want to fix the war powers resolution as a convenient symbol as congress was doing something as war powers to avoid doing the things that congress could do. you can cut off funds and not pay for conflicts. libya might have been so small that we could have waged the whole thing by reprogramming money in the defense department. you this h to vote an appropriation for kosovo right away. it was one of the things and the other thing is the political party thing, kosovo's interesting because in kosovo went to war and the courts were adjudicated and the congress was controlled by the other party at that time and if you remember, one of the ten things in the contract was appeal to the war powers resolutions. where you had the president and the congress of a different party wanted to add to presidential powers and to repeal the powers resolution which was hard to figure out as a political matter and you didn't succeed on this one and he's not bragging about it now, i suppose. the last thing i want to say is that congress can achieve more just through funding power.

let's mandate this by the congress, because here's the problem that we have here. when -- congress ultimately does have the authority under the constitution to recognize the indian tribe simply by introducing a bill, but here's the problem, when the will is introduced to give recognition to a tribe, there's objection by some of our colleagues here that say, well, they have to go through the recognition process, a process that is done administratively, not by the will of the congress, but the way the bureaucrats have written these regulations for the past 34 years. so what do we do if the process is broken? it comes right back to the congress. what do we do from here? so i -- i -- it would be my humble recommendation, mr. chairman, that we need to put this in the form of a statute because here's the problem when you have a regulation that can be done by this administration. the next administration will change the regulation, and the poor indian tribes don't know where to turn, who to turn, to simply because of the inconsistencies that we've had in dealing with the re

the continuing layering of requirements from the congress generally stimulated either by the defense community or stimulated by the bureaucracy because they want to perpetuate something, ends up with rule, requirements reports, all of these things, hundreds of reports are required by the department of defense. hundreds of letter have to be answered for all kinds of detailed things. and the movement away from legislative oversight of a broad substantive nature, which would be very constructive, if hearings were held on important things, going down not to big, broad issues but down to micromanagement of the thing, the closest thing i can think of is gulliver's, remember gulliver's travels and the lilliputians would put threads over gulliver. gulliver was big and strong, and the thread, no one of the thread made a difference it wasn't a problem, or 2 or 5 or 10 or hundreds. but when you put hundreds over gulliver he couldn't get up and that's basically what's happening to the government, department of defense. >> five years running two presidents tried to relimb nate funding for backup

time magazine columnist talks about the 37th u.s. congress. the university of nebraska lincoln hosted this event. >> well, there's probably several hundred people more appropriate to talk about 1862 than i. i feel a little overmatched by the expertise in the room, but if you're bear with me, this will be over soon. i would like to thank bob sutton for the very warm introduction and for the park service participation in this really cool event. i was so excited when i heard that rick edwards and the center for great plains studies has come up with this idea. it couldn't be a more appropriate place to tackle the significance of what i believe was arguably the pivotal year of american history. 1862 was certainly the most eventful year in american history. perhaps the most misunderstood. the year in which the civil war became a cataclysm. the federal government became a colasses. and the confederate came nearest to winning its independence yet suffered the key losses that led to its doom. it was the year that abraham lincoln established his greatnes

that's not the typical thing we see from congress. even today i think, for example with respective budgeting, we're living under a scheme that reflects executive power. >> probably john is most famous or infamous depending on who the speakers are with regard to writing about a lot of attempts by congress in the previous administration to resist what was regarded as overreaching by the executive. we can have argued about. we could talk about succession as the ultimate mode of resistance. my governor has flirted with that idea. >> we now have the winner for the most unrealistic comment. thank you. >> speaking of things that were tried and didn't work. >> before we congratulate our panelists i've been asked to read an important announcement from the organizers. i've been asked to inform you about panel that's not in the printed schedule but may be of interest. during the next 12:45 to 2:00 p.m., the great lunch period, the federalist society faculty division will host a panel on preparing to become a law professor. the panel will take pla

under the constitution congress alone has the authority to reestablish a government to government relationship with triedz following their termination by congress. congress exempted the tribal restoration power when it delegated other powers to the department of interior. but despite this very clear separation of powers, the department of interior facilitates restoration by inviting terminated tribes to sue the department. and then the department stipulates to a settlement, restoring the tribe. in this way, the department of interior achieves through orchestrated and unopposed litigation what you have not given them permission to do administratively. it is de facto a violation of the separation of powers. we understand that there are tribal representatives here to register complaints about how long it takes the bureau of indian affairs to decide whether or not to grant an applicant's request to be acknowledged or recognized as an indian tribe and we understand those frustrations. but our situation does not have to do with that orderly, deliberate time-intensive expert assessment of tribal reco

second it established a system of oversight by the fisa court and congress and various action or within the executive branch to ensure this would be exercised in compliance with the law and the constitution. third, significantly added to the protections by imposing the requirement for the first time that the government seek and obtain an individualized order from the fisa court when it seeks to conduct overseas intelligence collection on a u.s. person for that u.s. person who is outside of the united states. the fisa amendments act was a well-calibrated piece of legislation. with the faa set to expire at the end of this year, the administration strongly urged congress to reauthorize the legislation. in supporting the administration's call for reauthorization, i asked congress to focus on the three considerations that have been the focus of my remarks here today. the vital importance of the faa authority to our counter terrorism efforts. two, the extreme care with which members considered, craft and limited that authority when they passed the faa three years ago and three the representat

the last thing i want to say is that congress can achieve more just through funding power. all of the president needs is the power to run the executive branch, and it can get most its

that was a congress harry truman called the do-nothing congress. as you can see, it varies every year but it's generally in the many hundreds. ready for this congress? yeah. that's it. that tiny little bar over there on the right. the one with the arrow. now, to be fair, there are still five months left in this but at this race, the 112th congress is set to be the do-less than the do-nothing congress. that sort of ineptitude led the 112 congress to become the single most despised congress in the eyes of the public. put together with handy graph showing this particular congress is less popular than -- the irs, the airline industry, lawyers. less popular than richard nixon during watergate than the banks in the oil and gas industry, than bp during the gulf oil spill, than paris hilton. this congress is less popular than communism and huk oh chavez. the only thing less popular than congress, fidel castro, and he's not even much less popular. on top of being historically inept and historically unpopular, there's also the matter of this congress doing re

the fed was created by congress to be the central bank, independent of the influence of the u.s. treasury. it has never and was never intended to in fact be independent of congress or independent of the american people. in recent years the fed's extraordinary interventions into the economy's fiscal market has led some to call into question its independence. we do not ask for an audit for that reason. we ask for an audit because the american people ultimately must be able to hold the fed accountable and to do so they must know at least in retrospect what the fed has done over these many years that it has been without an audit. that is why i support h.r. 459, a bipartisan bill with mine and 273 other co-sponsors. i urge my colleagues to support it and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. members are reminded not to traffic the well while another member is under recognition. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, two minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the

the do nothing congress. this is apatiently the do the same thing over and over and over again congress. the republican majority has already cast 139 votes to aid the oil and gas industry. how many votes have they cast to benefit the wind and the solar industry? ah. there's a good question. well the answer is, zero. 139 for oil and gas, zero for the wind and solar industry. is that all you really need to know about what is going on here? in congress? can you imagine the millenials out there listening to this debate saying zero for wind and solar? zero for the future? zero for making our country more of the clean energy leader of the world? of reducing greenhouse gases? of creating jobs in those industries? zero for wind and solar. the wind tax breaks are ex-peering this year. do not expect that to come out on the house floor as a vote the republican says we must extend. but tax breaks for oil companies, extra drilling privileges off our beaches for the oil and gas companies, oh, yeah, plenty of votes for that.

as a matter of constitutional design, the system makes more sense to me if congress gives the military a fair amount of discretion on how to use it then congress has the control via the purse and the control of the size and shape of the military. i think that i would worry about a system, some people read the question that you read from madison. i have read a quote that was extremely biassed against, in favor of inaction. i think people say, well, congress is a les war like branch, and the president is a more war like branch so we want to -- i think one mistake with that is that it fails to recognize that not acting can harm the country, too. we can think of wars that are bad for the country, and the country has been harmed by not going to war when it should. i think the best example of that is the years leading up to world war ii. to his credit, i think fdr tried his best to try to get afternoon the laws to help britain and france against nazi germany. >> this is my opportunity to use what i had originally prepared too say and then changed at the last minute. it's important in thinkin

that's the way the entire congress is structured. it's kind of like if you went to a therapist for family treatment you know because you were arking all the time with your mate and they said, what you need to do is you have to have two sofas facing the opposite directions with opposite televisions instead of creating a circle where you talk to each other. we have a system inside the congress where it's designed to make everybody identify with team and identify the other team has the ones to be vanquished. we have to change a lot of stuff. not just elections, not just redistricting. did you all know that you don't have to be a member of congress to be speaker? did you know that in britain and canada that you need to have support of people from another party besides your own in order to get elected speaker? you can do that here, too. there's a lot of changes we can make. >> can i -- >> yes, you can. >> you can feel free. [ applause ] >> we're talking about the three branchs of government and that's an important thing to observe and an i

and they urged in fact the congress to take action. just wish our colleagues would join us in the senate as we discussed. unfortunately it was blocked by a republican procedural motion. in the house, we have not even have a hearing, a chance to have a hearing on the disclose act. i house that claims to be very open has refused to even have a hearing on a bill that would add to the openness and transparency. i filed what is called a discharge petition recently -- the bill to come out of the committee, out of the chairman is george -- chairman's drawer out to the full house to have a vote on it. if people want to vote no, do it in the light of day. so it has been very for setting that an idea that until recently had bipartisan support -- disclosure, that voters have the right to know, has not been blocked in both the house and senate. again, by congressional republicans to in this case i did not think reflecting the views of republicans around the country. host: congressman van hollen, you serve as chairman of dccc the past few years. her

it was an opportunity to see the congress going beyond its proper role. >> go back to "witness" for a moment. what was it about that whole episode that got your attention? >> the cold war was on, here was a man who was a communist, and in a confessed communist, and the hearings, of course, in the congress, where there was alger his on one side, a person a clerk for felix frankfurter, attract in, going to nice schools and so forth and a man who was an admitted communist, wasn't very attractive, nobody believed him, supporting him. when the thing all sorted out it turns out that whitaker chamber was correct and his had known him and had been a communist. and that twist where what everyone seemed to think wasn't the case. was helpful. also at the time the soviet union was aggressive and expanding in several continents. there was concern about the influence of communism in the world and i was studying government and political science in school. so it just had an effect. >> "witness" you mentioned the arm mccarthy hearings. are there other things like that that are still with you years lat

in the fiscal cliff. is congress really have enough time in those eight days plus next week to assure the country that all is well heading into these elections? >> indeed, i think the battle next week may give people some discouragement, though i would hope it might encourage people. we're going back about over one of the key issues related to the long term. that is whether revenues will be a part of the solution. the republicans are essentially saying that we cannot touch the income taxes of the very high income families. that is their position and they are stuck on it, i think it does not bode well. i was looking a few days ago about the income figures for 2010, the latest we have them. the upper 1% receive 93% of income growth that year. the upper 1% receive 93%. when that is true and a very small percentage of people who make under to under $50,000 are small business people and are essentially the very well-to-do have done, on average, well, while the middle class has been stagnating for a number of years going b

what does the congress need to do if that doesn't meet the definition of criminal fraud how does congress need to change the wall? >> i would recommend the federal rates isn't under the purview of the department of justice and others. >> of the time of those the governor of the bank of england and secretary geithner but there doesn't seem to be any dispute that there was no referral to a u.s. attorney for criminal prosecution. they are not able referral for the prosecution. >> with the information can across is not quite as explicit as you characterized the bid was more the market chatter -- >> that is to merkley from the transcript of the conversations to the barclays employees and employee of the federal reserve. >> the trader was based in new york and was talking about rumors and things he heard. he didn't have explicit information, but the point of the important point is the federal reserve of new york did have the appropriate authorities and it briefed all of the financial regulators who in turn undertook investigations which began about the same time in putting especially the cftc -

we have to make the case to the congress that we cannot unbalance this air force. if they want to have the world's best and most feared air force, we need to have balance. and that involves balance amongst the components that's the active duty, the guard and reserve, balance between personnel costs which are high and increasing, acquisition, in other words procurement, modernization as well as readiness. we have to get that as close to right as possible. it's controversial. there are a thousand views on how to do it right, but the bottom line is i would argue that it is the air force and the department of defense that has the best overall view of how this should be done. and i would just commend again to the leadership in the congress that we need to take a broader view, not so much the tactical view, delegation by delegation or district by district, as difficult as that is, but the broader package, it's important to the nation's defense. >> is there one -- a good friend says one of the problems the air force sometimes has is it does necessary things even with facts

now is the time for congress to act not in 2015. with the increased technology of surveillance, congress has to be proactive in controlling drone use to law enforcement and also protecting civilians from the private use of drones. this bill ensures the privacy of private citizens that it is protected by establishing guidelines about when and what purposes law enforcement agencies and private citizens and businesses can use drones. i repeat, this bill will ensure the privatecy of -- privacy of private citizens that it is protected by establishing guidelines about when and what purposes law enforcement agencies, private citizens, and businesses can use drones. first it would prevent the f.a.a. from issuing a permit for the use of a drone to fly in the united states airspace for law enforcement purposes unless it is pursuant to a warrant and the investigation of a felony. this would apply to state, federal, and local jurisdiction. the warrant exceptions and circumstances rule that are already the law of the land would be the same as tho

they said the congress has the right to do that. we know you have the right to do it but is it the right thing to do? >> do you think the exception is ha esf of the small businesses and do you hear my underlying premise that it is a strange number because if you could be small and go over the limit? >> i don't know that i am qualified to define what that is is it a million i do hear your underlying premise it is worthy of discussion obviously the internet businesses are a little less labor-intensive, so it is a pretty large internet business to be over a million because of the smaller sizes of employees. >> you believe in state rights business in mollifying the state law? >> just the opposite. when you are doing is giving the states the right to force businesses to collect the tax that is already due to them. >> i thank the chairman for his indulgence and i read it differently and i think we will have a long time for discussing and reviewing this matter to the estimate by thank the gentleman to read the gentleman mr. powell is recog

roll call newspaper says that roughly 40%, 40% of the u.s. congress are millionaires. the wealth of members of congress is divided fairly evenly between the parties, democrats in the senate hold 80% of the wealth and republicans in the household 78% of the wealth. what about all this money? >> first of all, running for office is a big roll of the day, and so people who do it generally have a nice little financial cushion that they can fall back on if it doesn't work out. so i think the people who run for congress as a whole tend to be more well healed. but the washington post has done some terrific reporting lately on the way that members of the house in particular, both parties, and the senate, too, i think, have used their insider knowledge of the economic picture, particularly during that meltdown in 2008- 2009, to make changes in their investment portfolios that benefited them. and insider trading, which they've tried to put some restraints object, they haven't done anything illegal, but it sure smells. >> it smells? >> they're quite comfortable,

. >>> the association of former members of congress honored gabrielle giffords tuesday with a distinguished service award. the arizona congresswoman resigned from her house seat earlier this year to focus on her recovery after being shot while attending a constituent event in tucson. representative debbie wasserman schultz accepted the honor on giffords behalf. this is ten minutes. >> it is my distinct honor truly an honor and a privilege to present our 2012 distinguished service award to representative gabrielle giffords of the great state of arizona. bestowing our association's highest award on gabby giffords was an easy decision. in all her endeavors in public service, she's held and led by example in commendable distinction and courage. i've seen her as a unifying force on the house floor as well as in the nation. as you well know, her challenging schedule which includes focusing on getting well and still working on those issues that are so dear to her absorbs her time. therefore, we didn't want to impose any further on her schedule, but we are thrilled that on her behalf, one of her ve

i mean, the stalemate's been 25 years. it takes congress a little while to pass any kind of legislation. so our thought with the appropriations bill was can we take a step or two while we work out the comprehensive piece or legislation? which would then take over the whole process. do you think that's reasonable? >> yes, we do. we think that there are near-term actions that could be taken. i think, as was mentioned earlier, before you could actually move to consolidated interim storage, you'd have to amend the nuclear waste policy act to do that. there are any number of things you can do leading up to that including beginning the transportation planning, identifying the routes for moving this material. i mean, if you're not sure where it's going, you pretty much know the sites -- the routes going out of the sites. yes, we think it's imminently feasible to get started on this. >> in the proposal, in the appropriations bill, of course, any site that's chosen even as a pilot site would have to be approved by the congress. in other words, a law

if we get more republican women in the congress, and by the way, there are some. they for a real sense not the ones you hear from. their caucus is very intimidating. if we get, among those women coming in, from state legislateurs where they had to negotiate in order to get something done, the whole country will be better off and we, democrats, many progressive democrats like me who are willing to negotiate on social security, negotiate on a lot of things but we don't have anybody to negotiate with at the moment. >> i think it's unfair for you to say you wanted all women to run whether republican or democrat and then you said they have to be the right kind of republican. >> i said, if we get them. >> and michelle bachmann, she wasn't the right kind of republican. i think michelle bachmann -- we have a lef wing -- . [ multiple speakers ] >> michelle bachmann wouldn't be pulling in the money she is pulling in from women, men and every american under the sun if her message wasn't relevant to women as well. >> ultimately, this is why i think there are at times too much

the president came too close to congress and too associated with the activity in passing legislation rather than to check congress. the president's opinion polls and opinions to start the track and very low opinion we have of members of congress. the framers did expect the executive branch to come to the floor. it's the only reason you figure out why you need to have an independent executive from the legislature. we could have a parliamentary system of government. they appoint the cabinet members who are going to execute their policies. if foreign policy, you thought they ought to have something different because foreign policy has unique differences from domestic policy. they are unpredictable and difficult for the legislature to pass laws in anticipation of what's going to happen with foreign affairs. there is more advantage to have in person with what the framers call decision,y y isecrecy and might be able to accept more errors by a single person in exchange for being faster and more quickly. alexander hamilton said war is the greatest challenge and that area of human that is best

i think without offending the entire congress, she is the smartest and hardest working member of the congress. she is constantly add it on every front and as you heard today from many segments of the community, i can think of nothing more appropriate than putting her name between martin luther king and john kennedy. with that, i would entertain a motion. >> i would like to move that. >> there is a motion and a second. did you want to say something before we vote or after we vote? >>

rightly or wrongly, the executive branch has wrested control over any recognition from congress. the department considers recognition cases an accountable system. i acknowledge the department regulations setting forth seven mandatory criteria for a group to be recognized to make some sense. a few people questioned the motives of the small bededicated staff of the professionals who are tasked with reviewing recognition petitions and making recommendations for them. the basic problem is the decisions are ultimately made by political appointees and not by elected officials like representatives or senators accountable to voters for the decision they make. in fact the department occasionally ignores its own regulations and decides cases outside any transparent administrative or statutory process. this does not increase public confidence in the tribal recognition system. unfortunately the interior department declined my invitation to provide a witness today. the only explanation given to the staff is that every department official capable of testifying has scheduled conflicts. i cannot

that we see more women today running for congress, getting the lack that for congress, yes, granted e have much more work to do, but i look back on the recent elections in 2010 from the republican perspective we had a record number one for the house, get elected to the house. we have nine new. four out of six are republican of the women. it's a great story to tell as were doing that. it's a big part of it as more women see others doing it and doing it successfully, the more look at themselves and say, she's done it i can do it. >> congresswoman wasserman schultz, to just keep at it or do you think it's disappointing? >> well, i agree the glass is half-full because i'm not glass is half-full person and i prefer to be optimistic about the future and differently than kathy, i did dream of public service as a career choice in the select add to my state legislature when i was 26 years old and have served since that time. but in 2010, women lost in congress and we lost seats in congress for the first time since 1982. so you know, i think we have to be cautious about just celebrating that a

that's the way the congress is structured. like if you went to a therapist for family treatment because you were arguing all the time with your mate. what you need to do is have two sofas facing the opposite direction with opposite television sets instead of creating a circle where you talk to each other. the system inside the congress is just as bad as the system and just as bad as the redistricting system. we have a system where it's designed to make everybody identifying with teams and identify another team as the to be vanished. not just redistricting, but you have to change. did you know that you don't have to be a member of congress to be speaker? you don't. in britain and canada, you need to have support of people from another party besides your own in order to get elected speaker? you do that here too. a lot of changes we can make. >> can i? >> yes, you can. >> feel free to. >> one thought when you were talking about the three coequal branches of government and so forth. obviously that's a very important thing to observ

the war was going on. so there were tensions between lincoln and congress, but because the republican party had such solid control of congress and because lincoln was not only present and commander in chief but also head of his party, he was able to work pretty much constructively with congress on most measures during the course of the war. >> tom keegan. president davis had great hope for sidney johnston. was that just divide or warranted and if he had lived could he have made any type of difference in the west? >> johnston referred to as not the evil joseph e. johnson is alfred sidney johnson who davis would often say was his closest friend which i find interesting. johnston was a year or two ahead of jefferson davis at west pointe and johnson allowed davis to join his set. this was the term they used, we were all in high school, those of us who weren't in high school before the civil war. [ laughter ] and this was a heady feeling for young davis, boy from out in mississippi to be allowed into this elite set, it was polk and a few others and davis i think really idolized sidney johnston ever after and th

he's been a great member of the congress. but i hope, mr. chairman, if we all get back in 2013, we will have an opportunity to bring this issue to the floor of the congress and debate the role of congress when any president, democrat or republican, reaches a security agreement that obligates our troops and the taxpayers, we must meet our constitutional responsibility. and with that, mr. speaker, i will yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. young: mr. chairman, i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill. and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. this amendment requires a new determination and i ask for the ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to speak to the point of order? the gentlelady from connecticu

they said the congress has the right to do that. we know you have the right to do it but is it the right thing to do? >> do you think the exception is ha esf of the small businesses and do you hear my underlying premise that it is a strange number because if you could be small and go over the limit? >> i don't know that i am qualified to define what that is is it a million i do hear your underlying premise it is worthy of discussion obviously the internet businesses are a little less labor-intensive, so it is a pretty large internet business to be over a million because of the smaller sizes of employees. >> you believe in state rights business in mollifying the state law? >> just the opposite. when you are doing is giving the states the right to force businesses to collect the tax that is already due to them. >> i thank the chairman for his indulgence and i read it differently and i think we will have a long time for discussing and reviewing this matter to the estimate by thank the gentleman to read the gentleman mr. powell is recog

the affordable care act has been passed by the congress, signed by the president, upheld by the supreme court. let's move on. number two, this is an important issue. this was a central issue of the campaign in 2008. both sides vow to do something about it. this came out of an urgent need in the people. the leading cause of bankruptcy in america was a serious illness, unable to pay for, people falling out of the middle class, losing their homes because of illness or lack of coverage. this addresses that and i hope the administration will finally rammed this moment to sell their case. the president started doing it on thursday in his statement to talk about what is in it. unfortunately, other than pre- existing conditions and your children being able to stay on until 26, no one knows what is in the bill. >> he means congress did this, the president did this, you may or may not like it. the suggestion is, i may not like it, but that is not my job. my job is to say whether it is constitutional. the president has a chance to figure out again how to sell this. say to people, for instance, thi

i think without offending the entire congress, she is the smartest and hardest working member of the congress. she is constantly add it on every front and as you heard today from many segments of the community, i can think of nothing more appropriate than putting her name between martin luther king and john kennedy. with that, i would entertain a motion. >> i would like to move that. >> there is a motion and a second. did you want to say something before we vote or after we vote? >> there was a lot of thought that went into the location. this was not by accident. the executive director of the national aids memorial grove spoke about the location and is a location nancy pelosi spearheaded and made a national memorial. as recently as 1996, it was a place that was incredibly neglected in golden gate park. it was overrun and through committee members and the memory of one of the greatest public health tragedy's this country has faced, the aids memorial grove is one of the most beautiful spots within golden gate park. it is a national memorial, akin to the vietnam veterans memorial, about

let's make it is by the congress. because here's the problem we have here. congressman -- congress oldman does have the authority to recognize tribes simply by introducing a bill. a here's the problem. when a bill is recognized -- is introduce directness by tribe there is some object of our colleagues here who say they had to go to the recognition process. a process that is done administratively, not by the will of the congress by the way the bureaucrats have written these regulations for the past 34 years. so what do we do at the process is broken? it comes right back to the congress but what do we do from your? so i, in my humble recommendation, mr. chairman, that we need to put this inform a statute. because here's the problem when you have a regulation that can be done by this administration, the next administration will change the regulation. and the poor indian tribes don't know where to turn, who deterrent is simply because of the inconsistencies that we've had in dealing with the recognition process. i noticed my time is up, mr. chairman. i didn't eve

the waiver would be granted. let me be clear. under this amendment congress would still have the opportunity to object to a regulation when necessary. this amendment simply ensures that congress' failure to act doesn't prevent the president from issuing needed regulations. the majority claims that the congressional waiver provision in the underlying bill will ensure that the president can still issue important regulations. if the majority really intends to give the president that flexibility, they will adopt this amendment. i hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arkansas. mr. griffin: i would just point out, madam chair, that the part of the bill that the gentleman from maryland calls a farce the founding fathers might refer to as balance of powers. and that's what we're trying to do here. allow congress to share in the process since we are the source of all legislative power. that is just another reason that i oppose this amend

the u.s. house of representatives. in congress, he is a member of the powerful house appropriations and budget committee. share of the democratic caucuses, new media working group, house democratic senior went, and the original author of the equity and excellence commission now housed in the u.s. department of education. his district includes silicon valley, the birthplace of technology. mike has dedicated his life to public service and is lauded for his work on education, civil- rights national service, immigration, transportation, the environment, and high-tech issues. >> he is also the greatest karaoke sing their -- singer and all of congress. -- in all of congress. [applause] >> he just told me i had five minutes. what do you think of this program? [applause] it is about time. i want to thank francis and fong. i think this is the very first statewide heritage month held with the mayor of san francisco. let me say something about heritage month in san francisco and your mayor. in the old days, you remember san francisco was kno

but that is not the case. congress in its wisdom has passed a series of was a blow or protection laws. it if your a whistle blower, or a person within the government and you see something that looks and you see something that looks like was