congress. the question is whether we will implement reforms and take our l power back. acrosset our history, we havek. seen congress do just that, like in the 19 seventies during the war powers resolution, act, a national emergencies act, in the armed forces act among others to rein in presidential powers. in the 1990s, when congres passed the congressional review act to provide better oversight over regulations. i think the time has come fo congress to pushback once more, not toor rein in a particularrn president, but to rein in all presidents. that is with an asset the end. some people wonder why we are doing this now. ii think this is thea perfect t time to do it. we are in an election year. hewe president will be.e next the ne but we do know that the next president will not have an epiphany and just hand congress has power back. we need to seize it. if the next president is a republican,the i know i will wat to assert my fullal constitutional authority, and i guarantee ifhe is he or she isa

congress had a choice. it did have a public policy concern about self-sufficiency and incentives to immigrate. and what congress chose to do was to address that through very detailed and specific provisions about eligibility. what congress affirmatively rejected was the idea that it was going to change the meaning of public charge and rejected a proposal to do just that, almost exactly what dhs is trying to do now. and that proeaposal was not something that died in committee that never got attention because there was certain that this was going too far an attacking public benefits. cases have made clear that an agency does not have authority when congress rejects one regulatory path, the agency does not have authority to come back and try to just do it itself. and one of the sort of sweeping problems with a lot of these arguments about the various 1996 versions is that it is using hidden meanings and inferences to try to draw a really vast transformation in immigration law and benefits law. if that's what c

this was given to congress so congress would decide to wage war full stop. no president thought they could use force against a foreign nation. all the uses of force in the early years were authorized by congress in the washington administration, in the adams administration, et cetera. i think the administration has a rope and suspenders idea. you can decide to wage war, how to wage it, and whether to cut off funds. but relying on the last thing as the only means of defense is a mistake. the emergency point, if you gave the president emergency point to use military force until ten days after congress next met, that would be sufficient with him or her to deal with the emergency and you would decide whether to continue. i don't think there's anything wrong with that. >> i appreciate that. i just -- you know, in the situation we're in right now is that if congress were to vote to cut off funds for a war that a particular president, you know, didn't want to admit was failing or was wrong, we would need a supermajority because we would have to override his or her

they wanted to work with congress. we just didn't muster up the well, republican or democrat alike, to actually get that done. that's on us. that's not on the president. so i would hope there is honest soul-searching in this debate as well. it is not just hey, we have been robbed of our power. it is sometimes as you suggest, we have refused to exercise the power we have and we have drawn the executive branch into areas that should've been dealt with legislatively. >> congressman cole, let me follow up. president trump has used a declaration of a national emergency on the southern border in order to begin construction of his border wall. the house has taken a couple votes to rescind that national emergency. and you voted against it. you voted to allow the wall construction to continue. so if next january, we are greeting a new president, say president bernie sanders, and he declares a national emergency on climate change or a national emergency on student debt, will you also allow him to continue in that regard? or will

the echoing halls of congress. in the remaining southerners sidestepped each other with your eyes adverted. too angry or too ashamed to speak. this is what it felt like on the cusp of the war. now when we think about the civil war. most writing is about what happened on the battlefield. in remarkably little about what happened politically. and what happened politically is about abraham lincoln. it is easy to understand why we want to read so much about lincoln. more books have been written than by any other single person. that is not hard to understand. but there was a much more happening in washington. and most of what was important was happening on capitol hill. politics led to the war. it sustained the union of war effort. war effort. it drove the war to the resolute lucian. and he gave it lasting meeting. the story of how that happened is an epic at least i think it's an epic. it is also a human story about men very few of whom expected to face the worst crisis in the country's history. as they just described.

[applause] ook the first congress south bay tells the story of the most momentous and 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

largely what i'm doing is all over congress. one of the things i found enlightening was, ironically we are on c-span2 talk audit, i never understood why nobody ever seemed to be at work in congress. i'd be watching the television and i would say where is everybody? when i discovered is, they are all three or four different committees and six or seven subcommittees and they are all happening at the same time. as an outsider looking in, looking at empty seats, what i'm not recognizing is that member is walking around the 8 miles of their day to sit in their check to the five minute conversation to represent the community and largely what they are doing is bringing back information to their teams, their staff to work on legislative items or agenda. i was in eye-opener for me because i didn't genuinely think, where is everybody and why are they not at work? >> one of the preconceptions about members, maybe some of them are true, maybe members of congress have bigger healers than the average person because they think they can run, bu

they didn't see congress function. the last real bipartisan big bipartisan bills, i mean, i would say to happen in the early bush years, which is a long time ago now. congress hasn't really sort of felt itself functioning in quite a while. i use that as an example because that's an institution that makes its own rules i could change them, and if it understood the problem in these terms it would have some incentives to do that. part of the reason to write a book like this is to try to surface these problems in these terms because it's not how we can to see them. it points in the opposite direction from how we can to see them. rather than thinking we need to tear these things down, the establishment is too strong, we can understand we need to build these things up. we need functional institutions and right now we just don't have them. >> i have sort of two questions, but are 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

congress is to grant 10 square miles of land to congress for a new federal town. after that point, the government will move to new york city, and the rest as they say is history. so, i'm happy to take questions for about five minutes. one of my colleagues has a hand microphone, so if you have a, just raise your hand if you have a question. i would be delighted to answer it or directed you to a book that will answer it. >> good morning. can you hear me? >> yes. >> you said earlier, the population count was "all other persons," other than whom? where women counted, were children counted? everyone other than enslaved people? >> yes. that's a great point. at no point in the constitution is the word "slave" or "enslaved" written, so all other persons is coded language to refer to enslaved people. >> [inaudible] >> why not? why not what specifically? >> [inaudible] >> that's a great question. i think some of the convention goers probably would have been ok with explicitly stating it. i think a lot of them were aware of their long-term effect on history and didn't necess

congress was really up and arms. members of both parties was up in arms that the administration had not come to congress and given forewarning. they are trying to flex their muscles and say, listen, the constitution says the congress -- congress shall declare war and this resolution reminds the president of that. even though this goes to his desk and they cannot have power to overturn a veto. build he did sign was the $8.3 billion emergency spending measure to adjust the coronavirus outbreak. what else can we expect from congress in terms of key hearings or potential legislation on coronavirus in the coming weeks? mike: i think you will hear a ton of things. his whole past week on capitol hill was just monopolized by coronavirus and administration officials coming up every day and briefing members of both chambers. both an open hearings and behind closed doors about the latest developments. just because the lingering uncertainty, how widespread is it, when will the test kits go out, how many will go out, where will t

congress must do its job. and we must even go further to restore our constitutional duty over military action. i hope the senate takes up my bill, h.r. 2456, to repeal the 2002 iraq aumf which the house passed in january which the administration, mind you, has used as the basis for the assassination of soleimani and military hostilities toward iran. the 2002 iraq resolution to address weapons of mass destruction -- may i have another 30 seconds? . ms. lee: let me remind you, the 2002 iraq resolution was introduced to weapons of mass destruction purportedly in iraq. lie.this was a forth by tby the bush administration and many tried to halt the use of force and to the inspectors to complete their inspections. unfortunately -- and i had an do this -- it received just 72 votes. of how one ess authorization not iran ic to iraq, nor any other country. time congress reassert our congressional of war and matters peace. we must return to diplomacy and peace and stop these endless wars. i urge my colleagues to vote yes

at the national level, he was in the second continental congress and confederation congress. so he had a lot of personal experience with the many ways the government at the national level was failing to get things done. fromadison knows experience that the unity of the nation has been sorely tested, and over the winter of 1786 into 1787, we will be up here in his library at his home up the hill, doing a lot of research. he's going to be doing research into what has previously worked for other confederacies around the world, what has not worked, and he will be looking more closely into very specifically, what are the issues at play in the united states? vices ofthe specific the political system of the united states, and then what are some potential solutions to those problems? ultimately, madison is going to come to the conclusion that most of these problems can be solved through a stronger national government, which brings us to philadelphia. all right. philadelphia, the convention was supposed to start on may 14. they didn't have enough delegates at the time to actually get

that is what congress is and what congress does.ost: we will talk a bit more about the third piece of legislation that congress will take up after 9:00. the house is coming in at 9:00 briefly, a pro forma session. how are you? i became an american citizen moved to year and i the u.s. 10 years back from 2008 -- 10 years back. from 2008, i follow politics a overnd what i have seen the presidency, the primaries come on, i saw directly all the , all theg media congressmen were dead against him, but the democrats signed it. that is the same thing happening now when a republican was chosen as president. i know he is not a perfect man and there are a few things we can definitely say he is out of line, but if you take a simple example yesterday, he called it the china virus. as the new sentiment of this see where continue to fake news from the chinese media, some guy mentioned it is the u.s. army who spread this. basalarly know there is a issue in wuhan. is it possible something went wrong that might be an entirely different thing? as a pre

it's not in congress. however, there was something of an honor dispute between lincoln and this fellow shields. it's often written about on one hand, it's kind of a joke, that it wasn't serious. people talk about the fact that lincoln got to pick weapons, so he chose swords that were long so that -- and his arms are longer so he could reach the other guy and the other guy couldn't reach him. that's one way of talking about it. but there is a book, actually this fellow was writing it when i was -- had a particular fellowship. doug wilson. i want to say it's called "honors call" or something like that. whether we talked about this, we felt like there was seriousness to it, that it wasn't just a joke, that they don't necessarily end up dueling. when you look at what they were doing, they were taking it seriously and thinking about what they were doing and kind of, as i suggested, you don't have to go to a dueling ground to make a person. you have to show yourself willing to do something during the negotiation

for congress, period. don't you think that would be great book? you have covered congress over the years. i'd love you to do it. you have six months or something. so killer deadline. i thought that would be great. all new people, and i had had the experience of covering when we republicans took over and the tea party wave and what that was like to we have a whole new breed in town. i thought they're book ends. >> host: that's an interesting contrast. from your book you tell a lot of stories, many of them personal to me. what ones stand out as the most remarkable stories that you -- if you had coffee with somebody you would want to share with them about our class or this year. >> guest: a couple of things. i always loved sit neglect gallery and watching you interact, who sits with whom and who hangs out and i did find the group of national security women as they're often referred to, so close and tightknit and watching you have this bonding experience, and the men as well but watching that was interesting t

if congress fails to act. the year after that the medicare hospital trust fund as i mentioned, we only have 89 cents on the dollar. congress will have to act at that point. the medicare and beneficiaries are not going to be able to step up to cover that cost without causing calamity with their own personal finances. we have an aging population, so there are more people being covered and the medicare program. the social security program by 2034 which isn't much further, would only have enough to pay 77 cents on the dollar. i do not think congress or the american public would accept the 23% cut and social security benefits for a lot of people whose sole reliance of income is the social security system. as i have testified before, people are not saving much on their own. some people in high incomes are doing well but a lot of people are not. there is not a saving. the federal reserve -- >> what percentage of benefits once you crash it in 2030? four >> you can only pay 77%. that is for the old age survivors market

why is congress involved? you have to understand, for the most part, major league baseball controls the destiny of minor leagues and should not be allowed to bully these small communities into submission. our goal is to level the playing field for these small towns and ensure that they have a voice in this matter. minor league baseball is a point of pride and brings jobs and economic development and provides affordable family friendly entertainment and brings people together for an afternoon at the ball park. and hopefully creating the next generation of baseball fans. this bill is intended to show that congress' commitment to preserving america's pasttime in small parts of rural america. far removed from the bright lights of major league. by passing this piece of legislation we will be sending a message that eliminating grassroots baseball in these 4 communities is an unnecessary burden on these small towns jerking the rug from under baseball fans in rural america. look, look, there are many things in our ame

in congress, it was different. in congress, southerners knew that they were willing to duel and that their northern colleagues were probably not willing to duel, particularly by this point, because by this point, congressmen from the north were assuming their constituents back home really disapproved of it, thought it was barbaric and southern and would not want their representatives to take a part in it. southerners used that to their advantage during congressional debate. they threatened and intimidated northern opponents, hinting at duels, knowing full well the northerners were likely to back down when confronted or sometimes not to even stand up for confrontation. silencing themselves rather than risk being humiliated on the floor of congress. i want to show you an example of this in action. in 1838, one congressman killed another in a duel, the only time when congressmen killed another. what launched the duel was a clash between democrats and whigs on the house floor. a southern whig who tried to intimidate a

congress needs to do that. the fastest growing costs in the federal government are health care costs on interest on the debt. the health care cost, as you point out, senator, are growing faster than the economy and are projected to continue to do so in the future. so, there has to be some changes. by 2026, there will only be enough money in the medicare hospital trust fund to pay 89 cents on the dollar of benefits so that's right around the corner, that would affect millions of americans that rely on the medicare hospital trust fund costs. and put enormous pressure on the federal government. the suggestions that you make are good ones. we have other open recommendations and in addition to bringing down drug costs, for example, if you-- your payment by the federal government under medicare depends for hospital-- or not -- for doctor visits depends where you go, what place you get it. if you go to a doctor's office affiliated with a hospital medicare pays you more money than if you visited that same doctor in a p

congress.rofessor green: to think about it in the broader context, the speaker of the house has a number of responsibilities. part of it is presiding over the house chamber, although they rarely do that. they have someone doing that for them. but they're technically responsible for presiding over the house, and making sure the rules are being followed. they are also the leader of their party. and with that comes some expectations they will help the party pass its legislative agenda, they might help set the agenda. they are expected to help with campaigns, raising money, these kinds of things to help their fellow partisans get elected. they also have a public role to play. they're expected to do so interviews, to be in the public sphere and represent their party as well as the house as a whole. and those are just some of the many responsibilities they have , which is why it is such a difficult job. susan: do you have a sense of how large their staff is today or the administrative budget of the s

republicans now ran congress. newt gingrich, the new speaker of the house, was kind of a prime minister, and clinton was going to be irrelevant. how does bill clinton navigate that situation to make a comeback? or how maybe do republicans make some tactical errors that help them make that come back? he is going to get reelected in 1996, how is that possible? what goes on? >> there is one very sad event during which bill clinton performs very admirably. it begins to change sensibilities. >> one aspect is that hillary clinton [indiscernible] down and is like, we are going to do this. he is a republican centrist individual. to have to're going run the government in a centrist aspect. [indiscernible] they kind of advertise that. >> another term: triangulation. they hit on a clever strategy. the president would tactfully separate himself from some aspects of the democratic agenda, but still oppose aspects of the republican agenda. he would play the two sides off against each other and in a sense, he had republican help

congress passed it by an overwhelming margin. johnson made clear when asking for this resolution that i don't ask for anything beyond the discretion granted to dwight eisenhower. while the manner in which the resolution was obtained was in defensible. it was not unprecedented. its consequences were. that's the topic we'll pick up next time. i'll see you next week. >>> coming up during this presentation of american history ti tv a break down to the did declaration of independence. it's followed by how women's and gay rights expanded in the 1960s and '70s. later the different opinions of the founding fathers on how the u.s. west should be handled and how the laws changed depending on who had influence. we're featuring american history tv programs in prime time as a preview of what's available every weekend on c-span 3. tonight we'll show you classes from purdue, rutgers, michigan and nebraska. american history tv, tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. a history professor from clemson university breaks down the preamble of the d

they didn't see congress function.t real bipartisan bill, or say happened in the early bush years, i was a long time ago now. congress hasn't really felt itself functioning and quite a while now. thus the institution that makes its own rules and constraints them. if understood these terms, i think you have incentive to do that. part of the reason to write a book like this, is to surface these problems in these terms because it's not how we tend to see them. it points in the opposite direction from how we tend to see them. rather than tear them down from the establish is strong, we need to build things things up. we need functional institutions. right now, we just don't have that. >> i have two questions. thank you for your presentations, your making a wonderful contribution to the discussion and issues. the first part is from what i gather from your presentation, you're asking for a new attitude and a change of mindset. what would it take for us quarterly for that to really get launched in addition -- more than just yo

and congress knows how to say solicit when it wants to. it says it in 18 u.s.c. 373, and, as this court said in clark versus martinez, constitutional kicks in after all the ordinary textual analysis of the statute as a whole has been exhausted. and in this circumstance, i think every textual indicator whatsoever shows that congress meant to do what it said, which was to ban encouragement, which is speech. it isn't a narrow solicitation provision. it isn't an aiding and abetting provision. we know that not just because that's what the words say but because congress wrote an aiding and abetting provision just two subparagraphs later using those words specifically. we know that the aiding and abetting provision, that one two subparagraphs down, applies to subsection (4), which would mean, if rewritten to mean solicitation, you could be convicted of aiding and abetting solicitation or aiding and abetting aiding and abetting, which is at the very least counterintuitive, if not absurd. and we also know that if you limit it to a conduct based pro

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

now it's time for congress to do its part. to pass the emergency legislation and get i indicatede president's desk thankfully they are the most prepared nation to face this challenge. we have harnessed all of the american energy and ingenuity and expertise that we need for this fight. the key is for all of us to remain engaged and vigilant. as a doctor i'm confident that i'm president that we will be able to succeed together. thank you madam president i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. i'm on the floor to speak of the virus that first let me express to the families inne tennessee y heartfelt concern for them as the result of a tornado that swept through tennessee last night while people were sleeping. the number of deaths is 22 so far in nashville and wilson and putnam and benton county. i've seen plus fires but there's nothing quite like seeing what a tornado can do. i can't imagine what it must be like for that to have an atomic clock in the morning when no one knows it is coming. i will be visiting those

in this sense, it changed the meaning of dueling in congress, -- inhe north in control congress. with the north in control, refusing to jewel became a way a politician's character. the series is a biographical series of lectures. the main character at the heart of my book, who basically enabled me to tell the story because of how he changed. if anyone is interesting about -- interested in hearing about , i really could not have told this story without him. i would be happy to talk about that as well. i don't know if it is a great life, but it's a significant life. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, joanne. this is a little out of the program. to point out this will be our topic this coming tuesday because it was .escheduled it was supposed to be february 13. we will have a lecture next tuesday night on john quincy adams. so, i hope you will be here for that. are we ready for questions? all right. questions. if you will raise your hand in stand and ask your question as the singly as possible, we will take as many as we can, ok? how many actual duels stopped or decided t

host: are you concerned about congress moving too quickly? legislation from the house, which democrats want to include beyond paid sick leave, expanded unemployment assistance, nutrition assistance, protections against price cows and. they are looking at a big package. it is put on the floor tomorrow. these members vote and the senate votes on friday. they are leaving for a week break. any concerns that they are moving too quickly? caller: i don't think that you can move too quickly. the president took very early action when he heard about this. people started asking him, why are you doing this? i don't think that there's any problem with house democrats or senate republicans when it comes to the safety of the american people. you cannot act fast enough. it's better to take a risk than to take a bigger risk and just say, let something worse happen. host: susan, independent. portland come organ. -- portland, oregon. caller: a couple things. one great frustration is that the nba has continued to play even though it seems very clear that we had

they could command his army, but not command congress. he was a subject of congress. congress was answerable to the states. he had no power over that. he continually tries to arrange informal exchanges with the british, to no avail. trying and can never agree on terms. the states are discarding the prisoners not giving them back to washington. no, they are our prisoners now. we will hold them in exchange for our guys. washington has to confess he feels deeply embarrassed on the issue of prisoners. both prisoners -- prisoners on both sides are going to languish in captivity until the treaty of paris. this is an image done of american prisoners on the famous jersey prison ship. showing the sunken faces of these men. we don't have any images for the british prisoners, but british pension applications, the survivors who made it through the captivity and made it home to apply for a pension, they read like a laundry list of oe.ery, suffering and w enlisted prisoners were in these camps talking about how their confinement left them really suffering. bearing the scars of thei

congress doesn't just -- to call a vote is not eating a member of congress. we need to deal with that holistically. not just say remote voting and therefore we are above water. we are going to have to deal with something that allows for voting when you can't get to washington or one place. we don't have that in place. we need to have that function so that they can have a conversation about legislation. people who can hear experts talk about an issue. all of those things need to be in place. i know that they are working on some of that. the problem solvers, part of what we put forward will be some us to be anble effective legislative group as part of the constitution. keeping the country moving forward, we need to innovate little bit here. can you talk to us about life as a congressman in the age of coronavirus? guest: the biggest part of the job is communication and being a resource. i work with some health care providers in terms of when they have critical needs that need to be addressed. particularly on testing issues that arose. struggling with getting bet

your last year in congress and ever since you first came to congress in 1989, i had the privilege ofof the democratic leadership. and watched you take leading roles on so many vital issues. but the issue of the u.s. relationship has always had a special place in your heart, you have never been afraid to stand up and vocal support of that relationship whether publicly challenging and then chairman of the subcommittee, that was by the moment. >> i don't want to share that with you. [laughter] , one of the moments i will never forget but you stood up there and successfully took him on which was a great moment or president whether republican or democrat who have gone astray. you leave behind an enormous legacy. a vital pro israel legislation and almost a relationship with key members of congress who learned from you, the value of u.s. israel type. no exaggeration that u.s. israel alliance would not be nearly as strong as it is today or not for the incredible work you put into it all these years. [applause] in that, you follow in the great tradition of the many jewish women throughout our

they were not the only bachelors in congress. from my sense of studying various biographical entries of the congressman. seven to 10 congressmen during, say, a 15 to 20 year period show up as bachelors or widowers. when you do the calculations, between 4% and 7%. that being said, one did not have to be unmarried to live as a bachelor. the conditions made it so that congressmen essentially liked to live as bachelors. the connection there is if a family stays at home and if the congressmen come to the capital without his wife or family or children, those conditions are rife for a bachelor style lifestyle. drinking and tobacco usage, these are two things that fit within that bachelor lifestyle. one was more likely to drink to excess when one was away from wife and children. which might be a more moderate influence. host: let's turn to your book. "bosom friends: the intimate world of james buchanan and william rufus king." james buchanan, our 15th president. what did you learn about him, and explain who mr. king was. dr. balcerski: "

and people just really don't get about that about congress. jennifer: one of my classmates, he brings a six pack and knocks on somebody's door pretty he just sits down and has a bear with them. that's kind of what he does sometimes on the weekends. and you're right, also in our community at home, here and impure, congress is in recess. and i hate that expression. because you know that everybody is back home in their communities working really hard to be present at home. they are not here in washington dc. and what do you think with all of this visual cues or whether you are there or not there. what is the biggest difference between what you see in the media and what is actually happening here on the ground. jennifer: two things and they're kind of contradictory. one of the things i think it's important for people to understand. people come down to the floor and some of it is performative but some of it is extremely heartfelt and very personal and second stances. women have rented to the table. really making policy very personal. in talking wit