where the court should be differential to the congress. in response to a question by senator dewine, he said that the supreme court ought to defer to congressional findings, and the answer will be in the record with this letter. in response to my quelg, chief justice roberts said the following: "and i appreciate very much the difference in institutional competence between the judiciary and the congress when it comes to basic questions of fact finding development of a record. and also the authority to make the policy decisions about how to act on the basis of a stick record. -- on the basis of a particular record. it is not just agreement on the record, it is a question of whose job it is to make a determination based on the record. as a judge that you are beginning to transgress into the area of making a law is when you are in a position of r reevaluating legislative findings because that doesn't look like a judicial function." now there the chief justice comes to grips with the dominant role of the congress that ought to be deferred to and

dominating the executive. congress, on the other hand, sees things quite differently, they see an executive bureaucracy that cannot begin to get its arms around and it comes to doing decent oversight of the executive, they see a president to is at the center of the news every day making pronouncements that congress must respond to, issuing budget proposals that congress merely tinkers with at the edges and certainly from landing in articulating u.s. demands and our policy is. and political scientists have given a variety of names to the presidents since the modern presidency emerson over the last century, i will give you a few of them. the rhetorical presidency, legislative, national security presidency, administrative or unilateral presidency, unified executive, an imperial presidency as chip pointed out just to name a few. and i suspect by the next time there is a political science conference rolling around in toronto before labor day there will be a couple more terms attached to the presidency, maybe the global econ

the congress and the judiciary represent the rule of law. that is where our representatives make the choices about how we should be governed. alexander hamilton called it " rules for the regulation of society." it is interested in the rule of law. the executive is where it's very interesting. the executive is much different in this respect. article 2 begins by saying that the executive power will be vested in a president of the united states of america tree in other sections, is spells of the various duties and powers of president has. hamilton calls these cases of power. these are familiar to us. commander-in-chief, the power to make treaties, the power to make nominations, to appoint ambassadors, judges, and others in the executive branch. the duty to make sure laws are faithfully executed. we know the constitutional history behind these provisions. there was a weakness in the government created under the articles of confederation. this led to the framing of the constitution that has served as ever since. a big reason for the weakness is t

with the court on the establishment of a record to warrant legislation which congress enacts. and i noted that i had written to dheef scru chief justice roba similar vein back on august the 8th of 2005 in advance of his confirmation hearings. and i take you were in my letter to -- and i take up in my letter to judge sotomayor the same issue i took up with chief justice roberts, and that is the decisions of the supreme court in invalidating congressional enactments, declaring them unconstitutional, because of what the court says is an insufficient record. and i note the case of united states v. morrison, which involved the legislation to protect women against violence, where the court was denigrating, really disrespectful to congress, where the court said that the congressional findings were rejected because of our -- quote -- "method of reasoning." -- close quote, as if there is some unique quality which comes to the nominee when the time of confirmation to walk across the green between the heergt room -e hearing room and the supreme court chambers. noted in the dissent by -- n

who is more powerful the president, congress, or is it about equal? assembling and looking at the presidency today, how many of you think the president is more powerful and dominant in the congress. raise your hands. ok. how many of you think congress is more powerful than the president? raise your hands. how many of these think it is about equal? ok, two or three. when i had sessions with the executive branch people, invariably they all say congress is more powerful and the president and the executive branch. there was one exception to this one time a woman held up for hand and asked why. she had a little bit of a different perspective. as a former house staffer myself for 20 years, what i tell these executive-branch people, most would say that the president and the executive branch far outweigh the congress when it comes to power. they are a little astounded at that, just as how i was astounded at how many people flood congress was dominated the executive branch. i would maintain that this goes back a century, of the teddy roosevelt is not to mckinle

i know the congress has it. this plan includes, i think there are eight or ten per the company is you can pick from, including blue cross blue shield -- i think there's a real road, and another is a post office plan. you get to pick which plan you want. there is no problem going to any doctor you wish to commit any specialist.

and such other court's as the congress creates. these words are not ambiguous, the judiciary possesses no power to make law or enforce the law, one of the founding fathers wrote the constitution of massachusetts, that says that the judicial shall never exercise the legislative or executive powers, or either of them, to the end that this is a government of law and not of men. in arguing for the constitution, to convince the americans to vote for this, used the massachusetts constitution, and said that this is essentially what we have here in our government. he was a remarkable man, who described the separation of powers as the central precaution in favor of liberty. alexander hamilton, in a famous paper that was written to encourage americans to support the constitution, talked about a french philosopher who said, there is no liberty of the power of judging is not separated from the legislative and executive powers. the judicial branch is limited to the interpretations and the application of the law, existing, not created. at no time

as seen as such by the congress, and a few u.s. administrations have made a big deal about the importance of this issue. they are ensuring cooperation with the congress, which pays a lot of attention to these issues. and i would expect that an agreement reached would be reached in a way that would be acceptable to people in congress who follow this closely. >> the thing i would add, i think it's at the core of continued defense and security cooperation between u.s. and india. with respect to cooperation at the industry level. where it may get more scrutiny, not near perhaps as much as the nuclear deal did. when it's a direct commercial sale versus a military sale case. after i think there might be a little pause in the action, but again, much like mike colleague indicated, not knowing the actual language and the boundary conditions associated with that, i think we would see on the fms cases a positive outcome and direct commercial sales, perhaps a little more scrutiny. >> we have time for one more question. so, please. >> i know you

i know the congress has it. is plan includes, i think there are eight or ten per the company is you can pick from, including blue cross blue shield -- i think there's a real road, and another is a post office plan. you get to pick which plan you want. there is no problem going to any doctor you wish to commit any specialist. your medications are taking care of 80/20 and i cannot understand why congress is not fully behind a plan like this. i saw on one of the programs where senator grassley had received campaign contributions from insurance companies on almost $400,000 from 2003 until 2008. he had received almost $300,000 from the pharmaceutical companies. host: we will get a response. guest: the obvious answer here it is the expense. such a great health care plan that congress has, even some in the military might be very happy with their plans. it is just extremely expensive. to provide that for every single american a think would be beyond the means of what this current government can do. guest: the book i ment

money through this congress than anybody i think in the history of this congress. but i'm concerned that if we provide i.m.f. funding at a time when our western european allies are not practicing economic policies which are sufficiently expansive, that it will in fact minimize the impact of that i.m.f. funding. so i'm dubious about that too. i'm also dubious about cash for clunkers, i frankly agree with senator feinstein on the nature of that program. but we have a huge amount of unfinished business in front of us. we've got 12 appropriation bills that both chambers would like to finnish regular order, in regular time. we've got health care that we hope to deal with to finally put to bed an issue which has plagued us since the 1940's. we've got climate change legislation which we need to deal with. we've got financial systems reform. and this bill represents the

never in the history of congress have so few voted so fast to spend so much and indebt so many. the democrats are in a program to spend more money than we have seen in the history of this institution and apparently they want very few speed bumps along the road to bankrupting america. thus last night, almost 3/4 of the republican amendments that would reform, improve government programs, make them more efficient, save the american taxpayer money, were ruled out of order, but i suppose in a modicum of respect for the democrat process a handful of amendments were made in order, i suppose i'm happy mine was one of them. recently our president has said, quote, without significant change in spending and debt, we are on an unsustainable course. we have to take the painstaking work of every dollar, every spending and ask ourselves, is this program really essential? are taxpayers getting their money's worth? can we accomplish our goals more efficiently and effectively some other way. mr. chairman, the house is not in order. the chair: the committee will be in order. the gentleman deserves

specific transactions to the oversight panel, the fed inspector general, and congress? finally, relying upon the federal reserve instead of the treasury for bailouts can amass the true cost to the public in terms of national debt. any losses on assets of loans through these risky or abnormal emergency power activities could result in the fed giving less money to the treasury. remitting less money t have you taken a comprehensive analysis based on the loans being taken? i am not referring to the conclusionary -- concluesary statement that everything is fine, but if you have done such an analysis, can you provide it to us this month? >> congressman, on the oversight panel request, i'm sure we'll respond to that. i'm not aware of the status of that request. i would just note that the senate -- i think the congress passed a rule recently that would allow the gao to directly audit aig and other individual bank or other interventions, and we are perfectly comfortable with that. we provided extensive information to the congress on aig and those other rescues, including monthly

my rough rule of thumb to the congress would be, given that we've seen this increase in the debt-to-gdp ratio, that we should hope to try to at least stabilize it at the higher level and over time to try to reduce it. but certainly we cannot allow ourselves to be in a situation where the debt continues to rise. that means more and more interest payments which then swell the deficit which leads to an unsustainable situation. so, it is very, very important. >> what matters is the trajectory, the path of the trajectories that matters in the long run, is that right? >> yes. the cbo shows simulations of debt essentially exploding, which it would if it got so high that debt payments became unmanageable. >> let's turn to inflation. your colleague at the philadelphia fed, charles foster, and i've spoken to other fed presidents, and they seem to concur. the economic forecast relies too heavily on measures of the output gap as a predictor of inflation. the forecasters argue that inflation will remain low for some time given the large current output gap. he notes that other indicators, more forwar

should define the process. congress could define the parameters for state-led process. such parameters could include the following essentially requiring the states to participate in regional planning initiatives to design the grid that will meet the congressional mandates. set strict and reasonable deadlines for the planning product and the citing of lines in the plan. ensure that they'll profit from the grid buildout and do not make the decisions for the buildout. lastly, if states do not complete the plan and the siding of the lines for the plan then the federal government should intervene. point number four, congress should do no harm. i ask you to take a hippocratic oath today and such an oath would require you to not do two things. number one, do not pick technologies and plans, while the moniker super highway, end quote, sounds good. depending on the goals of congress, it may not be what we need. i suspect the one size fits all solution such as the 765 grid overlay will not be cost effective, will likely be oversi

than in the previous congress, 9.22 under republican control. whereas, the failure to commit to an open and transparent process in order to develop a clear plan for dealing with runaway federal spending reached its pinnacle in the house's handling of h.r. 2847, the commerce, justice, science and related agencies appropriations act of 2010. whereas, h.r. 2847, the commerce, j, science and related -- justice, science and related agencies appropriations act of 2010 contained $16.4 billion in discretionary spending, 11.6% enacted in fiscal year 2009. whereas, on june 11, 2009, the house rules committee issued an announcement stating that amendments for h.r. 2847, the commerce, justice, science and related agencies appropriations act of 2010, must be preprinted in the congressional record by the close of business on june 15, 2009. whereas, both republicans and democrats filed 127 amendments in the congressional record for consideration on the house floor. whereas, on june 15, 2009, the house rules committee reported h.res. 544, a rule with a preprinti

the power of impeachment. congress has used this power sparingly. in our nation's history, only 13 federal judges have been impeached. and even fewer convicted. needless to say, the conduct at issue here is both shocking and shameful. in due course, many of the disturbing details of judge kent's appalling conduct will more than likely be revealed. but now, i want to emphasize for the members the following points. the committee is recommended -- the committee is recommending impeachment not merely on the fact that the judge has pleaded guilty and has been sentenced to prison. rather, it is his conduct. making false statements to his fellow judges in an official -- to fellow judges in an official inquiry and sexually assaulting courthouse personnel that the committee has independently determined to constitute high crimes and misdemeanors warranting his impeachment and removal from office. the judiciary committee determined overwhelmingly, unanimously, after most careful examination, that the judge's conduct plainly rende

in the congress. she was selected by the leadership of the party to serve in a number of significant areas of responsibility in the congress and that's just wonderful for the women who are here today to see someone come to washington and become immediately a national role model indeed an international role model for accomplished women. she represents the part of tennessee where nashville is. how many of us have heard of nashville? it's very popular in this part of the woods. she's got metropolitan nashville and the suburbs of memphis and she has lots of ties with some of the premier singers and songwriters and performers who call that part of tennessee home. or do business there. and she has made the decision to write this book and it's got an important message and we are delighted that she has come to present it to us. i must say in addition to all her public service which is tremendous, she has a successful career in private business and she is married and had a successful marriage for 32 years -- 34

and on a different date, that this would be the most open congress in history. well, it's anything but that. it's becoming more and more closed. even to the point where we lose the right to offer a motion to arise or adjourn, the right to offer an amendment on appropriations bill. and so i had offered six amendments up there. i didn't ask the rules committee to make my amendments in order. they had already made my amendments in order. every single one of them complied with the rule that was written and had been made in order. but one -- when the majority understood they were going to have to take some votes, some tougher votes on the subject matter that they had been ducking from they just changed the rule, i just said, keep the word, you set the standards, we all met those standards and then you made our amendments in order. we shouldn't have done that. it should have been an open rule that allowed any member to offer an amendment down the well unless the title of that bill had passed. that's the standard that's here. that's what the founding fathers imagined an

what is the united states saying and what can they do with the congress"? >> i think it doesn't have as much of the negative impact as th that. host: the iotoa has control over the outcome. guest: he doesn't go into the room and come up with a decision. he's known as someone who has difficulty making decisions. the great deal is his advisors. most of his advisors are related him by blood and marriage and so forth. also most importantly, i need to emphasize, the role that some of the members of the revolutionary guard, essentially, if you want to make translations are guardians as revolution, but known as revolutionary guards. the upper echelon of that organization that consulted with him in regards to the nuclear. program. even though it is his word, but he works with the consensus. host: new jersey on our line for independents. jaden, you are next. caller: yes. i have a couple of comments to make. number one, other than israel, it seems to be the fairest connection in the middle east ever. hamas connection was feared, but we in the united states have chose

and it was the first time congress had confronted the voting rights act since 1982. and undoubtedly, congress would not have turned its attention to issues of race and politics if 2006, but for the fact that this particular part of the voting rights act, section 5, had a sunset provision, and the act was to expire, this portion of the act was to expire in 2007, unless congress acted. so if 2006, on the eve of the expiration of the act, congress was forced to engage with these issues. now, with congress last addressed these issues, not in 1965, with the act was first passed, but in 1982, when it had last amended section 5, even as of 1982, there are a variety of circumstances in american politics and race relations that were clearly different by 2006. for example, even in 1982, there were minuscule number of black office holders in the united states and certainly in the south. it was only 17 years since the voting rights act had first been enacted. there was basically no meaningful, two-party competition in the south. the democratic party still had its century long mon

and you're an independent guy, you're supposed to operate outside of the congress. and if someone of your stature would come out and say, this is the wrong time to do an energy tax, i think it would send a message to this congress to stop this energy tax. and so i would request if you believe this is the wrong time to do an energy tax, that you would come out and say that. i think it would be a powerful statement. >> i think an important -- just from the short-term cyclical consideration, to the extent that there is an energy tax it would make sense to rebate it somehow so the net purchasing power is not diminished too much by such an action. but that would be the short-term consideration i would mention. >> so you're not willing to go all the way and say we should not do an energy tax at all? >> in the long run, this clearly depends on the assessment of the congress on the importance of reducing carbon, greenhouse gas emissions. i'm not a scientist. i can't judge that. if those costs are perceived to be large enough, than some intervention is justified. in addition,

the congress and the judiciary represent the will fall after all that is where our representatives make their choices as to how we should be governed, and hamilton, alexander hamilton, we heard from him and bill a moment ago called rules for the regulation of society. the judiciary tends to vindicate those rules in the cases of controversies which interested again in the law. the executive though is where it gets interesting. the executive is much different in this respect. article 2 begins by saying something called the executive power shall be vested in president of the united states of america. sections two and three it spells out various duties and powers the president has. hamilton called these particular cases of executive power. these are all familiar. commander in chief for example the power to make treaties and to nominate the senate to appoint ambassadors, judges and certain others of a executive-branch. .. they knew that man by nature is recalcitrant and things happen so to speak and so necessities' arise. necessity comes to us in crisis and that is its address, its ordinary

and they misled the congress of the united states of america. that's the statement. now i retracted, no evidence given, just an allege. now when someone accuses someone else of lying outside these doors in the street, at the family, in the workplace, in private society, they had better have the evidence before they accuse somebody being a liar. that's the standard in america. if you think someone's not telling you the truth, you don't call them a liar until you have the facts. we have worse than that here in the congress, because there is a statute that has been passed that prohibits anyone lying to congress, especially about domestic or international terrorism. and that's what these briefings were about, about enhanced interrogation that most of america thinks took place down in gitmo, waterboarding among them. no waterboarding took place in gitmo or in this hemisphere. and i can't verify that there was any enhanced interrogation techniques that took place even in this hemisphere, lit alone at gitmo, by united states forces. so that's a long subject, and i won't go

the congress said that the oas was not welcomed. there were ambassadors of all countries who were accredited to observe the survey. there were television programs that were brought -- broadcast on how the survey would proceed on peaceful conditions. there would be no violence. at 2:00 in the morning, when the program had ended, i was speaking with the people who had been involved in the polling in order to see with the breakdown was. to see what the general trend was. after a first break down of polling, to see what the incentives were 4 yes and no. see what the answers were to the questions. the questions were as follows. do you wish to see a fourth furnace used in the next survey? there were questions pertaining to national interest. this contained -- dealt with the possibility of a fourth urn in the next election. i will be leaving at the end of my term, but i wish to leave the people newly empowered with this new right. 3.5 years ago, my election was to empower the systems. this is through more education, health, literacy progra

congress. a good example is that don't ask, don't tell policy. i haven't taken the temperature of congress. i don't know where the majority of it is, but if the congress is aware its president is, as i understand the law in that area, the president as commander-in-chief could change that policy fairly quickly if he wanted to pixel at the end of the day i think the president ought to be prepared to fully assert his power when he needs to come but you don't have to be stupid about it and you shouldn't do it when you don't need to. >> does anybody want to take that particular case up? >> you guys are cowards. , on. [laughter] >> i can't get a rise out of you all? is the president prepared to do that if it's also in congress? >> okay. [laughter] >> can't get a rise out of this crowd. >> good question. often the conversation is about transparency is about the administration communicating with the public and the public being able to see what the administration is doing. the question is how does the public really communicant with the administration. how does a regular citizen or member of a cs majo

the congress or administration. i have been assured by rahm emanuel and yourself that the president's position is not to let these photos see the light of day. we are going to -- the majority leader's going to give us another vote in the senate. i would ask the administration after that vote to urge the house to take it up. because that's the best way to protect the troops. do you agree? >> i do. i think there are compelling reasons why these photos should not be released. >> i would like to introduce into the record the statements of general petraeus filed by the government as part of their declaration as part of the lawsuit indicating the danger to our troops if they were released to back up what you're saying. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. military commissions act, i'm amazed we are eight years into this war, basically, since 9/11, september will be the eight-year anniversary. we are still talking about how to deal this. it's very complicated. most of your questioning today has been about matte

in 1916 the organization received a federal charter from the 62nd congress. since its incorporation in 1910, the boy scouts of america has now witnessed the enrollment of over 111 million scouts. with scouting currently found in 185 countries around the world. former scouts and scout volunteers include a number of prominent americans. including president's john f. kennedy, george w. bush, jimmy carter, bill clinton, and gerald ford. president ford often described the impact of scouting on his career stating that, quote, without hesitation because of scouting principles, i know i was a better athlete, i was a better naval officer, i was a better congressman, and i was a better prepared president, end quote. in 2008 alone, the boy scouts of america provided educational community service and recreational programs to over 2.8 million young people. with the support of over 1.1 million volunteers in nearly 130,000 community-based organizations. as noted by the boy scouts of america most recent annual report to the nation, two events in 2008 exemplified the promise a

i take the oversight responsibility of congress very seriously and the fact that the justice department would take these actions without notifying members of congress is incredible. these detainees could pose serious threats to local communities and place an extraordinary burden on the cities where these individuals will be tried. i believe congress and the american people have a right to know their history of individuals the administration is intent on bringing on to u.s. soil. the guantanamo bay prison facility is closing. since the president has made that decision, we must know the facts to make informed decisions on the next step, my own view is that any trials or military commissions should be held on a military base far away from civilian population centers. madam speaker, much of the recent debate surrounding the closing of guantanamo bay has centered on a group of detainees from china who are members of the al qaeda-affiliated terrorist group known as etim. last month, i became aware eric holder, was planning on allowing these trained terrorists into the united states without, w

the lie beer of congress fund -- the library of congress funding totals $638 million a 4% increase over the current year which includes $8.5 million for technology upguides to allow for increased digitalization of the library's collections and full funding for the digital talking book for the blind project. the government accountability office is funded at $553.6 million, a 4% increase over country year and provides all salary and inflationary increases for g.a.o. current staff level. the government printing office is funded at $147 million, which is a 4% raise over current year. allowing for the continued implementation of g.p.o.'s federal digital system and other technology upgrades. the congressional budget office is funded at $45 million, a 2% increase over the current year. combined with the $2 million included in the supplemental, c.b.o. will have adequate funding and f.t.'s needed to perform the critical work associated with health care spending, the current financial crisis and global climate change. the office of compliance is funded at $4.4 million, an increase of 8% above cur

that in the end is the job of the u.s. congress. the senators and congressmen have to decide what is a good and bad way to do business but so far we have seen that a government plan, higher spending are bad policy the budgetary numbers coming out reflect that but it will be up to elected officials to move us in a path that center's american healthcare reform around american families and delivers higher-quality care at lower cost for the american. that is a job to focus on next. thank you. >> [applause] up next we have merrill matthews of the council for affordable health insurance. >> thank you grover. it is a great pleasure to be here. i'm here to talk about the public plan. bugged government run public plan, we already have a government run public a plan called medicare and medicaid program has price controls, everyone is forced into medicare part a if you sign up for social security 1/2 to be in medicare part a there's a lawsuit out there trying to get people to opt out but currently have to me and that is the way a stage as the s

so i think that the concerns that i expressed in that speech no longer exist because of the action that congress has taken. >> but i asked you, mr. attorney general, not whether it was unwise but whether you consider it to have been illegal. because that's certainly the implication of what you said in the quote i read and the explicit statement of the man who is now president of the united states. >> well what i'm say something in that speech is i thought the action that the administration had taken was inconsistent with the dictates of fisa and i think i used the word contra invention. and as a result i thought that the policy was an unwise one and i think that the concerns that i expressed then had really been remedied by the fact that congress has now authorized -- >> did you think it was illegal? >> well, i thought that, as i said, it was inconsistent with the fisa statute and unwise as a matter of policy. >> has something happened that's changed your opinion since your june, 2008, statement that would make it hard for you to just simply say what the president said, that it's illegal? >> no,

they are lying to the congress. they are lying to the press if they talk to the press. most importantly they are lying to congress. now, that's an issue that we should be concerned about because not just we need it resolved. that's what i keep raising. i have been a judge in this country for 20 years. and its purpose is to resolve issues. now, my question is, who's going to resolve this issue? this issue needs to be resolved. now, why does it need to be resolved? i gave you two examples. north korea even iran -- and iran. two hot spots boiling up. we are getting information, we should be, i assume we are getting information from our intelligence community. if they are liars, can we trust them? can we put the security of hawaii on the shoulders of our intelligence community and trust their report as to whether or not there is a nuclear warhead on that missile that they have said they are going to fire at hawaii? can we, the speakers' -- speaker's accusations, trust this community? that's the question i think we ought to talk about. once again the 50th time i have probably

then in 2006 we won the congress back. it was the first time since 9/11 we were free to think about all of the things we cared about. it of the first time in the 40-year cultural run of the republicans when we had had an opportunity to see what would happen if what they talked about was actually done. because president bush had a republican congress. and the american people didn't like it very well. i remember on the morning after the election i said, you know, -- in 2006 -- i told hillary, if we don't nominate a convicted felon, we are going to win, the democratic nominee will be the president of the united states the 2008 election. because you could just see the two things going together. people believed in the promise of their country and we were culturally a different country. one of the things that i think made president obama's election possible is that we are not a biracial country any more, we are a multi-racial country. we don't have any time to do anything but appreciate our differences. we are wholly intolerant n

the clerk: to the congress of the united states, today i am pleased to submit to the congress the enclosed legislative proposal, the statutory pay as you go d act of 2009, or pay-go, together with a sectional analysis. the deficits that my administration inherited reflect not only severe economic downturn, but also years of failing to pay for new policies, including large tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the affluent. this failure of fiscal discipline contributed to transforming surpluses projected at the beginning of this decade into trillions of dollars in deficits. i am committed to returning our government to a path of fiscal discipline and pay-go represents a key step to the path of shared responsibility. pay-go would hold us to a simple but important principle, we should pay for new tax or entitlement legislation, creating a new nonemergency tax cut or entitlement expansion would require offsetting revenue increases or spending reductions. in the 1990's, statutory pay-go encouraged the tough choices that helped move the government from large deficits to surpluses and i beli

i was the first member of congress to do so. i published every appropriation funding designated funding request think a received on my website since 2003. i believe i was the first member of congress to do so. because i don't ask for much. i will not make -- i will not make a funding request for a private individual or a private company. i limit them to national security, border security, local units of government, state government or the texas medical center, god bless them, the great work they're doing at m.d. anderson hospital and the nation's space program or flood control. the houston ship channel will silt up in six months unless we on the appropriations committee direct the army corps of engineers to dredge it. they would not have built a railroad bridge between connecting galveston island to the texas mainland unless the homeland security committee and i want to thank you again for connecting galveston island to the mainland. that's not even in my district. nor is the texas -- the houston ship channel. these are fiscally

in 2006, we won the congress back. it was the first time we had been free to think about all the things that we cared about. it was the first time in the cultural run of the republicans when we had an opportunity to see what would happen if what they talked about was actually done. bush said republican congress. the american people did not like it very much. i remember on the morning after the election, you know, in 2006, i told hillary, i said, if we do not nominate a convicted felon, we're going to win. a democratic nominee will be the president of the united states after the 2008 election. you could see two things going together. people believe in the promise of their@@@@@@@@@@ @ ,@ @ @ we're holy and tolerant of the staples of american politics for the last 40 years. we want to build what the dlc advocated from the get go. the country of one community -- a country of one community with shared responsibilities and shared opportunities. yes, the demographics had a lot to do with it. by 2008, president obama had a bigg

in the last congress we held hearings on rendition. the government ruled that it's a valuable tool end quote and they've conducted substantial examination in particular case in view of these facts what are we to make that the government's arguments that the entire subject matter is too secret and warrants outright dismissal of the cases? >> i think chairman that it is evidence that the government's approach to secrecy in these matters is somewhat more opportunistic and malleable. on the very day that i was in court in san jose california, the jeppeson that that case should be thrown out on subject matter grounds, former cia director hayden was in congress testifying that the cia water beaded three individuals. when it's important to reveal those matters for whatever reason the government is quite forthcoming for that information. if it needs to put it in the public record to prosecute alleged terrorists. when it finds itself to be a defendant in a civil case the same information is secret as a way of avoiding accountability. >> i'll gra

but it's interesting how overwhelming the vote in congress for renewing the act was. i think for 25 years, in the old days, it was five years at a time. i think the senate there were no dissenters, as i recall, and only a handful of representatives. so apparently the public -- >> that's the vote when it's unconstitutional. it's always unanimous in the senate. >> i mean, the opinion, you know, a number of people have interpreted the opinion as saying to congress ok now the ball is in your court and amend the section 5 extension, either limit the cover jurisdictions or revise them or make them somehow congruent with issues on the ground today, limit them to where there are demonstrated problems, and that is a complete can of worms. of course, one of the arguments is the reason there are fewer demonstrated problems now with minority access to the vote is that section 5 has sat there as a prophylaxis, as a deterrent. in the city of burnie view, justice thomas articulates this , prophylaxis a outside congress' authority. congress only has authority to recommended, not to d

and such other courts as the congress creates. so these words, i think, are unambiguous. the judiciary possesses no power to make law or even enforce law. in federalist number 47, one of our founding fathers, james madison, cites the constitution of massachusetts which states -- quote -- "the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers or either of them to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men." close quote. so madison in arguing for the constitution trying to convince the americans to vote for it, quoted the massachusetts constitution this provision in it with approval stating that's essentially what we have here in our federal government. madison was really a remarkable man. he went on to describe the separation of powers as -- quote -- "essential precaution in favor of liberty." and alexander hamilton in "federalist" number 78, "the federalist paper" that also was written to encourage americans to support the constitution, quotes the french fil philosophr montesquieu who said -- quote -- "there is no liberty if the power of ju

the administration is large it looking to congress to resolve its of the ideas that are coming from congress would involve some of these tax increase that the administration is not willing to take a firm position on. they want to let congress debated, figure out how to pay for, and then present the proposal. host: in the first five months, has this been the pattern of this administration? guest: i think so, obama came into office with big ideas but he once the approach by congress. he has asked for their schedule and details that they would like to offer. he has given republicans ample opportunity to weigh in. those efforts have not succeeded greatly with republicans but he is still sticking to his original ideas which is to let congress have an equal say. host: next caller -- you are on the air. caller: i would like to make comments regarding the health care plan and the public plan that president-elect barack obama wants to have in place. 72% of the american people are in support of this public health care plan at this time, people are aware of the crisis in the health-care industry. i wou

the money. we here in congress are responsible for the taxpayers' dollars. he was responsible for millions and millions of dollars coming back to the state of ohio, whether it was research in fuel cell technology or whether it was the first ladies' library that his wife had a brilliant idea to anchor in our state of ohio or funding for medical research that we're doing in our state, he was the leader and he believed in innovation and cre -- creativity. he was a man of get integrity and someone who obviously, as congressmanla turet said, would not be able to replace but certainly respect as his successor. and mr. speaker, at this time, i yield to the gentlelady from california, our speaker of the house of representatives, speaker pelosi. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. the speaker: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for giving us this opportunity to come to the floor to sing the praises of our former colleague. we always will have him as a colleague in our hearts. but form

the same thing with the mexican trucking proposal that the congress vetoed. nd more recently, the president made a great statement over the weekend about warning about the question of having kind of automatic what seems to be an automatic proposal for retaliation, some years down the road, but it was quite late. and that, in very well may be that in the bill just as the buy america was in the final bill. we don't know that yet. that brings me to, i should say there are three things. the second, and that is in general in trade, i think, the administration faces or president faces the situation, that congress has been increasingly restive under the balance, about the balance of power and trade between the executive on the one hand and the congress on the other. a lot of this was muted, or at least deflected in discussions about partisanship in the bush administration. but in the obama administration i think you are still going at the same thing and it was the democrats versus republicans and now we have a total democratic administration as the president and exec

i think the concern i expressed in that speech no longer exist because of the action congress has taken. >> i asked you not whether it was unwise but whether you consider it to have been illegal. that is the implication of what you said. the explicit statement of the man who is now president. >> what i was saying in that speech was that the action the administration had taken was inconsistent with it -- the dictates of fisa. i think i used the word contravention. as a result, the policy was an unwise one and i think the concerns i expressed then have been remedied by the fact that congress has now authorized -- >> do you think it was illegal? >> i think it was inconsistent with the statute and unwise as a matter of policy. >> has something happened as change your opinion since your statement from june 2008 would make it hard for you to say that it is illegal? >> i do not think so. and i don't think what i am saying now is inconsistent with what i said at the convention in the speech i gave. >> it sounds awfully mild compared to a very clear statements on a very important principle -- no

can take right now to assist the auto industry." haven't congress done enough for the auto industry? when is $85 billion not enough? -- not enough for the auto industry? lastly, this provision is a lemon according to a june 13, 2000, article from the ""l.a. times" critic say that the improvements required in the trade as much as one mile per gallon for certain light trucks. you trade in your old light truck and buy another one that is one mile -- so you can swap one gas guzzlers for another. so, for $1 billion this provision does not achieve the environmental goals either. my colleagues argued such an opinion in "the wall street journal" on june 11. they also wrote that it was being pushed by the auto industry and is simply bad policy and designed to provide detroit one last windfall. this unrelated provision is an unwise use of hard-earned taxpayer money. it does not belong in this bill and i strongly disagree with its inclusion. there are few more remarks of like to hug. $2.2 billion for so many aircraft. we have bought or ordered 17 more than we

there's so much support on the outside of the congress as well. 1,000 organizations. everyone from the american cancer society, which we would expect, the campaign for tobacco-free kids, the aarp and the presbyterian church, just to name a few. they believe that passing this bill will save lives. today, americans benefit from the oversight of the f.d.a. on food what we eat and medicines that we take. that's their jurisdiction. the fact that tobacco is one of the deadliest products in america, the f.d.a. has had no authority to regulate it. this is just not right. and today we can correct that wrong. right now tobacco is exempt from standards that apply to a can of soda or a box of pasta. tobacco makers are exempt from the critical and basic consumer protections such as ingredient disclosure, product testing and restrictions, and restrictions on marketing to children. this legislation gas the f.d.a. the authority to regulate tobacco products. it also requires detailed disclosures of tobacco products' ingredients and restricts tobacco marketing and sales to young people,

they agreed that the best way is for congress to secretary. in light of that, i will hold the bills that i have a hold on and i will support the supplemental. i think it is important for our soldiers, airmen, marines, anybody deployed and civilian contractors to know that there is a game plan. we will support petraeus and all of our combat commanders to make sure that these photos never see light of day. now i think we have a game plan that will work. it starts with a vote in the senate. i'm urging the house to take this up as a freestanding bill. we have 266 votes to include this in the supplemental. it was taken out. i'm disappointed it was taken out. we have a chance to start over and get this right. with the understanding that wee will have a freestanding vote on the lieberman-graham amendment and that the administration will make sure that these photos will never see light of day if congress fails to act, i will lift my hold. and i yield. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. a senator: when the founding f