Skip to main content

tv   Senator Grassley on Congressional Oversight  CSPAN  June 26, 2018 12:33pm-1:21pm EDT

12:33 pm
you watch this far in that takes place. you watch your delegations talk back and forth. it's extremely informative and very educational. one of the best things on the bus, and i'm a tech geek so i hope they take me with them on their tour because i would just spend hours on that bus, ready to go in and look at the video screens, they are interactive, people can learn and kids can learn about government. i i mean, government doesn't hae to be a bad word. >> be sure to join us july 21 and 20 seconds when we'll featured our visit to alaska. watch alaska weekend on c-span, c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app. >> senator chuck grassley spoke at the heritage foundation yesterday about congressional oversight of the executive branch. he chairs the judiciary committee said he seen an
12:34 pm
increasing ship in the balance of power from the legislative branch to the executive branch. >> good afternoon. welcome to the heritage foundation and our louis lehrman auditorium. we are of course welcome those were join us on our heritage.org website on all of these occasions, far and has guess we would ask that last courtesy check that our mobile devices have been silenced or turned off. for those watching online you welcome to send questions now right inside in the future simply e-mailing speaker@heritage.org. welcoming our guests and video program this afternoon is john malcolm. he serves as vice president for institute for constitutional government. he is director of the said for legal and judicial studies and also the senior legal fellow. please join me in welcoming john malcolm. john? [applause] >> thank you, john, and welcome
12:35 pm
everybody to heritage. we are here to discuss an important topic which is the role that congressional oversight place in our system of checks and balances, and separation of powers. our founding fathers understood the need for each branch of government to be on their guard against the increased the power by the other two branches of government. as james madison said in federalist number 51, if men were angels, no government would be necessary. since madison well knew that men were not angels and never would be, he acted, and bashan must made to counteract ambition and vigorous congressional oversight is one of the keys to making sure that that happens. after all, if congress is going to pass laws and appropriate funds in order to run the government, congress and the people whom they represent have a right to know how those laws are being implemented and whether those funds are being well spent. on the other hand, the executive
12:36 pm
branch does focus on the number of sensitive issues including ongoing criminal and national security investigations that ought to remain free from political influence. it's important that executive branch officials feel free to be completely open and candid interviews, even when some of those views may be politically unpopular without an undue fear of public disclosure that might be embarrassing. as the supreme court stated in united states versus dixon that privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the constitution. there's always been considerable tension between the legislative and executive branches when determining how far congress should be allowed to go and explore the inner workings of the executive branch and perhaps to a slightly lesser degree the judicial branch. it offers perspective on this issue is one of the senate champions, robust oversight, senator chuck grassley from iowa. senator grassley has had a long
12:37 pm
and distinguished career that he received his bachelors degree and a massive story from the university of northern iowa and a phd from the university of iowa. he was first elected to the iowa legislature in 1958 and to the house of representatives, u.s. house of representatives in 1974. since 1981 he has served the citizens of iowa and, indeed, the rest of the nation as a united states senator. senator grassley is has long bn considered a champion of government oversight and transparency and is often referred to as the patron saint of whistleblowers. he is currently the chairman of the senate judiciary committee where his fervent belief in the need for robust oversight has been on full display as of late. please join me in welcoming senator chuck grassley. [applause] >> thank you for a kite introduction, and if i could make just one little correction because i don't want to be misleading here.
12:38 pm
i was elected to the legislature while i was in the middle of that phd crusade i was on, and so i'm one of those people that almost -- that the privilege to be here with you. in 1980, that's before most of you were born, i was elected to the united states senate, and during my early years in the united states senate i met a man who had a significant impact on my career. his name was arthur ernest fitzgerald, but everyone called him ernie. i called them the father of whistleblowers. this is an originally got from the library of congress and we blew it up. this is ernie fitzgerald. this is the famous $700 toilet seat that was really representative of defense waste in the 1980s when i only got
12:39 pm
involved in oversight and whistleblowing. he was called ernie. you probably never heard of him. if you did, his reputation preceded him even when back before i knew him. in 1968, ernie testified before senator william proxmire joint economic committee about the air force c-5 transport aircraft program. that testimony changed his life and brought a lot of attention to whistleblowers. the c-5 aircraft was an important military priority, but it took longer and cost more than planned. the government did not want anybody to know that. although he knew it might damage his career, ernie testified before congress that this prized
12:40 pm
program cost the taxpayers $2 billion more than the pentagon would admit. $2 billion. that was 1968. in today's dollars that would be more than $14.5 billion. ernie's audacity to commit truth earned him the absolute fury of the president of the united states. the famous nixon tapes revealed that the president himself ordered his subordinates in the white house to get rid of that s.o.b. that's a direct quote from tapes. they did. and ernie spent the next 14 years fighting for his professional life. in fact, he only had his job at the pentagon until he retired because of a court order. time and again, mr. fitzgerald resisted the pentagon's never
12:41 pm
ending effort to sideline him and him and his career. from the fight that they put up, you would've thought that defense department was facing down a mortal enemy, whatever we ask ernie to come to the capitol hill. i had to go to the pentagon once myself in 1985 to serve him a subpoena just so that he could testify before my subcommittee. ernie's work and life have greatly inspired this senator. his entire time in government, ernie relentlessly pursued the facts and courageously told the truth. when he retired, i said that of him. ernie's work was aut keeping faith with the taxpayers. that's what oversight is all
12:42 pm
about, keeping faith. keeping faith with the taxpayers, keeping faith with w the people. it means working as hard as you can to get people confidence that their government either plays by the rules or is held accountable. just in the last two weeks my committee has pulled out all the stops to shine a light on waste and misconduct in the other branches. last week we looked at the department of justice inspector generals fighting of political bias and misconduct in law enforcement. this week before we looked, the week before that we took testimony from witnesses who described the failures of the judicial branch to address sexual harassment claims. we can learn a lot about what
12:43 pm
oversight is and what it means from these efforts, and there will be a lot more material to study before the summer is out. but for now i would like to start with the basics. when we enter elective office we take an oath. the oath that we take is a solemn promise to defend the constitution of the united states. that document is the source of our rule of law and the guarantee of our liberties. the constitution establishes separation of powers in three branches, over which the people, of course, are sovereign. to ensure that authority remains with the people, the constitution also diffuses power between and among the branches. recall that checks and balances. in other words, as far as i'm concerned, for oversight. this structure was in by mistake. madin, as you quoted, and i will quote a little bit
12:44 pm
differently, and other framers had long history with unchecked ambition and undivided authority. they called it george iii. they knew the natural tendency of those who had power to seek more, often at the expense of principle, since and the general welfare. so they designed a system where the same institution is never interested to write the law, interpret its meaning, and enforce the consequences if it is violated. at each institution has tools to check the other. by design, the system invites conflict. as each branch requires of, negotiates with, and grates against the others. in the words of james madison, ambition works to counteract ambition. it's the system that sustains
12:45 pm
the delicate balance between and among each branch of government. and it's that branch that the framers believed would be best secured, respect for the rule of law, and ensure accountability. to the people. regretfully, today, this balance has shifted. today we live under a government that the framers would not recognize. we have become a nation that is no longer governed by congressional action enforced by the president and interpreted by the courts. today we're ruled more and more by excessive regulation and executive fiat. worse, we used done little to prevent our system of separated powers from yielding itself to the sweeping authority of federal agencies and what many call, and rightfully so, the
12:46 pm
administrative state. we cannot blame political ideology. under democrats and republicans, the administrative state has only expanded and is growing at the expense of congressional authority and prestige. we have sacrificed our constitutional mandate on the twin altars of efficiency and expertise. we've moved from a government by and for the people, to government by the bureaucrats and the connected insiders. i'm afraid that we are experiencing what james madison warned about in federalist 62, when you wrote about the dangers of churning out so many murky, burdensome rules. he warned about quote, the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the may need
12:47 pm
you for the industrialist and uniform mass of the people, in the quote. modern administrative state is a good deal for congress which can pass bills with lofty goals and take credit while agencies sort out the details that congress doesn't want to deal with or doesn't know how to deal with. it also is a good deal for special interests and well-connected corporations who can afford to sort through scores of regulations published each year, an advantage that small business doesn't have. but it's a rotten deal for the american people. it's a rotten deal for the farmers, the small business owners and the job creators across the country who are burdened by piles of regulations and left wondering where to turn to for the relief.
12:48 pm
consider these statistics. the 114th congress, 329, 329 bills became law, but during the same time, the obama administration finalize more than twice as many rules and regulations, and that doesn't count guidance, documents or other forms of agency action, some of which had the same impact as regulation. not intend to do, but seem to. by some estimates regulation plays a great weight on the economy of nearly $2 trillion in compliance costs. unfortunately, we in the congress enable this. we authorized enormous intrusive government programs, and get agencies of money and the staff to run thin. it's no wonder there are more than 180,000 pages of administrative regulations. i'm glad that president trump has taken, made cutting the
12:49 pm
regulatory burden one of his top priorities. but lasting reform is going to require some significant structural changes. think about this. more than 2 million people work for the federal government. that does not even include contractors and active-duty military personnel. according to a 2015 study, the actual size of the government workforce is estimated at more than 9 million here and remember what i said about the tendency of those with power to seek more power. that seems to be the primary purpose of a nonelected bureaucrats. these folks fight tooth and nail to safeguard their pet programs, even when the programs don't work. i i have seen evidence of agency leaders ordering subordinates to spend money that they don't need just so they can justify having
12:50 pm
it in the first place. clearly, congress need to exercise more scrutiny over taxpayers money, not less. part of the problem is that we are not passing individual appropriation bills on schedule like congress usedo. in fact, we've only met the deadline set and the congressional budget office four times since the law was passed in 1974. instead, we passed omnibus bills that obscure critical issues and make it difficult to cut the fat. wasteful programs and projects just home hung right along psyp valuable taxpayer dollars and providing little value in return. despite all of this, you may still wonder if giving the agencies more leeway is such a bad thing. what's the real harm of a few padded programs? but government bloat is not a
12:51 pm
victimless crime. the more we kept the constitutional skill, the less accountable government will be to the people are sovereign. this gradual surrender of authority to executive piles on to the logistical challenges that congress always faces. as i noted earlier, millions of people work in the executive branch. two of them are elected by the people, and there are often many layers of folks between the elected executives and the unelected bureaucrats making the critical decisions. this means that there is a lot of distance between the everyday decision-makers and the ultimate source of authority. again, the american people. by contrast legislators in congress are directly accountable to the people. we received their feedback during elections, and every device e-mail, by phone and in
12:52 pm
person. but for 535 for 535 elected mef congress, that are only about 16,000 supporting staff. that means that we have less than 17,000 people to counteract the ambitions of more than 2 million in the executive branch. this isn't an argument for hiring more congressional employees. we have to work very hard to pass smart legislation, and even harder to reach consensus. meanwhile, unelected bureaucrats can make decisions that contradict and ignore the clear and hard-won intent of the congress. that can happen through the regulatory process or just because an agency lawyer said so. for example, the government accountability office found that president obama's epa engaged in unlawful, covert propaganda, and
12:53 pm
those words come from the report, to its aggressive use of social media to drum up support for the waters of the u.s. rule. in fact, epa actions violated clear prohibitions that congress had put in place, and in 2015 the office of legal counsel single-handedly overturn a critical provision in the inspector gen act it said that congress did not mean what it said in that act, that inspectors general should have access to all the records they need to do their job. so congress had to pass another law to say what we meant when we passed that law in the first place. the law i am referring to come last congress, the inspector general empowerment act clarified that the inspectors general should have access to all records, notwithstanding any
12:54 pm
other law. so how do we hold these bureaucrats accountable to the rule of law and then to the sovereignty of the american people? how do we keep the constitutional scale from tipping too far? the answer is, quite obvious, oversight. congress doing its constitutional job to see that the executive branch faithfully execute the laws. article one of the constitution, congress power to conduct investigations is inherent with this grid of legislative power to the supreme court has long recognized this. in mcgrain versus darby, it wrote quote a legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change.
12:55 pm
for these reasons the supreme court is also recognized that congress power of inquiry is very broad and fully enforceable. the court in mcgrain also noted that mere rs for information often are unavailing so some means of convulsion are essential to obtain what is needed. the court has even ruled that congress can require testimony even when it may be relevant to another proceeding, like even a court case. oversight isn't just the responsibility of committees or their chairman, although their leadership and expertise is very important. oversight is the responsibility of each and every member of congress. whether it is majority or minority. each member is a constitutional
12:56 pm
officer. he or she was elected to represent and cast votes in the interest of their constituent. each member needs accurate information from the executive branch in order to make informed decisions of all sorts. i tell every new member of the senate that i talk to, i said, remember, it takes 51 votes, sometimes 60 votes are ready to pass the bill. it only takes one vote to do oversight. so you'd have to ask anybody else's permission to do it. oversight takes many forms. individual members or committees can send letters, request hearings and hold, request briefings and hold hearings. they might request document or interviews. most of the time recipients comply with the congressional oversight request voluntarily. usually the member or committee is willing to discuss or negotiate the scopes of the request and reach an
12:57 pm
accommodation with the agency. in fact, that's the way that members and committees prefer to work. no matter what the media says, the goal is to get the information, not put on a show. of course every nominee who comes into my office says they will answer my oversight request in a timely fashion, but then they get confirmed and they must get amnesia because all too often i don't hear back from them as quickly as i should fix sometimes i don't hear back at all. sometimes i advised them now when you come before the committee that maybe they can just be more honest and say instead of saint just, say maybe. when a witness is not comply, we have had subpoenas, of course. and, of course, it's easier if the democrats recognize when those were necessary. at least that's my experience in the recent days. in any case, a committee often
12:58 pm
issues a subpoena only after it has attempted t get the information voluntarily, and those efforts have failed. i think you see this in the house of representatives with the justice department right now. i think we are seeing that play out as that example i just gave you. i've seen it before, too, during the fast and furious investigation. the executive branch stalled and hid behind boulders, fake privilege claim that had nothing to do with the presidential communications. yet, they declared presidential privilege. eventually a court order them to turn over documents to the house committee. they admitted that thousands of pages of withheld documents were never privileged at all. in our investigation of political interference in the 2016 election, the agencies resisted providing some
12:59 pm
information because they claimed it threaten national security. much of that information is now declassified, and it demonstrates those concerns were merely hot air. unfortunately, the executive branch does not always respect even a congressional subpoena. you hear that a little bit now in the house of representatives. the documents withheld from congress during the fast and furious with the subject of a subpoena. the efforts to enforce it took seven years. failure to provide the documents led the house to hold the former attorney general in contempt and taking to court. but it wasn't until this year when president obama and his team had left office that additional documents were finally provided. it's clear that congress cannot blindly trust executive branch to make and enforce rules or to comply with this request for information. and it also cannot depend on the
1:00 pm
judicincho give full effect to its oversight authority. it takes too long and the courts don't always get it right. the legislative branch then must step up to the plate and reassert its constitutional authority. we need a package of rules and ledges of changes that draw on congress his own strength. we need to change the default from one of dodge and delay, to democratic accountability. .. >> once again, referring to
1:01 pm
ernie fitzgerald was not the first was a blower. blowing the whistle on misconduct and working to protect those who do it is older than our republic. in 1777, ten brave soldiers aboard the worship, warren, reported wrongdoing by their commanding officers. in reprisal they were slapped with a criminal libel suit. on july 30th, 1728 the continental congress shut down those shenanigans and that lawsuit against them. it made clear that is the duty of citizens quote, in service to the united states to give the earliest information to congress of any misconduct, fraud or misdemeanors. whistleblowing is a time honored tradition in this country and it is deeply patriotic and thoroughly american and the framers knew that to hold onto the democracy they would need,
1:02 pm
not just a well-informed structure, but also a virtuous citizenry. that is where the whistleblower is coming in to keep the government honest. if you want to have the government that the framers envisioned they must be protected. whistleblowers have to be able to share their message according to law to the right people in a way that keeps them and the rest of us safe. that means that we have to be able to report outside their agency and if necessary , too the congress, without fear or reprisal. there is still a lot of room for improvement in the whistleblower protection laws although we have made much progress since i joined the congress. better protections they have the more likely whistleblowers will come forward and believe me, we
1:03 pm
can do our constitutional ability of oversight without go whistleblowing. the good news is there are me folks like ernie fitzgerald out there and these whistleblowers know what is really behind the agency talking points and they can tell you one congress is being lied to or getting part of the story only. they know where to find waste, fraud and abuse in these brave men and women are risking their reputations and their careers everyday to do what the only crime ernie fitzgerald said that whistleblowers do is commit troops. that is what whistleblowers are doing, just committing truth but ruining themselves professionally for doing it. in the process, holding congress or putting government accountable. by entrusting these tellers to expose wrongdoing and corruption
1:04 pm
we can bring you transparency and accountability to our institution by working with them , too conduct rigorous oversight we can restore the public trust in our government. the whistleblowers are keeping faith with the taxpayers. then, the question must be asked are we keeping that faith? thank you. [applause] >> the senator has time for a few questions. i would ask you to read your hand, wait for a microphone to arrive and briefly announced you are and please, keep it short and have it be a question. >> thank you, senator. my name is ryan from common cause. i was wondering if you could speak to the current 13 investigations into scott pruitt's tenure at the epa
1:05 pm
including his desperate you are aware of that. thank you. >> i assume that there are other committees and i'm not doing oversight there except it deals with ethanol but that is more a policy issue that it is oversight but i keep pressure. here's what i said personally on this. other people have taken strong positions but i have said to the news media that asked me almost daily about this that i will wait to the ethics people get done and that would be if they come up very negatively even in a unserious case, i guess as you said there is about 13, i would have to say they'd have to find something wrong in all 13 cases before you go but right now my problem with him is not carrying out a promise that the president
1:06 pm
made on alternative energy. >> seth, citizen from houston, texas. i appreciate what you are saying about oversight and you said that the number one now i know you're working very hard even to get people in the administrative state to give you information and they are withholding it and playing a press game. how the chevron deference make a difference and how can you make a tide of power to keep it away from congress? >> i'm glad to know that recent a couple court decisions even the supreme court has indicated that they ought to take another look at chevron. i am co-author of the bill with senator hatch who do away with
1:07 pm
chevron, and others, not give as much deference to administrating expertise and i don't know whether it was ever indicated in the case of writing the various pieces of regulatory legislation that the courts now defer to and i think it is a case of the supreme court legislator and that is why unless they overrule themselvesnd we have a checks and balances but you probably know that progressives in this town and in the congress it will be difficult to get bipartisan support to do that. >> cat, but are your plans for irs oversight and the tax reform
1:08 pm
has passed and you will have a new possibly new commissioner coming in? >> i think the answer to your question would have nothing to do with the tax bill except as that tax bill changes policy and we are following it and that's part of oversight you get more problems with oversight and with the way that irs ask for certain taxpayers particularly small business versus major corporations. going back to 1998 served on the study committee that rewrote some of these laws and i think did good person. time we're back at a point where the intimidation of the irs toward small business is getting worse so it can be done through oversight but there is also a very much need for legislation
1:09 pm
and i think legislation that is even past the house i don't know for sure if it has the house but it's very top on the agenda of the ways and means committee and the finance committee and it will probably include taxpayer bill of rights and provisions in it and by the way, you do this a little bit at a time so i think we had some taxpayer bill of rights provisions in the taxpayer before christmas. >> in terms of vocational overreaching congress should be more robust usage of the [inaudible] >> absolutely. and, we are. prior to this administration it has only been used once and maybe attended two or three other times with my that have
1:10 pm
never been successful. it is been successful 50 times this year but i think a better thing would be if the acronym does i can't think, here's how it works. i just can't think of the name. we need to write legislation so that any major role in the major role evidently is anything because the economy more than $1 million a year but we need to pass this so any rural like that would have to be cemented to congress and we would have to pass it for going to effect. this would be particularly very helpful particularly where congress may not have expertise to make final decisions and you do leave a lot to the bureaucracy like we say on scientific or health issues or something like that. then we can look at it when he comes back and we would have the
1:11 pm
final say on it and when we are chastised by our constituents for passing bad laws the bring even worse bad regulation at least we would have the final say on whether that meets our advance. i'm very much in favor of that act. >> thank you, senator. i'm a reporter from hong kong tv. what is your view on president trump saying he has the power to partisan salt? >> i think maybe what you heard me quote is that if i were president of the united states and someone said i had the power to pardon myself i would get a new lawyer. here is where i am coming from in regard to that. no one in this country is above the law. it seems to me that this question was answered when nixon was president.
1:12 pm
you will get tired of me saying i am not a lawyer but that is the way that is what common sens tells me. there's a question. >> leon -- with respect to the opportunity for tax legislation this year in this political climate do you think there is a remote possibility of something, technical corrections, or anything like that? >> i hope so. every piece of massive legislation that particular tax if it is really noncontroversial i think we have a chance at getting the past. if it is mixed up with some a change of policy then i think when you get into the latter democrats in the senate will take the view that they were involved in the passage of our bill so they may not want to help people with corrections but
1:13 pm
if things are very obvious i think it would be not needing there professionally responsible these they do not consider some changes. you will find at least technical corrections out of the ways and means committee and maybe even before the election and maybe something dealing with extenders out of ways and means. i don't know whether theyan come up to the senate or notnd probably not before the electi election. >> one other question. >> i'm tara kelly, summer intern at the stc from pennsylvania. my question is how much faith do you have been president trump promise to relocate some of that power back to congress and to bring the psalm, so to speak? >> let me ask you this. i don't know that -- i think the
1:14 pm
president is doing what he can do on his own under existing law. draining the swamp through just one example and for every new regulation repeals t and they can reclaim tir repeal may be a couple thousand already. i don't know that he has made any suggestions to us that we ought to change law in regard to draining the swamp unless you can tell me of some. >> no. >> okay, you had a question. >> without these investigations going on in the e-mail server and russian investigation it's enough a lot of on the soldiers of department of justice and they are here is going on in the house and senate and they had oversight hearings so how is this process working, in your view? >> it works according to who is inspector general. we have very good inspector general's in the we have some inspector general's that are not
1:15 pm
doing the job in the are some that are even worse intimidated by the people above them because the inspector general is supposed to be independent and in the case of ritz even though he appointed obama i have great confidence in him and i think even thatast week when he delivered an 18 month study that he had and he will do further studies and knows when they will come out and we don't want to say they got to be out in a certain day because we want them to be done right but in him and in his case i can say i have great confidence and he has been successful. >> is the committee operating in a bipartisan fashion? >> you mean my committee christmas. >> yes, your committee will last many. >> our committee at least on legislation, is working in a bipartisan way. from the standpoint of the last congress, 31 bills got out of our committee and they were all bipartisan bills. so far, and last 18 months i don't know how many bills and
1:16 pm
whatever bills got overwhelming bipartisan and 18 of them got to democrat president and we had a few signed by this president so everyone on legislation bipartisan and when it comes to in my committee you have to have both public and in democrat need to subpoena and sometimes we've agreed to subpoena and did not have to offer them and sometimes we have not agreed to subpoena but we always exchange letters. senator feinstein and her group want certain things investigated and if they send on us and we agreed we'd sign on and then we do the same thing there. we have an exchange of investigatory goals that we have. i mean, the process is very bipartisan and the outcome may go our separate ways sometime but more often together. >> i know you have to race
1:17 pm
back -- last question. >> thank you very much. with the heritage foundation and senator, one of the areas where congress was delegated an awful lot of regular power that the administration is in trade and would you support some of the measures by some of your colleagues like senator corker, senator lee, senator toomey , too put back some of the trade power that is currently with the president in the congress over things like new tariffs? >> the answer to start with is no but then he gets more positive as i go along. on 232 national security, no, on 301, yes, but overall i think that i look at presidential use
1:18 pm
of this authority and not too many presidents have done it but i remember carter and reagan and george w have used terrorists and i use them as an example and we always found out that agriculture was the to be retaliated against. looking at it not just as president trump but because of other people i've come to the conclusion that we need a wholesale look at the 1963 kennedy bill and the 1974 nixon or ford bill to go back and see how much power should be delegated but i think without a doubt [inaudible] >> [inaudible] senator grassley, thank you. [applause]
1:19 pm
[inaudible conversations] >> live here and tell you about on c-span3. tomorrow urban and housing secretary, ben carson, will testify. that begins monday morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-s. also available online at these .org and you can listen with every c-span radio app. at 2:30 p.m. eastern president trump to be the veterans affairs department goes before the committee for his confirmation hearing. that will be live on c-span3.
1:20 pm
this past week with the help of our cable partners, gci, the c-span bus, dude you know alaska and is part of our0apitals tour the bus continues a trip across alaska to a stop in fairbanks. >> c-span programming is a great for alaskans. for most of us if the only way to see our delegation hard work in washington. the c-span classroom program offers resources to teachers and has a great deal of value to the base classrooms. >> thank you for being part of it and bringing your awesome boss to her makes. the torah that was incredible. i heard stories of driving some
1:21 pm
folks who brought the bus up here and things we saw on the way coming to alaska with a nice trip for what i heard. from what i understand i've driven it a few times and it is an awesome trip and was so glad that your bus came here. thank you for using it for a tool to bring her makes nationwide. >> what i appreciate about c-span is it's much older than me and what i appreciate -- that's a joke by the way. [laughter] it is not partisan and you watch the sparring that takes place and you watch your delegations talk back and forth and it is extremely informative and very educational but the best things on the bus and i'm a tech geek so i hope they take me with them on their tour because i would spend hours on the bus but if you look at the video screens they are interactive and people can learn and kids can learn about government and government does not have to be a

5 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on