congress was lied to. there was no serious debate inut american intervention that war. 30 sample, more recently, that we all remember was a iraq -- third example. today it is widely knowledge to that iraq was a foreign policy blunder on enormous magnitude. the bush administration lied to the american people claiming that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction. the result of that war -- loss of thousands of brave american soldiers, the displacement of millions of people in the middle east, and bringing us to where we are right now. in other words, what we have seen is time and time again, disasters occur when administrations -- democrat and republican -- mislead congress , andhe american people when congress fails to do its constitutional job in terms of asking the hard questions of if we should be in a war, and i think we need to ask that very hard question today. here's the point that i hope the american people are asking themselves -- is the war on terror a perpetual never-ending necessary to kee

so, yes, it is the job of congress to declare or initiate war and congress has been negligent for over decade now, congress has not done its job. congress has let president after president strip the war power from congress and concentrate the power in the executive. the second and inseparable issue is when and where we should be at war. it's not enough to say that congress should authorize war, the bigger question is where and when should we fight. our job is not to put congressional on war, the vast and important job of congress is to decide when and where we go to war. the debate that should ensue must ask are we to authorize scats quo, are we to authorize war in all of the seaters that various presidents have taken us or should congress limit scope of war that we find ourselves involved in. here corker came authorization fails us, the corker-kane authorization merely codifies and actually expands the current theaters of war. corker-kane authorize in over 20 countries. hardly sounds like we will have any less war. equally concerning is that corker came or transfers enumerated power f

. >> the inspector general's think they are bothering congress #>> congress!, i am just going to do my work, and i'll call when something is done and they need to know. it is not the best way to do it. i have one agency to ask for collaboration on the workplan, i think that is a valuable model. when congress has the ig's come in regularly, but maybe the legislative staff of a committee as a whole, you are building those relationships in a valuable way. >> do you think those relationships are stronger with the oversight committees, and not with the authorizing committees? or, is it across the board? >> i encourage them to do more. >> one of the key points in the report is the organization of the ig community, and this issue with congress certainly have a lot to do with how effectively the ig community communicates with congress. obviously there is more focus for ig's than they really have vision four. are there budgets and people, from doing everything that is in the universe of challenges for fraud, waste, and abuse, and in the 3p's. and ig has to steer throug

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,

s to be in regularcommunication with congress. in some offices, they feel like they might be bothering you . >> the inspectors general feel like they are bothering congress . >> i'll do my work and i'll call when there's something they need to know. i have one agency that asked for collaboration on their workplan. that's a valuable model and i think the otherdirection, one congress as the i.g.'s come in regularly to brief, not just the committee but maybe legislative staff as a whole, your building those relationships in a valuable way . >> you think those relationships are stronger with the oversight committee and not with the authorizing committee? or across-the-board. >> i'd say on the authorizing committee, i encouraged them to do more.>> one of the key points in the report is the organization of the i.g. community and this issue with congress, certainly has a lot to do with how effectively the i.g. community communicates with congress but there are obviously, there's more focus for i.g.'s then they really have vision four. th

after all, if congress is going to pass laws and appropriate funds in order to run the k government congress and the people they represent have a right to know how those laws are being implanted and whether those funds are being spent. on the other hand they focus on a number of issues including ongoing criminal and national security investigations that ought to remain free and political influence and it's important that executive branch officials the free to be completely open and candid interviews even when those may be politically unpopular without an undue fear of public disclosure and as this up in court stated in the seminal course of the united states versus nixon the privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably linked tod the separation of powers under the constitution. there is considerable tension and when determining how far congress should be allowed toero and considering the executive branch and the judicial branch. here to offer his perspective on this issue is one of the senate champions a robust oversight, senator chuck grassley from iowa. senator

congress. which is now trying to find itself, trying to findity own role, 80s way forward in what is now widely acknowledged to be a national security crisis in this country. surrounding the question of the president's basic loyalties. it's not necessarily going the way you might think in congress right now. today in congress, the judiciary committee in the house led by republicans like all the committees they were holding a hearing on social media filtering when the top democrat on that committee, jerry nadler, beak pulled the emergency brake and tried to reroute that hearing in a different direction. >> mr. chairman, last friday, special counsel robert mueller indicted 12 russian nationals for hacking into the democratic national committee. the democratic congressional campaign committee and several state election systems. this indictment is a remarkable piece of forensic work. this latest indictment can be seen as the equivalent of the phoenix memo about 9/11. it is a warning. we must heed i

including run for congress. jane: if you had not done all this crazy stuff, maybe you would not have had the gumption to run for congress, which is a pretty big move, in case anyone missed it. you put yourself out there and even if you have a yale degree and someone feels comfortable saying, i don't like you. i don't want you. it is not exactly a warm and fuzzy experience. to be merchandise and have people have opinions that may not be based on your merit. i'm sure other people love you and you may not deserve that either, my point is it is a brave thing to do to be an activist. it is a brave thing to do. you were very effective at it. then you parlayed that into an extremely long, so far, political career where you also are out there doing great things. i just think we will move on here, but i personally want to salute you. [applause] [applause] fmr. rep. harman: now, we're going to talk to sarah and rain. there he is. this is peter deutsch, congressman peter deutsch. >> ted. congressman ted deutch, who i know

waiting on congress. and so, in the meantime, what we are working on is modernizing the copyright, but a thumbs up, yes. there's a lot of work to be done there. really what happens, the copyright process needs to be modernized, easier for people to register and to record and all of these things. when i say record, it means record their rights and transferring it all of that. especially in the digital age. we are really busy trying to do that. and we thank congress for support fiscally, to really work on the modernization efforts. where it lives, is really secondary to what it does and how it does it. and so that is what we are working on now. >> thank you, another thumbs up! [laughter] [applause] >> i am a-- i am from a public school. thank you for sharing and giving us enlightenment on the division and the actual responsibilities of both entities. secondly, for making the library of congress and open and for all populations, opportunity for information. something shared a long time ago and i see it manif

areas, congress needs to step up and act. we need to promote pathways to career opportunities and make training and education more affordable and more accessible. we need to encourage ensuringeurship by access to workplace benefits like health care and retirement security and we need to provide stronger tools to help innovators turn their ideas into successful businesses. we need to unleash our economy and job creation by repairing our aging infrastructure and building the infrastructure of the future. if we can make congress a partner in helping businesses and workers get ahead, we can begin to renew america's faith in government as a force for good. faith innew america's our democratic institutions are strong enough to meet the challenges of the 21st century. we can continue to make america in global markets, as we must. democrats have a for the people platform of raising wages, making the health care in our country more accessible, and eliminating corruption in government. make it in america agenda we forged in 2010 and ha

congress can step in and address that issue. congress could establish a protect companies from retroactive liability. that's why the arena for the next app is congress. i am pleased that things like mandatory streamlined participation could be streamlined under the clause. angress could make it requirement to determine whether that element of the majority decision is mandatory. it really cries out for clarity. i don't think electronic retailers or big box stores artistic managed by clarity. >> can i just jump in on one thing you said? the idea that there is going to be chaos in the amp and that we need a moratorium. forgive me, but i don't remember the name of the fourth defendant in the south dakota case. remind me who that was. thank you. if i recall correctly, systemax was in this lawsuit, and south defamatory for judgment, and they said ok, we will comply. my understanding was they started complying essentially overnight. i realize your response may be there are huge companies versus the small businesses we are concerned abo

and shouldn't be congress. in conclusion, it's true that states, red states, blue states, purple states, states across the country, we're not looking for a tax advantage. we're looking for tax parity. the chaos that's been talked about in this committee, the chaos that's been of by witnesses today that chaos exists with the tens of thousands of businesses that have closed. the hundreds of thousands of employees who have lost their jobs because they can't compete adequately on the internet. it's those small businesses as a state legislator i'm elected to represent. it's those small businesses experiencing chaos. the chaos of not being able to compete in a marketplace because online retailers don't have to collect the 6% to 10% tax. and that 6% to 10% tax they are fighting desperately to maintain hat competitive advantage. in conclusion, this is a tax equity issue. businesses that want to take advantage of the market in my state and in every state should comply with the regulations in those states no different th

so my view, it's about time that congress restores to congress the constitutional responsibility that we have to establish tariffs. the constitution's completely unambiguous about this. article i, section 8, clause 1, the congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, and excises. completely unambiguous. the clause 3 says the congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. mr. president, we made a mistake in recent decades when we ceded this constitutional responsibility to the executive branch. i think that was a mistake. i've argued that for a long time. now, we're seeing a price being paid as the administration i think is misusing this important tool. so what our motion does is it would simply take a step in the direction of restoring this responsibility that the constitution assigns to us in the first place. this does not tie the president's hands at all. the president is free to negotiate better trade agreements, if he can, and i think he should. what it does say though if he wants to invoke national security as the reason for imposing ta

fully be resolved by congress. so to each of you, i would kind of ask what is a sats fac trun legislation looking like, and what would be a good compromise of whebetween where we are sort now and where we were when quill was still in place? >> i think that on one level i dispute the idea that it can only be resolved by congress at this point. from our perspective, the states are consider ed the laboratorie of democracy, and so there is an opportunity for the states to go out and work on tailoring legislation that is specific to their needs. i am not necessarily opposed to congressional action here, but i wonder about the one-siz one-size-fits-all approach talking about the states rights and federal principlism. and south dakota is very different from california and maybe more litigation of how the states are doing, this and a that is sometimes how we find some of the solutions. so i am not opposed to the congressional action but if it needs to happen, we need to be careful to weigh the state's rights as you are con

gregory: congress. it wasn't until 101 years ago that congress got into the habit of setting deadlines. anything prior to 1917 never had a deadline. byrd does not bob like the fact that it was ratified by the archivist before they had something to say about it. gregory: i get the same impression. [laughter] brian: what would you advise someone who said, hey, i would like to do this? gregory: be prepared for a lot of work. is going to take a lot of patients. i will -- it is going to take a lot of haitians -- patience. it is much more difficult to get the attention of a state legislator in 2018 than it was back in the early 1980's. if i thought they were unresponsive in the 1980's, they are almost impervious today in 2018. brian: do you live in austin? gregory: yes. brian: do you ever go back to that spot where you found the book? gregory: i have. however, in the past eight months, that library has been closed down and replaced with a larger facility approximately eight blocks away. so that building now s

argued of the folks who against congress acting are asking congress to act. i find myself and the opposition of saying perhaps but the court has done the work for you. >> is there any illegal support for the argument that the collection of taxes that are already owed constitutes a new tax? >> no. not economic policy or anything like that. >> i ask unanimous consent, according to a 2017 report are the gao, third-party merchants collected taxes on a less of one third of all sales in 2017, is that an accurate estimate? >> that is heavily accurate, yes. >> are you other -- aware of places that do not collect taxes following the decision >> i am sure they are waiting to make a determination about when they will start collecting on behalf of marketplace participants. >> i would ask unanimous consent to enter in -- into the record in article entitled amazon tax ruling, disrupting the disruptors? consent that the letters from the streamlined sales tax governing board and the coalition of local governments, national associations of counties, the u.s. congress of mayor

congress did not act. in recent years, state lawmakers across the country have enacted conservative policies, by championing policies that close loopholes, in favor of flutter and lower tax rates for everyone. we did that in utah last week, in a special session. i had the privilege of sponsoring the legislation to mandate collection of taxes starting 2019, and we lowered other taxes to make it revenue neutral. that is good tax policy. expanding the base, broadening the base, and lowering the rate. through all of this, in 26 years, congress has not acted. i am here today to ask congress to continue to do what this committee and congress has done best over the last 26 years, nothing. to not act. the reason for that? when congress found -- when the supreme court found that physical presence was not a violation, states across the country have now begun to deal effectively with this issue. this is something that states can effectively address, and it is interesting that the decision , it was a 9-0 decision that

but the fact is that congress should have a role. we gave this authority away in 19 -- in the 1960s and again in 1974. it was a mistake for us to have done that. we never expected the president of the united states to use 232 in the measures in the way that it is being utilized today. this is a vote for congress to assume its rightful role. it is a baby step. i hope to have legislation behind us. we are 15 senators, republicans, democrats, and an independent have come together on a piece of legislation to absolutely ensure that congress has a role. this is just a motion to install that we agree that congress should have a role with 232 when it is invoked. we will decide what that role is down the road. i urge all senators to support this measure and i yield the floor. mr. flake: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator f >> mr. presence. >> i am from arizona. i think my colleagues for working this out. this is a rebuke of the presence of use of trade authority. the president has abused section 232 to impose tariffs on steel

what we have been about and the previous congress was about and this congress is about is messages. a number of republicans talk about message enough is not enough, we need to have policies. we need policies that respond to the challenges confronting the american people. so the president said he was going to have a health care bill, he did not have one, and infrastructure bill, he did not have one. his infrastructure program he proposed is woefully inadequate. and has been dismissed by his own colleagues in the congress. that was shifting 200 billion dollars from one infrastructure program to another and saying to the dan parkers of the country, saying to them you come up with 80%, we will come up with 20%. i want you to imagine for just a second what the federal highway system would look like if it had in a 20 federal and 80 local contribution. the federal highway system under dwight eisenhower was a 90 federal, 10 local. that is why it was so successful because it had the resources put behind it to make it reality. so in answer to questions, i have not seen any reasonable proposal

very good people serve in congress in my view, in both parties. very good staff serves in congress. in both parties. but the problem is that the goal of the business model, rather than solving problems is to blame the other side for not solving problems. as a bipartisan here, i will say that both parties play this game. the country loses. if you are bipartisan these days, that means you get a primary challenge. it is very unfortunate for all of us that that seems to be the model. all of us can change it if we are active, this is the point, and pitch the right messages to the right people in both parties. i think we will learn that. congress also is not, i would say, a learning institution. why is that? people are too busy. i was visiting a senior member of the senate today and he said thanks for coming up here -- i don't have time to learn about this issue. the issue i was talking about, you might be interested, was about a summit that was convened by the trump administration last june. a year ago. vice president pence went and john kelly who was then the secretary of homeland secur

but they are not at the library of congress. [laughter] and all the people watching and -- listening for them to realize with your colleagues that you have a friendly and historical competition. i know you have seen the movie national treasure and the library of congress had that first printing with just john hancock on it so those original signers did not sign something. [laughter] that i have. and the gettysburg address. the contents of abraham lincoln's pockets and four locks of thomas jefferson's hair. [laughter] i'm just saying. so it is kind of fun to have this historical back and forth. >> and come from the vatican. [laughter] >> there are a few things over there. so don't even bring up hamilton. [laughter] okay let's bring up him alton. [laughter] we might as well how did you pull that off? >> through the new york public library actually. tommy was the director of hamilton was a member for the visiting committee and we decided to honor them. we had all three of them in the house. >> me will not name drop. >> but hamilton

my broader question is what is the role of congress? what is the ability of congress to find some answers? look at the action of congress since the summit, you find democrats and republicans both standing up saying no to what the president implied in helsinki. we did pass a resolution in regards to nato, we passed a resolution in regards to protecting our diplomat. we are looking at legislation that will increase sanctions against russia. we are looking at legislation that would prevent ownership of russian companies in the u.s. we are looking at legislation that would make it clear our commitment to nato. that's bipartisan. the level in congress is that we have to assert ourselves. we did in 20 in passing the russia sanction law requiring the president to impose sanctions. i expect the role of congress should be to make it clear to our nato allies that we stand behind the nato alliance. make it clear to mr. putin that if he continues this activity, we will not only maintain, but we will strengthen the sanctions against russia. legislat

that's not what congress intnded. and the problems with the tariff policy go far beynd just farming. so i hope congress will intervene in that regard. >> could i take you back to north korea for a moment. you indicated that you and many of your colleagues were eager needed to hear more about it and annoyed that you hadn't heard more about the ummit in june, in singapore, and what had been agreed to there and how the administration planned to proceed. we do actually seem to know a good bit more about that than we do about the putin summit, and now north korea appears to have delivered on the first of the agreements and kind of check list that the president announced at the time in singapore. how confident are you that north korea will continue to fulfill any agreement's it's made? and do you think that real and total denuclearization as secretary pompeo and others ave described it is possible or likely? >> first, i want the president to succeed. i think all americans do. the only sensible way to deal >> first, i want t

>> i think on one level can only be resolved by congress at this point. from my perspective consider the laboratories of democracy. an opportunity for state to go out and work on tailoring legislation specific to their needs. i'm not necessarily opposed to congressional action but when you talk about faith right south dakota is a very different state than new york or california maybe we will see more litigation as a result is until we find our solutions i am not opposed to congressional action but if it happens careful to weigh the states rights as you consider this. it is money that is sorely needed by state and local government and it has been known for a long time personally looking at the liability concerns that you think it would be appropriate for congress to legislate. my only understanding from that briefing is that it appears at least 40 states have their own state law to prohibit retroactive liability know i was just reading that from the briefs and i believe other states are acting differently for there is a scenario we could agree where congre

well, if mystified members of congress don't understand why that happen, congress could ask. if congress wants to do something in the face of documented russian attacks on our election, the intelligence community's hair on fire assertion that's those attacks are continuing, the president's public inexplicable denial is that the president publicly siding with russia against his own government and his own country on these issues specifically, congress could ask, right? congress has the option to hold hearings if they are also mystifi mystified, they could hold hearings on why the top security expert was fired months before the elections. he was fired and there was no replacement. they have plenty of practical things they do do today to pick up the shack on this is a national security matter. to try to protect the country. to figure out the extent of what has been done while we are still in the midst of this attack. there is stuff to do. there's plenty of stuff to do. not even stuff that's hard to do. hold on. a quick very quick, practical to do list next my gums are irritated.

but some in congress objected. senator russell long, who is chairman at the time of the senate finance committee, warned, for example, that u.s. trade policy has been the orphan of u.s. foreign policy. now, there are many examples, but three merit our attention today. one involved helping japan recover from world war ii. which had long term ramifications for our u.s. industry. the eisenhower administration sought to integrate japan into the world trading community and rehabilitate it as a cold war partner. a one-sided agreement in 1955 gave japan membership in gatt and full access to european markets at our lowest tariff rates but it left the japanese home market and agriculture protected from u.s. and european competition. rates but it left the japanese japan insisted on protecting infant auto. electronics, steel and other industry against foreign competition so as not to remain reliant on exports of textile and tune yeah. by the 1980s, japan's new national champions has become world class competitors, while japan

congress -- toas congress when he was 29. he chaired this committee for 16 years. chairman dingell effectively balanced the interest of manufacturers, environmentalists, and conservationists as he saw to promote jobs and protect our resources. after 16 years and 22 days, he retired. he had shaped public policy on energy, health care and telecommunications. time of retirement, he had out served every other member of commerce in history. his record still stands. congressman, we applaud your life of public service. we are grateful for your presence tonight and for your remarks. thank you. [applause] mr. dingell: mr. chairman i thank you for your gracious words. [inaudible] mr. dingell: what's this? >> [inaudible] folks, when you get married, this is what happens. [laughter] i want to thank our committee for coming tonight to honor our committee. it is a great committee, the greatest in the house and it is the oldest. i want you to take that thought away from you. not only is it the greatest, but it is the oldest of the committees. i can see here a number of members of

president, if the president of the united states is not going to do it, congress must. the congress must make it clear that we accept the assessment of our intelligence community with regard to russian election meddling in our country and in other democracies. the congress must move aggressively to protect our election system from interference by russia or any foreign power and work closely with our democratic partners around the world to do the same. the congress must demand that the sanctions against russia that were passed last year be fully implemented. the congress must make it clear that we will not accept any interference with the ongoing investigation of special counsel mueller such as the offer of preemptive pardons or the firing of deputy attorney general rob rose enseen and the president -- rosenstein and the president must cooperate with this investigation. and finally, the congress must make it clear that president trump, that his job is to protect the values that millions of americans struggled, fought, and died to defend the values of democracy, justice,

she said that was her inspiration for going into congress. women were telling stories that were very candid. >> powerful. >> yes. >> you have an on-line site. what do visitors find when they go there? >> they will find full transcripts that we give to everyone looking to find out more about women in congress. there are video clips, abstracts and biographies, and photographs. also artifacts and objects, many of which come from the house collection. >> we're still doing interviews. we're still trying to get more former congresswomen and former senior staffers to talk with us, so people can expect to see more on the website as time goes on. >> how many women do you expect to interview? >> we've done 40 now. we'd like to do another 10, another two dozen if we could do it. we really feel like this is a project that's unique, and it's something that can really add to the larger discussion about women's contribution to politics. >> and you've expanded the interview poll now to staffers, women staffers? >> yes. when we first started the oral history

-- congress ought to be. unfortunately today we expect to have a vote in which we're voting on a bill that eliminates the funding of the election assistance commission. this should be rejected, as we should reject the president's failure to stand up for our values. thank you. dr. fauci: spurp -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. speaker. well, the latest tweets from the president. so many people at the higher ends of intelligence loved my press conference performance in helsinki. obviously he's referring to putin. because there's not many people in the united states that saw that press conference as a success. in fact, it was an unmitigated disaster. director of national intelligence dan coates said the red lights are blinking. our election process, our critical infrastructure is being attacked by russia, and what is the house of representatives doing today?

the truth is what's in front of us is a question about the mood of congress. the mood of congress. i think all 435 of us could testify to what the mood of congress is right now. i tonight think that will be one of the more challenging events we would confront. the idea this is brought in front of the congress without any opportunity for anybody to exam the underlying legislation and the -- examine the underlying legislation and what it might compel is the frustration the american people feel about the institution and its priorities. as we wrapped up this debate over a piece of legislation that will accomplish zip, zero, nothing, it literally does not matter how the vote turns out because the sole purpose of this resolution is to express, once again, the mood of congress. i'm happy to express the mood of congress any time they want. happy to have a hearing on the mood of congress if that's what they think might get us to a more sound proposal of energy independence, the use of renewables. no, instead, they bring up a piece of legislation here that's going to test how we feel about t

. >> both chambers of congress are in session. he white house and senate are back after the july 4 recess. the senate gavels in monday at p.m. to consider the judicial nomination of mark bennett for the ninth circuit, a advance the nomination at 5:30 eastern. also this week debate and ossible votes on executive nominations, follow the senate live on c-span 2. tuesday to turns on consider several bills. both scheduled for 6:30 p.m. eastern. week, debate on intelligence programs which overs intel-related government activities related to the c.i.a. and nsa. watch the house life on c-span. c-span, where history unfolds daily. as a79, c-span was created public service by america's cable television companies. nd today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of ongress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. eak at a different aspect of your money. this week, we are focusing on the u.s. debt and deficit an

what factors make it likely congress will impeach? a case study to see when the stars will align where that can be possible? and nixon did everything sort of wrong. by the end of his political career, judgment almost completely escaped him. choosing gerald ford on the theory no one would be willing to make that man a president. oops. he referred to him as insurance policy, turns out insurance of something quite different and other respects, sabotaging relationships with the press, digging in rather than admitting wrongdoing, fighting to the end, destroying relationships with his own party. nixon at the end, though not at the beginning did everything wrong, and a sign of how power can corrupt, but power can reveal, and in that circumstance, nixon's pretensions to absolute power and the manner he responded to the impeachment investigation was itself evidence of the fact he should have been removed. and this is a point we emphasize in chapter three, we talk about the risks of impeaching too early, that the manner in which the president r

. >>> centennial heating of the first woman to serve in congress. she was elected in november of 1916 and seated in the house on april 2nd, 1917 when the house was called into a special session. congress was called in a session special by president woodrow wilson. so a momentous time. >> so that was the impetus. how did you decide you wanted to interview former congresswomen? >> we thought that would be the best way of looking at the changing role and evolution of women in congress. and we have had aired this program in 2004 and learned so much about the history. so what better way to learn from the women than the women who served. and we interviewed staff as well. so some of the stories that we've learned the experiences that these women have had have been just wonderful to learn more about. >> yeah, to date we have done about 40 interviews. 30 of which are published on our website. and roughly 20 or 25 are with former women members. so it's a unique snapshot. and the span of service goes back to the mid-1960s and all the way up through the 2010. s

in the courts and the congress, the stacking the deck at the expense of the health and economic security of hard-working americans for 18 months they have seen whose priority is really matter to the republican control of congress and it's not the consumers priorities come across america they are getting a raw deal from those that are posing a better deal, jobs and pay and future. any questions? >> as we speak there's a hearing on the oversight committee. we had a situation yesterday obviously you probably don't agree with how they are approaching this but with that said when they issue a subpoena it should be applied. if there isn't action taken against her to stop them in a better place if witnesses are not appearing before the committee? >> i think they faced by many bad place with their behavior on the floor of the house and committee. many of them are attorneys. you would think that they would know better than to bring a bill to the floor of the house that calls upon the department of justice to give them documents related to the investigation. ridiculous. i think they are setting it