well, the people elected a congress. in 2010, the change to the congress. that is why we are not subjects, why we are citizens. >> professor barnett, you and mr. carvin have alluded to the activity-inactivity distinction. tell me what case you look to for president or what part of the constitution you refer to to come up with this approach. >> there's nothing in the constitution that says congress has the power to regulate economic matters. there's nothing that even says that congress has the power to regulate activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. there is no former doctrine. as for the substantial tax, that is given by the supreme court. i have been operating reading my testimony is based on what the supreme court has said. the supreme court has referred to the congress's power and authorized congress to exercise its power to regulate the activity coming economic activity. that is what it says. justice scalia had a concurring opinion. he uses the word "activity" or "activities" 42 times. that is a lot. that is what we're looking to

congress can go this far. it is not said congress can go farther. it can go farther. it has not done so up to now. >> i think the other four witnesses have acknowledged the health-care industry is part of commerce. do you except that -- do you accept that? >> absolutely. >> most of the case law does speak of activity. the supreme court is not limited -- has not limited the commerce clause to a formal category of activity. the case itself cites the language in the carter versus carter calleole. whether a condition can be regulated. this is somewhat an artificial attempt to restrict the cars to regulating activities as opposed to conditions. it does not make sense under the case law. >> judge benson said he found a section to be unconstitutional. the entire act is then virtually unconstitutional. there is a questioned as to what the operative affect of his decision is on that particular district, that state, and the nation. would you comment on that? >> i think judge benson's decision goes far beyond where it was necessary to go. i think that the fact that two other fed

it would still congress to give congress to command the citizens to do anything. that has never been done before. that tax power has never been used that way before. that is the only thing i would add to what professor bayh said. tooted it is relative and the fallen since. there is the impression out there that under this law, federal agents are rife in black helicopters, dressed in fully equipped ninja cost in, kick them in your bedroom door and drag you off at the point of data into an insurance agency. when all that happens is that those who are not otherwise exempted, when they're filling up their federal income tax return, if you're not maintaining minimum coverage, if you messed up a and additional 2.5%, much less than social security. that is all that happens. it does not approach any slippery slope of any understood limits and are legal culture. >> thank you so much for the panel that has joined us. this is an excellent hearing. witnesses, it is a not assert that -- an honor that you have to one is for this important consideration of this major legislation

if you base it on when he first went to congress, all but 22 members of congress has seen congress from the perspective he has seen. he is the youngest of those 23 by far. that experience gives him the perspective on congress the that i think is essential to understand the institution, its weaknesses, and how to restore it to its potential. elena kagan first introduced me to jim cooper while talking about how to make congress work again. he spent many hours with me and educated me about the institution and its potential. i am very happy he has since it -- he has accepted my invitation to share his thoughts on how to make the institution work better. i am also happy that he has announced another side to this question. buddy roehmer will deliver his views on the same question. please join with me in welcoming congressman jim cooper. [applause] >> thank you so much. i am honor to be back on campus. yvette page me when the greatest problem as i have ever received. -- you have paid me the greatest compliment i have ever received. former senator howard baker once said that there are three thi

well, the peoe elected a congress. in 2010, the change to the congress. that is why we are not subjects, why we are citizens. >> professor barnett, you and mr. carvin have alluded to the activity-inactivity distinction. tell me what case you look to for president or what part of the constitution you refer to to come up with this approach. >> there's nothing in the constitution that says congress has the power to regulate economic matters. there's nothing that even says that congress has the power to regulate activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. there is no former doctrine. as for the substantial tax, that is given by the supreme court. i have been operating reading my testimony is based on what the supreme court has said. the supreme court has referred to the congress's power and authorized congress to exercise its power to regulate the activity coming economic activity. that is what it says. justice scalia had a concurring opinion. he uses the word "activity" or "activities" 42 times. that is a lot. that is what we're looking to

well, the people elected a congress. in 2010, the change to the congress. that is why we are not subjects, why we are citizens. >> professor barnett, you and mr. carvin have alluded to the activity-inactivity distinction. tell me what case you look to for president or what part of the constitution you refer to to come up with this approach. >> there's nothing in the constitution that says congress has the power to regulate economic matters. there's nothing that even says that congress has the power to regulate activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. there is no former doctrine. as for the substantial tax, that is given by the supreme court. i have been operating reading my testimony is based on what the supreme court has said. the supreme court has referred to the congress's power and authorized congress to exercise its power to regulate the activity coming economic activity. that is what it says. justice scalia had a concurring opinion. he uses the word "activity" or "activities" 42 times. that is a lot. that is what we're looking to

well, the people elected a congress. in 2010, the change to the congress. that is why we are not subjects, why we are citizens. >> professor barnett, you and mr. carvin have alluded to the activity-inactity distinction. tell me what case you look to for president or what part of the constitution you refer to to come up with this approach. >> there's nothing in the constitution that says congress has the power to regulate economic matters. there's nothing that even says that congress has the power to regulate activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. there is no former doctrine. as for the substantial tax, that is given by the supreme court. i have been operating reading my testimony is based on what the supreme court has said. the supreme court has referred to the congress's power and authorized congress to exercise its power to regulate the activity coming economic activity. that is what it says. justice scalia had a concurring opinion. he uses the word "activit or "activities" 42 times. that is a lot. that is what we're looking to. wh

if you base it on when he first went to congress, all but 22 members of congress has seen congress from the perspective he has seen. he is the youngest of those 23 by far. that experience gives him the perspective on congress the that i think is essential to understand the institution, its weaknesses, and how to restore it to its potential. elena kagan first introduced me to jim cooper while talking about how to make congress work again. he spent many hours with me and educated me about the institution and its potential. i am very happy he has since it -- he has accepted my invitation to share his thoughts on how to make the institution work better. i am also happy that he has announced another side to this question. buddy roehmer will deliver his views on the same question. please join with me in welcoming congressman jim cooper. [applause] >> thank you so much. i am honor to be back on campus. yvette page me when the greatest problem as i have ever received. -- you have paid me the greatest compliment i have ever received. former senator howard baker once said that there are three thi

it seems to be saying beyond the power of congress to enact. jurisprudence,s that is how the case would be viewed. that is not how it was viewed at the time. >> how do we know that? >> the language from the sentence that you read discussing whether the presence or absence of the state objection mattered, the court said there was no objection from the state. if this was not so, the appellant has no standing to raise any objection under the amendment. >> let's assume in this hypothetical that the federal government sets the price. someone is accused of violating the price. in that defendant come in and say it is unconstitutional because prices have to be set by the state? can the defendant say that in the commandeering claim? >> that is the kind of claim today we would concelebrate -- conceptualize as an enumerated powers claim. >> give me a hypothetical of a defendant where it would be a pure anti-commandeering claim that you say they have a standing for. >> imagine back to justice kennedy's question. i wanted to answer the part that i thought d

before the congress passed that. have you any consideration of ending your latest purchase program early? -- early?" >> we tried to base our decision on where we should be and whether we should do more or less on the outlook. in this case, when we were making our projections, we had already taken into account most of what was in the package. we had anticipated that the bush tax cuts would most likely be extended, at least in large part. we anticipated that the insurance would be extended, at least in large part. the part of the package that was surprising in creates additional stimulus is the payroll tax rebate. we factor that into our analysis. on the margin, we will respond to the way that affects the outlook. it was not that we were surprised by this package. we expected much of it to happen and it was built into our forecast when we made our policy positions. >> you referenced the jobless claims numbers. obviously, data flows on nearly a daily basis. what do you think is the single-biggest bank, if there is one,

created by the first congress. it must have been given some authority. the, but there is a point, and never having studied it, i don't know where that point is, where there is an unconstitutional delegation of, essentially, legislative authority to an agency, and i suspect -- again without knowing -- that multiple examples of that will be found or could be found in obamacare and in the new bill, the dodd-frank bill regulating the commercial market. put it this way. in reading the articles about the consequences of obamacare, time and again you run into an analysis that says we don't know today how this bill will ultimately effect x, y or z aspects of medical care because the regulator hasn't yet come out with the regulations. it seems to me that congress should never enact a law without knowing what is the impact going to be? >> thank you. i just wanted to ask about term limits because i had initially supported term limits, but then i've seen how it has been enacted in some states, the particular example that i'm t

it will play out in the courts and throughout congress. one of the interesting things about the budget -- the continuing resolution for the rest of the 2011 spending bill that that house republicans proposed on friday and will vote on, the proposed stopping funding for the exact title, a particular office for health reform. they propose to halt the funding for that office. there are ways the republicans are going to continue to try to push this -- not exactly the repeal, but ways to hinder that law. we will see how that plays out. host: the republican line. caller: i think you're dismissing the wrong thing. i think that for him to win last year and again this year is not a matter of a bunch of college students very active and very much a control of the convention. this is a very sustained an active group that is when the conduct a very intense campaign in iowa and new hampshire that will shock the republican establishment. if he gets the nomination in 2012, it will totally revolutionized not just the republican party but american politics.

in congress.ot individuals taking off on junkets and golf tours, stuff like that. host: we have gotten this twitter message, writing -- host: back to the phones. california, olivia, good morning. caller: can you hear me? host: yes. caller: great. there is definitely polarization. i hope that you will allow me to speak. i am a bit nervous. i am a democrat, but i am not an enemy of any republican or independent. when republicans were voted into office this time, they took $800 billion and gave the richest 1% of tax cuts that were supposed to get jobs. at the same time they have these propaganda machines dividing the american people against each other. your neighbors, they went to church on sunday. for the last few years they have been telling us that your neighbor was not a christian because they are a democrat. across the street you might know someone who lost their house. the previous administration gave $3 trillion in bailout. the banks turned around and did not help your neighbor keep their hous

a call for congress to act. i strongly endorse this resolution and i look forward to the committee on small business reviewing agency regulations that are duplicative, unnecessary and otherwise unhibtive to small business expansion. with that, mr. speaker, i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. new york. the chair begs forgiveness. we recognize the gentlewoman from new york. ms. velazquez: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. mr. speaker, small businesses are central to the economic recovery currently under way. unfortunately there are many obstacles for entrepreneurs to overcome in order to be successful. one of the most notable is regulatory burdens. the hours upon hours it takes an entrepreneur to navigate and complete federal, state or municipal government paperwork. this impediment has grown dramatically in recent years. according to the s.b.a.'s office of advocacy, rules

of congress. >> ah, wonderful idea. [laughter] phil, can you get the budget for that? >> tell them to read it. [laughter] >> so we're on the record there. another one of your reforms that you've mentioned, jim, in "freedom at risk" is term limits. you say that you favor term limits. and so i, i was thinking about this. i was thinking, well, that might have meant the early retirement of, for example, bob taft or barry goldwater or even newt gingrich before he became famous. i mean, those are all important conservatives. so -- >> with also congressman frank. >> right, right. barney frank, yes, indeed. [laughter] what about, so, are you really that strongly support i of the idea of -- supportive of the idea of term limits? >> i am. >> talk about that. >> the constitution involves all kinds of compromises. human nature is human nature. and as of service -- as we have moved from a system of citizen legislators into career legislators, i think from my own experience what i've been able to see and i think from what people have

but congress will simply not believe him until he fights back. so how did congress get this bad?ou know more about them? when cambridge his own tip o'neill was speaker of the house just over 20 years ago, congress was very different than it is today. imperfect to be sure, but functional your tip o'neill believed that he was speaker of the whole house. he did not want democrats to win every vote. he wanted the house of representatives to work its will. he criticized president reagan during the day, and drank beer with him at night. he was proud. a major issues, major stay were expected to vote their conscience and their district. it was the job of the eloquent majority leader, jim wright, to corral enough democratic votes and the job of the gentlemen minority here, bob michael, to defeat those majorities. people could disagree without being disagreeable. you are considered a party loyalist if you support your party's position, 70 or 80% of the time. members knew exactly what they were voting on because of an elite group of staffers called the democratic study group that wrote auth

congress. before that, there were people serving who did not want to serve and our military. everyone there today is there because they want to be. the mood in the country is so different as a result of that. compared to the vietnam war, what is going on today in iraq and afghanistan, the american people are proud of the military, and the military are proud what they are doing. they know what they are doing and why they are doing it. that is why decided i wanted the proceeds of the books to go to those men women in uniform and their families and to the children of the fallen. that is what will happen to the proceeds. >> if you get on the dollar rumsfeld foundation website, you see that you have around $10 million, you have given money away -- scholarship money away. how do you choose those people, and why are you doing that? >> i have had people work for me and governments who never could have gotten a master's or a ph.d. on their own. there was a foundation that was supporting the type of thin

the old congress, the 11th congress didn't vote to willfully fund the implementation of obamacare. now we're faced with, they have the prospect of a continuing resolution coming before this congress that's been announced to be five times greater than any appropriations bill ever voted on by this congress before and perhaps four times greater than any cuts that have been offered before. that's because the whole string of 13 or so appropriations bills get packed up into one and all that spending that is normally spread out across 13 and perhaps a supplemental or two packaged into one bill, with all that money in it, that's why it's that big. i think it's unlikely there will be a line item anywhere in it that will fund obamacare but i don't see resistance either from someone bringing an antidepressant that would declare that none of the funds in the c. reform shall be used to implement or enforce obamacare. that's pretty close to the language i have advocated for ever since last march. when i first introduced the repeal legislation to obamacare and by the way, michele bachmann and i w

that is the prediction what congress will do. not a prediction about what the law would do if congress were to stick with it. >> so you think if we stick with the president's current budget without any policy changes through entitlements that we will be ok? >> if you enact the president's budget which is unlikely because you will want to change it but the degree of deficit reduction in the next four years you will stabilize our debt and share the economy at acceptable levels. if you leave in place the affordable care act you will have made a substantial contribution to those long-term deficits to start to accelerate in decades ahead. what the president said -- >> the last few years i heard you say the same thing. just worded differently. every year the budget problem gets worse over time. >> in some ways it is getting better because the economy is doing better than we expected but the way the constitution works the president proposes congress has to legislate. you will share with us the privilege of how to make decisions about th

it turns out he went to congress. had a long and distinguished career in congress after ratification and was known as the venerable family. but finley and 7096 looked back over the ratifying convention and talked a bit about his thinking had change. he referred to the pennsylvania ratifying convention with considerable understatement as one where some circumstances affectation for unfriendly to cool discussion. but later on reflection he decided maybe the massachusetts solution of ratifying and recommended amendments made a lot of sense, that we need to improve the federal government quickly. and to call another federal convention probably -- better to avoid it. he even fought through his positions and decided that not all of those objections to the constitution were well founded. after the congress recommended in the states ratified some of the amendments that he wanted, he became confident that additional amendments could be enacted when they became necessary. in the and, like so many one time critics of the constit

i think it is time for the fcc to give congress a deadline. and it should simply announce you have as much time as you need to make a very, you know, it is a hard decision on some level, but it is also very simple. you allocated to commercial, to public safety, it should not take more than a year or 18 months. that's how long it takes to actually do an auction so the fcc might as well start tomorrow. tomorrow is saturday. can't do that. monday and just say, we're going to start planning for commercial auction. that's the current law. if congress wishes to reallocate it differently, that's fine. but let's not get to a point where a year from now congress decides not to do it and then we have to wait aol yenother year half before an auction can be held. i would urge the fcc and congress, and, by the way, if you're a supporter of public safety, it is in your interest that that happen because that's the only way to get to that kind of state of urgency which would cause congress to actually act. >> always hard to follow blair. first, let me start b

all past and issued by congress in the name of the united states -- all passed and issued by congress in the name of the united states about piracies on the high seas korea -- high seas. but the point is, there is no power granted in that document. to tell us where to go to the doctor and have to pay for it. there is no power to tell us to do a lot of the things they are trying to do, is it? america is coming together and is saying the american government has limited power, and it is time that its legislative body, congress, starts acting like there is some limit to its power. that is why we are here. that is why we are not going away. [applause] >> thank you, senator lee. now, congressman west. >> i will make sure i do not trip, because a lot of people would have fun poking fun at me on youtube, but it is fun to be with you here this evening, and as senator orrin hatch asked me, "how are you enjoying this," as i said, i protected the issues that make this country so great as it is, and now, to have the opportunity to serve in the u.s. house of representatives, i am and body in the am

congress can't as well. >> that helps tremendously. we have fixed term but can only be removed from office by impeachment from the senate. the thankfully that hasn't happened yet. that is a certain amount of autonomy. now congress can pass legislation to make as do something or prevent those doing something and restrict our budget to keep us from pursuing a certain goal so politics is always there. we could be called to capital hill before relevant committees and be browbeaten and people can complain and voice their opinions to representatives of the american people. it is political for all those reasons but there is that degree of insulation from it as well. everything we do is also a lead public. our decisions are written and available to the public and available to appeal through the courts so there are a lot of checks and balances should the commission do something is not authorized to do. there are some building blocks. the system is in place. going back to the matter of how do different personality is shaped different philosophie

congress suspended at about two years ago. we have a proposal that we are working with the mexicans on to restart that program. the answer is, it is considered a pilot program. it is not necessarily a full- blown program. but we intend to restart the program because it is in the law. the law requires us to do it. we don't want to cause it will be restarted. we will work with trucking companies in the united states to make sure it doesn't impinge on your ability to continue to have a job and make money. host: here is all look at the dollars behind the six-year transit division. paul requested -- host: tell me about the national infrastructure bank. guest: apot of money to debate, significant projects. i was just in nevada. i was dedicating a bridge the goes over the hoover dam. that project was started seven years ago. people were thinking big. we know there are big, bold, significant projects in america that need to be funded. we will continue to use the highway trust fund to fund transportation projects. we'll use the infrast

answer those. >> i have immense respect for the congress and the military. i do not have respect for the people occupying them right now. i have immense respect for the people of the military who are doing what they have to do in afghanistan and in the past few years in iraq. i have immense respect for the military officers i have been working with for a long time and people inside the pentagon. my problem, my cynicism, is a result of observing the way the leadership of this country has been behaving for the last few decades. when i first came to capitol hill in the 1970's, we had some national problems on our hands. we had watergate. we had vietnam and china. back then, there were some people who seriously took on those issues and try to grapple with them and deal with them seriously. we do not have that now. >> what about general petraeus? i mean, he has spent an enormous amount of time, or general childers over there in afghanistan. what kind of marks do you give him? >> i think he is pursuing a fool's errand in afghanistan. i think the surge he is being

we hear on the floor of congress -- we here on the floor of congress said, we must introduce competitionthis system, this at&t, this bell south, verizon, pack bell system, it does not innovation -- innovate. not one home in america had broadband in february of 1996 when we passed the telecom act here. we had to order it. there were no broadband users in america in any home as we passed the bill. and so what we tried to do is to induce darwinian, paranoia-inducing competition. what did the broadband barons seek to accomplish? as the private sector they want to quash competition. they don't ever and they never will invent a google and amazon and ebay. they will never invent any of these thousands of smaller companies which are the engine of economic growth in our country. which leads to our ability to export these products. verizon's not going to invent anything new. what they want to do is squeeze the competitors, price them out of the market so that they can maintain a monopoly across the country. that's what this debate is all about. that's what the f.c.c. rules are saying. they're sayi

the business of this congress should be about jobs and the business of this congress should be about rebuilding our nation's competitiveness and that business should begin now. we cannot afford any further delays or distractions. with that, i reserve the mans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from minnesota. >> thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased to yield five minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. walberg: thank you, madam speaker. last november, the people of michigan, workers that long defined manufacturing, sent a message to washington that business as usual in this town is not working. currently, the unemployment rate in my home state is at 11.7%. and even higher in some counties in my seventh congressional district. over the past two years, we witnessed burdensome laws being imposed on businesses and still feel the threat of costly regulation that prevents companies from growing and hiring. small businesses are the en-in of

the staff and congress ballooned by multiple of two or three. the continuing layering of requirements from the congress generally stimulated either by the defense community or stimulated by the bureaucracy because they want to perpetuate something, it ends up with rules and requirements, reports, all of these things, hundreds of reports required by the part of defense. hundreds of letters have to be answered for all kinds of detailed things. the movement away from legislative oversight of a broad, substantial of nature, which would be very constructive if hearings were held on important things, going down to micromanagement. the closest thing i can think of is gulliver's travels and lilliputian would put the red over bolivar. not one of those threads may indeed difference, but when you put hundreds of these threads over the dollar, he could not get up. that is basically what is happening in the department of defense. >> to presidents have tried to eliminate funding for a backup engine on the fighter jets. it goes into the details of how much mon

we have to be able to continue to work with congress. the consortium of individuals including consumers and public health professionals, an industry that supported the original bill all care very much about seeing it fully implemented as congress has asked us to, and over time, we need to address very seriously the issue of resources. this 2012 budget is a down payment on our ability to implement the food safety legislation that we are already working toward in key areas, but it will be an ongoing process. we will be working with congress to ensure full funding. i am not assuming anything, but i am hoping the congress will understand that in order to implement both -- continue our important efforts to protect the -- american people in terms of food safety and reduce preventable illness and death in this country, and also preventable cause in terms of the economy from foodborne outbreaks that could be prevented. we need to move forward with all of our fiscal programs. >> the easiest way to think of it is in three different categories. the

bob goodlatte, chairman of the house subcommittee on intellectual property and co-chair of the congressal internet caucus. >> host: congressman bob goodlatte is co-chairman of the house internet caucus. how do you envision your role in the upcoming or the current 112th congress when it comes to tech policy? >> guest: well, i think i am very, very fortunate to chair what i think is one of the best subcommittees in the congress, and it's particularly good in terms of looking at what we need most in our country right now, and that's job creation. and growth of our economy. the tech industry the, the tech community plays a huge role in that, a very high percentage of our job growth is related to development of new technology, and a very, very large percentage of our exports are related to that as well. so promoting that through both intellectual property which is the jurisdiction over patents, copyrights and trademarks, and think about the internet as the largest collection of patents in the world. and the subcommittee has jurisdiction over antitrust issues. so, again, promoting competition,

she's a leader in the congress. no one since september 11, 2001, or anyone before that has been more knowledgeable or informed or dedicated on intelligence and homeland security issues and her departure is a loss to both sides of the aisle. everyone wishes her well in her new role. let me also express my deepest sympathies to the family of david hillman, the retired cvp officer who was killed by a suicide bomb in kandahar. there's other cvp personnel, michael lacowski, terry cheryl and vernon regis injured in the attack. our thoughts and prayers are with them all. to me, that personifies the level of patriotism that cvp offices demonstrate no matter where they happen to be located. again, perform a tremendous service for our country. also, there are members of the dh dhs that serve all around the world. >> as we begin the work of the 112th congress, the goal of the committee today is to hear a comprehensive review of the terrorist threats facing our nation. today will be an open, unclassified session and so i would

and indeed this is why congress itself exists. the phrases and the fifth and fourteenth amendments capsulate our entire constitution when they proclaim that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. those words are a crystal clear reflection of the proclamation of the declaration of independence that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unail i can't believe rights, those being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness those words are the essence of america and our commitment to them for more than two centuries has set america apart as the flagship of human freedom in the entire world. and yet unspeakable suffering and tragedy have occurred whenever we have strayed from those words. our own united states supreme court ruled that millions of men, women and children were not persons under the constitution because their skin was black. it took a horrible civil war and the deaths of over 600,000 americans to reverse that unspeakable tragedy. and we saw the sam

i worked in washington for to congress, one from ohio and one from michigan. suddenly out of the blue the woman who was the congresswoman who had succeeded her husband occupying that congressional district from 1932 until 1960. she announced she was not going to run for reelection. that thought to myself, my goodness. that family owned by district for my entire lifetime. he may not get another chance. a talked to joyce. she's gained. something like 100 volunteers helping. people running around with things on their cars and earrings and buttons and bumper stickers and sure enough i was fortunate one of the things that might have helped is that president kennedy had an elected two years before. he was so young, running for congress at 29, served in the senate for part of a term and then ran for president. he was a young president and had been elected and was so attractive and charming and humorous. >> he posed for a picture with eisenhower during the campaign. >> the fact that we have such an attractive young president had an appeal in the district that made a k

one is the whole question that this congress, a portion of the congress stressed during the dodd frank act that the so-called fannie mae and freddie mac really needed to be dealt with. i thought it should have been an integral part of the legislation. the government bailouts. when you look for overreach, enhanced supervision. i disagree that there was information that was available to regulators. in hindsight is always easy to explain what happened even if it is wrong. i do urge you to read this article by samuelsson because it is so easy to focus on villains and victims and unfortunately that is the direction we tend to go politically and that is why our conclusions look at more fundamental causes and if we don't focus on those we are going to be doomed to repeat not withstanding a number of regulatory measures that were put in effect, especially a portion of the derivative legislation. not saying there were certain kinds that were clearly part of the problem but there are many others and we're just now discovering as we're getting testimony recently reported in the paper about firms

congress was furious. these funds were essential to their constituents and one of the people affected was the powerful chair of the senate finance committee. the senate would overturn many of carter's proposals. finally, carter had trouble keeping liberal democrats in his coalition. the essential story of much of his presidency, tensions that developed between liberal democrats and a president who wanted to position himself as a centrist and go beyond the orthodoxy the party had been offering until the 60s. we see the trouble he had maintaining peace with liberal democrats through his relationship with senator ted kennedy, a relationship parenthetically that still bothers president carter has emerged in one of the first conversations following the release of his new white house diary. again carter represented the center of the party, an early version of what president clinton would try to do in the 1990s and he was conscious and deliberate in saying he wanted to avoid traditional left/right divisions on mo

on this new session of congress. these numbers suggest that perhaps not every member in this body shares that goal. five, the number of weeks that this house has been in session under the new leadership. 12, the number of bills the house has voted on. zero, the number of house votes on bills that have been through their respective committees. zero, the number of house votes on bills intended to create jobs and address what should be our very top priority. the most important contest we face today is not between democrats and republicans, rather it's america's contest with competitors across the globe for the jobs and industries of our time. and economic growth is crucial for us to win this global race. not only for the future of our work force, but also as a way to balance our budget and drive down the deficit. during his state of the union address, i was happy to hear president obama reiterate that we share the same top priority, jobs, jobs, and jobs. in fact, the chairman of the federal reserve, ben bernanke, is sit

congress, you ought to change this? jonathan gave a great demonstration of that, i think, when he said, well, we looked at it and they looked at it, we came to the same conclusions they did, we came to the same rules that they did, except we had 500 pages instead of 200 pages and two sets of lawyers instead of one set of lawyers. so when is it that the commission becomes adult enough as jeff pointed out with regard to the allvid proceeding where you have rules from 15 years ago, we all know the world has changed, blair says you've got to adjust to change, instead of going on with more rules, does anybody think the commission could be adult enough to just go back to congress and say, that one little provision on regulating or creating electronics we should get rid of? >> what we're going to do is i can let everyone respond, but only if you do it really quickly and then we have the panel on spectrum. so very quickly, if you would like to respond, you can. >> look, i think they can be responsible enough to do those things.

>> well, that's up to congress to do that if you want. i assume that would be just a legislative action as opposed to a constitutional action. you could do that but then you have to have a mechanism -- this is similar to a fiscal rule. basically it says you have to not be allowed to appropriate more than a certain level. if more was spent because, say, medicare payments were higher than anticipated he would have to find a way to deal with that. but that is a former -- a form of rule that you could apply and along with consideration of how revenues are going to be involved that could help you structure the plan for reducing deficit over time. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back mike dodd. >> chairman, you've been very generous to quit gone over your time. we appreciate your indulgence. this hearing is adjourned. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> that was fed chairman ben bernanke at the budget committee yesterday. today, the house is releasing some of its proposed budget cuts. president obama will release his budget next week.

congress made sure it hasn't." so -- and then, of course, i mentioned the seattle times article entitled "rural air subsidies test resolved to cut spending." a program that subsidizes air service to small airports often in remote communities is shaping up as an early test in the new congress of conservative zeal for shrinking the federal government. it goes on to say, "a program that subsidizes air service to small airports often in remote communities is shaping up as an early test in the new congress of conservative zeal for shrinking the federal government. subsidies for airline passengers as of june 1, 2010, ranged as high as $5,223 in eely, nevada, as lee as $9.21 in they have river falls, minnesota, according to transportation department data for the lower 48 states. but critics say the airports often serve too few people to merit the amount of money spent in subsidies. urban growth over the past three decades has also placed transportation alternatives, other airports, trains and bus service, within a reasona

that is a legitimate function of what members of congress do. we have c-span, we have everything going on. there's more information about the hearings with new rules. [talking over each other] >> this is something to you in particular, great job on this issue over the years. >> we have done a tremendous amount of work on abuses of the francing process but the more general point you made, i often make the argument that one of the reasons i believe so deeply in limited government is because i don't think we spend enough money on the things that matter. that is why across-the-board cuts ought to be a last resort rather than a first resort because as our organizations jointly have pointed out, there are higher priority thing that lower priority things. we ought to start by eliminating lower priority things first. franking benefit is among those as tom pointed out. there are innumerable ways to communicate with constituents that don't require taxpayers to underwrite it. >> if i had gotten into the study of liquor and marijuana in combination which is

having chaired this subcommittee for two congresses and served as a ranking member for several congresses before that, i appreciate what a challenge this subcommittee can be, and i look forward to working with you. today's hearing concerns what may be the most difficult and divisive issue we will have the opportunity to consider. a women's right to make decisions about her own body whether to become pregnant, continue a pregnancy, or whether to terminate it is a right protected by the constitution. whether or not people think that is a good idea or in the constitution or morally correct, it remains the law of the land. cog has for more than 3 decades used economic coercion to prevent women from using their constitutional protected choice by prohibiting use of federal funds for abortions. the only legal health care procedure subject to such a ban. until now, that coercion was directed against the poor and against women dependent against the government or health care, military personnel, prison inmates, and federal employees. we developed a two teared system of which people with means have

what do we find in congress? we find one party in the house of representatives making a genuine toefrt cut spending -- effort to cut spending and debt. we find democrats in the senate announcing they intend to line up behind the president's timid proposal for a partial spending freeze. in other words, democrat leaders in congress intend to join the president in resigning themselves to a future of growing debts and deficits at a time when americans are demanding cuts instead. so here's what we've learned this week. on the most pressing issue of the day, the president and democratic leaders in congress have decided to take a pass. they're either unwilling to admit that washington needs to live within its means or they're completely unwilling to make the tough choices that will get us there. it's really hard to believe, americans are screaming at us to do something about a $14 trillion debt. the president proposes a budget that nearly doubles it. and democrats clap their hands in approval. maybe democrats are so foc

this is what i came to congress to stop. these rule makings create uncertainty and cost as the details of the regulation take extensive periods of time to finalize. at a time when job creation is paramount to economic recovery, businesses are being forced to postpone decisions of hiring and expansion. a prime example of these harmful regulations is a company in my district that asked the e.p.a. in 2001 to make changes to the land disposal restrictions to ensure proper treatment and promote recycling. e.p.a. decided to take a different track and at their request, 10 years later that company is still waiting for an answer. 10 years later. this has to stop. another example, e.p.a. has overextending its authority over 404 permits by allowing a permit to be issued then years later, retroactively repealing the same permit. it leafs investors wondering whether they can commit funding to a project without the e.p.a. farr by trarely revecking the permit. the e.p.a. has turned it from permit to perhaps. we need to make sure they're ca

congress to restore the gulf of mexico ecosystem. he appeared with fellow commissioner and former deepwater horizon a oil spill commander admiral thad allen. the commission released its final report last month calling for changes in the oil and gas industry operations and role of government regulators. this is two hours and ten minutes. >> good morning. a joint subcommittee will come to order. this is the first meeting on the subcommittee on coast guard maritime transportation i want to welcome all of our members and congratulate ranking member. i can't tell you how thrilled i am that you have that position rick and i have a long time working relationship. we are going to be off to aúbúbb great start and will be a greatb session working together and i certainly look forward to working with all the members of the committee. the subcommittee on the coast guard maritime transportation is meeting guard commandant and national incident for the oil spill. the bp deepwater horizon spill was unprecedented in its size and duration. elected tr

we have run into a number of problems in the past congress and trying to get to the finish line. the house passing legislation that foot couldn't get through the senate and the senate passing legislation that was not of interest to many of the people who are in the intellectual property at tickets. so we are now both in a bipartisan and a bicameral way working very hard to try to find what patent reforms are necessary to enhance job growth in our country and what can get across the finish line so they can be signed into law by the president, and that i think focuses first and foremost on the efficiency of the patent office both in terms of how quickly they can make decisions about the patents because they are increasing backlogs that are very concerning, and about the quality of the patents coming out. are these really new ideas, new inventions deserving of the kind of protection the patent system affords genuine inventors which gives them an incentive to invest a lot of money in bringing the product through the manufacturing phase and then into the marketplace, or are they effor