he talks about some of the issues rating -- facing congress. he is the top republican on the judiciary committee and one of the conferees working on a budget proposal for 2014. here is a reef look at the interview. -- brief look at the interview. >> i do not believe will be easy for us to make an agreement between the republicans and the democrats. because the democrats want to increase taxes they want to -- if there's going to be in agreement, it would have to be are agreement -- if we willing to give something up on sequestration, but only if there is a long-term agreement on medicare and social security. can that happen? i am very pessimistic. but i know republicans are going to try to work in that direction and i know that congressman ryan is working very closely with patty murray of the senate committee to get in that direction. but it is a tough road to hoe. -- row to hoe. >> iowa senator chuck grassley. you can watch the entire editor tomorrow at 10:00 -- interview tomorrow at 10:00 eastern. >> is a pakistani, i am pirg certain -- i alway

he's done that with the first united states congress and the senate. the first address to the country. issue he brought up with compensation and bonuses, it was an issue. that n't say anything hasn't been said to those prior to him. >> i think you have the cause backwards.fect the angeron -- the -- money given to the banks, enormous. at the same time, a large number losing their homes. intervening was a much more controversial issue than people thought. people said don't give them money. they don't deserve it. moralying my mortgage and hazard, what if i stop paying my mortgage. months inp people six arrears. why should i pay on time. so here was obama having giving. this policy of but giving as long, money to the people who had been part of the problem. criticism was probably a political necessity on his part. t was -- an effort to kind of drain off some of the anger. and i will say again, somebody this.one through i am sure in my own mind, we here.two periods it's pre and post the aig bonuses. this from chris. chris got unfairly blamed because he trie

because of the old boston tea party, congress the founders put congress in charge of trade so the kingcould not just the date with a few special interests what would be our trade policy. hashistorically, congress had the steering will, the emergency brake. nixon came up with fast-track in 1973. it is anomalous. 16 agreements ever have used this handcuff procedure. why are democrats and republicans together saying, no more? not cause they want to have a seat at the negotiating table, but they want the informative aspects of trade agreement. in the end how they vote on it ain't the issue. is it going to be in our interest with accountability and actually not having the corporate advisors making the calls, or is it going to be a trade agreement like tpp which cato must agree, really is not about free trade, but has become the trojan horse for all of these other issues? in the end, the process is really important. in the past, we've had a new trade negotiating mechanism every 20 years until now. president obama is a candidate said he would replace it. you can find out if your member of con

guess who was completely blindsided by the nsa activities. congress an institution were told is providing the necessary oversight. to sum up how congress is handled these nsa revelations. there were two members of congress on one of the chief committees in charge of oversight the house intelligence committee arguing over when the committee knew what about this is program spying on world leaders intersted to know the stream and annuity had to go down to the committee and then spend a couple of hours going through amounts of product that would allow a member to be as informed as a member wishes to be on sources and methods and all activities of the intelligence community under the national intelligence frame i would just take them out. i say this we need to be careful about what i trying to buy but i really disingenuous to use the class of the donation and i think of being disingenuous was determined efficient and we have information that we don't have it it's congress's job to keep the intelligence community in check all it's felt utterly at that job t

could you reach the opposite result? could congress regulate the possession of a gun within a school zone by entering into a treaty? and authorize such legislation? >> in that case the question is whether the treaty is a valid exercise of the treaty. >> i don't mean to cut you off but at some point you seem not to see a problem that i think i see. and the problem underlying it if you get into the treaty area is this. given the power as there is in many majorities, some self executing treaties. in principle your position constitutionally would allow the president and the senate, not the house, to do anything through a treaty that is not specifically within the prohibition of the right and protection of the constitution. and i doubt that in that document the framers intended to allow the president and senate to do anything. you asked us to say whether the answer to that question is yes or no, you have a democracy of when the house was out. and i am worried about that. i asked you, isn't there an easier way to deal with this case and you

to take action beyond the authority of congress. that is from a prior were conjured -- said different treaty, something like that is clearly needed. the administration, as was encouraged by john kerry's testimony that the administration should not be oppositional to this idea and if i am reading his testimony correctly he seemed quite receptive to and reservations along the lines i am suggesting here. the administration maintains existing law is satisfactory to meet the obligations of the united states so it should not claim the need not only for new laws but laws that expand congress's authority beyond what it currently has and my sense is john kerry was acknowledging that. i address other each is in my written testimony about the role of the committee and need for non several ability language. thank you for your attention. >> thank you for your testimony. there is a vote depending on the floor but i will ask senator shaheen to proceed with questions and take over the chair. we will come back, we think your testimony is very importa

they go up and raise their right hand and say that, and the congress says no. at crisis of confidence triggered by the very act could precipitate the crisis we are trying to prevent. our catalyst was we can only go when we have maximum chance. this was not a grand strategy. it took a lehman types of and. >> it is true. i had just become the chairman and 2007. my republican colleagues forgotten they had run the congress until 2007. two thousand 3, 2000 4 -- i was a minority. tom delay would not consult me. hank talked about this. i do not angle we could do it. here is where we were. there was partisanship. as i did not think we could do it. that was the partisanship. you have the chairman, a very honest, deeply conservative man. i spent much of 2008 defending hank and been -- ben. they wanted to hav

so the question of whether congress today would be able to act, the fact that congress is so polarized today i think is a result of the actions we take in 2008. it's not a fair question to put to congress in a position. we created this by the actions we had to take for the u.s. economy. >> mr. mayor? >> two things. one, there's a we can take a $750 billion bailout of banks and make it popular. it's not possible. that's not a dog that loved, to quote bill clinton. not possible. it was ugly, buddhist ago. compensation, mortgages was window dressing. it was fundamentally ugly. we had to overwhelm the system politically because you thought the end goal was more important than the politics. >> can i just add one thing bravely? this terrible vote was taken as close to an election as possible. >> exactly. the other thing i would say is i don't think this congress is reflection of those -- this congress -- i say this about redistricting. the system is set up for voters to pick their representatives through technology, represented not the voters and that's why have this function in congress. ad

>> he would be for it because he made the statements very clearly as a member of congress and during the trial of course, the supreme court has not followed it in this respect either but no doubt as to where he stood and maybe that will be taken into account with due process. >> host: complete the fascinating other conflicts are the impeachment of andrew johnson that was so intricately tied up of the ratification of johnson's reluctance to enforce it to ask about the different stages. tell us about the controversy of ratification those submitted to the union before they ratified then they would not have been gratified to get the supermajority so what was his plan? >> the great debate is what do we ask the southern states to make them full partners again of the united states? bingham view 14th amendment to guarantee fundamental rights that the law was inadequate and needed to be fixed if they had ratified it they could come back to the states again. in this respect his opponent is one to believe we should be demanding a lot more of the south including taking property away from the slav

we don't have the congress using the treaty power to usurp the role -- >> no. the whole point is that some people think we do have exactly that in this case. usually when we have a case that implement significant and serious bilateral concerns, we get a lot of briefs and all that from our treaty partners. is there any concern that has been expressed in any concrete way by them about whether this is bond -- mrs. bond is prosecuted? i don't think anybody would say the whether or not mrs. bond is prosecuted would give rise to an international incident. the question is whether congress has the authority to pass a comprehensive ban. be applications of that band do not advance the national interests in a profound -- ban that do not advance the national interests in a profound way -- almost all the legal counsels of the state talking about how if petitioner's argument were accepted, it would severely damage the u.s. possibility to enter into negotiations and treaties? >> that's true. >> i'm sure there are people who have worked in the national branch of government for

will congress undo the sanctions because only congress can do that? >> as you know, fareed, undoing sanctions takes a much longer time than putting them on. and you're always going to have political opposition and ideological opposition to this congress and the president. but the president has enormous waiver authority, he can suspend the skangations for some time. many of the sanctions we talked about in this initial step, is sanctionings only the president has control over, freeing upper rannian assets for example. once it starts to gain momentum, when you show that you have actually stopped the iranian threat, the deal is much better than no deal at all, i think you'll see support among the leading members of congress build. you already see members that are skiddish on this, taking some reassurance on the direction that the negotiations are going. i'm hopeful the leaders will stop any new sanctions over the next month to give these diplomatic talks a fair chance. >> do you agree that if obama does stand up, that he will be a able to move congress?

we are many of you know the venue of the world congress and we're chosen as the world capital 2018. this is the promotion of the use of the international basis in our commitment. we're doing this with the sobriety. we're working together with the city's to plan the city of the future based on our experience and the challenge of knowledge and technology. this is the expo and where the congress helped barring also known as in 2011. i'm delighted to visit you to participate in the congress next november. i'm sure there are many things we can learn from each other. and while as many other things we can create together. mayor lee you can be sure that b.a. also known as is looking forward to cooperate in those areas. i want to give you two things we we have very, very important football. the barring also known as football. (clapping) >> oh, my god. >> that's the best player. >> and i know one also important thing. we have in this moment the most important in the world. this book to you. >> oh, my gosh thank you. thank you very much (clapping) >> give you something to do. thank you >> than

the n.s.a. his activities congress and institution we're told is providing the necessary oversight to sum up how congress has handled these n.s.a. revelations here were two members of congress on one of the chief committees in charge of oversight the house intel committee arguing over when the committee knew what about the n.s.a.'s program spying on world leaders and i'm interested to know the stream and we would be had does it take you down to the committee and spend a couple of hours going through mounds of product that would allow a member to be as informed as a member wishes to be on sources and methods and all activities of the intelligence community under the national intelligence framework i would just say and i just think this we need to be careful about what i've tried of i but i don't us to use the classification and i think would be disingenuous mr chairman if you're suggesting we have information if we don't have it it's congress's job to keep the intelligence community in check it's utterly failed at that job and that's not my opinion that's coming straight from another member of co

believe me, the congress and government officials are going to exempt themselves. you wait and see. >> and to piggyback very briefly on what wayne said, it's already happening. the president is substituting words like shop, exchange, marketplace, those are all free market terms. terms that say you have choice in the matter. obama care, there's no choice when it comes to obama care. it's haealth care administered y force, complete government control is and will be the only end result. >> hang in there, guys. michelle pointed out the dmv. some of the other public sector things, the post office, amtrak, green energy, all multibillion dollar colossal failures. ibm, at&t, google, other start-ups, those are millionity billion dollar winners. should the government turn it over to one of the private sector groups? >> it should go to the private sector. they are literally choking the last breath out of the free market and that's the way they want it. they want it all to funnel back. >> you're right. >> every road to the government to eliminate all choice, any form of capital

the discussion of whether congress would be able to act the fact that congress is so polarized today is actually a result of the actions we had to take in 2008. it's an unfair position to put the khan -- congress in. we created this. >> two things. one, there's no way can take a 750 billion-dollar bailout for the banks and make a popular. as someone who practice politics it's not possible. to "matt bill clinton, not possible. it was ugly and it would stay ugly. compensation was window dressing. it was fundamentally ugly and you had to overwhelm the system politically because you can't go more important than the politics. >> can i add one thing? this terrible folk was taken as close to -- as possible. >> the other thing i would say is i don't think the congress is a reflection of those decisions. this person who practice those black arts is now a reformer. the system is set up for voters to pick representatives through technology representatives now pick their voters and that is why you have dysfunction in congress. it is turned it upside down and that's why doesn't work. >> we should

the n.s.a.'s activities congress and institution we're told is providing the necessary oversight to sum up how congress has handled these n.s.a. revelations here were two members of congress on one of the chief committees in charge of oversight the house intelligence committee arguing over when the committee knew what about the n.s.a.'s program spying on world leaders i'm interested to know mr chairman we would be happy doesn't take those down to the committee and spend a couple of hours going through mounds of product that would allow a member to be as informed as a member wishes to be on sources and methods and all activities of the intelligence community under the national intelligence framework i would just say and i just think this we need to be careful about what i've tried of i but i don't you wish to use the classification and i think would be disingenuous mr chairman if you're suggesting we have information if we don't have it. it's congress's job to keep the intelligence community in check it's failed utterly at that job and that's not my opinion that's coming straight from another member of

so the congress is caught in a problem of arithmetic. that is, in order to meet the debt ceiling you have to either cut spending or raise taxes than they choose set lee to do neither. and so what happens is the president is required as the chief executive officer and it's unclear what the e. -- legalized x. of all of this are, to somehow pass it down to a level which meets the requirements. the problem here is people making the distinction between default on the debt and default on other government obligations, mainly entitlements. forfeiture of the debt is a very dangerous sort of thing to do. that occurs when you cannot repay the debt when do but there will still be a huge amount of revenues coming in, even in the context of the balanced budget amendment. so if the president wanted to segregate funds for paying interest the bankruptcy of the government would go away. that raises a lot of clinical problems because you say yes you are paying interest to the billionaires who are holding government debt and depriving people who are on food

the n.s.a. activities congress and institution were told is providing the necessary oversight to sum up how congress has handled these n.s.a. revelations here were two members of congress on one of the chief committees in charge of oversight the house intelligence committee arguing over when the committee knew what about the n.s.a.'s program spying on world leaders would be interested to know the stream and we would be happy doesn't take those down to the committee and spend a couple of hours going through mounds of product that would allow a member to be as informed as a member wishes to be on sources and methods and all activities of the intelligence community under the national intelligence framework i would just say and i just think this we need to be careful about what i've tried of i but i need on us to use the classification and i think would be disingenuous mr chairman if you're suggesting we have information if we don't have it. it's congress's job to keep the intelligence community in check it's failed utterly at that job and that's not my opinion that's coming straight from another member

no power on the congress to take action in the field previously beyond the authority of congress. that is from a prior reservation of a different treaty. something like that is needed here. i was quite encouraged by the secretary's testimony this morning the administration shouldn't be oppositional to this idea. and if i'm reading his testimony direct become he seemed quite receptive to adding reservations along the lines that i am suggesting here. of course the administration maintains that existing law is satisfied grea three committee obligations under the treaty. so, it should not claim the need, not only for the new law but that would expand the congress authority beyond what it currently has. and my sense is that the secretary was acknowledging that. i addressed some other issues in my written testimony about the role of the committee and the need for some non- government ability language. thank you for your attention. >> thank you all for your testimony. there is a vote pending on the floor. what i'm going to ask us for the senator to proceed with her questions and to take o

that's understandable given the threats from iran over the years, and congress has been vested in this issue. the day after the agreement was reached president obama spoke with prime minister netanyahu. our teams are going to work together and have an understanding of how negotiations are going. as congress the sanctions that are put in place brought us to where we are today. but now is not the time to bring in new sanctions. that could de rail negotiations before we have time to test whether or not we can reach an agreement. >> certainly in the congress and israel as well, the mistrust of the iranian government is so high, it was suggested that anything that is agreed to is really a trap. that iran has no intense of fulfilling it's side how do you negotiate with that kind of atmosphere? it must be tough. >> reporter: we're dealing with three kic decades of mistrust between iran and the west. the deal is not only based on trust we'll be able to verify that iran is keeping its commitments over the course of the next six months and that will give us confidence that iran will follow throu

well speaking of the hawks in the u.s. congress i'm glad you mentioned that because i'd like to discuss now the domestic situation in america regarding this deal because you know in the situation right now it seems like the ministration has found itself as they say between the rock and a hard place so how will this go down at home. well the administration for a while found itself between iran and a hard place you might say but because of the power of the presidency and the fact that a deal is in half now i think that the right wing elements in the u.s. congress those who followed the lead of benjamin netanyahu these were some republicans some democrats tonight and in the next days they will be back on their heels they will have to regroup well most of the momentum is now with this agreement but there is no question that the israeli government and those in the u.s. congress who want an attack on iran they will not rest they will hate this agreement or they will try to undermine now what about the situation in a their region in the m

what the white house requested was cut back by congress. several sections were sunsetted as we just discussed. whether it is the best activism, i do not know but requires congressional review. 215 was one of those. controversy about the library provision. whether a grandma taking out a library book was kind of screwed et. -- but this was debated. i do not view this as a secret law. what precisely was the process to get information was discoverable by members of congress. i think someone not a member of congress or on the judiciary committee who wanted to know how it worked could have found out. again, a lot of stuff going on and people it distracted. this was not the public issue it has become in recent time. that again is why there needs to be a robust privacy and civil liberties the mission. this commission, had it been 2000 whentioning in patriot was reauthorized or controversial provisions, you could have. , focusedd been there attention. you could have influenced how the changes were made. if there was anything to add to this? will try

this was the first time actual victims of us drone strikes word in congress and apart from the congressman who initiated this briefing. i saw only four other members of congress is no secret the us congress generally oppose the bill of rights it's very difficult to expect a sudden change of heart. even though part was when these two victims were appealing to the article the twenty fourth of the past year a us drone strike left this pakistani family devastated the nine year old girl and her thirteen year old brother nearly escaped death that day their sixty seven years old when the film was killed off the vegetable garden. i no longer love blue skies are grey skies the zones do not fly when the skies are grey in for a short period of time the mental tension and see it eases when the sky brightness controls return unsold us that the end of the family is having a broad out of their home in north and sirius died and the father of his family said he looked at the lives around here in bc he wished his children to be able to walk the streets not afraid of being bombed at the moment my mother was

i hope you enjoy the program which will now continue with the leaders of the u.s. congress. ng. some six decades after the last time sir winston churchill addressed the meeting of congress, it is a privilege to have sir winston's voice once again ringing through the halls of the capitol. this was the first time -- we heard today the first time he addressed commerce. president kennedy once said that the dark days and darker nights of the second world war, when the armies of freedom were being fought back on every front, churchill mobilized the english language and sent it into battle. that steadfast voice, rumbling with unending determination, serve as a great beacon of hope for the free people of the world. sir winston churchill's hope cap the allied victory alive, his image with the very face of democracy, defiance, and undefeated at the crucial hour. and so today it is our honor to install his commanding gaze as we celebrate his in statuary hall. anyone who visits the members lobby of the house of congress sees the great statue of churchill, and people rubbed his foot, too,

it's no secret the u.s. congress generally approves of growth strikes so it's very difficult to expect the sudden change of heart even though hart was with these drone victims were appealing through one of the twenty fourth of last year a u.s. drone strike left this pakistani family devastated the nine year old girl and her thirteen year old brother nearly escaped death that day their sixty seven year old grandmother was killed vegetable garden. i no longer love blue skies i prefer the gray skies the drones do not fly when this kinds agree and for a short period of time the mental time and fear eases but when this kind of run the drones return and so does the fear you know this family has never been abroad out of their home in north waziristan and the father of this family said he looked at the life around here. he wished his children to be able to walk the streets not afraid of being bombed at any moment. my mother was killed my children were injured i'm so glad that people are going to hear our story that's why we

so the congress has been very much together. the next thing we hope to do is to have a resolution bipartisan in nature that defines the end game. what are we trying to accomplish? we don't want a war. nobody wants a war. the idea of the iranians having a commercial nuclear power plant is okay with me. mexico and canada have nuclear power facilities. they just don't enrich uranium. they buy the product from the world community. they don't have enrichment or reprocessing. i don't mind the iranians having nuclear power plants for commercial purposes as long as the international community controls the fuel cycle. here's the problem. they are insisting on the right to enrich, and the problem is you can take uranium and enrich it to a certain level for commercial purposes, and with today's technology, you can break out and have a nuclear weapon very quickly. so why in the world -- mr. mccain: and could i ask aren't the parameters of this proposed agreement to allow them to continue to enrich materials? mr. graham: the concern the israe

the job and maintain classification. in response to judge, i don't know, can congress mandate, one of the concerns about withholding classified information for this outside counsel, whatever you call it economy, can congress include that and say that person shall have the same access to all documents and information, classified or not, that the government finds? i don't know. >> i'm not an expert but by and large classified information procedures act setting in criminal case, the government cannot be forced to disclose information to the defendant. but the government can be forced to make our decision about whether to prosecute the person or the sanctions that may suffer for not disclosing information to defendant may be a dismissal of the case but i don't know it would work in this context but at the end of the day i don't think, i think it is a significant constitutional iss issue. >> with the analogy this situation be basically the court would in essence say just in cipa if you want to prosecute this person need to make this impression available this way but if you want to get your order you need to make this, i'm not goin

the issue is not whether congress would change the laws. they can always use regular powers to do that, and that's just a different congress. we have case law, though, that says, if there's a treaty, congress does not need to worry about normal limitations on legislative authority. there's nothing too local, allegedly under this old case. once there's a treaty in place, regulate local housing decisions or private action in ways congress could never do, and without protection here, there's at least a danger -- talk about how probable it is, that the convention is used in that sort of way, and i do think it's a danger that could be fully addressed by the appropriate reservations, but it's important that we do that. >> are the administration's proposed ruds on federalism sufficient to address these concerns? if not, how would you modify the ruds? >> thank you, and as i testified, i think the proposed understandingings, declarations are not sufficient, and i will not go through them at the moment -- >> are you referring to the previous ruds that

house shortly before the 70 and the anniversary of his wartime address to a joint meeting at congress. this is one hour. >> ladies and gentlemen, please , theme our honored guests democratic leader of the house of representatives, the republican leader of the united fate senate, the majority leader of the niceties and become a united states senator if they, and the speaker of the united states house of representatives. [applause] please stand as the chaplain of the u.s. house of representatives give the invocation. >> let us pray -- god of all nations, we ask your blessing all on this gathering of people separated only by a common language to honor today a towering figure of the way first century, sir winston churchill. a man larger than life, often quoted authoritatively and by many accounts usually wrongly. he inspired to heroic a compliment and for severe it's millions on both sides of the greatic in a time of darkness across the face of the earth. gifts, oh, god, you pour out for the benefit of all. waswinston's gift leadership and a time of great chaos and fear, which when expend

the same with congress. the -- what can the members of congress and their staffs reasonably excited to do with the oversight of these agencies? it is primarily my view that the president of the united states can take effective management and control and oversight of the intelligence community. to theyou go back original point, look at structure 702. you have the court proving these procedures, several different types, different applications, but not really engaging in review of individual determinations and so on. i just think you have gone pretty far in terms of what you can ask it court to do to conduct oversight of the intelligence community. >> i have no other questions in this round. i yield. >> i appreciate the witnesses being here. it has been very helpful. oni do want to take you up advice you had given us earlier about legal advisers and what role they play. there is definitely a sense, and i mean no offense having been a law clerk, but the fees for junior attorneys having been law clerks, i wonder i

the congress will be focused on the outcome. >> thanks very much. to reporters in geneva. >> thank you. >> and we're honored to be here even at this very early hour of the morning. i particularly want to thank my colleagues from the united kingdom, germany, france, russia, wchina, and especially lady kathy ashton who is a persistent and dogged negotiator and someone who has been staying at this for a long period of time. we are grateful very her stewardship of these negotiations. if i can take a moment. i really want to thank the team from the united states. they've been a great many people involved in this effort for a long period of time now, both here in switzerland with us now but also back in the united states. and they know who they are. but i will single out our undersecretary of state, wendy sherman who has been a dogged, unbelievable patient hand and a skillful hand and she has helped through long and arduous months and years of our stewardship in this in the p5 plus one. i'm grateful to her long efforts and all of her team. at the united n

the congress but he has an opportunity now. what is about to happen in the b. twenty four to choose to make a reversal so we look at for the force of this it's a snapshot of right now it's a snapshot of where the perception is of obama and perception is that i don't think it's so much a weakening of obama when you look at the entire transcript of what is happening as he does in the ascension. pretty much defining himself on the world stage at critical marks and i think i think a lot of people in the world would agree with you on that but don but don a kind of allays my question here is barack obama a strong leader because gun control immigration. minimum wage i mean i get mono i mean i can go on and on and i'm not particularly a critic of the president but i look to what he ran on when he promised and come up short big time. listen this some essential facts to the american political system that have to be considered even to frame this discussion because the assumption underlying the questions and underlying you know the way we're looking at it is that obama has

>> the american people believe congress is broken. . i believe the american people are right. during this congress, the 113th congress, the united states wasted an unprecedented amount of time on procedural hurdles and partisan obstruction. time to change the senate before this institution becomes obsolete. >> in a receipt or cal twist worthy of cirque du soleil he managed to link to failures of obama care saying washington is broken and democrats are trying to distract from obama kamplt the showdown come as senate republicans mostly flbd three of president obama's nominees. not because of their views or qualifications but in an attempt to permanently keep democratic judges off the bench. what qualifies as nuclear in the 2013 senate means using a simple 51 vote majority

we worked closely with the library of congress. our next one was working to archive the year 2000 websites. we worked closely with the library of congress. they have been great partners. we give them back the data and they store it forever. they have been instrumental in making it so that the web is a living document through the internet archive and we then help them by building their collections. they work with the national archives every two years to archive the end of term government archives. and that is available for the nara.gov website. but it is when you go and use that, it is using our servers. they keep an off line copy. but we are actually the ones that host those materials. the different industries are set up to protect their existing interests. we are finding that every field needs to be addressed differently. we do that. it is an opt-out type system. with books. we digitize the public domain books and make them available. with the television collection which is a mfantastic new research you get to search based on close

the issue is not whether congress could change the laws. it could always use its regular powers to do that. we have case law that says if there is a treaty, congress does not need to worry about any of its normal limitations on its legislative authority. underis nothing to local this old case. once you have a treaty in place, you can regulate local housing divisions in a way congress could never do. without protection here, there's at least a danger. that the convention could be used in that sort of way. there's a danger they could be fully addressed by the appropriate reservation. it's important that we do that. sufficientproposals to address these concerns, and if not, how would you modify those ruts? the proposed understandings, declarations, reservations are not sufficient. >> can i ask the ranking member -- are you referring to the previous reds -- ruds? the ones --ring to >> they were never adopted. they are not sufficient. the federalism in private ruds say theng convention is not requiring that we take over some private decision, not

will have to focus on in the upcoming next session of congress. >> host: for those, senator murray is the head of the chair of the senate budget committee. the lead negotiator for democrats in the conference committee. her counterpart on the other side? >> guest: is chairman paul ryan. this is true, budget committees. i sometimes get a little bit upset the mead draw and press saying this is something unique we're having a special committee. what is unique the fact we're conferencing. this is the way process iss supposed to work. house passes a budget. the senate passes a budget and conference it. that is what is going on now. >> host: makeup of this committee, 22 members, house members, four republicans three democrats, does that makeup give house members little more say because there are fewer of them? >> no. the bottom line, at the sometime if they get an agreement then they have to geth a majority of signatures on the conference agreement. doesn't matter what the numbers are. the majority is of course in the house because republicans control the house. t

and the congress. congress after all rights of the law so maybe that is an oversimplified version of it. but, back to the harvard law school student -- i trust our government subject to safeguards to do the right thing to keep the country safe. >> let me just clarify or just follow up. okay. that is for instance in 215, one of the criticisms, even by some isolated members of congress come is we don't even know that 215 was meant to income this a bulk selection. and so, the question then comes -- but then one answer is that some people in congress today. i don't know whether, you know, an inner loop was told that this was a contemplated use and so they knew it, etc. but maybe not until the thing was passed and they began to get. dance. later on the reauthorization set up from the powerpoint of justice. so i'm getting to this question and only because it is a philosophical question and whether or not it could cost the secret law in the public debate about what is really involved. and i understand the sec

least at this point what are your thoughts i'm not sure the odds are against and domestically the congress has gone along with not connecting any new sanctions at least for a while they are now going through the motions of preparing a sanctions resolution but that would be use only if the six months do not result in a longer and it was just a this is just basically a negotiating tactics as a means of warning iran that if he didn't give talks do not succeed then even more sanctions might follow but i think that the president will get a grace period i mean i'm not sure of this in the store agreement or the nixon and china analogy holds but we just don't know and certainly it's a modest risk for potentially big gain so i think it's i think people are going to give the president the benefit of doubt here for a while ok danielle what do you think about that because the relationship between the united states and iran has been deplorable for thirty three years is this a turning point is it possible i mean should we be afraid to succeed well i think what's happening is that the the media and certa

>> i will take back the word circumvention. could congress regulate possession of a gun within a school zone? by entering into a treaty that authorizes such legislation? >> the question in that case would be whether the treaty is a valid exercise. >> i don't mean to cut you off at some point you seem not to see the problem that i think i see and problem when you get into the treaty area is this. given the power as there is in many you have some self-executing treaties that in principle your position constitutionally would allow the president and the senate, not the house, to do anything to retreat it. that is not specifically went than the ovations of the rights and protections of the constitution. that's missouri v. holland and i doubt in that document the framers intended to allow the president the senate to do anything. you asked us now to say whether the answer to that question is yes or no. we still have a democracy in other words in which the house is part. if you carry it to an extreme that is where you are and i'm worried about that a

similar things happen from time to time in the legislature or in congress. and since people are free to pray or not as they choose, there's no constitutional problem with that. >> you don't think that would make somebody uncomfortable if they're the only one not standing or bowing their head? > the supreme court has upheld that someone might object to a particular practice or made uncomfortable is not the fusional test? constitutional test. we're talking about the establishment clause and whether or not the government is establishing a particular religion. here the town of greece practice is open to people of any religion or no religion if they choose to give an invocation. >> only for members of other religions gave those prayers, why did that not happen until the initial lawsuit? that did not happen in the past. >> the practice like the practice of many governmental bodies was to invite all of the clergy in the town with regardless of denomination or religion to deliver a prayer if it they chose. it happened the people who chose o deliver the prayer in gree

the key thing here is congress. members of the republican party are determined not to give president obama a victory at any cost. i am worried this agreement will get caught up in that politics. what is the role that congress has to play on this agreement? at some point, it will be a treaty. [inaudible] >> i do not envision their having to be a treaty. congress is nevertheless key. the european past their sanctions to their executive branches. they have a foreign ministry meeting. not of the national legislators are involved in the process. it is created to take time in order to make sure there are not any fast changes. the american sanctions are a spider's web. it is very difficult to move one without moving all. the key sanction, the biggest sanctions go through congress. only congress can lift sanctions. if it is a congressional act, only congress can undo them. this creates a significant difficulty. we are in an unprecedented partisan atmosphere. congress brought us to a government shutdown, which at first, peopl

the first congress is the source. >> fair enough. the tradition to which marsh points. >> the first congress that also adopted the first amendment. >> that -- that's correct, and that had prayers that did not address predestination or having to accept jesus as your savior or any point on which listeners disagree. >> many of them were very explicitly christian, were they not? >> they were very explicitly christian, but that was not a point of disagreement at the time. they stayed away from any issue that protestants disagreed on. >> in a way it sounds quite elitist to say, well, now, we an do this in washington and sacramento and austin, texas, but you people up there in greece can't do that. >> well, it's not that the people in greece can't do it. it's just that this board is functioning in a fundamentally different way from what 0 congress or the state legislature functions. and also >> my understanding is that the first chaplain of the senate was the episcopal bishop of new york; isn't that correct? and he used to read -- he took h

if the partisan response would have been the congress is in trouble, let it go. policing -- pelosi not only agreed that the republicans won't support spending. i'm going to say yes but it will be the most progressive tax cuts we can with earned income tax credits etc.. a fundamental difference between the two parties today given the influence of the tea party on the sense of how much do you sacrifice of your own view to keep the government going? within the republican party and the house today there's a scary ammunition of that commitment. >> at the risk of not making my flight you are solving the presence role in building bridges to the congress. there is a lot that has changed since i wait. >> george bush and i were not pals. i never had a serious conversation with george bush but when he sent paulsen and bernanke up to tell us that things were collapsing we responded and it wasn't based on any schmoozing of george bush. >> i have two more questions than i want to open up to the audience. i'm going to go to you barney on this. >> you already went to barney. barn

the impeachment. congressassed the tenure of office act. why did he pass it in house they relate to johnson's efforts on the 14th amendment? >> right, the difficulty was the south was occupied by the union army in congress wanted this have to do certain things to ratify the 14th amendment to have elections, to set up government, to get the freed slaves the right to vote in these elections. but the president was commander-in-chief. so he could tell the commanding officers in these places don't do what congress wants you to do. so how did they try to solve that problem quite one answer was the secretary of war at the time was that the secretary of defense now was a man named edward danton who was bingham's longtime friend. they were together in the same little town in ohio and the supporter of what congress wanted to do. it was hard to get any contrary borders so they. do what i want and what congress wants. so okay, what if the president fired the secretary of war? so congress passed a law saying basically you

even republican voters like the idea of doing this. democrats in congress like the idea of doing this, the president wants to do this. but republicans in congress at least so far are standing against it. even just in the senate, senators like rand paul and marco rubio and lamar alexander, all within the last few months, not just that the minimum wage shouldn't be raised, but maybe the minimum wage should not exist at all. maybe the minimum wage should be zero. republican voters not only want the minimum wage to exist, they want to raise it. just like all the other voters want to raise it. it is an overwhelming thing that democrats support and republican politicians don't, despite their own voters. and that is the definition of political opportunity. if your side supports something that is wildly popular, and the other side is against it, that is a political opportunity. if you support something that is so popular that even the voters from the other parties are with you on it and they're against their own politicians on it. that is a political opportunity. o