the pay-go principle makes sense for this congress and all future congresses. had it been made permanent in the 1990's, our national debt today would be trillions less and our children's future far brighter. we cannot correct irresponsible fiscal decisions over the past decade, we will begin the important process of reducing deficits and balancing the federal budget. that, more than any speech, is what our children and our country deserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i will say -- yielding myself for 10 seconds. i will say the majority passed a budget resolution under the pay-go regime that triples our debt in 10 1/2 years. i yield to the gentlelady from wyoming. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. lummis: our deficit will sore to $1.8 trillion. the budget will triple our debt in 10 years and still be pay-go comply ant. that is how disinagain youous this bill is. they didn't even allow it to go through the budget committee for fear, pe

sadly, it would appear, not in this congress. we look at the west coast and see a government with no fiscal discipline. in california, they laid off thousands of workers, withheld tax refunds and started pay-go with i.o.u.'s. we have a clear example of how reckless spending can paralyze a state. i hope the members of this body learn from that important lesson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? mrs. capps: the time for health reform is now. the american people need it and we will pass a comprehensive health care bill out of this chamber before we break for august recess. we will pass a bill to reform health care that ends the current system of insurance company executives lining their pockets by denying you the care you need. and keep your health compling in tact, even if you louis your job and pass a bill that brings spending under control. it is easy to get caught up in the politics of washington as we work on this legislation. this is about the

and ignoring the science served as the foundations for the law passed by congress and intent of congress to protect american people by providing them with clean water, clean air and a healthy environment. as a senator from maryland i am particularly concerned about that as it relates to the efforts we are making on the chesapeake bay. now, i understand that these decisions are now precedent and binding and require the congress to pass laws further clarifying what we meant to say so we can get us back on track. i understand that. but i would like you to comment that in reaching decisions that come to the bench, whether they are environmental laws or other laws that protect our society, you will follow the intent of congress and will not try to supplant individual judgment that would restrict the protections that congress has passed for our community. >> believe my case -- am i cases, my entire record shows that i look at the acts of congress, as i think the supreme court does, with deference because that is the bedrock of our constitutional system, whic is that each branch has a differen

it's to wait to congress acts. and then determine what congress has done in its constitutionality in light of that ruling. brand x as i understood it was a question of which government agency would regulate those providers. and the court looking at congress' legislation in these two areas determined that it thought it fit in one box, not the only. one agency instead of another. >> is this title i and title ii? or as i understand it title ii is subject to a lot of regulation and title i isn't? >> exactly. but the question was not so much stronger regulation or not stronger regulation. it was which set of regulations given congress' choice control. obviously, congress may think that the regulations the court has in its hold iing interprete congress' intent and that congress thinks the court got it wrong. we're talking about statutory interpretation and congress' ability to alter the court's understanding by changing the statute as it chooses. this is not to say i minimize the concerns you express. access to internet,

so congress is saying, we want you to brief us, we the left wing in congress want you to brief us onrams. >> let's be clear. this was not an idea. this was a plan. the "wall street journal" reports the civity a spent money on planning and possibly some training. it's also the law. the law states that congress has to be briefed on any activities within the cia. we're talking about concealing information from the congress? we've seen what happens when there isn't proper oversight. waterboarding, torture, just to name a few. my favorite comment through all of this has got to be, it's dangerous to give congress information. now, i guess we should kind of understand what's going on here, because rove continually ignored subpoenas to testify before congress. i guess we should just trust people like cheney with the knowledge of these programs. i'll give you one thing, rove. you are the authority when it comes to leaks. that's "psycho talk." when you're on a diet hungry just won't quit. but you can outsmart him with weight watchers online. it's weight watchers, but it's completely online. cu

was a mistake. >> the cia should brief the congress. congress should exercise responsible oversight. >> reporter: but they also accuse democrats of playing politics. >> they mislead us all the time. >> reporter: house speaker nancy pelosi has been under republican attack since may when she accused the cia of repeatedly lying to congress. >> it looks to me suspiciously like an attempt to provide political cover to her and others. >> reporter: republicans caution that attacking the cia runs the risk of ruining moral. >> they use the cia as whipping boys. they become a symbol of the errors of a prior administration. >> reporter: democrats aren't swayed, and in the wake of this latest revelation insist that panetta publicly admit the cia has misled them in the past. the cia may have some leeway. a government source says the program was, quote, on again/off again and never fully operational. >> if a program like this was never fully implemented and went into the field, then i'm sure there were some in the agency that said we'll not make this

no matter what congress does?n't there a compelling overwriting first amendment right here for americans to have access to the internet? >> right by a quarter, not looked at as overriding, in a sense a citizen would think about it. should this go first or a competing right go second? rights are rights and what the court looks at is how congress balanced those rights in a particular situation and then judges, whether that balance is within constitutional boundaries, calling one more compelling than the other suggests that they're sort of you know, property interest are less important than first amendment interests. that's not the comparison a kaurt makes. a comparison the court makes starts with what balance does congress make first. >> so we've got some work to do on this. i want to get into judicial activism. there's kind of an impoverishment of our political discourse when it comes to the judiciary. i'm talking in politics, when candidates or office holders talk about the, what kind of judge they want. it's very

governor congress bilbray, republican, of california. and congresswoman loretta sanchez, a democrat from california. she is now on the floor of voting and will join us here in just a moment. i want to say thank you to all of you for being here. let's start out with the stimulus package. less than 10% of the this package has been spent, yet we're hearing cries and calls for a second stimulus package. let me ask you, if i may, governor rendell, what your reaction is. do you need it, do you think it makes sense to call for it now? >> it's really premature, lou. i think the president is right saying it can't be off the table, but it's far too early to tell whether we need it. in pennsylvania, we have spent literally $1 billion of the $16 billion that we're going to get under the stimulus program. although we've contracted out over 65% of our road and highway projects, work has begun on about 50% of them, but it's just begun in the last couple of weeks. remember, it's less than four months since the plan, the pennsylvania transportation plan

they elected this congress to pass this bill. still, there's no doubt the bill is going to have changes as it moves through the process. i would be shocked as a legislator if that wasn't the case. it's a work in progress but we've made significant progress has not 6 a.m. this morning at mr. chairman, of course you of things a lot faster. congratulations on that. [laughter] but we will not waver in our commitment to bringing down health care costs because its those high costs that make premiums such a burden on the middle class. i point out there are 47 million people who get health care and they get sick but they are not paying. and middle class american families are paying their bill. the need to be in the system. they need to participate and we are moving towards that end. we want to make all americans have access to affordable, quality health care so we will need to build on the cost containment measures we already have in this bill and the substantial reforms that have been put in by these committees and by the energy and com

i don't think congress was close to removing washington at that point but a great many people in congress were extraordinarily critical of washington and these were people who were close to washington. people like joseph freed, who had been washington's first secretary during the war and was made be washington's closest confidant during the first year or so of the war, said a couple of years into the war that he thought washington was maybe fit to command a regiment but nothing beyond that. thomas mifflin, who was the quartermaster, washington's first aid to camp, and quartermaster general for the first couple of years of the war, was even more critical. he said he thought washington was suit it may be to be a clerk in the counting house, but not as a general. i think they probably went too far, but the point is a great many people were extraordinarily critical of washington, who were very close to washington or who saw washington up close. but, having said all of that, i can't think of anybody else that i would have rather had as commander. i think, toward, the nathaniel green of 1780 mi

and so it's not just because i was a member of congress.i happen to think that from the country's standpoint that these may be the single most competent, broad gauged political figures after the president and the vice president. it didn't used to be that way, but our country has changed. >> let me take that debate to the next level. it seems to me that in keeping congressional leaders and the line of succession, you vastly increase the potential for medical intrigue, for a possible advantage in terms of having a national figure, albeit someone who was elected from only one state or only one district. and it's that political intrigue that will just undermine legitimacy in almost every scenario you can imagine, even an intraparty transfer of party. >> jamie, i don't see it that way because i think these particular individuals, even though they come from one state or they come from one district are recognized by the public at large as national figures are people on national death. >> even seating that point, let's say that's true. you still ha

it's being debated in congress, and congress has passed an act relating to same-sex marriage. it's being debated in various courts on the state level, certain higher courts have made rulings. this is the type of situation where even the characterizing of whatever the court may do as one way or another suggests that i ha both prejudged an issue and that i come to that issue with my own personal views suggesting an outcome. and neither is true. i would like at that issue in the context of the case that came before me with a completely open mind. >> forget the same-sex marriage hypothetical. is there a difference in your mind between making the law and interpreting the law? or is that a distinction without a difference some >> oh, no. it's a very important distinction. laws are written by congress. c. it has -- makes factual findings, it determines in its judgment what the fit is between the law it's passing and the remedy it's that it's giving as a right. the courts when they are interpreting always has to start with what is the constitution say, what is the words of the constit

the congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. the congress.ress used that power, the power vested in them under section 2 when it passed the voting rights act of 1965. now, the voting rights act has a specially strong provision, section 5, that requires states with a history of discrimination to get preapproval from the justice department on any changes that they make in their voting regulations. congress has reauthorized this four times, as recently as the last time was 2006 and the senate supported it by a vote of 98-0. every single senator from the state covered by section 5 voted to reauthorize. so now it is 2009. we have this case, northwest austin utility district number one and justice thomas votes to hold section 5 unconstitutional. he said it went beyond the mandate of the 15th amendment because it wasn't necessary anymore. that's what he said. now, when i read the 15th amendment, it doesn't say -- it doesn't contain any limits on congress' power. it just says that we have it. it doesn't say if necessary, the congress shall have power

congress was not part of it. this is not a procedure that congress set up. congress was taken out of the -- out of the legal line of succession. this was a procedure that was set up entirely from within the executive branch of government without ever checking with congress. and, you know, when i say this process of the commission and its recommendations is important and to be congratulated, it's because this is -- you are and hopefully are working with congress on actually addressing a procedure rather than simply having one which is set up without congressional authorization from within an executive branch. i mean, the program of the '80s was actually not the creation so much of president reagan himself but of the nsc bureaucracy. vice president bush played a role but the lead operations officer on this was someone named oliver north. that would be the guy who later went on to be in charge of iran contra. you all are addressing this. you are making this -- you're giving consideration to the issues in a public way, and that to me is all to the good. when i l

congress should exercise responsible oversight. but to trot out the vice president and say he's the one who's at fault, this unfortunately sounds like a new theme where they still want to blame the bush-cheney administration for the economy and other things that frankly are in the -- squarely within the control of -- >> we are running out of time. i have one other issue i want to discuss with you and along those lines, there's another story in the paper today, senator cornyn, that attorney general holder is leaning towards appointing a criminal prosecutor to investigate whether or not cia personnel tortured detainees after 9/11. >> so there will be a grand jury to detmine whether a person or anyone in this administration should be prosecuted or indicted. this is a terrible trend. i hope the attorney general listened to the president who says we have to look forward, not backward. this is high-risk stuff. if we chill the ability or the willingness of our intelligence operatives or others to get information that's necessary to protec

legislation -- the congress. well, congress used that power vested in them under section 2 when it passed the voting rights act of 1965. now the voting rights act is an especially strong provision. section five, that requires states with a history of discrimination to get pre-approval from the justice department on any changes that day make in their voting regulations. congress has real authorized this four times as recently as last time was 2006. and the senate supported by a vote of 98 to zero. every single senator from the state covered by section v voted to reauthorize. so now it is 20 online and we have this case northwest austin utility district number one. and justice thomas votes to hold section 5 on constitutional. he said it went beyond the mandate of the 15th amendment because it wasn't necessary anymore. that's what he said. now, when i read the 15th amendment, it doesn't say -- it doesn't contain any limits on congress's power. it just says that we have it. it doesn't say if necessary the congress sh

congress is that total war. the previous president's attitude were so on come from -- uncompromising that you cannot necessarily take that at the highest good. we had back in the republican party, back when the great plains liberals with the boat with the republican sometimes into the democrats other times, those people a gun from congress. we are seeing something we have not seen in a long time. it is a look right. >> here is another aspect. democrats are euphoric. they have never had the power in a long time to change. the senators to know what to give it to the president. the house on what to give it to the president. they have been sitting around for a bought -- for a lot of the clinton administration not being able to pass a single piece of legislation. legislation. >> democrats are working >> although i think they have done better with obama than they did with clinton. you saw the crossfire, sometimes, like on the klein bill, for example. you had members on the left voting against it and members on the rig

there is -- the congress is totally -- total war in the congress and the previous president added on a whole range of subjects were so uncompromising, i think you just can't necessarily take that as the highest good. we had a -- we had back in the dear dead days when, you know, the republican party was apt to discuss issues and come to terms with the democrats. back when the great plains liberals would vote with the republicans sometimes and with the democrats other times. those people are gone from the congress. and i think we're just -- we're seeing something we haven't seen for a long time. doesn't look right, but you know, you -- >> another part of the past six years as well, it's not being critical of the republicans, but the democrats are euphoric, they have never in a long time had the power to change. so the senators don't want to give it to the president, the house doesn't want to give it to the president and there's no cooperation. they really do -- they've been sitting around much of the clinton administration, all of the bush administration, they can't pass a single piece

congress has great health care.o why are the american people not privileged to the same level of health care? neil: others pushing the sec said that is its beauty. i am just presenting their argument, judy =--- others pushing this have said that is its beauty. just as you would be freed and your patience would be free to keep what they have -- you would be free and your patients would be free. >> i say what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. accepting this health care bill. neil: when you were getting their reaction from the crowd, prior to this, they had been seeing a lot of the benefits, right? >> i am sorry? neil: this crowd that rallied to you with your comments, was this a sticking point? was this a big issue? because priority that, they seemed to be wanting to fix health care. was this a big issue? >> well, i do not thinkç the issue has ever been that our health-care system does not need reform. i think a lot of people agreed that it needs reform -- a lot of people agree that it needs reform. par

when he tells congress he stopped this program at the end of june, held a special session of congress and met with congressional leaders behind closed doors, said i didn't know about it. we closed it down. and vice president dick cheney didn't tell the congress about this. this is what the story is, what's being alleged this morning. >> right. it is being alleged dick cheney actually informed the c.i.a. not to inform congress about the secret counterterrorism program. we do not know what this program was. we do though in: it did not have to do with enhanced interrogation, it did not have to do with the wiretapping, the domestic -- the pelosi stuff which was back and forth also. >> it is not those particular issues. >> the c.i.a..or at the time said the reason he didn't inform congress it had not developed to the point he says they believed it merited a congressional briefing. >> that's a key point. this program never did develop and that's a good point. >> michael hayden went on to say one of the points that i had in every one of the briefings was to make sure they understood the scop

know and when did they know it, and is congress being or members of congress being hypocritical andivities that they were fully briefed on. and they have to be held accountable, too. >> we have a choice to make eugene, and the choices -- >> hold on, one at a time. >> the question is whether illegal things were done. and we need to know that. >> there is the question. >> but there is no evidence that anything illegal were done. there are a lot of accusations being spouted by democrats. and there was one very responsible democrat on the intelligence committee who stood up publicly and said what the democrats are doing is politicising intelligence, and i will not be part of it. we have a choice to make as a country, are we going to undercut the intelligence by calling people up in front of congress and attacking them and criticizing them and prosecuting people potentially, and we have been down that road before and it makes the country unsafe. >> do you think what pelosi is doing right now on this issue that liz is talking about is motivated to create a political distraction, from her

congress. obviously, it would be nonbinding. we can't force the president to do it. but it would give a sense that the congress itself believes the principle is important enough to protect and the president precedent shouldn't be set. >> let's look at what the president said last week and then let's look at what he said late friday. >> number one, any of us would be pretty angry. number two, that the cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home. i want to make clear that in my choice of words, i think i unfortunately gave an impression that i was maligning the cambridge police department or sergeant crowley specifically, and i could have calibrated those words differently. >> well, it seems like the president has gotten to the point of sitting down with this police officer, this sergeant, the official with the man who feels himself a victim here, the professor from harvard, and they're all getting together thursday afternoon

greta, so you will tell congress, "dump this one." -- greta: so you will tell congress that. >> there are a number of things that we could do, and they include these things. first of all, let's get rid of junk lawsuits and make sure we of medical malpractice reform. that will save some money. then -- make sure we have medical malpractice reform the and let's make sure we have medical insurance that is portable. let's have e medical records and get paid for performance rather than paying for volumes of procedure -- records and get paid for performance -- get pay for performance. let's allow people to buy insurance across state lines or former pool -- forme risk pools. greta: save a lot of money. will it pay for it? it is not so much to improve services, and we do want that, but you're suggestions, are they self-financing, or will you have to go out and get money from somewhere, like taxes? >> what i have described would be self-financing, and we had used them in minnesota. we have pay-for-performance plans, and and you can go anywhere you want, but if you choose to go to an expensive p

members of congress,owever, are. >> to ve a massive program th is concealed from the leaders in congress is not onl inappropriate, it could be illegal. >> i think this is a probl, obviy. iss a big problem, because the law is verclear. we were kept in the dark. that's something thashould neve er happen again. >> senators durbinnd feinstein of course arboth democrats. senator feinstein the chr of the inlligence committee. acss the aisle from them the reaction from republicans been rather more subdued. >> this of course comes onhe heels of the stament unproven by the way of speaker pelo that t cia had lied to her about enhanced introgation techniques, and this looks tme suspicioly like an attempt to provide political cover her and others look, thpresident and the vice president arthe two people who have rponsibilities ultimately foe national security of the country. it is not out of the ordinar for the vice president to be volved in an issue like this. >> buto order it to be kept secret? >> what if is a top-secret program? of course he a the president would bothe responsible for that. let's

the congress does not appoint a president. congress may appoint a member. this is the right of the people. once again, nowhere does the congress of point the president. your humble servant is elected by the people to serve the people. it is a right that the people deserve and in joy. we are mandated by the people on behalf of the people to serve and to aid the people. these crimes must not go unpunished. i am a christian and that always for gave even those that have hurt me. dignity of the nations will not forgive this act of barbarism that has occurred in my country and which has undermined the gains that we have achieved with such difficulty, with such effort, and with love. in the gettysburg address statement, the government of the people, for the people, by the people shall always prevail. this is what we say, this is what the citizens of the 21st century say. it is what the citizens of all nations around the country say and what you have said. [applause] >> the delegation has requested to remain seated. [captioning performed by national captioning inst

that's what they were told in congress. turns out, we did things to our detainees that were so far beyond what we do to our people in traininging that they're really on a whole different scale. >> rose: and what were those things? >> well, for instance in our training.... >> rose: beyond waterboarding and sleep deprivations, they were hanging people by... >> by their hands. subjecting them to sleep deprivation for 11 days wrz in training you can only do it for a night or two. in training, again, you can waterboard somebody for... twice for 20 seconds or so each time. they did it to somebody 183 times over and over again. it was taking the methods and... i kind of remember talking about one point to senator le vin who said "anything can become torture if you do it enough." and they basically may have pushed the limits. >> rose: help me understand, scott, what it is that the president when he came into office... what was his intent and how has he now for whatever reason changed on these questions? what did he shut down? what

tots wait until congress acts.nd then to determine what congress has done in its constitution alty in light of that ruling. brand x, as i understood it. it was a question of which government agency would regulate those providers? and the court looking at congress' in these two areas determined hit that thought it fit in one box and not the other. one agency instead of another. >> is this title i and title ii or as i understand it title ii is very -- it's subject to a lot of regulation and title i isn't. >> exactly, but the question was not so much stronger regulation or not stronger regulation. it was which set of regulation, given congress' choice, controlled. obviously, congress may think that the regulations the court has in its holding interpretted congress' intent and that congress thinks the court got it wrong, we're talking about statutory interpretation and congress' ability to alter the court's understanding by amending the statute if it chooses. this is not to say that i minimize the concerns you express.

ago, asked the cia to conceal details of a proposed counter terror program and it's not clear if congress needed to be told about that, the last three days we have seen the former viper and leon panetta didn't tell congress everything and nancy pelosi was less than fully honest about her knowledge of terror interrogations and the question right now, are any of these three really lying, to america? good morning, everyone, i'm eric sean on the search for the truth, at fox news reports. >> jamie: i'm jamie colby and here in america's news headquarter, great to have you with us, our new set, eric, good to see you this morning and the new report, this morning, involves the top-secret program, drafted after 9/11, to help catch -- capture dangerous terror suspects. >> eric: and congress was reportedly never told about the program, and did it get to the point of requiring an actual congressional briefing, caroline shivley follows the development, caroline, what do you know about the program. >> eric, we know it was a counterterrorism program and it is indeed classified and "the new york times" re

i can't tell you how many members of congress and senators would not go. why?because they wanted to see if their families were okay. they wanted to be with their families. that's a completely human and understandable response, utterly ignored in our planning. the second point i would make is that you cannot underestimate the fog of war which is why you have to have blistering clarity about what's going to happen. rememb rudy gilani put his command center at the base of the world trade center and it collapsed. the building in which it was collapsed. second, the secretary of defense is directly in the chain of command. in an emergency like we had on 9/11. and yet secretary rumsfeld did not come to the command center until all the planes were down. until the entire event was long over. at first he thought he didn't need to come. that it would be handled in the ordinary course. and then when the plane hit the pentagon, he went out to help. again, a very human instinct but indeed we had no phone call, not the faa's call, not the nsc's call, not the pentagon's call w

should be told about it and he went and told congress about it. it is at a time when congress and the white house are at odds and the white house has issued its first veto threat but how many preem in congress should be briefed about these programs? right now it is just the ranking members of the relevant committees. the democratic leadership in congress wants there to be briefings with the entire intelligence panels. the white house says they will veto that. maybe we would know a lot more if the rule was that they had to brief the entire committee. bret: we don't have all the details, obviously, because they are classified, but if this program was to target al qaeda to have assassination teams, to specifically target al qaeda after 2001, is that a bad thing? >> the people are saying we wanted to be told about it. they are not saying this was a horrible program. bret: how is that different than drones blowing up al qaeda members along the pakistan-afghanistan border. they're not told about that every time. >> we are doing targeted assassinations e

what is the whole process for notifying congress? so that we can do our role. we know in this particular instance with the cia, that the vice president of the united states himself ordered congress not to be told. it appears on the face of it to be a violation of the national security act, but we want to look very closely that the and if there's reason to refer to the justice department, we'll follow that thread where it takes us. it's very important for us to set the record straight going forward that the congress wants to be, needs to be, able to conduct its oversight role. that will be a big part of the investigation as will the sub sense of the program itself initiated in 2001 and not told to us until 2009. >> as far as is vice president's involvement to keep this program from congress, do you believe that president bush was involved? >> well, we don't know that yet. that may be one thing we want to look at. what was at the meetings, what was the conversation about? who gave the order and what has happened to that order over the eight years of the program?

. >>> and president obama is keeping up the pressure on congress. what he's telling law makers about health care reform legislation. and why he probably won't have much republican support for it. you are watching hln. i'm natasha curry. >>> a voice that formed a generation is silent. journalist walter cronkite died. the former cbs news anchor was 92 years old and died at home in new york after a long illness. tributes from fellow journalists and friends are pouring in, honoring the newsman routinely called the most trusted man in america. president obama is also reacting to the passing of walter cronkite. here are some of those tributes. >> in an era before blogs and e-mail, cell phones and cable, he was the news. >> it's hard to imagine a man for whom i had more admiration than cronkite. cronkite is just -- he was a superb reporter, an honorable man, a fine friend and i have nothing but admiration. >> walter cronkite is survived by three children, four grandchildren, his wife betsy died in 2005. >>> walter cronkite's 70-year plus career in journali

two keep the congress of the u.s. because i can't remember who did what on the maryland steel and the bank of america and how secretary geithner has worked with paulson and i don't see how anybody can get anything out of this letter that we received other than putting the hammer to you. >> off. you say here that on april april 15th mr. knight@@@@@@@ @ >> the attached a copy of the april 7 memorandum. they were asking whether or not you should fall under the jurisdiction or control under the treasury? if it's pretty clear to everyone on the committee that you should be there, because that is what you're job is. and there was something between you and the department of justice. they ask you to reject a portion of the email exchanged from olc, but that was to you, right? >> i think all the information -- ansari, the response from olc to us, which then generated additional response from treasury, or ast dew tour deck that. >> i wonder why? did they give your reason? >> the reason from olc is the information was indicative

the president back from africa overnight, but already, he's got an op-ed about congress.does that tell us about the pivot? >> it tells that you say the president was overseas and received a pretty rousing reception in many of this meetings. there's increasing worries, especially from his allies on capitol hill about the economy and the rise and need perhaps for a second stimulus plan about health care. health care kind of stalled this week in the senate, at least, while the president was away. it's looking less likely that the senate is going to meet the president's august recess. the president will come back and counsel patience on the economy but also his commitment to going full speed ahead on his broad domestic agenda, despite the fact some are calling him for him to scale it back in the wake of recession. >> and the big week ahead, you're talking on your show about judge sotomayor and her confirmation hearings tomorrow. do you think it will be heated? >> it's hard to know. i think this is going as planned by the white house. judge sotomayor has met with 89 senators.

democrats in congress are pushing for it for the rest of us. is that fair? >> it is not only not fair, it what are they, elitistelitists? they think they are better than we are? are they better than their constituents? if their constituents care, why should they opinion a separate, better plan than their own constituency? it is outrageous. not only that. and this is in the house bill. in the senate bill they are saying you have to accept this and that in the committee only passed by one vote, i think it was 12-11. why are nine democrats -- and i don't understand this -- why are nine democrats against this? i mean for this. against making the congress take the same health plan that we have to take? there is something wrong here. somebody is getting paid off. they are crooks again. throw them out. terry: jonathan, are those 535 members used to their gold-plated health plan? >> and i don't want to force it on them, terry. i don't think force is a part of this country. this country is not based on force. it is based on freedom. the very notion of a

on wild horses from the last congress, which was $500,000, this congress, of $700 million.et's take a look at what the taxpayers' dollars would be spent on in this vast increase of public spending. it would mandate a wild horse census be conducted every two years. it provides enhanced contraception and birth control for these horses. it would spend, and somehow acquire or move, 19 million acres of public and private land for the specific purpose of giving these horses more places to roam around. mr. speaker, 19 million acres is roughly the size of the distinguished chairman's state in west virginia. that's the size of what we're talking about. after we do that, mr. speaker, $5 million will then be spent to repair the damage that these horses will do on these lands. and then, of course, there are new mandate this is a government bureaucrats perform home inspections before americans can adopt a wild horse. that's what the spending would be encompassed in the $700 million. again, just to repeat, just to be sure what everybody understands, the taxpayers are being asked to buy u

congress was in dark.panetta, the current cia director, said to have old oversight panels of direct orders. how big of a problem potentially is this for the former vice president? >> it's a big problem for the administration. >> the obama administration. >> this is very suspect timing. the president's agenda is almost in shambles. his numbers are dropping. isn't it coincidental they gin up a cheney story. "the new york times" is accusing the vice president of telling -- of ordering the cia to not tell the congress about a program that didn't exist. it wasn't operational. it was never operational. further, there's a reason, which he had every right to do even if it was operational. there's a reason that the executive branch withholds information, because when it leaks it renders said program infective or inoperative. right now barack obama's threatening his first veto on this same issue. how many people get to know at what level? the more people that know, the more it leaks, as did our surveillance program,

he took those decisions because congress didn't intervene although plenty in congress said they should intervene. >> i'm asking you, would you do it? >> we'll absolutely do it so long as we're not forced to do something different by congress. >> even if the economy is still weak? >> we'll take the necessary actions to balance off appropriately the price stability and full employment parts of our mandate. >> it's a balancing act as most fed chairmen have found out, including you, that if you start to pull too fast, the economy stops recovering, and if you add too quickly, you have a tendency to put the economy in a recession. so, i wish you good luck. >> thank you, sir. >> senator schumer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you, chairman bernanke for these two long days of hearings. this job is a very tough one and of course you're subject to criticism and that's a part of it, and some of it valid and some of it agree with. but i just would remind people where we were six months ago, worried that we might enter a great depression. and i think the actions that you and others have taken

what can congress do?what can be done to not to stabilize the economy but to stabilize our attitudes? >> i am not sure what to suggest there, except i'm obviously-- gude leadership and good explanations help but the public has been responding to some signs, some glimmers if you will of improvement, so consumer sentiment for example has improved somewhat as stock markets have gone up and as the yellow kid looked better and the job situation cassilly stopped deteriorating as quickly as it was. i want to be clear that we have a very long-haul here because even though the economy turns up in terms of production that unemployment will stay high for quite awhile so it will not feel like a really strong economy. >> thank you and the yield back the balance of my time mr. chairman. >> the gentleman from indiana-- i am sorry. are you finished? mr. castle. i apologize. the gentleman from delaware is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. chairman, let me say in praise of you because my questions may imply some negati

and congress was in to go there. congress wanted a native born american to be the commander. and you look at who is around. i mean, people like john sullivan, who had been a lawyer in new hampshire and whatever. i just don't see anyone who would have fit the bill. and i think you have to look at the total picture of washington. he is a pretty good administrator of the army. the officer corps was blindly loyal, by and large, the washington. he worked extraordinarily well with state governors and with congress. so he i think made up for some of his deficiencies for lack of experience as a soldier with other qualities. and so in the end, i think the country was fortunate to have had him. in fact, i sometimes say that i think the country was fortunate to have had washington and a lucky to have survived. [laughter] >> i read that hundreds of american prisoners died in the halls of ships of new york harbor. what prevented the british and the americans from working out a system of a prisoner exchange or parole like we have had in other wars? >> .com about a good point. actually ther

the good news is that congress is hard at work. we've got republican senators working day in and day out with democratic senators trying to figure out how to make sure reform happens this year. and they're working really hard. >> when is the president going to say, enough, the house and senate have their own version, i'm going to come up with a barack obama version that i want you guys to pass? >> well, everybody assumed i had the 1,000-page plan in my purse as i traveled through the senate for my preconfirmation hearings. what the president understands is that this package of legislation, this very comprehensive bill needs to be a bipartisan approach. it needs to be owned by the house and the senate with lots of input from the administration. that's exactly what's going on now. progress happening day in and day out, people at the table, senator grassley is working hard with senator baucus and senator conrad and others, i think we're going to have a bipartisan bill with not only votes from republicans and democrats, but lots of ide

. >> also, why is congress leaning on the cia? yes, it was 40 years ago that an american first said on the moon -- set foot on the moon. >> that's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind. >> republicans have been saying the president's health-care plan will bring -- brig the bank. and this week the congressional budget office seems to buffet the arguments. douglas coleman door of the says the legislation in the senate will do the oppositee thelmendord. >> the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs. >> the president said doing nothing is not an option. >> the price of doing nothing about health care is a price that every taxpayer and every business and every family will have to pay. >> health care reform is not a democrat or republican issue, it is an american issue. at the start of the health-care debate, democrats have completely set aside -- >> i know i keep s the me question week after week. how're we going to pay for the reforms? one house solution, tax wealthy americans,

the good news is that congress is hard at work. we've got republican senators working day in and day out with democratic senators trying to figure out how to make sure reform happens this year. and they're working really hard. >> when is the president going to say, enough, the house and senate have their own version, i'm going to come up with a barack obama version that i want you guys to pass? >> well, everybody assumed i had the 1,000-page plan in my purse as i traveled through the senate for my preconfirmation hearings. what the president understands is that this package of legislation, this very comprehensive bill needs to be a bipartisan approach. it needs to be owned by the house and the senate with lots of input from the administration. that's exactly what's going on now. progress happening day in and day out, people at the table, senator grassley is working hard with senator baucus and senator conrad and others, i think we're going to have a bipartisan bill with not only votes from republicans and democrats, but lots of ide

the cia misleading congress is a federal crime. what we do?they are calling for a full- blown investigation. a good idea? >> absolutely. he would have thought he would have started back in may when the speaker said that. the speaker is the third most powerful person in america, saying up the cia mislead allies to congress consistently. we are now in the middle of july, and guess what? silvester race as an the intelligence committee have had zero hearings on the allegations. they are not doing anything. you would think that they would take the lead on this, and they are not doing anything. trace: why have we not heard publicly from the cia director? democrats say they were misleading congress, and we're hearing that he did not exactly say that. when will we hear from the director of the cia, and should we? >> i think that leon -- i will tell you, he has come to capitol hill, try to be forthright with the committee, and i appreciate that very much. i think he is between a rock and hard place. here he has some democrats on the committee and is a

what steps do you want the congress now to take? >> well, hopefully we take it up, but the question is whether the president will take it upon himself to know that in preju e prejudging him from a biased base with incomplete facts was wrong. it's not a precedent that should be set by the most powerful person in the wormd and have him admit he was hasty in his judgment and retract his statement and then move on from there, but if not -- >> you could have done that in a press release. >> no, i think it's important -- >> you want -- i'm asking you seriously, congressman, do you want the congress to actually take this up in committee, mark it up, report it out, and vote on it on the floor? is that what you want? >> well, i would think what you're asking then is should the most powerful person in the world be protected by individuals like yourself who think his actions were xlut appropriate and good precedent. >> what said that? >> well, i'm waiting for that to see whether you agree with my proposition. >> if you ever watch this show you

they kept it from congress because it didn't get anywhere.magazine says the bush cia decided to go after al qaeda, or that if they went after al qaeda this way, it would be too risky. does this not sound in real life, from the pages of recent history, exactly like what the gop always accuses democrats of being, in caricature, soft and incompetent when faced with actual terrorists? >> well, it does sound if it may be this -- the gang involved with this program couldn't shoot straight. but, again, we don't know, really, what it was. presumably, there are a lot of intelligence programs that get started that don't work out quite the way they were intended and that's to be expected if you're going to have a cia, that not everything it's going to try to do is going to work. but if you're going to have a cia, you do have to run it according to the law and you have to brief the intelligence committees and that's really the violation here. and all this other stuff, you know, is ancillary, including this -- we kept you safe for eight years, well, not q