if it's outside the situation of congress, it would be whatever congress enacts, so when it was the writsof quo warranto, each federal prosecutor could seek his ouster from office under section 3, but it was still subject to that amnesty provision in section 3 of the 14th amendment. we do acknowledge the tension, but we don't think that's an insurmountable obstacle. >> see why there's tension, if you analogize the lifting by congress of the disqualification by a two-thirds vote to a pardon, then surely one would not argue that, the fact that the president or governor can pardon someone from a criminal conviction or a criminal offense means that the person couldn't be prosecuted in the first place for the criminal offense. >> that's right. >> right. >> yes. >> so i don't see what the tension is. they're two separate things. did the person engage in this activity which is prohibited, and second, even if the person did engage in the activity, are there reasons why the disqualification should be lifted or the pardon should be granted? >> that's right. if the court accepts the holding of griff

from congress. ief justice roberts: even though it is unlikely or woul be difficult for an individual th says i am an insurrectionist ani had taken e oath, that would require two thirds of votes in congress. right? mr. mitchell: correct. chf stice roberts: that is an unlikely scenario. mr. mihe: but no secretary of state is allowed to predict a waiver because in doing so they are adding a qualification to the ability to run for congress. the proper analogy is t state residenclabecause the constitution says a member of congress must inhabit the state heepresents when elected. the lower courts have all held a reliance on term limits that an ficial cannot move that deadline any earlier by requiring a candidate of congress to inhabit the state -- chief ste roberts: en a candidate says i am a resident of indiana and i have been all my life and i want to run for office in illinois, the secretary of state cannot say you cannot? mr. mitchell: the question would be is the person gog inhabit the state when th

of the congress and the agenda. thanks to your presence, this is the 11th edition of the qur'an congress of fragrance and health. the previous 10 courses were held in cooperation with the ministry of health and the academy of medical sciences. this year is the 11th period we hold the congress internationally . one of the characteristics of this congress is that a specific secretariat was established in the iran university of medical sciences, which hosts this congress, a few months ago, and we had a call for papers, and about 330 papers were sent to the congress. faculty members , students, fellowship assistants and staff and health field are among these articles that were received. some of them were selected for oral presentations, and some of them will be used as posters in the congress, god willing. in fact, thousands of people are registering for the congress, and god willing, we will be at their service until the next hour. this figure is a very significant figure, because the topic of the qur'an, fragrance and

neither are members of congress. so they can't be officers, either. >> how does article one section six fit into this discussion. officers being in the line of succession. >> you have to be an officer to be in the line of succession. we have a federal statute that puts the speaker in the line of succession. they're officers but not officers of the united states because they are not subject to impeachment and not appointed pursuant to article two. there is a gap between officers and officers of the united states reinforcing the idea that officers of the united states is a term of art not just to federal office holders but refers only to those appointed, not those elected. >> justice kavanaugh. >> understand how you use griffin's case again. section three refers to insurrection and raises questions about who decides what processes are to be used that's ratified in the 1868, the next year chief justice chase opines that states do not have the authority that only congress has the authority to enforce that. that could be

dean of the congress.curity. speaking on afge for members, and on the oversight committee, he stands up every day against untruthful allegations by the majority. please welcome representative maxwell frost. >> thank you. how is everybody doing? what's disgusting? unionbusting. what's going on here? am i at the right rally? what's disgusting? >> unionbusting! >> hello, afge. it's a blessing to be here this morning. thank god it's not raining. this year, it's not raining and i want to first off thank you all so much for doing your jobs and doing a damn good job at that. and now we need congress to do the same, we need congress to do their jobs. we got this week, then we go home for a week, three more days, and then the government shuts down. i had heard zip from my republican colleagues on the plan from last week on how we will make sure you all stay in work and the government continues to function for the people which is why we were sent here in the first place. we cannot let the government shutdown. and he

whatever congress enacts. each federalrocutor had the authority to bringherit against an incumbent official and seek his oter from office under section three but it was still subject to the amnesty ovision in section three of the 14th amendment. we acknowledge the tension but do not think it is an insurmountable obstacle. >> if you woulogize the lifting by congress of the disqualification by a two thirds vote to a pardonth surely we woulno argue that the fact that the president or governor can pardon someone from a criminal conviction or a criminal offense meaning the person could not be prosecuted in the first place for the criminal offense. mrmihell: that is right. >> i don't see the tension, there are two separate things. did the person engage inhe act? and even if the person did, are there reasons the disqualification should be lifted or the pardon should be granted? . mitchell: if the court accepts the griffin's case that would be theidng that we have. chief justice roberts: i don't know if there is a lim

he did not exist unless the congress itself voted to expel him from the congress. they tried once but failed, but apparently they will make their second attempt. for most cases , the us congress and the senate act as their own police. they were members of the congress and senators who were members of the parliament and were able to work until the end of their term of office while they were accused of financial sexual corruption. indeed, this congress has become a corrupt and isolated organization where representatives have little interaction and interest in defending the interests of the people in the field. of course, maintaining the status quo and controlling and monitoring people is also important for them. martin , thank you for joining us on this show. well expression dear , we have reached the end of this part of the collection of window programs . i leave you to another program and another window. receive a gift for every purchase from the great iranian house. a gift for every iranian at baran sarai irani gift until 2:00 am in tehran, i am your host. for fri

we see how difficult it is for the congress to deal with the assistance — is for the congress to deallaborate on why such a vital issue has been so postponed and whether— issue has been so postponed and whether the united states has a plan b should _ whether the united states has a plan b should the house of representatives not confirm the assistance package to ukraine? and also the _ assistance package to ukraine? and also the question regarding the signature to ukraine on bilateral agreements with the uk, france and germany, _ agreements with the uk, france and germany, when the agreement and cooperation in the security field will he — cooperation in the security field will be signed between ukraine and the united states of america, perhaps— the united states of america, perhaps there are already preliminary negotiations on this topic _ preliminary negotiations on this to - ic. , preliminary negotiations on this toic. , .. , preliminary negotiations on this toic. , ., , ., preliminary negotiations on this toic. ,., , ., ~ . preliminary negotiations on this toic. , ., ~ . , topic. th

not so far backk congress taxed from the ratification congress tax gains and profits of oil companieshether incorporated or partnerships and estimated the annual gains of profits or inme of any person entitled to the same whether divided or undivided. in 1913 just eight months after theatification of the6t amendment congress include o distributed corporate earnings to certain shareholders. tried to distinguish all these things but i come back to t main point. both sides can point to coressional actions that tax some realize income. some didn' tax on relates unread inco b we have examples of congress taxing unrealized income. why don't i take the plain text of theai amendment does not make reree to realization? >> are two central features of the text ofhe amendments that reflect it does apply only to realize gains. the first is simply the use of the word income outpu equally the ma caprice filed by t professors of law and linguistics which analyzes the use ofncomen it. tax for. >> as io back, all this goes back-and-forth the government has other definitions. we are back at square one i

one pay in congress. i would've thought they would fix the eviction moratorium. i could go on and on. they don't get addressed because chevron makes it so easy for them not to tackle the hard issues and forge a permanent solution. my friends on the other side also taedabout this is grt. it leads to uniformity in the law. i do nothg at is in itself. if it were up to me, if you think unorty was so great let's have uniformity and the thumb on the scale of thsi of citizen. the kind of uniformity that you get your chevron is something only the government can love. toagree on the current ry has administration's view of a debatable statue. you don't get the kind of uniformity you actually want, a stable decision to assess this is whatthstatute means. >> mr. clement, can asked the same question i asked mr. martinez about why chevron was itially popular people who were very sophisticated and had a deep understanding ofhow judges decide what a statute means and a deep understanding of how administrative agcies work

ce congress cannot find direction. >> if we want to talk about what congress wants we probably should advert to the fact that we do have an amicus briefing in this case from the house. it does not want chevron. >> it has total ntl over chevron. it can reverse it tomorrow with respect to any tur statute and with respect to at generally and it hasn't. for 40 years it has exceeded except for super recases. it has basically said this is the background rule. it gives us a default rule from which to write statute. we have ce -- accepted. >> i am not sure everybody in congress wants to overrule chevron. >> everybody in congress doesn't want to do everything. >> it is really can be for some meerof congress and not have to tackle on the hard questions and allow for thr friends to get them everything they want. evenifcongress did it, the president would be to. i think the third prlem, even more problematic, you get back to that fundamenta premise of chevron th wn there is silence or ambiguity we kw e agency wanted to delegated -- delegate to the agency it is ficon and in a particular way. it as

the failure of congress digging down and doing its job beyond latitude. enough about congress.ne people you have not spoken about as the people themselves. what does pluralism and constitutional government require of citizens? >> the framers assumed a constitutional democracy is a certain amount of good character who in good faith participated in the political process with their fellow americans. that level of toleration and accommodation of people who have different views is essential for democracy to function. i think we are covering that and it might go a long way to ease the problems that we see. >> when the supreme court was stepping outside of its lane and imposing value judgments to now the administrative state overstepping its bounds to impose judgments, how much of that is willfulness on the part of those institutions and how much are they filling the vacuum left by congress? or left by the people, themselves. >> i think agencies are often times doing what congress designed them to do. they often gave them a mandate a very open ended mandate and staffed them with the t

congress. now the house is setting new lows on this functionality. what do you say about that? distractive nurse, chaos, incompetence, and, ignorance, brothers and sisters. they want our military arm prepared for battle. they want our prison properly staffed and guarded and our borders protected. they want their meat to be safe, there in water to be clean, and their workplace to be -- some members of congress, it's time for you to stand up and deliver. [cheers and applause] because if you don't, there are many candidates out there who easy can become effective lawmakers, right? and guess what? we will help them get elected. [cheers and applause] now, and here's something else we are here to tell congress. it's time, matter of fact it's past time for federal employees to receive what they are due for our hard work and service to the american people. [cheers and applause] and that last, at least a 7.4% raise. [applause] a raise that our members naturally deserve. 7.4. 7.4. [chanting] 7.4. 7.4. 7.

congress. this is clear from the commissions clause, the impeachment clause and the appointments cus each of which uses officers of the united states to refer only appointed and unelected officials. the second reason is that section three cannot be used to exclude a presidential candidate from the ballot even if that candidate idiualified from serving as president under section three because congress can lift thatisability after the candidate is elected but before he takes office. a state cannot exclude any candidate from federal ofce from the ballot on account of section three and any state that does so is violatinthholding of term limits by alterg the constitution's qualifications from federal office. th colorado supreme court's decision is no difre from a state residency law that requires members of congress to inhabit this day prior to election day when the constitution requires only that members of congress inhabit the state they represent when elected. in both situations, a state is cerat

justice alito made it clear, congress can impeach. congress can do something. congress could caught off -- cut off the money, but there are limits to what they can do. that's the question. whether congress has any power to restrict the discretion of the executive. the supreme court seems to think it does, but they've said, we are not the form to vindicate those restrictions. that is what this process is about. it's about vindicating the rule of law and our constitutional system. >> the gentleman yields. we are now up against vote, so we are going to recess until 15 minutes after the last vote. we are in recess.

your big point, we got to look at 1934, we got to look at what congress wrote, why would congress have drawn that distinction in 1934? >> because they wanted to get the fully automatic weapons who had the push triggers. and if you use pull of the trigger you are not going to get those devices. so they had to say function of the trigger to own expos those forms of weaponry, as long as the conventional cover push and pull? >> how should it be defined, in your view, to cover bump stocks? in other words, tomorrow congress said, mr. mitchell, how should we write the statute to cover bump stocks since function of the trigger in your view doesn't do it? >> i'd have to ask them what else do you want to encompass besides bump stocks? >> just bump stocks. give me a sentence that you think would cover bump stocks. >> i would provide a statutory definition of bump stocks that tracks as closely as possible to nonmechanical devices that mr. cargill has. >> it's not a great statutory language. you got anything better than that? [laughter] >> i think you can say any device, and this may be a little to

about the diminished congress, who or what has diminished congress, the answer is congress.gress had all of these powers we have talked about. they have given them up. they have chosen not to exercise them. at the end of the day, who's is to blame? we are. the. every two years, if we wanted to , we could throw out every member of the house and it would only take us six years to throw out every number of congress and yet we choose not to. host: to what degree do you think they are interested in getting some of that back? guest: i think at this point they are not interested in getting it back. there is a greater issue. let's say congress decides we do not like the extent to which the executive branch has all of these powers regarding national security. we are going to pass a law pulling it back. when those powers are given, when you give those powers over to the executive branch, that is an institutional incentive of the executive branch. compounding that is both parties are in constant pursuit of the white house. when they have the white house, they are in favor of using all

i expect us congress to agree a package forl us congress to agree a package for ukraine because theretates and spent much time also in the congress, meeting politicians from both sides of the line and they confirm the message that actually there is broad support for ukraine and i expect that this majority in the congress in one way or another will be reflected in the decision. i also met with the speaker of the house, mikejohnson, and we agreed a joint statement where it is clearly stated that president putin must not win in ukraine and that requires support from all nato allies because if president putin wins in ukraine, it is also a challenge for us, it will be a message to authoritarian leaders that when they use military force, they get what they want. what happens in ukraine today can happen in taiwan tomorrow so this matters for our security, in taiwan tomorrow so this matters for oursecurity, it in taiwan tomorrow so this matters for our security, it matters for us security and therefore expect that the majority, which is in the us congress, in one way or another will be reflec

has to be some other act of congress. the argument will be that, yes, congress acted.y passed the insurrection act, and when they passed the insurrection act that directly applies here. here the president wasn't channelled with insurrection. jack smith had an opportunity to do it. he didn't do it, and -- and in this case so now you leave it up to the state courts or state officials or partisan officials to willy-nilly make that determination? this isn't just about donald trump. they are going to argue that this is more about, okay, could, for instance, the border crisis, right joe biden isn't sufficiently supporting the border crisis. you have a republican governor in texas who says, you know, we want -- their officials are going to strike joe biden from the ballot because they are allowing, and this is not out of the ordinary, you have a governor in texas who could make -- who would make this argument giving kind of the stances that he's taken on the border, that joe biden is allowing for some type of invasion into the united states, and, you know, bill barr made that

congress can impeach. yes, congress can do something else. congress could cut off the money but there are limits to what purpose can do. >> would yield? >> begs the question whether congress has any part of this -- supreme court seems to think it does but it is said we are not the forum to vindicate those restrictions. that's what thiswh process as about. it is about vindicating the rule of law and our constitutional system. >> the gentleman yields. we are not up against votes, so we're going to recess until 15 minutes after the last vote. there are two votes. we are in recess. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the committee will come to order. i have right now in the queue correa and mr. carter. i don't see correa so mr. carter you were up. >> thank thank you, mr. cha. it was saidr earlier by one ofy colleagues in the republican party that you are going to impeach mayorkas no matter what. and i quote it was mr. gonzalez is that were going to impeach secretary mayorkas and there's nothing you can doto about it. what happe

congress can impeach. yes, congress can do something else.t off the money but there are limits to what purpose can do. >> would yield? >> begs the question whether congress has any part of this -- supreme court seems to think it does but it is said we are not the forum to vindicate those restrictions. that's what thiswh process as about. it is about vindicating the rule of law and our constitutional system. >> the gentleman yields. we are not up against votes, so we're going to recess until 15 minutes after the last vote. there are two votes. we are in recess. [inaudible conversations]

we leave that to congress. what we do is we try to take the laws as written and work with congress and the irs to make recommendations as to how to administer it more easily and protect taxpayer rights. good or bad, i do not control interest rate. the importance of the independence of various organizations is critical. host: the caller said tax cuts and what it means for revenues. that aside, what about funding path cuts to the irs and what it does for revenues -- an ongoing effort to figure out how much money the irs should have worked whether it should be clawed back. any thoughts on that? guest: when you think about what the irs does, it ran is not the best. a lot of people once or twice a year when they have to do with the irs, they mumble bad words under their breath, but the irs brings in over n98% of the country's revenue. that is what congress is able to allocate for services. it is a vital function for this country. it is important that it be properly funded. in order to collect that revenue, we need t

it is up to congress. and the congress has but one means in this situation to vindicate the law. it cannot help the situation by shutting down the government, by cutting off funding. there is no new cabinet secretary to refuse to confirm in the senate. there is one means, the impeachment of the secretary who purported to issue law defying the congress that must result in his impeachment. the if law is to have any force and the congress is to remain of any significance in the jurisprudence of the law of the united states. mr. green: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. mr. thompson: republicans highlight the secretary's enforcement guidelines as an example of breaking the law. they fail to mention that the conservative sixth conservative court of appeals, the guidance doesn't violate a single word of the statute. the 6th circuit also found that the provisions of immigration law that republicans frequently cite does not create a judicially enforceable mandate that the department arrest none citizens. i yield one minute to the gentleman f

he ran for congress. became a congressman and they were debating the formation of what would become the state department and the debate on the floor of the house, if we create this department, what happens if an untrustworthy person gets in the job? this is what james madison said. if an unworthy man be continued in office by an unworthy president, the house of representatives can impeach him and the senate can remove him whether the president chooses to or not. the founders insisted that congress has the ability to impeach unworthy cabinet officials, not just president's. public officials who refuse to comply with the laws of congress and breach the public trust are the type of unworthy men that james madison called them who were worthy of impeachment. our investigation found at least 7 laws where he has disregarded. 40-plus times where i sent for information, he refused and not responding to the oversight responsibility that we have. we asked him four different times to come to our committee. and he sai

congress has failed to provide the resources not just in this congress but over the last 20+ years. this is why the secretary has exercised his discretion. the second article alleges that the secretary lied to congress but does not say facts or figures. uses words like secure. operational control, phrases which can be interpreted by different people. the case here is so thin nonconstitutional ground that it is laughable. what is really tragic as this is wasted time we could be spending to work together to fix the problem as the administration is trying to do. instead, we are here debating these very thin, flimsy legal arguments for constitutional impeachment. >> the gentlemen's time has expired. >> i ask unanimous consent to enter the case. 22-58. >> i asked for consent to enter massive numbers of parolees mayorkas seeks to bypass and subvert the entire lawful immigrants system. >> without objection. >> i recognize sheila jackson. >> i include the record article 2, section 4 of the constitution of the united states of america which says the president, vice president and all civil of

and what is kind of hard work pays off or congress and followed before. now it's getting strength long. this last the last 2 national elections badly. this time it wants to present a united opposition to the government. keeping this alliance intact until the elections. we'd be the who's on the biggest challenge. you're up to date coming up next. don't film looks at the complex relationship between siblings, including love, hate and rivalry. i my new groups mckinnon. thank you for watching the ice cold. jessica new an expedition ventures on 2 places that no one has the climate research in the ice, the dos march 3rd on dw, the the ready hold.

about the diminished congress, who or what has diminished congress, the answer is congress.ess had all of these powers we have talked about. they have given them up. they have chosen not to exercise them. at the end of the day, who's is to blame? we are. the. every two years, if we wanted to , we could throw out every member of the house and it would only take us six years to throw out every number of congress and yet we choose not to. host: to what degree do you think they are interested in getting some of that back? guest: i think at this point they are not interested in getting it back. there is a greater issue. let's say congress decides we do not like the extent to which the executive branch has all of these powers regarding national security. we are going to pass a law pulling it back. when those powers are given, when you give those powers over to the executive branch, that is an institutional incentive of the executive branch. compounding that is both parties are in constant pursuit of the white house. when they have the white house, they are in favor of using all of

congress has the power to enforce it. wouldn't it be the last place you would look for authorization for the states, including confederate states, to enforce implicitly, to enforce the presidential election process? that seems to be a position that is at war with the whole thrust of the 14th amendment and very ahistorical. >> no, your honor, we would locate the state's authority to run presidential elections not in the 14th amendment but article two. that power is nearly plenary. >> you have no reliance on section three. >> we have rely answer on section three. broad power implies the narrower power enforce congressional. >> the narrower power you are looking for is the power of disqualification. a very specific power in the 14th amendment. you are saying it was extended to the states under a clause that doesn't address that at all. >> we would say that nothing in the 14th amendment takes away from the states their broad and nearly plenary power to determine the manner of selecting their electors in the manner they see fi

it is up to congress. and the congress has but one means in this situation to vindicate the law. impeachment of the secretary who purported to issue law defying the congress that must result in his impeachment. the if law is to have any force and the congress is to remain of any significance in the jurisprudence of the law of the united states. mr. green: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. mr. thompson: republicans highlight the secretary's enforcement guidelines as an example of breaking the law. they fail to mention that the conservative sixth conservative court of appeals, the guidance doesn't violate a single word of the statute. the 6th circuit also found that the provisions of immigration law that republicans frequently cite does not create a judicially enforceable mandate that the department arrest none citizens. i yield one minute to the gentleman from maryland, mr. ivey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ivey: the power to impeach is one of the greatest constitutional powers granted to the house of re

guest: a president has to notify congress but is up to congress to authorize that. the question is are we at the situation where we are going to war or not? the question has been looking at the middle east. our concern is it appears to be a widening conflict outside of gaza and many of us who warned that -- many of us warned that early on. part of a reason why i think it blake check to netanyahu -- a blank check to nanda who's administration -- netanyahu's administration is the chance of young americans being called there. that is why we have the authorization according to the constitution and i want to be using it sparingly when it is in the u.s. interest. host: james, democrat. good morning. caller: i would like to ask a couple of questions about the bill on migration. senator murphy himself said the border never causes -- never closes. i would like to ask you to explain why a bill prevents the federal government from using the limitation be put on it of 1400 for only 270 days in the first year, 220 five days in the second year and 180 days in the third year? that

we love having mayors in the congress and in the u.s. senate and working in government because they get us and understand us. help us understand and give us advice since you've sat in both seat, how mayors can work more closely to support the problem solvers caucus, whrorn you're from ohio or not, we want to support the work of the caucus and work more closely together. talk about how your experience as a mayor and member of congress can be leveraged in that way. mr. molinaro: i served in a state legislature, a county mayor, representing $1 million budget. number one, humanize your argument. you can sign as many form letters as you want. i'm sure josh reads every one of them. when you personalize the message, i see my friend from the city of poughkeepsie, if you tell me how my decision affects the north side of poughkeepsie, i want to know it. i want to hear how they're going to be impacted by our choices. second, you have to push back on your party interests. i tell people this all the time. as a republican county executive i was told d

itself voted to expel him from the congress.hey tried once but failed, but apparently they will make their second attempt. for most cases, the us congress and the senate act as their own police. but the amount of care. very very little there were members of congress and senators who were members of the parliament and could work until the end of their term. while they were accused of sexual and financial corruption. really this congress to one it has become a corrupt and isolated organization where representatives have little interaction and interest in defending the interests of the people in their constituency. all that is important is the power of the company and the political power of particular zainafans, and of course maintaining the status quo and controlling and monitoring the people is also important to them. one of the most important tools for the development of economic and commercial relations is the signing of trade agreements , including bilateral or multilateral preferential trade between countries. according to st

so this is a congress for cultural freedom. it a event that he attended just a few years after, the tashkent event here. he is smoking his pipe and he is 1973, except getting his own lotus award at the wrirs association. meeting inhe middle is a vietnam poet. too long and over here is a ish in googie we don't have a picture of him at the 1962 democratic conference. or at least i couldn't find a picture of him there also, somebody who attended the soviet affiliated afro-asian writers association meetings. so this weight over here is now like a millstone around my neck, and i'm in a blind panic thinking. the whole premise with which i started at least half of this book, is now shot to pieces. what am i going to do? here's the great ghanaian poet, a playwright was sutherland at the first 1958, afro-asian writers association meeting in the audience is w.e.b. dubois, who was, you know, just as hughes had kind of presided it over the mccrory event, w.e.b. dubois was at the the tashkent event. f was sutherland is somebody like sembene

congress has the power to enforce it. so, wouldn't that be the last place that you would look for authorization for the states including confederate states to enforce implicitly authorize, to enforce the presidential election process? that seems to be a position that is at -- at war with the whole thrust of the 14th amendment and very ahistorical. >> no, your honor, first, we would locate the state's authority to run presidential elections not in the 14th amendment, but in article 2. and that power is nearly plenary. >> but you're relying on -- you have no reliance on section 3, is that what you're saying? >> no, your honor. we have reliance on section 3 in as far as article 2 gives states this broad power to determine how their electors were selected and that broad power implies the narrower power to enforce federal constitutional qualification. >> the narrower power you're looking for is the power of disqualification. right? that is a very specific power in the 14th amendment. and you're saying that was implicitly exten

while congress and the f.c.c. have made important progress toward removing all of it, until we fully fund a reimbursement program our work will not be done. chairwoman, can you briefly describe the threat posed by vulnerable research here and what could happen if congress fails to fund the shortfall. >> sure. we have insecure chinese kpheuplt in many networks around the country. we asked them to rip it out and replace it with secure equipment. congress provided with us funds for the care krers to do this but we have a shortfall of over $3 billion. that means we're providing 40 cents on the dollar to a lot of shawl and rural carriers to rip this equipment out and replace it. they need more funds to get this the job done and for our networks to be fully secure. >> thank you. i know i've talked to with many in rural arias, that has come up many time, they do the right thing but are facing this challenge. we introduced the bipartisan re-authorization act, that includes a provision based on my spectrum act to establish

hayden: the library of congress with the help of congress has been able to build a very strong cybersecurity foundation over a number of years, and in fact we have a cybersecurity expert. that has been a major part in what we've been able to bring to looking at the risks with this particular technology, ai. it fits into our i.t. governance framework already and we are making sure we are not on the cutting edge with ai, we are looking at using the experiences we have had, but there is a technology governance board within the library and ai now has a working group within that board to make sure everything is aligned with that. we are very concerned about the trustworthiness of products that have ai. chair klobuchar: very good. dir. halpern: absolutely. our team works so that our systems are as impregnable as possible. but we are also looking at some ai tools as helpful in those efforts. one of the things that ai excels at is pattern matching. they might be able to see patterns in our logs and human being not -- might not readily identify. so that is a benefit. one of the other areas that is so

if there happens to be an issue in our networks, we should come to congress today and congress should fast tracked it today. we should not look at hijacking things in a broadband network and letting it continue for years. it would be incredible if that was true. in fact, it is not credible and i think what is going on here is that we are grasping at straws and new justification to support title 2 itself . >> we are talking about overreaching overregulation in the heavy-handed approach. to change gears on something -- chairwoman, thank you for your comments about five years ago. >> five years ago? >> you will remember this one because you tweeted and 28 teen under the trump administration that it is time for transparency and the fcc needs to publish a calendar with what should be auctioned and when. >> sure. >> has there been a calendar proposed? >> i think you no this committee passed the act a while ago for them to produce a calendar. >> you have a calendar? >> yes, on it annualized basis but just to be clear, we cannot act and produce in auction and make it happen. >> i note that ca

of congress and the american people. the results have been catastrophic. and have endangered the lives and livelihoods of all americans. evenic some democrats are startg to get prominent pundit john judas recently wrote and i quote america's borders have been the fact open during the first three years of the biden administration, end quote. our colleague from texas mr. cuellar recently said with a crisis at the border. pennsylvania senator john fetterman said, this is a crisis. even secretary mayorkas' boz president biden recently threw him under the bus admitting that the border was not secure. for nearly ath year this commite conducted a methodical, comprehensive, and fair investigation into the causes, costs and consequences of the border crisis, producing six separate reports totaling around 400 pages. our members have seen firsthand numerous parts of the southwest border, spent time with law enforcement officers on the front lines and spoke with real americans about how this crisis is affecting them. also conducted