy, voting rights, and representation in congress. in everything we do, we will faithfully represent the people of the united states of america. i would like now to introduce attorney general bill barr to the podium. thank you. [ applause ] >> good evening. thank you, mr. president. and congratulations on today's executive order, which will ensure that we finally have an accurate understanding of how many citizens and noncitizens live in our country. as t

citizens and noncitizens in the united states. guest: the idea that the president was going to defy a decision by the supreme court, i think, was questionablethe first place. we don't know how he intended to do that. he insisted he was going to. he went down this path. it was a mistake to go down this path. he failed in the supreme court made it clear he did not approach this in the right way. now that he just announced, according to everything hwe kn ow, the policy was already in place and it's already provided to the commerce department. housethe speaker of the announced she will attempt to finalize a deal that would raise the debt ceiling in the next few weeks instead of delaying it until the fall. can you tell us what it is she would like to do and why it is necessary? what are the specifics? guest: the problem is the debt ceiling, the debt limit will be reached sooner than was originally anticipated. it could be as early as the beginning of september when we would reach the limit of our ability to borrow to continue to provide funding for the government. the thought initially was that the debt ceiling increase and the decision on budge