now congress stripped away all the semblance of the status and they ask us whether congress's purpose was all the interest in the land and here statute after statute was precisely that. the act and tribal governments ofri the land, the allotment agreements they vested the life title interest in allotments were stripped of the federal superintendence. everyone at the time read the statutes to mean the state had jurisdiction into the land wasn't a reservation. >> thank you, counsel. in response to a question from justice kagan argued that the dependent indian community was an umbrella term that included reservations. i would like to get your response to that. >> i think that definition would completely make e-book and 51 b.. it would rewrite the statute. the court said is w that tribes are, quote, not unlike living on these reservations which compares the plainclothes that had the dependent indian community as the five tribes and then congress went out and codified. it's the kind of land is to separate and apart from reservations which is what thiss court held. >> thank you, counsel. ju

congress and the f.c.c. exempted noncommercial calls from the residential call ban after concluding they do not adversely affect the privacy rights procketted by the tcpa. there's no good privacy based reason for treating these exact same calls differently when made to cell phones. the government debt exception confirms congress did not view the privacy interest here as compelling. that exception exposes 60 million americans to unlimited calls to collect more than $4.2 trillion in debt. those are the kind of calls consumers hate the most. if congress really thought privacy was paramount it would not have allowed those calls. because the speech ban is too broad and unjustified, the restriction, not the exception must be struck down. that's what the court has always done in first amendment cases and rightly so. federal courts cannot fix first amendment violations by making more speech illegal. this court should reject the remedial approach that eliminates incentives to challenge unconstitutional speech bans an

congress knows how to do this. the job to fix the consequences is with congress. kavanaugh: good morning. i want to talk a bit about the commentand maybe make a and you can't react. this is not a situation where there is a reservation and congress is arguably this managed -- diminish the reservation. this is a case where indian territory was predominantly white, and also a significant thek population, and question, how did we get there, to that situation? you go back to the treaties of 18 30 two that grant to the lands, but then the civil war is key, and the five tribes all aligned with the confederacy, and the tribes have black slaves , and then there is a new treaty in 1866, because the united states is not happy that the tribes have aligned with the confederacy. why does that matter for us, because in the new treaty it grants rights-of-way to railroads. that leads to settlements and that leads to new towns that are predominantly white. by 1890 you have the odd situation of an indian territory that is predominantly white. the options of congress at that ,ime are

of congress. congress makes them and can pass statutes saying that if you are the secretary of transportation, you cannot own stock in auto companies. the present here is saying, the people to the constitution created my office and i am not your baby. you can't regulate me in the same way. the president is trying to fight hard against the idea that these subpoenas relate to valid legislation. he is asking, if you are going to collect on my financial information, to what end does this serve? this does not relate to valid legislation and giving the narrowness of your authority over me, these subpoenas aren't valid in the same way they might be valid with respect other federal officers who might have a business interest. >> that is helpful. now understanding the case, it may be helpful to put on the table a case which came out. it was in 1927 in the teat pot dome standard -- the teapot dome standard. it was a challenge for a man whose brother was the former attorney general and had domecuted in the t

that is the only enumerated power to which congress is -- congress has pointed here. the house has not relied on impeachment, so you would simply say the subpoenas are invalid. to tie that into justice gorsuch's -- just as question earlier, we are not asking to go back and look at what they said and their mental processes. i'm saying if you look at pages 46 and 54 of the red brief and you look at what they actually said about their intended legislative proposal and why they need the documents, it is paperthin. they don't give you any specifics on what they were thinking about doing or any specifics on why they need the documents. that is not an accident. it's not the product of carelessness or flawlessness, it is because the purpose here is to expose wrongdoing and the house has never really tried to substantiate why it needs these documents in service of its legislative powers. justice thomas: thank you. chief justice roberts: justice ginsburg? justice ginsburg: one must investigate before legislation. the purpose of investigation is to frame the legislation. you don

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 sectional differences. hobbled by competing currencies, crushed by debt and just stitched together only tentatively by the constitution. the constitution provided a set of principles but it 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, united states as we know it may not exist. abraham lincoln led the nation but congress actually directed the civil war. this fine history written by an amazing storyteller offers a riveting history in the book argues that convincingly that congress in the end got it right. fergus bordewich is the author of seven nonfiction books, is also published and illustrated a children's book "peach blossom spring" and wrote the script for pbs documentary about thomas jefferson. is also edited and illustrated book of eyewitness accounts of th

is likely intent -- congress' likely intent. the's not a reason severability analysis. that a plaintiff can only achieve victory on those two legal questions. on both the merits of the claim and the appropriate remedy and the court holds you've established the existence of a violation but the statute read properly simply doesn't authorize the remedy you seek. that's one of the chances the plaintiff takes on a claim that depends on prevailing on separate legal propositions. they persuaded them to one proposition but didn't to a second proposition essential to getting what they wanted that that's not an unusual situation under the law. thomas: just asking a question about your scrutiny analysis. you seem to focus on the interest the individual has in privacy of the cell phone. it would seem to me that that privacy interest is not nearly as a person would have in a or even phone at home someone knocking on their front door. at the time the statute was enacted, cell phones were a lot less prevalent and were used on rare occasions an

everyone knows that congress when constituents lend their voice and their power to congress. now they will change that. they are only 20 members of congress and they can all hold 10 proxies and pass whatever they want to she goes further in dismissing the voice of the people by trampling on the constitution. what is worse about this issue continues to pay members of congress. she extends congress out of session longer than the 45 days. the truck driver, the delivery worker, the doctor they are all working and she continues to deny congress doing its job. the heroes act which she continues to twist arms to try to get as many democrats as she can to vote for the focus is on bills that they have dreamed of before covid even existed. it's not a time for politics. it's not a time for diversion. it's time to put america on better footing to help us get a vaccine and not allowed china to do that as well to hold china account for the actions that have taken place and to get our economies working. if you want to get our economy working the first thing you would test on any bill that w

congress. certainly in the senate. we want to show it was possible to have a hearing without physically being in a hearing room. we are told this is a first are the u.s. senate. in my view, remote congressional proceedings should never be the norm. it should be limited to times of true and nationwide emergencies, and only when it is not feasible for senators to be in the same place. any authorization to proceed remotely, whether it is committee meetings or the votes should be limited in duration. any extension should require a vote by the entire senate. our goal should be to bring both our country and congress back to work in person as soon as safely possible. there are times when that is not possible. these principles are outlined in the bipartisan remote voting resolution i introduced with senator dick durbin. it allows a majority and minority leaders to agree, put in place a temporary voting arrangement for remote voting in times of extraordinary crisis. after 30 days, senators would have to vote to allow that remot

by the constitution itself and not by congress? the answer is not very much. they apply avoidance principles to avoid having to decide whether congress has attempted to reach the president. the one example in recent history is the nexen versus general administrative services case. even in that case, it was a very limited right regarding presidential documents. one could imagine may be some hypothetical where there would be limited personal papers that might be relevant to a question regarding custody of official documents. but even in that case, the constitutionality of that was not seeking the president's personal papers and that control remains in the executive branch. >> justice sotomayor? >> council, there is a long history of congress seeking records and getting them as justice ginsburg pointed out from presidents. cases, we havese said, especially eastland, that a congressional subpoena is valid so long as there is a conceivable legislative purpose and the records are relevant to that purpose. i see a tremendous separation of

but that doesn't mean congress can subpoena medical records. they've ruled out the hypothetical categorically. that is constant with the fact they failed to consider what the actual legislative need is, it is in the legislation in the warrants to investigate the wrongdoing going back ten years. he says a laundry list of the proposal following those past and the issue and at no point in the argument section of the briefing o or to date as he trid to tie any particular legislative proposal specifically to the president in the documents that they seek. this isn't an attempt to preserve the separation of powers but it is on that point i wanted to note the question i may have misunderstood the watergate committee did serve a congressional subpoena under the legislative power and applied the heightened need standard that invalidated just in this court invalidated the attempt to hold in contempt somebody when it violated the separation of powers just at the lower court to prevent separatioagreed and s square they been pursued. it's definitely to multi

congress, so here we go. the national constitution center is the only institution in america chartered by congress to disseminate information about the constitution on a nonpartisan basis in order to increase awareness and understanding of the constitution among the american people. and that is what they are trying to do in collaboration with c-span as we invite you to join us in listening to these oral arguments and then convening afterwards with some of america's most thoughtful scholars who filed briefs in our taking positions on both sidesof of the case to help us unpack the arguments we just heard. for an and this has been an extraordinary morning and we've heard three cases involving the president's power to resist the subpoena in the first cases from congress in the second case from the state district attorney. there are two great scholars and two of america's leading experts on the law of the presidency especially as it relates to the subpoena. andrew is the professor of law at joseph rosenfeld is a l

congress is essential? if so come back and hold hearings. why would you decide to spend $3 trillion with no input? >> maybe it is a divergent. i am not sure. >> you said could be exonerated and committee assignments back, clarify what is going on. >> congressman king's comments -- i never said that. committee assignments are decided by the steering committee. he will have the opportunity to make his case talking to members of the steering committee would get the same answer he got before. >> host: he does anticipate another round? do you agree with that? >> i do believe in that. i believes it has to be bipartisan. it would have to go through committee. myself along with tom cole and rodney davis we put out a plan to open congress more than a month ago. have committees working now. there are bills that need to get done. the national defense, appropriations, those committees could meet here and now in congress in large-size rooms with social distancing so we could have that work done. at the same time committ

when congress directs the congress to protect whistle-blowers, that's something that is priority business. in 2014 this body tried to protect whistle-blowers. a law was passed. mr. evanina has ignored it all these years. that's just not acceptable. now, with donald trump and his administration feeling free to publicly attack whistle-blowers again and again, conduct an unremitting assault on the entire whistle-blower system, laws to protect them are especially important to our democracy. day after day, we see the costs of campaign to silence people who speak up about abuses. we see it in his efforts to cover up his failed, p often corrupt responses to the covid-19 crisis. we see it across the board. now it when this country needs officials who are going to demonstrate leadership, who are going 0 stand up for the brave and the people who are willing to put their neck out to report misconduct. whistle-blowers deserve it. the country deserves it. now, the last 00 point i'm going to make, mr. president, my colleagues probably have heard -- they're going to hear it i believe again -- that mr. e

congress is still closed. not the senate, congress. i believe congress is essential. i believe our founders would be ashamed of us for not assembling. the idea that congress can back to vote on cash for cannabis, that bill had more to do with cannabis and jobs. it mentioned that more than jobs. those ideas had long been the progressive socialist ideas before covid ever came around. electionging about law, prisoners, prioritizing illegal immigrants. pension for states as well. those are not the things that deal with covid. unfortunately, that's the focus of the democratic party. they changed the way we vote in congress. you just watched to members of congress, their district has just loaned those individuals their voice and power until november. in congress, we have 435 people like that. they do not have an equal voice. now, 20 people can run all of congress. one person can carry 10 votes. how do your constituents hold you accountable when you give that power to something else? this is not about opening up a campus. it's about bringing back the voice of america. they h

the government says congress needing a restriction congress and the d fcc exempted noncommercial calls from the residential called thehe end ono - - man with their privacy acts to treat these execs in calls differently the debt exception concerns on - - confirms it does not see it as compelling that exposes 60 million americans to calls to collect more than four.2 trillion dollars of debt those of the calls consumers hate the most they thought privacy was paramount they would not allow those calls because the speech man is too broad and unjustified and then to be struck down and in those first amendment cases federal courts cannot fix those first amendment violations and should reject that immediate approach to challenge unconstitutional speech bands and gives clients no relief even though there first amendment claims. >> and based on the decision that when congress takes steps to help cure the constitutional problemem they don't have to do everything at once we object that some speech is allowed but the allowance as long as congress is moving in the right directionn and then to allow

congress passed a law about sales to saudi arabia.partment, they declared a fake emergency in order to initiate the sales. that may have been part of the investigation. that is what i'm concerned about. not only did they do something wrong in declaring a fake emergency, they undermined the will of congress. let's see how this unfolds, just like in the last 36 hours we are seeing. what it is we know so far is scandalous. guest: i think this is exactly -- more than 24 hours and we don't have any evidence to the contrary. it is important that the house and senate have begun investigations there are some republicans starting to raise concerns. this has historically been a bipartisan issue. i worry when it becomes politicized and tainted bipartisanship. this is another process of checks and balances. this is not about winning or losing. it is important for republicans to remember that they want to have confidence that inspectors general have protections to do their jobs as well. it is just as important to remove partisan politics from this

it suggests that's is not what congress is doing, congress is kowtowing to certain powerful interests and favoring that speech over other speech in a way that historically, they have been skeptical of. speech,ant to suppress you need to suppress everyone's speech. if you have speech that will get some money for you or speech that has a more effective lobbying group, that suggest that maybe you're are not as serious as you thought you were about the interests at stake. that starts to make us skeptical. i think justice thomas's question gets to the heart of it. one difficulty of arguments of means itin this format makes it more difficult to read tea leaves. with all of the justices asking questions on both sides, it's unsurprising that the the justices have hard questions for both sides because they are really smart and they ask the hardest questions they can think of. i think that is the crux of the , why problem with the law not excise the one little thing and make the government punish more people. the answer goes back to the -- there is a problem and how we are talking about what co

if congress has cared about this for years, in july of 2014, the congress passed legislation specifically prohibiting security clearances is a form of retaliation against whistleblowers. so here's what the question was. what happens if a whistleblowers bossns simply assess their revod security clearance for some of their reason pretty well if they say, it was not for retaliation coming whistleblower. this was the lower have any recourse. is there an appeal process. and they stick their neck out to report waste, fraud and abuse, just out of luck. then the congress stood with the whistleblowers. in that same 2014, director of national intelligence, and the attorney general and secretary of defense, to develop and implement policies a and practis to make that appeal process for whistleblowers a reality. in other words, the congress recognized that there was a boers were truly going to be protected, from retaliation there had to be a meaningful process for them to defend themselves against agencies that always have have all of the power. and always have the way to silence and remove those who

port directly to congress. what sort of training do they need to have two -- how do you become an inspector general? guest: that is a good question. it is clear there is confusion about that. in the 2008 reform act, they formalized a system where the report -- in 2008 reform act, they formalized a system where the inspector general would go through a vetting process that would look at potential report -- in 2008 reform ig's, making sure they had proper evidence of a law enforcement or legal background. in some cases, an auditing --.ground it also but also an ability to demonstrate they are independent. host: where do they come from? guest: often, an oig will work up through the system. small commissions and agencies of employees, you get skills that way and how to manage to be an ig and then you work your way up through these giant agencies with giant staff. host: what kind of power do you have as ig? guest: in some cases not much. sometimes what you can do is only make recommendations and then law enforcement

what do you mean by that, and what can congress do? >> guest: at the time the earlier firings of mike atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general, senator grassley had a bipartisan letter commanding from the president an explanation, and senator lankford and senator portman also sent a letter asking the same. the president hasn't responded. it's been more than 30 days, i think well more, and they are ignoring that. to me that is a sign where the congress has got to step up and say now wait a minute, we gave you your y chance, you are not doing what the law is demanding of you. so now we need to pass a law that ensures that when you fire or want to fire, we have recourse. >> host: what then would the recourse be? >> guest: that's what they are talking about having specific standards for when a president can remove in inspector general, and also guessing that inspector general some rights in the courts. this is also for the caller that was concerned it's just about the trump administration and obama administration, president o

congress still met in this room. millions -- millions of americans go to work every day doing their jobs and they expect us to do the same. concerted this ill rule we should all get to washington, do our jobs and take >> lawmakers passed the 7-289 changing house rules. allowing for committees to conduct business during a public health emergency. radio.en to c-span today at 6:00 as c-span radio looks back to the 1954 supreme brown versusk case board of education of topeka, kansas ruling that the segregation of public schools was unconstitutional. listen with the free c-span radio app, online at c-span.org and on talkscer: frederick hess about how schools can prepare for a return in the fall. garciahat, lily eskelsen looks at the future of u.s. education and the union's recent poll.

to answer your question, we as members of congress run the gamut but i think overall congress as a body does have at its fingertips an incredible amount of expertise, and even with the nonpartisan congressional research service provides as with tremendous information, the information that we need to be making these informed decisions is available to us on a daily basis and i think most members even if they were tech ceos or if they've never had an e-mail account, continue to make use of those resources. >> host: one more question. >> i wanted to ask one more question given your background in the cia and intelligence. later this year congress is set of a debate over a trio of surveillance authorities, what of which is section 315, the snowden disclosed phone records, the pared down version. do you have any sense of where you're going to come down? you think there needs to be, do you think congress should reauthorize these authorities? d think there needs to be some reforms and how do you think it will play out particularly given we know the fact that these programs have been shuttered? >

the state of ohio, congress forgot to admit us. there are different ways to admit a state and congress forgot to finish the job in 1803. everybody thought it was good, but 150 years later they said, where is that piece of paper? nobody could find it. it literally happened. congress quietly passed a statute that said we will retroactively admit ohio into the union. congress has not done that here, which is incredibly important. it is not like they cleared this up and they had plenty of time. so i think they will keep the power. in the state border cases you have sovereign acquiescence. even if you respect the tribes and estate as much as you possibly can, as much as most oklahomans do, and the supreme court does, which a lot of folks respect in the state, even if you could enforce that there is a sovereign acquiescence. it has never had to come up in these cases. i do not think we need to get there, i think we need to work hard in the most difficult case i have ever seen, to really look at everything, read the massive record and fin

congress still met in this room. millions -- millions of americans go to work every day doing their jobs and they expect us to do the same. concerted this ill rule we should all get to washington, do our jobs and take ♪ >> and has unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events on the presidential primaries through the impeachment process. now, the federal response to the coronavirus. you can watch all of c-span's public affairs programming on television, online, or listen on our free radio app and be part of the national conversation through c-span's daily "washington journal" program or through our social media feeds. america'seated by cable television companies as a public service and brought to you today by your television provider. ♪ >> c-span's "washington journal," live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. this morning, we will look at how the coronavirus is affecting students, school districts, and universities with the american enterprise instit

we have some members of congress who have been in congress as long as email has existed. so we really run the gamut. what is important to recognize is that within our committee structure, within staff members we have on capitol hill who come from a technological background, engineering background, and to spend their time focused on these issues, and frankly on all issues, that we as members of congress, those who don't have a significant technological background, i have a strong security focus and my technological background is not as great in terms of direct personal experience, but i spent a lot of time focusing on other countries' technological capabilities, so i know how much other countries are focused on ours. to answer your question, members of congress run the gamut, but overall is a body congress has at its fingertips an incredible amount of expertise. and even with the nonpartisan congressional research service that provides us with tremendous information, the information that we need to make these informed decisions is available to us on a daily basis. and most

baca had asked congress to count his vote. and congress decided to do so. we be here. >> yes you and your honor. there is no mechanism for mr. baca to ask congress to count his vote rated under the electric, the state has pointed to any mechanism other than perhaps making a phone call to a senator. >> let's a posse had asked congress and the supposed congress had agreed to count his vote. that is my hypothetical. would we be here pretty. >> if congress had counted his vote instead of the replacement, then no then perhaps not because he would not have lost the office. he didn't get a chance to vote for vice president either. but assuming that he had a valid or about fully cast. then no, we would probably not be here . >> he did not seek or try to ask congress to vote. did he. >> he did not. there is no mechanism for it in the state has not pointed to one. >> in the damage he states, is $6. is that right. >> it is endless, it is a 1 dollar pretty. >> so it's 1 dollar nominal damages. why should we exercise our discretion when the nominal damages are 1 dollar

it suggests that's is not what congress is doing, congress is kowtowing to certain powerful interests and favoring that speech over other speech in a way that historically, they have been skeptical of. speech,ant to suppress you need to suppress everyone's speech. if you have speech that will get some money for you or speech that has a more effective lobbying group, that suggest that maybe you're are not as serious as you thought you were about the interests at stake. that starts to make us skeptical. i think justice thomas's question gets to the heart of it. one difficulty of arguments of means itin this format makes it more difficult to read tea leaves. with all of the justices asking questions on both sides, it's unsurprising that the the justices have hard questions for both sides because they are really smart and they ask the hardest questions they can think of. i think that is the crux of the , why problem with the law not excise the one little thing and make the government punish more people. the answer goes back to the -- there is a problem and how we are talking about what co

the oldest committee and congress. mr.rady, i wasn't there but i remember it was december 21, 1795 that the committee was set up with the greatest legislative authority, which is relevant now as there are so many pieces of the covid challenge. mr. brady is the ranking member of the committee. before we begin, i want to thank all of those courageous selfless americans who are helping not only their neighbors but strangers who want to return to work safely. congressman brady would you like , to say a few words? gov. cuomo: -- rep. brady: first, thank you for letting me join you. you have brought republicans and democrats together, former policy makers and current ones, business leaders, innovators from around the country into these comfortable situations, social security and medicare, and all of those big issues that congress has to deal with. i have always found those discussions to be incredibly helpful. thank you for the work you have been doing for so long. it does not always get the attention it deserves. say this haswo

congress and congress alone has the power to declare war. no decision is tougher, more important than the decision to go to war. that's why the founding fathers never intended for a single person to be able to make that decision. they explicitly, after intense debate and consideration, gave that power solely to congress, the people's branch of our government. they didn't want anyone, any one individual, even the president of the united states, to be able to drag our nation to war for personal or political reasons or for misjudgments, inadequately vetted with the wisdom of the leaders of the country. since president trump came into office, we have come within a hair's breath of war with iran on more than one occasion because of his words and his actions. it's why back in february and march, the senate and then the house debated this resolution, reinstructing the president on the fundamentals of the constitution, reminding him that he does not have the power to take us to war in iran. it instructed him that any hostilities with iran need to co

we have some numbers of congress who have been in congress as long as e-mail has existed so we run the gamut and when i think is an important thing to recognize is within our committee structure and within the staff members that we have on capitol hill who come from technological backgrounds, engineering background and who spend their time focused on these issues but frankly, on all issues that we as members of congress those who don't have a significant technological background and i have a strong security focus and perspective and my technological background is not as great in terms of direct personal experience but i spent time focusing on other countries technological capabilities so i know in return how many other countries have focused on ours. to answer your question, we as members of congress from the gamut but i think overall congress as a body does have at its fingertips of incredible amount of expertise and even with the nonpartisan congressional research that provides tremendous information the information that we need to be making these informed decisions is available to u

not just members of congress. we all could be carriers and be asymptomatic and you know by interacting with the people on our staffs or here, we could be inadvertently spreading this disease this is, you know, i get all, and maybe this is, you know, maybe this is about something -- maybe we're you know again i don't want to question anybody's motivations here. i'm simply saying i think the status quo is unacceptable. i want there to be hearings. i want there to be deliberation. i want there to be oversight. i want to make sure that the money that all of us in a bipartisan way, at least most of us in a bipartisan way passed that it's getting to the people that need it. that an important obligation that we have. and i want to make sure is that we also, in addition to responding to this emergency, that we are doing our appropriations work. that we're keeping the government running, that we're passing a defense authorization bill. and under the proposal that we are putting forward, if you want to come here, you can co

and that's where the congress is supposed to meet. you go look at a letter from october 24 of 1793 that james madison wrote to president washington, he outlines the concerns about how congress should meet. where we should meet. walks through the consternation of following the constitution to ensure that congress does its job. i would encourage you to look at that letter. the founders struggled with these issues. that's why it's important we stand up today. we cannot delegate away that which our constituents have delegated to us, under the constitution. we cannot hand that to another member. much less hand it to 10 other members. that's an extraordinary change in our constitutional system of government. and i would just point out, year ago this last sunday, i walked onto the floor of the house and i objected to $19.5 billion passing by unanimous consent. why? you guys wrote stories that it was about trying to object to the funding. but the truth is, it was about process. it was about making sure our rights are protected so we can have

they are not seeing the help congress has provided. before we take a next step let's find out what is working and find out what is not, make those suggestions and as we do that, keep our eye on the ball, crucial job to make sure the unemployed aren't permanently so. >> now the real reason for the webinar is my retirement and you are going to take care of it. i'm not retiring until you take care of it. in our board of scholars, the comparison of fred frugal and sam spencer and you are interested in encouraging savings, fancy cars, millionaire birthday parties and i don't have anything saved, the secure act of 2019 with chairman neil and perhaps you could briefly comment on the impact of the retirement policy. what is happening now and what needs to be done in the future? >> i'm really fortunate to have a terrific working relationship with chairman neil. we worked together for many years, a texas conservative, we always found a way to find common ground, and with opinions to save more. with small businesses with retirement plan. with cha

about article one, section eight that is enumerated powers of congress and says congress and congress alone has the power to declare war. no decision is more important than the decision to go to war. that's why the founding fathers never intended for a single person to be able to make that decision. they explicitly they give the power to congress they didn't want any individual even the president of the united states to be able to drag the nation to war for personainto war for perr political reasons or for misjudgments and inadequately vetted with the wisdom of the leaders of the country. since president trump came into office, we have come within a hair's breath of air gone on more than one occasion. it's way back in february and march, the senate and the house debated the resolution reconstructing on the fundamentals of the constitution reminding him she doesn't have the power to take us to war in iran. they've responded to our clear declaration of the efforts in the constitution by tossing it aside, by vetoing the resolution and so here we are debating whether to override that veto

, we have obligation to ensure that congress can operate. there are different views p per expectives up -- perspectives up here in terms of remote voting. we tried very hard to work in a fashion.n we've all tried to reach across the aisle and work with our counterparts on the democratic to help to come up with ways that congress can operate. o help them come up with ways we can fulfill the constituti constitutional requireme be present -- we requirement we be present. require physical present. i think remote operations are possible. but that's not the path gone down.ave what the democrats have done, instead of working with us, is se this crisis to try to gain partisan benefits. what the democrats have done report, youheir own know, a number of us, including ranking member of the rules the ttee, mr. cole, and leader and whip, a number of us have worked closely with the democrats to try to say, listen, with ways, as we did after 9/11, that we can operate in the middle of a pandemic. let's also look for ways to protect us in the future. e know

that is the biggest downfall of congress today, is that one side of congress is being run by the mediabiggest --as the either gain or loss -- and they control the democratic party. idea,s not the greatest because if you watch c-span, you will notice the only people they ever cite are the washington post and the new york times. haterse both the biggest of trump. if we keep going down this road, they are going to actually destroy the democratic party. more than youe, can imagine, are fleeing the party because of the media. we can't have the media, because they want their ways, their powers, and that is what we have to stop. this whole thing of taking advantage of this terrible pandemic just to have control of sadle, we are in a situation because of this. road,keep going down this that we think the media should be pushing the foolishness just so they can control, that is wrong. in international falls. aaron jones, any comment? guest: one thing we talked about earlier and was mentioned in my hill, there will be changes if congress is in the states. state media is different and members of c

the notion is that congress would deliberate and could push back. this is where the balance of power comes. explanationd 30 day is critical. expect thatt --gress would ask questions the notion of independence is that the inspector general should have the ability to deeme whatever issues they within the responsibility of the inspector general. this is really key. we do not want to have a chilling effect that other inspector general's are going to be afraid that they will get fired or worse have their reputation sullied. it is a dilemma. we need congress to step up. host: from florida on the independent line, stephen. caller: thank you for taking my call. my viewpoint has been that the media is influencing the listener in such a way that the inspector general has an opinion that is skewed in such away or criticized such a way by the left and right that those opinions don't seem to be clear, factual, and not described in an unbiased way. for, if io and to is say to and to good before, no whoever is in charge of the conversation is changing our citizens

you can change how congress looks inside the house vote. even the speaker said it was a fabulous job. coming in segments to vote so there are not too many people on the floor at once. brought up speaking to a lot of people in the medical community. if you go to grocery stores today, home depot, there is plexiglass next to the cashiers. in those high traffic areas, we can do that as well. look at those situations. we sit in three different offices. we know the sizes of them. you can limit the number of staff so you have social distancing. i think this is a capability able to happen. when those come out of committee, there will be a signed, this is the day we will look. you bring more people back to vote. they can vote on that specific day, maybe two days, and then depart. you've got to get congress working again. it is essential we work. in california, the democrats control the state assembly. the speaker is bringing them back today to start working. congress cannot stay shut down. government has to continue to be able to work in the process