i think she has a long -- a longstanding problem with the president of united federation of teachers.t sounds like the u.s. it was upset about the hearings that eva was holding with regard to school performance. and all of the contracts related to teachers and custodians and principles. and so my understanding is that the union actually ran someone against eva when she ran for president and ended up losing. >> and she is now head the united federation of teachers. here's a clip of someone who is not on your side. ♪ >> i think the union is a force in europe -- in new york city as it should be. i don't think it is going anyway. the idea that you can get rid of it is a mistake. i am in a union, and my husband ran the largest union in new york city. i believe that by collective bargaining through the union, if you get the best deal for everybody. >> the teachers union contract is 600 pages in length. it is the government structure for school and lays out all the things that teachers cannot do. it prescribes almost every aspect of the school day. we think teachers need three prep period to

it's totally random. >> i noted that on the united federation of teachers, they have charter schools that are unionized. >> there are a few in the city. >> why don't they have to be unionized or how do they keep them out if they don't want them in there? >> that's part of the charter law that they're not required to be unionized. in the traditional school, as soon as you're given a job you're signed up for the union. charter schools don't do that. teachers can vote to unionize, but by and large they choose not to. >> what year did you get out of greenwich high school? >> 2001. >> and what year did you get out of duke? >> 2005. >> and this is your first documentary? did you work on others before you did this by yourselves? >> i worked as an editor since i graduated. so about five years. but i was working freelance. so i was working on lots of different types of projects. but my last few were all documentaries. >> what did you study at duke? >> biopsychology. so i was not in the film + department. >> what dot you interested in film? >> my last year in school, i had always been interest

she has a longstanding relationship with randy weinga rten who is head of the united federation of teachersunderstanding is that the union actually ran somebody against her when she ran for borough president. they ended up losing. >> he is now head of the american federation of teachers? >> yes. >>. some and you talked to. -- here is someone you talked to. >> >> i think the union is a force in new york city as it should be. i think the union is here today and it is not going anywhere and to say you can get rid of it is a mistake. i am a unionist and my husband ran the largest union in new york city and i believe it is important. i believe by collective bargaining you get the best deal for everybody. >> the teachers' union contract is 6000 pages in length. it lays out all the things that teachers cannot do. it prescribes almost every aspect and limits prep time to 50-minutes per day. we think teachers need three prep periods per day to be prepared for that would be a violation of contract. we also think we should be able to work palaver to live with teachers -- collaborative lovely with teac

in citizens united vs. federal election commission, the supreme court struck down several provisions of federal law on the grounds they violated organizations' first amendment rights. yet, the disclose act would have more regulations that unduly restrict their freedom of speech. it would do this while unfairly sparing unions and other preferred groups from the same regulations. this legislation is plainly unconstitutional. the sclose act would unconstitutionally ban political speech by government contractors and companies with as much as 80% ownership by u.s. citizens. it would unconstitutionally limit the amount of information that organizations can include in ads stating their political opinion. it would unconstitutionally require the disclosure of an organization's donors in violation of their right to free association. and it would unconstitutionally exempt favored organizations from its requirements. the disclose act is unconitutional and it should be soundly rejected by the house today. i yield back. the chai

in citizens united vs. federal election commission, the supreme court struck down several provisions of federal law on the grounds they violated organizations' first amendment rights. yet, the disclose act would have more regulations that unduly restrict the freedom of speech. it would do this while unfairly sparing unions and othee preferred groups from the same regulations. this legislation is plainly unconstitutional. the disclose act would unconstitutionally ban political speech by government contractors and compaes with as much as 80% ownership by u.s. citizens. it would unconstitutionally limit the amount of information that organizations ca% include in ads stating their political opinion. it would unconstitutionally require the disclosure of an organization's donors in violation of their right to free association. and it would unconstitutionally exempt favored organizations from its requirements. the disclose act is unconstitional and it should be soundly rejected by the house today. i yield back. the chair:

in citizens united vs. federal election commission, the supreme court struck down several provisionof federal law on the grounds they violated organizattons' first amendment rights. yet, the disclose act would have more regulations that duly restrict their freedom of speech. it would do this while unfairly sparing unions and other preferred groups from the same regulations. this legislation is plainly unconstitutional. the disclose act would unconstitutionally bann political speech by government contracrsnd companies with as much as 80% ownership by u.s. citizens. it would unconstitutionally limit the amount of information that organizations can inude in ads stating their political opinion. it would unconstitutionally require the disclosure of an organization's donors in violation of their right to free association. and it would unconstitutionally exempt favored organizations from its requirements. the disclose act is unconstitutional and it should be soundly rejected by the house today. i yield back. the chair: th

attorney general's office, the entire justice department of the united states seeking to in validate arizona's law, which mirrors federal law and is as ccnstitutional as federal immigration law and can't point to any place that might violate but still willlng to testify that his department is not political while he admits that the president ordered him to use the department for what i believe to be political purposes. and for each of them to imply or con sent that they didn't read the law but tell the american people what to think about it, that's political. and it's unjust and it's not consistent with the constitution, nor with federal statute, nor with case law. that, mr. speaker, is what's going on -- excuse me. and so, in addition to this, we have in arizona's law, we have other people who have weighed on this, other people who have similar, let me say, information to work with. the president doesn't read the bill and seeks to talk against it.. the torn general is on the record is the american people are cowards when it comes to race. i'm not. but somer they turn against people against people who speak openly agains

yet in the citizens united vvrsus federal election commission case, the court finally got it right. the majority opinion says the first amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints, prohibited, too, are restrictions prohibiting different speakers, allowing speech from some and not from others. that's exactly what this bill does. benjamin franklin stated, whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must again by subduing the freeness of speech. unfortunately, that is what we have here before us. mr. speaker. or mr. chairman. just because you call something disclose or disclosure doesn't make it so. when you prohibit speech as has been done here, when you have onerous disclosure obligations placed on some but not all, when you make no distinguishing, that is, constitutionally justifiable distinguishing differences between groups, that is you cause some to be subjected to provisions of disclosure and others not, when you specifically have five or six provisions in which you exempt unions as opposed to corporations of all stripes when you've rendered

if he does, he also disagrees with the federal united states federal government's immigration law. it mirrors the feral immigratn law. and so we are in an era where the administration, the highest raing officials within the administration aren't compelled to check the facts before they misform the amerin people. they might cck a left-wing website, butar ecking the facts. and the amen people, who are they going to trust, shouldn't they tru the voicef the president of the united states? who's briefing him. who is telling him was in the bill? codn't anyone have given him an objective analysis. what kind of a shop is being run at thwhite house? i think were getting an indication. furthermore, wle i talk about the immigration subject matter, there is another one that causes me aeason to be conrned. it was reported in the news that president obama'aunt was granted asylum and i have to check her name to ke sure that i geit exactly right. present obama's owe -- she les in public housing in boston. she came to the united states in 2000 we don't know necsarily how she got intthe ines whether

in citizens united vs. federal election commission, the supreme court struck down several provisions of federal law on the grounds they violated organizations' first amendment rights. yet, the disclose act would have more regulations that unduly restrict their freedom of speech. it would do this while unfairly sparing unions and other preferred groups from the same regulations. this legislation is plainly unconstitutional. the disclose act would unconstitutionally ban political speech by government contractors and companies with as much as 80% ownership by u.s. citizens. it would unconstitutionally limit the amount of information that organizations can include in ads stating their political opinion. it would unconstitutionally require the disclosure of an organization's donors in violation of their right to free association. and it would unconstitutionally exempt favored organizations from its requirements. the disclose act is unconstitutional and it should be soundly rejected by the house today. i yield back. the

federal court as a venue for prosecuting terrorists? in light of the recent passage in the new nbaa the title cut off of funding for transfer of everyone from the guantanamo to the unitedstates, including individuals subject to prosecution in federal court -- any to recognize that i am really not here, and our office does not seek a position on the legitimacy of either venue. that is quite genuine, but i think it would be helpful to know where the democrats stand on this and how that particular sausage got made. >> well, that sausage did not get made. it was imposed. i referenced in the course of my speech -- we referred to those amendments as gotcha amendments. it has received it simplistic and superficial engagement in terms of how we reach an and that is necessary, and that is a determination -- how we reach an end that is necessary, and that is a determination of holding those that we hold and what to do about them. i have been down to guantanamo and spend time there a few months ago. i had opined with a number of people in the white house that there was a possibility, and i do not know that this is politically practical but i will mention it anyway -- my staff is

in citizens united vs. federal election commission, the supreme court struck down several provisions of federal law on the grounds they violated organizations' first amendment rights. yet, the disclose act would have more regulations that unduly restrict their freedom of speech. it would do this while unfairly sparing unions and other preferred groups from the same regulations. this legislation is plainly unconstitutional. the disclose act would unconstitutionally ban political speech by government contractors and companies with as much as 80% ownership by u.s. citizens. it would unconstitutionally limit the amount of information that organizations can include in ads stating their political opinion. it would unconstitutionally require the disclosure of an organization's donors in violation of their right to free association. and it would unconstitutionally exempt favored organizations from its requirements. the disclose act is unconstitutional and it should be soundly rejected by the house today. i yield back. the

kagan and her office argued to the supreme court at different points in the citizens united case that the federal government had the power to ban political speeches and videos, books and even pamphlets if it didn't like the speakee. then we learned she went out of her way to prevent lawyers from the justice department for officially noting their serious legal concerns with campaign finance legislation in order to help the clinton administration achieve its political goals. now we learn -- now we learn that she thought about drafting such legislation in ways to help democrats and hurt republicans. in her advocacy and apparent glee at identifying some political harm to republicans -- and her advocacy and apparent glee at identifying some political harm to republicans is, to my mind, another piece of her record that calls into question her ability to impartially apply the law to all who would come before her as a justice on the nation's highest court. so the more we learn about ms. kagan's work as a political advisor and political operative, the more questions arise about her ability to make the nec

the appellate courts because i believed that there were very significant united %-ates -- >> well, let me read a quote. the federal crt should not become the vehicle by which the executive is forced to choose between two intolerable options, submitting to intrusivend harmful discovery or releasing a dangerous detainee. do you stand by that statement? >> senator graham, can i ask whether that statemt comes from that brief? >> yes, it does. >> no, i -- that statement is my best understanding of the very significant interests of the united states government in that case which we tried forcefully to present to the court, and as you said before, the d.c. circuit, a very mixed panel of the d.c. circuit. >> right. >> upheld our argument. >> you also said the courts of the united states have never entertained habeas lawsuits filed by enemy forces detained in war zones. if courts are ever to take that radical step, they should do so only with the explicit blessing by statute. do you stand by that? >> anything that is in that brief i stand by as the appropriate position of the united states government. >> fair enough. >> th

arrested sunday for allegedly carrying out long-term deep cover assignments in the united states on behalf of the russian federation. it went on to say that two additional defendants were also arrested sunday for allegedly participating in the same russian intelligence program within the united states. each of the ten faced charges including conspiracy to act as an agent of a foreign government. nine of the defendants are also charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering. court papers said their main mission was to, quote, search and develop ties in policy making circles in the united states. instructions they received from russian intelligence headquarters in moscow. the arrests come just a week after russian president med ved visited the united states touring silicon valley in california to underscore what he and the white house say is a new era in the u.s.-russian relationship. after white house talks last week, he and president obama celebrated what they called the successful reset of the buy literal relationship. >> when i came into office, the relationship between the united states and russia had drifte

i want to ask your guest, in her opinion, what does the federal reserve to for the united states? host: anything you want to speak to? why do you bring it up? caller: i want to follow it up with my opinion on what the federal reserve does for the united states. basically, they take the power of approval of the money that is spent by congress out of the hands of the american people. host: can you connect that to the supreme court? caller: the federal reserve is responsible for 9/11. guest: she has not weighed in on pure economic issues. what is clear is because she was in the clinton white house, she believed in the government's limited role in all sorts of social issues. health care, helping people get back to work. she had a huge role in crafting a family and adoption policy for the administration. these are all things that she believes the government has a role in. i imagine her views and history of policy work would not fare very much here, but there is nothing directly about economic policy. host: georgia. margie, democratic line. caller: i have a couple of questions with the a

issues facing us in this country and that is the issue of federalism and the need for us to adhere to the 10th amendment of the constitution of the united states. too few people really understand the role othe federal government in our country. we've gotten away from the teaching of the constitution, we've gotten away from the teaching of the role of government in our country. people have this notion that they have this right and that right and if you press them to tell you whether they've read the constitution or not, most of them will tell you they have not. and they really do not understand, again, what the roles of our respective governments are. in the last week while we had a little bit of time away from washington and i managed to squeeze out some quiet time, i had the chance to read a joseph ellis book called american creation which talks about the triumphs and the tragedies of the beginning of our country. and it's really important that we understand that there were a lot of conflicts that came about in the founding of the united states. it wasn't as smooth a thing as many of us think that it was. but one thing that was very cl

and deny those military equal access to campus until you were threatened by the united states government of loss of federal funds. this is what happened. >> i respect, indeed, i revere the military but i also felt a need to protect our... to defend our school's very longstanding anti-discrimination policy and to protect the men and women, the students, who were meant to be protected by that policy: the gay and lesbian students who wanted to serve in the military and do that most honorable kind of service. >> reporter: kagan also spared at length with arizona republican jon kyl over her past praise of the late justice thurgood marshall. she clerked for him in the late 190s and has written of his approach to the law. >> you said in justice marshall's view constitutional interpretation demanded above all else that the courts show a special solicitude for the despised and disadvantaged. what's unclear to me is whether you agree with justice marshall's view of the role of the court in constitutional interpretation. >> justice marshall's whole life was about seeing the courts take seriously claims that were not

united states virgin islands. to correct provisions inconsistent with the constitution and federal law. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from the virgin islands, mrs. christensen, and the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, each will control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from the virgin islands. mrs. christensen: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. christensen: thank you. mr. speaker, senate joint resolution 33 was introduced by the chairman of the senate energy and natural resources committee, jeff bingaman, which raised concerns of the constitution of the united states virgin islands. in order to adopt their own constitution, congress in 1976 enacted legislation to authorize the people of the virgin islands and guam to convene constitutional conventions and write their own local constitutions. this act, p

supreme court known as citizens united vs. the federal election commission, the supreme court noted that the first amendment has its fullest and most urgent application to speech uttered during a campaign for political office. in other words, they said that if you look at the essence of the first amendment protection it goes first and foremost to political speech. and they said this in laying the premise for the decision that they came to because the supreme court realized that the first amendment's protection for political speech had been under assault by various pieces of legislation passed by this body. not that it was done for evil purposes or intentionally to undercut the supreme -- the constitution of the united ptates. rather, it was done in a god faith effort to try and deal with political campaigns and the position of money in political campaigns. but the supreme court decided back in the 1970's in that money is speech -- 1970's that money is speech. meaning that the money you have you can use as you see fit to further your speec

what they are, they are the largest secondary mortgage companies in the united states which means today uncle sam, the federal government today, effectively owns well over half of all the private mortgages in the united states. consider that. over half of all the private homes in this country that have mortgages on them which are the overwhelming majority, those mortgages are owned not by a private bank anymore but by the federal government and if america goes in and purchases a mortgage today on a property and it is a great time to buy a home, nine times out of 10 you will getting-- begetting our mortgage from the federal government. this is completely what we were doing 18 months ago. act about the government had taken over control of the private student loan industry, so you don't get private loans from private banks. now you have to go to the federal government to get a student loan and the government takeover of health care. icons from-- calculated if you add all those purchases or takeovers together, you will come up with 51% of the private economy. that is stunning. that is nothing short of stunning. t

if the president of the united states has a better solution, he can pick up the phone and tell bp exactly what to do. it is a federal issue in terms of the mitigation and cleanup plans. if there is anybody from president obama on down who peally knows the solution and and stop that oil from spelling right now, by golly, all they have to do is pick up the phone and tell them what to do. the fact that they are not is simply because laws of nature and the laws of physics do not respond to 30-second sound bites. yet to know what to do when you have to have the engineering and technology available to do it. america needs the energy beneath the gulf of mexico and in the outer continental shelf. 30% of our oil and gas is coming from the ocs right now and 80% comes from the parade. we have a depletion rate in this country of 40%. of the 8 million barrels of oil and gas we are producing per day, next year we can only produce about 5.5 million. you have to replace that energy. since we have drilled millions of wells on shore since 1896 the fact of the matter is thht you will find significant oil rrserves in the continental un

united states today. in 1913, the naacp organized opposition to racial segregation in federal government offices. the naacp also played a key role in securing the rights of african-americans to serve as officers in world war i. throughout the past century, the naacp has worked to achieve equality of rights for all persons through nonviolence. the naacp's mission also includes the elimination of racial hatred and racial discrimination. after world war i, for example, the naacp expended significant resources in an effort to combat the limping of african-americans throughout the united states. the naacp centered its efforts around education and lobbying for legislation. in later years, the naacp's leadership was instrumental in bringing about the passage of the civil rights acts of 1957, 1960 and 1964, the voting rights act of 1965 and the desegregation of public schools in brown vs. board of education in 1954. the -- 1964. the naacp continues to work on behalf of its mission for the rights of all people today. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and i have no further speak

united states has an interest. through the civil rights division, the department enforces federal law, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, disability, religion, if a millial status and country origin. the department of justice used its newfound authority to initiate desegregation of school districts across this nation. and throughout its enforcement of the voting rights act of 1965, the department helped curtail the injustice of african-american voters being prevented from exercising the right to vote. the justice department also continues to vigorously enforce the americans with disabilities act, to ensure that people living with disabilities are not discriminated against employment, by public entities in transportation or public accommodations. the great strides we have made in securing rights for all americans to attain an education, access the voting booth and secure jobs and housing regardless of race, gender or national origin are no small batter due to the thanks the department of -- due to the thanks of the department of justice. they've protected americans from acts of terrorism, w

at the same ti whenhe united stes treasury is out there at an ation and at that auction you have the federal reserve buyi it d accomplishing anythi, we're not cuttingnything and tch ts government and the expenses keepling u so, know, it time that, you know, the american people understd that what we do hoand wh we sit ound our kch tles and yogeou thfamily budget say ese are the thingwe have to fyou knowi think we're uner ts whole question o wants and needs. there's a big difference betweenhat i wandhat absolutely need. i thi that the federal government has g to go to what is needed and it hs to be thate nee scale back immediatel kw you have stunts and constituents that chere. b wn i a grouof studentsere on capitol eps and lk at these kids at are eier juniors o seniorsn high schl anlook what tir future can ben the ne 10 years, and when wee alkin if it's $20.3 trillion in debt or $20.6 trillion in debt, coorgd to the treasury, we're in -- according to the treasury, we're in trouble. mrs. lummis: will the gentleman yield? lady mrs. lummis: wt do hear rom your conituents are they ready for the nd

guest: the good thing is that his pension promises is an obligation of the federal government. the united states treasury and all taxpayers collectively, and no one has suggested that pensions be taken away from military personnel. my father is a military veteran as well. he gets a pension from the federal government. no one suggests there is a risk to this pension promises. the good news is americans are living longer. host: because we are living longer, we are draining the system. guest: that is correct. you can take that to the absurd extreme. it is a good news, bad news scenario. someone rushes in to say they found a cure for cancer. wonderful. that also means that the life spans are going to go up fairly significantly and that will have a negative economic impact on anyone making profits to pay benefits for someone's lifetime. whether it is in social security, we modestly extended the normal retirement age for social security being phased in. host: but only by a couple of years. guest: it will now be 67. when i was executive director, back in the mid-1990s's, we had a bipartisan comm

i do not believe that is getting a return on investment are making the united states as competitive. i would not expand the federal government the way it is. i would simplify the private sector to grow. >> the issue is that right now, there are so many americans that arr hurting. you are talking about a plan that is going to take a long time. i don't know exactly what your of families in this about next week's groceries. thank you for your time. >> thank you for coming, and thank you for your question. i do understand america is hurting. do we ignore the long term in the short term? the greatest thing someone can do in america is be able to create a job. if they have a job, they can be able to prosper with the next generation. if you bird and that next generation with debt, they will not have the opportunnties that we have 3 gb burton that next generation. -- if we burden the next generation with debt, they will not have the opportunities that we have. we are well past 7:30, so i will take this question and then come and answer everybody's question individual. i will stick around as long as you want, if you are sh

this is elena kagan and justice scalia talking about the citizens united case. 3 corrupt the federal system. >> self interest -- we are suspicious of congressional action in the first amendment area precise lists -- precisely because -- at least i'm -- i doubt that one can expect a body of incumbents to draw elections restrictions that cannot favor incumbents. now, is that excessively cynical of me? i don't think so. >> i think justice scalia is wrong. in fact, corporate and union money go overwhelmingly to incumbents. this may be the single cells the ninth thing congress has done. if you look -- self -- if you ask for the money goes, it comes 10 times more to incumbents than challengers. in the prior election cycle, even more than that. for an obvious reason. when corporations play in the political process, they want winners. they want people who will produce outcomes for them. they know the way to get the outcomes, to get the winners, is to invest and incumbents. that is what they did. as i said, and double-digit times more than they invest in challengers. so, i think that rational

have amended the constitution and handed the power to change federal law over to john morton, janet napolitano, or maybe the president of the united states. that's not who we are, that's not the way it is. . we must dwevend the rule of law. if -- we must defend the raleigh of law. if we are going to allow it to come from the american people. and from the president of the united states who taught constitutional law at the stellar university of chicago school of law to think that that's the case, that he doesn't understand any better and thinks he can get awwy with it, no, we can read our history and our constitution and we have access, coupled with the people wwo have enough self-confidence to be in a full threated way to defend our freedom. that's who wer mr. speaker. that's who we must remain. that's the character that we must maintain and we cannot allow ourselves to be diminished to define ourselves within this government that don't understand our values as a nation or our constttution. mr. speaker, your timing is great. i couldn't have picked a better moment to yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expi

i do not believe that is getting a return on investment are making the united states as competitive. i would not expand the federal government the way it is. i would simplify the private sector to grow. >> the issue is that right now, there are so many americans that are hurting. you are talking about a plan that is going to take a long time. i don't know exactly what your budget is, but i do know there are a lot of families in this country right now that are worried about next week's groceries. thank you for your time. >> thank you for coming, and thank you for your question. i do understand america is hurting. do we ignore the long term in the short term? the greatest thing someone can do in america is be able to create a job. if they have a job, they can be able to prosper with the next generation. if you bird and that next generation with debt, they will not have the opportunities that we have 3 gb burton that next generation. -- if we burden the next generation with debt, they will not have the opportunities that we have. we are well past 7:30, so i will take this question and then come and answer everybody's

united states. here's what happened this federal government took over, nationalized, and when i say nationalized, i mean ownership, management, or control of three large investment banks, a.i.g., fannie mae, freddie mac, general motors, chrysler, where am i going? there's more to this. the entire student loan, all the student loan program in america, all of that, swallowed up by the obama administration and that's 1/3 of the private sector activity according to prfsor boyles at arizona state university, 1/3, then along came obamacare which passed. the gentleman earlier talked about that being 17% of the economy. the number i see 17.5%. we're with within half a percentage point. when i added up, i added 18% to 33%, takes us to 51%. the question is whether it's 50.5% or 51% of the private sector activity taken over by this government, three large investment banks, a.i.g., fannie mae, freddie mac, all the student loans in america, chrysler, now the nationalization of our bodies, of our health care, taking away our a person's individual choices on how they'll manage their health care, what insurance po

united. now, you've heard a lot about this decision already today. but il want to come at it from a slightly different angle. there is no doubt that the roberts court's disregard for a century of federal law, the decades of supreme court's own rulings is wrong and shocking. it's torn a gaping hole in our election laws. of course, i'm worried about how rizs united is going to change our elections. but i'm more worried about how you this decision is going to affect our communities and our ability to run those communities without a permission slip from big business. let me give you two examples of what i'm talking about. in the early 1960s, car companies knew that they could avoid a large number of it fatalities by installing seat belts in every vehicle but they didn't want to. they said safety doesn't sell. but congress didn't listen to the car companies. and so in 1966, congress passed a law requiring that all passenger cars have seat belts. since then, the fa taltd rate from car accidents has dropped by 71%. here's another story. around the same time that we passed the seat belt law, people started to realize that will leaded gasoline that cars ran on was poisoning our air. but oil co

federal investigation. >> from your documentary "casino jack and the united states of money," here's a one-minute clip. you're introducing us to neil volets. >> this is truly a wildly historic night. >> i was a college student, and i was a true believer in the whole republican revolution. >> neil volets came to washington with bob nay from ohio. >> the move was electric. 40-some years, of democrat control which i and others at one point in time said it won't change in our lifetime, and it did. >> the demoorats had run the congress for 40 years. there was a certain level of corruption that had taken hold, so we're rallying against that. and it's so ironic that years later, i would be a face a similar type of orruption to a whole different group of people. >> neil volets said there was a certain kind of corruption that was there ever a documentary done on them? >>>no, and i think it long, it was deeply corrupt. a former senator from new jersey >> are you talking about seller? steve went to jail. >> right. >> we're talking about a documentary noo. i think it will be a heaathy and useful documentary to dig

. >> madam speaker, yesterday the united states supreme court upheld a federal appeals court ruling overturning a law prohibiting private citizens from possessing handguns in the city of chicago. this is a momentus decision and i commend the justices our right to gun ownership. it guarantees an individual's right to keep and bear arms. this 5-4 decision was the right one, though the close margin underscores the necessity to remain vigilant to future attempts to curtail the right to bear arms. mr. smith: they should protect themselves and their families. i am committed to protecting the constitutional rights of all law-abiding, freedom-loving americans, and i invite my colleagues to join me. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. butterfield: madam speaker, as we work to resolve our nation's fiscal crisis, we must have bipartisan cooperation to best find ways to balance economic recovery and job creation with long-term defi

the federal government has already presented a bill to bp for several million dollars. is that just as simple as it appears? the united states government sends them a statement and says you now owe us $65 billion or million or whatever it is and the federal government pays? >> or bp pays. >> lehrer: i mean bp pays, yes, right, sorry. >> absolutely. the idea is that the federal government has already designated bp as the responsible party for this spill as a leaseholder for, you know, underneath the spill. frankly their presentation of that bill , the hope is that bp will voluntarily pay it. if bp chose not to, the federal government would have to go to court and pursue that claim. given the circumstances though, it would not be a good tactical call on bp's part to fight over the legality of that presentation. >> lehrer: on the criminal liability issue, there was a big flurry about that when attorney general holder went to the gulf a few days ago and went last week. what are the realistic possibilities there? and what does the record tell us about that? >> well, i think we've got a pretty good sense of what the possibl

. >> we decide just the federal questions, those statutes, books, and what the prosecution of the united states means in cases where people disagree about it. we have a trial. there are appeals. when you finally get to the final appeal, maybe there are 80,000 cases, 100,000 cases in the u.s. that have questions of federal law. what does this word mean? does it mean this or that? what does the word liberty in the 14th amendment mean? how does it apply to someone who once and assisted suicide? that is a case we had. does he have a constitutional right to it or not? it could be an important case, or the meaning of one of those patented words. no. [laughter] of those thousands, of 80,000 that he ask us to hear those cases, that means about 150 per week. 150 what? 150 request to hear cases. here they are for this week. so, what we do is read through these and we all read all of them i'm going to qualify this in a minute. we all look at all of them. and then we vote. we meet in conference and we vote. if there are four of us that want to hear any of these cases, we will hear it. >> without any

the federal federal reserve has a strategy for exiting our monetary policy. the united staes government and fiscal authorities have to have a strategy for exiting fiscal policy so you have a more effective set of policies if you combine any expansion and further fiscal support with other measures that reassure markets that in fact our deficits will be in control in the medium-term. >> do you right now see any fiscal exit strategy out of the united states congress? >> we have this deficit commission that mr. ry is on, but and i hope they will come up with some good recommendations but right now, there is not anything on the table at this point. >> i have been frustrated at this point there've been a number of free trade agreements languishing in congress. do you believe that where the congress to pass free trade or expansion of free-trade it would wod help the economy? >> yes, i d. i think we need to be part of the globalized economy. i think trade is an important source of demand for our goods and also a source of materials as well, so i think generally speaking we have

the appellate courts because i believed that there were very significant united states -- >> well, let me read a quote. the federal court should not become the vehicle by which the executive forced to choose between two intolerable options, submitting to intrusive and harmful discovery or releasing a dangerous detainee. do you stand by that statement? >> senator graham, can i ask whether that statement comes from that brief? >> yes, it does. >> no, i -- that statement is my best understanding of the very significant interestsf the unit states gornment in that case which we tried forcefully to present to the court, and as you said before, the d.c. circuit, a very mixed panel of the d.c. circuit. >> right. >> upheld our argument. >> you also said the courts of the united states have never entertained habeas lawsuits filed by enemy forces detained in war zones. if courts are ever to take that radical step, they should do so only with the explicit blessing by statute. do you stand by that? >> anything that is in that brief i stand by as the appropriate position of the united states government. >> fair enough. >> the b

we have made a commitment on behalf of the united states of america with the federal ocean acidfication research and monitoring act that was passed in an omnibus bill last year. the money has been setaside. the administration needs to do its work and would encourage them to do that. this is an issue that does need to be addressed. we don't try to dismiss that in any way, shape, or form, but, mr. speaker, this resolution is not needed at this ti. i would urge my colleagues to vote against it. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore:he gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. inslee: to close, i would like to comment, we are going to have lots of debates abouthe right policy to deal with this problem. but the country that put a man on the moon should not be the country to blind itself to an obvious problem. and we are going to be swallod by this and the oceans are going to be swallowed by this unless we first recognize the prlem. it's a simple bipartisan step to say we got a problem, we got to work together to solve it.

let's picture of the federal government protects the united states coastline from demise.have a lot of great ideas. you would be surprised how many people called this show here and talk about their ideas on how to combat this oil intrusion. one way is to build this sandbur to detect -- protect the coast line. the corps of engineers and coast guard and government has dragged their feet for weeks. we cannot wait one more minute. we need to build these now. the signs is there to build them and hold them in place with visitation -- with vegetation. if it's not done since you will see a bunch of people on the coastline doing it ourselves. there is no time to wait when we see our culture washing into the gulf. to kevin who is a commercial fisherman. how are you? >> how are you doing? >> i am probably doing better than you are. for people listening, explain how your life has changed. >> this will bring -- shed some light to the rest of the world about how bp is handling their cleanup. the contract at a company -- they are a company taht bp hired to give a hazmat class two will be

if the president of the united states has a better idea of how problem right now he shouud pick up the bone and tell bp hat to doo pitt is a federalissue in terms of the mitigation plan -- it is a federal issue in terms of the mitigation plan, in terms of the cleanup plan, and if there is anyone from president obama on down you can come up with a solution and stop that oil, by up a phone and tell them what to do. they are not because the laws of nature and the aws of physics do not respond to 32nd sound bites. you have to know what to do. you have to have the engineering and technology to do it. america needs the oil that is beneath the gulf of mexico and in the outer continental shelf. 30% of our oil is coming from the outer continental shelf right now, and 80% of that is coming from deep rigs. of the 8 million barrels of oil and gas that we are producing per day, next year we are only going to be able to produce about .5 or 6 million. we have to replace that energy. since we have rilled in millions of wells on shores since 1870, the fact of the matter is, if you're going to find significant oil reserves in the continental united

were work on a piece of legislation which we introduced consolidating all the federal programs that support the teaching of unitedtates history, hoping that our chhldren can grow up learning whatit means to be an american. senator byrd is also responsible for the celebration of september 17 as constitution day a citizenship day. senator byrd had no time for revisionists who didn't believe america was exceptional. he believed this i one country unified by a common language and a few principles. he did not want our country to become a united nations but always to be the united states of america. he wanted us to be proud of where we came from, but prouder to be an american. we will especially miss senator byrd's love of and understanding of the unitedtates senate. one of the most special occasions i ever experienced was the opportunity as a freshman senator in 2003 to attend an indoctrination, one might say, or orientation would be the proper description of what it means to be a united states senar. senator byrd began by saying that you are presently occupying what i consider to be hallowed ground. and i would like

federal court as a venue for prosecuting terrorists? in light of the recent passage in the new nbaa the title cut off of funding for transfer of everyone from the guantanamo to the united states, including individuals subject to prosecution in federal court -- any to recognize that i am really not here, and our office does not seek a position on the legitimacy of either venue. that is quite genuine, but i think it would be helpful to know where the democrats stand on this and how that particular sausage got made. >> well, that sausage did not get made. it was imposed. i referenced in the course of my speech -- we referred to those amendments as gotcha amendments. it has received it simplistic and superficial engagement in terms of how we reach an and that is necessary, and that is a determination -- how we reach an end that is necessary, and that is a determination of holding those that we hold and what to do about them. i have been down to guantanamo and spend time there a few months ago. i had opined with a number of people in the white house that there was a possibility, and i do not know that this is politically practical but i will mention it anyway -- my staff is