so that between us we served 40 years in congress, and we also saw, when things were different in congress, where -- i'm not saying everyone got along all the time but it was possible to get things done, and it was possible -- more possible than it is today to work across party lines. when i was first eelectricity to congress there was a congressman from miami florida bill layman. bill had been a used car dealer before he was elected to congress and used to the all of us he didn't think he could fall any lower in public esteem and then he was elected to congress. that is at a time when congressional approval rates were in the 40s and 50s. there was a poll last year that showed only eight percent of the public approved of the job congress is doing. that's family and friends and paid staff. and it's not really good for our country, quite frankly that congress is held in such low esteem. we're a great country. we hope we have a legislative branch that can respond to the desires of the public, and it can work together and to that -- and that has not been the case in recent years. tom and i aft

that is not what congress is going to do. we will let the facts dictate the response and the next step is hearing from the inspector general. matt: wondering what you think needs to happen with secret service. rep. chaffetz: we have had scandal after scandal. deep-seated cultural problem. a lack of leadership within the secret service. he difficult ship to turn around . in no failed mission for the secret service. we have had multiple mistakes. i think the president and country has gotten lucky to this point. we have thousands of good people honorably and patriotically served this nation but when the average secret service agent the average secret service officer who is working has 25 minutes during the course of a year of training, there is something fundamentally wrong at its core. the scandals have got to stop. it have to be able to fire people who do not act in a responsible way. all the scandals and you have not seen the secret service fire anybody. matt: these are difficult issues. last year you said, after another one

royce: that thank would have used congress' -- that would have used congress' constitutional power of the purse to force the aumf issue. cutting off funding if congress does not enact an isis-specific aumf within the next year. that proposal failed in this institution. so the reality is that congress has made decisions that amount to a practical view disagreeing with the authors of this resolution, allowing the president to use current force authorities against isis is preferable to refusing to confront the threat isis poses to our national security altogether. now, i'll continue to work with ranking member eliot engel and all of our colleagues to see if we can find a way forward on a revise and updated authorization focused on the vicious and growing threat posed by isil. by isis. that is what we need to be working on together. but merely acting without a credible way forward is foolhardy, it's not brave, it's foolhardy. a divisive and unsuccessful aumf process would be perceived by our allies, our partners and our enemies as a no-confidence vote in the fight against isis, resulting

it is a deadline that congress can do. it has worked, until bill clinton went over the period and congress rumbled and grumbled and eventually gave authorization late. bill clinton -- bill clinton went over the period in libya. nothing happened. now with isis, he is reaching way back to those earlier authorizations i mentioned to find an authority hook. to put it in lbj's terms, it is getting thinner than grandma's nightgown. the authority is very weak. but congress, which has been asked, has not been willing to step up and do something. it puts the presidents in a bad position. >> at the same time, the public doesn't seem very agitated. you speak of political ratification, in effect, by the electorate. how does that play into these kinds of questions a sense that the public seems to acquiesce to the action? >> if you ask me the greatest change to the text of the original constitution, it is to grab a great deal of the war power away from what the framers thought was a congressional center of gravity. the commander in chie

members of congress, the term member of congress means any member of the house of representatives or the senate. the fact of the matter is, most people don't follow the law. i did, mr. speaker. and i think it was important to follow the law. i bought my health care on the individual market, healthcare.gov. started october 1 of 2013. you may remember that night. that was the night the fiscal year ended and the famous government shutdown began. i began early this morning in trying to sign up for the affordable care act because i knew as a member of congress we were supposed to sign up through healthcare.gov. an unsubsidized policy in the individual market. so i performed as indicated. it took 3 1/2 months for the check to clear the bank. it was one of the most uncomfortable, god-awful experiences i've ever been through in my life. but what's the final result? i have a bronze plan in the individual market and health care.com the federal fallback provision in the state of texas . mr. speaker, that plan cost $560 a month the first year that i was enrolled. and then it went up 24% the next

congress made a decision. so there was no room for the irs, much less white house operatives to change the basic policy decision embodied in the statute. >> well, thank you. now, let me ask professor is it grewal? >> grewal yes. >> okay. i want to pronounce it right. i hope i'm pronouncing yours right. is it wiener? okay. now, you identify in your written testimony several other irs regulations that grant obamacare subsidies to statutorily ineligible recipients. these include regulations granting subsidies to individuals outside this statutory income range. individuals automatically enrolled in employer health care plans. and even some categories of unlawful aliens. now, what does the fact that the irs ignored limits on its authority to grant subsidies in other instances tell you about its general attitude toward obeying limits on statutory authority? >> regarding the king v. burrwell issue if that regulation is valid it's impossible to believe that it's because they closely paid attention to the statute and t

congress must pass t.p.a. to empower our negotiators to receive the best deal possible for american families and job creators. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. young: request an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. young: i want to further say i was proud to work with chairman ryan to ensure the house was able to include language within this act to ensure that no future free trade agreement can include language for back door, cap and trade agreements. we included language that would prevent this. it would negatively impact states like indiana which is the second largest user of coal in the united states. i look forward to voting in support of this vital legislation, and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from ohio reserves his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: mr. speaker i think there's been agreement between the two parties tha

could congress do that? mr.verilli: i think that in a situation like that, the court ought to defer to the executive branch's judgment that the place of birth listing can have significant diplomatic consequences. we have had policies in place for decades in this country that align place of birth designations with our official recognition policy. the reason we do that is because foreign sovereigns look to these communications as indicative of where we stand on what -- justice scalia: if it is within congress's power, what difference does it make whether it antagonizes foreign countries? mr. verilli: well, there are certain things that are within congress's power that would antagonize foreign countries that wouldn't raise a separation of powers problem, of course like a trade embargo or a travel ban. but -- justice scalia: and this may be one of them, so -- mr. verilli: this is not one of them. justice scalia: the mere fact that it upsets foreign relations doesn't prove a thing. mr. verilli: no. the critical point

you, the congress, were my last resort. now i'm labeled a whistle-blower, a term that's both radioactive and derogatory. i'm before you because i did my duty, and you need to ensure all in uniform can go on doing their duty without fear of reprisal. let me be clear, i never blamed my situation on the white house. my loyalty is to my commander in chief, as i support and defend the constitution. whatever i say today is not as a republican or a democrat, but as a soldier without allegiance to any political parties. in early 2013, my office was asked to help get sergeant bergdahl home. we audited when we were asked to get sergeant bergdahl home and we determined the reason the effort failed for four years is because our nation lacked in organization that can synchronize our efforts of all the government agencies to get the hostages home, and there was hostages in pakistan so we added them to our mission. the department of defense faces problems in the '80s as they operated independently of one another, leading to the goldwater-

balanced with a democratic congress for sure. he had three things going for him that we don't today. first, he had peace. the soviet union was gone and we did get a peace dividend and that lasted throughout the '90s. second thing is you had baby boomers working not retiring and actually in peak earning years. finally an internet boom that nobody in washington, d.c. can take any credit for that poured revenue into the treasury in terms of capital gains. we don't have any of those three today. we are in a state of war and likely to stay in a state of war, and we can debate that, we will be militarily spending more than we were in the '90s as percentage of budget and gdp baby boomers are going to be retiring and we know they're going to be living longer than any previous generation, so they're going to be drawing social security, using medicare longer. finally, economic booms are not predictable but we certainly don't see a growth rate anything like what we have seen in the past. we have some really unique challenges that transcend

that congress did something good for our was not a part of congress at the time.with this area of a lot of humility. fatwood be catastrophic for millions of families who owe their health insurance to the statutory structure that congress approves. not a perfect structure but in my view that is a human tragedy. i am hopeful that the reasoning that it would not succeed but the key for being here and all members of the panel. >> eight you very much a would note on the discussion that studies have shown the roughly 900,000 people have received it that nearly as many have had their insurance canceled as those of have signed up in the data is compelling forcing people to medicate and up producing worse health care outcome. >> and more people are not going to the emergency rooms because they cannot get care. it is too long of a weight. also to bring out there were 30 million people that didn't have health care when with this issue and this bill. guess how many today? read 20 and 35 million. maybe you can make an explanation about that but i will just put the letter in th

he's a former very high-pro vile, very conservative member of congress after he got out of congress that gave him his own show on the fox news channel. they thought at fox he was such a good politician and so conservative and he should be a tv anchor, across the country he's the sitting governor of the swing state of ohio but today was a bad day for john kasich because of the this. these were the results of the new fox news national poll of the presidential candidates that came out today, and yes, at this point in the race in any reasonable year and under any reasonable strategy, nobody should care about national polling except for the fact this year we have to because of the debates, because fox news is organizing the first republican primary debate and the way they decide who will make it into the debate and who will be allowed is they are only taking people who crack the top ten in the otherwise meaningless and totally non-predictive national polls, that's what they decided to count on. in the new fox news poll today, john kasich governor of ohio doesn't crack the top ten. and so he's

secretary carter: my congress. with respect to training and equipping, this is one of the situations where there is monti of responsibility to pass around, but i would not put it all on the pentagon, but let me tell you what happened. you past the money for 2015 in december, the money came out in january, it went through the process, and then there was in your bill the requirement that we only spend 25% of it until we report the last 75%. we met that requirement. that really, i can't say was the limiting step, the limiting step for us to expand that money and building the training sites. what we did do in the meantime while waiting for the money, was reach into other parts -- pots we had. so we tried to fill the gap. the gap is closed now and in the money is flowing but it was not all on the iraqis died, although they were in impediment. they did not want us to do that. but anyway we are back on our feet now. i will not try to use something that tried -- excuse something that took longer than it should have. >> on

they look what was the intent of congress. and when congress repealed the language or rejected the language in their final analysis, distribution capacity what does that mean? what does that rejection mean? >> to me it means that there was discussion and interest in this issue specifically from at least some members and that that language did not end up in the statute. >> and what does it mean for lawyers that there's language proposed on one side, you go to conference and you eliminate or take out language? it means that's not the intent of congress to use that for waiver. you can't boot strap the domestic supply language to deal with refueling infrastructure. i'm not unsemp thetic to the challenges you have. but let's not pretend that you have a very good legal argument for the waivers that you've done. that's the frustration, i think. the statute was designed to give the marketplace certainty. the statute was designed to basically set standards with very limited waiver requirements. epa took it on themselves to expand that

and you've got to follow congress' rules congress' direction. that's what this does to make sure that the executive branch follows the track laid out by the legislative branch. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members are advised to remove their conversations from the floor. mr. ryan: the bigger point is this. this is about jobs it's about income take-home pay, american leadership. mr. speaker, the world is watching us right now. they're watching this vote. since t.p.a. lapsed in 2007, the rest of the world kept going. while america stood still on trade, the rest of the world created 100 trade agreements. negotiated and passed 100 trade agreements to which the united states was a party to zero of them. what this means is other countries are going around the world getting better agreements between other countries lower tariffs, lower nontariff barriers, so their trade grows. and as a result the barriers against american products goes higher. 95% of the world's consumers, they don't live

congress of such ratification. i continue to have discussions with various members of congress on that particular matter. i very much hope that this ratification will take place in due course. i think that in many instances we have demonstrated our ability to mobilize resources, to provide technical assistance to give support as well as the case, for instance, in the three ebola-stricken countries recently. as well as the case in relation to ukraine recently as well. as well as napal. so i very much hope that by demonstrating day after day, country after country, program after program that we actually produce public good helpful for the economy of the united states, congress members will be convinced that it will be ratification. questioner: i need to know your answer on this. for the last five years i asked the same question, if greece can make it five years i think is too long of a time and i wanted to know what went wrong and who is responsible for this human disaster in greece? ms. lagarde: my hope is that by c

of congress? raymond: oh gosh. brian: who used humor more than anyone you can remember? raymond: some of them were quite funny on the floor. i'm trying to think of the name of the one who was particularly funny when i first got there. mo udahl had an iconic dry wit. he would sneak up on you with a little story and then completely flip it around. some of them are kind of blue so i can't repeat the ones i remember. brian: do you have one from the senate? raymond: i suppose i would put bob dole at the top of my list. we would call on him from time to time to draft remarks for leaders when there were historical events. you could put a joke into dull's speech -- dole's speech and then he would ad lib. a few more. i remember when they were dedicating the bust of agnew. he was the absence vice president in the collection. senator dole was getting ready to run for president and trying to figure out how to say something that would appeal to vice president agnew but wouldn't look too foolish in the media. w

to the congress by the irs. we removed the obvious spam e-mails and additional duplicates that we found during the manual process. if he conclusion of this review, we determined that over 1,000 e-mails that were recovered from backup tapes were not previously provided to congress. using the nalgs of e-mail transaction logs, we estimate that there may still be 23,000 to 24000 e-mails missing. another potential source of e-mail that's i will highlight is the decommission new carolton e-mail server. our agents identified a8 new e-mails not previously produced to congress. the final source i will discuss is the backup tapes for the decommissioned e-mail server. as the ig stated during our investigation, we obtained the 424 backup tapes associated with the decommissioned new carolton e-mail server and it is important to note that server was in operation until approximately may 2011. we determined that 422 of the 424 tapes were degauzed or magnetically erased and, therefore had, no data on them. this was done by irs e

and you've got to follow congress' rules congress' direction. that's what this does to make sure that the executive branch we are going to take your calls and hear your thoughts on the hearing earlier. let us know what you think about what happened earlier today. let's look at a couple of tweets. the outcome of today's taa, the assistance for workers, was disappointing. we remain committed to free trade because it is critical to jobs and our economy. i am pleased that a bipartisan house supported it. this is an opportunity to take stock and move forward on a constructive fashion on behalf of the american people. president obama was on capitol hill earlier today. he was try to get them a kratz to back -- get democrats to back the trade adjustment assistance. but it failed. and trade promotion authority past, but he cannot go forward without the trade adjustment assistance. the third bill passing 240-1 90. we have robert from michigan on the independent wine. -- independent line. caller: my pasty spirits with the other trade bills we have made and

we also report to congress. i'm regularly briefing members of congress. i'm regularly testify brg congress about our work. and making sure they're well informed about what we're doing. we have reporting responsibilities. we have responsibilities to report to our leadership and to do a report to our congressional oversight committees. but we're independent of those. and we have to absolutely both in practice in perception in reality make sure that we've kept that independence. >> does anybody else have any thoughts on this question of how we should think of internal oversight within the sort of constitutional scheme of separation of powers? >> you know one of the metaphors that is used often, and i think johnson used it is this idea about oversight as the police model. police on the beat kind of model versus the fire alarm model. one of the things that congress needs if it's going to do an oversight job is it needs to know who to ask. now one method is internal secret sources that we also heard about this morning. another method is there for there to be of

there is our continental congress. now, the articles of confederation sets the rules for the condo congress. that is an idea that comes into this room with benjamin franklin. at the beginning of the war. an idea he dusted off during the french and indian war. he put together this idea of confederation between the colonies so they can work together to defend themselves against enemy such as france. well, he kind of rewrites this first version of the articles of confederation. the day after they chose the committee to write the declaration of independence, they also chose a committee with a member from each of the states to write the articles of confederation. the main writer would be john dickinson. again, dickinson would be famous for kind of trying to slow us down for independence. at the same time he is making those arguments, he is working on writing the articles of confederation, this formal agreement between the states of how the united states is going to operate, where essentially, the congress would run the war

>> i take my cues from the congress and i enforce what the congress mandates. if the congress instructs us to enter negotiations like that, we would do that but again my concern would be entering into brand-new negotiations with each individual railroad based on what they would like their new deadline to be. >> i'm not thinking so much what they would like. that's what i said as soon as practical, physical. not something meeting their continued support council outlays or whatever. anyway, this is a difficult issue. quick to the fcc. you know have the capacity to do with these poll applications and approvals in a streamlined way to as i understand there are quite a few that's not been applied for and you are pushing your capacity here is that correct? >> that's correct. since our streamlined process was put into place we've had the capacity to review about 40000 per today with one of these applications to review about 8300. we are ready for more work. >> that something to take into account as we are moving forward. this is off the subject but i got to ask quickl

now if congress wanted to require something and clearly congress required this in other places, congress knows how to require consideration of costs, to get from silence to this notion of a requirement seems to be a pretty big jump. >> justice kagan, i don't think it is silent when it tells the agency to look at all of the circumstances and the material circumstances in the context of the question the agency has to answer is should we regulate under this section, costs are part of the relevant materials. >> i'm not even sure i agree with the premise that when congress says nothing about costs, the agency is entitled to disregard cost. i would think it's classic, arbitrary and capricious agency action for an agency to command something that is outrageously expensive. and in which the expense vastly exceeds whatever public benefit can be achieved. i would think that's a violation of the administrative procedure. even without the word "appropriate." >> and i think that's where there's overlap between what the state -- >> sorry. the study of issue that congress commanded was simply a study,

it was never heard of before it was invented while the bill was working its way through congress. i tried to trace the truck -- the timeline where this comes from and it was only devised fully developed constitutional argument that iraq and the supreme court less than one month before the bill was passed. >> who suggested it? >> there were a number of conservative lawyers think probably the most credit belongs to through professor barnett of georgetown law school he is extremely smart and a nose constitutional law very well and part of the job of a lawyer is to figure out how to interpret what they favor. end you can be quite creative to do this and the job is to assess because you have stories on both sides but the government cannot regulate it is no protection of liberty at all but government cannot regulate me it really isn't an option to now participate in the economy or to mandate to buy insurance since it was in the penalty imposed on the tax refund and people old they get that if they engage in economic activity. but it is something nobody noticed at the time but with the t

chairman, we issue this default report to congress every 90 days, one one of the reforms in congress. the defaults in here are actually cash outlaid claims paid by the export-import bank. they currently are running less than 1/5 of 1%. in addition in this report we indicate delinquent payments which is an indicator of what might possibly default in the future because they are late. in terms of a technical default sometime that is something such as a filing of a financial statement could be can running a week or two late or could be -- could be some kind of compliance issue like that. so we are on top of that we monitor that but thea not in the definition that congress has given us. we have -- congress, by the way has updated the definition of our default four times since 2012. >> would a technical default also include maybe a violation of loan covenants? >> it would depend -- technical default could be as i said -- >> it could be substantive could it not in nature? >> it could be substantive but it would not have any material effect on the ability to repay, if it does we have a watch

congress then and congress now feels it is reasonable for ex-president's to have support.e support as well as staff support and they have it. the problem is, of course, if they make lots of money in another way, both the senate and the house feel that maybe they should pay for that themselves. host: here's a headline from a column from townhall.com and several other papers as well. millionaire ex-president's can pay their own way. he writes, considering that every living past president is a multimillionaire, why should taxpayers have to fund an allowance for any of them? keep us up-to-date on what congress passed in the committee last month. guest: it was a bipartisan vote which is rate in this congress because things are pretty hung up and gridlock in the house of representatives. what they said is that they will get the pension, but the on the pension, -- beyond the pension, for every dollar above $400,000 that they make in their own private lives, they will reduce it a dollar. therefore, president bush and president clinton would have to pay for all that themselves. hos

so coming back to the rhythm of congress, it's a natural way in which congress will now step back and wait for the agreement to occur. i wish as a logical corollary or a follow-on of adopting the corker legislation that congress could get together on a similarly bipartisan basis and essentially say to the administration and the people and iran by a letter, by a joint resolution here are conditions that we consider minimal for us to accept and not reject an agreement that you reach. i don't know that that's going to happen, but i think that would be important. >> if i could add just two other quick points, john. the interpretive differences that i referenced and that general hayden spoke about, it is very important that there be a meaningful period for verification. if we just allow the iranians to get a significant amount of sanctions relief until we can assure ourselves that we actually have a quote/unquote agreement, not just -- and that both sides have a consensus on what the words on the document mean, it would be folly to grant relief. you would be granting relief only to discove

hack for congress. is a hack-a-thon where we bring technologists and members of congress and their staffs. what are their main points. is it getting a cosponsor or communicating with the government agencies? it can be anything. we want them to tell us what's wrong , what makes it difficult to do your job? by bringing dozens or hundreds of technologists and policymakers together, we can find more solutions like ca pitol bells. we are getting them talking together. host: how did you get involved in this? ted: i have an engineering background. i never really expected to be involved in politics at all. i went to graduate school to study atmospheric sciences and climate change. i thought, well, if i want to have a career, i need to go to the hill and figure out what is going on on a policy level. how are we going to change your energy economy? and after a few years of being on capitol hill working for a congressman from flint michigan, before we were able to start hacking policy, we have to start hacking con

although, congress tried to push back on that. in 2002 congress and a pro-israel bloc passed a law saying that passports could list israel. that goes against the long-standing policy of the obama administration, the administration of george w. bush. they said that would not fly. they said that this would not an problem. there would be foreign policy and difference in passports for those who are jewish said that that did not make sense and you have to look at the history and context. this is about international boundaries and about presidential power and the justices today decided with presidential power and against congressional power. >> libby could this affect the potential for any peace talks in the region? >> well, i'll tell how it effects. it effects one family who has been fighting this all the way and a 12-year-old who was born in 2002 just as this law came down from congress. so the family, of course, will be upset by this ruling. but it may be would have been more surprising if the court had gone with the congressional wa

>> she doesn't have a vote in congress and it's those votes in congress that are counting right now. and so that's why the focus of our efforts is on members of the united states house of representatives, principally democrats but conversations with republicans as well. >> would it matter at all? would he care? >> she will have to make her own decision about what she wants to say about this publicly. >> let me ask you about wikileaks wanting to crowd source about $100,000 to have people release details of tpp. are you aware of that report? >> our reaction is just simply there is no tpp agreement right now. we're working to finalize one. when we have one it will be made public and the american public will have an opportunity to review the agreement and speak their mind about it for two months prior to the president's signature. after the president signs it there will be a robust public debate about the wisdom of this approach and the wisdom of entering into this agreement. the president continues to be confident if we reach an agreement it will be consistent with the trade promotion l

i hope the congress deadline. i hope the congress can come together and do this. at the same time once we do it, how do we avoid a bad actor from simply ignoring it again. any reasonable amount of time, without a stick. i don't want the fines, but how do i do it any other way? >> i think it was brought up in many occasions today, i think from the onset of the 2008 safety act, the date that was agreed upon, once we got into the significant challenges. >> i understand where we are today, if i said write a law that in some period of time, some reasonable amount of time we will have this done. hattaway then enforce that if i don't have funds or fines? >> i think we have to look at it at that time that the key issue is were not going to meet the deadline. it's not from lack of deadline. it's

>>> when congress is in session, c-span3 brings you more of the best access to congress with live coverage of hearings, news conferences and key public affairs events. and every weekend, it's american history tv traveling to historic sites, discussions with historians and authors and eyewitness accounts of events that define the nation. c-span3, coverage of congress and american history tv. >>> at 3 p.m. eastern today the american enterprise institute will look a survey on american views on k-12 education and some issues being discussed nationally. you can see that live on c-span2. in the meantime on c-span3 we're taking the opportunity while congress is on break to show you some of the american history tv programs that are normally seen only on weekends. at 8:00 p.m. symposium on william f. buckley's view on american conservative. at 9:25 p.m. james baldwin's significance in american political thought. at 10:45 principle ton university president on race in america. on c-span today's announcement by new jersey governor chris christie that he's running for the presidential nomination. you c

that has sparked bills in congress to reform patent law and make life harder for patent trolls, we'll talk to people who say these bills go too far and protecting small business innovators. article 1, section a gives congress the power to have exclusive right to their exclusive writings and discoveries. probably never imagined someone who never invented anyone to use another person's patent to file against a small entrepreneur. disairts ha arei david ariostod. >> last thing i landed in las vegas, after the steak steaks ae scotch we made it in. >> a manager popped out and allowed peter and his friends to cut the line and enter the club pfn. >> it was the royal vip treatment. we walked right in and the next thing you know i'm the hero, right? i'm the hero because i saved about seven people 45 minutes each. >> it was after that experience that the idea for an app to save time was born. he called it jump rope and it justified fluctuating pricing to allow users to pay a fee to jump to the front of the line. whether it's at a night club a museum or anywhere people don't want to wait. and it

not as much as congress anticipated and hope for her. and my point is that in each individual volume rule we do not have, but we know that these greenhouse gases are associated with different targets to drive that growth in a responsible way and we will be seeing reductions in this because every gallon of gasoline that is replaced by this is greenhouse gas emissions. >> i would like to make a point about this. you talk about the proposed 2016 standard for biofuels. >> this is six times higher than the actual 2014 numbers. they came online in 2014 and one more is slated for the end of this year. those refineries were created before the disruption with the rule. and i think when you look at it since then, guess how many proposals have been online. zero. because we have disrupted this to the lack of timely rulemaking. we need to get back and i think no matter what our view of the wisdom and the situation is if it's a lovely expected to be administered in a way that congress intended. they say that we can debate the wisdom of the slaughter b

a lot of this does come down to congress.i know many of you are worried about congress cutting programs that are important to your cities' economic growth, but the battle we should be having with congress is not just about individual programs. it is about the foolish, self-destructive cuts in washington known as the sequester. with the sequester, the whole pie is smaller, so protecting one program means cutting another. that is why you are facing cuts that do not make any sense to things like tiger grants, which you all know are so important to putting people to work rebuilding our infrastructure. that is why it is so hard for us to get the funding we need to get homeless assistance grants which helps our most vulnerable neighbors, gets them off the streets. that is why it has been so difficult to fund the preschool development grant, which help educate our children, which we know if we make better investments will pay off for your cities, for your states and for our country. i have been clear -- i will not sign bills at the

it is implausible that congress meant to do that.ey're just interpreting what congress meant, but that is what the president has been saying. that's what the president said. this is a huge legacy day for barack obama. >> this may well be the best week of his second term in the sense that back from the ashes he had lost that trade vote. then they have a big comeback with the help of republicans, we should take note with the help of republicans he gets his trade legacy piece of the agenda and now this, which the cement is about dry. yes, there's another legal challenge but the cement is about dry on the legal challenges to obamacare. the republican chairman saying it is now clear in the wake of the ruling that the only way to appeal obamacare is through the next presidential contest. as dana noted, republicans would have had to have come up with something so these people didn't lose their subsidies like that. that politically would have been a disaster for republicans. they had a plan to step in. this pressure is relieved on them now,

congress made a decision. so there was no room for the irs, much less white house operatives to change the basic policy decision embodied in the statute. >> well, thank you. now, let me ask professor is it grewal? >> grewal, yes. >> ok. i want to pronounce it right. i hope i'm pronouncing yours right. is it wiener? ok. now, you identify in your written testimony several other irs regulations that grant obamacare subsidies to statutorily ineligible recipients. these include regulations granting subsidies to individuals outside this statutory income range. individuals automatically enrolled in employer health care plans. and even some categories of unlawful aliens. now, what does the fact that the irs ignored limits on its authority to grant subsidies in other instances tell you about its general attitude toward obeying limits on statutory authority? >> regarding the king v. burrwell issue, if that regulation is valid it's impossible to believe that it's because they closely paid attention to the statute and the

here, congress chose active verbs. meyer versus holly recognized, the fair housing act focuses on prohibitive acts. >> "make unavailable" is not the same language as "adversely affect her go that is all i'm willing to concede. i think, if you tht that smith was wrong, which many people do, i suppose you could argue, we will not expand smith. smith hung on particular words "adversely affect." those words don't exist here. therefore, since we think smith was wrong anyway, we are not going to extend it. that is a reasonable argument but that is not the argument you are making. what hangs me up is not so much that as it is the fact that congress seemingly acknowledged the effects test in later legislation. it said that certain efax will not qualify -- effects will not qualify. do you know what i am referring to? >> yes, justice scalia. >> why doesn't that kill your case? when we look at a provisional law, we look at the entire provision of law, including later amendments. we try to make sense of the law as a whole. you see