that is what congress thought. the chairman of the joint chiefs believed that we are going to lose critical people who are a symptomatic. also the critical skills of the leading cartographer would be lost. it also felt that there was systems in place for people that have all kinds of symptoms for illnesses and a regular protocol but he said that we have sent these kids all over the world and have been taken from their farms and cities and this is leaving your wounded behind. we do not leave our wounded behind. a war that the president knows actually harms military preparedness can hardly be defended as unnecessary imposition on liberty. but when announced was that the president would comply with this and i'm not sure that was the right decision. the first discharge would be processed. we knew it would be sent. then we announced that the justice department while nominally representing the justice of defense in court, would tell the court that we believe that this is unconstitutional and we would not make a half-hear

what about the congress? the framers knot withstanding walters' account at je outset of the drat mattick shift toward greater presidential power at the end, it's true they went from a pure agent manager to a vision of executive leadership and a fully separated set of branches of co-equal status but the single most important principle of the framing was that legislation must constrain discretion that congress must constrain the president. that the president not withstanding that he has the power to take care that the laws be faithfully executed that that is a power of agency to execute laws that have to have a prior and teen se dent course. some issues the framers thought the congress would be in grave restraint -- a grave restraint on the president's power and the concern was maximal about military and foreign affairs we often think that the president needs more freedom in military and foreign affairs because that's where the deals are done and how can you have a multiparty body that takes time to deliberate,

that is what congress thought. so the general who was chairman of the joint chiefs, and secretary of defense believed that they would lose critical people who were is symptomatic, and if the world's leading middle eastern cartographer, critical skills would be lost to the military. but more fundamentally, the general felt that there were already systems in place for people who had all kinds of symptoms for illnesses, a regular protocol, but he said recent these kids all over the world. they got into trouble on shore leave. we have taken them from their homes and farms and cities around the country. he said this is leaving our country -- you're wounded behind. we do not leave our wounded behind. he was deeply emotional about it. so the world of the president knows actually harms military preparedness. it can only be defended as the unnecessary imposition on lamberty. what we announced was that if the president would comply with it, and i am not sure that was the right decision, would comply with it, which means the

congress looks at it. we say, we don't think it is ready for public money so we want to move this to another project that we think is more ready to proceed. that is an earmarked. tell me what is wrong with committees using their judgment about these projects to alter what the administration does? as long as i have been here, no congress has never changed in the president's budget by more than 3%. that 3% difference is the difference between having a president and 18. >> social security -- a president and 1a king. >> with the retirement of the baby boom regeneration, what is the appropriate way to address that? >> people are concerned about the deficit but there are a lot of deficits we need to be concerned about. we need to be concerned about the budget deficit, about the investment deficit, about the education deficit, the science and knowledge deficit, because all of those impact the future prosperity of the country. the fact that we got in the situation today because when bill clinton left office, we we

you can stay in congress if you want but not in that same committee. i felt comfortable that we put in place a better solution. i think since 94 we have gone through bill, john boehner and now john kwan in being the leadership spot on the education committee. i committed to this. as an avid surfer 12 years. -- i said i would served 12 years. i served as the ranking member. when it came to an end, i thought those time for me to leave. >> congress is being asked to vote on waivers for the committee chairmen. we do support that? >> no. there is only been one waiver to da since this has been put in place anthat is when george >> they felt he was instrumental for leading the intel committee after 9/11. it was a very specialized circumstance. i would be very disappointed if i saw my colleagues giving waivers on this. the process has worked. >> we only have one minute left. do you anticipate that when you walk out of that office for the last time after all these years what your prevailing fobbs will be? >> it will be nothing but positive. it is one of the gre

to congress.is to bring home projects to your state. your state is -- is paying taxes. your state is providing gas tax money to the federal highway trust fund. you want to see some of that money spent in your state, not just moved out to montana where there are fewer people and they are not paying as much tax. it is a continual battle. we all believe that wasting money on pork projects is observed, but we also seemed to build -- is absurd. but we also seem to believe that if we are paying taxes, benefits should come back to our district. host: next call from austin, texas, mike on the democrats line caller: i'm just trying to figure why we are finally everything in one package. if that earmarks are due in june to be decided on by the end of the year, and they are broken up into different categories, why are we doing this all together? guest: because the congressional process is broken. the congressional budget process is supposed to operate like that. you start with a bill -- there are 12 or 13 ap

that goes back to the congress. ?- congress tha republican to the position that this is the category of an era marked in told their members the cannot remember -- recommend projects to the core of engineers. it as a point of friction. members neknew that constituents wanted these projects. we have the nom federal funds to match the federal dollars to carry this to completion. steps like that disrupted the bipartisanship. i said we need to move this bill. if there is a change of heart, you are welcome to bring your project back into the opposition. that could have been done. it could have been made highly partisan. i said that was not the right way to conduct the public's business. craigslist ticket to a different subject for the -- >> let us take it to a different subject. you have seen a lot of presidents. i am wondering which of those he felt was the best at promoting his own legislative agenda? who worked with the congress most effectively? >> lyndon b. johnson, no doubt about it. kennedy was an idea person who ins

that would have passed congress. -- 11 out of 18 is above 50%. that would have passed congress. would boehner considering it to the floor? >> the majority leader in the senate and the speakernd the house, if they got 49 of 18, which was required under the president's executive orders establishing the commission for recommendation to move forward, the commitment of the speaker was -- she and i made the same commitment -- was that, if it that 14 out of 18 and it passed the united states senate, it would move through the senate first and then the house would put it on the floor. that has not happened. more importantly, i think the commission and the damage she woodla commission -- and the dominici woodland commission and others have done something very useful. they have described the problem and the proximity of the crisis and suggested solutions. i would certainly hope that all of these commiions, their work product, would be taken into consideration by the congress d the house and various commissions and moving forward to address what i believe debate onef the most critical chall

or are not running for congress. certainly we would love to see and make that comparison because it would be very, very interesting. the caller, in addition to a number people, would definitely like to see it, but it would be difficult to do any practical sense because you do not have the type of reporting for the average american whereas you do for members of congress. host: "i contributed quite a few small amounts between $5.20 dollars. one wonders if you should bother." guest: if you make a $10 donation, a $50 donation, will that compete with the people making the $1,000, $2,000, matching at $2,400 for a particular candidate for an election cycle? some people say now. on the other hand, you see some candidates he had a great deal of success raising the bulk of their money from people we consider to be smaller downers, making those incremental $10, $15 from $20 contributions. some candidates have had a great amount of success as a result of people making those donations. is $10 at the end of the day really going to

would authorize and appropriate and congress would control it. this is off of the books. this is secret. the fed prints its own money and they spent it. their budget is bigger than ours now. the people who get bailed out on the one to act in -- who are in the political know. how can it be more political? some companies were bailout and some were left to go bankrupt. goldman sachs was treated pretty well. we need this information. those individuals who benefited most from the bubble formation in housing and other baubles that were formed were the ones who got overextended -- bubb les were the ones who got over and send it. the american -- the ones who got overextended. it is an unfair system and it is bad economics and it is not legal under the constitution. >> that we go back to your suggestion that you have a bigger that phone with the subcommittee chairmanship. how far is the republican leadership willing to go with the investment -- with the investigation of the fed? are you in concert with the direction you are taking the subcommittee? will y

that helped me in my career for congress. i think it's healthy to have this eclectic mix of members of congress from all backgrounds and all walks of life. >> will you look at any particular period over the years as your zenith, your best years? >> i think these last four years were very humbling and gratifying to me. i never dreamed as a young age in a 1970's to a war hero who earned two silver stars, known as mr. veteran for 30 years -- when i worked for him in the 1970's, i never dreamed i would someday chair the veterans affairs and military construction appropriations committee. in those four years. i have done nothing alone. in partnership with speaker pelosi, chairman of the -- chairman obe. not through my subcommittee, but working with others, we passed the new gi bill. several hundred thousand troops and family members have taken advantage of that great investment, not only those who have served our country honorably, but investing in our country's future and education. one of the things that has meant the most to me

they are enabled by congress. they are authorized by congress. they are written by agencies of government. when we did, when i did the original research for the book back in the early '90s, because there was really no clue -- political science of rulemaking, of the sort that i was undertaken, i did a survey of organized political interest groups here in washington without having any clue where they would ranked rulemaking as an activity. they ranked 20 years ago as important or more important the lobby as the economy. they ranked it also ahead of making political contributions and doing grassroots route. we have updated that survey. that is not eight or nine years old. the findings are more intense on the rulemaking site. what it means is the professionals who make a living influencing public policy have found rulemaking, they fell rulemaking a long time ago, the american people and american academic hasn't. so you are joining this morning a very select group of people who will at least leave after the hour having been warned that if you don't do

>> the list of things you went through is impressive for the congress. obviously, the reality is all backdrop to the fact that when the economy is bad, the economy is mainly the issue. >> colby, a success or failure? >> a roaring success, especially given the context that this congress came in two years ago, the worst recession since the depression. economic uncertainty. look at the legislation that has been passed. we reformed wall street. they saved the automobile industry. they passed legislation that provides health coverage to 30 million people. we have the start treaty with russia. we have stimulated the economy and we have seen the signs of economic improvement. you cannot just take one item. taken as a whole, it is a real achievement. >> avenue, you think they did not get a lot anything done? >> they sure spend a lot of money. they are at over $1 trillion to the debt. sooner or later, they have to pay something back. >> has the congress demonstrated that this democratic president and his colleagues will be able to accomplish something worthwhile?

agencies in the executive branch acting on the allocation of power from past congresses, congress isrom 2009, 1970, the new deal, or even earlier. we have been putting in place new innovations for increasing the autonomy of regulatory agencies from the congress. in the past few years, in the bush administration, under the sarbanes oxley act, we created a new agency in washington with independent taxing power. the independent accounting oversight board created -- it sets its own budget and send a tax bill to every public corporation. if you don't pay it, you go to leavenworth. under dodd-frank, the new consumer protection agency does not have to go to congress for money. it takes its money from the federal reserve. the federal reserve is a profitable bank. it gets an automatic share of that. the regulatory state has been the most durable legacy of the progressive era itself, growing for one century right down to the present. the original rationale delegated lawmaking power from congress was expertise. the idea was that the neutral application of rational analysis and control beyond th

if you believe the guys in congress, keep the paul ryan in congress and they'll start cutting. >> ronl said it might not be a bad thing if government shut down for couple weeks, especially around christmas when there aren't that many government services provided anyway. how would life be if we realize we don't need the great federal government 24/#? what do you think about that? >> given that we are facing a fiscal crisis, that the life in tunnel is oncoming train. we might as well realize the seventh grade schoolboy of government tells us we can't do without it or that program or that program. to the country we'd flourish without these things. the faster we can slash and burn. three words thatgarian etee default -- >> what? >> darren etee -- guarantee its "off the table." you're kidding. we need giant table with everything on it. >> steve moore, to get in the political area here. were you surprised when the president started saying things like tax cuts will help unemployment? tax cuts will advance prosperity? this is the exact opposite of his entire career. as a politician, professor

the theme of mine in congress is human capital. taking on interes necessary to improve our human capital. but the flip side of education of developing human capital is immigration. not only do we want to grow the next generation of global leaders here at home, we want toim port the best and brightest from around the world and keep shooting ourselveses in our own foot in this regard. we lost chi, not because of him, but because of us. we turned a highly trained taxpayer financed engineer into an incompetent enlicee enliss eye in a foreign military. doesn't sound very smart to me. we should want to provide students with powerful incentives to stay in school, do well and graduate. a 2010 stu study by the ucla north american immigration and development center estimated the earnings of the would be between $1.4 and $3.6 trillion for america. we want them working in america. we are causing a brain drain of our own making. a drain in which the very best of a generation, the college bount, the graduate school bound, the doctors, the servic

or are not running for congress.ly we would love to see and make that comparison because it would be very, very interesting. the caller, in addition to a number people, would definitely like to see it, but it would be difficult to do any practical sense because you do not have the type of reporting for the average american whereas you do for members of congress. host: "i contributed quite a few small amounts between $5.20 dollars. one wonders if you should bother." guest: if you make a $10 donation, a $50 donation, will that compete with the people making the $1,000, $2,000, matching at $2,400 for a particular candidate for an election cycle? some people say now. on the other hand, you see some candidates he had a great deal of success raising the bulk of their money from people we consider to be smaller downers, making those incremental $10, $15 from $20 contributions. some candidates have had a great amount of success as a result of people making those donations. is $10 at the end of the day really going to make a

probably relatives of members of congress. no, it is one of the worst in history, had saddled the country with obamacare, which will take a generation to i do, increased the debt. it's also interesting, with this omnibus bill that harry reid was trying to palm off and in the end it was so outrageous that he had to withdraw. 2000 pages of spending that he presented on tuesday and demanded an answer by saturday, when the government is going to shut down. that was away for the 111th, which is now out of business, to control what is going to happen next year. what the republicans and reasonable democrats what is a continuing resolution which would allow the government to go another couple of weeks and allowing the legitimate progress to decide what will decide deck -- what will happen next year. >> the bill had lots of little gimmicks that republicans put in and it was so noxious that by the time it was exposed to the light of day, republicans said, "i will vote against the bill, even though i put that in." >> that is right, it wa

, the 112th congress. senator durbin, there is talk that the democrats are going to try to change the rules on the filibuster when you come back to the new congress in january. i want to put up the record on the screen. so far in this congress, there have been 91 cloture votes to cut off filibusters. there were 112 votes in the last congress. prior to that, the senate record was 61 votes in the congress of 2001 and 2002. question: will you change the rules? will you vote in january when the new senate starts to change rule on fill buster? given the fact that democrats will end up in the majority again, how much are you considering? >> there's active bipartisan commission about the rules change in the rules committee. i serve on it. we have had hearing after hearing to discuss how to make the senate effective and constructive. the numbers on the screen tell the story. we lurch from one quorum call to another. 30 hours of doing nothing to more 30 hours of doing nothing. more filibusters in history of the sen

do you anticipate the congress will re-write the law?ink when time permits, i want to have that discussion in the committee because it raises questions more than gives answers. people know that, well, they're saying the fed had the responsibility and they totally faired. it's incidental to the real problem. the real business is the business cycle. unless you address that, you can't deal with unemployment. it's a good decision but doesn't provide the answers. if we look at unemployment; what would the fed be restrained from doing? they would operate under these emergency powers and be the last resort. they will continue. i don't think it would change a whole lot, but it's a real interesting discussion. >> congressman. what do you think creates the danger on the dollar? the fiscal deficits or the still penalties? >> i don't see how you can separate them. when they over step their bounds and inject 1.2 trillion and another 600 billion. then they are really over stepping their bounds. let's say the $600 billion did thing in an opposite manne

i encourage congress to act. in the meantime, the fcc has to. >> you have a republican house coming in. chances are, they will not act in the way that you want them to act. >> that is possible. we have a democratic senate. normally, these issues have not been partisan. they have been bipartisan issues. i think -- chairman upton is a very sensible person. if you get a couple people from each party saying that this agency is trying to find a legal authority to do what it needs to do. all of our constituents want broadband. you want your constituents to have broad band. right now, the fcc cannot do that under its legal authority. >> this is brit glass. he is in laramie, wyoming. mr. glass, tell us about your company and tellus called the fcc's decision affects you. >> larry it is the company that i operate in laramie, wyoming and it is a wireless internet provider. we were doing this back in 1992. people were concerned about permission to innovate. if the regulations that the fcc has just passed, we would not have b

congress has said bring that in. but potentially they could move on to contracts that were similar but not identical or they would possibly move overseas. we are very conscious of that and are looking at that. >> if they go elsewhere, you know, using those two devices they go overseas or into contract that is are similar but not identical. doesn't both of those things have the same affect on the market? as far as pricing is concerned? >> it may. it may. and so, i mean, that's part of why this is whatever we put out is going to be a proposal. we want the public comment to weigh in. i think that's a good process and a constructive process. but congress is directed us certainly to look at this and expand what we currently have in agriculture products to the over-the-counter market. as we are contemplating to also do it in the energy and metals. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. kissell. >> thank you, luetkemeyer. >> thank you. you said your markets, m.i.t. and university of lincoln in missouri. i have to be

everything bad about congress is being reiterated by this congress as it tries to do all of these thingsuck session. jon: it does seem with major pieces of legislation on tap, for instance the federal budget, and also things like the start treaty, congress is focusing on some relatively smallish use, like the d.r.e.a.m. act, or the repeal of "don't ask don't tel tell." >> reporter: i think that adds to it. in the modern history of the united states since we went to a point where the congress was sworn in in january, and the president was sworn in in january as well instead of march, we've never had a lame-duck session that's passed controversial legislation, major controversial legislation. we passed major legislation but it has been of a bi-partisan consensus basis. now we have the start treat taoerbgs the "don't ask don't tell," all these other things, the land act that h-r rereid is attempting to get through, all of which members of congress and i think more importantly the american people are saying, what are they trying to do, we don't understand what is exactly in the bills, why ar

also, look at the republican agenda in the upcoming 112 congress. congress.

we have a discussion on that in congress this weekend.epeal one by one the mandates on job creators and the health care law. reduce the corporate tax rate. reduce or eliminate the capital gains tax. defend state's ability to create a work force. enact korea, columbia trade law. such a comprehensive undoing carries the risk of scaring independence. as a practical matter, there is no better way to do that without replacing a repealing yet with a step-by-step health care costs. most do not take effect until 2014. the same step-by-step approach can be applied to the second goal, making annual spending come to as close to revenues as possible. trying to eliminate the annual deficit in one year will turn the nation upside down. for a nation that is borrowing 42 cents of every dollar, to waste one day to address its debt is suicidal. action should be taken immediately while other steps are being fashioned. one would be no new entitlements on spending programs. mandatory spending. no more unfunded federal mandates on local governments. tennessee

do you have a strategy for working with the congress on this issue? >> we certainly will be more than happy and we will be spending a significant amount of time to help them understand of our position as a small-business is. as we looked at this issue regarding net neutrality, the one thing we were very concerned about the most was the imposition very heavy-handed regulations under title ii which from our perspective of small business would have been a very serious blow to our ability to provide broadband services and smaller markets areas. we've looked at this proceeding at the fcc the notice of inquiry as well as the discussion that takes place as a positive development to strike what is a very sound balance of appropriate regulation, while at the same time allowing market forces to work for the benefit of the consumer. so from our perspective, it makes great sense to reach this compromise which takes title ii regulation of the table while at the same time ensuring open as for the consumers which was not a problem for our members in terms of nondisc

is congress going to sit by let that happen? >> probably find some cooperation on the republican side of the aisle. this is one of those areas where the republicans and presidency eye to eye. they were never in that much of a hurry to draw down troops. they always said, wait until the mission is complete, don't rush the commission mission, don't set timetables. democrats might not be too thrilled, but republicans will go along with the president. >> schieffer: cheryl, let's talk about what the associated press says was the biggest story of this year, and that was the bp oil spill. there are a lot of investigations that were launched this year. where does all that stand? >> you led the way on this program in talking about, you remember trying to minimize the amount of oil that was come out of the spill trying toe talk about how few gallons were come out-- few millions versus independent scientists saying many more gallons were coming out. this is where the rubber meets the road. right now, the penalty is being assessed. the gover

what is your strategy if it goes to congress? >> i think congress will look at the proposed rule. they should look at that. they have the duty to overse the fcc. to the extent that they want to revamp the loss, take a look at the rules and suggest amendments, they are elected representatives and we will work with them on that. >> will the next few weeks of your life be spent at the fcc? >> we will not be there, it but we will be engaging with commissioners. >> here is a little bit more from the commissioner earlier this week on regulating the internet. >> to this end, broadbent providers been meaningful flexibility -- broadband providers need meaningful flexibility to address the effects of digestion. this is an important part of the proposal, recognizing that what is reasonable will take into account network technology and architecture. our work has also demonstrated the importance of business innovation to promote investment and efficient use, including measures to match price, and usage based pricing. >> now joining us is a representative of the american cable association. in f

there hasn't been a lot of traction in congress, but some of that's because it's an odd issue for congress to deal with. >> host: how so? >> guest: well, we're asking congress to give states more authority. i mean, my employer, this is a states' rights issue. they want congress to grant them more rights than they have under the united states constitution today, which congress has the authority to do, and to get -- because it's tax related or it's the perception of tax related, it's so polarizing. we are gaining traction. we have more than half the states that have sales tax are a member of the streamlines sales tax governing board. georgia becomes a member on january 1. we're actively working with the remaining states to change their law, make life easier for retailers, and we believe if we get more states, we'll have more traction in congress. >> host: it would amount, i mean, most people who buy online and, as you said, that practice is growing, more and more people are shopping online than ever before, they don't pay those sales tax to the states. when i buy off of ebay, i don't pay sal

host: 111th congress. caller: oh, the 111 congress, they are the best money can buy and whoever gives them the most money, they do their bidding. this all started with ronald reagan. when he became president, the national debt was under $1 trillion. he doubled it. every other president since then realized to get reelected they have to borrow and borrow to get the money out to people to make them happy and then they will get reelected and in the meantime the younger generation who are complete idiots in their college, 20's 30's, 40's, they have to pay for it -- host: we are going to leave it there. you have a great christmas season. lead editorial in "the financial times." odd outcome for net neutrality. here is the conclusion -- that is "the financial times" editorial. paul is a republican from charleston, south paul is gone. we will go to barbara in north carolina. independent line. caller: good morning. caller you know, i cannot think whether you are a democrat or republican or independent or tea party o

by a volt of 256-152, this lame duck congress this invalidated congress, this reputed congress, this rejected congress, has gone down the path over and over again of spending money that we don't have for causes that don't have the support of the american people, spent by a congress that's no longer the valid representatives of the people. that's why it's called a lame duck, we should have shot this lame duck a long time ago, it still limps along, flares up and steps in and goes against the will of the american people. i would submit, madam speaker, that if this congress reflected the will of the american people, the gavels would not be changing hands come january 4 of 2011, they'd stay essentially in the same hands with a smaller switch in seats. but we can see this happen over the last four years as the san francisco agenda began to manifest itself here on the floor of the house of representatives. it didn't really get enough traction that the american people understood what was going on until such time as president obama was elected and his agenda matched up so closely with that of

even worse, congress was bankrupt with no way of paying its outstanding wartime debts. some of those loans or loans from foreign countries like france and a lot of it was back pay owed to the continental army soldiers and officers, and george washington demanded that the states get congress taxing powers to raise the money to pay the troops what it owed them. the states refused. after rebelling for more than 20 years against taxation by london's parliament, the states were not about to grant the power to an american congress and patrick henry led the opposition. as jefferson explained it, patrick henry opposed everything which may give influence to congress and infringe on individual liberties and that put him in opposition to any permanent national government tax. shy but what henry called liberty, washington called anarchy. across the nation revolutionary war i veterans writing for back pay in some states were ready to go to war with conflicting territorial claims fish. washington believed only a strong government with a strong federal head off fish float would restor

there hasn't been a lot of traction in congress, because it is an odd issue for congress to deal with. we're asking congress to give states more authority. and this -- i mean, my employer, this is a states rights issue. they want congress to grant them more rights than they have under the constitution today, which congress has the authority to do the perception is tax related. we are gaining traction. more than half the states have sales tax. georgia becomes a member january 1. we think we're making progress. we're actively working with the remaining states to convince them to change their law and make their lives easier for retailers. we believe if we change the law, we will have more traction in congress. >> most people that buy online, because you said, that practice is growing, more and more people are shopping on line than ever before. they don't pale those sales taxes to the states. when i buy off ebay i don't pay sales tax to my state for my ebay purchases, for example. in essence, it is a tax increase, even if it is an uncollected tax. >> thank you. we don't see it as a tax in

and we'll work with congress on that. to the extent they want to revamp the law and take a look at the rules and suggest amendments to the telecommunications act, there are elected representatives -- they're our elected representatives, and we'll work with them. >> host: so is the next couple weeks of your life going to be lived at the fcc? >> guest: well, we will be engaging with the commissioners. >> host: markham erickson is the directer of the open internet coalition. thank you for being on "the communicators." >> guest: thanks, peter. >> host: here's a little bit more from chairman genachowski on regulating the internet. >> broadband providers need meaningful flexibility to manage their networks. for example, to deal with traffic that's harmful or unwanted and to address the effects of congestion. reasonable network management is an important part of the proposal. recognizing that what is reasonable will take account of the network technology and architecture involved. our work has also demonstrated the importance of

they are enabled by congress. they are authorized by congress. they are written by agencies of government. when we did, when i did the original research for the book back in the early '90s, because there was really no clue -- political science of rulemaking, of the sort that i was undertaken, i did a survey of organized political interest groups here in washington without having any clue where they would ranked rulemaking as an activity. they ranked 20 years ago as important or more important the lobby as the economy. they ranked it also ahead of making political contributions and doing grassroots route. we have updated that survey. that is not eight or nine years old. the findings are more intense on the rulemaking site. what it means is the professionals who make a living influencing public policy have found rulemaking, they fell rulemaking a long time ago, the american people and american academic hasn't. so you are joining this morning a very select group of people who will at least leave after the hour having been warned that if you don't do

they do not want to tell congress what to do and they do not want congress to tell them what to do. there is very much a sense of that finding a long-term path to a stronger fiscal situation for the u.s. government is very important. it can help keep interest rates from rising. that is very much on their agenda. i expect chairman bernanke welle voice some concerns -- i expect chairman bernanke will voice some concerns he has already. encourages -- he could suggest that, hey, callers, it is time to come up with an agenda. >> whether the fed and other central banks should be more aggressive in pushing for fiscal policy measures, since the central banks tend to be respected authorities in general, on the economy, some people may differ on that. the question is how aggressive does chairman bernanke and federal officials want to get in pushing for anything more aboutic than cookintalking long-term deficits and stimulus in the short run? >> you look at the perception of the fed image and ben bernanke going on "60 minutes." what is the perspective money work of the fed did what it should a

the congress is going to fight it over the next two years. but as the benefits kick in, you're also going to be fighting against public opinion, which i believe isis going to overwhelmingly support this law, eventually, just like it has medicare and social security. >> those public support numbers have gone nowhere but down since the debate over obamacare began. this week a new abc news washington post poll shows that an all-time low support for obama-care at 42%. i want to mention two federal judges that upheld the mandate. however, neither one of those came out of the state-based lawsuits. they were individual lawsuits. this judge, henry hudson, that ruled this week that it was unconstitutional came out of the first state-based lawsuit. this week we also had another round of arguments in florida. that case concerns 20 states attorneys general. the judge in that case, roger benson, has indicated that this is a huge expansion of government and expansion of congress' authority to require an american, as a basic condition of living in this coun

. >> why does the public hate congress yet re-elect most members of congress? >> i mean -- >> look at this poll, 83% don't like congress. >> first of all, thank god i run against an opponent instead of just the concept of couldn't we do better? when people say they don't like congress it's mythical image they have of what congress ought to be, that they compare us to. second, a lot of people like their individual member of congress because they know us. finally, we reflecthe views. if you ask people in the adjoining district whether they like me, they would say no. so it could be when you ask people in my district do you like congress, they are thinking of the other guy. >> congressman, i was speaking to a smart politician, getting a smart political answer. here is better, tougher question. i know nancy pelosi, you know her, you know her as an inside political player, i know her as an outside person in the media. i like her. when i'm with her, i think she is a really nice person. i can't understand these -- maybe i can, but i want you to voice it why is there a

we look forward to working with you in the 100 called commerce congress ought -- 112th congress want it pending trade agreements. we appreciate your taking time to speak at today's north american competitiveness and global supply chain summit. you have the floor. [applause] >> i am convinced that i get asked because i was a chamber of commerce guy. i commend your focus today on the critical link between supply chains and economic growth. supplying chains are the nuts and bolts of moving goods across national borders. there are a number of opportunities for us to facilitate a legitimate trade and protect our interests and support u.s. jobs what we are doing that. they include the three pending trade agreements, the ongoing talks, the u.s. hosting vapac in honolulu, and the customs legislation. i would like to discuss each of those today. i just came back from an a day conference in japan. i was impressed with the energy and synergy in that region. there is a great deal of interest in seeing an active u.s. trade agenda. more economic in cajun and in the fast-growing asian region 0--- m

and under delegations of power from past congresses, from congresses 2009, in 1970 he were in the newthe autonomy of regulatory agencies from the congress. just in the past two years, for example, in the bush administration under the sarbanes-oxley act, we created a new regulatory agency in washington with independent taxing power. the public company accounting oversight board, is a five o. one c. three, just like the hudson institute created in washington d.c. but it sets its own budget and send the tax bill to cover a public corporation, which must be paid or you go to leavenworth just as if he don't pay a tax bill. and this was taken a step further under dodd-frank, the new consumer protection agency does not have to go to congress for money either. it takes its budget as a cut of the federal reserve bank's profits. the federal reserve is a very profitable bank and make it nondramatic share of that. into the regulatory state has been the most durable legacy of the progressive era itself, growing and morphing for now a century. the break down to the president long after the congress

this happened in the first congress. it will happen until there is no longer a congress. congress used to say the president will. then it moved to the president and the secretary will. now it's the present and the assistant secretary. if you feel you have got a friendly home within an agency, realizing of course these homes change, a lot, that's an opportunity as well. a very common, and this is one that finreg is operating under and health care reform, imposing deadlines on the agency in writing the rule. just like they did back in the clean water act, he was a for example, okay, the first wave of co2 for limiting emissions, regulations, will be the environmental protection agency 90 days after enactment of statutes. or 180 days, or a year or two years. now, deadlines are very much political statements. they position certain interests to exercise extraordinary authority. if you're imposing a deadline on an agency and that deadline is a severe, and, you know, the agency doesn't have the information it needs to produce the responsible regulation in 90 days, and you have th

since congress passed the cpsia. thanks to your leadership, we now have five commissioners and an agency that is more fully funded. the cpsia was indeed a wakeup call for the agency. and for many in the business community to tighten their own product safety regimes. but the cpsia also created extraordinary problems for competency who are already doing the right thing in ensuring product safety and many cases, those problems came with little gain for public safety. with an eye to maximizing public health and safety, it is our hope with the legislative amendment, continued congressional oversight and continued dialog between the agency, industry, and other product safety stakeholders we can create a stable, predictable risk-based regulatory environment. thank you again for providing us this opportunity to testify. i'm available to take any questions. >> thank you. >> dr. gardener? >> good morning. my name is dr. garry gardener. and i'm proud to represent the american academy of pediatrics at this hearing today. the aap

given the levels of dissatisfaction with the congress. given levels of concern about the deficit spending. given the animosity toward washington in general. that is a big question. another advantage to doing it this way and put president obama in a box. he didn't like signing the omnibus in 2009. shortly after being sworn in. he talked about cutting back on earmarks and talked about not wanting to sign it. he was advised you can't do this. you're the new president and it would be the worst way to start off relations with congress. >> yellowstone on christmas and finds it shut, not going through the reasoning of the omnibus, it will be recapitulation of what happened in the early '90s and republicans will take the hit for it. >> bret: last word, a.b.? >> the administration is opposed to the omnibus spending bill. they haven't come out and said so publicly. >> bret: why not? >> they're not making suspect portative statements and they encourage for stop gap continuing resolution. >> why not say to okay, this is not going to work. i voted for

. >> it is a tough thing to ask members of congress to vote for a tax cut. [laughter] a rere by-the-bullet, but for a tax cut. -- a vote for a tax cut. families collecting $26 billion saved in inheritance taxes as a result. as a bonanza of the country. >> charles, is this good for the country? >> i like it either. if you think that adding $1 trillion to the deficit when we are drowning in debt is good for the country, i don't think so. >> nina? >> i am really worried about the depths of recession and a slow recovery. in the long run, being this profligate is not good for the country, and i'm doing a tax cut is one of the most difficult things. it is going to be very difficult for president obama to do that. if it boosts the economy of it, let's see i a couple of years if anybody wants to do anything about the deficit. >> evan, democrats and republicans on the same page. are you pleased? >> as a mushy centrist, yes. [laughter] but it is like watching an alcoholic take one more drink. if it leads to president obama come out of the state of the union and talkin

from my point of view, the congress or some of the people in congress don't really listen to the people seems that they only make decisions that only a select few have the time and ability to negotiate on. all these earmarks, you are making the debt bigger and the only thing they are afraid of is bankruptcy. it can be more catastrophic. when a normal family has bankruptcy, it is the ultimate way to get rid of all the debt and start over by new. why are we so afraid to lead a new congress and the people negotiate on possible solutions instead of hoarding? it is all -- instead of worrying? -- instead of hurrying? guest: that is a great question. as you can see it with the senate, they did listen to the people because the people lit up the call boards and mcconnell has been given credit for -- and mitch mcconnell has been growing -- given credit for the on the bus. the dirty little secret is that he has $112 million in your march that he would not get. -- in your marks that he would not death. -- in earmarks that he would not get rid of. next year, people will be a more responsive to their

in this new congress, this new republican congress, there will be new attention paid to that issue. the other question you raise is whether what the fed is doing is a sensible policy. there is a lot of disagreement there as well as agreement. the disagreement comes from the fact that many people believe they will be issuing too much money and that will eventually result in inflation. if we look at commodity prices and gold prices and the things that are usual indicators of a fear of inflation, we are beginning to see those indicators show that kind of fear. i think many scholars worry about what the fed has been a. doing. alan greenspan has been blamed at the time for keeping interest rates low at the beginning of the 2000's. he was afraid of deflationary and he was afraid that unemployment was too high. now, he is being criticized for that and ben bernanke is being praised for doing exactly the same thing right now. we will not know until well into the future whether this has been a sensible policy. host: one of the key oversight players will be congressman ron paul will oversee th