, once it starts to collapse, can unleash forces that are very unpredictable. leave it there. if our viewers are interested in this piece, daniel serwer writes for the political. they give for your time. the house is about to come into session. think you for watching this morning.

signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 7, 2014, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip but in to five minutes, no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arkansas, mr. cotton, for five minutes. today, i want to recognize colonel joseph bush who will retire next month after 30 years of commission service in the united states

army. colonel bush was born and spent the first 12 years of his life in fayetteville, arkansas, where he attended st. joseph's elementary school. his father taught electrical engineering at the university of arkansas and he remembers going down to razorback stadium to see president nixon arrive for the game of the century. while it didn't end well for the razorbacks, arkansans who were alive then forgotten that day. following his father's death, he moved with his family to wisconsin where he received a four-year army rotc scholarship from the university of wisconsin-madison. he was commissioned as an infantryman upon graduation with a bachelor of science in 1984 and began what would become an exemplary career in the united states army. as a lieutenant and captain, colonel bush commanded four infantry platoon companies. he served in operation desert

shield and desert storm, operation iraqi freedom and enduring freedom as well as with the old guard at arlington national cemetery. his medals is bronze star with oak leaf cluster, the ranger tab. on a personal note, colonel bush was my commander while i was stationed at the old guard in arlington national cemetery in 2007 and 2008 and while i was deployed to afghanistan in 2008 and 2009. he set the highest standard for leadership, professionalism and duty for every old guard soldier. finally, i also want to thank his wife, c.j., and their two daughters, megan and shelby. military families carry a heavy load, too, and they also sacrifice much for our country. c.j., megan and shelby endured many days without their loving husband and dad. all so he could stand guard on

the front lines around the world. we're grateful to them. on behalf of the united states congress and a grateful nation, i want to thank colonel bush and his family for their service. i wish him the best in retirement and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, for five minutes. mr. ompson: thank you, speaker. mr. speaker, reading is a fundamental education skill that provides the foundation for academic and life success. on march 29, the central intermediate unit number 10 located in the pennsylvania fifth congressional district hosted their elementary school reading competition. it's a great event to promote reading. each year the intermediate unit chooses a list of books to be read and this year 41 books were utilized for the competition. students read books from the list and answer test questions

that are created to measure the student's comprehension and recall of the books. on competition day, students learn the value of hard work, the importance of reading as well as teamwork. along the way they also have some fun. the team with the highest number of points overall was awarded the grand championship. clearly every child that participates in this event benefits as they are encouraged and motivated to expand their horizons through reading comprehension. congratulations to the students and the faculty of the howard elementary school for being the 2014 reading grant champions. the howard team, coached by s. amber buchanan, and ms. jilen scored a total of 68 points. for a lations to all job well done.

this is the first time that howard elementary has ever won grand champion, and congratulations and keep on reading. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess

>> during this month c-span is pleased to present our winning entries in this year's student cam video documentary competition. student cam is c-span's annual competition that encourages middle and high school students to think critically about issues. students were asked to create their video answering the question -- what's the most important issue the u.s. congress should consider in 2014? one of our second prize winners is mcclinly laird, a junior from oklahoma. she believes congress should consider the issue of illegal immigration. >> forehand, show the forehand.

ok. >> since the age of 8 i have been passionate about tennis. i have a high national ranking and i won a state championship. i could not be as good as i am today without the help of my coaches because my most recent coach is from arbegin tina, i became interested of the impact of immigration on american life, not just in athletics but science and the arts. my research led me to conclude that the most important issue facing congress today is immigration reform. the impact of immigration on the art, i visited an internationally acclaimed dance company. >> with a company like this, it's a very international, our dancers are coming from all different kinds of countries and

different nationalities. >> we might be a small ballet company in the middle of america, but we are a world class organization. we hire choreographers and stagers and dancers from around the world. we have 25 dancers and 16 of them are foreign. so immigration plays a big role in our company. our spanish dancers, they give a different emotion on stage than maybe the chinese dancers do. but when everyone comes together, it's really beautiful and they feed off each other and learn from each other. >> to look at the impact of immigration on the sciences, i visited a chemistry lab at the university of tulsa. >> united states is number one in chemistry. graduated arge students and post dogs and faculty members. most of the graduate students

and staffs at any school are going to be foreigners. these students when we get them here then they contribute by working in those research labs in chemical companies. when they do that work, that ultimately results in the betterment of society. >> meeting these incredibly talented people i was astonished to learn even they can be discriminated against simply because of where they are from. >> i think one of the most negative aspects of our current immigration system is the labeling. we talk about bullying in the school and name-calling and how wrong that is. but we as adults, as leaders, as lawmakers, as representatives, we are the worst of the lot. i bring you back to the word illegal. to label a group of people as illegals is very damaging. it's a scarlett letter. that's what nazi germany did to the jews.

>> now i didn't know what illegal meant until high school, freshman, sophomore. you apply for jobs and they would ask for your social security number, and i couldn't. once again i couldn't. >> they are not criminals. they are not here to change the blood line. they are not here to change the culture of language or the food. >> i remember elementary school, pledge of allegiance to the flag. i would get up with them not knowing i was pledging allegiance to flag i was not a part of. my parents, yes, they crossed illegally. but those people call it that, crossing illegally. i see it as something heroic. they sacrificed something to give me a better life. and that's just something you can't take away. >> one student came here, she was the valedictorian of her senior class. she came here as an outstanding student.

she was taken away like a thief in the middle of the night and taken to a country she really knew nothing about. now, to me that's not american. that's not what the statue of liberty says. >> they want your hungry, tired, especially your poor. no. we have to give them food stamps? forget about it. support their children? obamacare? no. they need to erase that from the statue of liberty, just like they closed ellis island. that's why this patch is there. you were literally welcoming boats. >> aye. >> mr. corker. >> aye. >> eye. -- aye. >> i was thrilled when the u.s. senate by overwhelming majority did what was right for america. they passed an immigration bill. >> they got together and came up this 845-page bill, which is great. and overwhelmingly the senate passed it. >> the bad news is that that

bill is now sitting in the house of representatives. they have not been able to move it forward. they have not been able to yet get agreement. >> we have no intention of ever going to conference on the senate bill. >> the valedictorian who happens to be undocumented should be given an opportunity to go to college, and as a reward for getting that education and being a productive member of this society, our society, because they are not going back home. home is here. give them their papers. so that when that brain surgeon graduates, they can go to work and save some lives. >> if the dream act was passed, part of me would be happy, but the other part of me wouldn't be ok because my parents are not in protection. separating families is not the solution to solve the broken immigration system. >> we have to be visionaries. and this is why i think, the current congress has failed

miserably is because the people that we have elected, they don't have a vision. they can't see past their noses. >> they aren't all valedictorians, they weren't all brought in by their parents. for everyone who is a valedictorian, there is another 100 out there they weigh 130 pounds and they are hauling 75 pounds of marian adross the desert. >> this is not immigration, this is an invasion. >> we are really shooting ourselves in the foot when we say to some of the most talented people in the world, we are not going to let you in. we are not going to let you stay here. we are not going to let you became part of the united states. that's exact opposite of what we have done through most of our history. we would be harming ourselves to follow that kind of polcy. -- policy. >> to watch all the winning videos and learn more about our competition, go to c-span.org and click on studentcam. tell us what you think about the issues this student wants

congress to consider. post your comment on studentcam's c-span page or tweet us using the #studentcam. >> in news this morning the hill is reporting the senate intelligence committee will vote today to declassify a part of its 6,300-page report in the c.i.a.'s bush-era interrogation programs. democratic senators found report found waterboarding and other tactics did not aid in tracking down osama bin laden. the c.i.a. has disputed that conclusion, and some of the committee's other findings. thursday's vote will cover the executive summary, findings, and religiouses in the report, but not the full 6,300-page content. again from the hill this morning, the intelligence committee, by the way, is meeting behind closed doors and we'll show you any comments that members nay have afterwards. later this hour, we are planning live coverage of house minority leader nancy pelosi. she's holding her weekly briefing. it's expected to get under way at 10:45 eastern.

we'll have live coverage at 10:45. we are also working to bring you remarks from house speaker john boehner as he holds a press conference to address veteransish -- veterans issues. can you see that here on c-span also. a reminder house returns for legislative work. they'll be in at noon eastern and we'll be live when they gavel in. but right now a discussion on the supreme court's decision yesterday to lee move certain limits -- remove certain limits on campaign contributions from today's "washington journal." ca, journal@c-span.org. joining us on the set is lisa rosenberg. give us a little bit more information about the supreme court cost decision. let's begin with the history of the finance laws. what did the court -- which lauded the court consider and what is its history? these laws have been in place since the watergate era.

watergate was a campaign-finance scandal and congress thought that three pullers were necessary to address corruption. those pillars were spending limits, contribution limits, and disclosure. spending limits have been chipped away at since the earliest days of the campaign finance reform laws since the 1970's and the final nail in the on spending limits happened when the supreme court decided a case a few years ago. that leaves us with contribution laws and disclosure. yesterday's decision undid the contribution limit part of the campaign finance reform scheme by saying that the overall tax individual can give to candidates is unconstitutional. they said you can give millions

of dollars during an election cycle during the campaigns. host: how did this come about? guest: the plaintiff had been giving to individual candidates and reached the cap. there are limits on what you can give to individual candidates. there are $2600 limits. those are in place. mccutchen had reached the cap of what he could give overall and he decided he wanted to give more and challenged the constitutionality of the case. millionsody can give of dollars if they choose to. host: who backed his case? guest: primarily right versus left division, as we saw on the decision. a number of folks on the right to have been opponents of campaign finance reform

tcheon in hisu efforts. the fcc is supposed to enforce the current laws. were supposed to enforce -- finance caps on which he on what he could give. they could find him or do other thegs if he had gone over limits. host: let's talk about the limits -- the plaintiff. the is with the chairman of rnc had to say. he quoted campaign-finance laws as putting campaign-finance laws -- putting committees in a place where we have the most restrictions, the most disclosure, and that we can raise the least. what has happened is that the groups that can raise the most

disclose the least. he went on to say that this allows campaign committees to raise more money and they will disclose who their donors are. guest: to a limited degree, that is true. the reason that the groups that can raise the most disclose the least is also due to the supreme decision saying that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money in so-called independent campaign expenditures. that was the supreme court changing the law a few years ago. the supreme court started us on this path. that resulted in a lot of money (c4)g funneled to these 501 nonprofit organizations that can spend unlimited amounts without disclosing it. the problem is, that does not change. corporations can still spend

secret money in unlimited amounts or individuals can remain anonymous and spend unlimited amounts if they choose to and go through the nonprofit regime, or they can go through the parties and the candidates where there is disclosure. i would argue not enough disclosure. ge are are supportin legislation for more disclosure. we can talk about that later. nothing is fixed. nothing is changed. we will not see less money and we will not see much more disclosure unless the bill that we support is enacted. do you believe that the so-called super packs will be less likely to raise as much money as they did in past elections? guest: they can take corporate money. this decision applies to what an individual can give out of their

own pocket. it does not apply or change the prohibition against corporate moneys giving directly to candidates. if corporations want to influence elections, they will give through super pac or secret nonprofits. this is just about the individual donor. what did the loss restrict before and what this decision do to them? cap forhere is a $2600 canada. that remains in place. there were also over all caps that individuals could give to candidates. it was roughly $120,000 cap that an individual could give overall to the parties and the candidates. that cap is now gone. s whoave to think of it a can really give $120,000 or

more. we are talking about individuals having the freedom to give millions of dollars. they can give more than most people are in a year. tot is what is disturbing many of us about this decision. what do you think this means for the november 2014 election cycle? guest: we will see a lot more money by a handful of individuals. they are the 1% of the 1%. they the very few wealthy individuals that may take advantage of this decision and right million-dollar checks -- and pen million-dollar checks. hat in hand, write me a check for $3 million. they're going to know who is generous and who is going to give them those checks and they will know the interest of those individuals and what they want to have happen in congress. do these candidates

benefit on both sides? guest: they do. we have done some analysis that indicates slightly more of the people who have maxed out previously under the earlier limits that were struck down, they are slightly more republicans than democrats that max out. both parties will ask for these large contributions. we will see whether they receive them. the only thing that can happen is if you are a donor and you want to hedge your bets, you can give millions of debts to both -- millions of dollars to both parties. this is what the majority for the court had to say. in right to participate democracy through political contributions is protected by the first amendment, but that right is not absolute. congress may regulate campaign

contributions to protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption. it may not regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics or to restrict the political partes in -- the local participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others. what do you make of that? think it is naïve. if contributions can be limited or restricted, i am not sure what appears more corrupt than a member of congress or a candidate asking for a $3 million check from one person. to me, that is the the pygmy of the appearance of corruption. john roberts does not see it that way. i think he is missing the point. in other parts of the decision, he said that the only corruption is what is called quid pro quo corruption. i give you a million dollars in

exchange for your vote. that does not happen. that is not realistic. the accessruption as and influence. say,n to what i have to take up my cause on the floor of .he senate or don't take it up it is very hard to prove there's a direct link between the contribution and what is happening. is, at the very least, the appearance of corruption, but according to roberts, that is ok. rosenberg is here to take your questions and comments about the court's decision yesterday. we begin with stanley in westborough, massachusetts. independent color. -- caller. caller: i don't vote anymore because there is double voting. they do not check id. 35,000 came across on the news this morning.

i am putting all of my effort making money so that the irs does not get it. whatever they do does not affect me. this on twitter from one of our viewers. why congress is allowed to be bribed? bribed judges, police, teachers now too? we are getting your thoughts and comments morning. don, ohio. caller: it is terrible. it is leading to more corruption in this government than we already have and we have more than we can handle now. tohink we need a third party stop all of this.

is are people of the united states and the supreme court .udges are wrong obamacare tong on a certain extent. it is out of hand. that is why we need a third party called we the people of the united states. thank you very much. host: carol, ohio. democratic caller. caller: weekend vote against him. there are more than us than there are of them. we can vote against this because of the candidates doing this. against these candidates. especially the republicans. that is the only thing we have left is to go out and vote against them. take carol's points. caller: she is right. my concern is that voters -- we

have low voter turnout in this ,ountry and that is in part due to cynicism. this will make more people cynical and less likely to vote. i hope that is not the case, but i am concerned that is the case. donors that want to give support with a $25 contribution or $50 contribution are going to say, why bother? dwarfed by these million-dollar contributions, why should i contribute at all. i think it will depress participation by people who cannot afford to write the large checks. we should vote. the caller is right about that. corrupted bys been the money that will be flowing into these elections. host: what to make of these

numbers? they report that in the 2012 election, an estimated 600 44 individuals donated the maximum amount allowed by law to candidates and political parties. about 60% of the money went to republican causes. the 93 point $4 million in contributions were a tiny fraction of the overall amount of money spent on elections. roughly 1.2 million americans made the nations of $200 or more in the 2012 election. fore donations accounted 2.8 billion dollars or 64% of the amount of money spent on the 2012 election. one of the key numbers in that story, 644 individuals who maxed out. those of the people we were talking about earlier. those of the folks that gave the $123,000 or so. they have every incentive to give more. they had the means to give more.

i am concerned about a democracy the year people have of my members of congress. 640 four people can go to john boehner and say, i will write a million dollar or $2 million check to your party and to your members, but i really do not whatever tax issue, obamacare, what is -- whatever it is come to the floor of the house. that is a dangerous way to run our democracy. the first amendment argument should cut both ways. out myhecks are drowning voice as a small donor if i wanted to give $25 or $200. that is nothing. no one will pay attention to that. no one will notice that because thesebasically dwarfed by

massive contributions. that is what concerns me about those numbers. scalia wrote that if the first amendment protects flagburning, funeral protest and not see parades, despite the offense, it protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition. political campaign speech was alive and well before the mccutcheon case. that is what is so naïve about the majority's decision. sean mccutcheon and everyone else is able to give 100 $23,000, more than most people earn in a year. no political speech before yesterday. if mccutcheon wanted to give money to every single candidate, he could have given money to every single candidate in the republican party, just not the maximum amount. that is the only difference. -- what isng about

being ignored by the majority is the political speech of the rest of us. 99.9% of us do not have the means or the ability to make these large contributions. what about our speech? that is what is ignored by the majority of the court. host: both parties know how to play the game, and play they do. obama has raised more money than anybody. there is always a way to get money. calvin, what do you think? caller: the subject is interesting. thank you for taking my call. i have two questions in a statement. can you translate in layman's terms? what does this mean for state, local elections? does it just impact congressional and senate races. my second question is, does this change in capping campaign --

removing the cap have to do with an african-american man in the white house? is it race and gender specific? host: what you mean by that? caller: in the state of oregon, we have a number of women in wonderful leadership positions. there is a good old boy club that exist. they create these systematic race systems to create manufactured allegations and andst assault against women people of color in positions. worried that we are going to have a woman president after obama? i would just say that i think this supreme court would be hostile to any campaign

finance restrictions, no matter who was in office. they truly believe more money in politics is better and i don't think it has to do with race or gender. in my have to do more with wealth. mightre interested -- it have to do more with wealth. i do think this court would have been hostile to these reforms, no matter who was in office. question, it does impact state and local elections as well. any caps now are illegal. if a state wanted to cap campaign contributions, they cannot do that. host: republican caller. richardyou mentioned nixon, but you failed to mention obama using the irs to go after his political opponents.

fair, yougoing to be are going to have to mention both. obama has a way of getting around this because he can sick that donate aple lot of money. he did that before the last election. the irs was focusing on conservative as well as left-leaning donors in their investigation. way they went about their investigation, and this was into these nonprofit organizations that were engaging , and ition activities should investigate nonprofits that are engaging in election activities because nonprofits, tax-exempt organizations. they get a benefit from the

government. they should not be engaging in electoral politics. that is written in the law. to investigateht it. they went after certain groups in a clumsy and inappropriate way. there is no question. there has been no evidence of conspiracies or proof that the obama administration directed this. i support efforts that would rein in these nonprofits. impact.a dangerous money can go secretly through nonprofits to affect our elections. i disagree with the caller and i think that we need to address that issue as well. there are two issues that we need to focus on, the direct .ontributions from individuals

host: what about this point. it is not bribery if you are fully disclosing your backers. one should focus on being an informed voter. a billwe are championing that was introduced by senator kaine from maine. it should be introduced later this week. a bill thationing would require disclosure of these donations. if they're $1000 or more, within 48 hours. we do not have that system. right now, we have a system where we have to wait as much as three months after a contribution is given to find out who is donating to a candidate. with these million-dollar contributions potentially coming in, we want to know right away. i agree with the comment that you need to be an informed

voter. there is no question about that. we do not have the laws to inshore that voters -- insure that voters are informed. the media has failed to report that those justices that allow big-money donors to ruin democratic voters practice as are all republican appointments. is there any wonder why the country is living in ignorance? we are getting your thoughts. your take on the supreme court 5-4 vote in lifting caps on campaign donations. caller: thank you for taking my call. it was a terrible decision. i am tired of them buying their way in.

you have guys like sheldon adelson who wants to put up billions of dollars because he has an agenda of taking online betting away. the second, i want to make, i am sick and tired of turning my tv on and hearing republicans come out and all they talk about is repealing obamacare. it is here to stay. instead of coming up with a solution to fix problems, their whole goal is to reveal obamacare. put intothe democrats the senate, they all want to go against it. hats -- anything the democrats want, the republicans want to go against it. host: here is a reaction from capitol hill yesterday from a couple of lawmakers. the senate majority leader tweeted this -- citizens united was one of the first -- worst decisions.

today's ruling further drowns the voices of working americans. the minority leader for republicans in the house say that the first amendment rights for americans is being protected by the court's decision. pelosi -- they have chosen to pour even more money into our process and politics. we must restore fairness and pass the by the people act. senator cruz said our democracy works better when the free speech rights of the citizenry are unfettered. those are some reactions from capitol hill. mary, alabama, independent caller. what is your take? oregon, i was a lifelong democrat until 2008 when i supported hillary clinton. i was called a racist and so

were the clintons. now, all of a sudden, the democrats love mrs. clinton. . am and independent thank you for removing me from my party of long-standing. mrs. pelosi, i appreciate being on before her. , they love their union money. our president in the midst of the shooting at fort hood, fundraising in chicago at a 30,000 dollar a plate dinner. the night of benghazi, he was in las vegas with harry reid raising money after an ambassador was shot. money means as much to the democrats as it does to the republicans. host: we got your point. carol on twitter says the same thing.

it is a myth that republicans have more. the role of them, are they impacted by this decision? much. not as it comes down to how much you can give. , theverage union worker average member of the union is not going to be able to give $1 million. this decision does not impact workers, except to the is extent -- except to the extent that they will be drowned out by the million dollars. this is a problem because both parties will do whatever they can to take advantage of this decision. they will raise as much money as they can in the largest chunks that they can. it is a bipartisan problem. the difference is that the democrats understand that this is a problem and hopefully will

try to keep finding ways to address it. the republicans are embracing it wholeheartedly and will pose legislative efforts to try to remedy the problem. host: democrats still take the money? guest: no question. some of these other people stole my thunder. the unions -- tom stiers is going to give a million -- $100 million to campaigns and i wish someone would look into his background. i think he has invested in the caroline corporation, which will build the hype line to the west coast of canada. -- the pipe line to the west coast of canada. dollars.millions of our president sells access to the white house for $500,000 a

pop. shine some some light on the stuff. guest: we want to shine some light on all of these contributions. that is why we have advocated in favor of the disclosed act. that would shine light on the dark money that is paying for campaign ads. lastw $300 million in the election cycle coming in that we could name. there were probably a lot more than that. andant to shine a light know every contribution over a thousand dollars that comes into democrats or republicans. we want to know about it within 48 hours. there is no question that we want disclosure of all that information. we do not care which direction it is coming from.

>> while political parties are re broad based and so temper polarization. what do you make of that argument? >> that remains to be seen. i think what we might end up seeing is more polarized parties, again because the donors who are motivated to give these massive amounts of money. again, on either side, left or right, may be more partisan than the average donor. they may have beliefs that are just sort of -- again more

partisan, stronger, more polarizing than the average donor. so will the parties respond to that? exchange for multimillion dollar checks? i think they might. so i think we might just see the polarization becoming more entrenched in the party process. we'll see. but again even if that doesn't happen, i think we need to be concerned about the corruption to our democratic process. i think it is very, very dangerous for the members in power to have -- to rely on, to really need these large contributions, these massive contributions. and of course they are going to be listening to the donors' interests. i think that is a corrupting influence of this money that cannot be ignored. >> it's the need for full disclosure that is missing in our election. that is harming the pros sefments dark money should be outlawed. also in the opinion pages this

morning, the vice chairman of the federal election commission writes, how not to enforce campaign laws. the federal election commission is failing to enforce the nation's campaign finance laws. i'm in a position to know. i'm the vice chairwoman of the commission. at my confirmation hearing last year i promised to uphold those laws. i have been on the commission only six months. and quickly learned hour paralyzed it's become and how the courts have turned a blind eye to this paralysis. the problem stems from three members who vote against pursuing investigations and potentially significant fundraising and spenged violations. in effect, cases are being swept under the rug by the very agency charged with investigating them. lisa rosenberg, what's happening over at the s.e.c.? >> that's right. it was designed to be ineffective. congress designed it, it's supposed to enforce the campaign finance laws, but it has three republican members and three democratic members.

so you see gridlock or deadlock on the most important cases, the most challenging or divisive cases where three members will decide that they don't need to take an enforcement action so nothing happens. and that's by design. that is congress saying we don't want our campaign finance laws enforced. the s.e.c. is going to have less to enforce right now because now there are fewer rules after yesterday's decision. they are also charged with disclosing the money that's flowing into the political system. and again that's where we hope to see more real time disclosure of these large contributions. a we just need the laws to be updated so that the disclosure can happen in a more

comprehensive and faster way. host: from the editorial board pages, "the new york times" says, the court follows the money. the supreme court on wednesday continued its crusade to knock down all barriers to the distorting power of money on american elections. the "wall street journal" says, political speech wins again. the supreme court takes another step back from pernicious limits on campaign donations. gwen in detroit michigan, democratic caller, what do you think? caller: i think that the republican party has always found a way to cheat and lie and go around the backdoor. all of their commercials are ull of lies. they just flood people's tv's and calling them on the phone and things like that. the people just need to get out and vote, if we don't donate, then we won't be able to have any commercials or campaign

commercials to counteract what they are saying. thank goodness for msnbc because that does put the spotlight on a lot of these things here. so we just can't give up. we still have to donate. host: pennsylvania, independent caller, hi, rich. caller: hi. good morning. my point is this, if chief justice roberts is -- wants to put his money where his mouth is, then i say this, pass this transparency law and make these caveats in the law. number one, anything under $2,000, any candidate can vote for anything. but if he takes a $2 million contribution, then the primary interest of the person contributing to his campaign, he now has to recuse himself from that issue. a couple of compaverages are this. you take $1 million, they are no longer allowed to vote on anything that has to do with gambling. if he takes a $2 million

contribution for exxon oil, he's recused from voth anything for or against the oil industry. there would be a list of each candidate and how many contributions they have taken over the $2,000 limit and those issues would follow them and they are not allowed to vote for or against these issues or introduce any bills. that would immediately eliminate the quid pro quo and buying influence. these people say i'm only contributing because i like the leanings of this candidate. put your money where your mouth s. give them $2 million and he's not allowed to vote on your issue. that could go a long way to full disclosure, that could go a long way to eliminate these contributions. thanks. host: lisa rosenberg? guest: we agree with rich on the full disclosure parts. what we would suggest would leave it to the votes once they have these -- armed with the information, the vosers can termine whether -- >> good morning, everyone. sadly today we come together

with really great sadness in our hearts for the men and women of fort hood. for the second time in five years this community of soldiers, service members, civilians, and their families have naysed tragedy at their base. our thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families, and the entire fort hood community. sterday in mccutchin vs. s.e.c., the supreme court decided to pour even more money into our politics and our process. really sad. our founders, they sacrificed everything. their lives, their liberty, their sacred honor for a democracy, a government of the many. not a government of the money. it wasn't surprising what the court did. this being the court that decided citizens united, but it adds great insult to a terrible injury to our democratcy. that's why we have our dare, you

have heard me talk about before, d-a-r-e, the disclose special interest money is coming from, that doesn't mean just at the time of donation, that means at the time of advertising. people know the source of the message when the money is fueling it. amend the constitution to overturn citizens united. it's hard but it's a great mobilizing tool across the country because the public has -- is so skeptical about government and their voice in it. reform, we have our bill that john sarbanes is co-sponsoring. the democracy bill to empower small donors. and empower, stop this wholesale throwing up of obstacles to voter participation across the country. this all amounts, it amounts to

change, to empower people. the court talks about voice in a democracy. but all of this money is suffocating the airwaves. suffocating the voices of the many. that's why it's really important for us to have this reform message be part of the campaigns. whoever wins the election should know that the american people demand that their voices be amplified and not the voices of those who would exploit the environment, exploit workers, oppose raising the minimum wage, the list goes on and on. it's a terrible agenda here. this is very, very wrong. disappointing. not surprising from this court. that was yesterday. the day before we had great cause for celebration this week, the affordable care act's first open enrollment period ended and we learned more than seven million americans enrolled in

quality affordable coverage. the affordable care act is working thanks to the historic law millions of americans are enjoying new health security and a personal and economic freedom that comes with it. as you know more than seven million people enrolled on the marketplace. 3.1 million in addition young people have been able to stay on their parents' policies until 26 years old. millions more secured new coverage for themselves and their families through expanded -- the medicaid expansion. and probably this will bring us to around 15 million people. we are still waiting confirmation on some of the medicaid numbers, but i think it will be at least to that point. the affordable care act, as was its purpose, is to make health care a right for the many not just for the privileged few. for all americans and harkening back to our founders, again, they promised life be, liberty,

anti-pursuit of happiness in the declaration of independence. they put that forth. this is about a healthier life. the liberty to pursue your happiness, not just loss, but free to self-employed, start a business, change jobs, reach your fulfillment, follow your passion, not be chained by your policy. this week -- it's been a buzzy week. this week -- busy week. this week republicans unveiled a very different set of values. values that the privileged that values, the at privileged big oil profits over at the expense of our seniors, incentives to send jobs overseas at the expense of creating jobs in the u.s., tax breaks for millionaires at the expense of the middle class. our distinguished ranking member on the budget committee will speak to all of these issues in a moment. the republican budget unveiled

by chairman ryan on tuesday is an attack on our seniors, our students, our workers, our families, our middle class, and our future. republicans are planning to end the medicare guarantee for our seniors, open the doughnut hole, and force them to pay more for checkups, prescription drugs, even as they give -- big tax give aways to big oil. aarp swiftly panned the republican budget writing, removing the medicare guarantee of the affordable health coverage ue for older americans, and asking seniors and future retirees to pay more is not the right direction. that's where the budget is, it's a path. it's a statement of values. it's a blueprint for the future. this is not the right direction. the republican plan will cost our economy three million jobs in just two years, but it protects the perverse tax incentives that ship american jobs overseas. republicans are raising taxes on

middle class families with children by an average of at least $2,000, according to the o.m.b., but they give up $200,000 tax break to millionaires. perhaps most forgettable are the cost to our nation's invest n-education, early childhood education, head start, k through 12, and beyond. . the cuts in pell grants so hard to understand. the ryan republican budget even rejected the immigration reform with its promise of creating jobs, stronger small business, a growing economy and dramatically shrinking the deficit, as the c.b.o. said over a 20-year period, nearly $1 trillion in deficit reduction coming from the immigration bill. the chairman said we