we're asking you whether or not you think you can reform congress or change congress. how would you improve the reputation of congress? our listener feedback line is 202-626-79623. >>. >> caller: hi. i'm sure most people are going to say it should be something like reducing term limits, but i would say that the best way to change congress for the better is to simply remove the lobby. i think that has undue influence on the congress. they have more say than the average american does. thank you for taking my call. bye. >> caller: i'm calling from florida. for many, many years, the presidential administration. number one integrity, accountability. and ethical values is not within our government. it's money, money, money. >> caller: i'm calling from germantown, maryland. i would like them to consider a law getting bills passed regardless of whether they're republican or democrat. the idea is your pay could be increased. just a though. >> caller: i'm calling with fairfax, virginia. and i'm half wondering if we need to move to a democratic congress or an all-republican congr

we say congress lacks the authority to pass that. >> so you do not question in anyway, shape, or form the authority of congress to address the challenge of health care delivery and cost facing the country? >> well, we don't concede that this act, even aside from the mandate, that congress laws. for example, the guaranteed issue or the community rating system. that is a pervasive regulation that has never before been enacted. we can challenge that. our challenge is for the individual mandate. it is not for the entire other areas of this. >> you are not trying to protect that claim? >> our challenge has been this today. that's what our focus is. this act, as relates to the mandate, forces inactive by standers into the stream and forces employers to provide a benefit that's never been bargained for. the act does not regulate these channels or the constitutionality of this. >> how do you define -- [bell] >> well, in every single case, your honor, that has -- even the outer edges, including the wicker case regarding the growing of marijuana. there is always some kind of active participatio

close to reining in and changing deadlines and regulations as much, for example, as the courts did or congress did after he left office. because those regulations and deadlines proved controversial or undoable. and they were contested and changed. and later on of course, watergate prevented nixon from mounts sort of a full frontal assault on the environmental regulatory state. so in conclusion, nixon certainly recognized some of the excesses of the environmental movement. he sort of recognized that as happening within politics, he never took his eyes off of the economic situation. he articulated far more openly what most presidents do implicitly. that's it's the economy, stupid. it's not a coincidence that the environmental movement happened during an era very low on employment. the thing nixon did miss was the permanent change in political culture that happened on his watch. but i would say that his political opportunism did more to establish the institutional foothold of environmentallism than really his logic. thanks. [ applause ] >> that was wonderful. thank you all for that. i'd like to t

one thing that's relevant in my mind is that taxes are for better or for worse, the life blood of government. and so what congress is trying to do is to say there's a procedure you go through, you can get your money back, or cao through the tax court, but don't do this in advance for the reason that we don't want 500 federal judges substituting their idea of what is a proper exwitable defense when there should be an exception made for the basic rule, no. okay. and so there is strong reason that is there. you try to apply that reason to the copyright law, you can't find it. registration with the copyright register is not the life's blood of anything. copyright exists regardless. so the reasoning is not there. the language, i see the similarity of language. i've got that. but it's the reasoning, the sort of underlying reason for not wanting a waiver here. that is -- has a significant role in my mind of finding that it is jurisdictional. plus the fact we said it nonstop since that northrup or whatever that other case is. >> justice breyer, as to reasoning, you give an argument, you give an argument why, as a policy

. >> i'm wondering if there's anything that can be done through legislation or congress. we have to get to work, and we need all the help we can get. >> i see the record profits that the oil companies are making, and i couldn't believe that we wouldn't -- the american people would let this continue to happen. so i thought we'd elect people that would control this a little better. >> it took about $57 to fill up my tank. >> how much does it usual take? >> around 45 $45. >> tell me again how much it cost? >> $4. >> and how often do you have to fill up? >> about every three days. >> you're spending more to fill it up, i would assume. >> it's pennies more. >> we're help ing you find the cheapest prices around. if you head to our website, you can find a special gas price section. its hads all of the roars -- it has all of the resources that you need. >>> the pain for bay area school systems continues. in castro valley, the board approving the layoffs of 18 teachers. and an increased class size. it's the elementary schools there which will feel the most pain. >> reporter: in ca

, or congress should do something immediately to fix this. let us take a look at some of the numbers. according to aaa, this this is what you will pay around the bay area this morning. when the one thing that we do not know about is diesel. but right now is sixth at $5.15. that is an average year in the state. this, as far as consumers go on, eventually concord said it that trickle-down effect will have a price to pay. it also altamont if the trucks to deliver the goods that we buy. former from one report when he for the update. and in other stories there is in a letter written by was crucial in time. any he lashes out at kron morgan and we told about the letter were to mention it possible for virtually for a killer. this is another letter that he put out. um harvard he talks about the number of it, and he talks about kron4 san that we tell a lot of lives. and robert --and he says, the video news important dna tests to come back as joann manson and all the missing woman and african-american come to a woman that was months pregnant. and he als

it could impact how you vote for congress, the senate, or congress. it also impacts your governor's rates and state legislature's rates. it would change the dynamic of the people who make the laws. >> thank you very much. >>> all right, it's an epidemic. bullying. people who could benefit the most from this film may not be allowed to see it. >>> students are celebrating st. mary's advancement to the ncaa tournament. ,, bay area ! here's big news from verizon wireless and xfinity from comcast. now get the xfinity triple play and verizon wireless together. call 855-704-7400 to sign up and get a free smartphone. choose one of our hottest phones. verizon wireless and xfinity. tv, home phone, internet and wireless together. (car horn) paying with your smartphone instead of cash... (phone rings) that's a step forward. with chase quickpay, you can send money directly to anyone's checking account. i guess he's a kicker... again, again! oh, no you don't! take a step forward and chase what matters. listers in it, but a lot of celebrities are backing it. don kna

or in the session for the discharge of congress. when the chamber is empty, it cannot receive communications from the president or participate as a body in making appointments. its sole purpose was that at all times, there should be whether the senate was in session or not and officer for every officer entitled to discharge the duties there of at all times. it's one that validates the pragmatic approach of asking if during what is indoes pietyblely a recess during which these appointments were made, whether it's a practical matter that chambers are going to be empty and the senate is not going to be available for the doing of business. and that was a situation that we were experiencing. it's as if you ask any american if anybody in the senate but one or two people have left and they're going all over the country and they're playing dodge ball and kick the can, are they on recess? most people say yeah, that sounds like recess to me. >> there is can kicking when they're in session, as well. so, you know, i think, in fact, what mort's p

that was congress' assumption, again, shown by the text and legislative history of this provision, and that's why we think those things rise or fall on the package, because they put against what congress was trying to do. all of the other provisions would actually increase access to, of affordable care, and would have advantageous affects on price. again, congress was invoking its traditional use of tax code, long subsidized insurance through employers, used that to impose a tax penalty on employers, to give tax credits. this is traditional stuff that congress has done, and the other thing congress has done, with those pre-existing laws, had their own protections for guaranteed issue and community rating effectively within a large employer plans. they can't discriminate among people. they can't charge different rates. what congress was doing, was doing that in the other market if it can't, that's all that should be struck from the act. >> thank you, mr. kneedler. >> in farr. >> in chief justice and may it please the court, at the outset i'd like to say i think that the government's position in this case that the community rat

or -- what? >> congress wwoman, we are taki complaints now on our website and calls from people about mortgage issues. quite a few of those complaints deal with foreclosure situations, and other servicing issues. i think the congress is well-served on any kind of significant initiative like this that the occ has embarked on to exert oversight, just as you exert oversight over our efforts and processes. i think it ought to be kept in mind that the occ was the very first of the federal agencies to step up and document the extent of the abuses in the mortgage servicing sector. they issued the first report on that. it demonstrated the seriousness as they saw it -- so serious it affected the safety and soundness of institutions that allowed everyone to move forward toward the servicing settlement. and it's very important for us to broaden that across the industry and make sure all these other processes are working as well as possible. it's a complicated space, but the consumer bureau has very significant authorit

engage in military activity without coming, honestly, to congress in any kind of formal way and asking for consent.looking forw possibility in s syria or might occur with iran, do you think the administration, under those circumstances, would come to congress or congress in order to receive authorization for the use of force in either of those two cases? >> well, sir, let me say first of all that i'm not a lawyer, nor am i the administration official responsible for those kinds of judgments or recommendations or determinations. but i will say this. what we did in libya was the right thing. we had the support of the international community, the support of the region, and we protected the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians that were at imminent risk of slaughter. the decision that the united statess security council took a year ago this week has proved its worth. gadhafi is gone. the libyan people are now working to constitute, under great challenge, a democratic future, a democratic system. their transition is on track. we were able to accomplish this without a single loss of american life. in a shared operaon burden-sharing af

the bureau of reclamation, why is it a good idea to change that to offset that balance that congress struck or that congress imposed as fixed for back in 1992? >> senator lee, first let me say that the central utah project has been a priority for president obama and for me as secretary of interior, we have invested literally hundreds of millions during my time including significant allocations from the stimulus program american recovery act, get that project moving on a timeline that's a good timeline. we're not abandoning the project. it's an important project. the consolidation issue of the agency into the

they might be in a place where users might begin to be leery of sharing data with them at all, or congress might think that the current self-regulatory world we have online isn't doing a good enough job of defending user privacy. >> reporter: it's not just congress-- regulators in europe say google's new privacy rules are illegal, a reminder that companies like google and facebook must navigate cultural and legal perceptions of privacy around the world. darren gersh, "nightly business report," washington, d.c. >> tom: the chief executive of w-- the world's biggest advertising firm joins us from that firm in new york city. welcome to nightly business report. >> delighted to be with you. >> tom: how will your industry, the ad industry use the data that is now being collected and has always been collected by google? >> well, i think the answer to that is carefully because clearly the rise of new media whether it be google who you mentioned or whether it be a yahoo!, facebook, twitter, a microsoft, this data is extremely valuable. but it's extremely personal and the issues of privacy and koubt

or local level, not lobbying the federal government. >> okay. well, it says -- the current law that you cannot use the grant money intend ed to influence any member of congress or jurisdiction to favor any ratification policy or appropriation. so i don't think -- current law doesn't limit you to congress. it's any lobbying. because u.s. code 1913, so the point is -- that's the way i read it. well, i have it. it says any member -- a member of congress, a jurisdiction or any official of any government to favor or oppose vote or otherwise. maybe that's the misunderstanding because in the recovery act on the website, one is connecticut said a grass roots coordinator spent 163 hours to advocate smoke free policies. there are several others. and in idaho to address obesity through nutrition and says working for proposals in the 2012 legislation for vending machines in the schools. i can give these to you. then in the grants -- so that was the recovery act money and then it's gone to community transformation grants. and in the grant proposal says they want to past 70 policies to enforce affordability. then the new york public funds they want to lobby for the tax on

it seems outside of me, or us, or congress, and even with some members of congress, it seem there's may about difference. because, again, if you look at, for example, those denied for not reasonably described, look at, 16.4% for the fcc. the cia, 0.7%. the nsa, 0.5%. the hs, homeland security, 0.2%. there seems to be a problem here. and that's a huge increase. because just previously it was about 3%. it was still high. higher than these other agencies, i'm sure there's a reason for it but there seems to be a huge increase in denials of information, particularly on this category, not reasonably described that i don't think shows transparency and it clearly does not reflect the president's call, at least public call, for transparency. so that's, again, because of the relationship, i would like to maybe spend some time with you all and see what's going on there. i think there's a serious issue there and i'm sure a good explanation, but i don't understand what it would be. that's number one. another issue that i also thought i ran into. you were talking about, we were talking about the budg

congress wants -- >> the real congress or a hypothetical congress? >> an objective congress. specific -- not with a vote count. >> why put congress to that false choice? because you only have two choices, congress. the whole bill or you can have -- you know, can you have parts of the bill or no bill at all. why that false choice? >> i think the reason is because severability is by necessity a blunt tool. the court doesn't have even if it had the inclination, doesn't essentially have the authority to retool the statute. >> i know so you've -- i would say stay out of politics. that's for congress, not us. but the question here is, you've read all of these cases, or dozens. have you of found a severability case where the court ever said, well, the heart of the thing is gone. and, therefore, we strike down these other provisions that have nothing to do which would stand on their feet independently, and can be funded separately or don't require money at all? >> i think the accurate answer would be, i'm not aware of a modern case that says that. i think there probably are cases in

however, i don't think that this subcommittee, this -- the full committee or congress is the appropriate place to litigate a memorial design or a potential family dispute. i have two letters to submit, mr. chair, for the record, one from frank gehry, the renowned architect chosen to design the memorial. another letter is from david chiles, the former chairman of the national capital planning commission and the commission of fine arts. again, let me thank everybody in advance for your testimony and with that, if any remaining time with the chairman's indulgence, if i could give that time to my colleague from california if he may have any opening statements with your concurrence. >> sure. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman, if i might -- first of all i'm really looking forward to this hearing, i agree with the ranking member that we really ought not make design questions here. there are others that are far more capable of doing that and the commission has it, but it would seem to me that our purpose ought to be to make sure that this gets done, that we get this memorial under way

congress can take care of it. it's a question of which side should the court say we're going to wreck the whole thing or should the court leave it to congress? >> we think the court should leave it to congress for two reasons. one is the reason i'm making now about whether the court can properly consider it at all and we think only a few provisions are inseverable. >> before you go i would like your answer to justice breyer's question. >> we believe the tax provision should not be struck down. in the first place the antiinjunction act would bar it change for a tax to be struck down on the basis of severability analysis. it arises where it is necessary to consider what relief a party before the court should get. >> because there was a nonseverability provision in this act, if one provision were to be held unconstitutional then every single -- someone would have to bring a separate lawsuit challenging every single other provision in the act and say one fell and the congress said it's a package that can't be separated? that's your position? >> the fact that that is such a clause might make it easy doesn't change the

that neither house or congress can adjourn for more than three days. all of that done which most certainly concludes the senate's exercise of its con for maciol. it cannot be unilaterally interrupted. the senate can hardly be in absence of such agreements. now we heard itchly caution that there's some bad order to pro forma sessions. it was practiced during the george w. bush administration. and let's stipulate the senate has used motions on its unaccord or at the request of a house to block recess appointments by staying in session on a pro forma basis. now, let's be clear about what those sessions do. they're pro forma, but only in a sense that not in a sense, excuse me, but the senate is incapable of conducting business, albeit on the basis of agreements and legislative measures can and only be adopted by unanimous consent on an actual vote. the problem, ladies and gentlemen, with presenting this is a a remarkable situation. the business is transacted without a quorum by unanimous consent. and that was exactly the situation that president obama made

congress plenary power. it simply doesn't matter whether or not this regulation will provide -- promote health care, reducing uncompensated care. all that matters is whether the activity actually being regulated by the act negatively affects congress or negatively affects commerce regulation, so that its within the commerce power. if you agree with us that this is -- exceeds commerce power, the law doesn't somehow become redeemed because it had been official policy affects in the health-care market. in other words, congress does not have the power to promote commerce. congress has -- congress has the power to regulate commerce. and if the power exceeds their permissible regulatory authority, then the law is invalid. >> well, surely that -- >> i am sorry. >> well, surely regulation includes the power to promote. since the new deal we've said that regulation -- there is a market in agricultural products. congress has the power to subsidize, to limit production, all sorts of things. >> absolutely, chief justice, and that is the distinction i'm trying to drop. when they are acting within their enumerated powers,

we have been able to get information but it seems that there is, outside of me, or us or congress, and even with some mirrors of congress it seems there may be a difference. again, if you look at, for example, those that are denied for not reasonably described, look at again 16.4% for the fcc, the cia 0.7%. the nsa, 0.5%. dhs, homeland security, 0.2%. there seems to be a problem here. that's a huge increase because just previously to that it was about 3%, still high. i'm sure there's a reason for but there seems to be a huge increase of denials of freedom of information, particularly under this category of not reasonably described, that i don't think shows transparency. and it clearly does not respect -- reflect the president's call for conspiracy. again because of the relationship i would like to maybe spend some time with you all and look at what's going on because there's a serious issue there. i'm sure there's a good explanation but i don't understand what it would be. that's number one. another issue that i also thought, i ran into, you are talking about, we talked about budgetary

fashion. >> but justice kennedy won derred if they would be able to reform the bill. >> a real congress or hypothetical congress. >> meanwhile, white house officials say any speculation about the court's decision is premature. >> there is no contingency plan in place. we're focused on implementing the law and we are confident that the law is constitutional. >> joining me now for more on the final days of the arguments jon turley constitution allah expert and "countdown" contributor, welcome. >> hi, keith. >> we're back to severity. did the questions from the justices tell us anything about what a ruling of unconstitutionality would mean in practical terms in reality for the healthcare reform. >> it broke along familiar lines. you have conservatives for the most part suggesting that if you cut the heart out of the bill the whole bill should die. and the liberals suggesting we could still salvage some of this. i was a bit surprised by the views of some of the conservatives. this really does go against the grain of past cases. the court has a longstanding tradition to minimize the degree degr

i guess you could say critical of the chamber of congress or congress excuse me this included certain blogs they think progress they also were going after glenn greenwald for supporting wiki leaks and so there is really shady stuff there. i will say the first and only time that i've ever broken news on a national level was in interview of ron paul in two thousand and seven in which i asked him right after his kind of campaign exploded all of the facebook and twitter activity was going on as a big deal and he was seventy two years old at the time and i said have you actually used these things that are basically propelling your campaign into the into the. national politics and he said you know i've got really great staffers to handle all of this stuff that's coming into my campaign that way and i think probably that's a little bit what's happening on the super pac side of ron paul here i don't want to take what i hear you. i tell you all the you know these are the people that are the raids are outraged because they say you know ron paul doesn't they don't believe ron paul secretly agree

it gave congress the power to create or coin money. it gave congress to the power to raise armies and provide for the navy. and then it gave congress the power to regulate money and the military? it never gave congress the power under the commerce clause to create commerce. they don't have that power. and that is exactly what this health care law does is it creates commerce by shutting people into contracts they don't want to be in for the soul p purpose of regulating them. this fundamentally changes the relationship between the people and their government. and that is why this case is so important. i don't know if there are timeo at the florida house at 2:00 p.m. for media. all the attorney generals who are here, there'sus. and you're welcome to come over there at 2:00, and we'll take any indquidual questions or interview requests for specific stakes. that's where we will all be at 2: back side of the supreme court courthouse. >> thanks, allen. >> thank you all. do you have some legislation ready to go? dods tbe health care reform? >>

i don't think he needs to suggest or do i that a tax credit that incentivizes creates a problem. congress incentivizes all kinds of activity. if they gave us a tax credit for buying insurance, then it would be our choice to make sure whether or not that makes economic sense. >> how is it different than this act that says if a taxpayer fails to meet the requirement of having minimum coverage, then they are responsible for paying the shared responsibility payment. >> the difference is that the taxpayer is not given a choice. it's the difference between banning significant sets and saying i'm going to enforce that legal ban through a $5 a pack penalty and saying, look, if you want to sell cigarettes, fine, i'm going to charge you a tax of $5 a pack. >> i think that's what's happen, isn't it? >> no. >> i thought that everybody was paying, what, is it $10 a pack, i don't know the price, it's pretty high, and i think everybody recognizes that it's all taxation for the purposes of dissuading you to buy it. >> that's precisely my point. and everyone intuitively understands that that system is dra

happening increasingly is that war is being fought covertly secretly without the knowledge or support of congress or the support of the american people and we have these the poignance keep taking place in many countries that americans have never even heard of all of the justified in the name of national security but it shows our insecurity our anxiety about the world and about america's losing position of preeminence in it and certainly there's a lot of anxiety today when it comes to iran hopefully it doesn't get to that point danny thank you so much for coming on the show that was the ne sector filmmaker and blogger at newsday sector nat's. but as of for now for more on the stories we covered you can head on over to artsy dot com slash usa there you'll find a bunch of stories that we don't always have time to get to on the air today our intrepid team wrote an article about a new phone out that actually encourages people to spy on one another that's right authorities in west virginia are encouraging the community pictures of people they consider to be suspicious and send it to law enforcement so

relevant period for the insurance. >> you think you can better than the actuaries or better than the members of congress who worked on it? look at the 40 million people who are not insured and say which ones next year will or will not use, say, emergency care? can do you that any better than if we knew that 40 million people were suffering, about to suffer, a contagious disease and only 10 million would get sick? >> of course not. >> we don't know which. >> of course not, justice breyer. the point is once congress decides it's going to regulate, it is going to get all sorts of latitude to make the right judgments, actuarial predictions which to rely and which not rely on. the question that's a proper question for this court, though, is whether or not for the first time of in our history congress also has the power to compel people into commerce, because it turns out that would be a very efficient thing for purposes of congress' optimal regulation of that market. >> this goes back to the chief justice's question, of course, the theory behind not just the government's case but behind kniss law that people

either money you know a combination of much richer reporting requirements or they needed to outlaw the ability of members of congress to become lobbyists and there's a lot of people who want to do that or some state legislatures that i think do similar things we're running an independent effort united public and public report where we are asking the thirty five members of congress to declare that they were tiring to publicly disclose anything goshi ations there that they're that they're taking place right now with lobbyists and if they choose not to do that we tend definitely go after them more in demand that they do this because the right now you know with such a weak system of laws the only thing the public can do is pressure these people individually to sort of do the right thing and let everyone know what the conflicts of interest are so it's not having a secret do you think that there needs to be more transparency more disclosure and less of a motivation for something to get down from going in congress to the private sector and lobbying congress you know absolutely i mean as long as you know individual members

happening increasingly is that war is being fought covertly secretly without the knowledge or support of congress or the support of the american people and we have these deployments keep taking place in many countries that americans have never even heard of all of the justified in the name of national security but it shows our insecurity or exile u.-t. about the world and about america's losing position of preeminence in it and certainly there's a lot of anxiety today when it comes to iran hopefully it doesn't get to that point danny thank you so much for coming on the show that was danny schechter filmmaker and blogger at newsday sector nat's well below the show is coming up in just a half an hour let's check in with a loan it to see what's on today's agenda a lot of what we look forward to their lives well first of all we're going to have congressman dennis kucinich come on the show don't forget on tuesday it wasn't just super tuesday for the presidential election but also congressman for the senate and that losing out in the primary to another democrat marcy kaptur so we're going to have to as

whether you're on tv or public figure or testifying before congress or anything else. >> eric: he wenthe phone and said i'm sorry, sandra fluke, for what is going on. that's not what we are about. demonizes the right side and takes money from the left. therein lies the double standard. >> dana: again, they lose the moral high ground. just as they seize it they lose it in a day. >> are republicans not supposed to take money who men cheat on their wives since they're conservative? >> dana: i don't see what it has to do with this. >> we're talking about morality here. >> dana: i have nothing to say. >> coming up, greg has a review of the movie you heard about "game change" though he hasn't seen it yet. it should be interesting. ♪ ♪ [ female announcer ] with swiffer wetjet, cleaning betr, doesn't have to take longer. i'm done. i'm going to... drink this... on the porch! ♪ give me just a little more time ♪ [ female announcer ] mops can be a hassle, but swiffer wetjet's spray cleaner and absorbent pads can clean better in half the time so you don't miss a thing. swiffer. better clean in half

and if what your argument is was that congress was concerned about costs rising. or we assume they wouldn't have passed the information. >> i would think you sort of have to take the bitter with the sweet. if congress is trying to look at congress's goal of providing patient protection but also affordable care, we can't -- in take the things that save money and cut out the things that are going to make premiums more expensive. >> i just want a bottom line is why don't we let congress fix it? >> let me answer the bottom line question. no matter what you do in this case, at some point there's going to be, if you strike down the mandate, there is going to be something for congress to do. the question is what task do you want to give congress. do you want to give congress the task of fixing the statute after something is taken out, or do you want to give congress the task of fixing health care. and i think it would be better -- >> we're not taking -- if we strike down one provision we're not taking that power away from congress. congress could look at it without the mand

he said reworking health care, if they did that, would fall to "the real congress or hypothetical congress" raising questions about whether congress can come together on questions of health care. >> look, it's incumbent up us to drive towards a solution that i think deals with two core themes-- that is, getting health care costs so that they're manageable and predictable in a positive way. and dealing with the cumulative social cost of dealing with preexisting conditions. i think that we can do this. and i am absolutely convinced we can. >> woodruff: congressman grijalva let me turn, frankly, to a purely political perspective. what happens if the court knocks much of this law aside or down? what is the democratic party do? what does it mean for president obama? >> i think what the democratic party does in congress is if it's struck down, is to pursue the agenda that we started with-- affordability, access to health care for the medicine and millions of americans that don't have any insurance coverage. and with that, comes the attention of the american people on congress to see what we craf