it requires first consultation with both congress, by congress by the president with congress in every possible instance before committing troops to war. that's the exact language in the war powers. there's consultation requirements. then there has to be reporting within 48 hours of american troops sent into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances. and then third, the war powers act requires an end to foreign military action after 60 days unless congress provides a declaration of war or an authorization for the operation to continue, an authorization for use of military force in aumf. why do we need senate joint resolution 68 if we have the war powers act? like vietnam, now in iran, the president is usurping the constitutional powers of congress billing saying he has certain -- congress by saying he has certain authorities that go beyond what was intended in the constitution or the war powers act. now let me get to general soleimani for one moment. he was killed on january 2, 2020, in baghdad. there is no sorrow

congress has the power to declaread war this isn't a decision made by the president but by congress. our founders were very concerned about having the appropriate e balance between the executive branch of the legislative branch called checks and balances we do not run a monarchy we wanted to make sure that there was sufficient support before war was declared international security interest the congress and president and american people are altogether in the effort with that war against another country the use of military should always be last resort always exhaust other means before america initiates more with the use. of military force. this priority that rests in congress was tested in the vietnam war the result of the tonkin resolution was passed by congress during the vietnam conflict in the early stages to give the president the authority to use force to defend our military against attackss coming from vietnam. it was never intended to lead us into an act of prolonged war but it was used by successive administrations for the war in vietnam. i think historians would agree that wa

congress and congress alone would have this power. why? well, because it's the branch of government most accountable to the people at the most regular intervals. when the american people are called upon to put their own blood and treasure, their own sons and daughters on the line in the name of safety, security, freedom, nothing else can suffice but a vote in congress. congress washington understood that. donald trump understands that today. and to his greatest credit, president trump has followed this standard and has countered recent iranian aggression primarily through economic sanctions. they're working, and it appears that iran is standing down. tehran has already had to cut back support for international terrorist organizations and its nuclear program and its oil exports are plummeting. iran's economy has been crippled, contracting by almost 10%. and the iranian people know it is the fault of their own government, their own government officials. tens of thousands of iranian protesters have taken to the streets to protest their own go

congress and congress alone would have this power because it is the branch of government accountable with the regular intervals. when the american people are called upon to put their sons and daughters on the line in the name of safety, security and freedom, nothing else can suffice but a vote in congress. .. >> have taken to the streets to protest their own government knowing that such action could lead to injury or imprisonment or death even the new york times has admitted the iranian regime that confronts the united states there could be a pathway to peace and prosperity through sanctions and relief and trade their willing to see support for militant organizations and abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons of icbm. until then, the united states under president trump's leadership will maintain maximum pressure through sanctions and defend the us from any further attacks progressed in firmly behind president trump in this faction and then to avoid war if we can after nearly two decades of military entanglement by the department of defense bureaucrats to mislead the american people a

when you're forced to consult with congress and when congress has the power to declare war, quick and sloppy thinking evaporates because people have to at least examine the issues in some detail. the american public has some say. that's why senator kaine's war powers resolution is a matter of necessity. i commend senator kaine and his colleagues on the job he has done, including my colleague from illinois sitting right here, and urge mile colleagues to vote in -- urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it. now on department of justice, in the short week since the conclusion of the president's impeachment trial, the president has reminded us of all the reasons why congress must serve as a check on the executive. the president has dismissed members of his administration who testified in the house impeachment inquiry, including for no reason the twin brother of one of the witnesses. the administration has reportedly withdrawn the nomination of a senior pentagon official who merely advised her colleagues about the legal implications of delaying assistance to ukraine. truth, when the presid

congress created congress to act as a co-equal part of government and representatives of the american people. these rules and regulations as envisioned by the founders are not as they exist today. the american people's first branch is no longer truly equal. we will hear more about this from witnesses today and the growing buer of the executive branch and staffing issues with ourselves we have a lot of work to do. a diminished branch means diminished government for the people we serve. that's not the goal of this committee, it is to return it back to this body. we're looking ways to strengthen our congress so we can better serve the american people and all we represent. i'm excited about today's hearing and witnesses joining us, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. today we welcome the testimony of our four witnesses. our first witness is rachel augustine potter, assistant professor of politics at the institute of virginia and including regulations, public policy and separation of powers on bureaucratic decision-making. before becoming a political scientist she worked for several

it requires first consultation with both congress, by congress by the president with congress in every possible instance before committing troops to war. that's the exact language in the war powers. there's consultation requirements. then there has to be reporting within 48 hours of american troops sent into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances. and then third, the war powers act requires an end to foreign military action after 60 days unless congress provides a declaration of war or an authorization for the operation to continue, an authorization for use of military force in aumf. why do we need senate joint resolution 68 if we have the war powers act? like vietnam, now in iran, the president is usurping the constitutional powers of congress billing saying he has certain -- congress by saying he has certain authorities that go beyond what was intended in the constitution or the war powers act. now let me get to general soleimani for one moment. he was killed on january 2, 2020, in baghdad. there is no sorrow

he didn't like congress telling him what to do but when congress stand up and acts and put something on his desk even if he chooses to veto it and we can't override the will of both parties, the public they represent, could be a factor in the decision-making and i hope that is the case. >> two things. having been one of the 23 senators who voted against the invasion of iraq, i certainly believe that was the right decision then but look at the situation we face today with almost 5000 american deaths in the war in iraq, we found no weapons of mass distraction, we enhanced unfortunately the image and efforts of iran, many regulators would like to see us leave after 18 years of this conduct. look at afghanistan. i voted for that. we are still in it 18 years later. i had conversations yesterday the president trying to remove our forces from afghanistan. i support the concept of bringing troops home. we are looking for stability in the process. on iran too going to your point. nothing i am about to relate is classified, the justification for the salon targeting, there is suggestion of immi

congress has advocated its response ability for so long that this vote shows congress and the senate getting back into it but it's only a start because we've had to grapple with this question overran and i have a bill with senator young who in many bipartisan cosponsors that repealed the 91 and there's our need to rewrite the 20:01 a.m. uf and the way senator duckworth was describing and we need to probably go back to the war powers act of the 1970s and updated to that cyber attacks and drones and there's a whole series that are vague, important and challenging that congress wants to hide under the desk rather than dealing with them but today's step is a good step to have a bipartisan strong majority in the senate saying we are taking this seriously. [inaudible question] >> sure, that would be a great example. only twice in our history have we use this motion and we passed that last year and [inaudible] president trump change the behavior and we were attacking and we were asserting where the u.s. should not engage in fueling saudi jets and president trump vetoed the resolution but th

congress has been able to assert the authority. we need to have this discussion and relearn our own history. we need to see where we can update it. on my side of the aisle, members are excited that the opportunity to participate in this kind of day -- i want to applaud the chairman for this. we have some other committees that are trying to do this. we have a bipartisan committee which was one of my friends ideas. the modernization of congress. it's an appropriate place to have this discussion as well. we need to have this discussion a lot of different places is we will protect the legislative power. this is most likely the power of the people. a lot more directly than it is for a president who is elected on an electoral college basis or united states senate where everybody is the same regardless of the size of the state. we each represent districts that are roughly the same size. the popular will exercises itself most clearly in the house of representatives. it's our responsibility of custodians of that power to make sure that it's

bash congress.if you had the airlines talking about how dangerous they are and all of the problems with them, people wouldn't want to fly. and you wouldn't be able to get the investments that you need for safe aviation. so part of the problem is with congress itself to say that we actually do an important function here. oversight i think is part of it. waste, fraud, and abuse, in my subcommittee, we actually kept track for a while of how much money we saved and it was well over a billion dollars. and we were like if we could only have 1% of the money that we've saved, it would be worth it. but right now, congress does not value itself enough to make the investments needed to make it effective. and when you have ratings as low as they are with the public, what's going on now isn't working. we need to do something else. we need to talk about congress in a respectful way. it it's constitutional obligations. and make the investments that we need for congress to operate in a better way. >> thank you. i y

congress much -- must do its job. when i was recovering at walter reed, there were protesters outside of the gate. especially on friday. they were flown in and they were right up at the gates and they would have to go through protesters. i was proud that they were there because they were exercising their right to free speech. i have fought for the right to free speech. are downrange in our families are praying for their safety, they need to know that they have the backing of the country and the backing of the full congress of the united states so they can do their jobs and not have to where we about whether or not what they are doing is in keeping with what our government wants. this is why it is so important to have this debate and to clarify congress's role. it has been five weeks since president trump stopped on the constitution and launched a strike that killed qassim suleimani. while i am glad the man is dead, i will tell you that decision put everyday americans at greater risk because he did not have a good plan

that their weapons could put us on course with the responsibility of congress. in the senate should not allow the country to be led into another middle eastern war without the constitution required consent of the american people through congress. and with those efforts to send the troops to war. and that americans will die. and many members of congress. and then sarah just blame the president if it turns out badly. for then to make it as a reality. and not only this responsibility but to acknowledge our authority. but as the powers to congress we should never send our sons and daughters to war without the consent of the american people. and when a red democrat or republican to reaffirm this body's constitutional authority and responsibility. with senator lee and senator durbin for the resolution. much needed and long overdue as my colleagues have said it reasserts the constitutional role to recognize to give the president the authority to declare war unilaterally. over the past decade regrettably congress has too often abdicated its constitutional responsibility

productive congress in american history. when the members of the first congress met in new york in 1789 the new nation was still fragile , torn by differences hobbled by competing currencies, crushed by debt and just-together only tentatively by the constitution. the constitution provided a set of principles that offered few instructions about how the system should best operate. leaving it to congress and the president to create the machinery of government. had congress failed the united states as we know it may not exist. abraham lincoln was a nation that congress directed the civil war, defined history written by an amazing storyteller offers a riveting history and the book argues convincingly that congress in the end got it right. fergus bordewich is the author of seven nonfiction books. he has also published an illustrated a children's book peach blossom spring and wrote a script for pbs documentary about thomas jefferson and edited an illustrated book of a -- 1989 tiananmen massacre. he's a frequent look reviewer for "t

that congress should not debate the issues of hostilities with iran. they claim that one is not an opponent of the iranian regime. i wholeheartedly disagree. before being sent to war, our troops deserve to know that the objectives are valid and worthy of potential sacrifice. our military men and women deserve to know that they have a clear mission and full backing of not only the congress but also the american people that we represent. the administration not only owes the american people a transparent explanation but also a credible strategy to conclude hostility to ensure an enduring peace. as we have painfully experienced in iraq and afghanistan over much of the last two decades, securing the peace is no easy task. i'm also deeply troubled by the evolving and at times contradictory justifications offered by the administration for the killing of soleimani. even in a highly classified meeting to senators following the strike on soleimani, the administration failed to provide relevant details. there is simply no justification for refusing to share intel

congress and congress alone would have this power. why? well, because it's the branch of government most accountable to the people at the most regular intervals. when the american people are called upon to put their own blood and treasure, their own sons and daughters on the line in the name of safety, security, freedom, nothing else can suffice but a vote in congress. congress washington understood that. donald trump understands that today. and to his greatest credit, president trump has followed this standard and has countered recent iranian aggression primarily through economic sanctions. they're working, and it appears that iran is standing down. tehran has already had to cut back support for international terrorist organizations and its nuclear program and its oil exports are plummeting. iran's economy has been crippled, contracting by almost 10%. and the iranian people know it is the fault of their own government, their own government officials. tens of thousands of iranian protesters have taken to the streets to protest their own go

congress has at abdicated his responsibility for so long that this vote shows congress and the senate getting back into it that it's only a start. we have to grapple with this question of iran. i have a bill with senator young and many co-sponsors to the repeal good to aumf's. we probably need to go back to the war powers powers act of the 1970s and updated to the current realities of cyber attack syndrome. it's big important and challenging but congress would rather hide it under the desk rather than dealing with it. today was a big step saying we are taking this seriously. >> i spoke to senator sanders and senator lee and they thought that was the beginning of the end. that's the same type of issue. >> that would be a issue. we passed out last year out of the prosecution by the saudis. president trump vetoed it and we could override by president trump change behavior. we were attacking -- asserting the u.s. shouldn't be engaged in fueling jets in order to bomb iran. he vetoed the resolution but stop the u.s. and doing what we want them to stop. having that dialogue with the presiden

congress cannot stand by. the potential conflict with iran and the presidents on national defense strategy with nearly in the last year disrupted operations against isis and made america less safe. with the reabut for the real and diplomacy rather than relying on blind faith. to change course and engage with allies and partners but the goal for seeking a solution to the current situation immediately. madam president, debates between the executive branch and congress over the power to conduct war is not a new topic but i think in many ways the debate has been blown out of proportion. if this has to do with the decision made byen president trp with the advice of his advisers to eliminate one of the worst terrorists in the middle east, soleimani, who was plotting to bring down the american embassy or iraq and

congress has the power to declare war. the president has no authority to enter the united states into another and this conflict in the middle east. the idea the president erotic position making his lack of strategy and inability to control its publicist, they bundle us on the left even if he doesn't contend that. with this bipartisan resolution, the senate will assert its constitutional authority to send a clear bipartisan message that the president or any president cannot step congress when it comes to matters of peace. it's important to do this now the president's actions the middle east escalated the confrontation, the state of then union, the president himself said work with iran was closer than you thought, his words. let me be clear. nobody in this chamber will shed a single tear over the death of soleimani. that doesn't mean we disregard the potential consequences of the strike or any comparable action. it's more than appropriate for congress to affirm that it has authority over any major long-term hostilities with

the constitution is clear, congress has the power to declare war. the president has no authority to enter the united states into thanother in this conflict in middle east. i fear the presidentsrr erratic decision-making, lactose tragedy and inability control his impulses may bubble us into a war nonetheless, even if he does not intend it. with this bipartisan resolution the senate will assert its constitutional authority and send a clear bipartisan message that the president, this president or any presidents,nd cannot sidestep congress when it comes to matters of war and peace. it's important to do this now and the president's actions in the middle east have escalated the confrontation before the state of the union h, the president himself said war with iran was closer than you thoug thought, his words. to me be clear, nobody in this chamber will shed a single tear over the death of iranian general but that does not mean that we disregard the potential consequences of the strike or any comparable action. it is more than appropriate for congress to a

it is a resolution about congress. i want a president that will fully inhabit the article of the duke power commander-in-chief. .. >> of the fundamental question should be at war it is not directed toward president trump it would apply equally to any president. congress owning up to and taking responsibility for the most significant decisions we should ever have to make. the second argument i have it would send a message of weakness to iran or other adversaries. i'm more interested in the message to our troops and families that is the message of the most interested in. and i think as father of a marine and senator from the state that is chock-full of active duty contractor, military families , that this bill sends a strong and powerful message to troops and our families that before we get into a war there will be a deliberation whether it is necessary that is a message of comfort and that give our troops confidence. and to consider the message this would send to iran and adversaries come i do not think america sends a

i want to make remarks about the role of congress. in my view we're at a critical inflection point in our nation -- to be clear i do not seek a war between the united states and iran. i think our best path forward is a multilateral, several nations coming together initiative to deescalate rising conflict between the united states and iran with so many-- with tens of millions of people displaced from their homes around the world from conflicts ranging from syria and yemen, to the democratic republic of the congo, the central african republic. there's conflict in many places in our world and our country has seen what happens in the absence of effective diplomacy. but i came to the floor today really in no small part because in the group briefings that happened after the strike that killed general soleimani. a number of points were made that i think deserve to be addressed. one, a suggestion was made by one participant that simply debating whether or not the authorization for the use of military force that was adopted by congress back in

it's a resolution about congress. i want a president that will fully inhabit the article due powers of commander in chief, but as a member of the article 1 branch, i want an article 1 branch that will fully inhabit the article 1 powers including the power to declare war. this is not an effort to restrain president trump or some other president. this is not an effort by a democrat to point a finger or restrain republicans. no. in the history of this country. even in recent history, i believe we've gotten it wrong with the initiation of war whether the president was a democrat or republican or whether the majority in congress was democrat or republican. the legislative branch article 1 has too much power to devolve to the president of the fundamental question of whether the nation should be at war. this is not directed toward president trump. it would apply equally to any president. it's fundamentally about congress owning up to and taking responsibility for the most significant decisions that we should ever have to mak

congress created the g.i. bill comparison tool to provide veterans with more information when they consider where they will pursue a post-secondary education. while the g.i. bill comparison tool provides data on tuition an cost, accreditation an cautionary information, there are gaps in the information regarding campus culture. for example, the g.i. bill comparison tool does not inform a catholic veteran who may be interested in attending a catholic institution if an institution is affiliated with the roman catholic church. madam speaker, small pieces of information like that are critical to helping veterans ssimilate to life on campus. data on campus culture are collected by the department of registration not currently displayed on the g.i. bill comparison tool website. if enacted, the give act will require v.a. to provide perfect -- prospective student veterans on whether an substitution is minority-serve, gender specific, or has a real jus affiliation. madam speaker, this bill will simply require the g.i. b

they deserve better from the congress. we must find a way to come together to set aside partisan differences and to focus on what we have in common as americans. while so much is going on in our favor these days, we still face great challenges, both dom mostically and enter -- domestically and internationally but it remains my official belief that united we can conquer them and remain the greatest hope for the people around the world. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that my full statement be printed inhe

and i don't fault the members of congress for wanting to make sure that the shared powers of congress and the president have under the constitution to wage w war, i don't question their motives in trying to find the appropriate balance, but here, i think we've stepped across the line, literally, to try to tie the president's hand as a punishment for conducting a fully authorized operation against one of the world's worst terrorists, something we should applaud, rather than conde condemn. >> i'm pleased to join my colleagues, many of whom have spoken already in support of the joint resolution 68, which i am proud to co-sponsor. it prohibits an unauthorized, unconstitutional war with iran. it seeks to prevent the trump administration from stumbling into a real and reckless military conflict. i want to thank bipartisan colleagues who have provided leadership in this effort and it has been truly bipartisan as an effort. i appreciate their efforts and many other colleagues to reassert our constitutional war power and represents the will of the american people. americans do not want a new w

they didn't see congress function. the last real bipartisan, big bipartisan bills, i mean, i would say they happened in the early bush years, which is a long time ago now. and congress hasn't really felt itself functioning in quite a while. i use that as an example because that's an institution that really makes its own rules and could change them. and if it understood the problem in these terms, i think it would have some incentives to do that. part of the reason to write a book like that is to try to surface these problems in these terms because it's not how we tend to see them. and it actually points in the opposite direction than we how we tend to see them. the establishment's too strong, we can understand that actually we need to build these things up. we need functional institutions, and right now we just don't have them. >> hi. i have sort of two questions, but i want to start by saying thank you for your presentation. i think you're making a wonderful contribution to the discussion and the issues. the first par

they deserve better from the president, they deserve better from the congress. we must find a way to come differences and focus on what we have in common as american. while so much is going on in our favor these days, we still face great challenges both domestically and internationally. but it remains myy firm belief thatte united we can conquer thm and remain the greatest hope for the people around the world. i ask unanimous consent that my full statement be printed into record. >> without objection.ou >> thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. >> the constitution is that the foundation of success, and we should strive not to lose sight of our promise to defend it. the constitution established the vehicle of impeachment that has occupied both houses of our congress these many days. we have labored faithfully execute our responsibility is to it. we have arrived at the strength judgments, but i hope that we respect each other's good faith. the allegations made in the articles are very serious. as a senator juror, i swore an oath before god to exercise

to compel the ukrainians to do so, you unilaterally withheld nearly $400 million appropriated by congress to help them fend off russia's naked and relentless aggression. the president's backers claim that this was done in an effort to root out corruption, so why not use official channels? why did he focus on no examples of corruption generally other than ones directly affecting his political fortunes? and why did he not make public the withholding of funds as the executive branch typically does when seeking to leverage federal moneys for policy goals? no matter how many times the president claims his phone call with president zelensky was not perfect. it simply wasn't. he clearly solicited foreign interference in our elections. he disregarded a congressionally passed law. he imperiled the security of a key american partner. he undermind our own national security. and he was -- if he was simply pursuing our national interest rather than his own, why was his personal attorney, rudy giuliani, put in charge? why was rudy giuliani mentioned in that phone call? put bluntly, no matter the defens

is congress getting more done? the grat e deal maker has he made deals with congress?big deal. he can beat the system. he has made no deals to fix the system. a deficit. healthcare and immigration. nothing is solved. what happens with four more years? is being bad making it better. that's the question. can a democrat relate to what's really wrong and show there is a better way to do it right? that's what the election is about. that's my argument. next, the both. if you work in the trump administration lookout someone is having their eyes on you. 5g will change business in america. t-mobile has the first and only, nationwide 5g network. and with it, you can shape the future. we've invested 30 billion dollars and built our new 5g network for businesses like yours. while some 5g signals only go a few blocks, t-mobile 5g goes for miles. no other 5g signal goes farther or is more reliable in business. tomorrow is in your hands. partner with t-mobile for business today. stand up to moderate tomorrow is in your hands. to severe rheumatoid arthritis. and take. it. on with rinv

except, there are many members of congress that i promise, their paycheck from congress is a rounding error compared to their investment portfolio. they are not worried about their congressional paycheck. some, are many or not. that is not an equal motivator. and equal motivator is the time. all of us see time as precious. if you remove time from 535 people, and say you get your time back when the first responsibility that you have is done, there will be lots of motivation unto leadership and committee heads, and others to say let's finish the negotiations be able to get this done. >> and i will add that organizationally the committees responsible for the federal budget thinks that this is a very thoughtfully developmental, you've gone through all of the details, and makes sense, >> there are a lot of other details in terms of how the mechanics. work >> so, what feedback are you getting, how are you in the process, what are you thinking of the movement? >> it's been very. strong very bipartisan in the. process we have done this no was arc style. to buy. to the way we have signed on th

what we write about are everything from the majority party in congress and leadership in congress tohe democratic primaries. we write about the power of the president. there are also contributions about parties in other countries like in south america. how do other parties work in different countries? to the subject from a different perspective. we are writing about political parties went large in contemporary politics. susan: where does the name come from? professor green: i believe it comes from the federalist papers. i believe. it was alexander hamilton. i'm pretty sure that is it. susan: we will send people in that direction. they can find more about its origin. there have been 54 people who have served as speaker of the house over time. how many of them are history making percentage wise? professor green: percentagewise? i would say depending on how you count it, maybe 10% to 15%. susan: what makes for a successful or powerful speaker? professor green: from my perspective, i think several things make for a powerful or important speaker. one is, it could be any combination of the

in effect, it would make the presidency itself subservient to congress. the father of our constitution james madison warned against allowing the impeachment power to create a presidential tenure at the pleasure of the senate. even more concerning, at every turn throughout this process, the house democrats violated president trump's right to due process of law. all american law is built on a constitutional foundation securing basic rights and rules of fairness for a citizen accused of wrongdoing. it's undisputed that the house excluded if the president's legal team from both the closed door testimony and almost the entirety of the house's 78-day inquiry. they channeled personal policy and political grievances and attempted to use the most solemn responsibility of congress to bring down a political rival in a partisan process. it's no secret that democrats' crusade to remove the president began more than three years ago on the very day that he was inaugurated. on january 20, 2017, "the washington post" ran a story with the headline the campaign to impeach p

in the institutions that are broken and congress is a great example, congress is the broken institution in our politics. whatever you think of donald trump and i could spend an hour tell you i think of donald trump but i think the failure of congress is much bigger problem. the various complaints we have about the other branches of government are largely functions of various failures of the legislator to take its response ability seriously and reforms of the congress that would encourage its members to think of themselves as insiders, not outsiders, and to think of themselves as legislators not performers would have to look like changes to the budget process and the committee system in ways that invest people more in the actual work of the institution and i think we've gotten to a place now where most members take one big vote a year on a big budget bill they had nothing to do with creating and it was created in the leadership office in the nights before the government shuts down and the structure of the work of congress had a lot to do that, they are institutional reforms that could ch

if congress wants that, if congress thinks that is important, congress needs to pass a law to require apple and other companies to do that. congress has not done so so far, in part i think because members of congress are reasonably hesitant to do something that will expose everybody to major cybersecurity risk. peter: why are you here at the state of the net? james: i am here at the state of the net to continue to talk publicly about these issues because i have invested a substantial amount of my career in them. i think they are radically important to the security and constitutional rights of americans. and making sure there is a robust, informed public debate about them is critically important to me personally, and i hope that we can find a way forward collectively as a society, we can come together on these issues, because we all are significantly invested in them. and getting it right is critically important to the country, so whatever i can do to help make the debate more informed, more robust, i am happy to do that. with any group that will listen to me. peter: mr. baker, another

is congress getting more done? the great deal maker has he made deals with congress?made himself look like a big deal, right? he can beat the system. he has made no deals to fix the system. a tax cut for the rich and a deficit you're going have to pay for. healthcare and immigration. nothing is solved. what happens with four more years? is being bad making it better. that's the question for the right. and can a democrat relate to what is really wrong and show there is a better way to do it right? that's what this election is about. that's my argument. next, the bolo. if you work in the trump administration look out, someone's having their eyes on you. with td ameritrade you've got courses, tools, and help from pros. it's almost like you're training me to become an even smarter, stronger investor. exactly. ♪(rocky theme music) fifty-six straight, come on! that's it, left trade right trade. come on another trade, i want to see it! more! ♪ 80s-style training montage? yeah. happens all the time. ♪ if you have moderate to severe psoriasis... or psoriatic arthritis, little

if congress wants that, if congress things that is important, if congress needs to pass a law to requirepple and these other companies to do that, congress has not done so so far. in part, i think, because members of congress are reasonably hesitant to do something that will expose everybody to major cybersecurity risk. >> why are you here at the state of the net? >> i'm here to continue to talk publicly about these issues because i have invested a substantial amount of my career in them. i think they are critically important to the security and constitutional rights of americans and making sure that there is a robust, informed public debate about them is critically important to me personally, and -- >> we leave this debate to take you live to minneapolis where 2020 presidential candidate amy klobuchar will speak with reporters following nevada's democratic caucuses. live coverage on c-span. governor, whoant we adore. she has been campaigning for me all over the country, as you know, the highest ranking american indian elected to statewide office in

reporter: you said the attorney general lied to congress. ms. pelosi: he did. reporter: why should the hot -- the house not move forward on impeachment proceedings against the attorney general? ms. pelosi: we -- our priority was to protect and defend the constitution of the united states. the president gave us no choice in his actions in violating the separation of power that is contained in the constitution. and that is our goal. so, again, there's so much malfeasance on the part of people in the executive branch right now. but the fact is, our responsibility is to honor our oath of office to protect and defend. but we can point out the disrespect that the attorney general has for the rule of law for lying to congress, and that is really very bad. it's not a good thing. lying to the american people. it is lying to the american people. under oath. but our priorities are to do our job for the american people, to lower health care costs by lowering the cost of prescription drugs. we passed that bill. we hope that we worked with the administration to put it togeth

either you believe, the permission of congress or you don't. we live in a topsy-turvy world where presidents wore their war powers absolute. don't talk to me, i will do what i want. the constitution envisioned we would not rely on one person to go to war. presidents now argue a decades-old authorization of force against a long deceased autocrat whose name, saddam hussein, is still valid and applies to an iranian general and that is absurd, and insulting to the constitution and it shouldn't be. the president gives unlimited power and so that doesn't work, i'm also arguing in 2002 congress voters go to war with saddam hussein and that gives the power to kill an iranian general. the president argued, bombing is not war. and and and battles are kinetic action and not war. we have been at war in do long and too many places. and i stopped with the president at dover air force base and it was a sad and somber memorial, but people need to think about this. this isn't a chess game. it is in the geopolitical chess game we are moving troops here and there

last fall, congress missed the opportunity to change that. this year, with 53 million children in our schools, congress must not miss that opportunity again. i ask you to help our communities build or modernize 5,000 schools. [applause] pres. clinton: if we do these things end social promotion, turn around failing schools, build modern ones, support qualified teachers, promote innovation, competition and discipline then we will begin to meet our generation's historic responsibility to create 21st century schools. [applause] pres. clinton: now, we also have to do more to support the millions of parents who give their all every day at home and at work. the most basic tool of all is a decent income. so let's raise the minimum wage by a dollar an hour over the next two years. [applause] pres. clinton: and let's make sure that women and men get equal pay for equal work by strengthening enforcement of equal pay laws. [applause] pres. clinton: that was encouraging, you know. [laughter] pres. clinton: there was more balance on the seesaw. i like that

they deserve better from the congress. we must find a way to come together to set aside partisan differences and to focus on what we have in common as americans. while so much is going on in our favor these days, we still face great challenges, both dom mostically and enter -- domestically and internationally but it remains my official belief that united we can conquer them and remain the greatest hope for the people around the world. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that my full statement be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without ing officer: the senator from utah. mr. romney: thank you, mr. president. the constitution is at the foundation of our republic success and we each strive not to lose sight of our promise to defend it. the constitution established the vehicle of impeachment that is occupied both houses of our congress these many days. we have labored to faithfully execute our responsibilities to it. we have arrived at different judgments, but i hope we respect each other's good faith. the all

opponent for any action even a failure to kowtow to congresses wishes. it is a profound and serious matter that should be handled as such. it cannot become a hail mary pass through the party to remove a president to effectively nullify the election and appearing in the next. i believe, i think that the results of the next election should be decided by the american people, not by congress. the decision to remove a president from office requires undeniable evidence b of a high crime. but despite our colleague's best attempts the facts they presented don't add up to the standard. house managers failed to meet their burden of proof that president trump beyond a reasonable doubt committed a crime let alone a high crime. therefore i will not vote to convict the president. d when the colleagues will finally accept the result just as they have not accepted the result of the 2016 election help them take the advice of congresswoman maxine waters and open as second impeachment inquiry. it's time for the country to come together to heal w the wounds and get the peop

will it be authorized by the constitution and by congress? i listened to senator mcconnell this morning and he has basically said, do nothing. do nothing. don't assert the constitutional authority of the congress under the constitution when it comes to any declaration of war against iran or any future military endeavors. he described this as a one-off situation -- a one-off use of force that we currently have seen in the targeting of general solemoni. perhaps it was. we don't know the answer to that. when it happened a few weeks ago, we don't know of what would follow. that uncertainty is still here today. the majority leader said he felt the impeachment effort which came before the senate in the last week would not have occurred if we had been patient. and he said, this is another example of impatience where we are setting up this constitutional responsibility of the administration. i disagree with him on two accounts. if senator mcconnell was counseling patience, patience at an impeachment trial would have involved evidence, documents, and

she was a teacher, she sent a petition to congress. she argued that as a woman, she has to pay equal taxes with men, but as a non-voter has no voice and how those tax dollars are spent. she further states that with superior capabilities for teaching and governing schools -- i love to point out that this petition was sent to congress in 1879. 140 years ago this year, women were already arguing they needed the vote to press for equal wages. of course, as a wage earning woman, women like emily barber, from their working experience, it was clear how vulnerable women were without the vote. one of the other ways a lot of women came to ultimately fight for their right to vote was through engagement through other reform issues. lots of women were engaged in the antislavery movement, the temperance movement, as well as other educational, public health, and social reforms. one of the most important endorsements came from the christian temperance union in 1881. they were the largest women's organization at the time. we have this petition here fro

and reforms of the congress that wouldy encourage its congress to think of themselves as insiders notutsiders and to think of themselves as legislators not performers, would have to look like change the budget process, the committee system that invests people more in the actual work of the institution. i think we've gotten to an place now where most members really take one big vote a year on a big budget bill. they had nothing to do with creating, it was created in the leadership offices at midnight the night for the government shuts down. the structure of the work of congress has a lot to do with that. there institutional reforms that could change that. c i think in some ways it's dangerous to say this on c-span, their ways transparencies gone too far in congress. there are no quiet spaces for members attack to each other. the only protected spaces are thedn leadership offices at midnight before the government shuts down. those of the places were all the work gets done. c-span is a godsend but there also has to be some places for members to bargain and deal with each other. there is

we in congress don't like to hear negative stuff. we don't seem to tolerate it very well even despite the fact that that may be the only answer. i got it. i'm sure you're aware that an android app can't run on an apple operating system. are we trying to run systems over there -- are we trying to create ways of doing business when the operating system won't ever allow us to do it? meaning are we wasting our time? and if so, what happens to both afghanistan and the united states if we just walk away? >> well, congress, i don't know if i can answer the bigger question about whether we're wasting our time or not. i'm going to leave that to you and the president to decide. but we are giving them systems, whether it's military hardware or other systems that they can't use. and one of the questions we asked early on is do the afghans know what about we're giving them, will they use it, do they want it? and we couldn't even get government agencies to ask those questions. and i have run across afghans who said i didn't know that clinic was be

another great resource is the library of congress. it has letters to the delegates of the first congress. recordsl of the formal of the congress others well. all searchable, digital and online. back in the day when i did my dissertation, none of that existed and i had to go to the library and take all this out. that's why it took me a long time. you have the benefit now to use the great things that have been digitized and are available online. i am happy to say that mount vernon is part of that work. one of the documentary editors works here at our library. we work and great partnership with the papers of george washington at the university of virginia who are systematically transcribing and annotating, and publishing all of the papers of george washington. it was or a markable to think that project started in 1968. it was thought to take 20 years. we just had our 50th anniversary of that project the year before last. i thicket is going to take another 10 years before they finally finished all the massive correspondence of george wash