one is that congress shirts go back. -- congress should scale back.n selma, none of the republican congressman went to celebrate the 50th anniversary of selma. i remember when someone came here right in front of the press, he spat at the president. secondly, it is an impediment to peace. i will tell you. he continuously disrespects the palestinians. as long as he does that, this will continue. host: you brought up selma, the events over the weekend and selma. getting a lot of attention. here's a headline from "bring your times -- the new york times." talking about eric holder speech on sunday at the brown chapel in selma where he talked about the progress that has been forged in that southern town. he was speaking there, the president, of course, also speaking. we will be's trip to visit selma in the next -- be talking about the president's trip to visit selma in the next segment. bob is up next from jacksonville, texas. on the line that thinks congress is to involve. caller: good morning. republicans sure do have short memories. when dick cheney was

the new congress had no revenue. there was no point confronting congress. it was the states that had the revenue. they chose saturday because congress never met on a saturday, but the executive they surrounded the statehouse, and alexander hamilton, who was the chairman of a congressional committee to deal with this mutiny that had been going on now for five days got congress to call a special session. the congressman went into the building, because hamilton and congress wanted it to appear this was a demonstration against the united states of america. this was the horror of the republic, the military rising against civilian control. and that would appeal to the american people's feelings and they would come to the defense of congress. so, congress, even though they did not get a quorum, congress was not surrounded by these troops, it nonetheless represented to the supreme executive council and asked the president or governor if you will, of pennsylvania, the great john dickinson to call on the philadelphia militia and drive the continental soldiers away fr

it knows it can't get it approved by congress. so it has formed an executive agreement that john kerry admitted today won't be legally binding. all this stuff about congress having a role in this is not true. congress is being cut out of this deal, a deal that would severely undermine national security and i think will cause a war in the middle east. >> in response to what bruce said, fred, do you assume that france, britain, and germany are being cavalier about the future of the middle east and israel as you would accuse the obama administration of being? >> this is a negotiation between the united states and iran. our european allies are trailing after us. they should be on notice too that the u.s. congress is not going to stand for this obama sellout. >> quick final comment. >> executive agreements have been used for over 90% of american commitments since the end of world war ii. this is not that unusual. and also this is not about trying to prevent iran to develop nuclear weapons and stability in the middle east. that's the go

>> i think congress waited too long. the last time congress re reallocated was all they needed to do was by time. reform never came. in fact, there are a lot of ways in which we could improve the disability programme so what works better for beneficiaries, it's overdue to start talking about solutions. >> even if you don't approve of the means, why not have it out now, so you don't have to come back every couple of years and top up the fund. i'm all for having a conversation, i think it's important to have the conversation to listen to what the american public wants. poll after poll made clear americans love social security they are opposed to cuts. they want to strengthen benefits. a poll found americans across party lines and levels of generations agree that what they want do see is social security strengthened benefit increased and are willing to pay more to do that. >> embedded in what you are saying is the assumption that having the debate implies we'll cut it. >> that's part of what is fascinating to me living in w

congress must have a say. congress has played a vital role in bringing iran to the table. today, it must have a voice in the process, and it must have a say in any deal before it is implemented. on tuesday, you ask your senators to ensure congresses voice is heard. he will ask them to cosponsor the corker-men then does -- menendez bill. it was introduced by 12 senators just this past friday. this key piece of legislation will require the administration to submit any agreement with iran to congress. it will give congress the opportunity to vote, to disapprove a bad deal. [applause] >> support diplomacy with pressure. >> insist on a good agreement. >> ensure congress refuse any deal. [applause] >> this is our path forward. this is our task to preserving the safety of the united states and israel. this is your message on tuesday. thank you very much. [applause] ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, police welcome former aipac president david victor. ♪ >> good evening. you may recall that at the academy awards a representative of the academy came out on stage and explained the bylaws to

congress -- foreign ropes to tie the hands of the u.s. congress. the foreign minister of iran was able to cite the treaty saying, the u.s. will be in violation of international law if congress does not do whatever the president promises. the administration feet into that when a high official declares, foreign policy runs through the executive branch and not through other channels. i fear we will have a situation where the executive branch comes to us and says, you have to take this action. you are prohibited from taking that action. you are going to hold the u.s. up to ridicule for being in violation of international law. i would hope that you would look at the memo issued by the carter department of justice. which says congress may enact legislation modifying executive agreements. if that was turned over to the iranian delegation, that would get a support under article 46. i should point out, for the record in 2007 senator clinton introduced with the cosponsorship's of senator obama and senator kerry the oversight of iraq agreements act which date

those investigations were not always reported to congress, only recommendations were reported to congress, leaving a gap between who knew and who had been involved in what. was this a proper delegation of congressional authority? does the constitution require more? does the constitution speak to the possibility that congress can delegate its authority to local political parties? to be sure, while the removal of most of the political disabilities imposed pursuant to section three confess be characterized as perfunctory, we cannot get deeper than that if we are working with thousands of boilerplate petitions, but not all were resolved favorably. several were the subject of citizen remonstrances, including coalitions of white and black voters who protested the petitions for relief. filed by certain members of the community. judges more than other civil servants bore an inordinate share of the criticism over their attempts to have their rights stored. in virginia, the superintendent of the state penitentiary sent multiple missives to the chair of the house reconstruction committee noting how

at the same time, you are pushing off congress. why push for that action but not congress? secretary blinken: we are not pushing off either. i think as you said and ranking member ingle said, congress will have to exercise its authority to lift sanctions at the end of an agreement if iran complies. indeed, keeping that toward the end, until we see iran is complying -- mr. royce: our concern is that if you push is off for 10 years in theory, and it -- this is consequential enough to go to the un security council that doubt that under resolution under chapter seven, which by definition deals with a threat to peace breaches of the peace and ask of aggression, then it would certainly be consequential enough to be submitted to the senate for advice and consent. that is the point i wanted to make. secretary blinken: this is an international agreement and would be made with other members of the security council, iran. under these circumstances, it would be normal for the security council to take note of any agreement and to create a basis for lifting the u.n. related sanctions. co

better than the last congress.e think the bills will at least get a look at whether or not they can be passed out of the senate given thatt constraint of the senate rules. >> what constitutional amendments do you try to plan to move through your committee on the floor? are you looking into if enough states have issued a call to an article five convention? >> as a matter of fact, in the house rules at the beginning of this congress, we passed a rule change that set up an informal process of the house taking in and recognizing that a state has a path and a call for this. several congresses on a balance budget amendment, it is vitally important, and not my idea. thomas jefferson was the first one to call for what we are trying to accomplish today. we came one vote from passing in the senate back in the 1990's. 72 democrats went for it and gave us the two thirds vote we needed. and last congress may only got 25 democrats. we need to continue to press this case. one of the things that helps and that is the direct input

>> congress has a role. we have had over 205 briefings, phone calls discussions, with congress. 119 of them have taken place since january of this year. we have been in full discussion with congress on this. we've been in full discussion with allies in the region. we have had our team go to israel, meet with israelis in washington or wells to brief them regularly in this process. this isn't a complete mystery. the fact is that -- we also have been operating under rule that everybody understands. nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to. so we have to finish our negotiations and we deserve the right to do so frankly knowing we have to submit it to the world to judge. we ought to be able to find out unimpeded and uninterfered with in an unconstitutional way in violation of 200-plus years of tradition. >> the president wants a deal by the end of march. if you can't meet that timetable what happens? >> margaret, we are trying to get a deal by the end of march. >> will there be an expansion? >> the pres

a very different issue because obviously congress has power under the second -- >> could congress bless what arizona has done by saying that's the manner in which federal elections will be held? >> i don't think they could simply bless what arizona has done because i think that would amount to revisiting the judgment that the framers made in the first subclause. i think that they could if they wanted to, congress could say we're going to actually take those commissions districts and make them our own and we're going to impose them. >> you're saying it has to be a federal commission or a state commission but if it's the latter it can be only the legislature? >> i think that's right though of course it could be an advisory commission. what we object to is not just the idea that there is a commission. what we object to is the permanent wresting of authority from the state legislature -- >> first you had a law that said that the commission has -- must submit its proposal to the legislature and the legislature has 30 days and can overturn it only by a 3/4 vote. >> i think, justice kennedy th

the last congress. we think the bills will at least get a look at whether or not they can be passed out of the senate given that constraint of the senate rules. >> four minutes left. >> i want to ask two quick ones. first, what constitutional amendments do you try to plan to move through your committee on the floor? are you looking into if enough states have issued a call to an acceptable call for an article five convention? are you guys going to hold hearings on that? what is the next that? >> as a matter of fact, in the house rules at the beginning of this congress, we passed a rule change that set up an informal process of the house taking in and recognizing that a state has passed a call for a constitutional convention. that is a step in the right direction to bring order to that process. i have been focused for several congresses on a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution. it is vitally important, and not my idea. thomas jefferson was the first one to call for what we are tryi

if it's going to be fixed, it has to be fixed by congress and congress alone.nk the framers would be rolling over in their depraves if they knew what this president was doing. and let me address prosecutorial discretion for a moment if i may. one of the hypotheticals that get bandied about is to say, well, you know a sheriff for example can decide that he's only going to pull over speeders who go 5 miles per hour or more and let everybody else go. and that's what this president is doing. there's no difference. there's a world of difference between those two things. what that president is doing in that hypothetical is classic prosecutorial discretion. but that's not what president obama is doing by these actions. to be analogous to what president obama is doing here, that sheriff would have to first of all publicly pronounce to the world that he's not going to pull over the speeders despite the fact that the law says they're speeders. he would have to say, and if i do pull anybody over, i'm only going to give them a fine of $1 even though the statute says it's $

to be approved by congress.ran the administration got him to call those off. i wouldn't be shocked if you saw republicans try to move sanctions on iran sooner rather than later, jose. >> i was going to say if i could jump in there, i spoke to senator mccain on my way up here, and he made that very point that if there is fallout after this address from netanyahu that one of the things it is most likely to do is accelerate the push for that additional sanctions bill against iran that the president has threatened to veto. >> we are seeing ladies and gentlemen, thank you both there's speaker boehner. and the arrival of the israeli prime minister. expected any minute now, this is the escort. kelly o'donnell is standing by on capitol hill. you see senators menendez schumer and others arriving. kelly, all seconds from now i presume we will see the prime minister of israel. >> reporter: yes, jose i am in the house chamber where the address will take place. i have been watching many people gathering in the public gallery

and of the congress. we thank you again for your testimony for now, we will stand adjourned thank you mr. chairman. commissioners testify about the latest internet rules and have approved of regulations designed to prohibit providers from blocking and discriminating against could not ten moving through the networks. congressman greg walton will share the energy and commerce subcommittee hearing. gentlemen can take their seats while they are i am going to before we start the clock. as many of you know. i will exert chairman's prerogative here we have not always gotten along. and i will have an opening statement here. i am sick and tired of the third string approach to winning and the way that you are willing to tackle. and run over the top of people and score points just for scoring points. now, now that the game is over in the national football championship, i want everybody to know that i have kept my promise and warned the ohio state tie. so mr. chairman. you are out of order. right now. [laughter] i ho

he's going in to speak to congress.here's been a lot of tension even if the prime minister keeps saying that my speech is not intended to show any disrespect to president obama. i know that they say they deeply regret it. they want to departisan the issue. is the damage done, mr. ambassador? >> i've been in this business for a long time. i can tell you this, we've had differences before. i remember our prime minister in the early '90s with george h.w. bush and tensions with secretary of state baker. saddam invades kuwait and u.s. and israel have to work together to solve the problem and do a giant strategy. we're in a similar situation today. we have tensions. they're clear. you know what? what the prime minister said is the most important thing. the issue is the deal. it's not the invitation. it's not protocol. a lot of the reporting, israel and u.s. have an echo chamber. you see in the u.s. and reading the newspaper on the web. you take that information and you build a theory and maybe the material is wrong. it all be

bring us up to date with congress. dan's told us that senator corker has 64 votes in the senate to make sure that any deal with iran goes through congress. >> 67 would be veto proofed. >> where does it go from here, mary? >> there's never been a significant arms control agreement without congress and so congress wants to be involved. there's a bipartisan coalition as dan explained that needs to be involved. i think netanyahu's speech put the democrats in a difficult position. it didn't just expose rouhani as really not a moderate, but also laid out how iran has a vast nuke laugh infrastructure -- nuclear infrastructure, all of these facts are going to make it very, very difficult for democrats to approve the kind of deal that obama is doing. >> 30 seconds, dan. wouldn't it be true to say that prime minister netanyahu alerted everyone to the danger and congress really did listen? >> they did listen, but i think nancy pelosi's behavior has done some political damage to the democrats'. national security will be a voting i

congress. once light switches on he is the light. the commander-in-chief conducts or others but i think we shouldn't come it's different from the domestic area. >> i think we have time for a few questions. so way in. >> i think i can make myself heard. [inaudible] >> thank you. thank you very much. i'm wondering if you could comment on the right of the president to make secret agreements or to key parts of agreements secret? and if so what ability there is of congress or for that matter the courts to require the exposure of any such agreements? >> i think part of the answer needs to be secret from whom? you know there's a difference between making a matter an agreement that is between heads of state that's revealed to relevant congressional leaders and one that is revealed at large to the public. and i think in terms of the professor's point in defense of it in terms of what they are treated as binding or not. there are agreements between heads of state united states president and others, other

if it's going to be fixed, it has to be fixed by congress and congress alone.think the framers would be rolling over in their graves if they knew what this president was doing. and let me just address prosecutorial discretion for a moment if i may. i mean one of the hypotheticals that gets bandied abowdut by those who support the president's actions say well, a sheriff can decide he's only going to pull over speeders who go five miles per hour or more over the speed limit and let everybody else go and that's what this president is doing, there's no difference. there's a world of difference between those two things. what that president is doing in that hypothetical is classic prosecutorial discretion. but that's not what president obama is doing by these actions. to be analogous to what president obama is doing here, that sheriff would have to first of all publicly pronounce to the world that he's not going to pull over the speeders, despite fact that the law says they're speeders. he would have to say "and if i do pull anybody over, i'm only going to give them

congress to be better informed.he value here is to try to increase the ability for senators and congressmen to us right questions and engage in a real conversation. we have seen this too many times when the hearings become political theater. when he to minimize that by having a more informed congress. stephanie: you think an audit is a bad idea, dave. why? >> i agree with mark that congressional oversight hearings of the fed are a joke. members of congress seem to be interested in using it to score political points rather than asking probing questions. what the law does is say -- what the bill does it say that any restriction on gao review of monetary policy is repealed so it would be possible if we had a senate or house chairman who wanted to arrest the fed to order up these audits. we don't know if that would happen, but that is the problem. we have a very difficult thing here. we want the fed to be accountable to congress. i don't think a gao audit is the best way to do it. gao could play a role in helping congre

but at the same time you are pushing off congress. why push for un action but not congress? >> we are not pushing off either. i think as you said and ranking member ingle said congress will have exercise authority to lift the sanction if iran agrees. >> our concern is if you push us off for ten years, let's say in theory and this is going to the u.n.security council under resolution chapter 7 which deals with a threat to peace breaches of peace and acts of aggression it would be sent to the senate for convise and consent. >> this is an agreement that is made with the other members of the security council. it would be baghdad, damascus and this is not a regime that looks like it wants peace. iran continues to fuel terrorism around the globe. it has been number one in my opinion state support of terrorism around the globe. i believe that a nuclear agreement should not whitewash the fact that iran remains a destabilizing act in the region and funds terrorism. the iranian revolutionary guard core theoretically could take advantage of the sanction relief because money is fundable

about by a breach of protocol. >> it was not for congress. >> let's be mare. susan rice tweeted that israel criticizing secretary carey - she has made comments that can be construed as trying to silence the israeli leadership. allies can talk and disagree. no one wants to offend president obama. the prime minister praised him. president obama did special things. when you have iran, building what has to be a nuclear weapon, why would you have nuclear energy. they are a superpower. >> rabbi, you and i know each other, i'm from canada. it has a lot of oil. the fact someone has nuclear weaponry doesn't mean they have that weaponry. that argument is weak. >> i disagree. canada did not develop nuclear power by deseizing the world and lying. canada is not the foremost instigator and funder of terrorism or shoot its own citizens in the speech. >> it's just nuclear energy and oil and nuclear weapons. >> if it was about a peaceful effort, why not invite the world from the beginning to inspect. why did they lie, no one denies that. it's the iae saying they lied. >> talki

members of congress even. members of congress even. >> rerack that again. law makers strapped for cash like ordinary americans? melissa, i'm guessing the average american would love to make what congress makes. >> absolutely. that is one of the most embarrassing comments i heard in a long time. that's saying a lot because congress people are always embarrassing themselves. she needs to look at the math. the fact of the matter is the average congress person's pay package is three times what regular americans on average make. they're up above $170,000. the average american makes about $55,000. they have no idea what it's like to live in an average household and to even try and compare themselves is disingenuous pathetic and disgusting. >> you don't believe that, jonas. you say big paychecks and big bills, you still need your paycheck. >> yeah. okay. you can make $1 million more than anybody in the government makes, except the contractors. you got used to stuff. you've got a $20,000 mortgage payment. you can't just get out of that because you are just addicted

he may convene congress. he may adjourn but so may congress adjourn.that's really not a power that's effective. he shall receive ambassadors and ministers. that means that the president then shall be the head of state and conduct the functions of a head of state, at least diplomatically. the last one is this wonderful one -- he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. so when you look through that, the only two that have any power really at all is the power to pardon which could be significant under certain circumstances, but the power and the obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. i don't know that i've heard an argument as to how the president might be doing that under the circumstances that we're discussing here today. not only that, not only is he violating his own oath of office, it's very, very clear that he has said i'm not going to enforce the laws that i don't want to enforce and, by the way, congress, i'm going to recommend legislation to you and if you don't pass that legislation, then i'm going to impleme

if congress takes action, congress will speak. we can always have the last word but we have to pass action. >> senator barrasso, to what degree did the president's action play into this? >> it played into a lot. the american public is very concerned about this president. the sad truth is he does a very bad job on foreign relations. he's done it with the syria and the red line. he's done it with isis in terms of underestimating calling them a jv team. yemen he called a success story right until the iranians took over yemen. the president needs input from congress. >> thank you both so much for coming in today. we'll stay on top of these talks. >> wyoming is going to the 64 of the ncaa. >>> up next we're very happy here. up next, racial tensions reignited in ferguson missouri, this week after two police officers are shot during a protest. but who is to blame? we'll bring back the panel. do you want to know how hard it can be to breathe with copd? it can feel like this. copd includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. spiriva is a onc

congress by past again.ther big problem for hillary clinton while secretary of state she may have broken e-mail rules. stocks down triple digits fairly close to record levels, gas price surge rolls on. our two we are in it, let's go. >> america's founding document promises life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. iran's founding document that pledges that, tyranny and the pursuit of jihad. state collapsing across the middle east, iran is charging into the void to do just that. to defeat isis and let iran have nuclear-weapons to win the battle and lose the war. the foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy. even if israel has to stand alone, israel will stand. stuart: that was benjamin netanyahu last hour giving the rousing and impassioned speech to the joint meeting of congress, making the case against letting iran have the weapon the bomb. we are on it and joined by lou dobb

the first member of congress born in the 1980s. so when he came up from peor ia to congress. the beltway press loves to do stories about the workout routines of members of congress. this bipartisan story about members of congress working out appeared last summer filed under fashion. here he is enjoying his bipartisan workout. these two members of congress very attractive, very young, a bipartisan duo in the gym. the new generation in congress. right now in the background of this photo see the guy in the red t-shirt? that is congressman kevin mccarthy. he was supposed to be the young gun guy. he started the young guns not that long ago. when you're the haunchy guy in the background of the picture, you in the red shirt can't be the young gun any more. new guy is the young gun. that is young. also look at his guns. i mean -- aaron schock was the boy wonder that republicans were hoping for. attractive, fit, new kid on the politic. -- block. he did not do all that much. he is not associated with any causes. he was able to parlay it into tons and tons of media appearances and a rep

the congress goes, oh -- the president goes, the congress won't do what i want, so i got a pen and iill do what i want. the letter should have been copied to the white house because the white house needs to understand that any agreement that removes or changes legislation will be half -- will have to be passed by us. host: senator rand paul cleaning why he and his colleagues signed that letter. senator tom cotton spearheaded the effort, and hereof the opposing view in usa today yesterday, saying to miller thought to senator rand paul there, why we wrote the letter to iran. saying this -- marissa in montana, democratic collar, what do you think? caller: thank you so much for this opportunity. thank you, thank you c-span for the wonderful light shine on the beautiful democracy in america, and thank you for the obama administration because they at least allow a public discourse. during the dark days of the bush and ministration we had no ability to talk without fear of being arrested. if the gop wants to send a letter that completed disagrees with everything, i don't know -- they act li

congress makes the laws, not the president. in that regard, congress has repeatedly rejected legislation to provide amnesty work permits and difs -- benefits to those who entered our country unlawfully. if you want benefits of the united states, you should come lawfully wait your return. we rejected such proposals in 2006 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2014. president obama's unlawful and unconstitutional executive actions nullify the immigration laws that we do have that are on the books. that's the immigration and nationality act. and replaces them with the very measures congress refused to enact. that's just where we are. even king george lacked the power to legislate without parliament. president obama's executive action provides illegal immigrants -- those who come into our country contrary to the immigration laws of the united states, which are generous indeed allowing a million people a year to come to our country -- and provides them, those who violated the law work authorization, photo i.d.'s, trillions in social security and m

congress assigns rules.t to have the final voice on whether a rule is appropriate or not. we don't. but we have a chance to voice it because we're going to get ten hours of debate to talk about this proposed rule by the national labor relations board total a interpood board not an -- totally appointed board not an elected board three democrats, two republicans. the and if this was an modest a change as we just heard there would have been some common ground that would have brought one or both of the republicans along. that's been a thing of the national labor relations board in the past. but not anymore. now the republican members of this national labor relations board are ambushed as well, and we come up with what we call the ambush elections rule. so i rise to encourage my colleagues to support the congressional review act resolution of disapproval of the national labor relations board's ambush elections rule. i'd like to again thank my friend senator alexander the chairman of the health, education, labor,

if it's going to be fixed, it has to be fixed by congress and congress alone. i think the framers would be rolling over in their graves if they knew what this president was doing. and let me just address prosecutorial discretion for a moment if i may. i mean one of the hypotheticals that gets bandied abowdut by those who support the president's actions say well, a sheriff can decide he's only going to pull over speeders who go five miles per hour or more over the speed limit and let everybody else go and that's what this president is doing, there's no difference. there's a world of difference between those two things. what that president is doing in that hypothetical is classic prosecutorial discretion. but that's not what president obama is doing by these actions. to be analogous to what president obama is doing here, that sheriff would have to first of all publicly pronounce to the world that he's not going to pull over the speeders, despite fact that the law says they're speeders. he would have to say "and if i do pull anybody over, i'm only going to give th

congress also imposed a series of sanctions on iran, so congress wants to be involved. there's a bipartisan coalition, as dan explained, that needs to be involved, i think will be involved. i think netanyahu's speech put democrats in a very difficult position. this was a methodical, powerful accounting not just -- it didn't just expose rouhani as not a moderate but also laid out how iran has a vast nuclear infrastructure how they have hid that infrastructure, how the sunset clause would legitimatize them as a nuclear power. all of these facts will make it very, very difficult for democrats to approve the kind of deal obama is doing. >> 30 seconds dan. wouldn't it be true to say that prime minister netanyahu alerted everyone to the danger and congress really did listen? >> they did listen, but i think nancy pelosi's behavior has done some political damage to the democrats. national security will be a voting issue in the next presidential election and she's making it seem as if the democrats are not interested in taking it seriously. >>> when we come back all eyes are on

the bush administration prevented congress from passing and used all of the power in congress from passing new statutory sanctions. that does want fit with the image we have of president bush until you realize at the time the sanctions all focused on international oil companies which was not president bush's target of choice. had we continued president bush's policies, well we should know that during the bush administration iran went from 0-5,000 installed centrifuges. had we continued those policies iran would have $300 billion more in cash because we have frozen $100 billion and $200 billion has been lost in oil sales. it is congress who has had it right, not the executive branch over the last 15 years. which is why i take offense when i hear the administration say if congress has a view we are interfering and undermining. when you read the united states constitution you will see that when it comes to economic sanctions and international economics all of the power is vested in congress except to the extent the president negotiates are treaty that is ratified by the senate. yet, i fear th

many members of congress feel it's not for the u.s. congress to wade into israeli politics. finally, there are many in the united states that really resent any attempt by a foreign leader to dictate american foreign policy especially when it comes you to iran. >> given what you've just said then and given the controversial surrounding his visit, how much sway does he really have over congress when it comes to trying to influence them over the iran nuclear deal. >> that additionally, the automatic-israeli relationship has been strong and the consensus on israel in the u.s. congress has been almost unbreakable. what eve seen in recent weeks is unprecedented. members of congress are openly speaking out against israel and voicing their concerns about any effort by the obama administration to undermine that effort to negotiate a deal with iran is really of great concern. we really are coming down to what we're seeing here at major policy differences. democrats in congress support the president's effort that israel's security will come with a nuclear deal. there are many others in

states congress 19 years ago. he made a speech in which he talked about iran's nuclear weapons. he predicted at the time that the deadline was extremely close. he defined what he met by that deadline by how close it was a couple years earlier to the israeli parliament where he said iran would have nuclear weapons in three to five years. that was 25 years ago. netanyahu has been talking about iran's imminent nuclear program for 25 years. just as a factual matter with respect to my friend he's just been wrong for 25 years. he's said iran is three to five years away. for the last 15 years, he's said that iran is one year away. in some cases he said several months away. wikileaks has documents all on a wonderful website, the intercept. you have a list of the very claims netanyahu has been making about iran's nuclear time line and he's been wrong. israeli intelligence has repeatedly leaked that it does not believe that the time line is the one the prime minister is presenting. so i think that's partly what makes people

every time congress has recessed , loads of airplanes lead andrews air force base with members of congress to go directly and meet face-to-face with heads of state. this letter was nothing more. we have constitutional responsibilities that we elected officials in the first branch of government are required to meet. the problem we got here is have a real disagreement over the talk regarding this treaty. and let there be no mistake this is a treaty that is being negotiated. secretary kerry and i were on opposite sides when we were debating the new start agreement. that was a treaty, an agreement between two nations regarding their nuclear capabilities. this is the exact same thing, it is an attempt to reach an agreement over nuclear weapons to capabilities with another nation. it's a treaty and should be treated as such. i hope an agreement is reached. i really hope we get a good agreement. if we don't get agreement, there should be no agreements. i will say in regards to what secretary kerry said about other countries in the region, and their view of what's happening here, he conceded they

security sanctions but congress played a vital role getting iran to the table. what we'd like to see happen and ranking member menendez on both sides of the aisle is to ensure that before any deal is implemented that congress has the ability to weigh in on the front end before the congressional lehman dated sanction, is that we put in place are taken off the table and suspended ad innfinitum there is concern about the type of deal but i don't know of anyone that wouldn't like to see this come to a good end by an arrange. that would keep iran from getting a nuclear weapon. but the question obviously is great concern what the trend is towards iran's position. >> schieffer: do you think that that letter that the republican signed, did it complicate this in any way? >> look, bob there's been a lot of drama around this issue. i didn't think it was something that was productive toward the end that i'm thinking. if there is an arrangement we appropriately weigh in. been a lot of drama back and forth. administration in israel are more strange than ever. there's been a l

congress will step in. i would think you would be welcoming this opportunity to double check the administration, to be able to make sure this is accomplishing the goals you want. i would think this would be an debated in that respect although i understand there are principles were people say we don't want limitations at all, but this fits within the capacity to get a major vote out of congress. that's something you have to think about. when i testified in december and two weeks ago, i think i made it clear our interests are best served if there is a very powerful vote in support of this. we don't have a message of america's commitment and of our willingness to stay at it to get the job done if this is a marginal vote in congress. >> thank you. we do welcome this opportunity. we also welcome the opportunity to weigh in on the final iran deal, and with that, senator johnson. >> words matter. i know we are discussing use of military force, but this is puzzling. you said the authorization needs to be extremely

every time congress has a recess loads of airplanes leave andrews air force base with members congress who go to meet face-to-face with heads of state. the problem is we have a real disagreement over the talk regarding this treaty. and let there be no mistake. this is a treaty that is being negotiated. secretary kerry and i were on opposite sides when we were debating the new start agreement. in that was a treaty an agreement between two nations regarding their nuclear capabilities. this is the exact same thing. it is an attempt to reach an agreement over nuclear weapons capability with another nation. it is a treaty and should be treated as such. i hope an agreement is reached. i really hope we get a good agreement. if we don't getting a agreement, there should be no agreement. i will say in regards to what secretary kerry said about other countries in the region and their view of what is happening here, we conceded that they were nervous. i would go further than that. i meet with the same people. i would classify their feeling about this as queasy very queasy. and anybody who doubts

that, the powers of the congress and the congress are described in the constitution. constitution was never written with the idea of being a worldwide superpower. if the president wants to come to congress and asked us to amend the constitution, give him more power because we need more mp or form if we are going to play and a bureau role, the president is welcome to do that. host: what would you like to see, of the talks? guest: we made the tremendous mistake during the first eight years of this century, we had zero sanctions. congress had aspassed sanctions, and george bush refusedcongress had aspassed sanctions, and george bush refused to enforce them and violated the law everyday. any hearings, we asked why he was violating, he said, we did not get official notification. they did not want to act. george w. bush said he was israel. are these the, he hates iran. these sanctions were against oil companies and multinational corporations. what we got into the obama these sanctions were against oil companies and multinational corporations. what we got into the obama pres

congress. puts him in very select group. i think winston churchill the only other one bill. bill: will be given a bull. of churchhill prior to the speech. 50 member, of, democratic members of the house and senate will skip the speech. why? >> reporter: probably unprecedented one thing israelis have a election coming up this is controversial speech. 4 the congress members and eight democratic senators are skipping the speech. daniel shapiro u.s. ambassador to israel will not attend nor any member of the obama administration. >> relationship between the united states and israel should not be defined by one botched invitation to one prime minister to speak to one joint meeting at congress. we need to get beyond this. this is silly, if you invite ad guest you didn't like to a bad wedding. >> i've seen many joint sessions. never have i seen a foreign leader come in to directly rebut our president who is in the middle of trying to negotiate a reduction of nuclear weapons with another country. along w

you're a loser if you are a congress communicate -- congress communicate you work at a watchdog agency or work as professor. you're a winner someone cool, if you go and work for a lobbying firm, if you're featured in washington life featured in the hill newspapers top guns of top grossing lobbyists you. take on the egypt union dictatorson, you're invited to all the big parties and the d.c. media is part of that. right and because they'll feature you as one of the top hired guns of fall of 2014. there's a whole series on this in the d.c. media. so, that is a big problem. and the way we kind of portray big money and politics, the role of lobbying, you watch television and you see the lobbyists on television who are giving you the news but they're not disclosed as lobbyists. they're portrayed as independent republican or democratic strategists when in fact they're working for the industries they're talking about. alex on cnn is brought on as a republican strategist talking about corporate taxes, but it's not disclosed his lobbying firm works for the same corporate group that wants a hike

most members of congress represent over 700,000 people. now we have plenty of opportunities to have a voice. this is one of those places where we have a voice and with a voice when we are at home or when we are speaking to media. but when you think about the white house not listening to the house, the house of representatives, he is taking away their voice. i think also taking with the millions of voices that quite frankly there were nine states across the country who replaced democrat senate, senators with republicans nine. and so those are voices of those states that need to be heard. one midwestern newspaper explained what the presidents actions are wrong, and its editors wrote there is no constitutional provision allowing a president to assume absolute power when he doesn't get his way. president obama points to his election as the source of his authority to act unilaterally. i'm sure you've all heard about. but, as this paper said, each member of congress won an election too. and newspapers right i think the presidents actions are wro