in fact congress simply stops issuing it. it's the darkest moment in philadelphia, the economic center. and in south carolina hundreds and hundreds of people including like former governors of the state, you know, people who had been patriots accept the king's protection and it's hugely demoralizing. and, you know, part of -- clinton thinks he says a way to pacifying south carolina and the carlisle terms are providing the vision for it. the other thing, though, that's interesting, carlisle's commission also forces congress to start getting its act in order. the arms of confederation, the draft has been finished, they're being leaned on by the french, and -- but it's in response to the carlisle peace commission that congress starts paying a little more attention to constitutional propriety within the confederation and so there's actually the -- between the carlisle commission and france and i didn't really talk about the french side of this, they sort of become and take shape from the french in one hand, and the british who ar

and that tends to enervate congress because congress finds itself trying to stop a, you know, a unitary executive when it's riven by factions, party, personalities and by two chambers. and so in the book i say the presidency is like a fieger jet, and the -- fighter jet, and the congress is like a sitting duck our craft carrier that moves slowly and is very ponderous. in that situation the presidency's typically going to win. and my final point is nothing is sacrosanct about the presidency. if you can -- if the presidency over time can acquire the power to wage war, which is basically the power to declare it, if the presidency over time can acquire legislative authority from express congressional delegations but also through doctrines like the chevron doctrine but also through creative, interpretive legal interpretations of statutes and then, finally, if the president is can essentially in some respects bypass the senate if's check on the treaty power, there is nothing that the president can't do with respect to bounds of article ii. anything that you think is a fundamental feature of ar

and then it's harder for congress to articulate. and then to defend that statue and as everyone knows they are only in the context of real cases so it's true all the's constitutional disputes early on but the failure i am dubious i am dubious of the originalist theory that says of the constitution that has an original meeting better people get it wrong it can be treated if he was on grounds of the original understanding of the constitution that if you get something wrong long enough we are to continue. i don't think there's a lot in favor of that madison himself doesn't say this those can liquidate the solid understanding of the constitution but will contemplate that liquidation is a practice has changed and then that originalist understanding that enough that's a proper reading. >> and then to get to as many questions as we can in the next ten minutes this is my fault i was scrolling up for new questions instead of scrolling down and to my surprise there is a bunch. many more than i thought. so this will be a lightning round. so at

i know in congress, we met yesterday. we're working on packages to make sure chokehold and other things are banned. there are so many things we can do because a black lives do matter. thank you. >> thank you. candidates, we are going to talk about the protests. we are in a time of great upheaval of course and there are lots of questions about criminal justice swirling around, including some legislation that the next representative will have to get involved with and vote on. i wanted to ask each of you, what public actions have you taken on these issues the last few weeks since protests began? and if elected, what would be the top priority when it comes to criminal justice reform? let's go in the same order. let's start with you, mr. fink. >> these are big problems the country is facing. the positions i have taken, and you can find them on a website, are as follows. a, if i was in power in minneapolis, i would've a, charged the racist with murder one from day one. would have started that trial from day one, impanel a injur

congress has set in place a series of rules on military spending that makes it difficult for congress to take proactive action, to put ourselves in position to get our budget back in a sustainable path. >> one question i get asked a lot, the intention of the commission is very ambitious but i'm asked all the time what are the consequences and this. 10 years ago there was some projections that might not have come to read a lot of people predicted exactly that there would be a shrinkage in the deficit that worsened in 2019. i would petition both of you on behalf of the civilian led commission to ask chairman powell tomorrow a question about the long-term consequences. it would honor our effort but it is important, there are only so many people in a deeply divided political environment who have authority. i think the way jay powell has handled the economic side of this crisis let him break credibility. one of the things he said as i was watching financial service hearing a year ago, he made a comment how one of the things that worrisome about the nature of our just is it is on an annual

so, what is the role of congress in advancing that? >> guest: we are a facilitator. this is something that going back to the telecommunication acts of the 1930s and things that essentially if everyone in the country will have the best technology and if it will be widely available to everyone congress helps facilitate that. there are a number of universal funds that help initially proposed support for telephone lines but now help with broadband and variety of of other creations resources. some would argue that congress and first the middle carrier had not become so focused in the space program we would never have had the tillich mitigation satellites we have now's and some would argue that we might still be in some form of transistor world as a computer chips we are operating in now. we are there through tax policy, the research funding, through a variety of sources to, in my opinion, and a positive way, encourage industry to move forward and science, community in general. >> host: if there is an infrastructure bill in congress would you support broadband and technolo

you have been around for 14 terms in congress. this is an election year. do you foresee any legislation regarding broadband, world broadband or 5g moving through the congress? rep. lucas: i would say i expect the year to be concluded with ather an omnibus bill or continuing resolution, a funding bill. thenature of the bodies, senate is so much different than the house, the culture, i expect legislation will wind up in one giant kebab in the end. will there be a window of opportunity? yes. what that means we will get to a point where we have a common agreement? a republican senate, a democrat house and president trump. that requires achieving some amazing consensus to get there on anything, on everything.

' problem at that congress needs to fix. well, on the first point, federal courts are more than up to the challenge of undertaking some additional work in order to interpret statutes and not blindly deferring to a federal agency unless it's obviously wrong. as to the second point, there's a point there, and it doesn't mean that we should claim to the chevron doctrine because it's wrong. what it does mean is that members of congress ought to be more conscientious in enacting legislation so that we provide enough legislative teeth rather than just deferring to agency discretion on everything. part of the problem is that for decades, you've had members of congress, of both houses and both political parties. literally, senate and every conceivable part. willing to defer off to an agency, that needs to stop and that's one. things that's perpetuating the chevron doctrine. we can do that without waiting for the courts to themselves abandon the doctrine by enacting separation of powers restoration act. >> and i share many of the con

the equality act is before congress right now. faileds has declined, or to act on these requests, and if the court takes this up, and interprets this 1964 statute two prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, we are going -- we will be acting exactly like the legislature. we might as well is the equality act and issue that is our opinion, and say, as judge posner says that the courts need to intervene on questions like this, when the legislative branch simply will not do so. how would we respond to that question? ms. karlan: well, the fact that a loose cannon, like judge posner says, do whatever you feel like is not what we are asking for. we are saying if you read the inds because of sex, and 1964, what if those words mean? treating men differently from women. beif in 1964, it would discrimination to fire a woman, who wanted, woman who enjoyed sewing, and there is a famous case, the foundational case on sexual orientation where they fired a man. >> we would not be deciding a major policy question that was mind and ires

sources tell cnn that eight republican members of congress were briefed today on the intelligence by the white house and chief of staff meadows offered to brief a group of democrats tomorrow. have you spoken with anybody at the white house about being briefed on this shocking intelligence? >> well, the shocking intelligence it is, and it would be my hope it isn't true, but it seems clear that the intelligence is real. the question is whether the president was briefed. if he was not briefed, why would he not be briefed, were they afraid to approach him on the subject of russia, and were they concerned if they did tell him, that he would tell putin. so there's a lot that remains out there. in terms of briefing congress, i wrote to the dni, director of national intelligence and head of central intelligence agency, the two of them, asking for full briefing to all of the members of the house of representatives. that is what members need and deserve. the fact that they might invite some folks over is fine. i always encourage people to accept an invitation for briefing from the white house,

i know congress is looking at it. you mentioned the trillion dollar program, i think that is news out today that the white house is entertaining a package like that. we have been here before and we will see what surfaces. should broadband be included? we think broadband is an important infrastructure that has one meaningful aspect to it that could use a government to support infusion, and that is the unserved parts of the country that are uneconomic to serve. we would expect it to be included. i think people think broadband has reached a status where it should be part of the equation. i don't think that's necessarily the most important part of the equation, however. we will certainly be engaged on those programs and we would lobby and support of well tailored, thoughtful money for broadband infrastructure. i have been around 30 years and i've seen a lot of these programs. i saw them in the 2008 economic crisis and years before that. annually $4.5 billion the ftc spends. we make progress. it isn't that rural does not s

congress has two choices. it can continue to exercise un-democratic authority over the 705,000 american citizens who reside in our nation's capital, treating them in the words of frederick douglass as aliens and not americans as subject but to live up to our nation's ideals and h.r. 51. i would like to thank nancy pelosi majority leader steny hoyer, majority whip james clyburn, carin maloney -- carolyn maloney, and the late elijah elijah cummings. for bringing us to this historic day. i urge all of my colleagues to vote on h.r. 51 and, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you. i rise in opposition to h.r. 51, the washington, d.c. admission act. there is a lot more to statehood than a vibrant city. our nation's fathers thought it was not a state. they thought about it, debated it, rejected

but could congress or could the fcc put congress on it and never what to make it more functional and, therefore, not provide some of the wide open opportunities, some of the pieces we may be seeing? that something to explore and something you would expect from a wide open debate we're about to have. there's both parts. it is been very beneficial. could it be improved? i think there are some sound arguments for that. is it my responsibility or congresses or some other agencies? those debates will all have to be had in coming months. >> i think that gets to the point commissioner rosenworcel made which was the fcc shouldn't be the police. i do draw the line between speech police and middling the scope of what these protections provide? >> guest: i think i just said you can put some guardrails if necessary and that's a debate to be had but if necessary you can put guardrails on 230 and that's for congress to decide who they would like to have, see that happen. you can set up different structures. you can have it at either agency itself such as the fcc, if you solve the jurisdictional iss

next, the credit -- congress allowed loans up to $10 million. brought incised standards relaxed affiliation rules and eliminated the credit test. most smallcongress, businesses will certify to the necessity of the loan. the lord never said the business first needed to use available capital and need remains undefined. but as the media begins highlighting negative stories, attitudes shifted. ifr's now require that bauer self-assessed need basically eliminated credit elsewhere test. i watched my customers fearfully repay needed loans of my bank's $447 million in loans, $31 million were repaid because of contradictory guidance and perceived threats. the saddest part is the majority of the loans repaid were the smallest, as low as $1400. imagine a powers fear when the government says it must return loan funds or face serious consequences. the federal government says we're here in hell, and then changed its mind -- here to help, and then changed its mind on who it is to help. requires agencies to acknowledge the waiver, demand faqs that demand -- the

and how congress can keep optimizing as they slowly begin to reopen. and through some prospective borrowers. for example to establish a rule that requires and then to be eligible. and with that ability of any type of small businesses and with the ppe product as it enters the forgiveness phase the primary concern and with that forgiveness which according to experts it is a key feature of the program because we also heard minority owned small businesses and micro- businesses continue to struggle with ppe loans despite $130 billion remaining in the program alone. and the treasury will not be publishing the information for ppe of the data that we need for the program. i look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel today about how congress can keep improving the ppe program and if congress should continue before the second round of funding or the program closes on jun june 30th thank you to the panel for joining us here today and i now yield to the ranking member for opening statements. >> thank you madam chair for holding this hearing today. also i

problem that congress needs to fix . on the first point, the federal courts are more than up to the challenge of undertaking some additional work in order to interpret statutes and not blindly deferring to a federal agency unless it's obviously wrong. as to the second i think there's a point there, it just doesn't mean we should cling to the chevron doctrine because it's wrong . what it does mean is members of congress ought to be more conscientious in an acting legislation so that we actually provide enough legislative teeth rather than just deferring to agency discretion on everything. part of the problem is for decades you've had members of congress of both houses in both political parties, senate, white house and representatives of every partisan combination who been willing to defer entire questions off to an agency and that needs to stop. it's one of the things that's perpetuating the chevron doctrine but we can do that without even waiting for the courts to themselves abandon thedoctrine by enacting separation of

responsibility or congress's or some other agency? those debates will have to be coming months. >> i think that gets >> that gets to the point that the fcc -- how do you draw that scope ofnarrowing the what protections provide? >> you can put guardrails if necessary. 230,l put guardrails on and that could be for congress to decide who they would like to see that happen. you can set up different structures. it at the agency itself. if you solve the jurisdictional issues. or you can set up and require boards to look at these things. there are different ideas if people want to go down these paths. i am not saying we should, but there are different options if that is necessary in the debate plays out. i apologize. we are out of time. to get to the commissioner, you are being renominated next week. would that be for another five-year term, and easy landmines? >> i have been renominated. i am grateful to the committee for holding that hearing. there are always land m nominating process. i lived through it as a staffer. we will have to see i

whether congress or the ftc. sometimes the rhetoric no matter what lyrical end of the spectrum you bring it from, is not tempered by that silver recognition of the barrier and the parameters that live around it. so quietly openly, commission mcdowell voicing, going to take your word for it, i haven't seen him, or rosa morsel, sometimes a rhetoric isn't, is that intended to be cognizant of the genuine practical limitation. number one, the commission's going to struggle with this because it knows but the path of limitations are. if any doubts go watch the history of the struggle with indecency statutes or smoking advertisements in the 70s to the minute you start talking about content centered speech, you're in a thicket that not many regular roads trying to navigate, , number one. that will be part of the difficulty. the other is the agency is nominally independent. it doesn't like to be drawn into political suicide between electoral politicians who come for the own interest will often try to use an issue for the a

every republican in congress virtually voted for that. when conflict have gone himself completely alienated from congress the way johnson did in 1866. basic principles of quality preferable flaw of citizenship, there's no reason to think lincoln would have felt he had to oppose them the way johnson did. then you go a little further and say well, what about black suffrage? lincoln never supported black suffrage before the war. in his last speech before his assassination, he ruminated about allowing more black soldiers to vote and maybe this educated so he was moving toward maybe a little black suffrage. what he support the reconstruction measure of congress of early 1867 which said are going to have government in the south with black men voting alongside white men? who knows? the further you go in history, the more speculation becomes. what would lincoln have done when the violence occurred in the south? i don't know. he have set troops? i don't know. i do think lincoln had the ability to try to bring the republican party and the whole cou

congress made that decision. the supreme court could not have stepped in, even if it wanted to, and said private employers cannot discriminate on the basis of race because they are private employers in the supreme court does not get to regulate private entities. so, people forget that the right to b free from discrimination in the workplace comes from congress. that is the granting authority in this case. they are the ones that regulate commerce, and employment is part of that. i don't disagree that everyone should be treated fairly in the workplace. of course they should. but this is the, sort of, the question for the court was a technical one. host: scott peters blacksburg virginia. democratic caller. -- scott. blacksburg, virginia. democratic caller. caller: i just want to say i agree and understand what your guest is talking about it being a interpretation of the law and it is congress's job, but i think to fire someone just for being gay really is sex discrimination, and some of the arguments i have heard he

congress was the esurping legislature. it was definitely not a legal body in british political discourse conversation. a dull melancholy silence for some time seceded to this speech when lord north announced the peace initiative. even the government supporters seemed stunned. in the words of one observer, to treat with those who denied and took up arms in opposition to the authority of parliament had long been out of the question. yet that was exactly what britain was now prepared to do. one can certainly see why north's proposal caused such consternation. by repealing the hated impost on tea and giving up the right to tax revenue parliament abandoned what lord germane and other hard liners in the lord's cabinet insisted was the government's central warring. here we see the hardest hard liner of them all, lord germane on my right, your left. here we see lord north and another british cartoon in the center. an even greater moment the royal instructions that carlyle carried with him to america envisioned an empeerial union w

but could congress or the f.c.c. put guardrails on it and narrow it to make it more functional and provide some of the wide open opportunities and some of the abuses we may be seeing in the marketplace? i certainly -- that's certainly thing to explore. that's something, what you expect from a wide open debate we're about to have. i think there's both parts. it has been very beneficial. could it be improved? i think there are certainly sound arguments for that. is it my responsibility or congress's or some other agency? those debates will have to be had in the coming months. margaret: i think that gets to the the fcc commissioner made -- how do you draw that line and narrowing the scope of what protections provide? comm. o'rielly: i think i just said -- you can put guardrails if necessary. i will put guardrails on 230, and that could be for congress to decide who they would like to see that happen. you can set up different structures. i worked for nearly 20 years -- you can have it at the agency itself such as they fc

congress has set in place a series of rules on mandatory spending and that makes it difficult for congress to take proactive actions to put ourselves in a position to get our budget back in a sustainable path. thank you. >> one of the questions i have gotten asked a lot. i'm asked all the time, what are the consequences? ten years ago there was projections that might not have come true. a lot of people who predicted exactly that there would be a lull, shrinkage and the deficit worse than 2019. i would detention both of you on behalf of the civilian-led commission to ask chairman powell to ask a question about the long term consequences, on our behalf. it is important, there are only so many people in our deeply divided political environment who have it authority. you think of doctor fauci's unique role in american life for the last couple of months. the way jay powell has handled the economic crisis. one of the things he says. i was watching a hearing a year ago. he made a comment about how one of the things that worries him about the nature of our debt is that it is on an annual basis, al

in terms of working with congress my doors always open. my phone is always on, senator, to build a closer relationship with you and other members of this committee. >> thank you. >> i will have more to say. >> thank you. senator brown. >> thank you mister chairman. i think it is wise at the stage of the game, what we have just done, 2.7 trillion, if it is that much, could be more, that we make sure it is working. i do want to agree though with the democratic colleague, bernie sanders on the issue of health care. i think it is a broken system. i came from a place where i had to deal with it as a business owner. every year, grappling with issues of cost going up. people not being covered correctly. i started a plan that covered pre-existing conditions and no caps on coverage, and it made it sustainable for 13 years, now. i believe some of the lowest hanging fruit that we all could agree with -- 80 senators weighed in on ideas to fix the herald care system. once we get all these outlying issues behind us, i think we will come back to that. se

now, this is separate from the other issue that congress is also debating, which is a role for congress itself, the question of naming of military bases which you mention in the open. is a role for congress itself, the question of naming of military bases which you mention in the open. these are both issues that would require a president and the pentagon to consent to. but the manner of the -- the matter of the statute is interesting because congress itself could make the decision, that they have generally been ready deferential to the states. host: we saw the senate armed services committee take up consideration on that front. tell us what happened. guest: so the armed services committee met behind closed doors in its markup of the annual defense authorization this week. what we learned on wednesday was but an amendment had been offered by elizabeth warren, the democratic senator from massachusetts, who everyone knows very well after her presidential campaign. senator warren offered an amendment that would basically give a three-year timeline to the pentagon to remove the names of conf

right now congress is starting to slow walk a package. there is a lot of disagreement between republicans and democrats about how much money, if money should even be directed towards state and local governments. how much are you going to need? gov. murphy: we are going to need a lot. it is smart at every level, including smart politics on both sides of the aisle. the last thing we need right now is for unemployment to go any higher, and you pointed out that we have been crushed in new jersey, and we are not alone. what would happen if we did not get this direct cash assistance? we would have the extraordinarily unfortunate step to take to lay off people like firefighters, police, ems, health-care workers, and educators. at the moment when we need them the most, in the biggest health care crisis and biggest economic crisis in our state's history and our country's history. the numbers are large. we extended our fiscal year to give you a little bit of a sense of the numbers. i think this understates it. we extended our fiscal year by three m

congress. we have the -- the way this works is there's not initial members. there's u.s. members and there's mexican members. at this point the united states has put forward five members. mexico has three, and we expect them to go up to five. and then there are six non-national members. we have written the rules of procedure. the rules have been agreed to by mexico. we have setup to be effective july 1 both a hot line and a web based position for submissions of complaints. so we're ready to go. there's a whole time frame which at least members of the task force are aware of. after all we expect to bring actions as soon as we think there's a violation. >> another of the most consequential trade policy issues this committee has actively engaged relates to u.s.-china, trade and competition. last year you appeared for the first time in front of our committee to testify as to that relationship. and in february of this year our first full committee trade hearing of 2020 was devoted to testimony on th

statehood even congress but e to since she came to congress and he has worked tirelessly and relentlessly to build historic support for this bill and you honor of e articipating in this historic vote. in the house of representatives, for the first time, we'll vote for district. d.c. statehood, mr. speaker, is official and personal priority for me. say lleagues have heard me this but i'll say it again. hen i was born my father was a member of congress from baltimore, maryland. appropriations committee and he served as chair of the d.c. appropriations subcommittee. time, they tell me, that person would be regarded as the of -- unofficial mayor of washington because that appropriations committee made decisions, so many decisions for the district of columbia. a big supporter of home rule. perspective the unfairness of it all, a big of home rule. his job event, he did in a way to try to make a path. path, later home rule and later a mayor and the rest and now.o where we are so yesterday someone said, can you find middle ground? ground.middle the status quo. we have to go forward. privilege ofa

we work with congress on it. if we think there's a valid complaint we start a consultation process and begin the state to state dispute settlement. >> leading recognize the gentleman from ferguson to inquire. >> don't worry. >> doctor ferguson. >> thank you for coming to capitol hill. i happened to be sitting on my porch a half a block up from business you probably will remember, use to be home to postal workers and it went away. we appreciate bringing manufacturing back to the us in your role as trade ambassador. i want to focus my comments around intellectual property. it's remarkable but american manufacturing made the rebound that it has. there are a lot of components that go into the trade deal, certainly a critical component, having a competitive tax code is a critical component as well. if we are going to stay at the forefront of manufacturing, we need to make sure our intellectual property is protected and what was developed can be brought back here as well. can you comment on what you think is a trade st

she knows have congress works and thanks. i think she may be one of the best people to talk about how we can actually change this. turning over to rachel. i was talking all muted. so think it senator dement . in thanks for the opportunity in putting this together. i'm kind of coming at it from somebody because the work that i do a cpi, i teach a lot of young staff . how the house and senate works pretty so not just talking to millennial's. i'm actually talking to jen's ears the follow-ups. and what is interesting about the conversation that i have with them isnn that they are not necessarily as skeptical i think of deficits as we were raised to be. i think they're going to be new approaches and how we talk about this issue for the next generation. i think this group is well-positioned to do. when you t think, want to talk o them, then the group that came up really politically, just the college graduates, there are coming from an era of president trump where it really hasn't been prioritized yet we run truly dollar deficits. t

facing a crisis level republican women in congress. >> there are just 22 republicana women in of congress, but they include the youngest republic woman ever elected, the first female combat veteran in the senate, the only hispanic republicanoman in congress, and the woman who some say could be the gop's first, madam speaker. >> strg women want national security. strong women want to know that we're going to protect the bord of this nation. >> this week on a special edition of "firing line." >> "firing lin with margaret hoover" is made possible by... additional fundings provided by... by...rate funding is provided support for this episode wasew provided by s like you. thank you.t' >> thas elise stefanik from upstate new york on her victory night in 2014, the youngest woman ever elected to congress at the time. full disclosure -- stefanik has been endorsed is election cycle by a political group in which i am an officer that supportrepublicans who advance lgbt equality, american unity pac. >> i believe deeply in the constitution. i believe deeply in liberty d freedom. through strength drive

the question is if congress has done anything to restrict that discretion. with respect to the case the court had before the couple of years ago, texas argued the ima actually restricted the agency's ability not to enforce the law, and you can certainly understand why congress might try to hamstring the government's ability not to enforce the laws that it passed and the fifth circuit agrees. it would be surprising if congress were to pass a law that says something were illegal and tries to restrict the government's ability from enforcing the laws, so i think we fall foursquare within the that was oneption of the areas cheney reserved in that critical footnote. here, we are not not enforcing the law, we are enforcing the law, and there's nothing that somehow says to the department of homeland security or restricted in any way. daca ismorandum says illegal. i did not see where it says if it is illegal or not, as a ,atter of administration policy we are withdrawing -- >> mm-hmm. >> i did not see that. you said there were alternate arguments. i saw only the firs

that's what congress required in the i.g. reform act of 2008, a law that then-senator obama not only voted for but he cosponsored. that law recognizes two things. first, it is the president's constitutional prerogative to manage the executive branch personnel, the president can fire an i.g. second, it is congress's intent in that law to support i.g. independence and maintain public trust. i.g.'s then should not be removed for blatant political reasons. this requires that presidents tell congress and the people their reasons for removal of an i.g. the i.g. reform act codified those principles by requiring the president to submit to congress a notice of intent to remove an i.g.30 days in advance and to explain why. now, the executive branch, under two successive presidencies of both political parties, has sought to ignore the law and keep congress in the dark. both presidents provided congress then with paltry excuses of, quote, unquote, lost confidence. in july of 2009, less than a year after congress passed the i.g. reform ac

united states congress has enough room and policy space within accommodating with the congress comes up with and that's where we are trying to move into spa space. i want to be in the position where what they put in the trade agreement consistent with the tpa accommodates the ability to work its will and bob have anything in the agreement be consistent with what congress operates. people try to draw me into the debate. the president has his executive order but that could change the u.s. law. congress has to do that and agreed to however that works out but what i want to do in the trade agreement is make sure there is space so that you can collectively decide what the policy should be and i am trying to find the language on that. you don't have to respond to this, but i certainly would like to see us take a more proactive stance on the issue as well as the ability for labor in the changes. thank you very much and i will you attack. >> what they recognize the gentleman from missouri to inquire. >> thank you mr. chair and mr. ambassador for taking the time to be here today. it's good to

the equality act is before congress right now. congress has declined or failed to act on these requests and if the court takes this up and toerprets this 1964 statue prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, we will be acting exactly like a legislature. we might as well just take the equality act and issue it as our opinion and say as judge poser said that the courts need to intervene on questions like this when the legislative branch will not do so. how would we respond to that question? >> the fact that a loose cannon doe judge poser says -- whatever you feel like it not what we are asking for. if you read the words, because of sex and if you asked in 1964 what those words mean, it meant treating men different from women. it would be discrimination to fire a woman that wanted -- a woman that enjoyed selling. there is a foundational case of sexual orientation where they fired a man that -- solving ad not be policy question that congress has repeatedly failed to address in the years since 1964. >> no more than you did i

that is something congress labored to ensure occurred. we want to build on that so the american people and congress have his -- a great deal of confidence in the funding the goes to the part of defense to secure the country. >> in response to my prehearing questions you indicated dod relies on 300 financial management systems which is a major obstacle preventing a clean audit opinion. and the department of defense made progress in closing audit findings, some of the components spent time and money correcting problems in legacy systems playing for retirement rather than focusing on developing new integrated systems. how could omb support dod in consolidating -- making sure it is not wasted on financial management systems that will soon be retired. >> two different offices have a role to play namely the office of federal financial management in charge of the audit, each of the agencies do. the office of chief information officer which is in charge of ensuring agencies help in figuring out how to modernize their legacy it systems. we spend $

that was what congress wanted. there's no problem with the interpretation it's very clear and explicit will you commit to allowing the oversight that was in the bill >> i appreciate you wrote that portion. i would also say i appreciate i had very direct discussions with people in the senate about various different oversight. that's why we agreed to a new oversight committee with full agreed to provide information that was not required under 13.3 so we have full transparency i'm happy to follow up on the specific concerns as to which different entities should receive what information i think it's important that there is not bureaucratic overlap. but again, let me emphasize, if the prac needs certain information, we will try to do what we can do accommodate it. >> well, i'm very disappointed with that answer i guess we'll have to pursue a legislative solution it was very clear that the intent of congress is that prac would have oversight of all of the cares spending i yield back i'm out of time. >> the gentlewoman fr

that said there are really important questions that the congress continues to grapple with like what about the people who have no interest structure at all. we've always been big proponents of rural researchers served areas getting assistance and if that program was designed right and is effective and a scaled correctly bread we tend to refer those programs to be honey in the pocket of consumers as opposed to be producers and we have a whole lot of other cautions we often argue about and i know those programs. i think congress will rightly debate this and there will be other isps under more stress that will probably leave more forward leaning in that relief but we are trying to be judicious about where that money is spent and for one of those to be a funny bailout. >> host: chairman powell there is talk of a new infrastructure plan in congress, trillion dollar infrastructure plan, would you personally lobby congress to have monies included for broadband expansion? >> guest: yeah, i'm one of the citizens talking about the need for infusion and i have to say i support doing something.

toid: let's turn it back congress. people talking about something in the month of july, republicans not in a big rush, democrats are. economist, what is needed, and particularly, where does it need to go to? if you are targeting fiscal stimulus, where would you target it to go the most? michael: one thing that is clear is the household sector really benefited from fiscal stimulus in the second quarter -- not in the form of stimulus checks but in the form of more generous unemployment benefits. there is some evidence that help this may spending bounce we saw. if this virus takes another adverse turn, the household sector may need more support. that could be a second round of stimulus checks, extension of unemployment benefits, but that certainly is one area. state and local governments have less so far in this episode than in 2008, even though they are facing a larger shock. the third is small businesses, the paycheck protection program ends today, i believe, and right now there is nothing set or further support for sma

have to recite your position at all and do you think congress will rethink it? >> guest: i think so. again, we have to look at the dangers and the benefits versus the burdens in society. and i think as i can, these uses of technology become more and more prevalent in society. what were going to have to establish protocols around it. now, other protocols we use in everyday civil society the same that should be used for the pentagon? these are the types of questions we have to answer. >> host: representative yvette clarke, democrat of new york,, vice chair of the energy and commerce committee, and also cochair of the smart cities caucus. joe marks of the "washington post," thank you both for being on "the communicators" ." >> guest: thank you. >> host: this "communicators" and all other episodes of this program are available as podcasts. >> the u.s. senate returns this afternoon and plans to spend the week on the great american outdoors act. legislation established a fund for maintenance of national parks and of the public lands the city meets at 3 p.m. eastern. y

congress, the u.s. house and senate passed the first national flag protection law? 1968. it wasn't until 1968. and we all know what was happening then, the height of the vietnam war and the anti-vietnam war movement. i'm going to skip a little bit. world war i, also, again, if you read the newspapers about after america got into world war i, april of 1917. again, we had this explosion of american flags everywhere. the painter did that flag series. he just looked out his window. he had a studio on fifth avenue in new york city he had a series of paintings that we see. the flag protection laws during world war i and after world war one, in the 1920's, were tightened up considerably. a lot was aimed at german immigrants. there was a fear that german -- there was a fear of german immigrants not being patriotic enough. or being unpatriotic. the grande 1920's, army of the republic the g.a.r. , which lobbied for those things, it was civil war veterans only. well, in 1919, after world war i, just barely when it

congress has power over immigration. so president trump said congress, you have to fix this. unfortunately, congress couldn't fix a broken streetlamp with all due respect to my friend andye biggs. >> no, i agree with you. i sat in congress in eight and a half years. and that they can't get anything done. these daca kids, i think they deserve some sort of revolution. i think there are a lot of good people that are here. because of no fault of their own. but there's got to be a revolution to themselves. and i worry, congressman, i don't like ripping everybody together and say everybody is bad, everybody is good. i felt uncomfortable, quite frankly, when we talked and that last segment with "black lives matter" because i think there are a lot of good things good people in there. i don't think you can say they are all lunatics, i disagree with that. but congress has got to be able to tackle difficult things congressman. and i don't even see them debating, let alone solving some of these deep issues like daca. >> you are exactly right. jason you have seen it, in some ways, you are

thank you for that advocacy, and i hope congress listens. we need to do more to stimulate this economy under these circumstances. secretary mnuchin mentioned support that he is providing to local and state governments, but that is all in the form of loans. almost all state and local governments cannot run a deficit, so with their revenues down by hundreds of billions of dollars, i hope the past the heroes act and actually provide aid to state and local governments. chairman powell, for the main street lending program, that is particularly relevant to commercial real estate, is that if they get a loan from you, they violate the loan covenants they have in their existing mortgage. i look forward to working with you on that. one possible solution is the bill that i submitted and we have had hearings on in this committee, the business borrowers protection act. certainly, getting a loan on a program that we have authorized because of the covid crisis, should not trigger and make it a pre-existing mortgage immediately due and payable. i spent this

how do you straddled outline talking to your constituents and other members ofal congress? >> it comes down to the facts when you talk about our forces in afghanistan and what's needed to do their , maintaining a presence to prevent terrorists from safe havens. americans would much rather prevent that establishment a safe haven elsewhere and fight elsewhere than here inside the united states. that's a very basic fact about what is necessary to continue counterterrorism and intelligence operations in the middle east. talk about europe and korea are partnerships where forces have been stationed for years. not because we are at war in europe but we know the best way to prevent aggression is to work with our allies to maintain peace. jean kirkpatrick and j ronald reagan the notion of peace through strength mean mesomething in that is a lesson the rand paul's of the world never seem to recognize generation after generation to be learned back to defend ourselves means we have the military second to none and the capacity to take action if threatened and that is how you prevent peo

americans shouldn't have had to wait this long for congress to take action. deserve a congress that's responsive to this long standing a sis, and they deserve president who wants to lead our just place for people of color instead of the opposite. power president, white is nothing to celebrate. so i'm proud that the house took action and a step in the right direction with the justice in policing act, which includes key banning chokeholds and no-knock warrants. andating the use of body cameras. ending racial and religious police.g by the de-mill demilitarizing the local police epartments and strengthening accountability measures to hold police officers accountable for their actions. this house can share stories of similar incidents in their own districts. the deaths of o their constituents that should have been prevented. my colleagues join me in honoring the memory of black lives that have been njustly lost to police brutality. and as i cast my vote, i carried one of the memory of naperville's very own, sandra bland. in naperville before moving to texas to pur