he did not attend the sessions of congress. that would have been improper for the commander in chief to attend congress. but every monday night he, robert morris, the financier as he was called, the equivalent of our secretary of the treasury, governor morris, alexander hamilton, james madison, and perhaps a few others met for dinner. it was at these dinners that these men discussed what had happened in the congress that day, usually very little, they discussed the fact that the nation was bankrupt, that congress was paralyzed, and the army had not been paid. what to do. what to do. these men formed the core of a kind of shifting political alliance in the congress of men who were nationalists. these were men who saw america as a great nation but only if it had a more powerful central government. that, of course, was not the general sentiment in the congress itself. the congress was very much mindful of states' rights, parochial in particular. and as the months wore on through the winter, washington and martha enjoyed themselves,

isn't that an oversight of the duty? >> congress blocks appropriation' writer, a clear statutory duty, is it not a violation then of a president's take care clause and being so powerful, should he cgo and withdraw money from the treasury? >> let me add on to that one thing, an example. here's a post out there in the federal housing finance administrati administration. for 3 1/2 years. as imposed con zer orships, hasbroed $150 billion for bailouts, and is that everything and we have in that office somebody the president hasn't bought it from nominating. >> and it's no way to run a railroad. the answer is, yes, the president is slighting his duty to take care that the laws are oh we. >> constitution, in regard to nominations as i pointed out in my opening talk, that's okay for the president to do that. >> the remedy for that is the one peter identified, and it is to the extent that it is known that the president is consist t consistently refusing to appoint people, to carry out the way the laws created. he will pay a political price.

in the end i believe we will find a way to avoid sequestration. what we need congress to do right now is enact a balanced package of deficit reduction that's large, that puts everything on the table, something the president could sign and then pass a law in which i think at that point the president would sign to halt sequestration. the reason we're not planning is we're hoping they do that. i wouldn't want to say it's a sure thing by any means, but we are hoping, and i think there's bipartisan agreement we don't want sequestration. so, yes, at some point we will have to plan for sequestration and we will, we'll follow on the guidance there. this needs to be a government- wide decision. it affects all the agencies, not just defense. but for the moment i think we want to give the congress time to do its job and to pass a far- reaching change that halts sequestration. >> but if it goes through and it does have to happen, you guys are going to have to come up with the money. >> absolutely. we will have to plan for it at that point and make it happen. it doesn't go into eff

but it stalled in the congress. we lose teachers, we lose police, and we lose firefighters. now we've lost close to 700,000 in the public sector. others going up, others going down dramatically. last night so we can put a human touch on this? police officer kevin brennan in brooklyn was shot down, shot in the face. an individual with an illegal gun. we have reduced in human facts, when we globally talk about what we can cut and what we can't cut. i mean, the direction we're going, we're going to have to cut money to the fbi, transportation, border security, vets benefits, because that's where we're headed because

in the end congress has the final say. now, i think everybody here knows, everyone knows we can do a better job in this congress to scrutinizing spending bills, and this bill provides a congress incentive to do that. let's consider how the process worked just last december with the consolidated appropriations act of 2012. that bill was over 1200 pages long and -- 1,200 pages long and included over $1 trillion in spending. mr. speaker, i have that bill right here. it was submitted to this house at 10:47 p.m. on december 15, 2011, and was voted on less than 15 hours later. no one, no one can say they have an adequate opportunity to scrutinize that spending bill. let me mention a couple of facts about that bill. it included in it nine separate appropriation bills rolled into one. of those nine bills four had not been reviewed or voted on by the full house. the house had never had a chance to look at them or vote on them. two of them, two of them hadn't even had a vote in the appropriations committee. one of those two, the labo

i are long-time friends and frank gave me an opportunity to introduce one of my first bills in the congress, a bill that i'm especially proud of that led to the establishment of the first and i suppose still only memorial to the african-americans who fought in the civil war. frank has been prodigious in the way in which he has expanded learning about the civil war and about african-american participation and the work of -- and the memorial so that it is more than a memorial on u street itself but a museum as well. now, this 150th anniversary of the civil war of course is being observed across the country in many ways. i especially appreciate that the -- that your forum, the conflict, preservation and resolution forum is presenting this opportunity today. it's going to be a four-year commemoration as such, but i can tell you that there has been little note taken of the ses kwen tenial in the congress. i introduced a resolution early on for the study of african-american life and study indicating that this was the 150th anniversary, and yet congress in many ways of the vortex of the civil war

but i can tell you there has been little note taken of the sequescentennial in the congress. i introduced a resolution early on for the study of african-american life and study indicating that this was the 150th anniversary. and yet congress in many ways was the vortex of the civil war before, during, and after. dr. shriver talked about the dinner meeting where it was decided that the tradeoff -- i wish we could make more tradeoffs in the present congress. but that the tradeoff between the north and the south would be as essentially it was. that the capital of the united states would be located below the mason-dixon line. and i can tell you that the capital of the united states, the people of the district of columbia were consoled by sovereign democrats for 150 years and did not get its home rule until 1974, precisely because of that fateful decision. it was not because at that time or at any time until about 1960 the majority of people living here were african-americans. it was because there was a fair number of african-americans and southern democrats, people in my own party

there's no chance in the world congress is going to open up the doors of america to immigrants. if anything, if you went to congress, what was the more likely result? >> they'd say to cut off all immigration. >> cut off all immigration or at least cut the quotas. so that wasn't an option. so you can't bring them into the united states except you know in small numbers. so what can you do? >> other nations. >> exactly. let other nations, particularly underpopulated nations take them in. and what's the big underpopulated area that could take in a lot of jews? i'm not talking about palestine, that's a whole other issue, that's under control of the british, i'm not going to get into that. what's an area under united states influence that's huge and sparsely populated? >> alaska. >> not alaska yet. alaska's tough. more hospitable than alaska. >> south america? >> latin america, exactly. latin america. you know, they could use, you know skilled labor. they're very underpopulated. they have a lot of land. they're kind of under our influence. so roosevelt takes the initiative of calling a

the victims of aggression. he faced a powerful isolation sentiment into congress and the american congress and a very important isolationist organization known as the america first committee. >> foernl fly across the atlant atlantic. >> that made him? >> famous. >> yeah. he was the great american hero. he was famous. more people knew lindbergh. he became the public voice of the isolationist movement. his arguments were very, very racial. anybody know how lindbergh was making a racial involvement about america's involvement in world war ii? he made several of them. >> the danger is not germans. the danger is asia. >> exactly. this is a quarrel among the white civilized people of europe. it's really unfortunate that the white civilized people of europe should be fighting one another. we do not want to get involved in that and have more white civilized christian people slaughtered. what a horrible thing. that's really where civilization is going to stand and that was represented by japan and russia. russia was considered the menace of communism. he made a racial argument as to why america should stay out of the wa

and the beginning of the next congress. aps basically. the senate judiciary committee convened a panel, conducted a formal investigation to determine what the rule ought to be. our custom and practice as it evolved over the intervening century has been based in part on their analysis. here is one of their conclusions and i quote from their 1905 report. framers of the constitution were providing against a real danger to the public interest and not just an imaginary one. they had in mind a period of time in which it would be harmful if an office were not filled. not a constructive inferred, or imputed recess as opposed to an actual one. so in other words they are saying ycan' use an overly technical set of logic in order to reach the conclusion that you've got a recess. now, that conclusion was followed up by an attorney general's advisory opinion, by attorney general doherty which was issued in 1921. among other things in that report he explained that regardless of exactly where you draw the line, under no set of reasonable c

it also depends what else the congress is doing. if they move efficiently toward a resolution of these issues that are -- in which the deadline is the end of february, then that helps us. if they move there in a more rambling path, then that's a lot more work for us, and i don't -- i wouldn't -- certainly would not try to make a prediction about that. darryn. >> in the campaign there seems to be an argument that it's out of control because they're spending too much. you're arguing that really the problem is the aging of the population. can you explain a lit bit more why the cpo sees it that way and what the relative weights are between the factors that are being cited in the political realm versus what you're seeing in the demographic realm? >> of course, i won't speak to what's being cited the political realm -- >> i wish you would. >> -- but i think if you look at the chart still up on the screen, you can see the basis for cbo's comment on this topic. relative -- we've clearly had a burst of spending, spending relative to gdp has b

usually is a group that is pressing and is ascending and needs spokesmanship in the congress, so the most active by far congressional black caucus, the congressional hispanic caucus, the congressional women's caucus. the usual suspects. or people who press legislation like the pro choice caucus or the republican study group. and most plentiful of all are the critical issue caucuses like the congressional bike caucus and the congressional climate caucus, congressional food safety caucus. i'm on all of those, and i don't know the last time i have gone to a meeting of any of them. yet the caucuses do exist to call us together when there's a need and when we can do something, and we do come. the challenge for any congressional reconciliation caucus is to find what needs to be done at the national level, to get member interest, to get member participation, and to make sure that members can do anything about it. there may be such issues. i don't doubt that there are. but i leave you with a notion that it is a challenge to be serious about what role congress or members of congress wish to p

the president demanded congress act. the president sensibly praised the congress for moving into action quickly. he signed that legislation into law probably. he recognize the legitimacy of congress' action that within the fact they were conducted at least o on on the senate side ia pro forma session on december 23, not withstand the fact that previously we had anticipated that there might not be any formal business conducted. there was. and that indicates the fact that we were in fact open for business as we were required to be under the constitution, not have a reserve the consent of the house of represents to adjourn for a period of more than three days. this emphasizes my broader point, which is that my concern is neither republican nor democratic. it is neither liberal nor conservative. this is politically active medical. this issue is simply an american one. one rooted in the rule of law and u.s. constitutions which we've all taken an oath. it is that we can't as an institution, as a country, afford to allow one per

it is invested in the congress. and i feel the major instrument for change to the laws in this country is the congress of the united states. the business of the congress is that of changing the law." afterward, a reporter asked white to define the constitutional role of the court. his reply was chilly. to decide cases. a bystander later recalled his statement was both a brush-off and a statement of philosophy. you could tell by the way he said it that it carried a fundamental belief for him. byron white cleaved to the view he possessed which spans 31 years, one the longest in the history of the court. he served with 20 justices, including three chief justices. during his career he wrote more than 1,300 opinions, 495 opinions to the court, 572 dissents. imposing as they are, numbers arehardly the measure of his contribution to the institution. at white's themmial service chief justice rehnquist explained given the force of his powerful intellect, his brefadt of experience and institutional memory, justice white played

welcome to the library of congress. i'm john cole, i'm the director of the center for the book in the reading promotion arm of the library of congress. we were created in 1977 by librarian of congress daniel borsten to help the library of congress stimulate public interest in books and reading and literacy. we operate primarily through a couple of national networks. there are state centers for the book in most of the states, and they work with us to promote books and reading in their respective states, and in particular to promote writers and writing. we also have national reading promotion partners, many nonprofit groups and government organizations, that we also work with to promote books and reading. we are a major component in the national book festival, and i hope many of you know about the national book festival and have attended in the past. i can tell you that this year's festival will be on the national mall from september 22nd to 23rd. we're delighted to be able to have expanded the national book festival in th

i am a member of the united states congress. i have been watching the sun tea -- tv where our struggles have fallen on deaf ears. why did they send me here? i was a pretty good activist in the bay area and didn't have to leave my family or my friends. why did they send me 2500 miles? was it to change the venue of my activism? i carried a sign in oakland. was it to put down the sign and walk inside the building and take my rightful place and assume the burdens and the risks and responsibilities to try to govern? i said, i'm going to opt for the latter. i think that is why they sent me here. i said to my colleagues if there were 217 other people from berkeley here in the congress it would be my way or the highway, but the reality is that they are not so i'm going to have to deal with you from mississippi, tennessee, from illinois or new york or wherever. so, okay. so the point is that it just happened that i ended up doing electoral politics and my sense of it is, so those of us who came here in the late 60s and 70s, we came here b

to consider and vote on the president's proposed savings. congress by a majority vote in each house can support the president's recommended savings or reject those savings. in the end, the congress has the final say. >> the comments of representative chris van hollen a democrat from suburban maryland here in the d.c. area, and chairman paul ryan. he will be delivering cpac conference remarks with his remarks to get under way at 7:30 eastern time, and you can check out the scheduling information on our website cspan.org. today, we are looking at corporate tax policy and hearing from a number of executives including fedex and time warner and executives saying they would be in favor of all tax benefits in exchange to lowering the corporate tax rate to 25%. they testifieded on on the panel before the house ways and means committee today which is the chief tax writing committee in the house of representatives all of the witnesses who testified today described the u.s. tax code as something that imposes challenges to businesses, because of the complexity a

it is the congress that has to do the allocation. and it seems to me we have to create the atmosphere for a 21st century america where innovation is absolutely bundling up constantly. now if you remove the license we're talking $1 billion or $2 billion here. i think america is a far more important idea than that. i understand, and it is a challenge to have the kind of deficit this hangs over our head. but there is going to be considerable sums much -- sums of money brought in, i believe with the voluntary auction. that is going to be a very good downpayment relative to the committee that i'm on. i wish all committees in congress would produce something like i'm producing relative to spectrum. i think one view is the long view. that america really takes a stand that beer going to be number one in everything. and then there is the short-term view that you mentioned. i prefer the former. >> one side of that, of course, is voluntary incentive options here. and one thing we have seen played out is what conditions should be on the s.b.c. w

at this joint meeting of the congress today. this has been a great experience for all of us on the program and for all americans, i guess, too. i'm certainly glad to see that pride in our country and its accomplishments are not a thing of the past. [ applause ] i know i still get a real hard to define feeling when the flag goes by and i know all of you do, too. [ applause ] the launch itself was conducted openly and with the news media representatives from around the world in attendance. this is certainly in sharp contrast with similar programs conducted elsewhere in the world and elevates the peaceful intent of our program. today, i know i seem to be standing alone on this great platform. just as i seem to be alone in the cockpit of the friendship 7 spacecraft. but i'm not. they were with me then and with me now. thousands of americans and many hundreds of citizens of many countries around the world who contributed to this truly international undertaking voluntaril voluntarily. we are all proud to have been privileged to be part

the president demanded congress act. the president sensibly praised the congress for moving into action quickly. he signed that legislation into law probably. he recognize the legitimacy of congress' action that within the fact they were conducted at least o on on the senate side ia pro forma session on december 23, not withstand the fact that previously we had anticipated that there might not be any formal business conducted. there was. and that indicates the fact that we were in fact open for business as we were required to be under the constitution, not have a reserve the consent of the house of represents to adjourn for a period of more than three days. this emphasizes my broader point, which is that my concern is neither republican nor democratic. it is neither liberal nor conservative. this is politically active medical. this issue is simply an american one. one rooted in the rule of law and u.s. constitutions which we've all taken an oath. it is that we can't as an institution, as a country, afford to allow one per

the only difference is i carved in members of congress. every member of this house will have their pay freeze just just like every other federal worker. that's the right thing to do. that's what should have been done two years ago but was not done. i was here to listen to the gentleman from maryland, the former majority leader, who is outraged he doesn't have an opportunity to singly vote for a pay freeze for members of congress but as majority leader, he had the opportunity to include members of congress in his bill. republicans didn't have a say, it was a democrat house, democrat senate, democrat president. and members of congress were not included. and now to come here today and be outraged and say that the republicans are disingenuous because we have carved in members of congress doesn't hold water. i think it's important to also look at the facts behind federal employees as they are compared to the private sector. the congressional budget office came out an they said that federal employees make 16% more on average than the private sect

this room, connecting the houses of congress. this room, where ideological differences fade in the presence of the overpowering force of pride in what we do and what americans have achieved. it's a privilege to be in this rotunda. high above us, just below the windows, stretches a phrase with 19 panels depicting important events in american history. the most recent of them, number 19, just above me here. it depicts the first successful flight of a man in a powered aircraft by the brothers wright, 108 years ago. the depiction in addition to the craft and the responsible individuals includes an american bald eagle carrying an olive branch. wilbur and orville wright were the recipients of the 45th congressional gold medal and the first in the achievements in the world of flight. subsequently, congressional gold medals have been presented nine times for aviation and rocketry achievements. today, for the first time, they are being given for achievements in space flight. also featured an american bald eagle carrying out an olive branch.

doesn't really have any role to play in trying to force the congress or get the congress to do something congress does not want to do. one important thing alice rivlin did when she set up the organization and this was the working definition of what it means to be non-partisan is she said the congressional budget office will not make recommendations. it was described to me once as someone said if you asked cbo how much some because they will tell you how much something costs. if you ask if it is a good idea they will tell you how much it costs. even though i would agree with you or anyone else who says the budget process is dysfunctional i am not sure how much cbo can do about that. other than to try to eliminate the effects of the failure to engage in various kinds of policies whether it is deficit reduction. >> host: what do you teach at the university of maryland? >> guest: we have a general course on public budgeting which covers all levels of government in our public policy program and i teach that course which is required of most of our students and we actually have a semester long

i'm happy to present the monetary policy report to the congress. let me begin with a discussion of current economic conditions and the out look and then i'll turn to monetary policy. the recovery of the u.s. economy continues, but the pace of expansion has been uneven and modest. after minimal gains of the first half of last year, real gtp increased in the second half. the limited information available for 2012 is consistent with growth at a pace close to or somewhat above the pace that was registered last year. we have seen positive developments in the labor markets. private payroll employment has increased since the middle of last year and and nearly 260,000 jobs were added in january. the job gains have been widespread. in the public sector, layoffs by state and local governments have theed. the unemployment rate hovered around 9% and has moved down since september, reaching 8.3% in january. new claims for unemployment insurance benefits have also moderated. the decline in unemployment rate over the past year has been somewhat more rapid than mig

i think that's going to take a lot of work on the part of congress. it's really not my place to make detailed recommendations about the specific components of the budget. but i do urge the congress and i heard many people on this committee express the same thing that we need a long term plan to put our debt to gdp ratio, our jefr all burden on a sustainable path. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and chairman bernanke. thank you. your remarks have been very insightful. and we all have differences of opinions. i think you're pretty close to what we need to be doing. and we value that. i would yield to senator grassley. >> personal note, i want to compliment you on your movements towards transparency. do of that and do it not just for the sake of letting people know about the economic impact of your policies. so that there's not -- so that there's not the obscurity that exists. but to do it for the purpose of educating the public more about the important role of the federal reserve. you're too important for people to think that there is some cons

congress is the one the mix of policy. they can come up with that of her policy difference is important or unique aspect there is of health insurance but once congress has the ability to sit a compelling commerce is compelling need to buy a product is regulated by congress, there's no reason it has to be limited to the context because congress has the power. the court defers to the policy judgment, and that is the proper role. while the government tries to make all these reasons why allowed this case in this one context is not -- is unique, what the cannot do is articulate a constitutional principle that says once congress has the power they can not require you to buy a car for the same reason. we impose all kinds of restrictions on the car companies, environmental regulations, that drive up the cost, just like the so-called nondiscrimination provisions drive up the costs of insurance. if congress can force strangers of these transactions to subsidize the compromise -- the companies, there's no reason in the world that they

our constitution and our judicial process have served in the congress. so although senator lee is a freshman, he is certainly not new to the questions the senate faces and our country faces here today. and with that, senator, i understand that you're both testifying and willing to take questions; is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> yes, sir. estimate as is customary for everyone except for members of congress, you will not be sworn in that you are a number of our body. with that, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. sherman. and ranking member for the invitation to come here and to address you and the other members of the committee. it's an honor to be with you here today. i'm here to defend the constitutional prerogative of converse. and i want to be clear from the outset but whatever political concerns i might have with of these nominations, my overriding dominating concerns here is not partisan. rather it is institutional and a constitutional concern that i am here to explain and the answer any questions that you might have regarding those conce

in the u.s. congress? well, new gallup poll, and there are a couple of polls out recently, and one says that the approval of congress is 11%, and one is 13% so it is within the margin of error and that is terrible. it is terrible in terms of what it does to the citizens, in terms of their desire to be part of the group or to support and to go to the polls and be excited about, you know, what they can do with our government. so we have to change that. how do you change that? well, one of the things that we know is that women tend to -- and i have never talked about one woman or one man, but as a group, women tend to be more collaborate. that's whether it is inds of settings, and true in politics, because thigh teey tend to works lines more easily and it is very important however that we have enough critical mass to let that happen. because otherwise, it is extremely hard to vote apart from the party, but if you have a bloc of 30%, 35% or 40%, that is is when you will see the women really taking off in terms

it's not just the president. it's congress that is also part of the problem here. that's what i hear when i go back home. and because of that, and you kind of answered it, and i think i want to clarify or make sure i hear what you're saying and that is because of the inability for this body to figure out and compromise and figure out pathways with long term certainty, it has an impact to the consumer confidence and the business confidence of this country. yes? >> yes. >> so, you know, what i've learned while i've been an executive, an assembly member in this legislative body is -- legislative bodies love to blame the executives. executives love to blame the legislative body. at the end of the day. there's 100 of us out of 300 million people to make a decision. if we intend to move this country forward to be more certain about the long-term decision, true? that's important. because i know as a small business person from the age of 16 that indecision does not create certainty, and this body has a great habit of indecision, or push it off. so i want to make sure we're

almost 50 years ago, following the flight i was privileged to address a joint session of congress. and i closed my remarks then with words i repeat today. as our knowledge of the universe in which we live god grant us the wisdom and guidance to use it wisely. thank you. [ applause ] gentlemen, please remain standing as the chaplain of the united states senate, dr. barry black, give ben addiction. >> let us pray. oh, lord of stretched out the heavens like a curtain. thank you for this four pioneer. lord, you empowered them to enter a new frontier, flipping the surly bonds of earth, to reach out and touch your sovereign face. may the inspiration we receive from these well-lived lives save us from the love of ease, which chooses the comfortable way. and from the procrastination, which puts things off until too late, bless keep us in all of our tomorrows, in our going out and coming in, in our rising up lying down from this timeforth, even forever more. amen. >> ladies and gentlemen, please remain at your seats for the departure of the official party. ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, this con

and the gsa budget has not faired well in the congress. that has slowed down a number of important projects including land ports along the southwest border, which are necessary for travel and trade. all the things that go on in that border area. i think that's probably where it's caught up. with respect to the two tourists -- >> madam, how could we -- what's the mechanism if they're necessary and if your department deems them necessary, to get this moving? >> the question is trying to do everything we need to do within the confines of the budget control act. we're all dealing with that as a fiscal reality. we need to reduce the deficit. we all recognize that as well. because gsa is governed by a different set of committees and different appropriations process, it does become a little bit two ships passing in the night. we are in constant touch with gsa working with them. they know the priorities. but they only have so much money. >> thank you. then the question of the foreign nationals from england. >> without getting too much in the weeds,

has the ability to define the jurisdiction of the supreme court congress has some ability to define the numbers of justices on the court which is why we had franklin roosevelt's so-called court packing plan there is a healthy tension that the elected branches should bring to the. from the president to the congress and you know when president obama called out the supreme court two years ago after citizens united and that was considered shocking no that's not shocking that's that's how our system is supposed to work the supreme court has incredible power as an unelected body to decide what the law is in deciding cases and that's an extraordinary power that should be exercised judiciously and they have overstepped they have they have overstepped and become so pro corporate that it's appropriate that congress and the and the presidency keep some tension there but in the end though i think what's most the biggest check and balance on the court that the framers gave us was article five the amendment process and we've used it seven times to overturn supreme court cases the supreme c

the first, the congress does nothing to change current law, the bush tax cuts sunset. amt patch collapses and the budget control acts in effect spending cuts kick in. bad for the economy, good for the deficit is essentially where you. the second one is your alternative scenario. and it blocks most of the spending cuts required by the budget control act. something like this, according to your analysis makes the deficit much worse, but it's better for the economy. so that leaves us with these two scenarios that are singularly unappealing and probably compounded by the fact that if the congress does nothing, you have this kind of meltdown in the lame duck session of 2012, much like the lame duck session in 2010. so it won't surprise you -- i want to ask you about the third scenario, and pick un -- up on senator portman's point with respect to tax reform. on this, i understand your answer and respect it that you couldn't do a full kind of quantitative analysis of a third approach. so i want to start by picking up on statements you have made that are on the public record th

, all the members of congress going back to 1789 to the first federal congresshat accounts for about 1% of all the people who have ever served in the house and senate. now, to demonstrate how this change has occurred very quickly in recent years, consider this. as african-americans, as many african-americans have been elected to congress since 1990 as were elected in the entire period between 1870 and 1990. from 1870 the first african-americans, a senator from mississippi, joseph rainy from south carolina, a member in the house. so that's a tremendous amount of change. and what i'd like to do today is to help you better understand some of the earlier context of this story. representative dellums certainly is an authority on what's happened in the modern era. so what i'd like to do is prepare you for his talk by talking about some of the pioneers, some of the early representatives and senators who came along and made the changes that have happened in our lifetimes possible. and to do that, i want to refer to a publication which we published in 2008, "black americ

the volume. and when congress, when the heat comes on, dial down what purported to be reforms, and it's a bipartisan failing. congress has folded. more volume. less value. what we have in the affordable care act, at least, is an outline of things that if your studies show, if allowed to work, over the course of the next 20 years, would have a substantial affect on bending the cost curve. i think we could have a very robust conversation around this table if we focused on how we right size the military. i think most of us don't think we need troops in western europe. 65 years after world war ii. we can dramatically scale down as much necessary to maintain a nuclear arsenal. do we need 12 multi-billion dollar aircraft carriers and build another one when nobody else in the world even has one comparable to what we've got and you don't build those things overnight. so we could gear up if some change took place. i mean, i go through the things with the chairman on health care. not health care, excuse me, agriculture. i thought that was a little bright spot in an otherwise mixed bag that was offered up. the

the continental congress was meet agent the state house of maryland in annapolis. he entered the chamber to return to the congress what they had given him in june of 1775. in june of 1775, they had literally given him his commission as commander in chief of the army. on december the 23rd, 1783, general washington returned and in a very solemn, but brief ceremony, he literally returned to the congress his commission. and then left the chamber no longer general or commander in chief, but simply as mister. and to finish this hollywood set, he then rode home to mt. vernon and arrives home at mt. vernon christmas eve, 1783. a few days later, from mt. vernon, he writes to a friend how good it is, how good it is to be in retirement and to be a private citizen and to never again have to be called to public duty. on that, he was wrong. i'm not suggesting that in march of 1783 there would be a grand coup. a coup is a strike at government. there wasn't much government to strike at in march of 1783. but imagine for a moment if the army had, indeed, taken up arms or marched or

here is "the new york post." congress in latest gallup survey, the public's contempt for congress continues to grow. the poll's latest gauge of public sentiment of the job congress is doing sank to a record low. host: there's this also, depend i incident nails. americans have grown more dependent on the federal government for help than any time in the nation's history. a staggers one in five americans rely on the feds for food assistance, income, student aid, housing, healthcare, college tuition, or retirement aid, the report by the conservative heritage foundation concluded. >> paul in lincoln park, michigan. hi, paul. >> well, the supreme court said that the line item veto is unconstitutional. there's an easy way to accomplish the same thing, but they'll never do it. the constitution also says that the house and the senate get to make their own rules about how they pass legislation. all they have to do is make a rule that says any bill that spends money can only be for one purpose, and any amendments to it have to be ge

one of the things that is a priority for all the women in congress, and many of the catholic women in congress, is the health of american women. this is about privacy and rights of families to determine whether they want to use contraception to determine the size and the timing of their having children, the size and timing of their families. this is an issue, 98% at catholics tell us they use contraception. overwhelming numbers of people support the president's decision, and you tell us the majority of catholics. i support it. if it comes to the floor, we will use a welcome debate to talk about the importance of women's health. it is not just about the women, but it is also about the children and the health of their families as they make a serious decision and use contraception to determine the size and timing of their families. so that will be a debate that we welcome. it is a sad one. we should not have to be at a place where people are saying where the overwhelming practice is going in favor of women's health, we want to pull that back. and use the excuse of religious freedom, -- n

the only difference is that i've carved in members of congress. every member in this house will have their pay freezed just like every other federal worker. that is the right thing to do. that's what should have been done two years ago but was not done. i was here to listen to the gentleman from maryland, the former majority leader who is outraged that he doesn't have an opportunity to singly vote for a pay freeze for members of congress. but as a majority leader, he had the opportunity to include members of congress in his bill. republicans didn't have a say, it was a democrat house. democrat senate. democrat president. and members of congress were not included. and now to come here today and be outraged and say that the republicans are disingenuous because we have carved in members of congress doesn't hold water. i think it's important to also look at the facts behind federal employees as they are compared to the private sector. the congressional budget office came out and they've said that federal employees make 16% more on average than the priv

the results could have wider implications either reenergize in the congress party or giving the party of the current chief minister the chance to bring -- play a bigger role on the national stage. to tell us more about the vote, i am joined by our guest, senior fellow at the observer research foundation think tyktank in new delhi. there is traditionally a low turnout. what would it take for people to go to the polls and vote? >> ester de are the first phase of the election. the turnout has been over 52%. the real figures are yet to come out but all media reports suggest it is over 52% which proves people [unintelligible] democratic processes an institution which is great news. the second thing of yesterday's polling is there is a close contest between the political parties. in my understanding, there is a large contest with the ruling [unintelligible] and the former chief minister and the congress and the part y conducting very close fights. >> it is a very important election for all the parties involved. whoever wins this election, what will this mean particularly for the congress pa

the president sent his 2013 federal budget proposal to gr congress, over the past several weeks members of his administration have come to capitol hill to discuss their agencies request. tuesday, we will have live coverage of two of those hear g hearings, a house energy sub committee will hear from epa administrato administrator, the epa budget will decrease by 1.2%, a total of $8.3 billion. and later in the afternoon. we will hear from secretary of state hillary krin ton, before the senate foreign relations committee. the president is requesting $51.6 billion, a 1.6% increase over 2012. you can watch live coverage of both hearings, tuesday on c-span 3. former senator majority leaders reflect odd their time in congress. and how the environment on capitol hill has change friday when they served. both men were participating in a discussion on leadership and politics hosted last month in washington. this is about an hour and 15 minutes. >> good morning everyone, it is terrific to welcome you to the first public event here in 2012. we had 70 last year, so i expect we will invite many of you

if those were embraced by the congress tomorrow, there would be substantially more confidence around the world in the capacity of this political system in washington, in our ability to go back to live within our means. it would be embraced and welcomed and you would leave people much more confident about the future of this country in terms of growth and opportunity. you're also right to emphasize and i think senator hatch did this very well, if we sit here and do nothing about these long term fiscal problems, even though interest rates are 2% today, over time, over the long run, that will hurt us. it will starve key things we have to do. it will hurt confidence in the country. that is a problem we'll have to deal with. we can't ignore that. it's why we probably want to start the debate now by how we lay the consensus on broader reforms but i do not believe there is a credible argument to make that uncertainty about our fiscal deficits or uncertainty about the design of regulation in washington today is having a material adverse effect on the american -- it's suffering from many things

it was the starting point. congress picked that up, worked from it and came up with the two rate structure we followed for a while. we say we're going to do. this the clock is ticking. and, you know, if we pump this down the road to the next congress, who knows what the excuse will be next year if we're not moving forward with this. is there something that we can -- that's going to be forth coming? >> i agree with you. better sooner than later. you can't defer it indefinitely. and even if we didn't have the incentive of the tax codes, it will be a good thing to get moving on nowment we spent a substantial amount of time this summer working in particular with the house republican leadership on how to set out broad parameters for tax reform. as you know, we were unsuccessful in that effort. and we feel like, frankly, we need to see a better, clearer recognition on the republican side. you'd be willing to consider tax reform to raise revenues as part of a balanced budget before we think there is going to be the basis for m

but i will say this, i think the administration and the congress, both the house and the