i was interviewing a member of congress-- congress whose name i won't mention. at the very moment that we broke into the broadcast to announce that the president was bombing libya. you are of the same party of the-- as a president. what do you think? >> the president doesn't have the authority to do this, we all know that. were you going to do about it? probably nothing. that's when president. obama made the announcement and when the congressional break was over and the president returned from his trip, nothing had happened except that the constitution was weaker. he was about-- moammar gadhafi was about to be killed in an evil way. only congress can unleash those forces. madison could not have been clearer. what troubles me the most is the presidential value that comes about when congress looks the other way. i'm not here to present-- criticize president. trump and it's not an argument about politics. it's and argue about principle. he had reason to believe that congress would do nothing because congress did nothing in these other instances in which presidents

congress can fix this tomorrow. i think you were next. >> president trump as have a lot to say about immigration but he offered no compassion to the families being separated at the border. do you know why that is and why policy --all this called the policy until the long-term fix? >> he has been attending to work with congress and see has been in office and has made it clear that we will enforce the wall -- the law of the united states. as part of that, he is reaching out to congress to fix this. in the last few days, he has done that, told congress to please work with us, the system is broken, the only people who benefit from the system right now are the smugglers and traffickers, those peddling drugs and terrorists. less fix the sick -- let take the system. that's let fix the system. >> does he go compassion for the family separated that does he feel compassion for the -- does he feel compassion for the families? >> he wants congress to act to end the loss that require separate -- laws that require separation. tea

after all, if congress is going to pass laws and appropriate funds in order to run the government, congress and the people who represent have a right to know how those laws are being implemented and whether those funds are being welt spent. on the other hand, the executive branch does focus on a number of sensitive issues including ongoing criminal investigations that ought to remain free from executive influence. it's important that officials candid e to be open and in their views even when they're unpopular without an undue fear of public disclosure that might be embarrassing. in the case united states vs. rooted in this. learning en a concern how far congress should go and exploring the interworkings of the judicial branch. here to offer his perspective is one of the senat's champions of robust oversight, senator chuck grassley in iowa. senator grassley has had a long and distinguished career. he received his bachelor's degree and masters degree from the university of iowa. he was first elected to the iowa legislature in 1958 and to the u.s. house of representatives in 1974. since 1981,

congress has levers as well. they have letters, chairman letters, that is different than a staff or a calling. and it is more powerful when you have a matter that is put into the legislation, into the intelligence operation like -- that is a matter of law, that will get done. i am happy to answer questions when we go to the q and a mama but i just wanted to set the stage as far as the difference between the inspectors general and the title v ig. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you dave. my years, as senator levin mentioned, my year and a half as staff director of the 9/11 inquiry brings back comments and memories of dealing with the intelligence community on oversight. as an ig and -- ig dod as well, we ran into this. the oversight of the 9/11 issues , with the intelligence committees, i think the most difficult area to do oversight is a black and the secrecy of the intelligence community. on top of all the usual resistance, you have and the issues you come into, you're dealing with highly sensitive and in some

the 114 congress, 329 bills became law. during the same period, the obama administration finalized more than twice as many rules and regulations and that doesn't count guidance documents or other forms of agency action, some of which have the same impact as regulation. not intended to, that seemed too. or some estimates, regulation plays a great weight on the economy is nearly $2 trillion in compliance costs. unfortunately, we in the congress enabled this. we authorized the government programs and get agencies to money and the staff to run it. it's no wonder there are more than 180,000 pages of administrative regulations. i'm glad that president trump has made cutting the regulatory burden one of his top priorities , but lasting reform is going to require some significant structural changes. think about this. more than 2 million people work for the federal government. that does not even include contractors and active-duty military personnel. according to a 2015 study, the actual size of the goverent workforce is estimated a

congress can request i.g.'s to investigate specific issues and congress can use the work i.g.'s initiate to press for further information and reforms and to hold agency heads accountable. i.g.'s are an important tool for congress and the question today is whether congress is adequately using i.g.'s and whether i.g.'s are developing and maintaining beneficial relationships with congress. the chair of the levin center, former senator carl levin, had 30 years experience with the i.g. act as michigan's longest serving u.s. senator. for each of those 36 years, he was director of the homeland security which has jurisdiction over the i.g. act. he chaired the armed services committee and several subcommittees on homeland security and governmental affairs, including the powerful subcommittee on investigations known as p.s.i. he was deeply and universally respected for his commitment to bipartisan oversight, one of the major areas of interest by the levin center. i'm happy to introduce senator carl levin. [ applause ] >>> bob, thank you so much for the introduction, your great work at wa

congress will pass a new act giving more power to the president. today, john and i are going to make the case that the best way to avoid that danger is to wipe the slate clean. replace thed not 2001 aumf. recognize that the original authorization has run its course and sunset it. and for the president to make the case for any new authorization that he thinks is needed. if he does, he can make that case to congress the way the constitution envisions. our constitution's framers believed that war is serious business, and that going to war should involve a broad national housesus, across both and in multiple branches. james madison held it as an that the executive is a branch of power most distinguished by its propensity of war. the framers granted the book of the constitution's military powers to congress, including control of the decision to go to war in the first place. that did not leave the president totally disarmed. the president retained some defensive authority. but, absent an imminent threat or provocation, the constitution gave the president

congress alone. and they are very expensive claims. and i think we thought the libya was aggressive and expansive as one could be. we with thenenyr. topped last and i do think it's a challenge for the senate to figure out how to use the legislative process to pair that back, to invalidate those opinions, and those relying on them, but ultimately that's probably going to require also using the power of the purse cutting off funds for unauthorized military campaigns. >> chairman paul, thank you so much for this hearing. >> senator lee. >> i want to thank you senator paul for organizing hand thank particular for you willing to come and offer urine sites. which is helpful. we are now this 17th year in deploy testament under the 2001 use of authorize force. it is not yet the case that most junior personnel deployed were not born as of the moment that 2001 aumf was issued by congress. but it will soon be the case. lo bore it's even fathomable that we will have retreated from the battles fields, it will be

congress and the courts created this problem and congress alone can fix it. until then, we will enforce every law we have on the books to defend the sovereignty and security of the united states. those who criticize the enforcement of our laws have offered only one countermeasure. open borders. the quick release of all illegal alien families in the decision not to enforce our laws. this policy would be disastrous. its prime beneficiaries would be the smuggling organizations themselves and the prime victims would be the children who would be plunged into the smuggling machine. there is a lot of misinformation about what dhs is and is not doing as it relates to families of the border. i want to correct the record here. are the facts. this administration did not create a policy of separating families of the border. we have the statutory responsibility that we take seriously to protect alien children from human smuggling, trafficking, and other criminal actions while enforcing our immigration laws. we have a long existing policy, multiple administrations have fol

onprobably hasn't been congress's radar screen, this is a prominent issue which congress has been aware of or a long time and has chosen not to do something about that. to make your bar higher doesn't it? >> this is a constitutional intern tatian. one way to look at congress is just what was announced today, the microsoft decision. sometimes this court will spur congress to act. in this instance it hasn't. we would not expect congress to come in but your point is ,quill, right or wrong was his court's decision. if time has changing tradition rendering it obsolete why should the court say we will let congress fix out -- fix up what turns out to be an obsolete precedent. >> it is. >> isn't it normal that we treat the closest same way we treat statute. i think the issues are legion. congress cannot overturn a constitutional decisions, but in this case is different. of course they do. i don't see a difference there. >> i would say there's a difference because the state constitutional -- this iseason we say because congress cannot act. .hey can act and therefore, there is no reason for treat

congress and the courts created this problem and congress alone can fix it. until then, we will enforce every law we have on the books to defend the sovereignty and security of the united states. those who criticize the enforcement of our laws have offered only one countermeasure. open borders. the quick release of all illegal alien families and the decision not to enforce our laws. this policy would be disastrous. it's primary beneficiaries would be the smuggling organizations themselves and the prime victims would be the children who would be plunged into the smuggling machine. there is a lot of misinformation about what dhs is and is not doing adds it relates to families at the border and i want to correct the record. here are the facts. first, this administration did not create a policy of separating families at the border. we have a statutory responsibility that we take seriously to protect alien children from human smuggling, trafficking, and other criminal actions, while enforcing our immigration laws. we have a long existing policy, administrations ha

congress can act. congress can impose whatever solution it believes is appropriate. and, indeed, if states are giving greater latitude to experiment in this area, to devise different schemes that would balance the interest of out of state retailers against the interest of consumers within the states brick and mortar retailers, the state's own sfw in acquiring funds. if states can experiment, congress will have a wider varieties of models to look at and decide what aspects of each it would like to choose. the second thing i would say about start -- >> that doesn't do anything for the interest here and for the dislocation and lawsuits that will -- it will engender. >> the second thing i'll say about quill is quill will understand that an out of state retailer cannot be made to collect state sales tax unless it has employees or a physical employee within the state. that's the meaning that's been attached to the phrase physical presence requirement that the court used in quill. i think in context it's very clear that quill was not issuing at least an add vert ent holding

should be restored to congress. it's my view that it should. senator corker and i have sought a vote on this. it appears at this point that despite bipartisan support for this amendment, we may not be able to have a vote. but i think we should, and i think we should seriously consider continuing debate on the national defense authorization act bill until such time as we're able to address this important amendment. the other amendment i want to discuss is an amendment that i have filed and which will get a vote. it will get a vote tomorrow. and i'm going to urge my colleagues to support this. let me start by reminding my colleagues something that i hope we all learned a long time ago, and that is the very, very first provision of the united states constitution after the preamble, the very first operative portion of our constitution, article 1, section 1, states, and i will quote, all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states which shall consist of a senate and a house of rep

protection by congress and sometimes we need protection by congress from elements of congress, to allow us to do that important work to support congress and to government and save the taxpayers' dollars. thank you. [applause] i.g. hill: excellent point, as usual. i'm going to throw out a couple knowestions and then i we're low on time so we're still going to have some time for people from the audience, if people have questions. john, at the end, you alluded to the pressure on i.g.'s. the -- one of the sort of themes of this conference is that, you know, role of i.g.'s with oversight, congressional premise thatt the perhaps that is becoming even more important as congress becomes more parties an. partisan. that theme has a couple of assumptions, one, that i.g.'s are even more critical if you're doing partisan as opposed to bipartisan oversight. tot's one thing i'd like know if you think is true. the second one is that things morein fact, becoming partisan in oversight on the hearand i'd love to people's views, the i.g.'s and congressional staff. i came from a time when i can truthfully s

after all, if congress is going to pass laws and appropriate funds in order to run the government, congress and the people whom they represent have a right to know how those laws are being implemented and whether those funds are being well spent. on the other hand, the executive branch does focus on the number of sensitive issues including ongoing criminal and national security investigations that ought to remain free from political influence. it's important that executive branch officials feel free to be completely open and candid interviews, even when some of those views may be politically unpopular without an undue fear of public disclosure that might be embarrassing. as the supreme court stated in united states versus dixon that privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the constitution. there's always been considerable tension between the legislative and executive branches when determining how far congress should be allowed to go and explore the inner workings of the executive branch and perhaps to a slightly lesse

congress is a scary place. especially if you've never worked for congress before. sometimes that is the thing, i have been that staffer where someone is getting screamed at. it is scary. i think sometimes ig's don't build those relationships that they should be building for whatever reason. congress, they are important. congress is paying attention and our work will get more change. thank you, i think we have some closing remarks, right now. >> well, i want to thank our panelists and our speakers for participating today in this educational and thoughtful conversation about the role of inspectors general and the role they can and should play in congressional oversight. we have showcased the good work that ig's do , in terms of the amount of money they save and the integrity that they bring to government programs. we have raised a number of issues that ig's face , issues they face in their work and congress. ig's have to be willing to be unpopular. as several of us have said, they have to speak truth to power. while that is an overworked phrase, it is a perfect fit w

30000 years in congress and made his home here after he left congress he did not stay in washington but moved back home and spent the last 20 years of his life teaching students at texas christian university. in a real sense the portrait represents jim, one the leader in congress and also appropriate placed right here in fort worth which he called home. lone star leaders was a project that my co-author and i undertook after we did a full-length study of the austin, boston connection which was the passing of power and house of representatives between representatives from boston and representatives from texas. it's a coalition that dominated politics in the us house of representatives from until 1989 when jim wright left the speakership. it was an interesting project but in doing that we were going around texas and going through archives of many of the influential people were from texas and had served in congress during the 20th century. once that project was finished up we thought it would be wonderful to do a series of short pieces on many of the industry people who served from texa

we're still waiting on congress to give us the ability toll do that. >> so unless congress acts nothing is actually going to change. the administration is not changing anything right now -- >> you mean, are we walking around making up laws, no, because we're not the oib mah administration. we're actually trying to enforce the laws that are on the books. we're actually asking congress to do their part in the process and passion new legislation that will fix our immigration system. >> nothing is actually changing on the ground? the president is complaining about judges and saying that we shouldn't have all these judges and people who come over should be put out but nothing is actually going to change? he's saying -- he's just complaining about the process as it stands now? >> things that we have the ability to do administratively we are working to do, but, again, congress is the only one that has the ability to write law and we hope that they will do that. >> i'm trying to understand what it is that the president understands about the current policy because as you had explained expedited

we're still waiting on congress to give us the ability to do that. >> so unless congress acts, nothing is actually going to change? the administration is not changing anything right now when it comes to judges? sec. sanders: you mean, are we walking around making up laws? no. because we're not the obama administration. we're actually trying to enforce the laws that are on the books. we're actually asking congress to do their part in the process and pass new legislation that will fix our immigration system. >> so, but nothing is actually changing on the ground? so this is -- the president is complaining about judges and saying that we shouldn't have all these judges, and people who come over should just be put out, but nothing is actually going to change? he is just saying -- he's just complaining about the process as it stands now? sec. sanders: things that we have the ability to do administratively we are working to do. but again, congress is the only one that has the ability to write law, and we hope they'll do that this week. steve. >> honing in on that point, i'm trying to understa

there is no reason to think that thatat congress intended, congress would have intended the department of homeland security to stop their time by handing out a form that did not identify why the person was removable. can i ask about your assertion that this is definitional in nature? is that necessary to your argument. here is an alternative view to your language. this language is a notice of shorthand. something,call this this thing that tells you to appear and this is what we are going to call it. it does not suggest that isrything we say about this -- defines what a notice to appeal is. respond to that and then tell me whether it's crucial that i agree with your response to that. david j. zimmer: so i guess i don't -- i think maybe the word "definitional" -- i mean, what the -- this document is called a notice to appear, which in and of itself implies some indication that it will tell someone when, where, and why to appear. elena kagan: yes. i mean, it's obvious that the document is called a notice to appear. but the question is whether, if the document is flawed in some way, that i

-- his time in congress. many look at this event is the beginning of the partisanship in congress that still has an effect on washington today. it was a very significant event in congressional history. what we have here in the are some photographs and documents related to john f. kennedy's trip to dallas-fort 1963.in when he began that trip, he came to ft. worth november 21, 1963. we have photographs of president kennedy and mrs. kennedy exiting air force one and their arrival in fort worth. texaspent the night in a hotel in downtown fort worth. the next morning, john f. kennedy take a speech in front of the hotel and jim wright was part of the delegation that was with president kennedy at that speech. went to the fort worth convention center for the chamber of commerce breakfast that day that kennedy spoke at. there are other photographs of president kennedy and jim wright together on november 22, 1963. the two men had a relationship and knew each other prior to this, when john f. kennedy was running for con

what is percolating within congress. it is like an intel committee where you figure out, here's the information that we are hearing from staffers on the hill as to what legislative item becoming next month or next week. reporter: you hear from members of congress, democrats and republicans, the house and senate. how do you deal with their demands, questions, their concerns? marc: i think if we are true public servants, we make sure we are being as responsive as possible. whether they are republican or democrat. in many cases, there are needs that democrats present to us and we make sure we are fulfilling those. when we came into this office, i met with the people who preceded me in the obama administration, and i think they felt there was more they could utilize in the white house in chairing it. i think we've tried to take that to heart. we have had many different opportunities to bring democrats over here for meetings, ceremonial functions, and many democrats say we have been to the white house more times than in the w

and it's one that our constitution entrusts to congress. but for nearly 17 years now, that choice has been left to the executive branch, with the result that the united states has been almost constantly at war. in president obama's last year alone, u.s. forces dropped over 26,000 bombs on seven different countries and obama left office first two-term president in american history to have been at war every single day of his presidency. that's in large part, thanks, to a joint resolution that congress passed three days after 9/11. 2001 authorization for the use of military force, or aumf. three presidents in a row have warped that initially limited authorization into an enabling act for globe spanning presidential war. it's been made broad enough to cover everything from air strikes to boots on the ground in ton go, ton go. and the trump administration's position, like the obama administrations before it, is that congress has already had its debate on war powers 17 years ago, and it's one congress, one vote, one time. last sunday, memorial da

senate seats are up for reelection as well so congress may feel some pressure to do something because some of the seats may be affected by how they stand on this issue although i'm doubtful that anybody would lose their seat over this issue although it's right now dominating the news lindsey graham only reason have to lose this seat have. you explain that to us joe there's often a lot of skepticism and pessimism about whether a congressman wants to quote unquote take a risk to try and fix this why well because members of congress want to keep their seats and so often times they want to test how their constituents feel about a matter of asli this is a matter that is bothered a lot of people republicans and democrats because it seems to be so he inhumane and it's caused the first lady malani a trump to speak out about it's cost cost former first lady laura bush to speak out to write an op ed piece strongly condemning the policy and obviously there are democrats republicans that think that this is terrible policy the president on the other hand this said that it's up to democrats to fix

congress.verage the white house, the supreme events nd public policy in washington, d.c. and around the country. by yours brought to you cable or satellite provider. >> next, debate from the house floor on a resolution requiring turn stice department to over documents related to the russian investigation. just over an hour and a half. you, mr. speaker, for the purposes of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from mr. mcgovernor earn, pepding which i'll yield myself as much time as i may consume. consideration of this -- it's yielded for the purpose of only.e mr. speaker, i ask -- extraneous resolution house 5971 under current consideration. so ordered. provides for consideration of house insists n 970, which the department of justice comply with the intelligence committees. one-hour debate divided between the chairman and committee.diciary yesterday the rules committee had an opportunity to hear from fellow man jordan and a judiciary committee member as well as ranking

congress is a scary place, i think, especially if you have never worked for congress before so i think sometimes that's the thing because again i have been that staffer behind the member where somebody is getting screamed at, you know, so it's scary, so i think sometimes igs don't build those relationships maybe that they should be building for whatever reason, but you know, congress -- they are an important -- if congress is paying attention to igs, our work will get a lot more -- a lot more change will happen as a result of inspectors general work if congress is paying attention. so thank you. i think that we have some closing remarks. >> well, i want to thank -- i'm one of the washington co directors of the levin center. i want to thank our panelist and speakers for participating today in this educational and thoughtful conversation about the role of inspectors general. and the role they can and should play in congressional oversight. we've showcased the good work that igs do. in terms of the amount of money that they save and the integrity that they bring to government programs. an

>> when we came into office, members of congress would say to the president mr. president, i understand how powerful that was on the campaign but please put it away now that you're here in the white house. today i can't tell you how many members of congress seeking to get the president to say this for me. so where there was sort of this at aversion to it a year or so ago we now see the leaders of congress saying can you make suhe amecan people understand this on o behalf and there is a frustration sometimes what goes through the media is filtered into the president has the ability to bypass that with his media. >> let's take the tax bill in the concerns the bill would blow a hole in the deficit and not cut taxes enough. walk us through what you did and how you worked through those political minefields. >> one of the misconceptions i that it's done in the beltway. if we are communicating to the american people saying here is why it iseneficl to you and if america are then calling members of congress they are reacting from what he heard from constituents. the strat

congress and the courts created this problem and congress alone can fix it. until then, we will enforce every law we have on the books to defend the sovereignty and security of the united states. those who criticize the enforcement of our lauers have offered only one counter measure. open boarders. the quick release of all illegal alien families and the decision not to enforce our laws. this policy would be disastrous. it is prime beneficiary would be the smuggling organizations themselves and the prime victims would be the children who would be plunged into the smuggling machines on the trip north. there is a lot of misinformation about what dhs is and is not doing as it relates to families at the border. and i want to correct the record here. here are the facts. first, this administration does d not create a policy of separating families at the border. we have a statutory responsibility that we take seriously to protect alien children from human smuggling and trafficking and other criminal actions while enforcing our immigration laws. we have a long existin

second is congress have that scheme and third are there any other indication that congress enter the issue in a different direction? with respect to all of those that were here to satisfy all three of those factors congress has a reticulated theme with that problem he has identified which countries are not cooperating it cannot coexist with the solution of a flat pan and makes sense the in person visa requirement which is for people who come from state sponsors of terrorism will have a group with a likelihood to provide information congresses you have to have the in person and will -- interviewer doesn't make sense to have a flat band for the visa waiver program which is all about countries that provide zero information to the united states as state sponsors of terrorism to say we will give you a tariff and then say forget about the visa waiver program. >> can you imagine any situation where the threat of the infiltration of the united states by terrorists was so severe with respect to a particular country that the other measures you have mentioned could have been deemed by a preside

congress is a scary place, especially if you have never worked for congress before. sometimes, again, i have been that staff are behind the member where somebody's getting screamed at. it is scary. sometimes i.g.'s don't build those relationships may be that they should be building, for whatever reason. but congress, if congress is paying attention, our work will, a lot more change will happen as a result of an inspector general's work. thank you. i think we have some closing remarks. >> well, i want to thank, i'm one of the washington codirectors of the levin center. i want to thank our panelists and speakers for participating today in this educational and thoughtful conversation about the role of inspectors general, and the role they can and should play in congressional oversight. we have showcased the good work i.g.'s do, in terms of the andnt of money they save the integrity that they bring to government programs. we raised a number of issues worki.g.'s face in their and for congress. i.g.'s have to be willing to be unpopular. they have to speak truth to power. a

congress and the courts created this problem and congress alone can fix it. until then, we will enforce every law we have on the books to defend the sovereignty and security of the united states. those who criticize the enforcement of our laws have offered only one countermeasure. open borders. the quick release of all illegal alien families and the decision not to enforce our laws. this policy would be disastrous. its prime beneficiaries would be the smuggling organizations themselves and the prime victims would be the children who would be plunged into the smuggling machines and gain recruitment on the trip north. there's a lot of misinformation about what dhs is and is not doing as it relates to families at the border and i want to correct the record here are the facts. first this administration did not create a policy of separating families at the border. we have a statutory responsibility that we take seriously to protect alien children from human smuggling, trafficking, and other criminal actions while enforcing our immigration laws. we have a long-exis

senate seats referee election as well so congress may feel some pressure to do something because some of the seats may be affected by how they stand on this issue although i'm doubtful that anybody would lose their seat over this issue although it's right now dominating the news lindsey graham only reason have to lose this seat have. you explain that to us joe there's often a lot of skepticism and pessimism about whether a congressman wants to quote unquote take a risk to try and fix this why well because members of congress want to keep their seats and so often times they want to test how their constituents feel about a matter of asli this is a matter that is bothered a lot of people republicans and democrats because it seems to be so he inhumane and it's caused the first lady malani attempt to speak out about its cost because former first lady laura bush to speak out to write an op ed piece strongly condemning the policy and obviously there are democrats republicans that think that this is terrible policy the president on the other hand this said that it's up to democrats to fix it

i think most people in congress, as well. there are proposals that are similarly controversial. >> tom donohue called poison -- called those proposals poison pills, how confident are you that the administration is listening on that front? >> it is clear that many parties across the country are speaking out on this. in meetings over the past six months, we have heard officials come to the realization that there is not a member of the senate that wants to withdraw from nafta. there is a lot of rejection, including from the president's closest allies in congress, that they don't like it. there is a political lens to this. arguably trade with canada and mexico is most important for states that the administration cares a lot about from an perspective, the state that would be hurt the most is michigan, it is the most dependent on exports and trade with canada and mexico. then you run through other midwestern states, heartland states like iowa and missouri, states that are really on the political radar this election year. as well as

i had been some resistance from congress and from -- there had been some resistance from congress and the local populations, it's a big deal to lose a coast guard boat station. we recommended they put together a plan with time frames they could meet and what they would need to do to be able to close those boat stations. report on aou do a topic like that, you go back and explore how the duplication was allowed to happen in the first place and why would multiple boat stations be built to controhypothetical t thingsthat is one of the we do, we try to identify the cause for any problems we're finding. we try to make a recommendation is going to get at the root cause. in many cases, what has happened is your programs or services that have developed over time for slightly different purposes or for different audiences or and a different program they are trying to work together and we find ways they can do that a little more effectively and more efficie. e coast guard, their processes have changed and technology has changed and they probably have greater range now. these things have sort of

that is an issue that will be galvanizing for the for the united states congress. >> do you think congress can have influence with the administration without the threat of legislation? there is uncertainty about what the administration will do. we don't know how well people outside are influencing that. >> i think congress has played a very helpful role. many members of congress, over the past six months on nafta, one in and had a series of meetings with the president and others in the white house to convey the importance of nafta to their states. that has been very impactful. we have seen the withdrawal threats as a growing concern fade to a degree. that has been meaningful. but it is an unanswered question what happens next. it is one that members of congress will be speaking about. i understand that this auto riff tmeut before the vice president met with senators for a regular lunch. and according to the press reports that i have read, this is somethi a number of senators raised. >> let's switch to a differt let piece of legislation. therpes be some bipartisan agreement to get behind th

does it take the heat off congress?ouple different bills. >> both likely to fail. i think we saw earlier that there's not a consensus on immigration in either party. i think on the child and family separation issue, it's travel ban redox. we had a policy that was very important to the policy, zero tolerance but it implemented in such a way that left questions and let again to the president doing another policy, just like he did with the travel ban, that is likely to be challenged in court. he found himself on the wrong end of a 70-30 issue. the problem is for the democrat democrats. separating families may be unpopular. zero tolerance however is relatively popular. if the d themselves attacking a zero-tolerance policy while republicans are doing their best to unify the families to keep them in detention together, i think the democrats come up short. >> bret: house majority leader in the compromise. >> this is a bill that's has consensus on the president supports. it could become law. we are going to have an opportunity

reagan took over two years to work through congress. say the biggest lessons for us the inability to complete healthcare. repeal and obamacare. that case, congress started on january 3rd. on repeal andd replace so long. our administration didn't come in until end of january. by the time we came in, the effort to appeal and replace or tag as obamacare like by conservatives. we brought those conservative groups in the white house early on to make sure they were part of the process with us. was a much different process opposed to congress starting before we were involved and having fractured messaging on the same page. >> whether donald trump, barack obama or george w. bush when they're out campaigning for a piece of legislation, we've seen of them with donald trump. needle?move the >> i think they do. many members in congress are responsive to their constituents. needle? >> i >> when you go home at night, do you have a chance to kick back? thinking about the next day? >> i'm very blessed to have very threeing wife and wonderful kids. i'm

of course, under corker-kaine, congress retains the right to object to mission creep, but unless congress can muster a veto proof majority to overturn the president's decision he gets to expand the war at will. also under corker-kaine, the legislation doesn't sunset, every four years there's a congressional oversight provision, but, again, unless congress can muster a veto proof majority the war authority will continue and be perpetually renewed indefinitely. this is not a way of reasserting congress' constitutional powers. it's a method of institutionalizing the forever war and turns the constitution upside down. this is not the way the constitutional democracies are supposed to go to war. other members have introduced somewhat narrower aumfs on the house side bipartisan group led by congressman mike kaufman has drafted an alternative that features five year sunset. the authority will actually expire unless it's affirmatively renewed. congressman schiff has a three year sunset. both of these include broad, fairly broad associated forces provisions that allow the president to expand the t