mr. republican. wouldn't come on the program, stewart? >> not mr. republican.ause dick cheney, again, this atmosphere, there is a lot of light which is he obviously allergic to. >> bill: stop. come on. i gave to you with examples that you can't refute with your propaganda outlook. >> that doesn't mean anything. let me explain what i mean. >> bill: two examples john mccain and dick cheney g.o.p. neither man would come in here because the questioning is too tough. don't give me i'm a republican shrill, that's bull. >> you are the most reasonable -- have become the most reasonable voice on fox. >> bill: greta is the most reasonable, comment on. >> she is different. she is not political. >> bill: she is not on the channel? >> kind of. >> bill: 10:00 to 11:00. >> she is kind of on it she is not the deal. let's go through this because i think this is important. >> bill: all right. go ahead. >> you have become in some ways the voice of sanity here which, as i said, is like being the thinnest kid at fat camp. so let's get that straight. here is what fox has done throug

mr. stewart bill. >> thank you, mr. speaker. building on the response of the prime minister to the parliamentary institution, is he aware that tomorrow's thomas legg will public his full review about his allowances building on the creation of it so and the kelly recommendations, all of them the initiatives of the prime minister. and we put behind us this sad and sorry saw before expenses for mp's and rebuild his institution for the house of commons because my right honorable friend is absolutely right that we have to reform the system of expenses that we have to follow through with the kelly and now the kennedy reforms under its a. but i have to say to the south, we have to do more than that. if i have a message for the whole of the country, it is not enough simply to change the expensive system. we must change the way we govern ourselves in this house of commons and house of lords. and i come back to the essential questions pick if they are not prepared to face up to major change in the constitution, then the public will see th

mr. stewart kickoff, the afl-cio's director of organizing from a february 3rd, 2010 posting on the huffingtonost or if this was just last week. and i quote, we are very close to the 60 votes we need. if we aren't able to pass the employee free choice act, woodwork with president obama and vice president biden and their appointees to the national labor relations board to change the rules governing the form the form to make union through administrative action to once again allow workers in america access to one of the most basic freedoms in a democracy. mr. president, this is cleared. this is clear. mr. becker's folly, clearly indicated by mr. becker's agenda would be, which would be to violate what is absolutely only a prerogative of congress in the united states. this type of bias is why the most respected business groups in america are opposing mr. becker's nomination. in a statement opposing mr. becker's nomination from the national association of manufacturers, the nation's largest trade association, i quote, a man firmly agrees that with the nlrb commission should protect the principles o

mr. stewart back -- mr. stupak is wrong? are three standards that we are using as we go forward. i talked to the catholic bishops about this and people on all sides of the choice issue. the law prevents the federal funding of abortion. there is no federal funding of abortion in this bill. there will be no expansion or diminution of a woman's right to choose. we're determined that we're going to pass health care reform. this bill that passed the senate does not have federal funding of abortion. that would be the language. >> it is an open secret that you and harry reid gone through -- have gone through a difficult process called reconciliation. you think it is possible for reconciliation and how was that process forming? >> it is a simple majority that we're asking the senate to act upon -- it is up to them. here are the three steps. what is the substance? that is what we will put together and we did not want to do that before we could hear from our republican colleagues yesterday. secondly, what is the senate able to do with

mr. stewart. >> good morning, thank you, mr. cham.ant to yield to my, the ranking member of the vem veterans committee who has to leave, in bowyer, for a quick statement. >> i'm going to have to waive my opening statement. when i asked for this hearing, i think it's extremely important for all views to be aired. i want to thank you for that. i'm going to take off for the secretary's testimony and i plan to return. >> very good. look forward to it. >> mr. chairman, obviously this is a very important hearing. the merger between comcast and nbc universal is indeed a major transaction that could possibly fundamentally alter the media and entertainment landscape in the united states. it deserves close examination by this subcommittee, our jurisdiction, as well as the justice department and the fcc. i'm glad that the ceos of both comcast and nbc universal are here this morning. i look forward to their testimony and the testimony to the rest of the panel. comcast, as all of us know, is the nation's largest video programming distributor. and

. >> host: people think of filibuster with jimmy stewart and mr. stuart goes to washington. but that seems like a classic fame and we don't see that on c-span. why not? >> guest: this is the question people ask for a wide doesn't the majority forced the minority to stand up and talk all night? why not? the argument is make them the filibuster republicans will be shamed and give up and the majority would get what they will want. first of all,, i know they get as much about cost for them that they think they will wind. their position over constituencies and health care is just as popular. there is a benefit to them to talking all night. but the majority, if you filibuster two or three weeks, and nothing else gets done and maturity has an agenda and they want to use the floor to get things done. if you wrap the senate in a filibuster night after night after night, what is the end result? the public will look and say what you doing? legislate. i think the cost is far too high. and that is in part what keeps leaders from deploying the strategy. >> host: in our history, there have

. >> a lot of people who think the filibuster probably think of jimmy stewart and "mr.smith goes to washington." that seems like a classic thing. we don't see that on c-span. why don't we see that on c-span? >> this is the question everybody reasonably ask, why doesn't the majority forced the minority to stand up just like jimmy stewart? we call it bring out the cots. why not make them filibuster? the argument today goes, republicans filibuster and the assumption is republicans will be shamed and give up the majority will get what they want. i don't buy it for one instant. first of all the minority party i don't think it is so much of a cause for them if they think they are going to win. their position to republican constituencies over health care and many issues is popular so there is probably a benefit to them talking all night. but to the majority party-- if you take the floor and filibuster for two weeks, three weeks nothing else gets done. the majority has agendas. they want to use the floor to get things done. even the minority party senators want to use the flo

. >> a lot of people think of filibuster, probably think of jimmy stewart and mr. smith goes to washington, i'm sure people asked you that before, that seems like a classic thing. we don't see that on c-span. why don't we see that on c-span? >> well, this is the question everybody reasonably asks. why doesn't the majority challenge the minority to stand up just as jimmy stewart and speak all night. why not make them filibuster and the argument today goes look, maybe the republicans filibuster and the assumption is, republicans will be shamed, will give up and the majority will get what they want. i don't buy it for one instant, all right. first of all, minority party, i don't think it's much of a cause for them if they think they're going to win. their position to republican constituencies over health care and many other issues is popular in the republican constituencies, so there's probably a benefit to them talking all night, but to the majority party, there's a big cause imposed minority. if you keep the floor and filibuster for two weeks, three weeks, nothing e

mr. parsons. there is got a chance at a triple double in this day here in gainsville. and always on that offense. there is stewart on the base line. all for the foul. parsons steps in. >> talk about doing it both things on the floor there is this drive well. know he's willing to get in there to rough it up. >> he goes down hard. we can't see him in this picture. and there is some people wonder fd he's just quming to town owe do opportunity and hard work going together. >> there is is eric a freshman gets fouled on the floor. under four minutes remaining in this one. ! me! ut. i toit. i tothe efor outh. co ale refot call yoa beng mx! theionsme! tahim,. i d, ieir foulwhen boun te'thrne, e. ce galex coac gol. ed to foul him. they want a hery're not o. switched owe both erv

mr. smith goes to washington." when jimmy stewart's character uses a filibuster to stop a corrupt piece of legislation favored by the special interests. well, the reality is that in 1939, the year that "mr. smith goes to washington" was filmed, there were zero filibusters in the united states senate. in the 1950's there was an average of just one filibuster per congress. over the last half century the use of this device has grown exponentially. the concerns i raise today are not new, but they have been become far, far more serious. in 1982, my good friend and colleague, senator dale bumpers of arkansas, said this about procedures like the filibuster -- quote -- "unless we recognize that things are out of control and procedures have to be changed, we'll never be an effective legislative body again." well, during the two years of that congress that senator bumpers was talking about, there were 31 filibusters in the 97th congress, right here. there were 31 filibusters. and senator bumpers was saying we're not going to be effective again u

mr. chairman. thank you for your presentation and answers. last week i was on fox business news with stewartearners would be an impediment to growth and would stop job creation. i responded to him, as smon someone who started a business, ran it, has two brothers and a sister all who run businesses, i have a father who ran a company when the income tax rate was at its highest, that i hadn't seen that in my experience. now whether it was when president clinton raised the highest rate or when president bush lowered it. so i didn't see any reason to believe that. he disagreed with me. i couldn't find any evidence that he had run a business or been involved in the private sector. but i did notice that he, like you, went to the london school of economics. so my question is whether you learned anything at the london school of economics that would help business people behave like that? >> unlike him, but i guess like you, i ran a small business which we subsequently sold, and i would join you in saying the key thing for a small business is not the marginal tax rate, especially if you are just return

mr. lujan: thank you, madam speaker. last week former secretary of the interior, representative stewart udall, uncle of senator mark udallsecretary udall now resides in my home state of new mexico. stewart udall's legacy is visible throughout our country from his time as interior secretary for president kennedy and johnson. it is visible in the lands he protected and the lands he enacted to the laws that were protected. groundbreaking laws that protected our air, water, animals and their natural habitats. in his tenure, the united states enacted the clean air act, the wilderness act, the endangered species act and others. when he left public office he continued his work, taking up the cause of navajos who suffered from mining. he protected harm uranium miners and their families. secretary udall led compassion and commonsense -- let compassion and commonsense guide him. he is a great american and new mexican. happy birthday, secretary udall. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. gingrey: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. gingr