possible asit's not matter of law to detain an remove whole family units who illegally in the united states. congress and the courts created alone oblem and congress can fix it. until then, we will enforce very law we have on the books to defend the sovereignty and security of the united states. those who criticize the enforcement of our laws have offered only one countermeasure. borders. the quick release of all illegal alien families and the decision our laws.orce this policy would be disastrous. it's primary beneficiaries would be the smuggling organizations themselves and the prime victims who would e children smuggling into the machine. there is a lot of misinformation what dhs is and is not doing adds it relates to families at the border and i record. correct the here are the facts. first, this administration did not create a policy of families at the border. we have a statutory responsibility that we take to protect alien children from human smuggling, rafficking, and other criminal enforcing our immigration laws. we have a long existing policy, mull. administrations have followed, that outlin

term bb&t to bring the united states congress. niency to the united states congress. -- no longer take our position for granted. we know god is the source of our freedom. you know that self-determination is always state-controlled. for self-determination around the world, it has to win at home first. we are the bastion of strength for the world. people around the world watch what you do here. they are encouraged by what we do here everyday. president trump is determined to defend our rights. [applause] we just cannot become complacent. america has been on a slow slide towards liberal, progressive politics. bigger government, more government spending and less personal freedom. when a judge tries to ask a pastor for his sermon notes before he gives his sermon, we have a problem. in america, we believe in our founding principles. the our founding principles that give us the freedoms we have today. economic opportunity, fiscal responsibility, limited government and individual liberty. four miles from where we sit today, carved into sto

it's finally time we bring [inaudible] to the united states congress.applause] some people around the world call this american arrogance and i don't but we can no longer call our position in the world for granted and we know the importance of freedom and know god is the source of our freedom and that self-determination is always trump state control for such termination to around the world it has to in your home first because we are at the bastian for strength around the world. meetings like this are critical. people watch what you do here and they are encouraged by what we do everyday president trump is committed to defending our rights under the constitution including freedom of speech, freedom of religion and yes, freedom to bear arms. however -- [applause] >> we cannot become complacent. over the last 100 years america has been on a slow slide toward liberal progressive policies, bigger government, more government spending, and yes, less personal freedom. when a judge has asked the pastor for his sermon notes before he gives the sermon that we have a

it is finally time we bring term limit to the united states congress.cheers and applause] some people around the world call this american arrogance. we can recall our position for granted. we know the importance of freedom. we know god is a source of our freedom. we know the self-determination is always state control. it has to win here at home first because we are the best in strength for freedom around the world. meetings like this are so critical. people watch what you do here. they are encouraged by what you do everyday. president trump is committed to defending our right including freedom is each, freedom of religion and yes, freedom to bear arms. [applause] however, we just cannot become complacent. over the last 400 years, america must low slide for liberal progressiveolicy. bigger government, more government spending and yes less personal freedom. when they try to ask a pastor for serving no, we've got a serious problem, y'all. president trump is fighting this and we have to stay united behind him and his agenda appeared in america we believe in

before this body and say new york foe in the field has done more damage to the united states military than the united states congress has. and i think it's really important for people to stop and think and listen to what that means. our men and women in uniform and the leaders oyou have omilitary are making the case and -- an accurate case that we have done more damage than any enemy has. we've absolutely got to stop that, mr. speaker. we've got to end this process of sequestration. we've got to end the continuing resolutions. we've got to end the dysfunctional budget process. simply cannot allow the situation to continue. the threats that we face as a nation are real and they're growing. yet as a congress we have continually forced our military to operate on continuing resolutions of varying lengths for nearly a decade. we've got to end this cycle of dysfunction. we cannot force our men and women in uniform and their families to pay the price for our dysfunction. that's simply reare -- reprehensible, mr. speaker. i fully expect and hope that we'll pass h.r. 6157 this week. and i urge my democratic colleagues in the

the loopholes are close by congress, it is not possible as a matter of law to detain and remove whole family units who arrive you legally in the united y in the unitedl states, congress created these problems and can fix it and until that we will enforce the law to defend the sovereignty and security of the united states. those who criticize the enforcement of our laws can offered only one countermeasure, ". -- open borders. the release of all families and the decision not to enforce laws. this policy would be disaster. the private aphasia would be the smuggling organizations and the prime victims would be the children who would be plunged into the smuggling machine. there is a lot of misinformation about what dhs is and is not doing related to families on the border. here are the facts, this administration did not create a policy of separating families at the border as we have a statute we take seriously to protect alien children from human smuggling, trafficking, and other criminal actions all enforcing our immigration law. ,e have a long existing policy multiple administrations have followed that outline when we may take action to protect children. we wi

until these loopholes are closed by congress it is not possible as a matter of law to detain and remove whole family units who arrive illegally in the united states. congress and the courts created this problem and congress alone can fix it. congress is the one that needs to fix this. it's a law passed by the united states congress. >> there's only one body here that gets to createlati legisla and it's congress. we would like to see congress fix it. it's congress's job to change the law. >> that's not what happened yesterday. so the president also routinely blamed the democrats for a policy that his administration created. listen to this. >> i hate the children being taken away. the democrats have to change their law. that's their law. the democrats forced that law upon our nation. i hate it. that gave us the laws. >> and that's a democrat bill. that's democrats wanting to do that and they could solve it very easily by getting together, but they think it's a good election point. that's the law and that's what the democrats gave us. i say it's very strongly the democrats' fault. their obstruction, they're really obstructionists and they are obstru

so the president of the united states, congress, they can decide what kind of federal privileges can be revoked. they can send people to war. foreign policy. international trade, all of these things are determined without representation, unless, of course, someone from puerto rico travels to the u.s. mainland and they can vote as a resident in the u.s. mainland so it's a very territorially based kind of disenfranchisement. >> trying to understand or explain, we make hawaii a state and yet puerto rico, is it a state, is it a commonwealth, is it going to become an independent country, is it a territory? >> so it is an unincorporated territory. will it become a state, will it become independent? right now you have about 50-50 in puerto rico in terms of support. half and half 50 towards maintaining the commonwealth status and or becoming a state. i don't know. i don't know what's going to happen. there is in this fairly even divide, there's a percentage of the population that favors independence. it's about, in the election in puerto rico it's about 2% to 3% but this is a bit of a mask o

think that's an issue that's going to be galvanizing for the united states congress. >> ten minutes left. >>o you think congress can have influence in the administration without the threat of legislation? we've talked about there's un theainty about what administration is going to do? we don't know how well people outside of that are influencing that. congress has played a helpful role. and many members of congress the past six months on nafta just as an example have and had series of meet ings with the president and others in the white house and really convoyed the importance of nafta to their states. that's been impactful. we've seen the withdraw threats as a growing concern fade to a degree. that's been meaningful. think you are right. it is an unanswered question what happens next. i think it is one that members of congress are going to be speaking about. according to the press reports that i've read, this is ofething that a number senators raised. >> just a little bit to a piece a re-islation, there's write bill working its way through congress. appears to be some bipartisan agreeme

united? >> he has been attempting work with congress since he's been in office. he's made it very clear that we will enforce the laws as the united states, as long as this administration is here. as part of that, he has continually reached out to congress to fix this and i think what you've seen him do in the last few days is that, is continue to tell congress, please work with us, the system is broken. the only people that benefit from the system right now are the smugglers, the traffickers, those who are pedaling drugs and terrorists so let's fix the system. yes? >> i have a question i'm getting the feeling and compassion for the families being separated he's talked about the parents being possible criminals and blamed it on democrats. >> i think he has said in tweet s that he would like congress to act to end the underlying laws that require the separation. yes? >> secretary, a couple days ago , both the president and the main posture is saying that this is not the administrations policy but it seems liked to that the message is a little bit different as to say well this is our policy but it's our policy because we don't believe we c

so these loopholes are closed by congress, it's not possible in a matter of law to obtain and remove whole family units who arrive illegally in the united states. congress and the courts created this problem and congress alone can fix it. until then, we will enforce every law we have on the books to defend the sovereignty and security of the united states. those who criticize the enforcement of our laws have offered only one countermeasure. open borders. the quick release of all illegal alien families in the decision not to enforce our laws. this policy would be disastrous. its prime beneficiaries would be the smuggling organizations themselves and the prime victims would be the children who would be plunged into the smuggling machine. there is a lot of misinformation about what dhs is and is not doing as it relates to families of the border. i want to correct the record here. are the facts. this administration did not create a policy of separating families of the border. we have the statutory responsibility that we take seriously to protect alien children from human smuggling, trafficking, and other criminal actions while enforcing our immigr

. >> a source was able to get me a folder, a united states congress folder that waeh leftind at this appears to be this has notfi been coned but appears to be aolder that each of the 27 democrats who visited the facility oner saturdaye given. it's talking points, questions, ques aons includingre kids allowed to play with the to his? do their cell phones work? all sorts of different things they wanted to ask. took pictures of the documents, shington examiner.com.'s at the >> shameless plug >> exactly. ? quickly before he go, as ame er of the media, did you feel le they had a perception that thef story itsel was being -- being distorted al the way? >> you know, it's been interesting listening to people talk aut that i think customs and border protection and ice have been very open. they're trying to get their point of view across. as a reporter, you know, we know what the medias saying. and sitting down today, i sat downneith the commir of cvp and we talked aut what's -- what aren't we tal about? what are you trying to say that isn't getting cross. you verify that 10 see how true that

united? >> he has been attempting to work with congress since he's been in office. he's made it very clear that we will enforce the laws of the united states as long as this administration is here. as part of that, he has continually reached out to congress to fix this. and i think what you've seen him do in the last few days is that, is continue to tell congress, please work with us. the system is broken. the only people that benefit from the system right now are the smugglers, the traffickers, those who are peddling drugs, and terrorists. so let's fix the system. yes. >> does he feel any compassion for the families that are being separated? he's talked about the parenting -- possible criminals, blamed it on democrats, offered no words of compassion. >> i think he has said in tweets he would like congress to act to end the underlying laws that require the separation. yes. >> madam secretary, it seemed like a couple days ago both the president -- the main posture was to say this was not the administration's policy. but it seems like today that the message was a little bit different to say this is our policy but it's our policy because eith

the ceo can sit in front of congress, the united states congress for two days with a smile on his facey were there to talk about data sharing and somehow fail to mention they had signed the largest or most important data sharing agreements over a better part of the diecade with these huge, hue compfacebook is to blame for withholding this critical information. i don't know how you can characterize a two day performing smiling at the united states congress failing to disclose these huge greechlts. i don't know how you can characterize that as honest. i don't know how anyone can characterize that as honest. "the new york times" is clear facebook did not seek permission and that users were misled, as you read in "the new york times," as i read in "the new york times," into thinking their data would not be shared with third-parties and yet it was. >> what can be done? we're not shaming facebook. the stock price is not suffering unduly as a result of this. >> it's astonishing. >> what happens? >> a class-a idiot would say users are going up. that's not true. users have no other choice. that

until these loopholes are closed by congress, it is not possible as a matter of law to detain and remove whole family units who arrive illegally in the united states. congress and the courts created this problem and congress alone can fix it. until then, we will enforce every law we have on the books to defend the sovereignty and security of the united states. those who criticize the enforcement of our lauers have offered only one counter measure. open boarders. the quick release of all illegal alien families and the decision not to enforce our laws. this policy would be disastrous. it is prime beneficiary would be the smuggling organizations themselves and the prime victims would be the children who would be plunged into the smuggling machines on the trip north. there is a lot of misinformation about what dhs is and is not doing as it relates to families at the border. and i want to correct the record here. here are the facts. first, this administration does d not create a policy of separating families at the border. we have a statutory responsibility that we take seriously to protect alien children from human smuggling and trafficking and other

about german history and sensitivities that result from that it is for the united states government and for the united states congress to decide whether they want to be resented by mr pradelle over here. if things continue the way we observe them at the moment i feel he will be highly effective as ambassador to germany if he's not here to be in traditional ambassador but p.r. person for their sort of rights movement in europe what you would have a would have an issue and what he hasn't mentioned he had he has not mentioned a specific german party yet he has said the if he for example. but when you read his quotes i mean you can assume that the a.f.p. would feel like he is speaking to them do you agree with that i don't want to over interpret he like he mentioned chances of us and could say he likes to show himself on twitter with his minister and our cabinet. i don't want to speculate about the political preferences of mr canal i think it is highly inappropriate for for an ambassador to behave that way and it is something that i hope for the american authorities will reconsider i think they have a second chance but.

ultimately, it was decided upon by the united states congress as it relates to an abuse of power. so, they're creating a narrative to avoid or to say to the mueller investigation that he is immune from prosecution. i'm going to allow the mueller investigation to continue and give us their interpretation and their results, but this is what lawyers do. they set a narrative. i don't agree with their interpretation, because i don't agree that every manner of action by a president of the united states is protected by executive privilege, and as well, that a president cannot be questioned about the obstruction of justice. what will settle this is if the president subjects himself to the interview. they are both rejecting that and also want the american people to believe that any president, all presidents are above the rule of law, and are in totality immune from prosecution. but i think that there is a posture for presidents in the three branches of government, equal as they are, to certainly not be in the position of abusing power. that is not the kind of leadership the american people

congress now. they say about cars, every state is an auto state. they touch every part of our economy. that is an issue that will be galvanizing for the for the united states congress. >> do you think congress can have influence with the administration without the threat of legislation? there is uncertainty about what the administration will do. we don't know how well people outside are influencing that. >> i think congress has played a very helpful role. many members of congress, over the past six months on nafta, one in and had a series of meetings with the president and others in the white house to convey the importance of nafta to their states. that has been very impactful. we have seen the withdrawal threats as a growing concern fade to a degree. that has been meaningful. but it is an unanswered question what happens next. it is one that members of congress will be speaking about. i understand that this auto riff tmeut before the vice president met with senators for a regular lunch. and according to the press reports that i have read, this is somethi a number of senators raised. >> let's switch to a differt let piece of legislation. therpes be

>> until these loopholes are closed by congress, it is not possible as a matter of law to detain and remove whole family units who arrivellegallyn the united states. congress and the courts created this problem and congress alone can fix it. congress is the one that needs to fix this. it's a law, passed by the united states congress. >> there's only one body here that gets to create legislation, and it's congress, our job is to enforce it. and we would like to see congress fix it. once again, it's congress's job to change the law. >> i hate the children being taken away. the democrats have to change their law. that's their law. the democrats forced that law upon our nation. i hate it. they gave us the laws. >> that's a democrat bill. that's democrats wanting to do that. and they could solve it very easily by getting together. but they think it's a good election point. that's the law and that's what the democrats gave us. >> i say it's very strongly, the democrats' fault. they're obstructionists and they are obstructing. >> we're having a lot of problems with democrats, they don't want to vote for anything. this has been going on for 50 years, lon

have a constitutional debate. >> what if the president of the united states issued an order that all information relevant here that congress is asking for, is now declassified and directed you to release that to the united states congress. whether it be selecting money here or oversight. would you abide by such an order, what i regret you're not seeing is director and i have been in regular contact with director coats and with the c.i.a. regarding some of those requests and our goal is to provide as much information as we can to the oversight committees. >> i'm not hearing the answer to my question. which is if the president declassified and gave a direct order to simply come clean with all things of interest to congress's oversight on these topics, would you abide by such an order? >> yes. but we'd have to talk about when you say all information, i think director wray and director coats would presumably consult with the president. >> i'll yield to the caveats, i want to get to the point. >> then there is a way it may be the only way that congress is going to get to put the whole mess went on. but just to move on. you gave

realize your position of privilege and power and the work doesn't stop here in the halls of the united states congress. you understand the you understand the incredible movement we have created togeth. and that there are a shared common humanity. we can make a difference not only in america but across the world. though it was the american promise of equal justice that we sought to fulfill. the truth is that this challenge is global. sexual violence is an epidemic from which no nation is immune. it has exacerbated by inequitable laws, by familiar stigmas and by the silence, devening silence of leaders on the world stage. rise has already worked with partners in japan to pass rape survivor reform laws and more countries seto follow suit. but for most survivors, whether they are in daca, deli or des moines, this is still a struggle they are forced to endure alone, as invisible and powerless as i was. yesterday, i had the incredible upon of being formally nominated for the nobel peace prize. when most people think about peace, the work that my team is engaged in may not be the first . a saying that comes

incidents, seetary of homeland security being harassed at a restaurant, an intern in the united states congresspresident of the united states. it has gone from competing with my ideas are better than yours to intimidation. jillian: how do you stop it? >> great question. not just words. we saw your ago somebody tried to assassinate members of congress at a baseball game. with regard to law enforcement your putting of these threats against border patrol agents, we saw violent protests a couple years ago, people chanting pigs in a blanket frying like bacon and then offices in new york city where assassinated. communication is widespread, not that you have a rally in new york about someone on the edge, some rhetoric can push them over the edge and lead to real violence. >> how much blames goes to politicians saying anything they have to say to get their bays riled up and get people out to vote? >> the base and radicals in the party pushing the politicians. pres. obama was the president, so many times he said that is not who we are when he didn't like what was being done but i don't hear that condem

and the second thing is for those of you who know vermont, we have one member of the congress and we have to united states senators so i used to be the only member of congress, now i have to share my senate seat with senator leahy but that's okay, i took the promotion and i will try for a third term in november. [applause] let me begin by thanking all of you in the book industry for the work you do. in the world that i live in, we communicate by weeks. via instagram and when we really get verbal, we do a whole book post . so i think you for reminding all of us that in a complicated world, sometimes it takes more than 248 characters or whatever it is to make a point and your work supports serious writers dealing with serious issues in a serious time so thank you very much for what you do. [applause] the book that i am writing, don't tell a sure, i'm a little bit behind. please, but we are making progress and as i indicated, the multiple is not complicated. when i ran or president in 2016, what i call for was not just getting elected and obviously i tried to do that when i call for was a political revolutio

what if the president of the united states issued an order all information here congress is asking for is now declassified and direct ud you to release that to the united states congress, whether it's a select committee, intel here or oversight. would you then abide by such an order. >> i regret what you're not seeing going behind-the-scenes, we've been in regular contact with director coates and cia regarding some of these requests and our goal is to provide as much information as we can to the oversight committees. >> i'm not hearing the answer to my question. which if the president declassified and gave a direct order to systemly come clean with a -- simply come clean would you abide by such an order. >> yes but when you say all information director wray and director coates would consult with the president. >> there's a way but maybe the only way congress would get this information necessary to put this whole jigsaw puzzle together and have the confidence that we know all what went on. to move on. you gave the directive to robert mueller, and can you para phrph that order? >> to con

believe that we have become far too comfortable with the united states engaging in military interventions all over the world. after 9/11 congress passed authorization for the use of military force quote against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the united states. the following year they passed the 2002 aums against iraq. we have now been in afghanistan for 17 years. we have been in iraq for 15 years. we are occupying a portion of syria in this administration has indicated it may broaden that mission. we are waging drone war in five countries. our forces right now are supporting a war in yemen which has killed thousands of civilians and created the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet to date. clearly these outdated and expensive aums 's have been used by republicans and democrats as a blank check for the president to wage war without congressional consent or oversight. meanwhile we are currently quote unquote fighting terrorism in some 76 countries with an estimated cost of $5.6 trillion and untold lives lost since 2001. i think it's very clear and the panelists made the point extraordinarily well, th

>> that congress anticipated a country that is a state sponsor of terrorism providing no information against the united states, congress said we will not have a nationality man and said we will individualize reading one -- vetting and this esa waiver program to counteract that. with the emergency situation has even greater authority but here we are 460's later i would caution the court not to make a decision about the emergency that could be bracketed just like youngstown but this is so far from that. the text of 1152 is flatly violated to say there shall be no discrimination on the basis of nationality with the issuance of a visa. that is 39% of all esa covered it is the most important part because immigrants esa -- visa that this contradicts that. if you accept that interpretation he says we are discriminating at the entry side not the visa side then you are giving the president the power he has done that he has undone the band nationality -based discrimination has country quotas zero at the border. >> your argument based on discrimination based on campaign statements is there a statute, the one that

tell you that in my life -- i'm a mother and grandmother and last 20 years, a member of this united states congress, i have never seen such state-sponsored crueltyy, state-sponsored child abuse that we are seeing right now. there isn't any other word for it. child abuse. you know, the president of the nited states has announced and sort of so-called improvement. but trying to fool an enraged nation into thinking that they reversed course on this issue of children coming with their parent across the border. in reality, the president's executive order enables the incarceration of immigrant families and has absolutely no plan to reunite babies who were ripped from their families, ripped from the arms of their parents. there are children that will still be in cages. and i can't stand it. wonder if you stand it, mr. speaker. i'm the daughter of immigrants. neither of my parents was born here in the united states of america. nd they came here because jews were being per executed in russia and fled here and able to get to this country. they were helped to be resettled .n the city of chicago by the my gran

united states senators. so i used to be the only member of congress now i have to share but that's okay. i took the promotion, and we're going to to try for a third term in november. [applause] thanking all of you in the book industry for the work you do. in the world that if i live in, we communicate by tweets, by ininstagram and we do a whole facebook post. so i thank you for reminding all of us that in a complicated world sometimes it takes more than 248 characters or whatever it is to make the point, and your work supports serious writers who are dealing with serious issues in a serious time. sthiewng all very much for what you do. [applause] the book that i am writing don't tell the publisher i'm a little bit behind. please. but we're making progress. and as that indicated -- the theme of the book is -- is not comply the kateed. when i ran are for it shall president in 2016, what i called for was not trying to get elected but what had i called for was a political revolution and what i said then and what i say now -- is that real change never comes from the top on down. it really is

the united states congress needs to weigh in. n of votes on the floor of the senate, senator corker is trying to get a vote on his amendment. congress needs to reassert itself and say the way the president is conducting these ign policies is not what america is about. shery: how we go about doing that? it is being blocked from being added to the annual defense bill. you'll have to find another avenue. we're also hearing reports from the wall street journal that the white house is going to try to language, there was another amendment introduced by senator trying to undo relieving sanctions. it seems that cones has been shutout of the whole process. how you go about it and technically do it? senator cardin: you're right about the provision, they got into the manager's package without too much controversy onleagues. that is an important provision. amendment is an congress needs to reassert with itself. republican leadership, need to recognize that the framers of the constitution envisioned an independent legislative branch of governm

congress. to be clear, the president would have unilateral authority to add additional countries, including the united states itself, to the list of countries congress is authorizing at war. and the president would have unilateral authority to add additional enemies, including groups in the united states itself and even individual americans under its new authority for the president to designate, quote, persons as enemies. although congress could bar an expansion to additional countries or additional groups, such would actively require two thirds majority of both houses given that the president pr veto legislation that the president himself has ordered. every president for t coming decades would effectively be able to claim for the executive branch much oeer that thit congress and gave to congress exclusively. before closing, i want to point out a sleeper provision with the innocuous title section 10 conforming amendment. this provision greatly expands the em faness 2012 detention provision. in it's single sentence, section 10 sft corker would expand this in differely autrity by adding this new aumf as basis

very substantial reserve of nuclear waste, of spent fuel, and at the moment the united states senate and united states congress and indeed the united states government has no plan for getting rid of that nuclear waste. there have been fights over sticking it in caves in nevada and there have been all sorts of ideas, but we do not have a currently operating plan, a great deal of that nuclear waste is simply stored at the power plant where the power was generated. that's a big liability, i believe, and i think that if we were to act as if we were a corporation and book the liability and the cost of having to safely dispose of all of that nuclear waste as a liability, it would get the company's accountants attention, and they'd invest some effort into figuring out what the solution is to dealing with all those stockpiles of nuclear waste for which we currently have no plan. here's where the two lines converge, because the next-generation nuclear technologies carry the promise of being able to take our nuclear waste stockpile and repurpose it as fuel, turn toxic, dangerous, multi-10,000-year waste with a huge liab

so it is not a partisan issue, as what's proven here in the united states congress. the number one obstacle to passing these civil rights is quite simply ignorance. it's the people to understand how broken the criminal justice system is for survivors. i had cared about this issue before i became a survivor and i had no ideai how bad it was unl i actually had to go through the labyrinth of the criminal justice system or so. i remember walking into my local area rape crisis center in the waiting room was filled, and that's when i realized my story was not mine alone. and so legislators out there, or even citizens, just advocates, anyone, if you want to make a different on this issue, you absolutely can. we have the federal law which is a model for states to follow asset many states that we still rest of the nation to go and it is about being able to talk about this issue, that we, and providing a concrete action step forct people to follow that we canwe make a difference in america, and the world. >> mr. crews, you told us about your experience. do you know about exper

the second thing is for those of you who know vermont, we have one member of the congress, and we have two united statesators. so i used to be the only member of congress. now i have to share my senate seat with senator leahy, but that's okay. i took the promotion, and we're g to try for a third term in november. [applause] let me begin by thanking all of you in the book industry for the work you do. in the world that i live in, we communicate by tweets -- [laughter] via instagram, and when we really get verbose, we do a whole facebook post. [laughter] so i thank you for reminding all of us that in a complicated world sometimes it takes more than 248 characters or whatever it is to make the point. and your work supports serious writers. wee dealing with serious issues in a serious time. so thank you all very much for what you do. [applause] the book that i am writing -- don't tell the publisher, i'm a little bit behind, please -- [laughter] but we're making progress. and as ed indicated, the theme of the book is, is not complicated. when i ran for in 2016 -- when i ran for president in 2016, what i call

it's a law passed by the united states congress. axing those of us who enforce the law to turn our backs on the law and not enforce the law. it's not an answer. the answer is to fix the laws. >> surely it is the beginning of the unraveling of democracy when the body who makes the laws instead of changing them, tells the enforcement body not to enforce the law. >> it is important to note that these minors are very well taken care of. don't believe the press. they are very well taken care of. >> secretary comments received an immediate rebuke from a republican. arizona's jeff flake. >> she just said only congress can fix this. is that right? >> no, that's not true. we -- prior administrations have treated it differently. when the president is saying this is all on the democrats but it's their law, it's just not right. that's not true. >> all right. meanwhile in the senate all 49 members have come out behind legislation to prevent the separation of immigrant families along the border and democratic senator is calling out republicans for

the view from the south is that there is chaos in the united states congress is pushing to undermine the rule of law, the media is pushing to undermine the lou wil rule of law, that translates, we have to get across border, take advantage because they will never hold us with these circumstances. and president needs to stand fast, and enforce the rule of law, it is why he was pit in office, and it is fundamental to protects u.s. and its sovereignty. lou: this president has already created a legacy, a historic president remember h he is only person with anything to lose in not abiding by his promises to the american people and his base to his voters. because no one expects any of those other folks on capitol hill to keep a single promise they investor made. i doubt they even remember what they promised their voters, with a few exceptions. tom -- >> there is a opportunity to get a quick small bill. that will allow family to be detained together. uphold rule of law, while taking care of children who are needlessly put in harm's way by parents and amnesty crowd, if republican leadership w

until these loopholes are closed by congress, it is not possible by a matter of law to detain and remove whole family units who arrive illegally in the united states. congress and the courts created this problem, and congress alone can fix it. >> it's congress' job to change the law. we're calling on them to do exactly that. >> our white house correspondent abby phillip is joining us right now. so what's behind the president's sudden reversal after days and days of saying only congress could take action? he couldn't sign an executive action to keep families together as they come into the united states. what role did the first lady play? what are you hearing behind the scenes? >> reporter: that's right, wolf. the president is now soon to do something that he said just days ago he could not do. he's essentially reversing himself on this issue, saying that he's going to keep families together 234 some form, and not separate them at the border, as his administration has done with some 2,000 children. but the president is doing it in part, a and he acknowledged this today, because those images that we've been seeing all week, children kept in what amou