mr. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to yield at this point in time two minutes to my good friend, one of our newest members, and a great guy from the state of pennsylvania, dan meuser. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. meuser: thank you, mr. davis. mr. chairman, i rise today in opposition to h.r. 1. people have a right to know what this bill truly is. a big-government, central-command takeover of our elections by the newhouse majority. this bill should be called the democratic politician protection act. this legislation is virtually a complete takeover by the federal government of state and local voting jurisdictions. it imposes new mandates, including more than two weeks of mandatory early voting and same-day registration, and diminishes the process of election day voting by expanding absentee voting and allowing both current and newly registered voters to cast their ballot by mail, with no additional safeguards to that process. the bill also allows felons to vote, v

mr. davis: mr. ranking member, i appreciate the opportunity. i want to clarify. chairperson lofgren is right, a donation of 200 or more will be itemized. to the onating $199 republican or democratic conference would get a six-to-one match and fall under the unitemized contributions. this would have made sure if they were going to be matched by taxpayer dollars, we need to know who they are and should be the intention of election reform and should be the intention of our finance reform. the biggest question, chairperson lofgren said we made good points that this needed to be revised, but the revision is to now create a new account that's going to be funded by corporate mall feesance. 571-paged ea the bill to get money out of politics is now a solution that's going to put more corporate money into our campaign covers, i don't think that's the intention. corporate fines, corporate dollars will go to each and every one of our campaigns if we allow this program to come through as intended and it could ta

mr. davis: -- >> i ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment though i am not opposed to it. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> although i strongly oppose h.r. 1, i appreciate the intertent e -- i appreciate the intent of mr. lujan's amendment. it would improve the internovation grant program, established in h.r. 1, by requiring consultation with the direct of national institutes of standards and technology. nist is already working with the election assistance commission to develop voluntary standards and guidelines for voting systems. mr. baird: and is well positioned to support the department of homeland security, the national science foundation, and commission's election security research efforts. i would like to note that the amendment does not add the committee of science, space, and technology as the recipient of the report required by section 321-b. i am the ranking member of the research and technology subcommittee which has jurisdi

mr. davis: is there no more time? the chair: the democratic time is -- no more time. mr. davis: it's a great debate to have. the problem we have here in this country, many 16-year-olds are still -- all 16-year-olds are still legally minors. they can't be -- they can be tried as adult -- they can't be tried as adults in a court of law except under special circumstances, heinous crimes. they can't join the military. they wouldn't be eligible for the draft that took so many of our young men to southeast asia where many never came home, the last time the voting age was lowered. some states, 16-year-olds can't even drive their car alone. they can't take out a loan. they can't take out a mortgage. can't open a credit card. and they can't even run for the offices that we would be asking them to be allowed to vote for. this is an amendment that has political reasons behind it. it's a reason that i believe the democrats are pushing it. it's because they believe they will be able to increase the number of democrat votes that are put forth in the next election. this institution shoul

the culture was that you did exactly what mrs davies wanted you to do, no questions asked. cause she was bullied and undermined by patricia davies. you are in constant fear of losing yourjob, knowing that there was members of mrs davies' family working there, friends of hers, saying the wrong thing, which i did do on a number of occasions, and i was promptly taken into her office and given a good telling off. and as a grown woman, to be humiliated like that, i spent many days in tears. that's what it was like, it was hell. patricia davies didn'tjust give family members jobs at silver birch. this is the caretaker‘s house at chingford hall school. in 2016 the caretaker was moved out and the trust spent £99,000 renovating the property. we've discovered patricia davies then moved her daughter in rent—free. it shows how easy it is for people running trusts to exploit the system. that's just beyond the pale. you cannot have personal benefit from taxpayers money like that, it should never be allowed and it is completely wrong. there is no justification for doing that. you shouldn't

mr. davis: i recently co-sponsored legislation that shines a late on individuals like bob. h.r. 276, the rise act, would establish recognizing inspirational school employees award program. within the department of education to highlight the dedication of education support professionals like bob. bob is a perfect example of the people that make our communities great. i could not be prouder of all that bob has done, to better the lives of families in mount olive, illinois. keep up the great work, bob. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is ecognized. >> madam speaker, i'm here today to speak out against h.r. 1. when republicans were in the majority we reserved h.r. 1 for legislation that actually benefited the american people by putting more money in their pockets, drawing the economy -- gro

mr. davis: i would like to recognize my good friend from california for two minutes, mr. mcclintock. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcclintock: concept of the governed is the cornerstone of our democracy. in america, the people are somp and we govern through the votes we cast. at the very core is fair and free elections. every citizen should be free to express themselves and to vote and no citizen should ever be muzzled or have their legitimate vote canceled out by a fraudulent one. by definition, one side is always going to be disappointed with the outcome. that's why it is essential that both sides are confident that they were treated fairly. democracies die when one party seizes control of the elections' process and eliminates the safeguards that have protected the integrity of the ballot places restrictions on free speech and seizes the earnings of individual citizens to promote candidates that they may abhor and that is what this bill does today. it destroys the bipartisan com

mr. davis: madam speaker -- madam chair, before i get started could i ask for a point of personal privilege to have the members of this institution and the gallery recognize you as the first native american woman to ever chair the house proceedings. the chair: the chair thanks the gentleman from illinois. the committee will be in order. the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: thank you, madam chairman. as my home state president ronald reagan once said, the most terrifying words in the english language are, i'm from the government and here to help. i am for the american voter. i support every eligible voter having easier ways to register to vote and easier access to the polls. what i'm not for is washington, d.c. taking over our elections. i have said it before, i agree with my colleagues across the aisle that there is a roll for the federal government to play in election infrastructure, campaign finance disclosure, ballot access, transparency, and most importantly election security. however, h

mr. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: mr. chairman, i agree with my colleagues across the aisle that there is a role for the federal government to play in election infrastructure, campaign finance disclosure, ballot access, transparentsy and election security. however, h.r. 1 was developed to serve the special interest of democrats and the outside organizations that support the democratic party and will not accomplish its alleged goal of being for the people. the greatest threat to our nation's election system is partisanship, and that's what we're seeing right here in h.r. 1. it misuses taxpayer dollars, takes power away from states to administrator their own elections and threatens -- administer their own elections d h.r. 1 imposes vague standards that disadvantage citizens who wish to advocate on behalf of any public policy issue. every american has a right to support causes th

mr. davis suffers from democratic districting and certain other states from the other. the point is, voters should select their elected members, not the politicians selecting the voters. >> thank you. mr. chairman, my next question is for mr. davis. thank you for being here. ballot harvesting, that is, there's not a prohibition in this bill for ballot harvesting, as we have kind of touched on before. but i wanted to specifically ask you, is there anything in this bill that would prevent a person from let's say the democrat party from going into an area that is mostly from their opponent's party and collecting a bunch of ballots and then not turning them in? >> no, nothing in this bill would prohibit that. >> and that's very concerning for me. and that's why the state of arizona has prohibited ballot harvesting, and we have touched on before about what happened in north carolina, and in north carolina, they prohibited ballot harvesting, but as it's been said, that it's not prohibited in californ

it is my pleasure to welcome mr. davis, ranking member of the committee, to offer his words of wisdom. >> thank you, mr. chairman. great to see you here. mr. ranking member, thank you much and to all of our colleagues on this rules committee. here.a pleasure to be as i have said before, the greatest threat to our nation's election system is actually partisanship. committee markup of h.r. 1 last week, we considered 100 amendments offered by republicans and not a single one adopted. some would have removed provisions that misused taxpayer dollars, took power away from states and potentially weaponize the federal election commission. developed to serve the special interests of the democrats and outside organizations who support the democratic party. we are failing the people he flew don't do our due diligence to create a bipartisan election reform that would protect each voter. h.r. 1 is legislation that violates a citizen's basic free-speech rights under the first amendment. by proposing to limit free imposing standards that

mr. davis: mr. chairman, i agree with my colleagues across the aisle that there is a role for the federal government to play in election infrastructure, campaign finance disclosure, ballot access, transparentsy and election security. however, h.r. 1 was developed to serve the special interest of democrats and the outside organizations that support the democratic party and will not accomplish its alleged goal of being for the people. the greatest threat to our nation's election system is partisanship, and that's what we're seeing right here in h.r. 1. it misuses taxpayer dollars, takes power away from states to administrator their own elections and threatens -- administer their own elections d h.r. 1 imposes vague standards that disadvantage citizens who wish to advocate on behalf of any public policy issue. every american has a right to support causes they believe in, and that's exactly why the american civil liberties union echoes my concern. the aclu say this impinges on the free speech right of a

mr. davis: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. davis: thank you. i respect the gentleman's amendment, as important as recycled paper may be, this, i believe, would present an undue burden on our states and our local officials who administer these elections. this requirement of use regular cycled paper is narrowly tailored for federal office elections. yet federal, state, and local elections often occur at the same time. this makes it incredibly impractical and difficult for state officials to comply with this amendment. states would theoretically may have to have two different paper ballots, one for federal elections and the other for state and local matters. also recycled paper is less available and more expensive, giving local election officials less options. this requirement could have an undue burden on states as they aim to comply with this amendment and impractical as voters often vote on federal, state, and it's impractical as

it's my pleasure to welcome my good friend, mr. davis, the ranking member of the committee, to offer his words of wisdom. >> thank you, mr. chairman. great to see you here. and mr. ranking member, thank you very much. and to all our colleagues who are on this rules committee. it's a pleasure to be here. and i said before, the greatest threat to our nation's election system is actually partisanship. during our committee mark-up of hr-1 last week, we considered 28 amendments offered by the house administration republicans and not a single one waw adopted. some of the amendments offered would have removed provisions that misuse taxpayer dollars, take power away from states, and potentially weaponize the federal election commission. make no mistake, hr-1 was developed to service the special interests of democrats and the outside organizations that support the democratic party. we're failing the people if we don't do our due diligence to create a bipartisan election reform that will protect each and every american voter. hr-1 is legislation t

. >> most of what mr. davis described on msnbc have been laid out in court on documents to last august and detailing in that ma michael cohen pleaded guilty of the kind of the structure of the payment where it came from. the checks is certainly something helpful to look at. we get specifics with respect to the date as you reference, katy. as far as these payments occurring and this involving the trump campaign or the candidate himself. michael cohen directly implicated the president in that. since this is already public and the district attorney's office and the attorney general's office would already have the

mr. davis: madam chair, i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. davis: thank you, madam chair. thanks to our -- my new colleague, mr. neguse, welcome. glad you're participating in the process. i am going to oppose your amendment, not because of the process, just because it adds another layer of burden to our states and our localities. many states already accept preregistration forms and that's within their state's jurisdiction to do so. i just don't like this top-down approach which is how upwards of 700-page mammoth bill called h.r. 1 is putting onto our states and local election officials. our county offices, our local officials, they're bleeding from unfunded mandates from state and federal governments. and this is one more of those. i agree, we ought to let -- we ought to get more 16 and 17-year-olds interested in government. i have twin boys who are 18. i try and get them interested. sometimes they're not even interested in me, what we do. but the ke

it's my pleasure to welcome my good friend, mr. davis, the ranking member of the committee, to offer his words of wisdom. >> thank you, mr. chairman. great to see you here. and mr. ranking member, thank you very much. and to all our colleagues who are on this rules committee. it's a pleasure to be here. and i said before, the greatest threat to our nation's election system is actually partisanship. during our committee mark-up of hr-1 last week, we considered 28 amendments offered by the house administration republicans and not a single one waw adopted. some of the amendments offered would have removed provisions that misuse taxpayer dollars, take power away from states, and potentially weaponize the federal election commission. make no mistake, hr-1 was developed to service the special interests of democrats and the outside organizations that support the democratic party. we're failing the people if we don't do our due diligence to create a bipartisan election reform that will protect each and every american voter. hr-1 is legislation t

it's my pleasure to welcome my good friend, mr. davis, the ranking member of the committee, to offer his words of wisdom. >> thank you, mr. chairman. great to see you here. and mr. ranking member, thank you very much. and to all our colleagues who are on this rules committee. it's a pleasure to be here. and i said before, the greatest threat to our nation's election system is actually partisanship. during our committee mark-up of hr-1 last week, we considered 28 amendments offered by the house administration republicans and not a single one waw adopted. some of the amendments offered would have removed provisions that misuse taxpayer dollars, take power away from states, and potentially weaponize the federal election commission. make no mistake, hr-1 was developed to service the special interests of democrats and the outside organizations that support the democratic party. we're failing the people if we don't do our due diligence to create a bipartisan election reform that will protect each and every american voter. hr-1 is legislation t

vii shipped. >> mrs. davis: i know you're focus on the dysphoria rather than the transgender. >> mr. stewart: can i say this. the fact an individual has served, we don't ask an individual what their gender is. so it's difficult for us to go ahead and track an individual unless they self-identify, the whole policy here that we've been talking about to date is on a medical condition, and that's really what we're focusing this change on, is a medical condition. not a ban on transgender individuals. because there's -- as all of them stated here, they're all great americans and have served honorably. >> mrs. davis: i think the difficulty is that if there are syringes, and we know we have individuals who have -- who want to serve their country, they qualify, they've gone through candidate training school, whatever it is they've done that this is to their corps, something they want to do. if we say they suffer from dysphoria, and therefore, we cannot have them in the service, what they're thinking is to be transgender

mr. davisally appreciate you being here tonight. i know you've been having a busy week. >> first of all, this is the second time, rachel, my first out of the box after intense michael cohen experience is your show, so maybe we'll go for a third one. >> maybe we'll make this a tradition. let me ask you about the intensity of mr. cohen's experience right now. we saw he spoke with the house intelligence committee today behind closed doors but then they announced he's coming back next week. had that been the original plan or was that change made today? >> it was not the original plan. in a way, michael was more effective today than he even was yesterday when he exceeded all of our expectations in working with him because today new information was developed that really could be game changing and chairman schiff praised him for honesty and forthrightness and the development of this information is the reason he's coming back next wednesday. >> obviously, you can't tell us in detail about the nature of

mr. davies several times to find a solution.lly in an e-mail, we are told that if we included a 3- foot setback, the staph would support plans. we understood that this compromise would satisfy mr. davies, and he did not file for d.r. even tell us he was unhappy with the setback. here we are today with plants and include the compromise and a commitment to maintain green space in our backyard, but they are still not satisfied. we appreciate the time of the commission and staff. thank you. >> thank you very much. do you have any public comment in support of the project sponsor please come on up. >> hello. i am a neighbor that lives directly across the street. i submitted a letter to you which i will read. dear mr. winslow, we are writing in support -- writing in support of the remodelling project at 2552 baker street. we are their their neighbors immediately across the street at the corner of green and paper -- baker. charlatan josh up in our neighbors for several years and we know them and their family very well. excuse me. their

mr. davis: and i yield back. mr. cole: i reserve my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves his time. the gentlewoman from pennsylvania is recognized. ms. scanlon: yes. i yield a minute to the gentleman from massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'm confused when i listen to the gentleman from illinois when he complains about process. he's complaining that we have over 70 amendments in order as if that were a bad thing. we think that's a good thing. you know, we -- when they did their h.r. 1, which was a big fat giveaway to big corporate special interests in this country, they had no amendments. they had no hearings in any committee. the house administration committee is the main committee of jurisdiction, and they did a hearing and the markup. so did the other committees. they had hearings. i don't understand what the problem is. the problem is you don't like this bill because it undercuts your strangle hold on the political system, where all the big money

and -- so you reached out to mr. davis mr. hice: -- mr. hice: so you reached out to mr. davis? and you want to testify before congress or did he urge you to testify? mr. cohen: i was asked to come here and i am here voluntarily because it is -- mr. hice: did he ask you to come here? mr. cohen: no certain. mr. hice: he says that he did ask you and he convinced you and also that he did the same with chairman cummings as well so your testimony here is that you approached lanny davis to represent you and to come here. he did not persuade you. mr. cohen: he did not. chairman cummings, part of the conversations that we engaged in with his people as well as chairman shift and others, we spoke in order to ask me to come here voluntarily mr. hice: i find the connecting of the dots and with mr. davis and you frankly the chairman and perhaps others to be stunning that there -- i believe frankly this is to impugn the president. you made an oath last time you were here and that oath meant nothing to you. we had an oath in this room "bet a month ago and it was clear that i will seek th

>> i think what mr. davis has said is there is a certain time frame that mr.vious testimony applied to. i think you would have to dive into exactly what that time frame is with mr. davis. but they have presented a narrative which they believe to be consistent. again, i think it goes to the bigger question of the presidential power -- >> do you believe it to be consistent? >> i think overall based on what i have seen i think it appears to be consistent based on the narrative that he's been presenting. that being said, i think the bigger question remains, is the pardon power being abused by the president. >> do you or have you seen direct evidence that raises questions in your mind that the trump team was open for business when it comes to pardons? >> well, i think if you look at the president's tweets talking about how paul manafort is a hero for not cooperating and michael cohen is a rat for cooperating with the special counsel that implicates potentially the pardon power and rewarding those who cooperate with the president and those who turn state's evidence,

mr davies has represented brecon and radnorshire since 2015.floodwaters following the cyclone there. more than four—hundred people are known to have died, but because many affected areas have yet to be reached, there are fears the final death toll could be far igher. ann soy reports from maputo. one by one, survivors of cyclone idai are being winched to safety. these are pictures of the first rescue efforts ta ken on the head camera. it is a slow mission, hampered by bad weather and limited resources. others are arriving on dry ground by boat. the little ones, the injured and pregnant women are given first priority. tens of thousands are still stranded. rescuers are faced with the tough task of choosing who gets help first. translation: i have children, i have four children. and all they‘ve got to eat is bread. we need aid now. translation: because of the cyclone, our homes are destroyed. we have nowhere to go, and we have nothing to start building again. translation: the first day, we received help. but they didn't give it to everyone. they on

you, uestions i have for mr. davis and mr. altmyer. in the redistricting is that eligible voters? seem to be this being pushed more by the democrats than the republicans? guest: democrats are pushing it because t now republicans control more seats after redistricting table the 2010 sencensus because they a lot of legislators and governor ships and could carve,more. democrats control they did a pretty good job of carving out republicans. you are hat is why seeing more complaints from the democratic side. longparties do t. we think term from 30,000 feet you are etter having neutral people draw these with other things in ind than disadvantaging one party or the other. you look at 2018 and offyear will join mocrats more seats than last time and you will have some split verdicts. we just think long term that is the best route to go. >> gerrymandering is not a partisan issue. because of the 2010 elections which favored republicans more tate legislators and governor offices were held by republicans so they controlled a range of agree the democrats were disadvantaged. but it could be diff

the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, for five minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. and i want to thank the academy of nutrition who prepared this statement for me in acknowledgment of black history month. minority populations, especially the african-american population, continue to remain in relatively poor health when compared to the majority population, and also continue to be underserved by the health care delivery system. one of the biggest health challenges facing our country today is obesity and the african-american community is especially at risk. in a 2015-2016 study by the c.d.c., the report found non-hispanic blacks, 46.8% adults had a higher prevalence of obesity than non-hispanic white adults, which was 37.9%. compared to other states, illinois' obesity rate is a significant area of concern with 31% of adults having obesity. this statistic is higher than the u.s. median. illinois has the 27th highest adult obesity rate in the nation and the seventh highest obesity rate for youth ages 10 to 17. chicago's african-american comm

mr. davis: and i yield back. mr. cole: i reserve my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves his time. the gentlewoman from pennsylvania is recognized. ms. scanlon: yes. i yield a minute to the gentleman from massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'm confused when i listen to the gentleman from illinois when he complains about process. he's complaining that we have over 70 amendments in order as if that were a bad thing. we think that's a good thing. you know, we -- when they did their h.r. 1, which was a big fat giveaway to big corporate special interests in this country, they had no amendments. they had no hearings in any committee. the house administration committee is the main committee of jurisdiction, and they did a hearing and the markup. so did the other committees. they had hearings. i don't understand what the problem is. the problem is you don't like this bill because it undercuts your strangle hold on the political system, where all the big money

mrs. davis: you were talking about accountable as well. in terms of the ability of students who actually attend some of the for-profit institutions to be able to graduate and be able to pay back loans because of their earning. reasonable amount of money that represents their effort. and how we know our veterans, active duty personnel and families are affected by this. that they have really been shortchanged on many levels and really a target of some of these institutions. how is that affecting them? >> we have seen some of the deceptive and high pressure recruiting tactics of for-profit colleges focused on service members and veterans. and there are really two reasons for that. one is g.i. bill benefits and military education benefits can be quite generous. dr. kvaal: the second reason is for-profit colleges by law can only receive up to 90% of their revenue from federal student aid. but that limitation does not apply to veterans or military benefits. for every veteran they enroll, the g.i. bill

renow recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, for ive minutes. mr. davis: madam speaker, i rise today to congratulate colonel craig osborne, a soldier in my district, retiring this week after 30 years of service in the united states army. the colonel graduated from illinois state university in 1989 as a distinguished military graduate and during his time with the army he's participated in a total of five combat deployments. operation desert shield, desert storm, joint guard, enduring freedom, and iraqi freedom. time and time again colonel osborne has answered the call to serve his country. he's served at the headquarters of allied land forces southeastern europe in turkey as well as the chief of staff for a combined joint and interagency task force in kabul, afghanistan. in his current position with the national defense university, he contributes to the education of future generations of our service members. among his many distinction, colonel osborne has three defense service medals. five bronze star medals, defense mare tourous service medal. combat

mrs. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today in solidarity with our transgender service members and to stand against president trump's proposed ban of transgender people serving in the military. transgender troops have been serving openly since 2016, at home, overseas, and in combat zones without incident. when i met with transgender service members last month, i was impressed to learn that by serving openly, i want to make a note of that, by serving openly, the quality of their service improved. in fact, the obstacles, there are many obstacles, mr. speaker, the obstacles they have overcome informed their greater ability to do their job . their impressive records speak for themselves. and there is no doubt that each of the service members i met with have served their country with distinction. already stated, this ban is blatant discrimination, poorly disguised as concerns over readiness, unit cohesion, and medical costs associated with transitioning. we already know that there had been zero reports of issue

will accept the vote the slogans and win which means if i don't win i don't use of the vote well mr davis we had a little like that boris yeltsin i mean who opened fire at the parliament with almost two hundred people killed and the american president bill clinton called him the next day and said nothing about the victims and supported him next presidential election so i mean the real russians know how it feels but we also know that sometimes it's good to have what americans call a humble piety the humble pie do you think that merican need that moment of humility when they are humiliated by their own little ship and. by the leaders you know i think we need a leader that integrates us obama was such but the totally good discredited by trump was and this was his opposite personality total wasn't he also discredited by his own policies for example he's been intervention and they should. know the whole . thing. and the mr no question about it but that doesn't mistake is much bigger than anything trump has done yet we'll see. we'll see i think we will need that but i don't think we went to get

. >> most of what mr. davis described on msnbc have been laid out in court on documents to last august and detailing in that ma michael cohen pleaded guilty of the kind of the structure of the payment where it came from. the checks is certainly something helpful to look at. we get specifics with respect to the date as you reference, katy. as far as these payments occurring and this involving the trump campaign or the candidate himself. michael cohen directly implicated the president in that. since this is already public and the district attorney's office and the attorney general's office would already have the information based on the topic alone. the information that we talked about on numerous times. as far as for their ability to have the facts and information in this case, they got it. as far as whether or not they want to move onto the criminal plos constituti prosecution of the president, how it would be battle out and in courts, that's a whole other issue. we know from the court documents that the souther

but cohen is alleges through his comments with mr. davis that in some way knelt they were tempting him, they were baiting him on the idea of a pardon and that's why he engaged in those conversations. >> the shades of gray seem really important here, that one is apples, one is pardons dangled as part of the president's endeavor to obstruct justice and "the new york times" has reported in the past pardons were dangled by john dowd lawyer 1.or to manafort and flynn. the question seems to be is this part of that vain of conduct that's under investigation? or is this more of what robert costa is talking about, cohen was feeling squeezed and wanted know if the president would be there for him? >> i want to push back a little bit on this idea of apples and oranges actually. i actually think in this context, yes, the words are going to matter, the intent. but i think they can all be the same thing. in other words, even if it was lightly mentioned, subtly suggested, that is not a huge difference here because of what bob costa just said. in other wor

mr philip davies. thank you, mr speaker., that there are millions of people outside this house who are absolutely seething and they are largely seething with people who stood on a promise to deliver the result of the referendum, and then see, once elected, that they try and frustrate, or in some cases even overturn, the result that they promised to honour when they stood for election at the general election. if those people don't think there is going to be a backlash, they are in cloud cuckoo land. the government could, and should, leave on 29th march, as it promised all the way along. why is it not doing that? will he give an absolute assurance that the two dates mentioned, the one in may and the one in april, that they will not be superseded by pushing it to a later date under any circumstances whatsoever? because to do so would be the most appalling betrayal of trust of the british people. i cannot recommend the words of my honourable friend enough. we all stood on manifestos in this place that were committed to honour th

>> i find the connecting of the dots here with mr. davisou and, frankly the chairman and perhaps others to be rather stunning that there is an agenda. >> those congressmen clearly concerned about cohen's role, excuse me, lanny davis' role in manifesting a case against trump. veteran lawyer and former u.s. attorney michael monaco, right there. he has become a celebrated criminal defense attorney after a stint as a federal prosecutor. while davis drew public fire. monaco is advising him on his testimony on what he can and cannot say if public. he had a fellow front row seat and backstage access to the hearings that riveted the nation. he is shepparding cohen through his remaining confidential testimony in the house. with me is former u.s. attorney michael monica. thanks for being here. >> thank you. nice being here. >> when you look at what came through in that hearing, what was most important in your preparation and your strategy and what did michael cohen get across? >> well, i think the most important thing is for michael to tell his story

you, uestions i have for mr. davis and mr. altmyer. in the redistricting is that eligible voters?m to be this being pushed more by the democrats than the republicans? guest: democrats are pushing it because t now republicans control more seats after redistricting table the 2010 sencensus because they a lot of legislators and governor ships and could carve,more. democrats control they did a pretty good job of carving out republicans. you are hat is why seeing more complaints from the democratic side. longparties do t. we think term from 30,000 feet you are etter having neutral people draw these with other things in ind than disadvantaging one party or the other. you look at 2018 and offyear will join mocrats more seats than last time and you will have some split verdicts. we just think long term that is the best route to go. >> gerrymandering is not a partisan issue. because of the 2010 elections which favored republicans more tate legislators and governor offices were held by republicans so they controlled a range of agree the democrats were disadvantaged. but it could be differen

well, says lincoln, if somehow mr. davis good slip out of the -- could slip out of the country unbeknownst to me, then much of our problem would go away. the institution of the presidency changed dramatically at the end of the 19th century, in the beginning of the 20th century through the 19th century, the president and the presidency were not at the center of american political life. they were not expected to be. by the constitution congress was supposed to be the leading institution. the president was simply the chief executive. he would execute the will of congress. and most presidents of the 19th century followed that model. there were only a couple really of 19th century presidents that people remembered. andrew jackson. abraham lincoln, thomas jefferson if you like him. james polk has his fan club. but for the most part, presidents of the 19th century are unmemorable by design. but things change in the 20th century when and because the united states for the first time has a full-time foreign policy. i've written about