talk about congress? you will pause and think, well, i can think of one or two, how about to do nothing? [laughter] how about pork barrel? and that is about it. so i think perhaps more important than how members of congress and staff think about the balance of power or have the executive branch folks think about the balance is, how the american people tend to look at it and i would maintain that not withstanding nixon in watergate, carter in the energy economic and iran crisis, reagan and iran-contra, clinton and monica, george w. and iraq and wiretaps -- most people see the presidency has been as strong as ever and accepted as a necessity in these perilous times. more olver i suspect if you poll people on whether they thought congress should be a branch of government they would throw up their hands and say we have enough gridlock as it is. so i sometimes ask myself why is it the american people tend to see the presidency as being so strong and why they supported as being such want despite all the obvious

when they talk about congress? you pause and think of one or two. how about "do nothing?" i think perhaps more important is how long the staff thinks about the balance of powers or how the american people tend to look at it. i would maintain that not withstanding nixon and watergate, carter and the energy economic anin iran, wiretaps, most people still see the presidency as being as strong as ever and it is accepted as a listed -- necessity. whether or not congress should be akko legal branch of government, there would probably throw up their hands and say no. -- on whether or not congress should be a co-equal branch of government. despite all the obvious dangers and pitfalls, the answer we always come up with is about the same. people believe that to some justification that only a strong, central figure can lead the nation during world wars or economic depressions, against the current terrorist threat. the president speaks with one voice to the nation and to the world. congress on the other hand as seen is a tower

where the court should be differential to the congress. in response to a question by senator dewine, he said that the supreme court ought to defer to congressional findings, and the answer will be in the record with this letter. in response to my quelg, chief justice roberts said the following: "and i appreciate very much the difference in institutional competence between the judiciary and the congress when it comes to basic questions of fact finding development of a record. and also the authority to make the policy decisions about how to act on the basis of a stick record. -- on the basis of a particular record. it is not just agreement on the record, it is a question of whose job it is to make a determination based on the record. as a judge that you are beginning to transgress into the area of making a law is when you are in a position of r reevaluating legislative findings because that doesn't look like a judicial function." now there the chief justice comes to grips with the dominant role of the congress that ought to be deferred to an

to by congress. but if the court holds section 5 unconstitutional, it will on the one hand be one of the most dramatic acts of had if american constitutional history, because for the supreme court to hold even a portion of the voting rights act unconstitutional, will be traumatic and momentous symbolically, but at the same time as a practical matter, even if the court reaches that conclusion, i think it will only slightly touch upon the issues that abbey is raising. because the only issue before the court is whether the regime that congress has reinforced of singling out particular parts of the country for unique federal oversight, remains constitutional and adequately justified. but even if the court says to to that, that decision will not directly address the issues of race and redistricting that i think are so central to abbey's book. and so as a third issue, let me turn to that question kind of head on. and at least try to provide some perspective on it issue and here my theme is going to be ambi

i know the congress has it.his plan includes, i think there are eight or ten per the company is you can pick from, including blue cross blue shield -- i think there's a real road, and another is a post office plan. you get to pick which plan you want. there is no problem going to any doctor you wish to commit any specialist. your medications are taking care of 80/20 and i cannot understand why congress is not fully behind a plan like this. i saw on one of the programs where senator grassley had received campaign contributions from insurance companies on almost $400,000 from 2003 until 2008. he had received almost $300,000 from the pharmaceutical companies. host: we will get a response. guest: the obvious answer here it is the expense. such a great health care plan that congress has, even some in the military might be very happy with their plans. it is just extremely expensive. to provide that for every single american a think would be beyond the means of what this current government can do. guest: the book i men

i know the congress has it. this plan includes, i think there are eight or ten per the company is you can pick from, including blue cross blue shield -- i think there's a real road, and another is a post office plan. you get to pick which plan you want. there is no problem going to any doctor you wish to commit any specialist.

-- inch from covering the congress -- inch from covering the congress. in assessing this new president and congress, it is especially challenging for all of us. it is a unique environment. some of the things that make it unique are obvious. we have a president that does not look like any other president we have had. he brings that moment forward in a lot of ways that are intangible but also create a sense of goodwill that i have never seen in a president before. you can see it across the political spectrum. there is a desire, a widespread desire among all lawmakers to see this presidency to succeed strictly on that basis. people see it as a positive step for the country. in that context, there are enormous challenges we have not seen for many years.

congress should not abdicate its responsibility. or grant such legislative power to unelected judges. in conclusion, there is no justification for this legislation. beyond being unnecessary, it is risky. members of congress should focus on the greater public good and look past the narrow interests of those who would use the courts to make policy. thank you. >> thank you. i now recognize for five minutes mr. wizner. >> thank you and distinguished members of the subcommittee, i appreciate this opportunity to explain the aclu's interest in reform of the state secrets privilege. an issue of critical importance to all americans concerned about the unchecked abuse of executive power. i also want to commend chairman nadler and the cosponsors of the state secrets it would provide check and balances on the executive branch reempower courts to exercise independent judgment in cases of national importance and protect the rights of those seeking redress through our court system. more than 50 years have passed since the supreme court formally re

and so this congress doesn't get a debate on important topics. we have to have a motion to recommit in order to discuss the issue of giving miranda rights to enemy combatants in foreign continents. that's what it takes. and that little window will be closed if it makes the majority uncomfortable. we don't get a debate on the very critical national security issue, mr. speaker, of the speaker of the house declaring the c.i.a. to be a group of if lone yuss liars and having lied to congress, the united states of america and then stated that she's going up to receive briefings after this. the united states of america's national security has to be at risk when the third person in line for the presidency declare ours intelligence community to be lying to congress. decisions get made, on this floor, in committee, behind the scenes, sometimes by staff, based on the allegations made by the speaker, the staff wants to please the speaker, the speaker is ducking the issue. we need to have a vote. i offered an amendment to get a vote on the c.i.a. we aren't go

how should congress be handling healthcare? >> i think the only way is if this country goes to a single pair program. the same that they have in france and canada and cuba. we have the higher infant mortality rate than cuba does. >> how will a single pair plan remedy that? >> everyone will be on a single playing field. >> john, in new york city. what do you think? >> good morning thank you for c-span. the debate of healthcare is all over. nobody really talks about what prevention actually means. that is really what are we putting into our bodies. you think about all the packaged and processed foods. why would i pay for other people's habyits of not taking care of their bodies. >> thanks for your call. from democrats. what's your point? >> di definitely support single payer. it's an important thick that all the people ask themselves. which is more important? healthcare for people in this country or profits for insurance companies? if we could cut 30% off the cost of our healthcare, because they are draining off 30% of every doll

congress should not preselect such an option. if congress mandates a specific cost allocation, it would be indirectly endorsing a specific type of design. for instance, endorsing a so-called postage stamp which allocates the cost evenly over a large area is more appropriate for alternating a current for alternating a current 2$@ @ @ @ @ going quickly provide a quick summary of the efforts currently happening within the states as far as regional planning and siding. the chairman and congresswoman already referenced one of them which is the organization of miso states and that's the midwest independent operator, the states within the 13-state region and one canadian province are currently developing a regional plan and cost allocation process and we expect to have that done by the end of the year. more, i think, importantly to this committee's work, in the aria congress decided they wanted interconnection wide plans and on may 15th, leaders from the eight different regions within the eastern interconnection met to begin the process

-- congress and their method of reasoning. and do you agree with the division of constitutional authority on the supreme court, articulated by chief justice roberts. i do believe that there will be an opportunity for a very important issues, to be presented to the nominee based on what i have seen of her in reviewing the record, and the meeting that i had with her, i have noted my -- i have noted her excellent rise in may, and i look forward to answering the many questions, where she will have more than an opportunity to have a sound bite, but to give a commentary on the record in support of her nomination. i yield the floor. >> the nomination of a new justice to the supreme court of the united states brings to mind the question, both for the senate and the american people, what is the proper role of a federal judge. answering this question is not an academic task, this is fundamental to what we will be doing here. how the american people and their representatives, who have been delegated this responsibility, to the question

in congress. i voted against $2.6 trillion of spending under president bush, $1.3 trillion so far under this%. i've consistently been ranked as one of the fiscally conservative members of congress and we each are elected by our districts to use our good judgment, to use discretion and in my case fiscally conservative standards and those spending requests that we -- that we push forward, those that we set aside, worked aggressively with my ranking member and members of this committee to try to save money in this bill and others, but the city of houston, harris county, has suffered in the most recent hurricane, hurricane ike which just hit the gulf coast, hit houston the hardest. $2.1 billion of damage to the -- just southeast texas, the federal government's reimbursed. the city of houston alone, harris county, home damage, $8.5 billion worth of damage to homes in harris county. now, i ask for very little as a member of congress to try to help the people of houston. one area where we need help is in

in the last congress we held hearings of rendition. the government knowledge rendition as a valuable tool on the war on terror, and other governments have conducted extensive examinations of particular cases. in view these facts what are we to make of the government's argument the entire subject matter is to secret and warrants outright dismissal of the cases? >> i think chairman, that it is evidence that the government's approach to secrecy in these matters is somewhat more opportunistic and valuable than it may seem. on the very day that i was in court in san jose california jeppesen case responding to government lawyers assertions that that case should be thrown out on subject matter grounds, former cia director hagan was in congress testifying the cia had waterboarded three individuals and so when it is in the government's interest to reveal those matters for whatever reason the government is quite forthcoming with that information. if it needs to put it in the public record that it can prosecute or-- one of finds itself in the pos

if you go to congress today there is a lot of political stuff. you will not come up with what is absolutely right because there will come up with what keeps them in office. the president has the power and ability to make a decision. you do not compare the tension to then. what did roosevelt do with the japanese? to put them into detention camps within this country. host: that is a good point. this page writes about some of the decision making going on over detainee's. a new rift opens on the rights of the denny's. here is a story in "the wall street journal" this morning. -- of the detainees. he says the the justice department has determined that the detainee's tried by military commissions and the u.s. can claim at least some constitutional rights, particularly protection against the use of statements taken through course of interrogations'. justice department officials warned that the -- defense department officials, rather, warned that justice department position could reduce the chance of convicting some defendants. the bomblet justice depart

with the court on the establishment of a record to warrant legislation which congress enacts. and i noted that i had written to dheef scru chief justice roba similar vein back on august the 8th of 2005 in advance of his confirmation hearings. and i take you were in my letter to -- and i take up in my letter to judge sotomayor the same issue i took up with chief justice roberts, and that is the decisions of the supreme court in invalidating congressional enactments, declaring them unconstitutional, because of what the court says is an insufficient record. and i note the case of united states v. morrison, which involved the legislation to protect women against violence, where the court was denigrating, really disrespectful to congress, where the court said that the congressional findings were rejected because of our -- quote -- "method of reasoning." -- close quote, as if there is some unique quality which comes to the nominee when the time of confirmation to walk across the green between the heergt room -e hearing room and the supreme court chambers. noted in the dissent by --

congress. all of the laws that we pass in d.c. have to go to the hill for congressional review period. and congress has to approve our annual appropriations bill. so we're in a special case. but our national advocates will be meeting in the white house and i expect all of these things we've been discussing will be on the agenda. >> do you know if the president is going to be at this meeting? >> i don't know that. i know he has often popped in when people are having these kinds of meetings to greet the people and indicate that he is following these things very closely. he does have a lot on his plate as i'm sitting here with you rob the world is watching for signs of what's happening in iran and this is a president, by the way, and one of the things i admire about this president first of all he's one of the smartest men who has ever held the job. and when he talks to people like they're adults, including when he went to cairo and his speech to the muslim population of the world. he said that he had had experience of islam on three

. -- from congress weren't the legislative councils. working closely with winehouse staff and the secretary of health and human services, i think he is consciously going about it anyway of letting congress work with the details, but the general guidelines that he has in mind are in place. >> any questions or comments among the panelists here? go ahead. >> i was saying no. >> use and one thing that really struck me. that the president is getting grounded down over time brings up the whole discussion among the press and blogs as to whether he is overexposed. he is out there every day. what if the american public just some basis they're getting tired of him and they do not like him as much as they used to. they're in big trouble if that happens because they are using him to sell everything. >> let me add on to that point. i think the obama white house is aware and of the and change -- is aware of the change in the environment. it is not the same army we had during the 60's and 70's. -- it is not the same environments we had during the 1960

speaker, that this is a rare and extraordinary step this congress is taking. and that this is a serious moment. when i read through this report that's been produced by the task force, pulled together the data in a compressed fashion, it's appalling to me this went on as long as it did i will say, when the conviction came down and the sentence was made, the 33 months in the federal penitentiary to judge kent this congress acted immediately and quickly and in a bipartisan fashion to do our constitutional duty and brought this through the hearing and the committee action to this floor and with urgency and ready to send it to the united states senate who i believe will act immediately with dispatch. as i look at this, i see this as an abuse, as arbitrary power. the high crime and misdemeanor we're talking about is sexual abuse of subordinates and the arbitrary power of using the official oppression of the power of his office and the threat of removing them from their jobs if they raised a voice and also the threat that no one would believe them because he had mani

i'm not sure he is right now because i think congress has capitulated and again and again. and i think lively the republicans don't want to but they don't have the power to do anything about it at this point. and it is in the nature of the president the kind of person who runs for president to seek more power and the people love him and right now he is grown to continue to do it. fourth is really when i talk about -- actually i combine to reasons -- accountability isn't there and the democrats in congress control both houses, and then the fourth reason is is the nature of people who run for president to want that kind of power and once they get there i think a change. i think the torture photos is a great example. it was easy for him to argue during the campaign that everything needs to be out there, but as president by the defense department came to him and said that people could die, u.s. troops and you have spoken so lovingly about so many times could actually die if you sign on the dotted line and say release those photos. as president his judgment has changed simply be

congress only has authority to recommended, not to deter. so it's a fascinating issue and i don't think congress is institutionally capable of satisfying the supreme court, no matter what the supreme court court and no matter what congress does, i think the issue will come back and be joined either by this court or by the roberts court as it evolves over time. >> linda, thank you. let's move now to another area of the court's doctrine. this is an area which has been very prominent in the present term and that is the question whether state toward lawsuits are preempted -- tort lawsuits are preempted by the action of federal administrative agencies. that's surfaced in two very important cases this term. ted olsen, would you like to take us into that? >> i'd love tofment i know preemption is very much on your mind out there. >> it's a saturday more than issue. >> i'd like to say a word or two about the civil rights cases, but very briefly. >> ok. >> john roberts, chief justice roberts, in the earlier voting rights case, i think it was his first

as seen as such by the congress, and a few u.s. administrations have made a big deal about the importance of this issue. they are ensuring cooperation with the congress, which pays a lot of attention to these issues. and i would expect that an agreement reached would be reached in a way that would be acceptable to people in congress who follow this closely. >> the thing i would add, i think it's at the core of continued defense and security cooperation between u.s. and india. with respect to cooperation at the industry level. where it may get more scrutiny, not near perhaps as much as the nuclear deal did. when it's a direct commercial sale versus a military sale case. after i think there might be a little pause in the action, but again, much like mike colleague indicated, not knowing the actual language and the boundary conditions associated with that, i think we would see on the fms cases a positive outcome and direct commercial sales, perhaps a little more scrutiny. >> we have time for one more question. so, please. >> i know yo

it's an honor to serve in congress. in health care, my background was health care and i had one boss and today i have 660,000 very smart people that i work for in pennsylvania's 5th congressional district and it's an honor to serve those individuals and this great nation. and i'm proud to be part of this freshman republican class. we come with diverse backgrounds, as you began to talk about. but we have a common characteristic of being real change to congress and it's change that the american citizens deserve and need to have. it's a vision of fiscal accountability, preserving individual freedom and liberty and returning america to the values that this country was built upon. and you have touched -- the gentlelady has really touched off with the first one for this evening's discussion, fiscal responsibility and i would put in fiscal accountability and transparency, in terms of how the taxpayers' dollars are spent. we are trusted and we have a responsibility to make sure that the -- those dollars that the american citize

i remember when congress wanted to -- not congress -- but they wanted to social security income in congress, they said they cannot do that because if the stock market fails, then everyone would lose their savings. but they did anyway. host: st. louis on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have been a real-estate agent for 23 years. i am having a tough time getting my property's appraised, even though they are selling wholesale. it is like you cannot win there. i have a tough time with people on credit scores, because they are going down the tubes. host: the credit qualifications are tougher than they used to be? caller: 2 often credit scoring companies, and if we know that glass stiegel has caused the collapse, why don't they changed that. that $15,000 tax credit for all humboldt -- home buyers, -- for all home buyers by didn't they note that in to get the come -- the country moving? >> michigan on the democrats' line. caller: you have some really smart people out there in america. maybe congress needs to listen and pay attention to c-span in the morning. that coal

in the constitution designed congress was a leading role in national security. this includes funding defense programs some of which requires secrecy itself but the legislation with force courts expose says that's a key intelligence programs even if the ultimately rule in favor of the government on the privilege issue. this would and are severely hampered these programs upsetting the care of balance struck by congress in making national security policy. that is the goal of several groups that support this bill. would give them a hacker's veto over programs there were unable to convince this body to remand or shut down. perversely some members of congress may welcome this result but by passing the buck to the course they could avoid the consequences of tough votes and controversial national security programs. congress should not abdicate its responsibility or grant such legislative power to unelected judges. inkless luzhin there is no justification for this legislation. beyond the necessary it is risky. members of congress should focus on the greater public good a

the lie beer of congress fund -- the library of congress funding totals $638 million a 4% increase over the current year which includes $8.5 million for technology upguides to allow for increased digitalization of the library's collections and full funding for the digital talking book for the blind project. the government accountability office is funded at $553.6 million, a 4% increase over country year and provides all salary and inflationary increases for g.a.o. current staff level. the government printing office is funded at $147 million, which is a 4% raise over current year. allowing for the continued implementation of g.p.o.'s federal digital system and other technology upgrades. the congressional budget office is funded at $45 million, a 2% increase over the current year. combined with the $2 million included in the supplemental, c.b.o. will have adequate funding and f.t.'s needed to perform the critical work associated with health care spending, the current financial crisis and global climate change. the office of compliance is funded at $4.4 million, an increase of 8% above cur

congress means business. otherwise, if we do it locally, each party will actually -- could tinker with the definitions and the voters what action to be turned off. host: which do you support? i guest: support statehood, but i respect the voters decide for something else. i believe most voters will favor statehood, but then again, in a democracy, we have to hear what the voters have to say and i would go along with what ever the voters decide. host: what kind of reception have gotten from democrats in congress, did they support? guest: this bill is supported by 100 democrats and 50 republicans roughly. we have widespread support, i would say. actually there was a hearing on wednesday morning at the national resources committee that has jurisdiction of the territories, and that went well. the chairman from west virginia stated he would have a markup session pretty soon. so i am hopeful that the bill will be taken after that to the floor for a vote, and by then hopefully we would be closer to 200 co-sponsors. th

anyone lying to congress, especially about domestic or international terrorism. and that's what these briefings were about, about enhanced interrogation that most of america thinks took place down in gitmo, waterboarding among them. no waterboarding took place in gitmo or in this hemisphere. and i can't verify that there was any enhanced interrogation techniques that took place even in this hemisphere, lit alone at gitmo, by united states forces. so that's a long subject, and i won't go into that, madam speaker, except to the extent that when that declaration was made by the speaker of the house, the declaration that the c.i.a. was lying, that was an allegations of willfully committing felonies against the united states. this is an untenable position. we cannot have a situation where the most powerful member of the house of representatives and the person third in line to the presidency can declare our intelligence community to be willful liars and in violation of federal statute and decide that because the speaker doesn't want to talk about it anymore, we aren't

congress to do about it? caller: i would like to see them change some regulations in the industry. we are not against coal mining. west virginia have of part of coal mining. the technology exists not to have these -- you can use this technology from around the world now. and the other thing is on the mountaintop removal -- the original lot in 1977 said if they remove the tops of these mountains and they cannot return it to the original contour, then they have to make a post-mining plan that benefits the community. host: didn't the interior secretary talk recently about revisiting some of those regulations? caller: he is looking at a buffer zone roll past in the bush administration in the final hour and that says basically you cannot do that with a 100 feet the stream. they eliminated that. these permits are granted by the corps of engineers -- how the court got involved, i don't know -- but they go and level these mountains. host: @ thank you for your thoughts. franklin, arkansas. randy on the independent's l

>> it is fair to say that we are watching congress -- letting congress do their job. >> [inaudible] >> let me get more on that and i will walk you through it. >> cap and trade related question. over the past month, the dollar has been very volatile. wall street is looking for a strong signal from the white house, that you are serious about attacking the deficit. could you repeat again where cap and trade fits in and will help the deficit? >> i think we talked about the fact that -- first of all, cap and trade is something that generates revenue through pollution credits. capt. trade helps -- a comprehensive energy that the house passed and the president supported as well as other administrative initiatives and the recovery plan are laying the foundation for long-term economic growth through creating a market for clean energy jobs. getting our economy back on track, creating jobs is part of bringing down that deficit. i think most people understand that in some ways, our deficit has gotten worse because our economy is worse. bringing the economy back is not going to fix the deficit. we

if congress and below it did people, lawmakers want to change that -- if congress and elected people want to change it they can adjust how the fed operates. fed officials are aware of that. what do congress and administration want to change? and what are the alternatives? the concern is that alternatives would be more political and dangerous than what we have now. but the caller is correct that the fed has taken extraordinary actions throughout the crisis. they have raised questions about whether the fed is acting within its authority

. >> it is skipped over in my notes i had with congress and democrats advocating to some degree and republicans working hard and opposing him it's up to the media. i had one word is obviously our job to hold the feet to the fire but that is tough to do when he has been as good as he has so far. he has of weighted serious missteps and even when he does something that gets people mcmichael these decisions he's made and it is a lengthy list of decisions he's made that is irritated the aclu and of libertarian groups on national security. even with those people use them so well and he knows the american people are with him and that after the last press conference i told one of my colleagues, somebody said when are we going to get under his skin and we do a little now and then but it's like pitching batting practice to mark mcgwire on steroids. he is ready for everything we throw, and he has been, he just has been good up to this point as terrie has been saying he is a very talented communicator so i don't think we were tripping him up on that kind of stuff. i think it is all coming down to his polic

we here in congress are responsible for the taxpayers' dollars. he was responsible for millions and millions of dollars coming back to the state of ohio, whether it was research in fuel cell technology or whether it was the first ladies' library that his wife had a brilliant idea to anchor in our state of ohio or funding for medical research that we're doing in our state, he was the leader and he believed in innovation and cre -- creativity. he was a man of get integrity and someone who obviously, as congressmanla turet said, would not be able to replace but certainly respect as his successor. and mr. speaker, at this time, i yield to the gentlelady from california, our speaker of the house of representatives, speaker pelosi. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. the speaker: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for giving us this opportunity to come to the floor to sing the praises of our former colleague. we always will have him as a colleague in our hearts. but form

out before the second continental congress, he was elected to that congress, refuse to serve. he wrote a pamphlet in the fall of 1774 col they can examination and the really long name after that. another pamphlet came out in spring of 1775, he makes that argument in both of those pamphlets, that we would be better off remaining tied to great britain. then we would if we become independent. in the introduction, something that came out in 2003, a meet in the park, that was not galloway's phrase but it was the phrase of someone from pennsylvania who was taken from an essay in a philadelphia newspaper that was published 6 weeks before independence was declared. sweeping out to the pacific, made the argument that to declared independence was a leap in the dark. there were too many uncertainties in trying to become independent, and we would be better off remaining with great britain. not many people remember this but for the first fifteen months of the war, the objective was not independent but reconciliation, to force great britain to make peace on our terms. once the cat was out o

congress is supposed to be doing that. the justice committee should be looking at each one of those laws. i can't say it any stronger than that. we need to get a congress and a justice committee. we do not have justice in this country. we need to get that. so i appreciate anything -- it's more of a statement than it is a question but is there anything along that line that we can look for in the future? >> well, we very much appreciate your comment, and we think we have done a lot since we took control of the house in 2007, as i tried to outline, and i think i tried to outline a number of additional initiatives that we're planning to undertake. fortunately, some of the abuses to which you refer, the administration has made it clear will not happen. the president has banned some of these so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, but we intend to continue to be vigilant, to continue to take action. the judiciary committee is not able to itself pass laws on some of the issues that you had mentioned so frankly, you should ta

congress has it. this plan includes -- i think there are eight or 10 -- private companies that you can pick from which includes bluecross, blueshield -- i think there is a railroad -- i know there is a post office plan. you get to pick which plan you want. there is no problem going to any doctor you wish, and a specialist. your medicine is taken care of. it is a wonderful plan. i cannot understand why congress is not fully behind a plan like this. i saw senator grassley had received campaign contributions from insurance companies of almost $400,000 from 2003-2008. he had received almost $300,000 from the pharmaceutical companies. host: we will get a response. guest: the obvious answer is the great expense. some people in the military might be happy with their plan, as well. it is extremely expensive. to provide that for every american, that would be beyond the means of what this federal government can do. guest: governor deane and myself -- howard dean and myself argue that when it comes to health ref

i haven't taken the temperature of congress. i don't know where the majority of it is, but if the congress is aware its president is, as i understand the law in that area, the president as commander-in-chief could change that policy fairly quickly if he wanted to pixel at the end of the day i think the president ought to be prepared to fully assert his power when he needs to come but you don't have to be stupid about it and you shouldn't do it when you don't need to. >> does anybody want to take that particular case up? >> you guys are cowards. , on. [laughter] >> i can't get a rise out of you all? is the president prepared to do that if it's also in congress? >> okay. [laughter] >> can't get a rise out of this crowd. >> good question. often the conversation is about transparency is about the administration communicating with the public and the public being able to see what the administration is doing. the question is how does the public really communicant with the administration. how does a regular citizen or member of a cs maj

have -- is that still a realistic description of what congress is trying to do? >> guest: i think this exchange will provide a large menu of health care options to people and will have the same sort of options that members of congress have in that they are available they can be added that but that has come up over and over and i think members of congress to realize if their constituents don't have those choices they will be concerned if there is a two-tiered system remembers get one kind of health care and they get another. >> guest: . >> host: democratic line from pennsylvania. >> caller: good morning. i didn't quite understand that last payment, there would be concerned about a two-tiered system where their constituents on getting the same amount of coverage there are getting -- that's the case right now, isn't it? and also i notice you are from kaiser news here and i was doing some reading on the 1973 hmo act that made hmos possible in this country and i was reading the transcripts from the nixon tapes where ehrlichman tells richard nixon, edgar kaiser is runn

congress can only spend $1 did they save a dollar elsewhere. this guy is responsible families and it is no coincidence that this was in place when we moved from record deficits to record surpluses and when this rule was abandoned, we returned to deficits that doubled the national debt. increases and tax cuts need to be paid for, this is not free. borrowing to finance them is not a sustainable policy. paying for the money that you spend is common sense, that is why this has been so elusive in washington. there have been those leading the charge to restore paygo and many of them are here today. i want to recognize george miller, who introduced the first bill in the house. i want to thank the blue dogs, and their leader, who has been a driving force for this. i want to the knowledge claire mccaskill, and as i said, i want to acknowledge the speaker of the house and steny hoyer. they are here because they are fully supportive of the efforts. two years ago, a democratic congress put in place rules to restore the principle gut -- but could not pass l

the congress or administration. i have been assured by rahm emanuel and yourself that the president's position is not to let these photos see the light of day. we are going to -- the majority leader's going to give us another vote in the senate. i would ask the administration after that vote to urge the house to take it up. because that's the best way to protect the troops. do you agree? >> i do. i think there are compelling reasons why these photos should not be released. >> i would like to introduce into the record the statements of general petraeus filed by the government as part of their declaration as part of the lawsuit indicating the danger to our troops if they were released to back up what you're saying. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. military commissions act, i'm amazed we are eight years into this war, basically, since 9/11, september will be the eight-year anniversary. we are still talking about how to deal this. it's very complicated. most of your questioning today has been about matt

with state governors and congress. as a soldier with other qualities, in the end, the country was fortunate to have had him, i sometimes say i think the country was fortunate to have had washington and lucky to have survived. >> i read that hundred american prisoners died in the all of ships of new york harbor, what prevented the british and americans from working out a system of prisoner exchange like we have had in other wars? >> there was a conflict between washington and congress regarding prisoner exchanges. the problem was once the prisoners were exchanged, the american prisoners would go home and wouldn't serve again, but the british prisoners would serve again or they would be rotated down to the caribbean and replaced by soldiers who were rotated up from the caribbean or from europe. that became an obstacle to prisoner exchanges, and the results was there really are no significant prisoner exchanges until after yorktown. then they come pretty quickly in 1782 and most of the prisoners are, in fact, exchange. yo

additionally, this bill increases funding by $40 million for the library of congress. an institution which not only provides a vital resource to congress, but also preserves a universal collection of knowledge, history, and creativity for current and future generations. $15 million of these funds will help modernize the library's information technology infrastructure to make the library and its unique resources more widely available to congress and the broader public. mr. speaker, this legislative branch appropriation bill strikes a pragmatic balance between the growing demands upon this congress and the legislative branch and the economic realities that nation is facing. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina, for what purpose do you rise? ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker, i thank my colleague for yielding us time to discuss the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is -- the gentlelady is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. we have a situatio

congress, with all the members in congress they have plenty of powers, subpoena power, to get this information. there's a hearing thursday and house oversight committee on the bank of america. the ceo ken lewis will be called up to testify. congress still has the ability and a lot of oversight. host: to inverness, florida. caller: hello, i was wondering why gm does not look for merger instead of selling out hummer? as an executive branch maybe they could put a limit on the president's spending. as a veteran i can hardly afford to go to the movie theater. host: we will talk a bit more about the auto industry in an upcoming segment, but go ahead, if you would like guest: when the government rescued the auto companies the key was putting together a program to move the company's ford with a new slimmed-down structure. seen some of these brands sold off this week expected when they received government host: aiaid. host: d.c. any parallels between the auto and -- do you see any parallels between the auto industries and of the banks? guest: there has been this belief that we have to get the banks goi

he understands for congress is on the table. that give and take between the white house, congress, they have to find a way to pay for this. it may stay on the table. host: our last caller from massachusetts on the democratic line. caller: i have been listening to this argument for quite some time. they always bring up europe and socialized system in europe. i lived there for 26 years. i am still living and breathing. they did not managed to kill me. i understand that there are dead bodies on the american canadian bodies, trying to get here instead of the poison they feed them in canada. that is not the way is. guest: i am simply here to help to explain t

"congress daily" december 5, 2006. whereas, during debate on june 14, 2005, in the congressional record on page h-4410 chairwoman louise slaughter of the house rules committee stated, quote, if we want to foster democracy in this body we should take the time and thoughtfulness to debate all major legislation under an open rule, not just appropriations bills which are already restricted, an open process should be the norm and not the exception, unquote. whereas, since january, 2007, there has been a failure to commit to an open and transparent process in the house of representatives. >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. members and staff will take their conversations from the floor. members will take their seats. the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: whereas, since january, 2007 -- whereas, since january, 2007, there has been a failure to commit to an open and transparent process in the u.s. house of representatives. whereas, more bills were cons

congress has used this power sparingly. in our nation's history, only 13 federal judges have been impeached. and even fewer convicted. needless to say, the conduct at issue here is both shocking and shameful. in due course, many of the disturbing details of judge kent's appalling conduct will more than likely be revealed. but now, i want to emphasize for the members the following points. the committee is recommended -- the committee is recommending impeachment not merely on the fact that the judge has pleaded guilty and has been sentenced to prison. rather, it is his conduct. making false statements to his fellow judges in an official -- to fellow judges in an official inquiry and sexually assaulting courthouse personnel that the committee has independently determined to constitute high crimes and misdemeanors warranting his impeachment and removal from office. the judiciary committee determined overwhelmingly, unanimously, after most careful examination, that the judge's conduct plainly renders him unfit to remain a federa