congress well into the many saying. it will move to the future of the system here. a lot more all i'm going to feature. then let's see. how often on a local folk will. know i was. in law for. the. right and they're going to move on them ok i'm going to help them with 2 or 300 couples who are. there for the so. you know. until the lock out of your simplified ability. to love them. for what seems. like a wrong. path. and this year. so that's what our bill of the. thing that's going to mean. nicky endorsing it. to stop us looking at a lot of pain. in the camino saying you're more you're going to modify things i mean i'm. not going to you know not. mean. and if each of them just you know put a case where the person's going to be counted. and then not. just downloaded which one of them decent is coming in on the twenty's move around you're looking at the on. the internet you see. the mass marketed online. you know the day. that. as. a kid that you can. just get in my mind i thought it would have been. so. good. if it didn't of i'm glad i'm sitting room. but i mean i don'

congress would want the statute anymore? it is designed to effectuate your instance. severability is designed to say well, does congress still want the statute to stand even with this provision gone? would congress still passed the same statute without it? i think insofar as it tries to effectuate congress would have wanted its support in congress working hand-in-hand. sen. feinstein: thank you, that is quite a definition, i'm really impressed. thank you. some have argued that the medicare program is , it is antional unconstitutional exercise in congressional ending power. they believe that the spending power does not exist at all. in talking about medicare and mikel security, professor -- of the university of san diego law wrote this. it is worth remembering that these programs would never have taken their pernicious forms if the constitution's original meaning had been followed in the first place. originalistswith who say that the medicare program is unconstitutional, and if so, why? judge barrett: i'm not familiar with that article so i don't know what reasoning advances for claiming that the sending

asian in january i mean it looks like willful hourman to the economy being done by members of congress. well there are certainly a lot of business owners and employed people who would agree with what you just said there's just a lot of shock that congress and the white house can't come together especially since the white house and house democrats nancy pelosi are house speaker who isn't democrat from california they are pretty close right now the democrats initially wanted about a $2.00 trillion dollars proposal at the white house has come all the way up to 1.8 trillion so it's pretty close yes a lot of the details still have to be ironed out but they're surprised that you can't bridge that gap when it's really not that big of course whether senate republicans would want to agree to that package remains and seen but i think this sort of illustrates that at the moment it started out in the spring and summer there was a lot of the united states about how germany was controlling the virus and your system of short term work that kicked in for the unemployed but now i think there's a lot of envy

in january i mean it looks like it will fall hormone to the economy being done by members of congress. well there are certainly a lot of business owners and employed people who would agree with what you just said there's just a lot of shock that congress and the white house can't come together especially since the white house and house democrats nancy pelosi are house speaker who isn't democrat from california they are pretty close right now the democrats initially wanted about a $2.00 trillion dollars proposal at the white house has come all the way up to 1.8 trillion so it's pretty close yes a lot of the details still have to be ironed out but they're surprised that you can't bridge that gap when it's really not that big of course weather center republicans would want to agree to that package remains on scene but i think this sort of illustrates that at the moment it started out in the spring and summer there was a lot of the united states about how germany was controlling the virus and your system of short term work that kicked in for the unemployed but now i think there's a lot of envy

that know what imitations are on the internet should be imposed in china in russia you know the congress well basically in russia there are almost no limitations you know you can read or impressed you can read people claim and they can boil them to novel needs not pre-game but that it's not labeled we don't know such a thing as or a ball you know label in something at least i haven't seen it in russian internet i've seen it hundreds of times in the american internet so it's a very strange story clearly a little bit of a kind of strange it's very easy to explain i think you're georgia mean is that you know the interesting thing is that if we look again at the the controversy surrounding the former vice president ok well these major social networks are doing they're putting up. barriers on all sides ok and what they want to do it's an instrument to maintain the status quo this is what this is all about humane change the people in power ok and anyone that threatens the status quo of the ruling elites. we'll be challenged and because of than the nature of the technology you can beat disappear i m

politicians that nobody mitigations on the internet should be imposed in china in russia you know the congress well basically in russia there are almost no he needs a chance you know you can read foreign press you can read people queen and the boys and one of our own age not preheat it up it's not labeled we don't know what's actually in us or you know even something it's just i haven't seen it in russia i've seen it hundreds of times in the american internet so it's a very strange story clearly it. does not strange it's very easy to explain i think you're george i mean is that you know the interesting thing is that if we look again at the controversy surrounding the former vice president's ok with these major social networks are doing they're putting up. barriers on all sides ok and what they want to do it's an instrument to maintain the status quo this is what this is all about humane change the people in power ok in anyone that it's rennes that status quo of the ruling and leads will be challenged and because of then the nature of the technology you can beat disappear i mean you've just gone fro

would be helpful in avoid is those furloughs as well. >> so congresstting a new deal together could save 1,900 pilot jobs at delta. >> absolutely. >> okay. >> so a question a lot of people have and i certainly have is when and if you ever get back to normal. you've still got passenger loads at still at about 30%, and some are asking does injecting taxpayer money into the airlines right now make sense, or is it delaying the inevitable? what do you say to them? well, the industry first and foremost is an essential industry to our economy, to our nation, and we've had our people out working throughout the pandemic, providing really vital services. at the time we got the first cares act, we all thought we would hopefully be in a better position relative to the virus than we are today. we're not. if -- if we don't get the support from congress, we will be required as an industry to furlough tens of thousands of workers, it takes a long time in our industry to get people back up, trained in all the various categories, plus also very importantly we're flying

in puerto rico does that require a constitutional amendment are can that be simply voted by congress well 1st of all i think would be in violation of the constitution because there is a cart way for washington d.c. a very specific one where it would not become a state ok about puerto rico that's something completely different as far as i understand it was under general war that you're there in the story and of the president president gerald ford or a general court in the case of the the option to become unstable from that mistake and. i don't know you coming flatfooted on this one all i do know is that people have been calling or it's ok. and there is a process and i'm not prepared to go through that right now because i don't want to be back. i think we have they're very different situations as you said for puerto rico and for the washington d.c. washington d.c. was the status as an independent federal city to be d.c. the government the entire concept is that you should not have the federal government being subsumed by state government if you didn't make washington d.c. a state that who's

>> you'd really have to ask the congress. >> well, yeah, congress does bear a significant amount of responsibilityere are always going to be competing budgetary priorities. it's difficult when you talk to the people in the budget committee to say, "these are the dollars we're going to need to purchase n95 masks." i think if we'd had that discussi a year and a half ago, you'd have got a lot of blank stares. >> narrator: but, in fact, in those pre-covid years, we found repeated warnings from inside and outside the government that the country was being left without a safety net. that the government needed to strengthen the supply of ppe. and it wasn't just masks. it was ventilators, too. >> at that time, the ventilators in the stockpile were pretty old. and we really wanted to set out to modernize the stockpile. >> narrator: nicole lurie was in charge of preparedness and response at the department of health and human services. in the wake of h1n1, she tried to do something about the dire situation. >> how can we make a better ventilator? how can we make it cheaper? and how, then how can we have enoug

is a democratic congress. >> governor carter. >> president eisenhower worked with democratic congress very well, even president nixon, because he was a strong leader, at least, worked with a democratic congress very well. mr. ford has vetoed, as i said earlier, four times as many per year as mr. nixon. mr. ford, quite often, puts forward a program, just as a public relations stunt, and never tries to put it through the congress by working with the congress. i think under president nixon and eisenhower, they passed about 60 to 75% of their legislation. this year mr. ford will not pass more than 26% of all the legislative proposals he puts forward. this is government by stalemate, and we've seen almost a complete breakdown in the proper relationship between the president who represents this country and the congress who collectively also represent this country. we've had republican presidents before who have tried to run against a democratic congress. i don't think the congress is mr. ford's opponent. but if he insists i be responsible for the democratic congress, of which i have not been a part,

ration in january i mean it looks like willful hourman to the economy being done by members of congress. well there are certainly a lot of business owners and employed people who would agree with what you just said there's just a lot of shock that congress and the white house can't come together especially since the white house and house democrats nancy pelosi are house speaker who isn't democrat from california they are pretty close right now the democrats initially wanted about a $2.00 trillion dollars proposal at the white house has come all the way up to 1.8 trillion so it's pretty close yes a lot of the details still have to be ironed out but they're surprised that you can't bridge that gap when it's really not that big of course when they're senate republicans would want to agree to that package remains and seen but i think this sort of illustrates that at the moment it started out in this bring in summer there was a lot of the united states about how germany was controlling the virus and your system of short term work that kicked in for the unemployed but now i think there's a lot of e

if you can't win in congress, well, get the judiciary is bail you out. that's not the appropriate role of judges or the judiciary under our constitution. our democratic colleagues seemed absolutely fearful about judges who will actually apply the law as written. they want somebody to impose a result that they wish was required. they want judges to evaluate cases not by the letter of the law but through the same lens of personal and political biases. in short, they don't really want a fair and impartial judge like judge barrett. they want a guaranteed result. our democratic colleagues repeatedly pushed judge barrett to say how she would rule on future cases. they asked her to share her personal views on controversial issues. they demanded a commitment from her to recuse herself from specific cases. but once again judge barrett proved why she is the right person for the job. she followed the precedent set by former and current justices and respectfully refrained from answering those kind of provocative questions. contrary to what our democratic colleagues

leave that to congress. well, congress pass ed the affordable care act. it is the law of the land passed by the democratically elected branches of dpogovernment, but democrats have asked the unelected judges to strix it down and they're their asking the court to do that again the week after the election. so it will be interesting to see if judge barrett engages on that question. because it is a pretty contradictory position. >> it's only about three weeks to go until election day. barrett's confirmation hearing is plague out as voters are already cast iing their ballotsy the millions here in the u.s. look at these images. hundreds of voters lining up to make their voices heard as judge barrett appeared today. so, how extraordinary is it, jeffrey, to see those things happening almost simultaneously? >> never happened. never happened before in american history, that we have had a supreme court confirmation so close to the election. and the democrats i think recognizing that judge barrett is on a glide path to confirmation, they are using this hearing to tal

congress has had an interest on as well particularly for the last 18 months this desire to uplift democracy inside sudan and so this is something that is being embraced by the u.s. congress as well that is deeply divided but has more of a bipartisan view with regard to this what we should point out though when it comes to compensation that was discussed by the u.s. president in his tweet that is something that still has to be decided the american courts have not figured out or even awarded yet there is some concern about u.s. citizens for example perhaps getting more compensation as a result of being harmed by some of these attacks than say the kenyan or tense any envy. so that is still something that needs to be worked out as well but looking forward in terms of the how this relates to the u.s. election here domestically this is not a big issue for american voters it's certainly not going to be a deciding factor about whether or not they support donald trump's reelection or vote for joe biden the democratic presidential nominee but still this is something that u.s. president donald trump i

judge barrett: well, since i , that would the law be up to the congress to decide. legislatures have different antidiscrimination provisions that offer even more protection. sen. feinstein: ok. let's talk for a moment. "i tend tou wrote agree with those who say that a justice's duty is to the isstitution, and that it just more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly conflicts with it." presented with a case where your view of the constitution conflicts with supreme court precedent, what will control your decision? your understanding of the constitution, or precedent? judge barrett: senator feinstein, i'm really glad that you brought that up because that quote was mentioned a lot yesterday and i'm happy to have an opportunity to explain the context. mean, iire article, i think there is been some misunderstandings perhaps, because that sentence, first of all, and originalist scholar in a progressive constitutionalist. the whole article was defending the supreme court's current doctrine which c

and, of course, we wish the same for our colleagues in the congress as well as the many, many millionsericans who are struggling with this terrible disease. [applause] what the last few days have told us is if there was ever any doubt, it should now be clear that no one, no one is safe from this pandemic. it doesn't matter if you are a front-line worker in a hospital, and i want to take a moment to thank all of the doctors in the nurses and thehe medical personl who up with their lives on the line to protect all of us. [applause] and it doesn't matter if you are an essential worker in the supermarket, if you are a packing house worker, if you are a bus driver, and it doesn't matter t if you are the presidet of the united states. each and every one of us is vulnerable, and we will remain vulnerable until there is a vaccine or a perfected qr. that is the w reality and theres non way to get away from that. there are some who say that we have to make a choice between having a strong economy and protecting the american people from this terrible disease. i disagree. the truth is we will neve

inauguration in january i mean it looks like willful hourman to the economy being done by members of congress. well there are certainly a lot of business owners and employed people who would agree with what you just said there's just a lot of shock that congress and the white house can't come together especially since the white house and house democrats nancy pelosi are house speaker who isn't democrat from california they're pretty close right now the democrats initially wanted about a $2.00 trillion dollars proposal the white house has come all the way up to 1.8 trillion so it's pretty close yes a lot of the details still have to be ironed out but they're surprised that you can't bridge that gap when it's really not that big of course weather center republicans would want to agree to that package remains on scene but i think this sort of illustrates that at the moment it started out in this ring and summer there was a lot of the united states about how germany was controlling the virus and your system of short term work that kicked in for the unemployed but now i think there's a lot of envy in th

you're running for congress well, let me answer that question. >> all right, all right. >> you guys,e have a-- . under the watch of one party-- >> we have a cross examination, we have a cross examination session. >> alexandria ocasio-cortez wanted to make it a national policy and trying to jam it in. >> now it's time for the cross examination and that's when each candidate gets a chance to ask one question of his or her rival. and we'll start with nicole malliotakis, you can ask one question. >> you know, max, i guess i have a very simple question that's not just for me, but it's really for the people of this district. two years ago you said that you were going to be independent, you go to washington, vote 97% of the time with nancy pelosi. you said you were, you know, special interests could keep their damn money and you ends up taking half a million dollars of special interest pac money funneled to your campaign. you said you were not going to impeach the president and you turned around and did. so why should anyone, anyone in staten island or southern brooklyn believe anything tha

and he self-consciously used publicity, appealing to the public at large, as a way to force congress to his well. he--was also his will. he was also the first president since john adams to go in person to congress to deliver his annual state of the union. for more than a century, the whole 19th century, presidents had sent their state of the union, that the president did not normally feature himself as the leader of congress or the prince will actor in the political system. that begins to change, at least optically, in the early 20th century. woodrow wilson is a shorthand reminder of that. i want to stick with communications technology. the chain of events that begin with mass circulation newspapers and their political utilization and early 20th century is a chain that extends 100 years later in the early 21st century, all the technologies change. ast, wilson uses newspapers mass circulation or mass communication devices, to bend the congress to his well. franklin was about uses the next generation of technological innovation technologies, the radio. here he is levering one of his 30 fireside ch

it could see you taking a terrible beating in us congress, notjust in the white house. well, i'm glad that our party is big enough to have critics in the family. ben sasse has always been one that has consistently been one. he likes that independent streak. he'll say the same thing about democrats as well. one of the things i learned out of my 22 years of service, is if you want to be a hero criticise the institution and criticise your colleague and then you're always the darling of the press for the day or the darling of the other party. and that's unfortunate. but here's what we do know under donald trump, when he assumed office, isis had an area the size of the state of rhode island. isis now has been reduced. we are at peace. we're trying to end the endless wars which america still has troops on the ground in iraq and afghanistan. that's a good thing. i would love to have more international support when it comes to dealing with syria. but he has not been a warmonger. what we have seen... crosstalk ..under biden was bombing in libya. and i still don't know

moment for the anti war movement that it was not just in the streets, was in the senate and the congress as well had not seen this before. what is your impression, your first reaction? just a tone of this thing.

severability is designed to say, well, would congress still want the statute to stand even with this provision gone? would congress still passed the same statute without it? so i think insofar as it tries to effectuate what wong could have wanted it's the court and congress working hand in hand. >> thank you. that's quite a definition. i'm really impressed. thank you. some have argued that the medicare program is unconstitutional. well, it's an unconstitutional exercise in congressional spending power. they believe that the spending power does not exist at all. in talking about medicare and social security, professor mike rappaport of the university of san diego law wrote this -- it is worth remembering that these programs would never have taken their pernicious form if the constitution's original meaning had been followed in the first place. do you agree with originalists who say that the medicare program is unconstitutional? and if so, why? >> i'm not familiar with that article by professor rappaport, so i don't know what reasoning he advances for claiming that the spending power a

everything is about president trump and vice president biden we can demand more from all leaders in congress as well. >> were getting the book but with this series word you feel safe with vice president biden? >> yes. we should have confidence in whomever the american people elect and then try to help that president succeed that is what we are missing these days is we have to break this tendency especially in the area foreign-policy and national security and to find in opposition to the predecessor it shouldn't matter if you are republican or democrat when al qaeda attacked us in 2001 they didn't target republicans or democrats they targeted americans so i'm hoping we can come to gather initially around the's issues of foreign policy and national security. >> when vice president biden was onl. the hill who and that white house would be safe and secure. >>on there is a number of people michelle has been talked about as possible secretary of defense she is extremely good. she took a lot of the positions that ran counter to the obama administration approach for example especially with iraq and afghanis

well >> this brings the congress back to the role that should have been playing all along. it asks the congress assume its responsibility to the american people. it brings our democratic system back to light again in a balanced, constitutional manner. that, in itself, is as important in the long run to the life of this public as ending the war in vietnam. >> what we say to the american people who have been watching and who say, well, we agree with you but our voices are not loud, we believe one person i am just a little person will? you hear that many times. does that voice have a place in this whole great issue of war when? we are tired of speeches, we want some action. a lot of the young people are saying this to, a lot of the older people. turn it off, we agree with you but what have you done about it? what can you do about it? what can we do? >> we are asking people who for -- the senate of the united states, particularly, to begin to assume its responsibility under the constitution. for years and years now we have advocated, we have given all the power to the president

and the second question is, are the congress -- i mean, justices heard or talked about term limitations? thank you. >> guest: well, one thing we know that congress can do is that it can set the size of the supreme court. the court was established in the 18th century. it had six members, and the number of members have changed. congress has changed it from time to time up through the 1860s. since then it's been at nine members. congresst could change the numr of supreme court justices again if iter wishes to, and that woud require, just like any other law, a majority in each house and a president's signature. so that's how, the size of the court. the congress also has the power to set the jurisdiction of the supreme court, and what that is exactly is not -- the outer limits have not been fully defined. we haven't seen the congress take away issues and say the supreme court is not allowed to hear one kind of case or another kind of case, and the supreme court might have to decide whether congress can take away some of its powers. can congress decide how many justices are required to put a case on the docket? right n

their job through no fault of their own and then you know they're left holding the bag because congress said well you know it's not bad enough it's not a national emergency it's there 40000000 national emergencies out there and then hunter biden is sitting in his jaguar earned got millions and millions of dollars for being the son of the vice president i think that is a salient issue here george around maybe as well i think about. it well to have being if i may say one thing i may say that may be true and so you see all of trump's children walk in who have a job in the white house who are still making millions of dollars where he did not at best from his business at that same exact debate and so you may want to bring up biden sign but then you got to look at the entire tritely but i don't i don't have to bring up the truth from children because they're under a microscope all of the time ok and they accept it ok i would say differently about the biden family george were rapidly wanting at a time going yeah i've got 2 responses that answer the remote very poignant things to bring up 1st of all with

white house isn't it there are going to be political ramifications with the election but in congress as well just talk us through what you think the impact is going to be like there. well you've got to think about the fact that there will be people on the hill who will have been explored jim jordan who's a congressman from ohio he's a republican he went to the debate on tuesday he is back on capitol hill i'm told this morning he is not self isolating although he should be because he was near force one or own the president people are also saying that he's not wearing a mask therefore there is the possibility that while he's working away on capitol hill that he is exposing people to the virus the statement ocean who is the treasury secretary he's been in and around the white house as well we are told he tested negative this morning but he's been speaking to nancy pelosi about a stimulus deal on the back of the corporate crisis and then there's a me call me about it who is of course the supreme court nominee this. has been on capitol hill over the last couple of days talking to senators trying

press corps in full force at this point now that we've known this for 5 hours and members of congress as well getting notified and coming on this show. mark green from texas reacting to the news. this is what he has to say. >> the staff gets tested particularly folks around the president get tested very frequently, maybe even daily. they will know if someone becomes positive, got that person isolated as well. >> a congressman from tennessee, not texas, but right now official washington waking up with a president who will be most importantly in a protected state. they will be trying to figure out how to handle that and take some cues and look back at how boris johnson handled things in april, he was hospitalized, the government having to put never before used protocols in place so he could conduct the business and as you learned from shauna connolly at the white house the president attends his duties but it will look different. don't forget this impacts the campaign trail, 32 days to go until the election. jillian: thank you very much. let's bring in doctor ronnie jackson, texas congressional

. >> we talked about the white house, and congress as well. you had two positive tests, of senators on the senate judiciary committee. the amy coney barrett is beginning october 12th. in the last hour, it seems as if there is full steam ahead. that might change the time line. >> it is full steam ahead. he believes the hearing can be condu condu conducted until they do an advancement to the floor. they could chose proothers i observed sit ths next to senator lee, in a thursday meeting of the judicious committee. senator cruz, and the big wild card here is how many of these infections are going to lindsay we are have no guarantee this will happen. advancing it to thursday, the cdc recommendation. a number of senators who can't participate. t the you have senator tillis, with performs meetings. big wild card is amy coney barrett herself. if you look at the pictures, she has come into contact, fact to face to face. you can't have proxy votes on the senate floor, are we looking at a black out here on the senate. >> he has 53 members, two of them ha

making these decisions but i do think there is a growing commission and you can hear it the congress as wellhat these tech giants should be more transparent. that is just something we expect in virtually every marketplace. fec chair ajit pai. and we have some breaking now out of wells fargo. telling bloomberg it has fired more than 100 employees for improperly accessing covid relief funds. there is abuse tied to the economic injury disaster loan program. said city a fire these employees and fully cooperate with law enforcement. combating a similar issue and they also found that hundreds of employees tapped the same government program, that dozens of them did so improperly. we continue to look and see if there was an impact of the stock there firing more than a hundred employees for fraud. amazon prime day, traffic up 30%. the echo. being the most popular item so far. we will take a closer look at the event. this is bloomberg. emily: we are in the final hours of amazon's prime day sale, adding to jump on this holiday season. shoppers are flocking to the platform team to score a deal. and with

well. so yes, congress and the administration work together in a bipartisan way to pass the cares act as well as subsequent legislation to inject resources into the economy. the lack of doing that this time is going to take us back down to another path. yes, sir. >> thank you madam speaker. if you are correct that joe biden is going to be elected, you're still going to confront balance of power with president trump and the senate for lame-duck. with that not argue for you to take a somewhat smaller bill that the system can produce in a lame-duck and then get the rest when biden is president? >> this is not small. were not talking size were talking quality. we are not going to take a small bill that has the bulk of reinforcing funds to the richest people in america while questioning the integrity of people on unemployment insuranc insurance. we will. i want a bill for two reasons. first and foremost the american people need help. they need real help. and second of all, we have plenty of work to do in the joe biden administration bird were going to build the infrastructure in a greenway. we are

applause] and of course we wish the same for my colleagues in the congress as well as the many, manyns who are struggling with this terrible disease. [applause] days have toldew us is if there was ever any clear it should now be that no one -- no one -- is safe from this pandemic. are as not matter if you front-line worker in a hospital -- and i want to take a moment to thank all of the doctors and the nurses and the medical personnel who have put their lives on the line to protect all of us. [applause] youit does not matter if are an essential worker in a supermarket, if you are a packinghouse worker, if you are does notver, and it matter if you are the president of the united states, each and vulnerable, us is and we will remain vulnerable until there is a vaccine or a perfected cure. that is the reality, and there is no way to get away from that. say that weme who have to make a choice between having a strong economy and protecting the american people from this terrible disease. i disagree. the truth is, we will never have a strong economy, so long as this pandemic continues to su