the one that i thought was the most fascinating was with the former chairman of the house judiciary committee. for people who are at least as old as i that name will be familiar. because he was the democrat chairman of the house judiciary committee that led to the impeachment investigation into president nixon. former chairman rubino was out of congress for 20 years at that time and was teaching law school one day week at rutgers in new jersey. i think he was 92. i called him up and i said mr. chairman, i wanted to do -- he told me know. i won't talk to you. he said i support president clinton. you come up and parked me and -- that will give the impression that i am ok with this and i won't let that happen. i am four five months in congress. i was pretty bold. i said that is not and acceptable answer. he spent 40 years of your life as a member of this house. i have been assigned a job on behalf of the house of representatives to make sure we draft a protocol that is fair and you are a person that has unique knowledge of this and you have to give me your time so i am going to fly up there and

from child pornography or at least that's what they want you to believe the hearing by the house judiciary committee today focused on legislation brought up in may of this year called the protecting children from internet pornography twenty eleven that was harmless in fact it sounds very moral doesn't it but the truth of the matter is that this bill would require internet service providers as well as companies like google to retain it records of ip addresses of millions of americans for up to eighteen months to help in investigations against child pornographers but what else could that be used for doesn't treat us all like criminals and is there any chance of the bill's going to face any scrutiny from politicians with a name like protecting children from internet pornography is actually joining me to discuss this is julian sanchez a research fellow at the cato institute thanks so much for being here tonight it was a joy so the spike the very very touching name here when it comes down you know used to seeing in this. i good hearted good natured we're all through i go what does this really come down t

invasive while at the same time ineffective salmi those who were at the hearing today at the house judiciary committee please tell me that somebody actually stood up to this legislation or was this name of protecting children from her dog or just too much surprisingly this is a bill with a lot of co-sponsors on the committee both democrat and republican but it was congressman james sensenbrenner the co-author of the patriot act who said that the importance is to fight child pornography this ran roughshod over the privacy interests of millions of innocent internet users when the guy who wrote the patriot act is saying that it is what is a bad person to privacy invasive under saying this is not a nice guy here when he's saying oh you've got a little too far i think it's time to step back and you know wonder whether whether what you're doing makes any sense but what do you think the chances of it are passing it's hard to say i mean again i was surprised sensenbrenner is has actually in the past been opposed to legislation like that. every story that has been actually a big supporter of legislation like a

this letter is from the chairman of the house judiciary committee. it is hope for hope. it is a step in the right direction. i'll tell you more about it in a cond. but first, we have new video and new information that shows how phillip garrido, a man on probation, deemed high risk, was allowed to run free. >> do you think anybody can see? >> no. >> reporter: this is video of phillip and nancy garrido at work, secretly taping children. >> there's two girls going to come out of that sliding door. >> on what side of me? >> reporter: during 11 years of federal supervision, authorities remained oblivious to the preying on young women, and, of course, the incredible fact that jaycee dugard and her two daughters were in garrido's backyard. according to documents obtained by "the sacramento bee" just nine days after garrido abducted jaycee, a parole officer met with the felon. " "inspected residence. nothing out of the ordinary." and according to a confidential report, mental health experts also missed what should have been obvious. after a 1997 evaluation, his psychiatrist stat

this is a letter from the chairman of the house judiciary committee, lamar smith, republican out of texasat he's going to ferret us through the bureaucracy, he's going to take the questions that we asked at abc news, he's going to get them to the right people at the probation department, and he's also demanding to know what policies are in plple to make sure there is never another garrido. chris cuomo, abc news, new york. >> something else too that is interesting is when you look at that backyard, apparently there's sort of a backyard and then a secret area backyard which is why many people say he eluded the police so many times. 60 visits as you just heard. >> totally hidden. incidentally, jaycee dugard has started the jayc foundation. >> thank goodness those two women did just that. >>>>coming up, the uproar over a major road construction project. >> why a bride, groom, and millions of others are scrambling for the biggest detour of its kind coming up this weekend. you're watching "world news nono" coming up this weekend. you're watching "world news now."ng ♪ hey baby i think i want to

king, representing iowa's 5th congressional district, a member of the house agriculture, small business, and the judiciary committee of the house. the other judiciary committee, and congressman king, thank you for being here. go ahead, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i thank senator grassley for inviting me to testify. it's an honor and privilege to testify, and i testify in opposition to this and other efforts to repeal the defensive marriage act. the agent passed in 1996 by overwhelming bipartisan majorities and was signed into law by president clinton. this law defined marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife and the words spouse refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. this law also clarified that states did not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. traditional marriage is a sacred institution and serves as the cornerstone of our society. we cannot afford to devalue it with legislation like this and must oppose efforts to diminish the definition of marriage. all of human experience points to one committed relationsh

almost passed a law in the last -- a bipartisan bill actually passed the house and was approved by the senate judiciary committee and never brought to the floor of the senate before the congress went home. unfortunately, the most recent wikileaks disclosures, that is most recent in the last congress, the state department cables seems to have antagonized enough senators as to torpedo any chances of enactment anytime soon. so, carl, you want to take a break? yes, no? yes? okay. take five, ten minutes, and we'll pick up from there. [inaudible conversations] >> so the question is the question that confronts wikileaks and assange now, the first amendment question is whether assange can be criminally prosecuted under the espionage act or whether the wikileaks disclosures are protected by the first amendment. right after the state department cable were released, our own senator dianne feinstein wrote an op-ed's in "the wall street journal" that aggressively interpreted the espionage act, and she demanded prosecution of as strategy. assange. senator joe lieberman said that wikileaks disclosures are, quote, the most seri

senate judiciary committee will hold the first ever hearing on the defense of marriage act repeal. white house came out in support of the bill that overturn it that only allows a man and woman to get married. dianne feinstein has sponsored a bill to repeal the law. she and other members of the judiciary committee will here from same-sex couples who believe it digs cripple niats against them. >> i want to assure you that this is not a cause which we are going to drop. we are not saying that about this. if we don't succeed this session we will try again next session and continue this effort until the international won. >>> now in a statement republican house speaker says the constitutionality of the law is determined by the courts rather than by a unilateral action by the obama administration. he went on to say this is another effort by washington democrats to take attention away from jobs and the president's economic policies which have been a failure. the specific bill in question is senate bill 598 and hearings are scheduled to start at 7:00 a.m. pacific time. live in the newsroom, nick smith

house says president obama will support a bill to repeal the defense of marriage act. senator dianne feinstein is expected to introduce the proposal to the senate judiciary committee todayses, it would make gay couples eligible for certain ben federal benefits. the act defines marriage as between one man and one woman. >>> apple continues to rake in the doe. it earned $7.5 billion in the last quarter more than double from a year ago. appearle sold more than 20 million iphones from april to june and millions more than analysts expected. >>> football fans may be breathing easier. the possible end to that nfl lockout. >> and it is being called an historic health recommendations. how it could change the way women get birth control. >>> and they are supposed to be helping you watch your waistline but could they secretly be hurting it? the surprising truth about the restaurant calorie labels. >>> cloud cover not an issue this morning. we are cleared for take-off out of sfo. temperatures hitting 75 today. so even a little above average. plenty of sunshine. and we are to see hot weather as we continue to chicago 99 there and plenty of sunshine. more sunshine as we go even farth

balanced budget amendment that has moved through the judiciary committee, it is not necessarily the bill that would be required to move through the house and the senate. >> you do require that two- thirds supermajority. >> not in that bill. >> it would have to contain a provision that says you need a two-thirds vote to do anything to raise taxes. >> to raise taxes, yes, but not a spending cap at 18%. it does say that in the goodlatte bill. >> medicare and others should be exempted. i do not doubt what you are reading here. >> would you specifically identify the house resolution? the required 2/3 on the peace? >> are you saying you are absolutely opposed to anything that would stop the congress from raising taxes? >> i believe this is a democratic institutions and people should have a majority vote subject to the checks and balances of congressional and executive relations. i do not think you should put artificial constraints on majority votes and pick the circumstances to apply that to. >> we are destroying this country from this institution and body of taxes and big government. >> we looked it up and we can all research this. by our c

balanced budget amendment has -- that is moved to the judiciary committee, it is not necessarily the bill that would be required to move through the house and the senate. >> you do require that two- thirds supermajority. >> not in that bill. >> it would have to contain a provision that says you need a two-thirds vote to do anything to raise taxes. >> to raise taxes, yes, but not a spending cap at 80%. it does say that in the i do not doubt what you are reading here. >> would you specifically identify the house resolution? the required 2/3 on the peace? >> are you saying you are absolutely opposed to anything that would stop the congress from raising taxes? >> i believe this is a democratic institutions and people should have a majority vote subject to the checks and balances of congressional and executive relations. i do not think you should put artificial constraints on majority votes and pick the circumstances to apply that to. >> we are destroying this country from this institution and body of taxes and big government. >> we looked it up and we can all research this. by our count, there will be about 10 states that right into their c

judiciary committee. are you behind the mcconnell-reid plan. >> i can't imagine any plan passing through the senate and house that doesn't cut the debt. between now and next november you need to barrow or 10 trillion. i don't see any republican voting for a plan that doesn't cut the government at least equal to what you raise the debt ceiling by. jenna: they are calling this the last resort plan. >> the last resort is to do the right thing. let's have a balanced budget in the constitution. how can you get this far in debt without having a structural problem? jenna: a balanced budget amendment would amend the constitution. we've done that 27 times the last time ironically in 1992 it had too do with congressional pay. why now after all the decades this government has been operating, why now do we need a change? >> because after all the decades we have got even 14.4 or $5 trillion in debt. i see no hope without discipline. the balanced budget amendment to the constitution will give us discipline we can't muster among ourselves. after 40 years how much more evidence do you need to suggest that the congress is incapable of balancing the bu

so today, my friends come on the floor of the house with the cut, cap and balance. as member of the judiciary committee, let me suggest to you that the amendments that were put in the bill have destroyed any sense of balance to the balanced budget amendment. but -- can i -- mr. mcgovern: i yield an additional one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for an additional one minute. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman. i have a new name for the bill. tap dance around the question of revenue and lifting the debt ceiling, done 60-plus times over america's lifetime with reagan, carter, president bush and president bush and clinton. so it's the tap dance, loser's club, the losers are seniors and young people and those who need social security and those who are disabled. and then finally instead of balanced budget amendment it is the bust the benefits of those who are in need. the young people who are looking forward to a new attitude and opportunity in this nation. what do we need? not the cut, cap and balance which in no way invests in america, it no way ends the loopholes that are

the constitution subcommittee for the judiciary committee, congressman franks of arizona who is also the chairman of the religious freedom caucus here in the house. i would like to yield if you have any comments. >> well, i really don't -- [inaudible] >> coptic christians have been treated very, very poorly in egypt. and i hope whatever the coptic does,. [inaudible] but i'm looking forward to reading your testimony. >> i would just echo, as well as your own comments. always grateful to your lifelong commitment. oftentimes we are thankful in this country for our constitutional rights, protecting the lives of our citizens. and yet we forget the salvation of really all freedom, that there is religious freedom, because without that, of course, there is no other type of freedom. and some of us are especially concerned about the plight of coptic christians in egypt and other places. the reports of children, or young women being forced into marriages within, kind of force into marrying people and maybe have a totally different perspective in their freedoms, being overcome in that regard. those are things that the media should be focused on and looking

the constitution subcommittee for the judiciary committee, congressman trent franks of arizona was also the chairman of the religious freedom caucus here in the house. and i would like to yield if we would like to mr. wolf if he has any comments having just been in egypt. >> well, i really don't have [inaudible] to read the testimony [inaudible] coptic christians have been treated very poorly in egypt, and i know whatever the congress does [inaudible] with regard to any of the support coptic christians by anyone else as long as [inaudible] devine looked to looking reading your testimony. >> chairman wolf, thank you. chairman frank? >> i would just echo chairman wolf's perspective as well as you're own. always great to see you come chairman smith because of your lifelong commitment that so often times we are thankful in this country for our constitutional rights and when we consider protecting the lives and constitution should be the preeminent focal point of our government. and did we forget the foundation of all three that there is religious freedom. because without that of course there is no other type of freedom. and some of us are especially co

judiciary committee, he was asked by mr. nadler to identify one budget proposal that would meet the strictures of this requirement. now the budget that passed the houselast year, the republican budget, did not meet it. that would require us to lift the debt ceiling by $8 trillion between now and 2021. the one that our republican colleagues voted for still requires that. but what almost made it but not quite was the republican study committee budget. this is mr. goodlatte's answer. i would direct you to the house republican study committee which balances it in nine years. that is the republican budget on steroids. that budget will require deep cuts to medicare, medicare, social security, and education. and when you couple that with this provision that says you need a two-thirds vote now by constitutional fiat to close corporate loopholes for the purpose of deficit reduction, you will guarantee those kinds of terrible decisions. >> will the gentleman from massachusetts yield? >> let mr. chaffetz answer and then i would be happy to yield. >> medicare and others should be exempted. that is the strict language of the bill. >> that is very false comfort. t

judiciary committee, mr. watt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. watt: i think this might be the worst resolution i've seen tpwhever house in the 19 years i've been here. it brings to continuing debate a bill that is already -- that has already been debated yesterday with an amendment but there's only one minute left in the the bait. and the change that is being made requires the passage of an amendment to the constitution of the united states in order to ever raise the debt limit again. the effect of that is that we have one minute, we don't even have it, the majority has the one minute that's left in the debate. we have no time left in the debate. on our side to debate whether we will pass an amendment to the constitution of the united states that literally holds a gun to the head of the economy of the united states. we ought to be ashamed of ourselves, legislating in this way. this is a terrible way to legislate to provide for a constitutional amendment. if we're going to do it, we ought to at least debate it in good faith. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from cal