the consent. it gives congress the power of the purse.so, why isn't the better view we let congress expressed its approval and disapproval in the mechanisms set up by the constitution to do so meaning if the president recognizes a country that congress doesn't want to recognize it could withhold approval of an ambassador. they could refuse to fund the embassy. it could do many other things but what entitles converse to trench on a power that has been exercised virtually since the beginning of the country. >> with all respect, justice, i think history demonstrates that this simply not true. that in fact congress has had equal recognition power in fact that is a power rather than a ceremonial duties. we have gone back from president monroe, jackson, tayler, lincoln, and even at the time of president mckinley conagra said we have the authority to be recognized. >> this gets back to the question of exactly what congressional power you are basing your argument on. you started by saying you're basing it on the congress passport power which is a

those are future witnesses for the congress. milton friedman gave an interview to reuters after he heard from me. and said this is very detrimental to having good analysis what the fed is doing, having them all on the payroll. and then people would be interested in the myth of political virginity. that's one of the chapters in my book. the fed always says we are independent from politics. well, they are not. i always have the lobbyists and going around the congress. in 1976 when henry royce try to get an auto bill, they cut all the bankers they regulate, told them to go to washington, and they were very effective and to block the bill for two years. now the auditors are limited. they can't audit the parts of the fed that have to do with monetary policy or international relations, where we found a lot of problems spent and we're going to have to leave it there, professor auerbach, i'm afraid. you been listening to robert auerbach talk about his book, "deception and abuse at the fed." he gave us a taste of what is in the book. and

fred took tha advice to heart when he entered the congress. he worked with then speaker of the house sam raburn, congresswoman church, among man other members of congress to create the u.s. capitol historical society. his vision was that the society would be the history teacher to the nation. next year in 2012, the society will celebrate its 50th anniversary. obviously fred had an idea that was right for the time and for the next five decades. given the state of history and civic education in our schools today, the society's educational mandate is much more important than it ever was. if we are to involve knowledgeable participation in government by future generations. it's part of its mission to educate the public about the history of the u.s. capitol and the congress. the u.s. capitol historical society created the freedom award. it was inaugurated in 1993 to honor the 200th anniversary of the laying of the u.s. capitol cornerstone by george washington in 1793. for 18 years, the freedom award has been presented annually in recognition of the

goodlatte: last time the congress balanced the budget with a democratic-controlled congress was 1969, more than 32 years ago. at this time, it's my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from michigan, mr. mccotter, a member of the financial services committee, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. mccotter: i thank the gentleman from virginia, in 1969, democratic congress had a republican president to help them do it. i rise in support of a balanced budget amendment. in this debate, we have heard that social security, medicare and medicaid will be doomed by a balanced budget amendment. but if we do nothing, those entitlement programs will continue to be doomed by today's fiscal implosion. we have heard the tax hike will somehow manage to balance the budget, but we have heard this talk before. and after all the tax hikes in the past, today we face a fiscal implosion. we have heard that there was a brief glowing error when a democratic president and republican congress managed to balance the budget. that is the exception that proves the nece

a statute implemented by the president. congress with recognition authority acquiesced. >> if one works through the history, we will see that it is an exclusive executive power. president jackson to the congress said that we should recognize texas. and then he says it is an open question as to whether it is exclusive authority or not. not something that the legislature has ever studied, but as a matter of expediency that question does not need to be resolved. he cautions that congress not to move too quickly for the fear of precipitating war with mexico. i am trying to return to the functional analysis later. i think that what is important is what congress did next. the past two appropriations measures in the house and senate appropriated funds for an emissary to the republic of texas, but each improve the language that said that such time that the president determined it was appropriate to do so, if one looks at the page that my friend sites, one will see that that language was added because as originally produced, rice were reject

the creation of a foreign policy as opposed to congress'sexercise of power relating to immigration control. convince me that i am wrong on that. >> i think you are wrong on that, justice and let me explain why. because it is clear from the history of the line on the passport that it is purely an identification of the individual. it is not an exercise of any foreign policy. indeed the passport statute itself says that a passport is any travel documents issued by competent authority showing the identity and nationality. and in this case the history of this line on the passport demonstrates i think conclusively in this department has acknowledged it as a means of identification and congress has said with regard to these citizens we will permit them to identify themselves like congress permit to the time knees to identify the enacted this because of a thought if these individuals passports simply send jerusalem that would be an identification problem it's not because caribbean and the navigation problem but congress recognized with regard to the

i agree with the regular order in congress. en somebody has an idea, they write a bill, put it in the committee, and then have hearings. people come in and talk about it, and the members listen to that and then they make amendments to the bill and pass it through. this issue that is going on is being done by 12 people sitting in a room with no access to me. they do not have anybody who can get into that room and listen to what is going on. i do not think that is democratic. host: there is a headline from the washington times -- is that fair? guest: no. the president has made lots of proposals. you have to remember the guy is talking like that got up and walked away from the table. if you are negotiating with the president and he says there has to be revenue, and their response is to get up and walk out the door, you have people that are not serious about coming to a resolution. making compromise is not easy. we have all done in. if you get up and walk away from the automobile dealer, you are not going to get the card. if you wal

about the automatic cut, trig they're congress set up, the $1.2 trillion cut. rom defense and half from domestic spending. efforts in congress to pull back the trigger and not make it stick. simple answer to lawmakers traying to do that, "no, i will veto any effort. there will be no easy off-ramps to this issue." that is going to be a problem for some. especially in the military. leon panetta said the cuts talked about in the triggers would be devastating to the pentagon. bill in the panel. ist -- bill kristol, juan williams, and brit hume. >> what i say about the triggers, the problem with the triggers the reason the triggers didn't have more effect on the super committee the cuts won't start to take effect until more than a year from now. they phase in gradually over ten years. that might impart sense of urgency. something more might be needed to put away what are deeply held convictions, republicans on the issue of tax increases and democrats on issue of entitlement spending. we never saw proposal to raise taxes the president wanted to raise but on the other

capitol and the congress, it created the freedom award. it was inaugurated in 1983 -- in 1993 to inaugurate the laying of the cornerstone by george washington in 1793. the name for the dodge a bad precedent capitol dome, the freedom award -- named for the statue that graces the capitol freedom award praises this understanding. we have had many recipients, distinguished recipients. tonight, we pay tribute to two gentlemen who have devoted their lives to public service and have left their mark on every aspect of american life. the society has named to the deans of congress as co- honorees to receive the 2011 freedom award. daniel in a way -- daniel in know we -- daniel inouye wand john dingell, the longest serving representative in the house of representatives. [applause] together, they represent 110 years of public service in the congress. for more than five decades, their leadership has guided legislation affecting all walks of life in their respective states and in the nation. their dedication to public service and the nation represent an

. >> how do they get there and how urgent is the problem? >> if congress does president act, the typical family's taxes is going to go up by roughly $1,000. >> we'll discuss the fallout and next steps. meanwhile, the republicans who want barack obama's job focus on immigration. >> we are going to say to people who came here illegally, you get to stay. >> i'm prepared to take the heat for saying, let's be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizen inspect, but by finding a way create legality. >> they have showed time after time they can't be trusted and until pakistan clearly shows that they have america's best interest in mind, i would not send them one penny, period. >> with all due respect to the governor, that is naive. >> the holiday season is officially upon us, but there is innovation from politics. joining us tonight, juice and davis of "national journal," david wessel of the "wall street journal," gloria borrow engineer of cna and dan balz of the "washington post." >> covering history as it happens, from our nation's capital, this is

so the president actually has asked the congress to adopt the infrastructure bank proposal that has bipartisan support in the senate to have the government seat an infrastructure bank with a relatively modest amount of money, let's say $10, $15 million, and i suggest in the book ways to get it. and then allow the bank to sell bonds to allow american citizens to invest in many it and also to take money from overseas interests and from pension funds, but also from sovereign wealth funds from governments all over the world because these infrastructure projects yield a very high rate of rump. return. and i think we shouldn't be the only country in the world that's afraid to take private sector money to build our infrastructure. and i don't mean just roads and bridges, i'm talking about, you know a decent electrical grid, faster broadband connections all over the country. it should bother you that south korea's broadband download speeds are four times faster than ours. and so having good government policy doesn't preclude some things being done by and with the private sector. >> well, one governmen

that's the point. congress has the power, has the authority under the constitution to enact laws, and it is congress that makes the decision even with regard to feign policy issues. >> the constitution requires ambassadors to be appointed with the consent of the senate. it gives congress the power of the purse. so why isn't the better view that we let congress express its approval and disapproval in the mechanism set up by the constitution to do so? meaning, if the president recognizes a country that congress doesn't want it to recognize, it can withhold approval of an ambassador, it could refuse to fund the embassy. it could do many other things. but what entitles congress to trench on a presidential power that has been exercised virtually since the beginning of the country? >> with all respect, justice sotomayor, i think history demonstrates that that's simply not true, that in fact congress has had equal "recognition power," if in fact that's a power rather than a ceremonial duty. we have in our reply brief

but in fairness when president bush tried this with the congress, and tax. modified 4.4%, the three companies that reap retreat of the largest amount of money not only didn't create jobs in america and put all the money in executive compensation, they eliminated 30,000 jobs. my answer to that is this, i think the president should ask republicans to work with tax reform and the democrats. i think the goal should be to get good rate is close to the tax break as possible, which is 23%, which would mean you got fewer people paying less than 20, which is not acceptable. that's about what the average american pays. while doing that, i would like to repatriate it in the following way to avoid 2004. can make the same view on that that the president has made on the payroll tax. i would say if you can document that you have added to that employment, then the portion you spend doing that is not subject to any tax. forget that for you right now. if you want to do whatever you with the money has to be the long-term capital gains, 15%, not 5.4. who will take the money and

they wou have to cover peoe up to one and a third times the poverty level. congresswould pay the full bill through 2016 but after, i think, 2020, congress would only pay 90%. and the statesre arguing that you are impermissibly-- speaking to congress-- you are impermissibly using your huge financial leverage to make us pay for more poor people. the government's response is, no we're simply defining the parameters of our program and we are telling you that we don't wanted me cadeo pay for only the poorest of the poor, we want it to go a little more broadly. so that issue is going to take another hour. it's going to be a fascinating argument in march and i think it's going to be an even more fascinating decision in late june. >> rose: is there some kind of a consensus looking at where the court... each of the voting patterns of members of this court and the political ramifications of this as to where they might come down? >> well, there's a conventional wisdom, not a consensus. >> rose: that's what i mean. >> it's this the four more liberal members of the court are expe

the republican congress on to save money in medicare and medicaid. the bill president reagan signed signings 50% more than was estimated to the first year and eventually 50% more. the bill i signed actually saved 50% more the first year and i don't claim the full credit for that. we work together democrats and republicans to figure out what will work, but the point is i'm convinced there are tons of things that can be done that what not interrupt the quality-of-care will leave people feeling their health care has been cut and bring this inflation rate down, but it's hard to get a congressional committee to, quote, scored it because you can't know in advance exactly how much money is involved. >> this is president bill clinton's fourth book, back to work why we need smart government for the strong economy. mr. president, in this book you refer quite often to andrew holstein's next book of the american economy. >> it is a good book and americans who are pessimistic should read it because you will get you out of your pessimist on. it's good in two ways.

the flat tax idea. how about this one? >> it is a good idea. less congress meets, the safer the republic is. and longer congress meets, more the government gets gummed up. a flat tax and undo obama care. the less they go to washington the better. they didn't know about air-conditioning that allow them to stay through the summer. >> mark, the less we see of these guys, the better? >> you know, david, it is spoken. perry is a part-time governor who is a ceremonial government and has little power and spoken like a person who works part-time with not much understanding of the complexity of federal government and how it is run. we have a 3.6 trillion dollar budget and two million employees in the federal government. how are we going to solve the problems on a part-time basis? it is a bigger economy now than when we started the country. >> bottom line, rich, would it help or hurt having these guys guys work time. >> i think governor perry's heart is in the wrong place. if you are a broke know sports team or business or government you fix the tax code and stabilize the dollar and de-fund bureaucraci

in that sense, our congress is the cleanest congress in the history of congress. the corruption here is the addict thinking about the bottle rather than his or her jobful they're constantly focused on what this other stuff would be. in that focus it's impossible not to see that what they do, what they argue about on the floor of the house, is focused on the things that are driving fundraising as opposed to the things driving the concerns of the american people. the best example rerently was, in the first four months of this year, we're in the middle of two wars, huge unemployment crisis, huge debt crisis, huge problems with health care plan, we don't even begin to address global warming, what's the number one issue congress is focused on? the bank swipe fee crisis. whether banks get to charge more for swiping your debit cards or whether retail companies have to pay less. why is this the number one issue the congress is focused on? because as a congressman if you pretend you're not sure which side you're coming down on this issue, tons of campaign cash comes flowing

that is not the way to prosperity. last week, this congress, with the support of many republicans in the house and senate, passed a mini-bus spending bill the blew through the paul ryan spending numbers. early numbers are not good. if republicans are to avoid the fate they had early this past decade a promising spending cuts and dramatically failing and that responsibility, if they are going to avoid that and the fate that had of being turned out by the american people, they have to show results now. they have to show that there will genuinely stand up and oppose tax increases and take his message out prosperity to the country. they have to be serious about cutting spending, no more phantom gains or gimmicks -- let's cut spending folks talk about the $1.20 trillion over the next decade but that is less than 3% of the total expenditures of over the next decade. what family out there has not had to make those kind of cuts? republicans and democrats can surely do that and make those basic cuts to save our prosperity and bring back job creation in

members of congress makes about $174,000 in the house. have rules on what they can accept, what gifts they can accept and what they can't accept and if they are getting paid to make a decision in congress, that's illegal. and they should go to jail. the issue is there is a bunch of fuzzy areas but you have this conversation. what if i make a donation to a member of congress' election and by the way, that member of congress happens to be voting in favor of things that benefit me, did i just pay them to take legislative action or am i just supporting a member of congress who is taking actions that i support? it's a very tough call. and where we particularly leap into action is when we see lots and lots of money appearing on the same day from a group of people who all have the same interests and all of a sudden there is a vote in congress about the same time. then it begins to look like the money is tied to the activity but if is much harder than it seems and much harder than it sounds to say, ok, clearly this money gave money and bought the

that's the story of the 112th congress. a republican party that decided at the beginning of the obama administration to really open up a two-front war. one war on obama and his administration. the second war on republican party establishment. which they believe compromised too much, sold out conservative principles too much for the previous decade and really enabled the rise of the obama -- of barack obama. so what that meant when you looked at the whole situation leading into the supercommittee and the debt ceiling drama over the summer, it meant basically that any deal that republicans might strike with obama would be inherently suspicious to the republican party base. and there would be a huge incentive for conservative leaders to call it a sellout, no matter what was in it. then if you look closer than that, any deal obama was going to strike with republicans would have to have included a significant revenue component, you know, with ref livenues on wealthy. that's another, an absolute sacred violation of conservative p

the problem. that is for congress. e court will tell you solely the balance of permissible choices that policy makers can get into it and whether this is a good idea or bad idea. the accord will say that it will not decide. it will only decide if it is a constitutional idea or if the program does not violate the limits set by the federal government. host: this is a tweet from mary. guest: they have not heard the case, and i do not know if it is a question of market ideology. the question does not come down to, again, whether or not this is the best solution or even a good solution to the problem identified by the congress and that the president campaigned to solve. the only question is whether or not this program falls into one of the specified powers to congress as. -- has. does that fall under one of the other powers? imposing taxes and spending money? the government argues that it does because those that do not carry health insurance as required will carry a penalty with their taxes and it falls under that power. tho

since raising the debt ceiling simply ratified the decision congress has already made to spend money and since the budget is the only thing that the senate votes on that is not subject to a filibuster, i thought that the debt ceiling vote was not subject to a filibuster. and i was wrong. so gene sperling sent me a message and said senator mcconnell said he was going to filibuster it unless we agreed right then to all their budgets that they'd run on. so turns out he couldn't raise the debt ceiling, and i was wrong. see, it didn't hurt too bad. [laughter] and that's one way we get less ideological politics, if people find errors they make and fess up. >> moving a bit out of washington, um, one of the things that you do frequently in the book is to cite examples of kind of where you think this sort of appropriate partnership and shared responsibility between government and the private sector is working at the state level. maybe you could talk a bit about your theory of that and also share some of the examples particularly from your time as governor of arkansas, sort of what worked then

and the more distance the president gets from congress, john, the higher his poll numbers go. so keeping him at a din from congress is not a bad thing for the political minds on his team as 2012 approaches. >> and does that mean no specific proposal from the president now? no bold move to say you have failed. here's my plan. or does he fight it out in. >> his argument is that they've given him one. he put a proposal and they could continue to push that. so i think you'll hear them push that. but mostly continue on the jobs they'll and pushing his american jobs action which you heard hill do today just now. and again, tomorrow when he goes to new hampshire to push the american jobs act. maybe not a coincidence that it's an early voting state. >> it could be a swing state come next november. our chief white house correspondent for us. let's head to capitol hill. kate, if you read all the statements from the democrats and all the statements from republicans, they agree we have to get something done. the failure of this committee, congress has single digit approval ratings. they ha

[laughter] you know, it was a different time in the press and also in the congress. um, there was a lot less vitriol, and it was, it's funny to read the congressional hearing for his nomination. um, at some points on my computer i would do a control f to find the word laughter because whoever was typing it out would write in laughter, and you could see all the jokes welcome back was making during -- was making during his nomination hearings. so he had congress in his pocket, and that doesn't really happen anymore. it's probably for the best. [laughter] um, and i'd be happy to take questions now. [applause] >> if you have a question, come up to the microphone here so that that it can be part of the recording that's going on. that would be great. and if nobody does, i have a lot of questions. [laughter] hope somebody else has some questions. >> where is he now? >> um, he is going to be 93 next week, and he still lives, um, at the watergate where he has been living since the '70s, um, and he still, um, goes in and has lunch at the front page which is the restaurant in th

we will talk about the approval rating for congress. f the approval ratings because perry talking about a part time lepgt chur. >> we are? >> what do you mean? >> we meet less than any congress in the past. i came in congress in 2007, and we met regularly and five days a week, and we passed major legislation. it was where we were proud to be in the congress. now we meet a week, off two weeks, and it's nice to be home, yeah, it's nice, and memphis is a great place to be, but we're supposed to be in washington. but when you are home, you are working, you are looking at problems in your community. rick perry doesn't understand washington. he wanted to make us part time, and two years ago he wanted to make us nonexistent because hey wanted his own congress in houston. >> watching personhood defeated in mississippi was a bright, light moment. it was exciting to see that productive rights could be frame in the coalition, but the fact is the only way personhood gets defeated is a lot of people that self identify as prolife vote against it, and

to get there would have to pass it through the congress and the stay. bp at two-thirds of congress to say when we need a balanced budget they have to pass a balanced budget which they haven't done quite a while. >> host: and in some way to sound like you are agreeing with the statement of administrative policy on the balance budget amendment from the obama adventures that came out yesterday. the white house race we do not need to amend the constitution to do the job of restoring fiscal discipline. said a requires us as members of both parties to move beyond politics as usual and find bipartisan common ground to restore us to a sustainable fiscal path. >> guest: that is certainly an instance where a great. i think it would be nice if they put their money where their mouth wasn't actually propose to balance budget which they certainly haven't done. they have budget they propose for fiscal year 2012 would increase the deficit and the debt over last year but it's true, i would be reticent to amend the constitution with specific fiscal policy constraint. i th

and we presented that the congress we couldn't get a policy debate on the merits of single payer in congress and it's outrageous and it's a reflection of the same dynamic that wall street kills things that hurt it health insurers kill reforms that group well the health insurers of all street are like this that's right they're making money for wall street making money for the stockholders and it's just it's imagine if you have a medical loss ratio if you're an insurance company what you spend on medical care is a loss. what they call a loss providing care to you are not right so they have to trust minimize the that's that's not a business model makes more sense if you're a sick person or an insured person. it's just incredibly destructive and national nurses united i know that you've been working with progressive democrats of america p.t. america or tim carpenter's organization on that you know disclosure i'm on the advisory board of i don't it's the best as for my ok. and that's the the health care not warfare place right also and the workers that's right would know that's that's that's we a

that has open the possibility that the super committee cannot meet that deadline of thanksgiving. congress could extend the deadline and give them more time. time. only by legislation that needs to be passed. passed. absent that, sequestration would occur. i would urge the committee to do its work within the timeframe available to it. the difficulty of doing that it is substantial. we do not know how much work has been done, how much product might be in place, how many alternatives have been put on the table. they have been doing most of the work out the public view. these are controversial items with which they are dealing. i am sure that nobody wants to be tagged as being for or against some difficult policy options until the entire deal is reached. the answer of -- the answer to the question is that with legislation, we could extend its bank. to. >> let's read between the lines. november 3 is the deadline. i am told that the house republicans do not want to give them any more time. they want to do it in the time allotted. they might consider it if there is a work product that could be c

the fact is that the congress and the members -- and representatives in the congress recognize post citizens united in our contemporary context. that as angry as the people may be, that the translation of that anger into election outcomes is much more tenuous than in the past. >> we will get to occupy wall street. i think the tea party has been absorbed into a political infrastructure in a way occupy hasn't yet. the white house released this statement saying avoiding accountability and kicking the can down the road is how washington got into the deficit problem in the first place, so congress needs do its job here and make the tough choices to live within its means that american families make every day. as you know, president obama has been overseas for the last nine days. should he have been in washington to oversee -- ultimately what has become a failure, 11 of the 12 nails in the coffin. is obama implicated in the failure of the super committee? >> you could second guess his actions, but he comes across as part of the problem here, as this rolls out. you can't escape it. you have democrat

we had a divided white house from the congress. een the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of the united states. we've had a white house controlled by both parties, and they're both to blame. government has grown too big, promised to much, and waited too long to restructure. we need to recapture the revenues but we need to do it through dramatic tax reform, not going back to the old system. we need to broaden the base, reduce the top marginal tax rate, eliminate the difference between capital gains and ordinary income, and do a number of things that will help to promote growth and create more equity within the tax system at the same time, while keeping us competitive in a global economy that is increasingly competitive, and we are losing our competitive posture. host: if you brought the name ross perot. he is one of 14 contenders we're featuring every friday evening. this week we will turn our attention to george wallace. next week, and george mcgovern, and the series will wrap up with our look at ross perot. we hope you tun