of the president to come to congress and get congress to vote on the hostilities. except there is a loophole. and the loophole allows members of congress and presidents to avoid voting on our truth being involved in combat if it's controversial. for example, libya. members of congress went to obama and said please go into libya, get rid of that gadhafi cabot don't make his foot on it. when she. then there's a congress had the nerve to criticize obama for not obeying the war powers resolution. terrible. so we end up in wars when we really haven't looked into and abated as a country what makes sense. and sleight-of-hand is congress can't pretend to want to be responsible because they had the war powers resolution, and they blame the president for disobeying it. think about the consequences. this means no matter how the war comes out, if it's popular the members of congress can march in the victory parade. if it's unpopular they put the entire blame on the president. now, presidents have been in on the tricks, to come with a war trick the president unilaterally gets t

now 1862 has congress on his side congress was somewhat reluctant but now congress is even bolder thanthe president space much more aggressive action and emancipation and there is a statute that has been proposed that could effectively ordered a commander in chief to free the slaves from the occupied portions of the south that the enslaved people or property and they shed do a wartime measure so no congress is pressing so the debate is very strong in just to give you a flavor of that one of his friends who is the senator from ohio take steps to say this is an outrage that is the role for the commander in chief and this is matched by opposition by others that say think about it if you have a president making a calamitous decision to retreat from a battle that is catastrophic and then watch the country fall because of the debate? pcs he does not have the votes in congress so he needs to work and he says go talk to lincoln so he tells him either the abolitionist will run the war from congress or you run it as commander-in-chief otherwise your allowing congress to run the war. so he gives

tensions in congress are already amped up. you get these quakers and senile ben franklin throwing these potentially unconstitutional proposals, and things really start to ignite. bear that in mind. i am reminded, unless i am wrong in this, there are good in bad -- good and bad sides to the it -- anti-slavery debate being dragged out. some people say this is a titanic waste of time. then we have simmons of pennsylvania saying let's drag it out more because we have some colleagues who are not here yet to weigh in on a proposal on hamilton's system. you are a lot of things going on that make history exciting. thank you for sharing some of that. [applause] >> interested in american history tv? visit our website, c-span.org/history. you can view our tv schedule, preview of coming programs, watch college lectures, museum tours, archival films, and more. american history tv at c-span.org/history. american history tv was at the annual meeting of historians in new orleans, and we spoke to the historian about what life was like for news

believing that congress should assertively, my the legislation would wire the submission to congress for conference of strategy to defeat isis. i believe congress should act neither express an eagerness to work with them in a bipartisan visibles well as making the compromise is in focus. i believe this issue is are two important to be mired in politics. as i wrote in an off-and earlier this year, and a umf against isis would synthesize greater congressional scrutiny and oversight of the executive branch's strategy to defeat isis , establish greater accountability by congress to the american people, and preventing further dangerous erosion in the congressional war powers, that undercuts the ability of the american people to influence our nations decisions related to war and peace. timeis why i believe it is -- past time, for congress to vote -- hassan a umf focused on isis. thanks again for having me today. i look at your question. [applause] >> thank you for those excellent remarks. the check is in the mail for the plug on our paper. i'm kidding, obviously, but we appreciate that you

tensions in congress are already amped up. you get these quakers and senile ben franklin throwing these potentially unconstitutional proposals, and things really start to ignite. bear that in mind. i am reminded, unless i am wrong in this, there are good in bad -- good and bad sides to the it i slavery debate -- anti-slavery debate being dragged out. some people say this is a titanic waste of time. then we have simmons of pennsylvania saying let's drag it out more because we have some colleagues who are not here yet to weigh in on a proposal on hamilton's system. you are a lot of things going on that make history exciting. thank you for sharing some of that. [applause] >> you're watching american history tv, all weekend, every weekend, c-span3. like us on facebook at c-span history. >> never let anyone define you. that is the first lesson i want to leave you with. only you define who you are, only you. open. hearts should be not just of falling in love, but to the world. we need to look, we need to care , and we need to contri

never collect congress. the problem with congress is it's frozen. it has frozen for hundred years. over a hundred years. there are three or four times as much many people in the congressional district as it was hundred years ago. three or four times your representation has shrunk in this past 100 years. when somebody opens their eyes and sees where the real problem is in the actual make up of congress physical make up, that should be at least 12 12 -- 1200 members of congress maintain the size it was in 1913. guest: yes members of congress represent a large number of constituents. i think we have seen that there are members of congress who want to work together and tackle political reform issues. there was a bill introduced last month for instance to reform the federal election commission. we saw six house democrats working with six house republicans to be able to introduce this bill. it's a small step forward being able to find that level of bipartisanship. that's one of the issues that issue one is active

he's now got congress on his side and first he was very boring congress was somewhat reluctant to get on board and now the tide has turned. congress is now bolder than the president. there is a statute that has been proposed in the second confiscation act that would affect the border for the commander-in-chief to freak enslaved people in the occupied portions of the south. into this style as a war measure. at the time and therefore the president as the commander in chief should be able to work the wartime measure to seize the enemy property. and then to create. so congress is pressing the commander-in-chief as to the battlefield tactic. and the debate is very strong. to give you a flavor of it, one of his friends is taken to the senate floor saying this is an outrage for the active operations in the field to be determined by the congress. there's other senators that say just wait a second, senator. suppose we have a president who was making a calamitous decision either taking this into a battle where it would be ruinous or the retreating from a battle where it would be catastrophic to

and with his book judge opens with the continental congress because of thein british invasion congress ordered him not to do so and he obeyed and that takes us through all the wars that followed. 1812, a mexican war, a civil war, spanish-american, world war i, a world were to occur viet vietnam iraq. he criticized george to view bush for being too aggressive and president obama said not to be aggressive enough. but by a recounting of our presence to show these executives get their way without defining congress. i am particularly interested in the section of the book that follows the iraq war and i know there will be a lot of questions on how this applies on the age of the drone with the ada we may not have a large wars in the future like a second world war if they go to get authorization to make that obsolete so his and vice. judge barron is a circuit judge court of appeals for the fourth circuit that includes maine, massachusetts, rhode island and puerto rico and is from harvard law school previously serving the obama administration as acting attorney general in the office of legal co

one of the most awesome powers that the congress has under the constitution, one that congress has authorized washington, d.c. five times in our nation's history and declared wars five times in our nation's history and authorized the use of military force over 40 times in our nation's history. the question today that we're delving into is the very fascinating and interesting topic of senator young's proposal for a specific authorization for the use of military force. i would commend to your reading a paper which we just released and my co-author is here on analyzing all of the cases out of guantanamo, the habeas cases, to see whether if president trump brought isis members to guantanamo whether the old 2001 aumf would actually apply and if not what the litigation risk would be. so i hope that you read that paper. we won't talk much about that. the point is to hear from the excellent prepared remarks, he's been kind enough to agree to answer a few questions afterwards in which -- and then we will thank the senator who will go back to his duties in the senate and then introduce more panelists a

>> observationally, the thing that prevented congress, everyone in congress essentially supporters.e are no pro-isis or even might stay home and let them solve their own problems because they can't hear and attack paris and everyone can see that. so why did congress pass an authorization in 2015 when the obama administration set it up? the reason was there is a split between what the administration wanted and what republicans who controlled both branches wanted. the administration wanted a sunset. the administration wanted a limit on the use of common ground forces entering offense operations and for emulation that was intended to allow some rescue her without her or commando raids, but not occupation. the other view was no come out for going to go to war. you don't tie your hands in the hopes that you do everything. because of the experience of the 2001 aumf and the forever war that has grown out of it, on the left there was less appetite. let's not do that again. and because there was because there is no one saying we have to stop if we don't get something because the administrati

but here i am, i am congress, suppose you were an advisor to the congress and the congressman said i don't like this idea of going to the limits of article three. i think we should limit it. you say no worries just use the same language. and he said use the same language? that language has been understood to go to article of three. and you said don't worry, it is dicta. and he said i feel relieved we can use this language. wouldn't you be fired? >> i think i would be fired if i did what you said which is not follow what the courts require and that is not borrowing from some implicit doctrine. this court said in jama the congressional document is only a guide to what congress implicit thought. this court said you need expressed litigation by congress in order to navigate the zone of interest test. that is what what happened here. >> things develop because the zone of interest test, at least as it was announced, was understood to expand standing over what it had been before. the result of this was that heavy standing is facilitating the ability to bring wealthy. >> well, certain, but b

the idea of an independent commission is to take it outside congress. congress would establish the commission, but remove real influence from partisan leanings. you would appoint distinguished members of society to such a commission. it might be a mechanism where republicans and democrats would appoint an equal number, people above partisan influence, not thought to have been involved in any way.politics in those distinguished members would be given a budget, a staff, subpoena power, and they can conduct an investigation. that kind of commission. there is a precedent for it. not there is involvement of the trump campaign or the trump administration, the russians did influence the selection. they did it in ways that are unprecedented. because of the electronic means available to them now, the sophistication of their methods, we saw threats to our electoral system, particularly the presidential election, that we will have to understand and take steps to counter. the justice department is inclined to go forward, in light of the events with mr. comey. the d

every single member of congress has been enrolled in the affordable care act. which one of you dropped out of it. if it was good enough for you, great, one person, two, big deal. it was good enough for you, but it's not good enough for your constituents. and you know what? who's standing with you? not the doctors in our country or the aarp, not nurses. not anyone. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time is expired. and members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: it is now my privilege to recognize the gentleman from kentucky vice chairman of the health subcommittee on energy and commerce, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise today to urge my colleague to support the american health care act. a constituent of mine personally reached out to share her story. under obamacare the monthly premium rose to over $1,000 with a deductible of $12,000. when she fell and broke three ribs, she couldn't afford to go to the emergency room. she

i think sometimesmembers of congress , they over complicate things. >> it's incumbent in congress to get rid of obamacare and you go in there and say we're not going to do that now. >> let's leave leave out the here and now, this political situation is the craziest ever. i don't know how to make sense of it and i've been a political animal since i was 15 years old. when you talk about voting someone in to get rid of obamacare, let's to take a look at the present situation. let me see something outside that if you're a democrat, republican, i care. i want to get a raw assessment and let me say it out loud, right now donald trump , the president, the republican president is not only attacking the most conservative members of congress, he's targeting them. he's saying i'm going to knock you out of the primary. the way it used to be and when i say i used to be isaiah 5 minutes ago before all the insanity we've been through in the last couple years, is that if you're a republican, you fear an attack on the primary from the right. so if you're in a republican district, you fear that somebo

foster, in this congress and now governor carney in the last congress. and mr. foster, i had the pleasure to speak with governor carney this weekend and tell him of our great collaboration in this congress, and he sends his warmest regards for the process. this bill, mr. speaker, is a commonsense, bipartisan, bicameral effort to increase access to research and information on exchange traded funds, or e.t.f.'s. an important and rapidly growing investment vehicle in the united states and around the world. before coming to congress, i worked in the banking and the investment industry for nearly three decades, and i witnessed firsthand the explosive growth in the e.t.f. industry. since i started my latest firm in the late 1990's, i've seen the exchange traded fund selection grow from about 100 funds with about $100 billion in total assets to today's 2,000 funds and almost $2.4 trillion in investment assets. however, despite this rapid growth and popularity in the e.t.f. market and their increasing importance to retail investors, most broker-dealers do not publish re

it is the idea that congress can pass a bill like the food and drug act, but congress also has fda,ower to make sure the part of the executive branch, is carrying out its power. tsa, when there were enormous congress'ssa, one of jobs is to look at these long delays and find out what is the problem. in many cases, congress can use budgetary authority to reward an agency to try to change how they are operating or punish an agency by cutting back on funds. guest: congress has three primary duties. they make laws. they provide oversight. this is checks and balances. the third, this is what they do quite a lot, which is constituent service. going home every weekend to help the voters solve problems helps their reelection. remember, don't forget about the obvious. congress rights laws. bureaucracyt enforces those laws. the spring court interprets those laws. who votes and two doesn't? there are different kinds of elections. the question is who votes in nominating collections, primaries. turnout is significantly lower. we know a much smaller percentage of voters decide who our candidates are.

i think that the problem here is that congress has said --. >> i know you said congress said that. but the question of course for us is whether congress said that. and we have some words. so i want to know if those words, in your mind, are capable of any interpretation that suggests any kind of tendency of the unlawful act to move an immigration judge, if not this one, some other one, towards a plus decision. >> i don't think so because congress has said, for example, that even -- and this was the court's decision. an immaterial false statement about the most immaterial of matters can be a categorical bar of the ability of the person to be naturalized. the point there is that it would be very odd, i think, to read the statute to say that if a person procures naturalization despite having done that, that somehow that was not done contrary to law because materiality or some other formulation would be required in addition, in order to establish that. >> mr. parker let me try this another way. if you take this phrase, which is a kind of stilted phrase, because the contrary to law comes

>> i think term limits for every member of congress unless i'm serving in congress. i do, i think that you see legislatures around the united states that implement term limits and have short sessions that they get in, to use the clichc again they crank out the sausage and they got balanced budgets, they got solid policy like we do in florida, there's always questions what you should you do and not do but i believe in term limits. i think that would be a good thing. let me take it a step further though, i think that i don't know what the actors are but maybe there's a way to completely rethink the entire system but here's what i mean by that. just maybe, long one term would be like 816 year term for i don't know what the number is but maybe even you do an eight year term for a member of the united states senate and i don't know what it is, a five-year term for the house. maybe, just maybe that takes a little bit of the burden of friend fundraising and constantly campaigning in the house, it's two years and the second you are sworn in, the second you are running in you

congress could have come up with that regime but did not because i think congress recognized that not all lies are equal, they come in different shapes and sizes. that is why congress wanted to make a particular lie significant, it did so by saying it has to be a lie for the purpose of obtaining the immigration benefit. if they prove that lie then they win. the problem in this case my client could have been convicted without that finding. we just don't know that. and so again, i think part of the problem is the government's perception of 1425 is wrong, they look at it as nothing more than a sentencing enhancement of the conviction. but if it's own very distinct and penalty, under section 1425 a, you can go to prison for 25 years -- you know, and the essence of that -- that distinct 1425-a crime is the unlawful procurement. you're taking the unlawful predicate act and using it to procure citizenship. so if the government wants to strip you of citizenship on the ground you are not qualified on the citizenship, it was procured contrary to law it's very important to show that you would ha

and the point i made if congress ex post facto two d. naturalized view, we're giving you the power, should we be reading it narrowly or broadly? >> well, i think it necessarily shouldn't be read rabelais, but any statute that include this. let me explain what we think about eligibility. frankly it may be the way to get to the same point. >> we've been concentrating on their statute. is there any other statute in the u.s. criminal code, false statements. >> yes, section 10 for teen criminalizes statements made to the bank and it can be completely immaterial. >> i think justice sotomayor has a question. >> let me just explain for a moment how eligibility would work in this context. let's say that somebody makes a false statement in their naturalization process and the false damon is discovered. one of two things to happen. either the false statement is of the sort that is mentioned in section 1101 and therefore is a categorical naturalization. >> is that the full statement for the purpose of obtaining immigration limits? >> that would be o

congress, of course, still has the power to legislate this issue. we have the power to override the attorney general's decision. so i hope this misguided change in the department of justice's policy revives a bipartisan desire to pursue sentencing reform. when we look for areas where there can be -- significant areas where there can be bipartisan cooperation, this is one of them, and i hope leader mcconnell will choose to pursue it. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive

that's exactly what congress didn't to doesn't 15. district courte found the page you're 61 -- where people have come and visited from his 2000 -- this is a waiver program doesn't work like where you're born. it worked somewhat passport hold -- it's based on what you have recently been. swiss citizen and have gone to sedan your covered by the 2015 banned because that's precisely for the reason you are saying judge hawkins, which is, in 2015 congress determined security threats in sudan. but what this does is says, if you are a syrian born in switzerland, spend your whole life in switzerland, then you want to come to the night states, no. you can't commit to us by your nationality. that's not something presidents have ever done in our lifetime. >> that's quite as specific as judge hawkins is suggestion, but the order refers to conditions in the country that are listed. why is that not sufficient for this -- >> that evidence was before the congress in december 2015. they said the solution is -- the visa -- is to require visas, nothing m

i am congress. suppose you were an adviser to a congressman and the congressman said, i don't really like this idea of going to the limits of article 3. i think we should limit it. you say, no worries, just use the same language. he says, use the same language? that language has been consistently understood to go to the limits of art article 3. he says, don't worry, it is dicta. i feel relieved we can use this language. wouldn't you be fired? >> your honor, i think i would be fired if i did what you said, not follow an express negation of the zone of interest test, not borrowing from some explicit doctrine. at the high watermark, the court has said in jemaah, the congressional ratification is only a guide to what congress explicitly thought. starting in 1983 in the block case and going before that in the acg case, this court has said you need an express negation to ab bring gait the test. >> a strange development, because the zone of interest test, as it was in data processing was understood to expa

what the [bleep], congress.eople are supposed to be late, not you, right? and i took the time and i watched the whole airline hearing. and i actually learned something. it turns out as hard as it is, as hard as it is to be black in america, apparently it's just as hard to be a congressman on a plane. >> the problem with the flying experience is across-the-board. >> like delayed for two days, delayed for an hour, delayed for an hour. at the end of the day cancelled. >> your aircraft pulled up to the gate. you may be ten minutes early or whatever, you have to sit there and wait on the tarmac. >> plane is late, in the late, never explained why. >> baggage fees. >> some charge fees for baggage, some for oxygen, who knows. >> we have had to deal with the tsa. >> you get through the tsa line. >> being the remember flyer i go through the, press lane but now the express lynns are full. >> i can't even sit up straight in the seat, have i to stick my legs out in the aisle because the seats are so krammed together. the com

police force, $393 million to guard congress and capitol hill and congress. eleanor is in harrisburg, pennsylvania. line for democrats. morning. caller: hi. how are you? .ost: doing well go ahead. caller: my main concern is that trump needs to realize that there's a total difference and needs to understand in being the president of the united states and being a c.e.o. has done nothing and doesn't have a clue. he said about the swamp, he swamp.the that's understandable. you know, we owe all of this to republicans for the turmoil, promises and trump's on day one for his 100 days is a.c.a. that he keeps saying it's obamacare which will just destroy people. also he wants to privatize medicare. he wants to build a wall. hey, when you went to mexico, he choked. his legsere, cross the , choked and came back. you know, enough is enough. ought to bers ashamed of themselves because he has lied to them the whole time continue to lie without a doubt. is in potomac, maryland, good morning. stole: chuck schumer just my thunder. thank god for people like chuck schumer and p

the idea of an independent commission is to take it outside congress. congress would establish the commission, but remove real influence from partisan leanings. you would appoint distinguished members of society to such a commission. it might be a mechanism where republicans and democrats would appoint an equal number, people above partisan influence, not thought to have been involved in any way.politics in those distinguished members would be given a budget, a staff, subpoena power, and they can conduct an investigation. that kind of commission. there is a precedent for it. not there is involvement of the trump campaign or the trump administration, the russians did influence the selection. they did it in ways that are unprecedented. because of the electronic means available to them now, the sophistication of their methods, we saw threats to our electoral system, particularly the presidential election, that we will have to understand and take steps to counter. the justice department is inclined to go forward, in light of the events with mr. comey. the d

congress needs a wake-up call.here is no more flip lopping to get the next pro-life vote, were next budgetary vote. we have to get out of debt. we are not going to have a country. we will be like greece if we don't get out of debt. host: the president's tweets prompted responses from many members on the house and senate. on the floor, chuck schumer talked about the president's tweet and what he thinks would happen if a shutdown did happen. here is chuck schumer from yesterday. [video clip] >> we saw democrats and republicans working together in the best editions of the senate. the president disparages it in a way that is destructive, saying "that's have a shutdown." president has been complaining about a lack of bipartisanship in washington. this is exactly how washington should work when it is bipartisan. both parties negotiated and came to an agreement on a piece of legislation we can each support. it is a shame that the president is degrading it because he did not get 100% of what he wanted. a story in "the wash

congress rights laws. the present bureaucracy in forces those the supreme court interprets those what reminds us of the important topic there are different kinds of elections. those are the active list and turnout is significantly lower in and we get to those general elections turnout is not all that i just 50%. that is an important way to give those types of elections. brand xx will get the of their bonus question. are you ready?egislati >> the legislative filibuster is used by to? tion i. house, minority faction in the u.s. senate, majority factions in the u.s. senate, minority factions in the house? caller: minority . >> factions of the u.s. senate. >> great job. we will get your mailing information for a signedha constitution. >> might question is that make teachers dresses knowing in this and doubts of the courts. can you go over those? >> the research uri is that magic golden ticket your appeal will be heard by the supreme court the writ of habeas corpus your original constitution had a civil liberty

congress has a remedy. congress can get the documents. congress can get his testimony but they would have to give him immunity which would make it impossible for him to be prosecuted and that's where there's a potential conflict between the criminal investigation and the investigation by robert mueller. immunity in this stage of the investigation is almost certainly off the table but down the line that may be the only way -- that is the only way that congress could get his testimony. >> well, under what circumstances, and it's extraordinary circumstance, would they grant him immunity, and would the new special counsel robert mule ver to agree to it? >> he wouldn't have to agree. that's the thing. they have the unilateral power to do it in the investigation i worked on. lawrence walsh, my boss, can't want congress to give him immunity. congress gave him immunity anyway. we prosecuted him and the conviction was thrown out. that's a problem no one wants to repeat, but it -- it could have happen. certainly there will be some sort of coordinat

katyal: made before congress in december, 2015.i think the other important point, as i was saying to judge hawkins, if you really believed that you wouldn't do it on the basis of nationality. you would do it on the basis of transit. that's someone coming from one of those countries regardless what their nationality is would be swept up by whatever the possible presidential action would be. that's how congress did it. that's the way to deal with that problem, not this. if i could i just want to return to the colloquy that you all were having with my friend about mandel and bad faith because i believe it's quite important to the resolution of this case. obviously we think mandel doesn't apply because washington vs. trump but if for some reason you wanted to get into it, we think the bad faith exception or as the mandel language calls it, bonafide, is enough to rule in our favor and to affirm the district court's injunction in this case. the reason for that this court in cardenas said if there is bad faith, an affirmative showing of b

congress controls the purse strings. we work very hard at tea party patriots to hold congress accountable, to encourage them when they are doing the right thing, and hold them accountable when they are not. we will be watching exactly what they do not just for the budget but for the appropriations bills and how they wind up deciding to fund the government as we go into the next fiscal year, which will begin october 1. we will watch that very closely throughout the summer months and be engaged in it. i encourage viewers to stay in touch with tea party patriots at our website at tea party patriots.org to do just that. host: what you think of that omnibus spending plan that came together last month? guest: we did not like that spending plan. there were several reasons why we didn't like it. one reason our supporters did not like it is that it did not do anything to address border security, which is one of the promises president trump made on the campaign trail. with that said, we did not engage heavily in that particular sp

each member of congress has to make his or her own decisions. this is not about my encouraging other people to do things other than the american people. this is about my position. this is about what i believe. and this is where i stand. i will not be moved. the president must be impeached. for those who do not know, impeachment does not mean that the president would be found guilty. it simply means that the house of representatives will bring charges against the president. it's similar to an indictment but not quite the same thing. once the president is impeached, then the senate can have a trial to determine the guilty or innocence of the president, whether he's guilty or not guilty to be more specific. but the house of representatives has a duty that it can take up and that is of impeachment. i stand for impeachment of the president. how can you weigh in? well you can contact my good friends over at free speech for people and at this organization they have a petition. the petition would allow you to weigh in and become a part of the nearly 1 m

fourth, congress has passed important rights bills and in my testimony to highlight provisions that congress has enacted that the irs is either not implemented, to find a way through guidance or only done a partial job. fifth, ra 98 showing oversight hearings would give congress better insight into the strategic and operational plans to promote dialogue between congress, irs and interested stakeholders to help ensure the tax rating and appropriation committees coordinate tour the iris operation. thank you. i look for to answering questions. >> we will now proceed to question-and-answer session. we will have to limit the questioning to four minutes instead of five because we have a briefing at 10:00 o'clock. as is custom and i will hold my question to the end. i recognize the gentleman from arizona for any question. >> this is unique for us because we are used to having witness for the irs. where we have a series of stories and is frustrating and when we researchers on we had people say nice things about your organization. a little concern about speed but actually said nice things. you win a

in some respects, the future of this presidency now rests with congress, especially republicans in congress. we are starting to hear more and more calls from some republicans for a special prosecutor. cnn ryan nobles on capitol hill. ryan, what are you hearing? >> i wouldn't describe it as a title wave of movement by republicans on capitol hill. but there is a shift now. you are hearing a different tone and tenor both in the house and the senate about the conduct of the white house. and for the first time we are starting to hear republican members of congress call for a special prosecutor. among them, congressman from illinois. listen to what he said this morning on "new day". >> i think now it's time for an independent commission or special prosecutor. i'm not sure the west venue, but i think it's time that we do whatever is necessary that when this is over we give the american people the confidence that justice, either way, you know, either way it goes has been served. >> he's not the only one. also congressman steve knight, a republican from california put out this statement. it is time

our -- >> why didn't you notify congress? >> my understanding was this was not a department of finish. >> you realize that was not -- did you have your counsel that said you don't have to notify us? who did you check with who said you don't need to notify congress? >> we went through our incident response process who did an assessment finish. >> so why did you refer something to an outside agency before you notified your own i.g. p within your department? >> our i.g. was notified -- >> well, according to my documents you actually notified u.s. cert first. according to your testimony. why would you do that and wait to get the i.g. involved? >> because when we notify u.s. cert, it's to let them know we were investigating something had occurred. at that time, we weren't sure what happened. >> okay, so you notify the i.g.. it was important enough to notify the i.g., but it was not important to notify congress. >> hindsight, sir, yes, it was important enough to notify congress. >> well, at what point are we going to get this right