congress saw the report. the public did not get a report, even what we normally do which is an unclassified summary of the classified report. that is our normal practice, and in that instance, that was not even possible. nevertheless, we did put out a statement about ahad completed the review and sent it to congress. because congress could get it. sometimes what we do, and this occurred in the boston marathon bombing, for example, we put out a classified report and a public summary, a lengthy public summary, but even some of those russians of the summary had been labeled as law enforcement sensitive by the department. it, and whatwith we did was we put out a report and in the public report, you will see a statement there about our objections. going back to your earlier question about congress and its role, congress can see classified version, they can see the unclassified version and they can make their own assessment as to what they think about the situation as well. danielle: so we talked about some of the

so congress saw the report. the public did not get a report, even what we normally would do, which is an unclassified summary of the classified report. that's our normal practice. and that instance, that was not even possible. but we did, nevertheless, put out a statement that announced we had completed the review and we had sent it to congress because congress could get it. and sometimes what we do, and this occurred in the boston marathon bombing report, for example, we put out a classified report and a lengthy public summary, but even some of those portions of the public summary had been labeled as law enforcement sensitive, i believe it was, by the department. we disagreed with it. and what we did we put out a report and in the public report you'll see a statement in there about our objections. and going back to your earlier comment or question about congress and its role. congress is then in a position because they have both reports. they can see the classified version. they can see the unclassified version

members now prepare for the new congress in january. new congress, new leaders. watch the process unfold on c-span. justice department i.g. michael horowitz on the importance of the job. government on hosted thissted -- conference. [applause] things to talk about here. [laughter] on., nothing going so the first thing a wanted to talk to you about was -- the press has been talking about predictions of increased oversight on the hell. since the ig act -- on , funding has shrunk. as a result, we are expecting to see an uptick of request from congress to inspectors general. so my first question is, what advice do you have for members or staff on turning things over to an ig. what makes a good ig investigation? insp. general horowitz: that's a good question. we do get lots of requests and letters from members throughout congress and chairs of ranking committees. our standing point is ig's is that it is him what to be popular, but sometimes you are a little bit too popular. manyrms of the letters -- of the letters seek to have us resolve what are in essence, political

a court can decide what the congress said the significant of what congress said. they can tell to some degree what congress intended. to say whether the agency is doing something is reasonable as a matter of policy is exactly what we don't want, which is the courts to decide on policy. that's why i think it was wrong. talk about non-delegation. >> about filling in details that's one way is drawing a line between the issues of such magnitude and scope that they are legislative. congress has to decide them are issues where the executive branches delegating the task of a factual finding or filling in small details. there's other ways the supreme court has done this much by recently, i guess the last century they said, you know, there needs to be an intelligible principle of the statute. what would your non-delegation doctrine look like? >> frankly have no idea. what i do know is that means nothing and infinitely malleable and courts have used it that way. in fact, in one decision, scalia said he came down to a single word and a single word established with that princ

congress.ing fun of there was congress bashing, congress bashing poems, congress bashing songs, play. i didn't expect that and that was really fascinating to see how and why people were making fun of congress and what it were pokingat they fun at. the other thing that sort of i knew this was the case but seeing it intrigued me, familiarity, the amount of familiarity that americans going on inat was congress. there was a magazine that came called "vanity's fair," a humor magazine, that right at the time when fighting is at its peak. has a picture on the cover of congressmen throwing things at each other. conditioning as fights quarterly -- fights quarterly. the only way you would understand the humor of it is if you knew what the congressmen saying to each other on a detailed level. they would have humor stories that would pull a sentence or two from debate and i could look at it and say he's making fun of this guy. the fact that the public was that familiar with that level of happenings was very interesting. >> very different from today. joanne: yes. >> thank you. joanne: sure. >> my

congress saw the report. the public did not get a report, even what we normally do which is an unclassified summary of the classified report. that's our normal practice in that instance that was not even possible. but we did nevertheless, put out a statement that announced we completed the review and we send it to congress because congress could get it. sometimes what we do, and this occurred in the boston marathon bombing, for example, we put out a classified report and a public summary, but even some of those portions of the public summary have been labeled as law enforcement sensitive by the department. we disagreed with it, and what we did was we put out a report and in the public report you'll see a statement there about our objections. going back to your earlier comment, question of congress and its role, congress is been in a position because they can see the classified version, they can see the unclassified version and they can make their own assessment, what they think of that situation as well. >> s

congress had plenary power that could reach both inter- and intrastate congress. the states' concurrent power did nothing more than supplement federal power. in essence, the court said that section 2 meant nothing. there is another case that came down between attacks on the volstead act and the 18th amendment. in june 1920, the high court unanimously supported efforts by opponents of both women's suffrage and prohibition, to allow a voter referendum to override the ratification of amendments by the state legislators. in other words, even if a state legislator had ratified the suffrage or prohibition amendments, a voter referendum could nullify it. justice ney spoke for the unanimous court and holding that a state could not deviate from the ratification methods prescribed by the constitution. going back, in the summer of 1916, congress as part of its preparedness legislation, that -- had authorized the president to take over the railroads in wartime. but wilson did not act as we have seen until he consulted with brandeis in late december 1917. after that meeting, w

we're going to have a congress, sessions of congress that are like america's town hall meetings, where the miracle of technology will enable us to communicate very directly, the social media, help us engage the public, be responsive to them, and also to mobilize around the issues of importance to us. and amass the resources, intellectual and political, to re-elect this very spectacular class as we move to again winning the white house in 2020. i couldn't be more honored. that is a figure of speech but it's in fact -- it's a fact in this case, as due as any statement anyone could ever make, to be honored by the nominations of those who placed my name in nomination and the support that i have from our colleagues in this caucus. as i say, our diversity is our strength but our unity is our power. and we will use that power again in a unifying way for our country. i'm very proud. we look forward to the results, whatever they are, they will be intense and they will be a vote of confidence to send my name to the floor that i'm proud to be the nominee of the house democratic caucus. once again

by congress's silence, the congress didn't say anything about this particular subject. the idea was the agencies had that power. that was an idea that makes no sense to me but the second thing that i think was wrong was to say if you are working on something like this, you have the opportunity to decide, if you are a court, to decide whether it is reasonable as a matter of politics. how can a court decide something is reasonable as a matter of policy. what the congress said, >> as you said about filling in details that one way to look at the nondelegation, the issues of such magnitude and scope that they are legislative, congress has to decide them and where the executive branch delegated the task of a factual finding or filling in small details. there are other ways the supreme court has done this, more recently, last century, they have said there needs to be an intelligible principle, that is good enough. what would your nondelegation doctrine look like? >> i have no idea. an intelligible principle means nothing and is infinitely malleable and courts have used it that

members now prepare for the new congress in january. new congress, new leaders. watch the process unfold on c-span. >> c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact do you. coming up friday morning, the milwaukee journal sentinel's craig gilbert and the weekly standard's charlie sykes discussed paul ryan's congressional career and his legacy of house speaker. be sure to watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern on friday morning. joined the discussion. live friday on the c-span networks, the hou

white house look back at congress, they see these are powerful people. here is the thing, chuck schumer is not the smartest guy in the world, the amnesty thing blew up in his face, brett kavanaugh thing bre blew up in his face. same with house of representatives, radicals are in charge, every single committee could l.a., san francisco, baltimore, manhattan, a big country in between. they will watch too, these are not brightest light u bulbs either, there are governing opportunity for minority house and president, and majority in senate. here is my concern, unless they are willing to institute the battles. in senate mitch mcconnell, he said we're not going to shut down the government, taken most powerful tool president has away to control and direct spending with house of represen represene hostile to him, how do you think it will play out. >> it is a mistake if senate leadership takes those tools off the table. that is what they did in 2013, keep the tools to table to win the argument, enforce the question, call the question, take it to the american peop

here, congress set forth all the rules. it made judgments about all the requirements. >> what do you say that under your view, congress could have simply enacted a statute with respect to post-enactment offenders that mirrored the language, and say it is up to the attorney general to come up registrationle regime in the public interest? you would be defending that? >> justice gorsuch, it would be a much broader delegation under this court's cases, you would need more of a general policy. it's not clear why congress wouldn't apply. >> what's the difference? half a million people are affected by this delegation. >> yes. if congress found there are real practical problems with applying it even going forward, here's our general policy to the attorney general. i don't know that it would be importantly different from saying to the attorney general which drugs will be controlled substances under the act, or which bridges will we think obstruct the rivers, or who will be allowed to graze -- >> can you answer my question, would you

congress. but i think that it does appear clear at this point that you know we were a lot of people were waiting for the body to be found but it appears clear that the body is never going to be found because it was reports suggest it was do is dissolved in acid after it was dismembered. so from that standpoint i don't know that we're going to get any additional i don't i don't i don't know that we're going to get anything that explicitly and definitively links the crime to mohammed bin sun and in the sense that you know there's some sort of d.n.a. evidence or some sort of you know smoking gun some sort of a statement from a saudi official that says muhammad bin son you know ordered this but with the evidence that we already have that certainly appears to be the case and we'll have to just wait and see over the next few days maybe a few weeks to see if the turks have additional evidence implicating muhammad in saddam and this is why do you think the saudis have been surprised by the strength of

the democratic-led congress. what does this leadership fight me more broadly about how democrats need to go about controlling the chamber next year and the caucus. rep. defazio: i don't talk about family discussions. >> do you have anything to say about how democrats can maybe bridge the gap between progressive democrats and more moderate democrats in the house? that seems to be the main contention here currently. rep. defazio: look, i represent a swing district, but i founded the progressive caucus. i don't find an inherent conflict between being progressive and getting elected in a somewhat moderate or conservative district. i don't think the gap is that difficult to bridge, personally because i have been bridging it for a long time. >> i wanted to ask about self driving cars. pivoting back to transportation. generally, self driving cars are under the energy and commerce committee, not your jurisdiction but certainly in the next two years, there will be other kinds of transportation, infrastructure initiatives

of congress. james: it's like saying, how would you like to be in charge of st. peter's. that's what makes our country great. >> the library was established. i use the library of congress. and my kind of scholarship is library centered. you steal from that -- i read a number of languages. in threeuently languages. english is one. russian and french are languages i can read as well. i can make out german, italian, spanish, a few others. i remember very vividly that --ebody must've had inside they had been nominated for this position. music.p the they were a little perplexed by that. in my life, there were two universities where i talked. the library of congress for archives and other major resources here in washington. and working here for more than 50 or 60 years. the congress of the united states has been the single greatest thing. people come over from china and they no longer have an independent existence after the cultural revolution. they continue to do the job. they have to deal of it. and w

he also taught congress -- not congress, library of congress has to also may the role of diplomatic -- play the role of diplomatic affinity, building neighborhoods diplomatically. in russia, it did it. and more than that, you tonight know maybe, but -- you don't know maybe, but he also went to iran when we were trying to build relations with iran. he went to visit national library of iran. of course, federal government would not pay the flight of librarian of congress for, on behalf of the united states to go to iran. i am glad that mr. carnegie from heavens -- [laughter] said we'll take care of librarian of congress, because andrew carnegie was dedicated to international peace. jim, therefore, i mentioned has multiple tasks and has done all of them well. there are critics, actually. any major organization will have its critics. but one thing we should not forget, the mission of library of congress has been kept afloat to serve the nation and the world, to build bridges of understanding, to treat all cultures as important, not as minor, major. and then also to save those cultures. one

what he told congress. but we know robert mueller's team has already been looking into this issue, what the president knew about the trump tower deal and moscow. and so the question is is through that investigation they were able to uncover that what michael cohen has told congress didn't line up with the fact that they had from other communications from other people involved in this investigation. and as michael cohen is pleading guilty to misleading congress? we'll have to wait and see what hatches on this front. >> we will know a lot more about how far he goes, about the president's knowledge, et cetera, based on what he says in that courtroom but also how the special counsel views how helpful his system has been. that's correct, right? he is making these statements now in a courtroom here in new york. >> that's right. he is going to be in front of a federal judge pleading guilty to this. and it's significant and unusual for this to happen, for this turn of events before someone is sentenced. he has alre

congress bashing songs in congress bashing place. i didn't expect that and that was really fascinating to see how and why people are making fun of congress and what it meant and what they are poking fun at. the other thing that was factually, but seeing it, it intrigues me. is the familiarity and the amount of what americans have with what is going on in congress. there is a magazine that came out in the late 1850s called vanity fair, and it was a humor magazine. it came out right at the time of the fighting with at its peak, and the opening issue, it has a picture on the cover of congressman throwing things at each other. in the book i refer to it as congressional fights quarterly. the only way that you would understand the humor if he knew what the congressman were saying to each other on a pretty detailed level. they would have humorous stories that will pull incentives from the base and i could look at it and say he is making fun of this guy. the fact that the public was that familiar with that level of congressional happenings w

that is not what congress did. instead, congress wrote a statute, 1226c, as an exception to the general detention scheme in 1226a, which applies except as provided in subsection c, not except as provided in section c2, as the government would have it. congress wrote section 1226c in two paragraphs. the first paragraph says who gets taken into custody and when, and the second paragraph says of those people in paragraph one who can be released. now the government claims instead, in a stretch of a reading, that you focus only on paragraphs a through d in paragraph one. in other words, they say, section c2 stands alone as an authorization for mandatory detention. but that's not what congress said. it said except -- as an alien described in paragraph one, not an alien described in paragraph one, a through d. and the government's reading, trying to pull section 2, c2, out as that free-standing authorization, leads to three serious anomalies that they struggle to explain, as they did with you, justice kagan. the first ano

made by congress. there is a dissent in this case. it is a rare instance in which justices questioned the need for wartime interference with property rights. the opinion by justice james c mcreynolds and liam are day was incredulous that a ban on intoxicating beer could be imposed a year after the end of fighting. food was now abundant. the ban could no longer be justified as a war measure. concerned,hey were the idea that war powers could be exercised because a peace treaty had not been signed card, side, was a fig leaf. foreshadowed how the conservative court of the 1920's and early 1930's would behave. because the court had not heard any of the property cases during the war, the libertarian mcreynolds, had been unable to comment because -- had been unable to comment on this governmental powers. never haveion should taken place they said. is for rulerson and for people in war and in peace. it is covered by all classes of men and by all circumstances. the suspension of constitutional --itations during

yet, congress isn't prepared to act. the national security community says we're ready to defend the nation, doesn't have the authority, the resources or the rules of engagement to do that, yet if and when we have that so-called cyber pearl harbor which i'm skeptical will happen, you can be sure the american people would look at the government and say what were they doing? >> you may have to define script kitty. >> well, i mean. >> so i think it's an important question about what is the test, this subjective expectation of privacy and what does it mean in a world where so much of what we do is shared, because it's shared with a third party provider that has access to it absent the use of increasingly sophisticated encryption. i think it highlights the problem for the test itself, particularly if we think about how we, i think most of us understand privacy, we understand it in a relational context. the supreme court recognizes this in carpenter, when it started to kind of walk back from this broad application of the third

what did congress do? it amended the definition of person to achieve as justice ginsburg pointed out an easy solution with the numerous city requirements apply to the political subdivisions. when they amended the adea in the exact same act as they amended the act l essay to cover political subdivisions regardless of size it did the same thing which was amending the definition of employer and not the definition of persons. i point this court to its own decisions -- sing that we look not just at the language choices but to structural choices. we assume those are intentional. so, even if i had to think about the comparison between the adea and title vii under those cases i think that would be enough to remove any doubt that the court might have about what congress is trying to achieve. i had something more here. i have the flsa of which the adea is closely related. and the court in the congress made the same decision in the flsa. >> could you say something about what this means for the agent clause? if congre

we have no oversight from congress. lets the pentagon spend and do whatever they want while we have so much hardship going on at home. disagree andongly angers my frustration and at what we are doing there and how i am not being told the truth. host: thank you. guest: i appreciate the feedback. i am not sure we disagree on everything in a sense that you are suggesting. i have called on this administration to give a progress report to the american people. this administration enacted a new strategy that many of us celebrated one year ago. the south asia strategy. conditions based strategy in afghanistan that according to the administration is different than what the strategy was before. after visiting and asking the question to military leaders, to the ambassador, to afghan leaders, it is still unclear to me what has been accomplished in the south asia strategy over the past year. i have renewed a strong call to the administration to give us the progress report sooner than later. i think it would be good for president tru

all that is done by congress. ms. baumgartel: but none of those very detailed provisions of sorna that congress set forth apply to pre-act offenders. the attorney general was given the power both to decide whether the law applied to pre-act offenders and then how it should apply. justice kagan: well, that gets back to the question that the chief justice started with, because it seems that there is some language in the statute that supports the government's reading, that this is a statute that basically says register all pre-act offenders as far as possible, with some understanding that there are feasibility considerations that may make immediate registration of everybody impossible. so comprehensiveness but moderated with a feasibility understanding. and i think you would point to three things. you would point to the preamble, which talks about a comprehensive national system. i think you would point then to the definition, which says that the term "sex offender" means an individual, any individual, an individual who

congress is broken right now. she is the leader of a congress that has blown a huge hole in the budget, not dealt with health care or immigration, and even left town without a farm bill. we can do better. i want to go to congress and work with farmers, veterans, students, seniors, and defend our health care, work for solutions and the not just talking points. eastern washington deserves an advocate that has more for getting things done than simply standing up for party priorities. it would be an honor for me to serve you in congress and im asking for your vote this evening. > thank you. we begin our debate tonight with the economy. the u.s. is currently experiencing robust economic growth. locally, unemployment is at a 28 year low and consumer spending is ticking up. however, the federal deficit is also growing by 17% this past year. trade agreements with our long-term trading partners are undergoing significant changes. the first question to you, lisa, what do you see as the direction of this economic growth? wha

that was never before congress. what was before congress and what this court held as to title vii in burlington is that that language is about responding superior. i have already mentioned two clear signals. let me get to the third one, a variation on the agent point. while we disagree on what the agent clause does, everyone agrees that it does something important. at a minimum, according to it protects employees from the independence -- excuse me, the discriminatory acts of contractors. why did congress apply that important protection only to private employees and not to public ones? because that is the consequence of the respondent's reading. fourth signal, effective commerce. and what congress did with that phrase. for now, i am not making a constitutional argument. i'm making a drafting argument. in everyone of these discrimination statutes, congress felt the need to provide an explicit commerce clause hook. it did so for private employers under the adea. it did so for all employers under title vii in the ada. o

we came into this congress together. one of the smallest republican classes the history of congress. only 13 of us. many believed we could not achieve a majority or move america in the right direction but in four short years we did that. we left america a little stronger. do you realize the discretionary spending that congress has control over is $13 billion less today than the last time nancy pelosi was speaker. look at the c.b.o. numbers, we saved $4 trillion for the american public. we will continue to strive to make america more effective, most efficient and more accountable. i will take a few questions. >> what went wrong. how can you say the loss isn't against president trump. mr. mccarthy: history is against. a average of loss of 30 seats. barack obama lost 53. anybody who is in that office, history runs against us. michael bloomberg spent more than $100 million and was effective in defeating republican women. look what he did in california. but you know something changed. history didn't always prove out correctly

to what they are saying in congress, doing in congress is huge. that's also something in this period is that people were more focused on congress than on the president unless it was an election year. >> thank you. >> sure. >> hi, how are you. >> i'm good. >> a couple of questions. there is -- there is a radio program in one called back story. >> that's me. >> is that part of your piece. >> well i am one of the cohosts of the. >> i knew about the podcast that's wonderful. >> i love it, i have to say. >> you know almost to hear you talking you feel as if you just change the names and you just took today's news stuff appear recaptured it. but i do want to say something else. because kern is good when it talks about myth ol joyousing the found willing fathers. do you think that permeates what you have found. >> i think there is a tendency. >> because a lot of what you said is in history. >> it makes sense in it's own kind of way that people want a mythologically wonderful founding. and mythlogical founders who are flawless and blocks of marble on a pe

falls to congress to stand up for what it calls america's true values so are we now going to see congress taking for action. we have already seen that day chairman of the senate foreign relations committee bob corker a republican from tennessee and this counterpart from the democratic party bob menendez have now requested that. the senate should pass legislation that would. incorporate that would require require president trump to come forth on whether or not mom had been some on was responsible for ordering desex accused and so that's the first step the second step that is coming in that because this cia assessment will be used as the lunch pin if you will for for the congress to determine who is responsible for disk killing. this this will help lawmakers provide a sanctions regime on the saudi leadership and potentially on the prince and self all of that could. could essentially cripple the saudi economy us it will be illegal for american businesses to invest into saudi economy so that's one aspect the second aspect is that what we have seen from the russia investigation after russia in

what did congress do in title vii? it amended the definition of person to achieve as justice ginsburg pointed out a very easy solution, with the numeral's new requirement applied to political subdivision. when it amended the adea in the exact same acts that it amended the flsa, indisputably to cover political subdivisions, it did the same thing, amend the definition of employer and not the definition of person. i point the court to its own where they say we look to not just the language choices , we also look to structural choices that congress made and we assume that those are intentional. even if i had nothing but the comparison between the adea and , ile vii, under those cases had something more here. , congress made the same decision in the flsa. >> could you say what your argument means for the agent clause? had congress written the term itloyer includes, i take that one could not be an agent without having 25 employees. where does this sentence take us with respect to agents? >> i want to start with my point of a

its no surprise that cohen lied to congress. he's a proven liar who is doing everything he can to get out of a long-term prison sentence for serious crimes of bank and tax fraud that had nothing to do with the trump organization. the documents the special counsel is using to show that cohen used to lie to congress, its hardly coincidental that special counsel files a charges as the president is leaving for argentina. he did the same thing as he was leaving for the world a summit in helsinki with regard to the hotel proposal. the president has been open and transparent. there's a lot there. grab what you will. >> well, what matters is not what the president and his attorneys think about michael cohen's credibility, what matters is what the special counsel thinks and, more importantly, what the special counsel believes he and his team can prove about michael cohen's credibility in a court of law or in the short-term as this investigation winds its way wherever its going to head. that's all that matters. sure, maybe they gave the t

trump dodged again by saying, quote, i'm going to leave it up to congress, and so what is this congress doing about the khashoggi atrocity? absolutely nothing. that's what should have been in this rule. it's the do something about the sanctions and disclosure, 40 of us asked this past month for the administration to brief us on what they knew before mr. khashoggi was murdered and whether they warned him about that and we have had a deafening silence in response to our request on that and on cutting off assistance to yemen. only news that even an audio of the gruesome murder of mr. khashoggi, we don't know whether it included the sound of the bone saw that the saudis apparently used to dismember him, but even a murder will not cause some in this leadership to stand up to president trump and this atrocious regime. o you have another 30 seconds? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30. mr. doggett: i ask to cease american sales to the saudis and to do something to hold mr. khashoggi's killers accountable. but to say wait until a much-improved new congress comes into ses

he served this congress in a phenomenal way for 20 years. served the city of new york, served communities in queens and the bronx. and we know that while this chapter closes for joe crowley, there will be other chapters that open and he'll continue to contribute in a mightful way to the united states of america. with that, i think i can take a few questions. reporter: mr. jeffries, you were calling for unity, but there's still members of your caucus who want to stop nancy pelosi from becoming speaker. how -- [inaudible] -- for your party to show unity if the same members try to prevent her from getting the speakership on the floor of the house in january? mr. jeffries: every member has an opportunity to do what they feel is best on behalf of the communities that they represent. the first order of business when we reconvene at 1:00 p.m. will be to take a vote on our speaker designee. as of the moment, nancy pelosi is the only candidate who has submitted her name and we'll see what happens when the meeting reconvenes, if someone emerges. but a

democratic congress that works for the people for the people. and donald trump's republican party has maintained control of the senate democratic incumbents running in pro trump states have been defeated helping the republicans add to their current one seat majority a senior adviser to the president callahan conway spoke about how donald trump's last minute campaigning helped republican candidates. everywhere we go we hear from job creators job holders job seekers they're happy with this economy i think that's reflecting a lot of the results tonight very happy with this president's policies to try to deal with their eyes the korean peninsula which helps everyone the remains of our fallen from north korea from korea have been returned this president is sanctioning iran sanctioning russian weenies to pushing back on assad when he gasses his people not once but twice he showed a lot of strength and leadership around the world and many people may not say america first but they say stop apologizing for america else in america laban somali america has

function of congress. we all in this room understand that intelligence activities reside with some tension in a democracy with its imperatives for transparency, and it does so because we have effective oversight and public confidence in the effectiveness of that oversight. and i'm wondering if you agree that that has been severely challenged, certainly in the last year, maybe the last couple of years, maybe longer. even extending to traditional support around fisa. and where you see this going. because how can we restore public confidence in the integrity and effectiveness of the oversight of our intelligence activities and particularly the context of fisa renewal? >> thank you. i'll just go down the row. last words. >> suzanne, thank you so much for underscoring the importance of oversight. because in the national security arena, legislative efforts are only a part of what congress does. oversight is our most important functi function, and in the intelligence context, so much of that oversight goes on beh

but falling short of a blue wave >> when democrats win -- and we will win tonight -- we will have a congress that is open, transparent, accountable to the american people. >>> republicans maintain the senate with the white house hailing it a successful night for president trump. >> we feel good. it's been a good night for the president. candidates that have embraced the president, embraced his policies and that he campaigned for, we're seeing that pay off tonight. >>> european equities seeing green and u.s. futures trading higher the dollar dips amid the prospect of a split congress. >>> and an exit poll from nbc shows healthcare now replacing the economy as the most important issue for u.s. voters in this midterm election. >>> on the earnings front, adidas shares fall as investors focus on the disappointing sales outlook, but the ceo kasper rorsted says he remains bullish. >> despite the fact we're investing more than ever in our company, we are extremely happy with the overall run of our business >>> a warm welcome to the european edition of "midterms and markets. we will continue to bring

and it's a felony to lie to congress. and you have democrats who have accused donald trump jr., this is not new, but greater scrutiny being brought to this today because of the michael cohen plea, have accused donald trump jr. of misleading their committee on his testimony about the russia investigation. he has adamantly denied that. but what's happening is they are copying through word for word these statements and looking for evidence of falsehoods. >> well, one way to make members of both parties mad is to lie to all of them all at once, for sure. clint watts, i'd like to talk to you about this from the russian perspective. because i know you spent so much time thinking about it and, would on these kinds of issues. if you're vladimir putin and the people around him and you get this overture from people who are, you know, close inside the likely republican nominees' orbit who want to try and build this tower, what's in it for you if you say yes, if you work with them? i mean, what are the russians -- how are they using

so as we close out the 115th congress and move into a new congress in january, these are the types of things that we can continue to do together. because of the midterm election, our friends in the other body, the house of representatives now that miss pelosi will presumably be the next speaker, they have an important decision to make. do they want to make noise? do they want to harass the president? or do they want to work with us to make laws that improve the quality of life for the people we represent? i hope they choose the latter, and clearly there's more we can and should do together to help the american people. so, mr. president, i know i'm running out of time. i'm going to come back a little later on and talk about the caravans that are coming up from central america through mexico and what we need to do together to address those, but at this time i'll yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i rise to call for an end to the war in yemen. you might not know there is a war in yemen because the media seems to be involved with other things. we

we came into this congress together. was one of the smallest republican classes in the history of congress. the resulting 13 of us. many believed we could not move america in the right direction. in four years we were able to do that. we did not win the majority but we left america a little stronger. the discretionary spending that congress had control over, $13 billion less today than the last time nancy pelosi was speaker. you look at the cvo numbers, we saved more than toward -- $4 trillion for the american public. we will continue to strive to make america more effective, efficient and more countable. i will take a few questions. >> [inaudible] >> history is against us. do you think any president in their first off year election loses more than 30 seats? morocco, lost 63. anybody in that office, the history runs against them. michael bloomberg spent more than $100 million. he was very effective in defeating a lot of republican women. you look what he did in california. something changed, history did not waste -- alwa

you read and watch -- there are a lot more reasonable people who agree in congress. but you need to get it on the floor for a vote, things related to daca, or health care, or infrastructure. we have a provision that you can get something put on the floor that way. if you get 20 democrats and 20 republicans to agree on an amendment, you can get that added to a bill. we are making it more difficult to kick the speaker out. right now, one person can call for the astor of the speaker. a lot of people, especially under the freedom caucus, would hold the speaker hostage if they could not get their way. this small group would call for their ouster. we are making it where you have to have a majority of your caucus to call for a speaker's ouster. we will have the ratio of committees reflect the actual ratios of democrats and republicans in the overall congress, reflected closely in our committees. we will make sure you have notice before the bill goes on the floor for a vote, so you have three days, a chance to read it. host: when it comes to the transition of leadership, whi

congress needs help. okay. all of the things that the smart people in the audience and the experts up here have been talking about, this is -- first of all, this is going to be brand new stuff to the new members of congress. of which there are many. and secondly, congress has been cheating itself at making itself unable to make the kinds of hard choices that we're talking about here. so the best thing that might happen here is not 716 or 733 billion. the smartest thing that might happen here is like 100 million. for getting congress the kind of intellectual help and expertise that it has not had for many years now. and i think you see that in some of the ways that congress is basically taking these issues and pushing them off to the side. >> happy thanksgiving to all of you and your families and the families of the military around the world. i'm sure you'll want to join me in thanking them and thanking the panel as well. [ applause ] cspan's washington journal. live with news and policy issues that impact you.

of the mightiest in congress. i have to admit, i'm a bit iased on that one. the congressional black congress gained nine new members. we are now 55 members strong, representing nearly 80 million americans from new york to california. we are the most powerful voting block in the united states house of representatives and we will use our leverage to fight for the causes that have always mattered most to us. justice, fairness and equity. ustice, fairness and equity. the american people elected us to washington to finally hold onald trump accountable. one of our top priorities as a conference must be immigration reform. we have helped divert attacks against the diversity visa lottery and we will continue to defend it whenever it is under threat. we're also fighting to preserve temporary protected status for haiti, he will affle doer, nicaragua, sudan and numerous other countries. normal to mmbing -- not to mention proudly fighting to protect the dreamers and to prevent children from ever being separated from heir fami

the president looking for congress and congress looking at the white house? guest: it can go either way. bill clinton in his first state of the union address said the era of big government is over, took a conciliatory posture to try to work with them and improved his standing with the public as a result. other times he will see more of a defensive posture, which is what we started to see yesterday. u.s.,the climate in the we can anticipate a more aggressive posture going forward. host: we have a couple of minutes of tape to watch from nancy pelosi postelection and president trump postelection. we will get your thoughts. [video clip] >> the president made clear that if democrats launch investigations, any chance of bipartisanship is off. do you think this could jeopardize your responsibility to legislate? >> we don't plan to abandon our responsibilities for .ccountability, oversight this doesn't mean we go looking for a fight, but it means if we see the need to go forward, we will. that will be the work of our committees. every committee has oversight responsi

this was my first trip back as a member of congress. i led a bipartisan delegation. there were seven of us in total. and we came home last week with a better picture of what's going on. still a lot of questions i have, but we came home with a renewed sense that our efforts there are as important as ever. and in a bipartisan fashion, we came home with a lot of questions we have for the administration as well. >> is the picture good or bad currently? >> i served there in 2014 and 2015. so not that long ago. i us came home with the sense that the picture is worse than it was a few years ago. with a sense that's more dangerous in afghanistan today than it was at that point. that's because the threat has evolved. we're no longer dealing with just defeating the taliban. today the rise offist knits afghanistan is is perhaps a much more startling situation than what we news fafaced in years p. there's 21 terrorist group who is have a foothold in afghanistan, but. isis appears to be the most dangerous threat perhaps that we have ever faced in that country. that part of it was

that,want to make sure not just congress, because congress does get all of our work product, including, -- the ig's office has done a review of a program that, even if it is classified, for example, about a euro so into my anure, we did a review of 702. the department determined it was classified. report,ic did not get a even what we would normally do, which is an unclassified summary of the classified report. that is our normal practice. that was not even possible. we did, nevertheless, with out a statement -- without a statement say we had completed a review and send it to congress. sometimes, what we do, this occurred in the boston marathon bombing, we put out a classified report and a link the public summary. -- lengthy topic summary. some of that have been labeled sensitive. by the department. we disagreed. what we did was, we put out a report and you will see a statement in their about our objections. going back to an earlier comment about congress and its role, congress is in a position to see both reports. they can see the classified version. they can see the unclassified versi