the low income energy assistance program. our guest is mark wolf of the national energy assistance association. washington journal is live at 7 a.m. eastern. we will be looking for your calls, tweets, e-mails, as well as facebook comments. after washington journal tomorrow on c-span, a discussion on politics with steve phillips. he built the first super pack, which supports democratic candidates. he 64% of the country is white. 41% are progressive. white country is 20 six percent of the entire united states. you take that, at that to the the 55% of color into which is the new majority. demographic has doubly tested and proven twice at the national level with the

reelection of president obama. what does this mean for u.s. politics going forward? mape's also a geographic that shows the future of u.s. politics is in the south and southwest. battleground states are the old playful states. in the southwest. it used to be known as mexico. 19, 24. 19% of voters of color is a threshold for whether a coalition can win an election. the 2010 republican tidal wave was to the weight and reelected to the crack to the senate. -- the democrats to the senate. they were able to prevail because of this coalition.

they have 19% with voters of color. this is where the picture starts to come more closely into focus. there are 24 states in america that will have 19% voters of color. though states are overwhelmingly in the south and southwest. texas areeorgia in the new battleground. they will take the legs out of the machine to make it nearly impossible for a republican to win the white house. georgia lost only six percentage points. bidder presents a great opportunity for the pickup. these 24 states have 300 one electoral votes.

the 218 magic number for majority. these states have the power to elect the next president insecure congress. jesse jackson used to say the hands that one -- once picked cotton's in leather can now pick signatures. >> i know truthfully that every would problem in america be better if more people could read, write and comprehend. we would not have these children who are committing crimes.

they cannot read. they cannot write. we have got to educate our children. you got to educate their parents. it is not just a whim. it is a necessity. barbara bush, monday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c- span3. back are going to welcome this director. we have been hearing this line that it is the least effective congress and fewest number of bills signed in modern times. you had a different take on what congress did or did not do. guest: congress introduced but do not pass a lot of bills. 66 bills in the first session is a modern record low in terms of

passing bills. but members of congress introduced 5500 84 bills. members of congress are coming up with legislation, they're just not getting it passed. host: how many did the house and senate pass? host: how does that compare to last year's? caller: it is a record low in terms of bills passed. i pulled out a few of the bills. it is a good year for baseball fans because congress did pass the bill that specifies the size of precious metal that would be used in commemorative coins, so that is important work. year fol fans because congress did pass the bill that specifies the size of precious metal that would be used in commemorative coins, so that is important work.

also the bridge over the mississippi river that connects st. louis missouri and illinois is now a memorial bridge. bills, a fair amount is the sort of trivial legislation. host: how was to gauge the productivity of congress? caller: there are a number of ways. what aggression offices actually introduce. 56 bills passed but only 5600 bills are introduced. their goal is not only to pass legislation but to hold hearings, db issues, do constituent service. at where offices are --ocating the resources

legislation is one way we tend to focus on as the only thing congress done -- congress does. members of congress have many different responsibilities and roles. i put on screen a couple of graphs to put this into perspective. leading the list, transportation, public works, health, and, government operations. at the bottom of the list, education, finance, and immigration. that is what congressional research gives as subjects. of some of those bills of those bills at the top, public land, some of that a ceremony. at the bills congress introduced -- another

chart, as well. congress is trying is armed forces, national security, taxation, government operations and politics. what comes is not introducing rights,ion is civil minority issues, families, social welfare. social sciences and history only gets one. it was to establish a new -- establish an african burial ground memorial. host: our conversation is with drutman.man -- lee you can send us a tweet @cspanw j.

how else do you gauge the productivity of congress? you can look at our congressional offices, coming up with ideas for legislation. him they are holding hearings. certainly they are holding a lot of hearings. are they serving their constituents? certainly congress is the legislative ranch of the government. they are not passing legislation, generally things are not very productive. individual members of congress, -- there iss idea 535 individual members of congress who come to washington because they have things they want to get done. him they have ideas about legislation they would like to

pass. they are working through these ideas. they're sometimes getting hearings on these bills. congress is not passing legislation as an institution. a1t: they will be in session -- in session 114 days this year. that is pretty low pre--- pretty low. so much of what comes to the floor is driven by the leaders. in --aders and others not not a ton of stuff that has consensus that republicans want to pass beckham passed through the senate. pass through the senate.

campaigning has come to dominate modern congress. when they are not in washington there in the districts to a meeting greets. -- districts doing meet and greets. when you look at what they are inches and what the topics are, the bills happened to correlate with a lot of the interests that are spending the most money. one reason why congress introduced legislation is somebody who is a campaign contributor or a lobbying industry with it -- host: from our twitter page -- with thatagree assessment?

guest: it is hard to put so much on senator reid. he is working in a congress that is incredibly divided. that partisan gridlock is a reason why very little passes. johnsonyou put lyndon as they had of the democrats in 2013 -- as the head of the democrats in 2013, i don't even know if lbj would be as productive as he was in the senate. i don't think it's fair to blame harry reid. dynamics areonal at fault. a viewer says -- that is the old

jeffersonian philosophy. the question you would ask then thate there issues congress ought to be dealing with that they are not? if you believe government should not be doing anything. federal the vast rulemaking procedure. thousands of rules are being made, it is just that congress is not making them. has at dodd frank, there been tremendous delegation in the agencies to write rules. rules are being made. congress is not writing them right now. but they are doing things. our guest is a graduate from brown university and earned his doctorate from uc berkeley. you can get more information online. what is the mission statement of your organization? foundation semi-

promotes transparency in government. we believe technology has an important role to play. we want to be open and transparent. the we believe that'll make citizens more engaged and make government more accountable to the people. of view from kiki, who tweets and regularly -- guest: that is also a reason why it is hard to get things -- a good point. ishave one party that incredibly obstructionist and what is the point of trying to bring legislation forward? it also prevents legislation from coming forward. there is a lot of opposition to a lot of bills coming forward. eric is joining us from seattle, washington on the democrats line. what i would like you

just speak on is this about the is basically the same budget that was brought out during bill clinton's time. this is what causes all the problems to start from the beginning. a warmbush did not put spending -- he had a supplemental budget peter when president obama became president he put this online. also dick cheney said deficit doesn't matter. deficit doesn't matter as long as a republican is a president. the grover norquist plan says that we will not let a -- cratic president basically what we are going through, it is history.

the economy goes good, the deficit begins to shrink. , would like to end with this ted cruz was born on socialized medic -- on socialized medicine paid them people need to question him about socializing. they always want to say socialized medicine. on his first point about there was aurplus, surplus during the clinton years, the economy was very good. during the bush years there was a lot of military spending, the economy was poor. now things are swinging back from a deficit that seems to be on the decline.

--the economy gets better one thing that is interesting in the study we did is we looked at different areas of legislation and we found that the economics and budget issues were the most polarized issues based on cosponsorship. eric points to a lot of political conflict over budget and finance issues. that is certainly real and important. go to deb from plymouth, wisconsin on the democrats line. good morning. guest: good morning. i have a couple of comments -- -- caller: good morning. i have a couple of comments. like a show focusing on

the lives of -- i am glad you mentioned the sunlight foundation. i would like for your guest to talk about how the people are funded. my question is how many of the over 5000 bills that were themduced -- do you rate as far as objection tests -- as obstructionist bills? host: thank you for your call. the question is, 56 hundred bills, how much are pure obstructionism? athink obstructionism is tactic. some of these are trivial bills.

i think if you go to congress and decide to go through the whole rigmarole to get into , you have ideas about what you would you like to see the government do. you have allies and constituents and interest groups and campaign funders who have ideas about what you should do. fairmont of these are bills that are genuine ideas -- a fair amount of these are bills that are genuine ideas about what congress should do. think a lot of them are pure obstructionism. usedinly republicans have obstructionism as a tactic to stop bills from coming forward. of a he is the co-author study available online at this am i foundation website, entitled "why congress may be more productive and less partisan than you may think." another headline from "the national journal" --

that story is available online. david is joining us from london, england. we are live on the bbc parliament channel. good morning. it is a great topic. ourselves having to defend our legislative branch of the united states, regardless of political leanings. we could talk about the perception issue, how the image of the legislative branch of america has been damaged by this congress. they have an obsession with repealing the affordable care act. the court issue that folks on

the republican side of the aisle site is the individual mandate. that came out of the heritage foundation. it is a conservative idea. it seems all other business of .overnment has been stopped a friend of mine is the member of the reddish parliament and he referred to it as a fetish that the republicans have with repealing the affordable care act. many people ask me what is wrong with your congress. i'm wondering if you could speak about that perception issue and how the reputation of our system of government, the three branches, have been damaged by the lack of productivity in this congress. at polling onlook approval of congress, it is not just this congress, it has been declining for a while. it has been in the 20's and that teens for a decade. everyonen is that

wants to blame congress including members of congress. audibly around the 1980s, members of congress ran against the institution. they said government does not work but elect me to congress. there is a way in which people in government run against government. a lot of that has contributed. more and more, you have people who are going to washington and are using that as a platform to say washington does not work. that is a strange disconnect and that feeds on the cynicism of people. people say government does not work because people are going to washington who don't want government to work. as to the question of obamacare, it has become a matter of faith that this is the single most

important issue in the republican party. it's interesting to hear from across the pond, their idea of a fetish. states, people would recognize that as well. not a new issue with this congress that people don't think the legislative branch works. people have been writing about this for more than a decade now. host: we will focus more on this but if you want to touch on this -- how many earmakrs were in that $1.1 trillion edge of that was passed last week? guest: when you have a bill that is 1500 pages long, there will be a lot of provisions inserted

in that benefit. that is one of the larger problems without congress operates. basically, the entire regular order has broken down and now you are passing these giant omnibus bills. when you have those size bills, it is easier for individuals and special interests to get friendly members to stick provisions in. nobody will read the whole bill. it is only after the bill has passed that people start sifting through this, looking for suspicious things. officially, the republicans killed theearmarks but there are ways in which provisions still get in that benefit very narrow interests. interested,'re

there is a complete list of all the signed legislation from 23rd he and w athitehouse.gov. we are focusing on what congress did and did not accomplish last year. wisconsin, independent line, good morning. caller: i really enjoyed your show. i would love to hear comments from lee about gerrymandering. oldcially comments like the and baracktom delay obama use that as far as their technical skills and understanding of the electorate vs - that has a a city city council form of government. government -- if you

get elected there, the whole community elect you. gerrymandering has been around forever but it seems like it is to a heightened science right now. i just wonder what your thoughts are if it is poisoning the system. other point is that only a handfuly

of really competitive house races because of the way these districts are drawn. guest: gerrymandering has been many people have argued that gerrymandering has increased polarization by increasing the number of safe districts. the political science on that suggests that is not actually a cause. if that were the case, you expect polarization to be much worse in the house than in the senate. it's not actually the case. are trying to spread your

voters out so the best way to gerrymander is to get these districts that are 55% your party -- you don't want super safe seats because you want to spread your voters out. gerrymandering should make competitive if it is done in a partisan way. that may actually hurt republicans down the road as the demographics shift. for now, it seems to have helped republicans in the current configuration. of house seats. host: another note -- there are more than a dozen pages on the website with all the executive orders.

panama city, florida, independent line, good morning. caller: i always get the zip code messed up. it's ok. every time i call, they say panama city. i think it's great this congress is not productive. what is that word mean? andou look at the stacks volumes of passed laws, nobody even reads these. they don't even rate a before they pass it. in the famous words of nancy pelosi, we have to pass it before we know what is in it. it's a joke. they are passing laws that are already on the books of somebody bothered to look at 1953 or 1964. i think it's great they are not productive. i don't want them to be productive because the more they pass, the more they intrude in my life. i have to go back to a previous

caller. you call yourself the sunlight foundation but you don't explain that back in the 1990s, when clinton had these surpluses, he did not have surpluses brits he never proposed a budget. that's all the president can do is propose a budget. he never proposed a budget to balance the budget. the only reason why there was one year -- i know there are four years that you can look at but there was only actually one year that we have a surplus was because the other three years they thought they had a surplus, they used social security trust fund which was put online under lbj back in the 60s to hide the cost of the vietnam war. there was only one true year and that true year was only because of the dot.com bust that bush inherited. that created the housing bubble.

if you want to get into sunlight, you have to explain 1990s thened in the want to talk about surpluses. thank you. guest: we could have a debate about that. deficits andcribe surpluses to presidents. presidents don't have a particularly important role in deficit or surplus. a lot of it has to do with the economy. out, it iser pointed congress who ultimately decides on the budget so it is not the president. he has a role in suggesting but it is ultimately congress. we tend to view government through the lens of whoever is the president. congress is 435 people and many people do not know who their own member of congress is.

maybe we don't want government to be legislating as much. quality versus quantity -- stuff thatproducing is pointless are counterproductive or meaningless, maybe you should not be producing anything. again, there is a lot of differing views on what congress should be doing and what would be quality legislation. that is beyond the purview of the study that we did. it is more a philosophical question. it is a role of government question that i don't think changed. minds will be host: we are looking at the productivity or lack thereof of congress. it depends on how you to find out -- productivity. there is this comment --

john is joining us from the u.s. virgin islands line for republicans, good morning. putting onnk you for the show as always. i enjoy c-span and your coverage. if the infrastructure bill would believe it would not be a democrat or republican issue. it would be a jobs issue which is what america and i believe most voters did when they voted these folks to go to congress and work in our behalf. would deal with unemployment the way it should be dealt with which is by employment. thank you very much. host: thank you. commentgo onto another from maryland, good morning. caller: good morning.

thank you for taking my call. i want to preface this by saying i am 82 years old and it seems to me that, over the years, it is a lot of the same old same old and over the years, what i have voted for is the person and listened to the person, not the party. cycle, we have become more and more polarized. cycles, -- couple of frankly, i think over the years that i have seen is when the presidency is one party in the legislature is of another party and they seem to temper each other better that way. voters, we need to get people who are reasonable and who are thoughtful of the whole country. that's about all i really have to say. host: thank you for watching. we appreciate it and we will get

a response. she expresses a it has a starkly been a preference a lot of americans have about divided government that you have a president of one party and congress of another party and they will find some compromise. madisonian idea that you have differing viewpoints and out of those differing new points there is a scuffle and out of that come something resembling the public interest. one of the challenges of that is thehe current system, leadership of the parties are very far apart and very interested in scoring political , compromise on the political right is seen as a dirty word. it is hard to do that when

compromise is not held has the highest good. host: is it different between the rank and file house and senate members vs the leadership? the leadership has a particular role in maintaining the majority of the party so they want to draw clear differences. the rank and file want to stay and are largely polarized and in some cases even more so than the leadership. a lot of the process is driven by the leadership in both parties, i think. they have a very strong inches in maintaining power. host: another look at the members courtesy of the sunlight foundation --

there is this from danny -- javier is joining us from new rochelle, new york, democrats line. caller: thank you for ticking my call. -- taking my call. i am undocumented from mexico. politics.ot about i watched your channel every morning. i want to talk about the tea party. it has been giving a lot of damage to the congress. i would like to warn all the citizens of the united states about cuba and rubio.

[inaudible] that is the problem, the cubans want to do what they wanted to to castro. they are not allowed to. they will just do nothing good for this country. host: you have been in this country how long? been here for 30ve years but i have never gotten papers. this of tough to get them. host: are you worried about getting deported or are you pretty safe? caller: i don't care about that.

i never did nothing wrong. safe.etty if they deport me to mexico, it's ok. thank you for taking my call. you for taking the time to phone in. immigration issues are hot issues. there has been talk about an immigration bill for one year now. bill -- an immigration i'm not sure what i can add to his question. it is certainly a hot and lively issue.

it is something congress has struggled with. there are a lot of house republicans who have a lot of pressure from the teait is somes struggled with. party and conservative anti-immigration legislationt pass and they don't see any real incentive of going against those groups who are often active in the primaries. host: let me follow-up on this tweet -- we will look at a far larger number from u.s. debtclock.org. how much does all of this drive the debate in washington? issues of debt and spending have really dominated the congress. there was a government shutdown

over this issue. a lot of people are mindful of this. the republican party has made government spending an issue. in our study, we found that areomic and budget issues based on cosponsorship of bills and they are the most polarized issues. it has made it difficult for congress to make any progress on these issues. that is why there was a government shutdown. host: democrats line, go ahead. when i good morning, joined the military, we took an oath that we would protect this country. this is an insult to every person who was in the wars for it would have these politicians

to represent the people. there, we did not go as republican or democrat. we put our lives on the line. that's what they need to do to the republicans and democrats. they say they are looking out for the interests of the american people. charles grassley said he received social security. he was also involved in the farm deal. we are paying for this. when he to think about this. -- we need to think about this. we are paying the same gas prices. up and theis going rich's money has increased. they need to have ethical rules. i am retired.

the say anybody working for county, you cannot do business with the county. they need to do the same thing with those politicians. they need to find out how many family members are benefiting out of those bills that are being passed. host: thanks for the call. there is this idea that for all americans, republican and democrat, that is not what really matters. barack obama said in his 2004 ,emocratic convention speech and i think it taps into a deep feeling that many people have, that we should put these partisan differences aside. in washington. people live in a bubble in washington and there is a my team versus your team competitive spirit here that

thermines that sense of larger issue of being all- american. ethics, icerns about think a lot of what is hampering congress from getting legislation passed is more about these partisan differences than ethical issues. i will stop there. host: we are talking with a senior fellow at the sunlight foundation in washington, d.c. we are looking at congress and productivity in 2013 and what to expect this year. here is another point -- guest: sequester is --

host: they say it is the best thing obama had done. guest: i'm not sure how to respond to this. one of the things we keep coming back to is the issue of the budget and that's an issue that really animates people. it fits with what we found in the study that it is the most will arise issue of all the issues in congress. often the issues that are most ones thatare the political scientists have found. they say the more you know about an issue the more polarized you -- or the morer you know about government, the more polarized your views will be. host: on polarization, another viewer has this --

let's go to california, good morning. caller: good morning. when the senate majority -- minority leader, mitch mcconnell came out after obama got elected the first time and said his number one goal was to make him a one term president, that pretty much set the tone as far as nothing will get done. the republican party did not really care about the country. they just want obama to fail. if obama fails, the country fails and i think they really want that. all they care about is getting the presidency back. at any cost. mitch mcconnell's famous statement about wanting obama to be a one term president was one of those lines that gets repeated because it taps into

this very competitive spirit. understatement but it's a battle for control. particularly at the top levels of the parties. wantsmcconnell republicans to be in charge and he wants obama to be a one term president. he will use the powers that he has in the senate to try to block the democratic agenda. host: we will go to maryland next, republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. span know that i do watch and i love each and every one of you for bringing issues forward and i listen to a lot of this. i want the government to know that the american people are willing to help in any way but our federal government has gotten way too big.

they have taken so much away from the american people. i am calling on the governors of each state to take control. by law, we, the people, are the fourth part of the government. we can take more control back and stop this bipartisan fighting in the federal government. the stuff they are implementing, we need to know, they need to come forward and the claim that the american people. host: thank you for the call. from one of our viewers -- guest: this question of

effective solutions to real -- hows -- it seems like would you measure that? how would you know what effective solutions are? how would you know what real problems are? that's what people in this town spend countless hours debating. at the bills that congress is introducing, you can get a sense of what they think is problems are -- help number one, armed forces and national security, taxation, lands, natural resources, politics and education are the the ones that have the most bills. one might think that families and social welfare are real issues of congress only introduced 31 bills related to families and 66 bills related to

social welfare. are the priorities of congress trying to deal with the actual problems that most people face? people have looked at that and they find an incredible low correlation between the issues that congress is doing with and the issues that are most for the american people. as for effective solutions, that is a harder question. there are a lot of people who spend a lot of time in washington trying to think about what effective solutions would be. they often represent large companies and industries. a lot of the average citizens don't really have a voice in coming up with those effective solutions in washington.

that's why you see a lot of legislation that is written with the help of lobbyists. most lobbyists represent corporations so legislation is written for corporate interests in washington. host: here is another tweet -- our last call is from east chicago, indiana, good morning. caller: good morning. as far as the unemployment as far as 1.3 million people are not adding unemployment benefits -- i was trying to come up with a solution for the democrats and the republicans. can maybe take a few week theyars out each

get unemployment, maybe they can go back -- maybe that can go back into the budget. i don't know if finances the real problem. host: are you out of work at the moment? caller: yes, i am. host: thanks for the call. the unemployment bill has been an issue, a partisan issue but the senate will decide bipartisan-introduced bill. cost of unemployment is small when it comes to the larger federal budget. it is one of these issues that has been seized on as a highly partisan issue because democrats and republicans have very different philosophies about how to deal with unemployment. certain issues tend to be

amplified by the partisan battle and this is one of those issues. utman is a senior fellow at the sunlight fund the foundation. >> some news from the new york times on the federal health care law that says the obama administration is delaying another provision of the law that prohibits employers from providing better benefits. the law says employer sponsored health land must not discriminate in favor of highly compensated individuals. tax officials said they've not been able to come up to clear regulations for employers to follow. you can read more on that at nytimes.com. jayne o donnell will talk about health care federal exchanges.

then read wilson will speak of the agenda. a 9:15, the federal program aimed at providing assistance to low income household. we will talk with that -- about that with mark wolfe. >> i think without question the notunications act is keeping place it the marketplace is. they should do what it can to calibrate the regulations to fit the time. if it is contrary than we are essentially stuck. the sec needs -- the fcc needs to bring this to reduce the silos.

and the to treat companies differently. would be very useful. i worked closely with our colleagues to help make that a success. i monday on "the communicators." john kerry held a news conference on friday. they're holding talks on the north american free-trade agreement. trade deal will continue next month in mexico when penny pritzker that's the country. this is half an hour.

>> good morning. nice to be here with everybody, and i am delighted to welcome my friends and north american counterparts. we are happy to have them in washington today. i have had a chance to meet bilaterally a number of times with both the secretary and the minister, but this is the first time we have been able to meet all three of us since i became secretary of state. i'm grateful to both of them for making the trip here, and i hope to visit their countries, both of them, very, very soon. during my years in the senate and certainly since becoming secretary, i have often found myself in absolute awe about how extraordinary this continent really is.

while we often wind up traveling to troubled spots in the world, the truth is that worth america is a remarkable, remarkable unity of three very important and powerful countries that share values and interests and are operating on those values and interests every single day. we are three nations separated by peaceful borders. we are neighbors, we are partners, and we come together to confront the full range of challenges that we face, and believe me, this is something that is not every day everywhere in the world today. north american they nations are promoting democracy and shared values at home and around the globe.

we encourage daily our cooperation on matters of international peace and security. we work to gather on nonproliferation, on syria among middle east peace come on a host of different challenges to our security, and we are also collaborating to address all of them more effectively than any of us could do alone. that is the power of north america and this relationship. through initiatives like the north america-central american security dialogue, we are improving security throughout the western hemisphere and beyond, and we are reducing the impact of natural disasters, providing assistance in the face of health am a humanitarian challenges. we have launched trilateral initiatives like the north american plan for animal and

pandemic influenza, which was critical during the h1n1 outbreak of 2009 and remains intact today in order to help us address similar challenges should they arise at any moment we are taking steps to support economic growth that is inclusive, shared. a few weeks ago we marked the 20th anniversary of nafta. and i think we have learned a couple of important lessons that can help inform the vision of nafta. the first lesson is free trade works. in a world where economic policy is foreign policy, a free trade is a key ingredient for shared prosperity, for shared growth, and share security. every single day the united states does more than $3.4 billion of trade in our nafta partnership.

more than $1 trillion a year. that is more trade than we engage with brazil annually, and each month we do more trade than we do with india annually. to give you a sense of the vitality of the partnership. over the past 20 years we have opened up a new north american marketplace. we have integrated supply chains and reimagined entire industries from agriculture to airspace. today north america is far more than the sum of three economies. it is the collective output of what has become a fully integrated manufacturing center. if you buy a car in mexico, it may well have been assembled in canada and contained made in america parts. there are workers in kansas

putting the finishing touches on aircraft that contains fuselages assembled in mexico and engines built in canada. this kind of economic integration is benefiting all three of our nations economically, and has also improved living standards and working conditions across the board. i will tell you because i was involved in the nafta debate in the united states senate. i remember how intense that debate was. it divided america. we could never really have envisioned even the best arguments what has happened in those 20 years. the second lesson that we can learn from the past couple of decades is that globalization is not slowing down anytime soon. and no matter how much there is some dislocation, and we acknowledge there can be, the fact is that no political leader or country can put that genie back in the bottle.

when i joined my senators in supporting and passing nafta, we did not do it because it was easy. we did because we believed it was a risk worth taking, and it has proven true. nafta was at the vanguard of the wholly-interconnected world that we face today, and nobody has any way of transforming the realities of this desire of people everywhere to have better jobs, more jobs, or education, or opportunity that comes with that opening up. yes, globalization can be a challenge. but it really has meant that our countries have to be more dynamic. we have to be more competitive. we have to be more innovative. that is not always easy. globalization is an enormous opportunity, and if we can take advantage of it as we build on this strong partnership, we

believe it will help all of us to provide better opportunity and more security to our citizens. if we want to compete, we actually have to make it even easier to trade, easier for people to invest in our countries. we talked about that this morning. we talked about how we can improve the transborder movement of both goods and people. we talked about how the transpacific partnership good could particularly have an impact on the global economy and also be a normal sleep -- be enormously beneficial to each of our economies. if nations want to compete, the united states, and the that come -- the united states, canada, and mexico can best to this as partners.

that includes the subject of energy. i look forward to discussion for the opportunities for energy cooperation, and we talked about that today, ways in which we can address the enormous challenge of climate change, which we all agree in our nations must be addressed, but also how we address the question of taking advantage of the vast resources we have in this continent, bring greater energy opportunity to citizens, but do so in ways that are environmentally sustainable and responsible. next month president nieto will host obama and prime minister harper for the north american leaders' meeting in mexico. the lessons of the past will be at the forefront of our minds. our focus fundamentally needs to be on the future, and that is were it will be come on the growth of our markets, the strength of our partnership, the health and well-being of our people, and the security of our continent for years to come. mr. secretary?

>> thank you, and good morning to all. thank you, secretary kerry. thank you, minister. this has been a very good meeting for mexico. it has been an opportunity to talk about issues that are relevant to the region. at the outset i would like to recognize from mexico the long hours, the long days that secretary kerry, the risk he is taking to construct a better world, and i think those risks have paid off and mexico recognizes that hard work. we had a good meeting this morning. in addressing many regions. i would like to thank the members of the press. [speaking in spanish] i would like to thank mexican and foreign correspondents for their attendance. as secretary kerry said, division of 21st century north america, we will work to become

the most competitive and most dynamic region and the world. we will be honored to host president obama and prime minister harper in february. we discussed many topics on how to work, to increase our prosperity, our leadership, our international engagement, and the opportunity of citizens in the north american region. president pena-nieto has said he believes 21st north america is called on to become the most competitive region and the world. prime minister harper and president obama also share this. we are willing to make this work. as secretary kerry said, and the minister believes, we have shared values.

we have a working partnership that has worked for the benefit of our people. we also are a region that enjoys an important number of competitive advantages going forward. we have competitive labor costs. we have huge transportation and logistic advantages. we have [indiscernible] in human capital. we have a new paradigm. we have had a framework that has worked and has worked well. as remarked the nafta 20th and niversary, it is important to see that the size of the resources. as this press conference is going on, more than 2 million dollars of goods are being traded every minute. behind that trade there has been

job creation and perspired he prosperity for the region. mexico looks forward to partake in an effort to advance prosperity in the region. we know we must find news ways to go forward. we need to collaborate more on education, science, technology and innovation. we have the opportunity to work gather in addressing regional concerns, engaging with central america because it is a latin american region. we think we have the political framework and political will that is in place to implement the decisions that we have taken. it is a north american idea that is a very good friend of mexico. it is stronger than ever. mexico, the u.s., and canada are working together to spread their regional community, and that commitment was reaffirmed this morning.

again, thank you, secretary kerry, and thank you, minister, for your partnership in the endeavor. >> thank you very much, secretary meade. it is a pleasure for me to be here today and to celebrate the good partnership and good relations between our two countries. thank you for the hospitality. we had great discussions today celebrating 20 years of nafta and the huge and significant economic growth and trade we have seen between our three countries. we also have seen the growth of our political relations. to work together to see more jobs, or opportunity, what we can do to make our economies more competitive, what we can do to boost income, job creation in all three countries. nafta has been an unqualified success, and one of the side effects is the strength and political relationship between

all three countries where on issue after issue after issue there is a strength in partnership were not only we're working together, but getting a getting a lot farther faster than any of us could have ever hoped 20 years ago. we had an opportunity to discuss security and management, infrastructure. we had the opportunity to talk about regulatory cooperation, all things that can help boost job creation. this remains a significant priority for canada. we look forward to continued preparation for a successful summit. we appreciate the significant leadership from the president of nieto, and the speed of reforms that have taken place in

his first year in office. remarkable. we had a strong relationship with the calderon administration. i want to thank you, john, for the significant american leadership, with respect to the israel-palestinian conflict. i look forward to visiting with you tomorrow and to do what we can to support your effort to seek a resolution to one off if -- one of the most intractable issues in the world. your leadership as well with respect to trying to bring a political solution and end of the violence of assad and his war on his people, we will support you in those common values and efforts that we strongly support. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> the first question will be from michael gordon from "the new york times." >> question for secretary kerry. sir, after you became secretary of state, you made the point repeatedly that it was important

to change assad's calculation to achieve a political solution that you needed. a year later, it is clear that the assad regime believes its position is stronger than ever. in his letter to the united nations, the syrian foreign minister who will be leaving the -- leading minister who will be leading the delegation of geneva ii suggests that the purpose is not to discuss the political transition. he said some point in the invitation the syrian government received are in conflict with the legal and political position of the state of syria. my question is, how can you expect to make progress toward a political transition at geneva ii if the assad government does not accept the purpose of the conference, which is what it's letter suggests? have you been in contact with the syrian government over the past 24 hours that it accepts

the purpose of the meeting? doesn't the letter mean more pressure needs to be brought to bear on the assad government in order to make political headway? thank you. >> thank you very much, michael. yesterday i addressed directly the revisionism of the syrian regime in its effort to try to divert the purpose that will not be successful. more than 30 nations will possible, all of whom must be far must be committed to the geneva went communicate. .- communiqué you were in paris the other day when the foreign minister of russia stepped up and reiterated that the purpose of the conference is the implementation

of the geneva i communique. nobody would have believed that assad would have given up his weapons. but he did. the reason he did was his patrons came to understand that he had to. i believe as we begin to get the geneva and begin to get in this process that it will become clear there is no political solution whatsoever if assad is not discussing a transition and if he thinks he is going to be part of that future. it is not going to happen. the people who are the opponents of this regime will never ever stop. there will be a low-grade insurgency at least and at worst potentially at the level of a civil war if it continues because they will not stop. where not out of options with respect -- we are not out of options with respect to what we can do to further change the calculation, and we have made that clear to the russian foreign minister and others, and nor are other players short of

an ability to be able to have an impact here. they can bluster, they can protest, they can put out distortions. the bottom line is we are going to geneva to implement geneva i. if assad does not do that, he will invite greater response in various ways from various people over a period of time. i am not particularly surprised that he is trying to divert this. he has been trying to do this for months, trying to make him the protector of serious against -- make himself the protector against syria's extremists, when he has even been funding those

extremists, even purposely ceding territory to them to make the argument that he is somehow the protector. nobody will be full. -- fooled. we will not be fooled by this process. the foreign minister labral has stated that he is supporting this communicate and the government must support that com munique. since russia is one of the primary benefactors of the regime, russians have a high stake in making sure that assad understands what the parameters of this negotiation are. >> second question. thank you. >> you discussed how to improve the transit of goods here in north america. many people in the u.s. have been asking the three governments to update nafta, to take advantage of recent reforms in mexico. would your government be willing to update nafta or be willing to open it up formally?

and also to include some issue secretary kerry, for you, how do you respond to those who believe that at some point the u.s. should include canada and mexico in the negotiations if only to avoid future conflicts between the nafta rules and whatever you end up agreeing to with europeans? >> i would like each of my guests to address this also. over the last 20 years, as i mentioned, we have developed this incredible network of trade agreements in the western hemisphere. we have long wanted to open up those benefits. i think stepping up all of us to the tpp is a critical component of moving through next year tier post-nafta.

you do not have to open up nafta to achieve what we are trying to achieve. there are plenty of ways for us in cooperation -- and we discussed a lot of them this morning with respect to borders, with respect to regulations, with respect to energy cooperation, technology, innovation, investment. there are a host of things that we can move forward on that will take us to the next level without having to go back and reopen it. i think we are well engaged and looking forward to a much more robust relationship. what we did do today was set down a series of specific items that we will follow up on quickly so that these can be the items that our presidents and prime minister will end up negotiating in february. today's meeting halls out the -- holds out the prospect that

this can be beneficial. mr. baird? >> we believe nafta has been an unqualified success. the transpacific partnership trade negotiation which all three of us are in offers of us are in, offers of us the opportunity to strengthen the trilateral partnership, and we are going to use that opportunity to do so. >> nafta has worked well on many levels. in the last 20 years, trade in the region multiplied by three. investment in the region multiplied by eight. mexico is now the third trading partner of the u.s. and canada. we are the second and the sixth largest markets of the u.s. and canada respectively. mexico is the first market for exports from arizona, california, and texas. we are the second largest export market for other 20 states. put the numbers in perspective,

exports to mexico from the u.s. were larger than exports to china and japan together. they were larger than the sum of exports to germany, france, poland, and the u.k. put together. that is the platform on which we have an opportunity to build. i agree with secretary kerry and what the minister said that it is not necessary to reopen nafta, but we have to construct the idea of a dynamic north america. north america is the single most important block in the world today. the three economies standing before you today is about 1/ 3 of the world's economy. we are the largest exporters of most advanced industries. we have the obligation to review how the economic process is going in such a way as to remove any obstacles for trade, investment, and economic prosperity to be an advantage.

what we agreed to today will allow us to have an agenda to have mechanisms that will allow for the commitments that we can reach to be fully implemented. in terms of the trade relationship with europe, at some point we will have three bilateral trade agreements with the european union. it is in the interest of mexico that those are the benefit of the north american region. we think that is in the best interest of canada and u.s. as well, and we will work to ensure those negotiations further increase the north american competitiveness with a view eventually to having a more integrated perspective from north america and the european union. >> thank you. a question from the canadian press.

>> my question is on a bilateral matter. the canada-u.s. issue, the case of pipeline. last february secretary kerry you said you were hoping to be in a position to offer a decision on keystone in the near future. it has been almost a year. since then the canadian government has said it would not take no for an answer on keystone. this week your canadian interlocutor is in washington and has repeatedly asked for a decision because apparently the uncertainty is becoming untenable for the oil industry. i would ask you to answer your canadian friend. >> i will answer my canadian do it, but i have to according to our administrative process and the rules and regulations under which i have

to operate. i think he understands that. we are currently engaged in the environmental impact statement analysis, and an analysis will be made with respect to the national interest alternately, and we are just not at that point yet. i have not received it. they have not finished it. there were questions raised in all the public comment peri od, and those comments have necessitated appropriate answers. the public has a role in this. we are all accountable to our publics. the democratic process demands that we do that. we are doing that, and i can promise our friends in canada that all the appropriate effort is being put into trying to get this done, effectively, and rapidly, and my hope is that before long that analysis will be available. then my work begins. >> if i could as well respond,

john and i have had discussions with this in the past. we will be meeting later today. this is a tremendously important project for the future from the perspective of the canadian economy. 26 months ago, hillary clinton explained the concerns that the administration had with the aquifer in nebraska. the state realigned the of pipeline. we hope the final report is out in short order. that the administration will be in a position to make a positive decision. this is a great project for the future economic prosperity of canada. there are a lot of jobs here for the united states. a great project that will increase the energy security of our closest friend and ally. we obviously want the report

-- want to see and look forward to a positive decision, a positive justice is and for job creation. >> thank you all, everyone. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. i think we are going out now. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> turning out to international news, the "washington post is reporting the syrian's opposition is reporting to peace talks. the "post" says it sets the stage for what world leaders hopes will be the first talks for the syrian government and its opponents after three years of fighting. uranium enrichment it's one of the country's most important commitments. parts of an agreement are set to be implemented tomorrow. the "associated press" shows the agreement shows how president

hassan rouhani is welcoming a deal. we will bring you updates on the c-span networks. and on monday, the u.s. supreme court heard oral arguments on the president's recess appointment hours. the court is considering the constitution's recess appointment clause. at issue is whether president obama overstepped his authority by making up one midst to the nlrb during a limited pro forma session to the senate. this is an hour and a half. >> this would repudiate the legitimacy of thousands of

appointments going back to george washington and going forward would diminish presidential authority in a way that is at odds with the constitutional establishment that the framers have established. the case -- this would be needed to strip presidents of their authority to make appointments and to field pre-existing vacancies. >> you see that it would repudiate the constitutionality of appointments. you do not suggest that the actions with be invalid going back how far you want to go back. >> i do not. it certainly would repudiate their legitimacy of those appointments. >> how many board decisions would have to be redone, how is the board coping with that problem?

>> there are many hundreds of poor decisions that are under a cloud as a result of the d c circuit's ruling in this case. the board will have a considerable amount of work to do if the decision were to be affirmed. there would be issues about waiver, issues about whether there is authority sufficient to justify what the board did under other circumstances. that would have to be sorted out with respect to the ruling. >> what would happen if under the reasoning of this case, what would happen to the decisions of appointed judges of which there have been quite a few. >> there has -- that would be a serious question and it does point up the difficulty. >> you would argue the de facto officer doctrine. of course you would. you would apply that in innumerable cases. you think we're going to go back and rip out every decision made?

>> it casts a serious cloud over the legitimacy of those actions and it does point up the fact that the racist power including appointments during intrasession recesses has been used to fill offices of great importance. >> you started off by saying it would repudiate so many actions that have been taken. i have a start question. suppose i agree with the court of appeals that the only interpretation of the constitution is that the vacancy must have arisen during the recess by hypothesis. i agree with that. ok? what do you do when there is a practice that flatly contradict s a clear text of the constitution, which of the two prevails? >> the practice has two prevailed. ask if you ignore the

constitution. often enough its meaning changes. >> in the situation the meaning of the clause with respect to the timing of the vacancy has been a matter of contention. >> you're questioning my hypothesis. you have to accept my hypothesis. the text is clearly against you. should i say, it says something else but the practice for over 200 years has been something different and is -- it is the practice -- >> yes or no. >> practice gives meaning to the constitution. >> you are questioning my hypothesis again. i am assuming a clear text and a

practice that is contrary to it. >> it is extremely unlikely that would arise. >> i am answering. i think given the practice going back to the founding of the republic the practice should be govern but we do not have that here. this provision has been subject to contention as to its meaning since the first days of the republic. >> let me ask you about the premise. it begins at a particular point in time and a continues for some time. i was trying to think of some other things that might fall into the same data gory. one would be an appointment to federal office. you are appointed as solicitor general at point in time and the appointment continues. another example might the a marriage. it happens at a particular point in time and continues for some time. would we say that your appointment as solicitor general

is happening today and will happen again tomorrow and happened yesterday, is that the way the english language is used? >> the word happens might not always be an apt phrase. it is a natural use. if i may i will give you a counterexample. if count -- congress had enacted a statute in the summer of 2008 that said the federal reserve is invested with all the powers necessary to deal with any financial emergency that may happen in 2009. at emergency first arose in november 2008. i do not think anyone would interpret that statute is denying the federal reserve the authority that congress

conferred. may happen might not cover every situation but it is a natural reading that cover some. it is susceptible to being interpreted -- >> we're kicking off the standing point. what constitutes a recess? your position is that an process [inaudible] if we look back historically congress met and they met continuously. and then they were away for six months, even nine months. there is nothing like that, the intrasession recess could be an hour. what do we do with the division of a recess running for months and today the intrasession recess might be momentary. >> i think two points to make in response to the question what to do. the first one is that with respect to the original understanding, we do think that the term recess and the phrase

the recess certainly at the time of the founding did encompass recesses that occurred during a session of congress, during a session of the legislature, and not just in between sessions. i would point the court to the jefferson's manual of parliamentary procedure which describes a resource -- recess i adjournment as occurring within a session. i would appoint to the adjournment clause itself which says if one house of congress wants to take a break of bloggers -- than three days during the session, it needs the consent of the other house which indicates that the framers contemplated the possibility of a break longer than three days. i would point the court to the parliamentary practice of the house of commons were the speaker of the house of commons

had authority to call elections when a member died during the recess. >> of course, justice ginsburg's question points out that your argument is, it seems to me, in search of a limiting principle. a lunch break, a one-day break, you have thought about this. a three-day break, a one-week break, one month break. how do you resolve that problem for us? >> i think the way we resolve that problem is by looking to the adjournment clause. we think that if it is a break that is sufficiently short, that it would not require the one house to get the consent of the other, but that is a de minimis recess and that is not a recess in which the president would have authority. >> is that three days? >> what about the pro forma session? they do not require the consent of the other house. >> the problem with the pro forma sessions, i think, is in taking about the link of the recess. the recess, we would submit, and this is based on the formal action very definition of recess at the time of the founding and

now, which is a suspension of business i'm a recess was from january 3 when the session started until january 23 and the reason i think -- >> you think there is no recess during a row form a sessions? >> there is a recess. the reason is because the senate has issued a formal order that no business shall be conducted and that is a formal -- >> let's focus on that. what -- instead of saying no business shall be conducted, the order said it is not anticipated that any business would be conducted. does that suffice to illuminate that as a recess? >> i think that is a different case and i think, concededly, a significantly harder case for the executive -- >> it is difficult and harder but it suggests you are talking about a couple of magic words that the senate can change at the drop of a hat. maybe the point is not that significant. >> i think it is. it is a formal action by the senate by rule saying that no business shall be conducted. there are other formal actions at the senate took during this

time that are compartment -- that are confirming. the senate passed the resolution that gave committees the authority to submit reports and report bills. it passed a resolution giving the president pro tem for -- >> you're not answering the reald thrust of the chief justice's question. we could be back here if we said they did not phrase this in the right way. or they will phrase this differently and we would be back here with the same essential problem. you're asking us to pick this on a formality that the senate could obey. that suggests -- suggests it is the senate's job to determine if they are in recess or not. >> there has to be a limit to that. -- to that point. what we're talking about is a

power that the constitution gives to the president. the president has to make the determination. >> you're making an assumption is that the senate has to take the recess. the senate could choose it wanted to and i think there might be some citizens that would encourage it to to never recess create and to work everyday. >> that is true. lots of people do. >> they could decide not to take a recess. it seems to me that is the choice of the constitution. >> what do you say about the 20th amendment that says that january 3 was a meeting, are you saying they violated the 20th amendment? this is the congress of the united states shall meet on january 3 every year unless they appoint a different day and they have not. they met him, -- in pro forma session. what do you think about the other part that says they cannot adjourn for more than three days without the approval of the house which they did not have. are you saying that the senate

violated those other amendments of the two parts of the constitution or are you saying that they have different meanings in the three parts? >> i think it is hard to see what the senate did with pro forma sessions complies with either. >> you're saying they violated -- >> if they have pro forma sessions on january 3, they violate the 20th amendment of the constitution. you're saying that if they had a pro forma session on january 3, since their meeting -- the recess was still on and lasted more than three days, it was a violation of that adjournment clause of the constitution. now, that is one way to interpret it. over a long time, they have apparently met her former on these days. or we could try to make them mean the same thing which would mean it was up to the senate.

they considered that a meeting, it is a meeting. what do we do? >> there is another option. >> would you write that opinion saying the senate violated to provisions of the constitution? >> no. i do not think you need to read that opinion. >> why not? >> because you might perhaps give the senate some deference with respect to requirements that apply only internally to the congress. but when what you're talking about is the senate's use of pro forma sessions in a manner that deprives the president of authority that article ii would otherwise give -- >> that is my basic question really. why is this an important case? i think -- i see what you're saying on this one. that is fine for an answer. thank you. >> what my basic question is is why is this an important case, in your opinion. you have said because there are thousands of recess appointments. you have been able to find what 102. we have had an example of where this court for better or for worse, said that two members of the board is not a quorum and we got some more members, the debt with the problem. they ratified all those opinions

to my they get with it. it did not take them too much time. we have different political parties taking absolutely opposite sides, it seems to me, or some members thereof, depending on the political party of the president. and we have a clause that had to do with the constitution and the problem of intercession recesses when they were seven months and nobody could meet. ok, that is not true anymore. so explain to me. i am not saying you're wrong. i want to hear from your mouth why this is an important case. >> it is important for multiple reasons. with respect to practicalities and fundamental problems of constitutional structure. let me start with practicalities. this does not purport to be comprehensive or anything like

comprehensive. part of the reason why it cannot be comprehensive is that there are not records of when the vacancy first arose with respect to huge numbers of recess appointments and that is because i submit it was not considered material. second, there are numerous practical examples in our history that when it made a great deal of difference that the president had the authority to make an appointment to a vacancy that preexisted the recess. we mentioned the 1948 example. the secretary of labor dies on the verge of a very extended intrasession recess by the senate. they will be out for a month, back for 12 days and out all the way from june. they go out and they are out for month and they're back for 12 days and their out all the way

until december 31. >> would you agree that this is used to do with emergencies arising from congressional absence, that most modern presidents and i say this going back to president reagan, president of both parties, essentially have used this clause as a way to deal not with congressional absence but with congressional intransigence. a congress that simply does not want to approve appointments. absence in this day and age, there is no -- this is not congressional absence anymore. this makes you wonder whether we are dealing with essentially historic relic. something whose original purpose has disappeared and has assumed a new purpose that nobody ever intended it to have.

>> i do not think it is original purpose has disappeared. nlrb was going to lose its quorum. >> as a result of congressional of -- refusal. >> that gets to the second point. it may be true as a matter of raw power that the senate has the ability to sit on nominations for months and years of the time. but that is 100 miles from what the framers would have expected. if you look at what hamilton said in federal 76 about the advice and consent role of the senate, he said it was a power that was really exercised and would operate invisibly or silently. advice and consent was a matter of days. >> there is an aggressive argument in favor of executive power and it has nothing

whatsoever to do with whether the senate is in session or not. when the senate acts in your view irresponsibly and refuses to confirm nominations, the president must be able to fill those positions. that is what you are arguing. i do not see whether -- what that has to do if the senate is in session. >> the recess power may act as a safety valve even that intransigence. >> i think you said the rationale for the recess power is the president must be able to have the government functioning even though the senate is not around. you seem in your answers to be departing from the senate not available and making quite another justification for this. the senate is always available.

they can be called back on very short notice. so what is it that is the constitutional flaw here? it is not that the senate is not available. the senate is available. it can be easily convened. >> let me take a half a step back and answer that question this way. perhaps it sounds like this is an aggressive assertion of executive authority. i ask the court to think back to federalist 51. what the framers were most concerned about was that congress and the separate -- in the separate powers calculus was going to a mass authority and drain authority and energy from the executive and therefore, the executive needed to before to fight against those actions by congress. and one specific way in which

the framers decided to fortify the executive was by rejecting the notion that the appointment power should reside with the senate. the framers considered that and they rejected it. and the reason they rejected it, as this court noted in its opinion, was to protect the executive against encroachment by the legislature. >> but the compromise they settled on and moving away from that is that the president will nominate and the senate, if it so chooses, can not -- and for nominee.nfirm a you spoke of the intransigence of the senate. they have an absolute right not to confirm nominees mud that -- confirm nominees that the president submits. it seems to me you are latching onto the recess appointment clause as a way to combat that intransigence rather than to deal with the happenstance that the senate is not in session when a vacancy becomes open.

>> those things asked those are often situations in which the senate is not in session when a vacancy becomes open or needs to be filled, i guess would be the more accurate way to say it. i will give you another example from the 1940's. taft-hartley gets elected in 1947 in the senate -- in the summer. on requirement is that the general counsel of the nlrb must enforce the ban on secondary what cuts within a fixed time, 30 or 60 days. it turns out there is no general counsel at that time. >> if the -- the congress and executive have come together to address those problems and a vast number of cases by providing there can be an acting general counsel of the nlrb to deal with that situation. >> with respect to multimember boards, the vacancy at does not cover them.

that is one reason we have the problem here. beyond that, the framers made a judgment that this was not going to be left to congressional largess. that is why there is a recess appointment clause. >> let's talk about the 1948 emergency, the secretary of labor. there was a vacancy in that post the president has the authority to convene congress congress could be back here in monday. the president has the authority to convene congress. if there is indeed this terrible emergency you're talking about, the president has the power to call them back. >> i think it seems to me the framers made a different judgment because they gave the president both the power to call back in extraordinary circumstances and the recess appointment power.

>> whatever was the case in 1789, congress can be back here in one day. article ii, section three says they may convene both houses. that is true. the president has the power to call him back. >> what i would say about this, and to your point, we have a stable equilibrium is him that has emerged over the course of the country's history between the two branches. what we are advocating for is the status quo. is the equilibrium that has emerged since president started making appointments during those recesses. it continued to the present. >> i'm not sure this argument applies consistently throughout the three claims you make.

if you're going to rely on history and the development of an equilibrium with respect to what happens means, it and you will do that again, that it seems you have to look to history and the development of an equilibrium with respect to congress's definition of its power to determine whether a are in recess or not. the third argument -- the history is on the senate's side, not on your side. and if we are going to take a kind of practice with the development of equilibrium seriously, you might win on questions one and two and lose on question three. >> that would be of importance to it the executive. we should also went on question three. there is not a long history reflecting equilibrium with

respect to pro forma sessions in order to restrict the president's ability to use the recess appointment power. there is no history before 2007 of this daisychain in in conjunction with an order that no business shall be conducted. >> there is no long practice of doing it. there is no also no long practice of rejecting it but if i could take you back to that, you said the sessions may violate the adjournment clause. would you also say they violate the presentment clause? the senate has passed legislation during the sessions at and sign the legislation -- has signed the legislation. >> i think the right way to think about that is the same way we would think about the senate declaring recess and then coming back early because of an emergency, as happened with hurricane katrina.

once they are doing business, they are doing business. what they did was they came out of pro forma session, passed legislation, and then went back in. >> it seems to me that we are searching for a proper interpretation of the word session. after all, it is in the provision. this is what, the 113th congress? they have the first and second session. that is how the records are based. this is considered judgment by both houses of the legislative branch as to what session means. it seems to me that that has very powerful bearing on the question.

why don't we differ as to what congress as to what the session means? there is a recess between the sessions. >> that is not interpretation that can be squared with the body of evidence. i would start with the text of the constitution itself and the adjournment clause, which set page 91 a. one thing that says is that " "neither house during the session of the congress shall, without consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days."

it seems clear -- otherwise these recesses would not be happening during the session. it is clear they contemplated the possibility of breaks more than three days. they provided a mechanism for this. >> you are relying on adjournment. that does not have the word recess. >> that is right. i'm going back to think about what session means in the recess appointment clause where the session is also used. i would submit it means the same thing here. >> if it means the same thing, then what you are telling me might have some validity.

but wouldn't that require the definition of of recess -- of a recess to be a period during which houses have consented to an adjournment? >> the dictionary definition of recess is a suspension of business. you could have those kinds of recesses -- jefferson's parliamentarian manual refers to this -- >> can you have adjournment without a suspension of business ? >> i'm talking about that intrasession recess points. the meaning seems to be the session. the full session. you can't have recesses by adjournment as the parliamentary manual said. this is quite substantial evidence that the term the recess could refer to a break during a session and not just

breaks between sessions. i don't think there is evidence that would lead you to conclude that recesses are not within the meaning -- >> the most surprising thing you have said is not just the view of language at the time of the framing, but what the purpose of this clause was. this is a very well briefed case. i have looked at them. i have read them. i cannot find anything, and i may have missed it, i cannot find anything that the purpose of this cause has anything to do with lyrical fights. -- clause has anything at all to do with political fights.

to the contrary, hamilton says the way we will appoint people is that congress and the president have to agree. that is a local problem, not a constitutional problem. -- a political problem, not a constitutional problem. it was george bush who made six point -- appointments. president obama has made for. -- four. he says this clause is a supplement to the basic -- what have i missed? where is it in the history of this clause, in its origin ination that it has is a purpose to allow the present -- president to try to overcome political disagreement? >> i don't think that is its purpose, but it is in the constitution. the president has the authority. >> can you give me an example where the language, particularly the word happen -- your examples

is a good one but i don't think it applies. the language is over here. the number of appointments on happen is few. if you are worried about james tobin, commerce has passed a law congress has passed a law that can be taken as looking at a vacancy occurring when it occurs within 30 days of the beginning of the recess, which would have taken care of tobin. so look at the language difficulty. look at the comparatively small practice in that area. look at the other ways to get around the problem. give me another example of the constitution where you have both language and purpose pointing one place and yet this court has come to the optical illusion -- opposite conclusion. >> don't think language points >> don't think language points unambiguously in one direction. battles occur over time. give me an example with the word vacancy where that word vacancy is used but the word is did not occur. >> a vacancy is an enduring state during >> give me an english example.

>> my statutory example -- about a financial emergency. >> i'm asking you for an example with the word vacancy. >> a vacancy is an enduring state. >> could you find an example? i can -- i am gathering from my answer you cannot. >> may be the language in the constitution looks ambiguous now, but it has been the subject of contention from the time of george washington to the present. with respect to the question of the practice, i don't think it is correct to assume that because there are certain number of identified examples existing vacancies being filled, that's the sum total. i think this is far less than the sum total.