concluded that the family is going to go under, and the home is going to be have to be resold, at that point, there's no longer kind of this competition between writing down the existing loan on the books. because the house is going to be foreclosured on, it's going to be gone anyway. that's why the conversation had migrated in that direction. >> again, economist at the board and around the federal reserve system has been working on various plans, schemes, to try to address this problem. and i'd be more than happy to work with you in more detail on these issues. but that's -- getting the principals down through mechanism is obviously one approach. on the down payment assistance, i think you want to design it in a way so that one the concerns that we had about the homeowners, the tax credit was that it created the temporary bump but didn't seem to have a

permanent impact on the housing sector. you want to do something that didn't just shift purchases in time but created a more sustainable demand for housing. that's another fiscal problem. but, you know, i've been -- i'm a member of the -- the committee that oversees the t.a.r.p.. and so we have been getting regular presentations on the treasury on the various programs and to their credit, you know, they've gone beyond their initial hamp program to look at the number of approaches, giving states money to use -- to apply to their own strategies. so there's a lot of ideas out there, and a lot of things that are being experimented with. clearly, particularly in a world where unemployment is 10%, and long term unemployment is 44% of that unemployment, there's situations where it's very difficult to find a solution. >> my time has expired. but can i follow up on one piece

of this? >> if it's brief. because we've made a commitment here that the chairman would get out of here by noon. we're a little past that now. >> the concept of a permanent down payment grant at a lower level first time home buyers addresses that issue that you were talking about of just shifting to man four. but also something more fundamental which is reducing the cost of homes for families as the home interest mortgage reduction. that kicks in primarily when you buy a larger house and you are in a higher tax bracket. so the vast book of the subsidy goes to the families who needed to lease in terms of becoming homeowners. the idea of a down payment grant, yet it should be in addition to, i'm not taking anything away from the concept of interest deduction on your home. the idea is that now you have a family of -- a working family of modest means is buying a very modest house.

we are helping them become homeowners in which they would hardly benefit at all from the mortgage deduction. it serves as a fairness factor because we should help working families buy homes as well as help successful families buy large homes. and yet also help observe obser- absorb the inventory of larger homes. that's the broader or fuller picture. >> the commission that the chairman was on talked a lot about the interest reduction and lots of, i think, interesting ways to think about whether that can be made more productive, more constructive. >> i'm not addressing the -- >> no, no, i understand. but it raises the point that some people that doesn't really help very much if you don't itemize, for example, you don't get the interest reduction. thank you. >> thanks, senator. let me -- one final question that we've been asked and that is with the substantial

expansion of the balance sheet by the federal reserve to make sure the flow of credit continued during the downturn, can you anticipate now what percentage of that expansion would be realized as losses? i've been told it's very small. can you give us some sense of that? >> well, so first as i mention in my testimony, this is not deficit spending. we are buying assets which we will either sell back to the market or allow to run off. currently, this -- we're in a profit position. our cost of funds is very low that the interest that we are receiving we are emitting back to the treasury. i got a new number this morning for 2009 and 2010, we remitted back to the treasury $125 billion from this program. which is much higher than our normal. should it be the case that short

term interest rates rise, which, of course, would happen if the economy recovers and we need to normalize monetary policy, those remittances could go down. currently we are in a, you know, this is a -- at this point is a profitable program from the perspective of the federal deficit. >> and is it your -- is it your forecast at this point that you will then not experience losses on this extension of credit that was made during the downturn? >> it's -- it's a practical matter. what matters is not losses. because those are paper losses. what matters is the amount of funds, remittances we send back to the treasury. under most scenarios, because our cost of funding is so low, we will continue to remit back to the treasury significant amounts of money. under a scenario in which

short-term interest rates rise significantly, it's possible there would be a period that we don't remit anything to the treasury for a couple of years. that would be the worse-case scenario. but we would have the early payments which are above normal and the extent that this is a successful policy, it will strengthen the economy and increase tax revenues. i think from a purely fiscal point of view, i think this is most likely to be beneficial, not harmful to the governments financial position. >> yeah, the reason that i ask the question, and phrased it like i did is because in common par lents, there's going to be a great part of what the reserve did that would result in losses for the taxpayer. that was the potential for that. and you don't see that? >> i don't see that as likely. our records so far, not only in the program, but in all of the lending and other special credit programs that we've done has been, you know, in very positive

from a perspective of returns to the treasury. >> with regard to quantitative easing on the federal purchases, that money is -- that you pay back is money that came from the treasury, is that right? it's the interest? >> well, yes, but it's, of course, it's -- another way of looking at it is the interest that the treasury didn't have to pay to the chinese. >> i'm aware of that. but it's a zero-sum game, i guess, in that sense. you believe it's helpful to the economy. i understand that. >> that's the main point. >> that's the main point of it. on "60 minutes" a couple of years ago, you made reference to this is equivalent of printing money. was that when the fed buys -- is quantitative easing, the purchase of friendly bills is

that what you said when you said friendly money? >> i was actually talking about a somewhat different issue at that point. let me try to explain what really happens. what happens is when we buy securities, the money finds it's way into the banking system and shows us as reserves that banks hold with the fed. currently banks are holding a large amount of reserves with the fed which will have to some point be unwound as we exit through the program. however, there are some folks that think we are literally printing money in circulation. that's not happening. >> but it does have a tendency, does it not, to increase the circulation of dollars which like more apples in the marketplace makes the apple less valuable. >> very -- >> or not? >> the amount of currency and money in circulation has not really been affected by the program. very slightly. in fact, money growth over the last year or two or two years has been below normal.

it's not a situation where the fed is dumping money into the economy. that's not what's happening. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you very much for your appearance. thank you for your forthright testimony here and we look forward to having you up for a meeting with the members as we try to craft a fiscal policy to get us back on track. >> i look forward to it. thank you, sir. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> over in the house today, debate began on the health care repeal, as members set the rules that will shape debate moving forward. they are expected to take a final vote on health care in the house next wednesday. you can watch live coverage of the house on our companion

network, c-span. now we'll take a look at the defense department budget. >> good morning, thanks for being with us. >> guest: good morning, susan. >> host: let's start with the substance of the announcement from dod yesterday. what are the key bullet points on the spending side? >> guest: i think the biggest point is the $78 billion that the white house told the pentagon to come up over the next five years. that's something that the pentagon has never had to do before. to cut the budget. gates came up with the plan that said we will do it. but we are going to wait until 2015 when the war in afghanistan presumably starts to end. >> host: the way the dod budget works, are those dollars for operation on the ground in any case? >> guest: they are not. it's all looking at the annual budget. the way that the defense department budget, they look out over five year. they tend to spend about half a

trillion each year. and then over and beyond that, they spent about $150 billion on operations for the wars. so that actually is protected. that has nothing to do with the cuts that we're talking about. >> host: in terms of major weapons program, which face the chopping block? >> guest: well, gates did say that about $100 billion in cost-saving moves would be spread out over the next five years. however, the services get to keep about $70 billion of that. so that won't affect the top line. but under that, the programs that are going to be affected by that include the marine corpses expeditionary fighting week, that was a tank that marines wanted to swim ashore with. it was a high-speed tank that was considered one of their top priorities. gates has looked at them and said is this really feasible? it's cost more than we thought

it would. how much d-day style landings are we going to be doing in the future? that's one program that fell to the wayside. there was a delay in the joint strike fighter. you know, there are some other various programs that are not too high profile. i don't think anything that will really attract too much attention in congress. you know, it always does in certain corners. but i think that the program cuts on this are fairly modest. i think the bigger news part of this is the overall topline reducing. >> host: well, in the open, i also mentioned the veterans health care program called tricare. the defense department is proposing what? >> guest: well, gates has said for a long time they have to reform the entire system. it's broken and almost too generous. the proposal that he through out yesterday are aids retirees.

people that are were in the military, have retired, still under the age of 65. they have civilian jobs that can get health care coverage. they are paying as little as $500 a year for a family of four for the insurance through the tricare program. that's a rate that hasn't been touched since 1995. gates said, you know, in the civilian sector that would be as much as $5,000 for our federal workers. is that logical and fair. no, he throws this out there as a major money saver to increase these premiums. but he's tried this before and congress has never tolerated it. any program that would benefit, you know, military retirees has always been protected by congress. we'll see if that's successful. >> host: let's segue into the politics of this. the timing of the announcements suggest what the white house? >> guest: certainly the white house is saying we're serious. we've heard the message from the

recent elections. there's been a lot of tea party activist elected in the congress. nothing is sacred. there's no sacred cow in the federal budget. we need to look at every piece to try to reign in the nation's deficit. i think by doing after defense first, it protects it from deeper cuts. we've already gone after that. but it tries to signal to the public that they are serious about trying to reign in the federal budget. >> host: thank you for setting the stage for our viewers. ann familiar herty. >> the president made remarks in maryland, he spoke about the changes made to the national economic council and other economic advisor positions.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. [silence] >> good morning. [applause] [applause] president obama: how are you? [applause] president obama: please have a seat. have a seat. it is wonderful to be with all of you today. i want to make just a couple of quick acknowledgments. first of all, we have one of the fine senators from the great state of maryland, ben cardin in the house. there's ben? here he is right here. [applause] president obama: george's county executive, russian banker is here. [applause] president obama: i want to thank rick wheats of the ceo and owner

of time creek manufacturing, and all of the employees here at thompson. thank you so much for your hospitality, and the great works that you are doing. [cheers and applause] president obama: yay! [cheers and applause] president obama: and i want to acknowledge the family and guests of those who are standing behind me today. it is wonderful to be here at thompson creek. and i want to thank rick for showing me how you manufacture more efficient windows at this factory. this is -- as he explained to me, a family business. rick was just 13 when his father, fred, opened the company. back then, his family lived above the store. rick started out sweeping the floors. three decades later, thompson creek has

expanded, it's already outgrown this new 80,000 square foot facility that it moved into just three years ago. and i'll bet sometimes rick still feels like he's living at the plant. [laughter] president obama: you know that's what happens when you are in charge. but building this business has been an extraordinary accomplishment for the weiss family. and it speaks not only to him, it also speaks to all of the employees here today. the hard-working men and women who make this company work. and it speaks to the promise of america. the idea that if you've got a dream and you are willing to work hard, then you can succeed. that promise is at the heart of who we are as the people. and it's at the heart of our economic might. it's what helps give an entrepreneur the courage

to start a business. or a company. the confidence to expand. it's what leads to new products and new ideas, and technologies that have not only made us the world's largest economy, but also the most innovative economy in the world. making it possible for businesses to succeed is how we ensure that our economy succeeds, and all of our people succeed. it's how we create jobs. that's what has guided my administration for the past two years. government can't guarantee thompson creek or any business will be successful. but government can knock down barriers like a lack of affordable credit, or high cost for investment, or high cost for hiring. we can do something about that. government can remove obstacles in your path. and that's why we cut taxes for small

businesses over the last two years. for example, a tax break for hiring unemployed workers, thompson creek was able to grow it's work force from 200 employers to nearly 300 employees in just one year. and it took advantage of the tax credits that we put into place. we also passed a tax credit for products like energy-saving windows. that led to a 55% boost in the sales at this firm. you know, rick was telling me that when that tax credit got into place, the marketing arm of thompson creek got busy. that's the right -- that's exactly what we intended. that's exactly what we wanted to see is explaining to the american people, you can save money on your energy bill, that is a small thing to do. take advantage of it. so instead of like these are helping companies across america. and the jobs numbers released this morning reflect that growth.

the economy added more than $100,000 jobs last month and the unemployment rate fell sharply. and we know these numbers can bounce around from month to month. but the trend is clear by we saw 12 straight months of private sector job growth. that's the first time that's been true since 2006. the economic added $1.3 million jobs last year. and each quarter was stronger than the previous quarter. which means that the pace of hiring is beginning to pick up. we're also seeing more optimistic economic forecasts for the year ahead. in part due to the package of tax cuts that i signed last month. including a payroll tax cuts for workers, and series of tax cuts to help innovation and

hiring. i fought for that package because even though our economy is recovering, we still have a lot to do. this was a brutal recession that we went through. the worst in our lifetimes. it left a lot of destruction in it's wake. more than 8 million jobs were lost. so even though we've created 1.3 million jobs, we saved a whole lot of jobs, you still got a whole bunch of folks who are out there looking. still struggling. we have a big whole that we are digging ourselves out of. our mission has to be accelerate hiring and accelerate growth. that depending on making our economy more competitive so that we are fostering new jobs in new industries and training workers. it depending on keeping up the fight for every job and every business and every opportunity to spur growth. and so standing with me here today are men and

women who will help america fulfill this mission. let me just introduce each of them. we're joined first of all by gene sperling who i've appointed director of national economic council. give him a round of applause. [applause] [applause] president obama: now gene has been an extraordinary asset to me and this administration over the past two years. he's been working with me. he led our efforts to pass the small business jobs bill, to help companies all across america. he also helped negotiate the tax compromise that we passed at the end of this year. he's a public servant who has devoted his life to making this economy work and making it work specifically for middle-class families. one the reasons that i've selected gene, he's done this before. this is his second tour of duty heading up the

nec, and in his tenure in the clinton administration during the late '90s, he helped formulate the policies that helped turn deficits to surplus and a time of prosperity and progress for american families in a sustained way. few people bring the level of intelligence and sheer work ethic that gene brings to every assignment. few do so with decency and integrity. you are going to do a terrific job. he's going to have jason firmman working with him, i'm pleased to elevate him to principal deputy at the national economic council. give him a round of applause. [applause] [applause] president obama: over the past

two years i've relied on jason's advise from helping design the emergency steps we took to help our economy from sinking into a second depression to most recently working with gene and the economic team to pass the tax cut compromise. i'm confident he will continue to do work of this capacity. we are also joined by as advisor and friends since my first days as a presidential candidate. heather higgenbaum, where he's helped with some of the most innovative reform in decades. i'm proud to nominate her to serve as deputy of the office of management and budget. she understands the relationship between numbers on a legender and the -- ledger and

the lives of real people. as we make cuts, i want to make sure we have heather there to meet our obligations to our people and to our economy as well. give heather a big round of applause. thank you. [applause] [applause] president obama: finally, i'm nominating katherine abraham to the council of economic advisors. [applause] [applause] president obama: go ahead. [applause] [applause] president obama: katherine brings a wealth of experience has an economist, as a commissioner of the bureau of labor statistics during the clinton administration. i'm confidence that she's going to provide the kind of unbiased, unvarnished advise that will help us craft the best policies to strengthen the economy in the years to come. now, part of our mission, part of this team's mission in the months ahead will be to maximize the steps we've taken to spur the

economy. and one the most important is allowing businesses to immediately deduct the entire cost of certain investments like the new economic that i was taking a look at. this is a policy that i fought for over the past two years. we were able to pass it finally as part of the tax cut compromise. it is going to make a real difference for our economy. so talking to rick, i know thompson creek is planning to take full advantage of this tax break. that's going to help thompson creek renovate, expand, and add another 100 new employees right here. [applause] [applause] president obama: and that's worth applauding. [applause] [applause] president obama: that's good. [applause] [applause] president obama: so you have companies like this all over the country. and the treasury department estimates that overall, this will accelerate $150 billion

in tax cuts for 2 million businesses over the next two years. so i want to urge all businesses with capital needs to take advantage of this temporary expensing provision. because we expect it to lower the average cost of investment by more than 75% for companies like thompson creek. it is a powerful new incentive for businesses. it's a great opportunity for companies to grow and add jobs. now is the time to act. companies who are listening out there, if you are planning or thinking about making investments sometime in the future, make those investments now and you are going to save money. and that will help us grow the economy. it will help you grow your business. overall, the decline in the unemployment rate is positive news. but it only underscores of importance of us not letting up on our

efforts. i'm looking forward to work, heather, gene, katherine, and jason and everybody at the white house. we have one focus: and that is making sure that we are duplicating the success of places like thompson creek across the country. we want businesses to grow. we want this economy to grow. and we want to put people back to work. i want to promise everybody at thompson creek and across the country we will not rest until we have fully recovered from the recession and we have reached that brighter day. thanks very much, everybody. [applause] [cheers and applause] [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ :

gr yesterday senate republicans briefed reporters on what's to come. [inaudible conversations] >> well, good afternoon, everyone. as you know, we just finished our annual meeting over at the library of congress, and i'm going to ask our conference

chair, senator alexander to make some observations about what we were discussing today, and then we're going to call on one of our freshman, one the new members, senator kelly from new hampshire to make obvious visions, and then we'll through it open for questions. one of the things we obviously talked about is with speaker boehner about the debt ceiling issue. we are all familiar with that challenges lying ahead of us in the next couple month, and it's a widespread feeling that it's an opportunity actually for us to come together and make significant strides in beginning to reduce our spending in debt which we know in addition to the issue of jeblessness is the -- joblessness is the single biggest issue on the minds of

the american people and are we getting our house in order after the spending spree over the past few years. we had a discussion about the debt ceiling and that that expires on march 4 and the opportunity it provides on both sides for us to step up and do something significant to begin to address the most significant issues addressing the country. with that, let my call on senator alexander. >> thanks, mitch. this was the annual meeting of the republican senators to plan our agenda for the rest of the year. it wasn't hard for us to do because it was our agenda last year as well. we find ourselves absolutely united on what we believe are the two greatest issues facing our country and issues that unit most americans. one is jobs, and the other is spending and debt. our goal is to help make a

easier and cheaper to create private sector jobs, number one, and number two, to reduce spending, find a way over the short term and long term to reduce spending to deal with the ruined debt that caused us today to borrow .42 cents out of every dollar the u.s. government spends. this was mainly a day of senators talking with senators, not bringing in pollsters or experts. i mean, we know what we think and what the american people think, and we have ideas about how to deal with it. if there was one word to use to sum up the feeling in the room today about jobs and debt, it was a sense of or urgency about dealing both with the high unemployment and with the ruinness debt of the federal government. >> well, i certainly appreciate

it as a new senator, the newly reelected senator from new hampshire that the getting together with my new republican colleagues that on behalf of the new 13 republican senators, we are focused on the same issues, and we heard it from voters across the country, they want smaller government, not bigger government, and as the mother of two small children to joined me in the swearing in yesterday, a 3-year-old and a 6-year-old, i can tell you as republicans we're deeply concerned about the nearly $14 trillion debt we have right now. that is going to be the focus in the coming year to make sure we are ready to fight for budget discipline in the republican conference, and then also to make sure we get our economy growing through small business growth. it's not -- i'm a member of a small business family. my husband has a small business,

and i deeply appreciate that it's not the government that creates jobs. it's our small business owners and our entrepreneurs, and that was a big part of the discussion today, not only the debt and deficit, but to get that in control creating a positive climate for our small businesses, cutting through the red tape we see through the regulations in washington and mandate coming down on our small businesses. that's the priority in the upcoming congress, and i'm looking forward to working with leader mcconnell and other senators and the newly elected senators as well, my other 12 new colleagues are looking forward to rolling up our sleeves and getting to work on behaver of the american people. >> take a couple questions if there are any. >> speaker boehner said increase the debt vote has to come with spending cuts. can you allude to what you see?

do you think a legislation like that can get through the senate given the current breakdown, and how will you make sure what comes through the house? >> i view it as an opportunity, an opportunity for both sides to come together and say to the american people, we understand that the spending and this debt is out of control, and we're going to do something significant about it and use that moment to underscore that we're beginning to begin to get this country's fiscal house in order, so we welcome that opportunity. i think it's a good chance to begin to do something important on a bipartisan basis to get at both spending and debt. >> nart mcconnell? one day republicans will control this chamber again. >> thank you, sounds good to me. [laughter] that has a good ring. [laughter] >> i'm not supposed to

speculate, but guessing at one point it will happen. are there changes in the democrats proposals for filibuster changes that you would like to have when you're in the majority at some point in the future that you could live with? >> well, we had this opportunity in 1995. we had at that time the most successful republican congressional election in 100 years, and senator harkin offered on the first day to lower the threshold of 51, and all 52 of the new republican ma majority that day voted against it. we don't think the senate rules are broken, and what we think is going on here is an opportunity -- an effort to in effect try to nullify the results of the election, and we saw the lengths they went through to jam through a partisan agenda with no votes to spare.

now their reaction to a bad election is to change the rules. they went from 60 down to 53, and now they want to change the rules. we're willing to discuss it. senator al exapedder is involve -- alexander is involved with senator schumer on what changes may be appropriate, but anything that begins to move the senate in the direction of becoming the house of representatives would be inappropriate. >> there are changes that are appropriate? >> we're going to discuss over the next few weeks what changes, if any, might be appropriate, and if we get an agreement agreement, you'll be the first to know. >> are you for senators going to the floor to filibuster? >> like i said, if we find an agreement, you'll be the first to know. >> he said tax reforms the two parties can work together -- [inaudible] >> i hope so. you know, the president has

meant with a group of business legislatures a couple weeks ago to talk about the outrageous corporate tax rate that we have that hurts our international competitiveness and seems to be open for an effort to reduce the corporate tax rate. if he's interested in something like that, i think most of my members are interested in discussing it with him. beyond that, we know the tax code is a disaster, and any effort to simplify the tax code, to get the rates down, to make it more fair, i think we'd be open to discussing that. in addition to that, i'm hoping that the administration may be open to some entitlement reform. i made it clear to them, and i'll say it today, entitlement reform is done on a bipartisan basis. we are waiting for signals from

the president as to whether or not that's a discussion he's willing to have. if he is, it's a discussion we're willing to engage in. >> you talked about signals. what are you hoping to here in the state of the union on reform? >> look, it's his speech and his opportunity to lay out to the american people of what needs to be done. i think you have a sense of the kinds of things we're interested in doing if he is. he said he's for trade agreement. so are we. he says he's for nuclear power, so are we. >> he's for clean coal technology, so are we. to the extent he's interested in corporate or individual tax reform or both, that's something worth talking about, and we're interested in doing something about our long term unfunded liability, the entitlements. i made a perfectly clear in the past and today that it will not be done on a partisan basis, only a bipartisan basis. those are among the things that

most republicans in the house and senate would like to hear in part of his state of the union speech. david? >> i know you spent the day discussing your agenda and what you want to get done, but to what extent are you in a reactive mode from the white house or house that the republican majority can pass things to send over here? >> i think we're going to be proactive place. we an anticipate the house of representatives will pass a lot of legislation that we'll all be enthusiastic about, and the reel question is how many upcoming democrats are up in 12 will be interested in cooperating with us to pass an agenda that will be largely favored by the american people. we don't start with the notion we're going to be on defense. we may well be on offense. >> are you going to proactively

push for a repeal of health care reform on the floor? >> yes. >> what do you think will happen there with democrats? are you getting a sense of how many of them might be able or willing to vote with you on that? >> well, we're going to find out, aren't we? that's the fundmental question. we'll see. i don't want to take all the questions here. anybody want to -- [laughter] >> back to entitlement reform, democrats ran ads on the ryan road map criticizing tougher social security and medicare. your campaign committees ran ads for medicare cuts in the health care reform bill. do you think either sides are a little bit at fault there for moving forward? >> regardless of the past, let me make it perfectly clear what happens in the future. there will be no entitlement reform without the president's embrace.

>> sounds like you say the only way that happens is if both sides come together and actually talk about it behind closed doors before it's rolled out. >> i don't know if it's indoors or out of doors, but the point i'm making in case anybody missed it is entitlement reform is done on a bipartisan basis and means the president must embrace it and to the extent that he's willing to do that kind of thing, then we have something to talk about. >> is there any room for any reform in the defense budget? >> secretary of defense himself has indicated there are a number of different reductions he's interested in making, and i think most of my members don't think any department should necessarily be off limits, so we would be willing to look at what he recommends. >> what do you think the president's role is daily with the new chief of staff? >> i think it's a hopeful sign, frankly. he has a business background. you know, we used to -- i used to say the last two

years, i don't know if it was tech anily true or not, but nobody in the white house who eliminates that. they are all former elected officials. this guy has been out in the private sector, been a part of business. frankly, my first reaction is it sounds like a good idea. >> house republicans have cut their office budgets and committee budgets by 5% as a sign of them doing something, do you support that? >> sounds like a good idea to me and that's the kind of thing we'll be looking at. >> in the 2008 economic crisis letter today, do you think that's a legitimate warning? >> look, i think rather than sending out scary letters, we have a opportunity here on a bipartisan basis to address spending and debt. the american people want us to. that's an opportunity to do it, and we don't need to, you know, send out scary letters.

we just need to get together and do something about the biggest problem in the country other than joblessness. i'll take one more for myself or any of the folks behind me. >> house republicans have changed the rules around the highway public transportation trust fund. do you agree with that? >> frankly, i don't know enough about that to comment on that. i don't know if anybody else does. thanks, everybody. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> during this new congress in the senate, democrats are working to weaken the power of the filibuster. the senate will not be back in session until january 25, imu yesterday the majority leaders former communications advisor,

jim manly says he backs the democrat's plans calling the chamber dysfunctional. his remarks begin with introductions. >> well, this next speaker is, for me, a presenting a real special occasion. i first met jim when i was on my 2008 sabbatical carrying the lofty but meaningless title of scholar residence in the office of the majority leader and just had great experience working with jim, watching him prepare senator reed, the majority leader for press conferences, peppering him with questions, and last night i was thinking that probably through the mind of every communications director or press secretary for every member on capitol hill, this phrase must go through their

minds constantly, and the phrase is, did my boss really say that? one of the things, of course, that directors of communications have to do sometimes is be directors of miscommunications which is basically clarify what their boss said. robert gibbs does that, but jim did more than media for senator reed. he was, you know, also responsible for knowing what was going on on the floor in the unbelievably complex and arcade world of the senate and so on. of course, one of the things that has become, you know, and usually does become periodically a big issue, obvious, is the filibuster and something jim has thought a lot about, and he's here i think to clarify some of the things about the filibuster, what's likely to change, if any,

on that front, and i think it's a real privilege for me, and i was just really very happy when i heard jim accepted the invitation to speak here. jim the communications directer for majority leader of the senate, senator harry reed who previously worked for senator ted kennedy, senator george mitchell, he picked only the best. jim manly. [applause] >> hello, everyone. thanks, ross. delighted to be here. as ross said, i'm jim, but just to clarify slightly up until last friday, i was the senior community cations advisor and spokesman for senator reed. i am now -- i have now joined the ranks of the unemployed as i try to figure out my new options in

life. as ross suggested, i have worked on capitol hill for 20 years. i started off as a press assistant for then majority leader george mitchell where i was one of my greatest claims to fame was put in every morning. i then worked for senator kennedy, first of all, as his press assistant for a year or two, then then about 1995, i guess, i became his press secretary for the health, education, and labor commission's committee where i worked on both politics and poll it sigh, and then -- policy, and then six years ago one of the things senator reed did after he was democratic leader was hire me to set up his so-called war room, and i was the first staff director for his communications operations, and then quite frankly at some point i realized if i had to make a choice between managing an

office and dealing with the press core in and out, i liked being a spokesman better, and so for the last couple years i served as the glorified title of the senior communications advisor or spokesman for the majority leader of the senate, harry reed, an honor which was unbelievable. again, as i indicated, quite frankly, i'm unemployed right now and looking for different options after 20 years on capitol hill, having a chance to meet presidents, prime ministers, rock stars, movie actresses and actors, having a chance to work on a whole wide range of issues, i decided that the time was right for me to try and pursue different options. i think probably what i'm going to do is spent a little time trying to reflect on some of the

comaings in the -- changes in the senate and talk a little about why i believe there's a need for filibuster reform in light of, you know, that's, you know, a cftion -- conversation that is front and center in the body of politics nowadays. first of all, i'll start off with a couple stabilities to ex-- stats why i think there needs to be changes. i'm not sure i have the answers to what needs to be done, but i do firmly believe that after what i've seen for the last two years, and quite frankly, after seeing what my boss, then boss, senator reed, had to put up with for the last two years and came to the decision there has to be changes made. there were two filibusters in the congress since the current

cloture rules existed. that is, there was nearly as many filibusters just in the last couple years as there were in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and half of the 1970s all combined as we saw in the last couple years. in the entire century the senate saw fewer than 12 filibusters. that's one dozen filibusters. now we can see that in a single month senator reid made a remark a couple years ago in a private meeting that somehow got out to the media that i think, you know, quite captures the current situation. i mean, it was a little sharp, but happened to be true. i mean, it often times, you know, he needs permission for

the senate to schedule a bathroom break, and often times it takes senator mcconnell 24 hours to get back to them to agree on such a simple routine as that, so i mean, again in light of these what i've outlined in the stuff i'm about to talk about, i think there needs to be some changes. what was a result of this unprecedented uninstructionism oftentimes the nominees that were blocked that we had to file cloture on were eventually confirmed say 95 to 1, ditto with the legislation being held up passed up in the end by 86-6 or something like that that gets me to the first point i want to make. this is something ross and i talked about before as a matter of fact, and that is that, you know, the importance in the

power that the calendar has on the ability of the majority leader to schedule legislation. it's one thing for my friends on the left, for instance argue why don't you, you know, make them filibuster on a particular nominee, you know, despite the fact we have 50 or 60 nominees pending or make a filibuster piece of legislation. well, again, it's one thing to talk about in the abstract. it's a whole other thing putting pencil to paper and try to, you know, scef out how -- sketch out how it works. i'm sure you all know this, but let's go through the cloture process and let's pretepid to make it -- pretend to make it easy, we'll do the first one on a nominee. again, we can talk about the presidential prerogatives, about the president having the right

to have nominees in place, leaving that aside because there's abuses on both sides in the past. senator reid has to file cloture on a monday to vote on wednesday. that's three days gone. on a piece of legislation, controversial or not, often times in this day and age, he files cloture to proceed to a bill, so you file cloture on monday for a cloture vote for the motion to proceed on wednesday. of course, as you all know, there's 30 hours of debate post cloture to proceed on the bill before you have a chance to even begin debating, so you're already on friday, and of course, you can't have votes on friday or monday until after 5:30, and that's a bipartisan thing by the way and you file

cloture on friday morning setting up a vote on monday night or tuesday just on the bill itself, and we haven't even gotten to the amendment process. what does that all mean? it means that, you know, that's the easy two weeks, easily two weeks gone. well, then, again my friends on the left say, well, what's two weeks? well, actions have consequences. i mean, there's only so many days in a month, and then this stuff starts piling up, and then, you know, you got a long list of things you want to deal with, but, you know, there's only so many weekends you can work and holidays you can work to finish up this stuff, and then in my republican friends' defense, they will point out quickly, you know, they are not filibustering anything. you know, senator reid has the majority leader has the right to bring any particular nominee or

particular piece of legislation any time he wants for a reason as to not bringing allegedly controversial department of justice nominee to the floorment again, give me a break. as i've just outlined, it's not quite that easy, and again, there's not enough days in the week for us to be able to do all of the things that, you know, they were sent to do. so, but i guess, and i think i'll probably finish up by saying, you know, before getting to the q&a, you know, i understand it's popular to talk about the constitution nowadays. i think actually probably as i speak the house republicans are going through the motions of

reading the constitution on the house floor. sounds good to me. i, myself, have my copy of the constitution signed by senator byrd. although i don't carry it around all the time, but i guess i wanted to point out that, you know, there's deep views on both sides and it shouldn't be a republican or a democratic issue. you know, as eg roontly -- recently wrote, an examination of the constitution that views it other than a book of exodus would be good for the country, and that sounds good to me. .. you know, again, you know, the only thing constant, yet now,

and democracy is change. and you know, after all we did have a few amendments in the cost duchenne over the years. you know, the rules that govern the senate over the years about carefully necessity but again based on my pants, i think probably the time is now. the time is ripe for another look at the changes. you know, professor baker knows better than i. you know, it's been a very careful process over the years, starting back at the league in 1915 when we first began looking at the rules of cloture, which died so much in the senate. but at such a time when 60 votes guide to everything, all but

most 13 pieces of the legislation, i think it's fair and right that we take a look at it. now in senator mcconnell's defense, he's made his -- he made his views very clear. i mean, in this now legendary, and, where he said that, you know, he was there to try and make sure that the president was a one term president. so at least he's honest about his views. there simply there to try and score cheap political points. and i think i'll probably just leave it at that and take your questions. [applause] >> -- master of ceremonies to as the first question, which is

sort of -- i've been thinking about. is that possible simultaneously to say that congress is dysfunctional the same time it's what you like it or not, the 111th congress in his regular session has a huge amount of important legislation in the blink that conjures while expectations also took care of repealing "don't ask, don't tell," s.t.a.r.t. treaty and so on. is there a disconnect they are? >> i'm not so sure if there is a disconnect, but this is definitely a time where to put on a spinning shoes for one because there is a fairly sharp contract between the two views. i do happen to believe with all conviction that this was a landmark congress. senator reid, in particular, has done what no majority leader has ever done. i managed to get comprehensive

health care reform passed. but again, looking a the totality of the situation, my humble opinion is the place is somewhat dysfunctional and needs to be fixed. yes, we great successes, but it was often done at great cost and great expense and through a lot of unnecessary political maneuvers. senator reid, when he started at the last congress two years ago pledged to open up displays and allow republicans more amendments because he is an institutional at heart has a great respect or reverence for the senate and does believe there's a proper proper role for debate in the senate floor. and so, one of the first pieces of legislation he took to the

floor, the piece of legislation he has extraordinary part of switzerland or piece of legislation, setting up a whole bunch of national parks. it took us about a month probably to finish a piece of legislation that should've been done in the matter of a day or so. and not before we have engaged in the debate about guns in national parks. now, and senator coburn's defense i guess it was somewhat related to the issue at hand, though i'm hard pressed to imagine how. but a couple weeks later we took another piece of the legislation to the floor. i can't remember what it was. and we were soon debating guns on amtrak trains. so we quickly began to suggest that there's a pattern there and that despite their desire, the

state's desire for a more open amendment process, they are simply there to try and score cheap political points. so, again, there is a dynamic. i hate knowledge that. but all i can say is that again went through all sorts of hoops and hurdles that i honestly don't believe the founding fathers ever thought of when deciding -- when designing the house and the senate. so anyway, i'm not sure that's quite an answer, but that's the best i got for you. >> okay, university of san diego. i'm actually from nevada, so i can probably ask two days. i actually was -- i followed this election, the last election really closely. and i was wondering, what do you

think made the voters in nevada turn to vote for harry reid instead of what they were showing? and what do you think was the turning point? >> sure. what i mean again, speaking in all candor, he said, as you probably know and probably most people miss her and on c-span cameras now he's traditionally had very tough races and hasn't exactly pulled very well in the last couple years. are you always ascribe that to the fact that, you know, he served proudly as a spear carrier against, you know, i believe the fatally flawed policies of the bush administration. and so he became much more of a partisan figure. that's not really who he is. i mean, his skills as they

meander and a legislator and a compromiser. but from my tenure as democratic leader, he became much more of a partisan figure. so that's the one reason why he described his difficulty. why did he win? quite frankly, he had one of the best campaigns in the business, run by a series of highly skilled individuals who hide one goal in mind and that is to get senator reid reelect it. and obviously, no discussion about this can occur without talking about the two candidates , one of his original opponent, sue landed and then obviously the woman he eventually ran against, sharing angle. so what the bottom-line reason? i think the people in nevada in the end realized were far too extreme and out of the

mainstream. that's the long and the short of it. yep, go ahead. >> i mind from the university of st. thomas. i was wondering if you're unemployed by choice or something happen? >> no, no, no, it's all good. like i said, i've spent 20 years on capitol hill. i was oftentimes spoken up. maybe team concluded oftentimes been woken up to do a morning show at 6:45. my my day off in times times ended with panicked phone calls at 10:00 tonight or at the 11:00 at night. the black. , which still have was permanently attached to my hip. at a well-deserved reputation i believe is being quicken response. but i -- quite frankly at age

49, i decided that it some point i needed to see what other options were out there. i have had an amazing experience. i matter, when i began this, i had the wildest idea that i can pull this off. again, as ross suggested they work for three senators, then majority leader, george mitchell, senator kennedy and then sixers for senator reid. the funny of back story about all of this because i started out 20 years ago as a press assistant for senator mitchell and literally the same office i came back to 14 years later to run as the communications office for senator mitchell. i mean, for senator reid rather. so with its sweeping views of the mall crowds and the crystal chandelier, albeit i got a

little better position -- a little better off is the second time around than the first time around. so, i realized that change is good. again, i worked for senator kennedy for 11 years. it was all sorts of ethnic legislative battles when i left 10 -- left his office with his encouragement. i thought, he's never going to be able to survive without me. well, i mean, no one is irrepressible. there's always someone available. change is good and i've never looked back. so that's my pep talk on that one. >> and cheese from the university of san diego. you mentioned that there is a need for reform in filibuster. i'm wondering if there's anything of which reforms read is likely to oppose and if they're likely to actually get

passed. >> two very good questions. right there i should begin by saying that i've been out of the loop a little bit for the last couple weeks. my father died, so i was back in minneapolis for the last couple weeks. i only got back to d.c. tonight to go. i haven't had a chance to talk to his policy staff about what the latest is. so i'm simply going that they publish press report. and what i know to be his views. i mean, this is something that senator reid has come to after some soul-searching, i believe. i mean, he is an institutional asset. he is a great respect and reverence or the senate an institution. you know, he is a firm believer in the proper role of senate. he is after all someone who once famously said, you know, i don't work for a president obama. i work with president obama,

talking about the proper role and differences between the executive branch and legislative branch. said the easy answer to the questions is there for a number of easy ideas out there. he began meeting with the caucus several years ago trying to gather ideas. there is the caucus a couple weeks ago devoted specifically to believe to this issue and he is trying to work out a consensus within his caucus about how to proceed. there are some that take the long view and are arguing that what comes around goes around and that republicans, you know, what comes around goes around and you have to be careful to take the long view. but again, as they try to sketch out in my opening remarks, there aren't many feel an light of i said and the statistics i cited,

many think there will be changes. and whether it can get done remains to be seen. there is an option available. it's been used before in the past from 1975 that we can get this done by a simple majority vote. whether that is going to be exercised or not, i don't know. we're going to have a wait-and-see. but the decisions are going to be made for a couple weeks. >> i'm trying to figure out what was the filibuster look right after these reforms and what other ideas are there? >> yeah, well, options of senator harkin, for instance, has a fighting scale reports about 60 votes on the motion to proceed, subsequent cloture vote, you know, would have a lesser threshold for instance. others are suggesting you do away with the motions to proceed, a cloture vote on the motion of receipt and allow a a bill to go to the floor and up

to two a minute after that. also, in its rubric of reform are proposals to do away with so-called secret holds. you know, one of the issues we saw in the last two years is that senator reid had to file cloture on a motion to proceed to ago. again, it oftentimes had been 8066 albeit a couple weeks later and i are to describe to you a little bit about what that answer for the calendar and for timing. so, yes we got it done, but oftentimes going through unnecessary procedural hoops. >> good morning i'm from the university of san diego and my question deals with kind of what a senator's is compared to that of the house long-term eyes. is that the purpose of the senate want to slow down the

legislative process and to be more methodical about creating my, where senators are often thought of at least in my thinking our understanding is more deliberative senior members not to be so quick to act or react to as the lead times associated with the house of representatives. when you open up your discussion today are your lecture, if you like you were alluding to the filibusters are just to many roadblocks. i agree in some regards. but the purpose of the senate is to not be so react to it. >> yeah, i found very little to disagree with. i just -- after having seen what has gone on for the last two years, i do believe there's a need for change. i mean, there's that famous

saying which i blow every time, the faster the coolest -- cool fatigue. that is exactly correct. that is why senators are elected to a six-year term. but after starting off the last two -- after we started off the senate two years ago, i remember a time when the economy was in a bad shape. unemployment was rising. there were demands that need to be done, you know, to help fix the economy and the senate republican leadership settled on a calculated strategy to find the senate to the hall for two years as they made a play for, you know, the 2010 elections. i just think that they've taken it a step too far.

and again, you know, i've seen real filibusters before. i was there as a press assistant in george mitchell's office denied that alphonse d'amato spent 24 hours on the senate floor, wailing against i believe the cloture of a typewriter plant in new york. so i've seen real filibusters and they've seen real debate. but what we've seen for the last couple of years, i don't think has not quite exactly with what the founding fathers were thinking of. so again, i'll be honest. i don't claim to have all the answers today. i do know that having said that, you know, there need to be changes. anna the risk of putting someone's magazine, if you find -- there should be an

article out in the "atlantic monthly" by josh green, you know, that outlines senator mcconnell's strategy for the last two years as he tries to come at you know cummock europe for the auctions. >> a quick follow-up. do you see a possibility of the propensity to go too far and open up more of a floodgate and allow too many -- relax too much? >> well, of course the change will be in the eye of the beholder. but there are still strong institutional biases on both sides to making overly dramatic changes. so i honestly don't see that happening. but again, let's remember, i wouldn't be doing my job if i didn't point out under bill thrift, you know, there was all this talk about the majority figure bill thrift, a so-called

constitutional law -- option, so-called nuclear -- so-called nuclear option. he too was looking at ways to change the senate rules. cooler heads eventually prevailed. so i don't think the republicans have the moral high ground on this debate. but again, i do come back to the fact that i believe that in this day and age, with the united states as a preeminent supervisor and an economic powerhouse, that there needs to be at least some modifications of the senate. >> thank you, sir. >> francesco baraka from wesley college. >> i think you're supposed to tell closer to the microphone for c-span. >> hi, i'm just a bronco from wesley college in dover, delaware. a couple days ago we had former congressman bob carr here and he

said the filibuster is the tyranny of small states. as i go to school in delaware, obviously one of the smaller ccd and we also see our vice president is from the smaller states. you think that will pose a problem? >> yeah, that's part of the institutional bias i referred to in my previous comments. they are strong -- strong reasons for protect you in the right of both large and small ways. that's in part why the senate was set up, to take a broader view. again, i just continue to go back to the fact that in light of what we've seen for the last couple years there need to be changes. but yes, that's very much a part of what's at play, along with, like i said, the longer view about careful what you wish for because you may be down today,

but you're going to be up again in a couple years. and -- as part of parcel of what's going on here. it's going to have to be done very delicately. whether anything gets done remains to be seen. i am heartened at least by the focus by this debate on the senate right now. >> hi, my name is gerry from the university of san diego. i was wondering a recursive filibuster if you could clarify some team. he keeps saying in the past two years things have gotten particularly bad in the senate. is it really because of the policies that the senate has or is it because of particularly intense party politics? because it seems like the system has been the same for quite a while and are only starting to see problems arise now. but if you look at what's been going on the past two years, there's been some very large issues that both sides feel very

strongly about. it seems like what's really going on is the fact that parties can't come to some sort agreement neither side is like to give as opposed to something particularly wrong with the senate. i mean, is there anything -- >> sure come a couple things. number one, i will begin by agreeing that the senate is a much more partisan plays these days than it was when i started as a young press assistant 20 years ago. there is something to be said for the joke that the senate is becoming a little bit more like the house. we can talk about why that is if you want, but it is becoming again a much more partisan plays and of course the might of the elections, i successfully suggest it will become more

partisan than the next couple of years. i mean, senator mcconnell is going to have to manage, and juggle between at least two factions. number one, one group that just wants to totally shut the place down for the next two years. and then another group that wants to all but shut the place down and maybe pass one or two pieces of legislation. so again, it's going to become a partisan spot -- plays. i don't have the stats in front of me, but a cursory examination of them will suggest that there's been an increase in partisanship over the last eight to 10 years, more the voting has become more in lockstep with the leadership. there's been, as i suggested, a

corresponding rise in the number of cloture votes filed, once relatively routine motion has been filed with frequency. all i can do is give you my view. and i have a habit of speaking sometimes bluntly. but what i saw was a republican leadership two years ago, again as they suggested with the economy in shambles, that may be cynical and calculated decision to try and do everything -- everything they could to try and grab this place to a halt for political reasons. after we pass health care, senator mcconnell indicated that that would be the last thing we would do for the year. wasn't quite true. we passed a small business bill,

for instance and of course there is the success of the lame-duck, small business bill, by the way, everybody profess to sport a candidate taking the peaks to pass. and then of course, there was the republican leaders comment postelection work and his view is that this call was to make sure that president obama was a one term president. i don't have any problem with that. you know, politics is a blood sport. any team bag. but it's nice to, you know, have his views out in the open. and so, i think my discussion of the filibuster is guided in part by the attack pics i saw in the views i saw expressed by not only the republican leadership, but the republican caucus. >> thank you. >> i have jim manley in my

clutches and i'm not going to let the opportunity get away. jim, one of the things that speaker boehner said upon taking office was that he wanted to restore what he called regular order in the house of representatives. and by that, i take it to mean that he wanted to have more decision-making at the committee level. the accusation is made about the senate, that leadership also plays a very dominant role in the legislative process, that basically sidestepping committees are taking important decisions away from senate committees and having the final verdict basically shaped. could you comment on that? >> i'm not so sure. you had me until the last part. i think senator reed's -- one of senator reed's strength since he's he's empowered senate chairman. he's a big lever in the committee process that was in

contest with then majority leader tom daschle, who oftentimes passed workgroups to do with controversial issues. one of the first decisions senator reid made when he became a democratic leader and then majority leader again was his pledge or vow to again do everything he can to support the committee process. he believes that i believe correctly that the only way you're going to get things done this with the input of the committees and the best way to get stuff through the committees is to empower the committees -- the committee chairman, excuse me, to the extent possible and to signal that they have the full faith -- is full faith. now, that is sometimes been a controversial issue within the caucus. i can't deny that. but again, in the end, i think

for instance of the health care debate, the fact that we got it done to demonstrate his decision to go to the finance committee was the right thing to do. but like i said, a view not shared by everyone. >> i have a follow-up. >> i should've said in a perfect world i have a lot of notes, some of which i can't read quite frankly for my opening speech. i was going to try and play the box a little bit. but that's already. before you smx question, i should let you know that i can't really say that if operated in anonymity for the last several years. i had a pretty high-profile. usually i insisted that may close when the record. i'm not a big fan of background quotes. if you're going to say something, you know, have the temerity for the good face gets

to sit on the record. obviously he did enough background briefing, especially in strategy. the point of this as i am much more comfortable talking to reporters albeit on the telephone or even sometimes, you know, when i walked in the hallways and surrendered a 30 or 40 reporters and do a little tango. this is a little bit more comfortable for that. but anyways, i hope i've done okay. >> could you generally care to raise the relationship between senator reid and speaker pelosi during the 111th congress? >> the relationship is rock solid. they are consummate professionals. however, both understand but in the end, it is their duty to do whatever they need to do to get a bill out of their particular

body and leave the other to deal with the attendant problems. and then, which is why you see as my house frenzel quickly tommy, 433 pieces of legislation were sent over to the senate in the last two years only to a slow painful death on our side. again, it's anything i haven't said before publicly, so i'll say it again. i mean, the speaker off or have the luxury of knowing that every day when he woke up she did the 218 votes necessary to get it done. but now i don't want to diminish the problems you face and often times it took a lot of handholding, but that's a fact. senator reid rarely if ever have the 60 votes, even when we briefly had it, it really wasn't there. and so, in a senate where a party are it takes 60 votes to get all but the most routine piece of legislation done, he

had his own challenges to face. so the speaker would send over it though. we take up another bill, do whatever we need to take to get it out of the senate amendment two would set down and hash it out again as to professionals and they usually ended up meeting -- the usually ended up finding the sweet spot the nieman to get the respective conference reports out of their respective bodies. so it was a strong relationship. it was a productive relationship. but again, both always understood that their goal first and foremost was to represent their respective bodies and, you know, they had to do what they have to do to get a bill out of their respective chambers and

goes out to the other guy to figure out how to get something similar out of their body. >> this is on a more personal level. what do senators want in a leader? do they want him to be an eloquent spokesman for principles? to be wanting to be a legislative mechanic? within their minds when they choose the leader? >> sure. i'll preface that by saying that again as i indicated i had a chance to work both for senator kennedy and senator reid. i found out quickly that there was a wide difference between a legislature, which senator kennedy was, i believe the greatest in the century or any other, right up there at with webster and calhoun and being a leader. i always thought that the two kind of the same thing.

i found out quickly that being a leader is far different from being a legislature, even if you are a natural type ashamed of senator kennedy. the strength of senator reid and the reason why he was like the guinness jory leader of his caucus obviously was not because he was in his word not a silver tongued devil, who could speak eloquently at great length. but he knows how he understands the rhythms of the process. she knows almost intuitively what the members of his caucus are thinking about the lot and he also worked like no other to deliver on those wants and desires. i believe that the reason why -- among the reasons why he was like that again was, you know,

he does a great job looking out for caucus as a whole. now you know, the firebrands of course within the caucus comes from the last. now, positions with all due respect, my friend senator harkin, for instance, the views are articulated by the liberal senator from iowa, don't necessarily play well and save the state of nebraska for instance. and senator reid understands that. he understands that the senator's job, first and foremost is to look out for their constituents, which is why, you know, there's an instance in the past were under pressure again from those on the left, for instance a secret tradition -- take richard grecian or go after state senator nelson, senator lieberman. no surprise there is always flat out rejected it, recognizing

that the end, they vote within the majority of the time in g in the end, their democratic senators frankly elected by their constituents. i think that in the end is the reason why she's been such a success. i mean, what does it take to be a leader? a well developed patient muscle. what does it take to be a leader? you need to be a good listener. you need to talk less and listen more, which happens to read to a t. anyways. you need to be either too i think one reason why he got along with roms so well and gets along so well with the president is his bottom line. i mean, the transaction is like what do you need to do to get something done? i mean, he believes -- he

believes in the senate as an institution. he believes that compromise is not a dirty word. we set the bar high, then you try and get the best deal you can. and he believes he was the heir to legislate. >> and key token from niklas college in massachusetts. i was wondering, what is your greatest moment to stand with senator kennedy. >> there is a heck of a question. i mean, i'm on my claims to fame was the day that the photographer is cockney walking the dogs. there was his hotshot folks then. we were in the capital for a meeting and he had his beloved portuguese water dog was sent, at the end of which he was going to ask me to take his dogs back -- take it starts back -- take his dogs back to the russell building. and in those five minutes it

took, a bunch of for a handful of republican staffers saw me and they quickly called up the gossip sheets and they said i just saw jim manley walking his dogs through the halls of the capital, suppose a pretty good one. no, i'm a more serious note, it's the legislative -- it's somewhat -- i've got a wall full of legislation that he and the two, that he hoped an act, all signed by him, but i will treasure never forget it. individuals with disabilities in education and. job-training legislation, no child left behind, which you work done with now speaker john boehner.

the chance to talk to him every once in a while about his family . what was -- boy, that's a good question. one of the most -- one of the funnest time saver had with them was when taylor branch, the author taylor branch, did a multipart series on martin luther king has to come in and interview senator kennedy for the latest chapter of his book. there have been some resistance within the office. no one thought he would sit down and talk with his brother bobby, bob as he called him. but i managed to get it

scheduled. we sat down in his conference room and the first thing that taylor branch did was to take out an original letter to martin luther king for bobby kennedy had never been published before, seen before. and mr. branch asked senator kennedy if he thought this was the original letter. he looked at the signature and said the asset her signature. and i'm just sitting in the corner. and then he spent like an hour and a half telling tales about his brother, the president and bobby kennedy and their involvement with the civil rights era and with martin luther king. and it was a fascinating insight into the kennedy family. i was senator kennedy's most

public and visible person and he never let me forget it. and oftentimes did so publicly. he -- he always -- when i got too big for my britches he always thought they got size, especially in public. there's so many things. i mean, the thing with taylor branch is one of them. the legislation that helped on the communications with, watching them negotiate no child left behind but john boehner, judd gregg and george miller. the meetings for president bush in the white house. the campaigning needed for al gore and john kerry for some of the things that come to mind. >> hi, my name is andy card from yale university. ever a question regarding the communication and things you

did. yesterday was her up on capitol hill were very impressed with how point of a lot of the alleys where and how very almost practiced their responses for what they said and they didn't even bother touching on basically because they felt like they did note they were talking about and i would rather not comment because i'm not a professional. i'm wondering if you could speak a little bit on the offices you for time and how they transpacific people all the way up to your job and to anybody else. >> there was training? i didn't get no stinking training. i was hired 20 years ago in george mitchell's office for my ability to work long hours and work well together. so i didn't get no stinking training. but on a more serious note, again, recognizing that my role as the communications process will do it one other time. in kennedy's office, in senator

kennedy's office, he was smart enough to realize the only way he would give good press that the communications officer knew what was going on. so i had, going back to the previous question, i sat in on most briefings i had, but most meetings he had, where i had a chance to learn the issues. senator kennedy in particular is famous for not being afraid to look outside and asked the outside expert to come in and briefed them on labor policy, welfare reform, health care reform. you know, you can go through to foreign policy, the war in iraq. we used to meet with general solid time. and so fret not, i had a chance to study and learn the policies. in senator reid stott has come a

little bit different. it's a very quick moving operation. and i just oftentimes had to find that delicate balance between telling what i know in doing what i believe is the rate being, versus not airing our dirty laundry in public if you will. but that's still not a good answer to your question. i mean, in my particular situation, what i did was i studied my briefing book. i read the memos, i read the tones by all of the various think tanks in town. i can't staff about it and that's how i studied the issues and that's why think quite frankly managed to survive all these years because reporters understood that i can do both politics and policy. but still not a good answer to

your question, but is that at least help? >> i guess is if all up, are there certain things are encouraged not to discuss or comment as was not your position, but other positions. if you're in l.a., are you encouraged to speak on your candidates position on education or something else? >> no, more reverse order. i don't think so. again, not my area of expertise, but i don't -- i think probably the alleys are encouraged to largely stick to the issue areas. over in the house of coors i think probably staffers handle the great majority more issues than they do in the senate. but in the senate they have relatively smaller portfolio. but they're talking about huge changes in the tax code, for instance. so i can still struggling trying answer that question.

i don't know what the caution is. i mean, wow, that's it. what was your first question? i'm sorry, the first part of it. >> was there anything you are encouraged not think country and speak out? >> that's an interesting question. rule number one is never lie. if you're in a situation where you can't say something, you either dance around it or one or two q. when the out of the door. i should explain that i have an open door policy in my office so reporters could come in and where courage to come in at any particular time. so if there were one or two occasions in six years when things are really heating up and people are trying to track me down and being the courageous solo was i walked out of my office and went downstairs to the majority leader's office and

head out there and have read in its decision, knowing reporters could never track them down there. so the only thing is i live and die -- it survived by my reputation. i take it very seriously. i worked hard over the years to become versed in both politics and policy. i'm an honest -- i believe they have a reputation of an honest and straight straight shooter i never wanted to do anything to have that tarnished. i got dinged up a little bit. i mean, played in the big leagues for a long time. so you know, you can't survive without taking a few hits, but i think i managed to pull it off. thank >> the senate returns to business january 25. we will have live coverage here on c-span2. we heard from senate democrats yesterday as they criticized new

rules passed by house republicans. senator chuck schumer says the rules will greatly increase of the federal budget deficit. due to a technical problem we were unable to show you the first few minutes of this event. >> they should work with us on real bipartisan solutions than resorting to this gimmickry. one thing the voters rejected this november was the amount of red ink spent on the wrong priorities. now i want to introduce my colleague dick durbin who has done the only work on trying to get the deficit down as witnessed by his leadership on the budget, on the bowles-simpson deficit reduction. >> some of us remember it wasn't that long ago when vice president cheney handled, deficits don't count. they said what they want to pay for a war and not be held accountable for the amount it was to add to the national debt.

at the end of the eight years, the national debt of america have increased from $5 trillion, to $12 trillion on their watch. the surplus they inherited from president bill clinton turned into the worst annual deficit the nation had ever seen. when they announce deficits don't count. now the first day of the new house republican leadership we hear a similar solitude. we are learning unfortunately that the new republican leadership is replacing pay as you go with weekend as you go. the latest republican artifice is even funnier than the last. because what they're basically said to us is there are certain things that will be counted towards the deficit. well, i have said about 14 months last year on the deficit commissiocommission, bipartisan commission which include among others the new house budget chairman, paul ryan of wisconsin. a person i respect very much.

what do we learn in 10 months? we learned a number of things. we learned we have a terrible deficit that has to be addressed. we learned that addressing it to send might make this recession worse. but they we focused on something that people don't talk about a lot on capitol hill, that each year we lose $1.1 trillion from our treasury for tax expenditures. tax deductions, credits, exclusions, and earmarks. money that doesn't go into treasury because of the tax code. so what do the republican house of representatives do in the first day? they say we won't cut tax expenditures. completely ignoring what the bowles-simpson deficit commission established. that if we're going to move toward anything near balance in our budget, it includes not only spending cuts, but an honest look at tax cuts, tax exclusions, and the list of

things which they have said should not be exempt from conversation when it comes to deficit. as chuck schumer says permanent cut in the estate tax are multimillionaires. $308 billion. they don't want to count that. permanent extension of bush tax cuts to the wealthy. they don't want to count it. tax breaks on business income, another $50 billion. they don't want to count it. it all adds up. the last point want to make is this. time and again during the debate on health care reform we waited, sometimes for days, sometimes for weeks, but the congressional budget office to score the things we did. that president told us before we went into that debate, if you want health care reform, i want health care reform bill to do not add to the debt in the process. so it the cbo came back to us and said in the first 1 10 years of health care reform you will reduce the deficit by 143 billion. this morning at 9:30 a.m. the

cbo updated that figure to $145 billion to be saved in the first year on health care reform. now we have a situation where the republican stake we want to repeal health care reform and want to ignore its deficit impact. that to me is, they're living in the world of dick cheney and deficits don't count, go back into that all over again. not only would repeal of health care reform add to our deficit, it would dump more than 3 million americans from cover to would be covered by our more -- more than 59 americans will have protection health insurance. that is a personal family tragedy, even beyond our discussion of the deficit. the republicans would rather add a trillion dollars to the deficit as senator schumer said and let the debt ceiling collapse on american economy than deal with on his terms with our deficit challenge. i took some heat from wanting.

i think bowles-simpson got right. we have a problem that has to be faced honestly on a bipartisan basis. the first day of the new house of republican leadership across the gym and did not demonstrate the kind of honesty and kind of bipartisanship that we need to solve these problems. >> let me thank senator schumer and senator durbin for their leadership. again emphasize again, here they go again. some might call it voodoo economics. and it demonstrates whose side the house republicans are on and what their values and priorities are. they are willing to add over a trillion dollars to the national debt in order to protect the tax rights of millionaires and billionaires. while at the same time, adding costs to seniors that want to stay in the home, had a bright future, and security, and just want help with their medical

costs. so they're willing to double this year the cost of granting drugs to seniors have high medical costs, but at the same time they're willing to add over a trillion dollars to the national deficit to protect millionaires and billionaires. they are willing to add to the cost from families who just want to talk to the doctor would've kids get sick instead of fighting with the insurance company. they're willing to take away that freedom and security of knowing that they're going to get what they need for their children. and at the same time they are willing to raise the national deficit by over a trillion dollars. it is very clear what is going on here. this is the same old same old. it's what happened in the bush administration when republicans were in charge that got us into the deficit that we're in today. i would simply say that we would ask that they focus on jobs and

growing the economy. because that is the real way we are going to turn around this deficit. we will never get out of deficit with over 15 million americans out of work. and so rather than just protecting their friends and focusing on extreme ideology, we would ask that they join with us in putting people back to work in this country and getting us out of debt. >> i want to ask about this subject. talking about the house think overall, the house paygo rules, three weeks ago when you pass in a hundred $50 billion tax spending bill. that included extension for millionaires on the estate tax provision that could not get even 50 votes. so why are you making claims about how much money? >> the bottom line is that as you said, the first day on the

job they said the reason they came into power is to reduce the deficit. that was their claim. and they're not going along with it. we believe getting the economy going is important. we believe there are lots of different values, but our focus today is on deficit reduction which is their mantra. and, frankly, whether you increase the deficit by giving tax breaks are increase the deficit by spending more, doesn't make it the deficit goes up. and we are calling them on what they campaigned on as opposed to what they're doing on the first date. >> do you think the paygo rules has been affected? >> i think the paygo rules has been completely effective. it's been somewhat effective. but they're just blowing holes through it. [inaudible] do you mean that if the house

passed say a permanent extension to the tax-cut, or at least state tax that -- >> we are going to be much more responsible fiscally. when the public says to america reduce the deficit, we are not just going to talk about it the way they are. we are going to do it. we have begun to show that already. democrat surprising, supported the sessions, mccaskill, limits on spending. we are trying to be careful in every way. and they are not. so i'm not going to comment on any specific plan, but we are going to actually put our money where our mouth is and reduce the deficit. not just talk about and didn't think they can get away with increasing it. >> just to add to that point, just remind everyone, under the former administration when republicans were in charge of the house and senate they did away with the basic principle of pay-as-you-go.

pay for what you do. we have restored it. now, are the challenges as we go forward? yes, but we have made a commitment to restore the rule that were put in place by democrats under president clinton that got us out of deficit and into a surplus. they do a lot of talking about it, but we are actually saying that what they really believe in by what they are doing. [inaudible] >> focus has been on blood has this new republican senate going to do. we say watch what they do, not watch what they say. this is what they do. >> senator schumer, the new house rules also give congressman ryan budget caps. those caps are expected to be lower than the senate proposed spending. how would you -- >> as i said will be very serious about deficit reduction in a real way. i'm not going to get into what

the sin is going to do right now. yesterday was a great deal of fanfare. the house revealed how they were going to change things around by shrinking government and reducing the deficit. we are saying they are not. we are saying we will do better. watch us. >> senator schumer, house republicans -- [inaudible] what is a realistic number? >> again, i am not going to talk about what we are going to do, other than to say watch us. we will be responsible and what i was going to get things done. what we are talking about today, and the focus of what we are saying, is again, they say one thing and they do another. if they did what they said that deficit would go up. a trillion dollars. that's more than the stimulus,

which they complained about over the last two years. >> on another topic -- >> let's stick with this one until we are finished. >> will we see a budget? >> we are going to be fiscally responsible, and we're going to try to both reduce government spending and reduce the deficit. we are. we understand that. we are the message of the peop people. >> but to my question are you action going to present a budget? >> again, we're not going to our focus is on them. ..

>> if you are going to filibuster, you should have to talk. not one person get up and object. we're working on two paths. one, to build support for the principals that we believe in, and second to work out a compromise with republicans if we can. that would be or pressure. >> do you have a schedule over the break? >> yeah, telephonically. well, i'll be here. >> another point, you said build support for the principals. does that mean it would be okay to have an agreement without having to change the rules?

>> well, there are lots of different ways. we're going to look at every one of them. the goal is to make the senate function better. the goal is that one person can't just stop everything from happening. and at minimum, seems to me, and i my -- i think my colleagues would degree, if you want to hold the senate up because you want the right to debate, then you have to debate. not stand up and say i object. >> another topic. >> this will be the last question. >> do you think the fcc will get an increase in fy '11? >> here's the man. >> and with that, word is the republicans are trying to do a back door gutting of the budget. are you worried about that? >> i'm worried about that. we have dramatically increased the number of people working for the security exchange commission as well as the futures trading commission to make sure we have people on the beat with the

appropriate oversight and investigative authority so that the transactions on wall street and chicago and all across the united states are adequately monitored. we've seen a dramatic increase in the number of transactions covered by both of these agencies. and we tried to keep pace with that by increasing the number of personnel. now there are many republicans who did not support wall street reform. who believe that they can starve the fcc into submission by refusing to put enough people, personnel, lawyers and accountants and others monitoring the activities of the exchanges. that to me is extremely short sided. the thing that the united states has going for us in the global economy is the rule of law and transparency. we have exchanges that are more successful than others around the world because of those two factors. if the republicans starve the fcc and cftc out of the funds they need to properly oversee the activities on wall street and other exchanges, it's going

to diminish our reputation in the world. so i will fight that. but i understand i'm up against a big odds in the house of representatives. >> do you think -- what's your expectations for the fcc? >> well, let me just say if they want to go down to 2008 spending levels, look at the funding at the fcc and cftc in 2008. we have had hundreds of people after bernie madoff, after the concerns over the mushrooming growth of derivatives and activities and other exchange activity. and those would be on the chopping block. and they would be at risk if the republicans had their way. >> they will -- we're going to -- i'm going to answer this. they are going to rule the day they cut enforcement. if you talk to both people in the markets in new york and chicago, they want a strong fcc so the bad guys don't dominate the market, but the people who obey the rules and treat people fairly do. >> you keep saying watch them

and watch them and what they say and what they do. >> watch us too. >> voters when they don't have jobs or health care, they don't see us and them. they see congress. how do you reconcile? >> uh-huh. we would like to have some bipartisan agreements on how to deal with these issues. when they open up on a day like this, they don't seem to be doing much in bipartisanship. we will have concrete plans very soon on jobs, on the economy, on reducing the deficit and making america grow. and we will talk about those shortly. thanks, everybody. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the house today moving forward on repealing the health care law. the final vote is expected next wednesday.

we spoke to a reporter by phone to learn more. >> of national public radio joins us on the line who covers health care issues for npr. why is today's debate sort of just the opening saliva in the opening effort to repeal the health care law? >> caller: the republicans know though this bill is more than likely to pass, it's not going anywhere in the senate. senate majority leader harry reid said when it gets to the senate, it's going to be buried. what the republicans will then do as we heard the rules committee chairman they are going to go out to the committees and committees are going to try other ways to slow down, stop, impede, cause mischief to this health care law. so there will be other efforts to do things to the law rather than get it repealed. because they know they can't do that in the senate and even if for some reason they could get

it through the senate, it would be vetoed by president obama and they don't have the votes to override the veto. if they are going to stop the law, they are going to have to find other ways than the full scale repeal. >> the other half is replace. what do republicans propose to replace the current health care law with? > caller: this is a return to the past. we've seen a lot of these things. of course, what we've seen this morning is doing something about medical malpractice lawsuit. republican-led housing have been passing since they took over in 1995, and has never gotten through the senate. this is a bill that's never had a chance to get vetoed by a president, even a republican president or would have been signed by a republican president, but it's never gotten through the senate. things like association health plans which would let associations sponsor health plans and then members of those

associations could sign up for those plans. they've been -- there have been such plans before and they've had a lot of trouble with fraud and abuse. so there's a lot of concern about those possibilities. another idea is allowing health plan to be sold across state lines. again, there's been a lot of concern from insurance commissioners and consumer advocates and even governors about the possibility that that might be difficult to regulate. so again, these are not new ideas. these are things that have passed the house before, but have never passed the senate. i would remark have never passed the senate, even when the senate is controlled by republicans. a lot of these ideas are ideas that are not new but they have not got -- or have gotten beyond the republican-controlled house, but never gotten out of the senate. >> lastly, what's the real story with the congressional budget office prediction that the

repeal could cost over ten years $230 billion. is the republican party just dismissing or does their math adds up differently? >> caller: their math adds up differently. the congressional budget office, you may not believe them, they are the official place of what things cost. they said this law as it passed would pay for itself and would reduce the deficit. a major reason for that there are a lot of taxes in it. that's one the things that the republicans hate, it does include taxes primarily on health care providers. and the health care providers don't like those taxes. when you raise taxes, you reduce the deficit. you were to take away the law, you would take away the taxes, and the deficit would then go back up. so that's -- you can't really have it both ways. there's a lot of things that you

can't -- that it's very difficult to estimate about this law, about how well it will work, whether some of the things that the law proposes to do about trying to slow down the growth of health care spending, whether that will work or not. you know, a lot of those things republicans support too. a lot of these ideas were in john mccain's health plan when he was running for president have been proposed by the republican administrations. they go back a long ways. nobody really knows how to slow health care spending. so they -- those things may or may not work. but the way that that -- the pry way the bill was going to be paid for is through the taxes and reductions to payments to providers under medicare. if you make those things go away, you will increase the deficit, that's just arithmetic. >> julie from npr. you can hear her on npr.org. thanks for the jump date. >> -- update.

>> caller: sure. >> tune in live on the companion network c-span for the debate. democrats have no plans to take up the repeal. the senate returns to work on january 25th. we'll have live coverage here on c-span2. >> this weekend on booktv from monsoon, thomas daly, and on "afterwards" eduardo says there's a price on every decision a person makes. most don't realize how it's a motivating factor in shaping their lives. find the complete schedule and sign up to get our schedules e-mailed to your end box. with our booktv alert. >> i think news organization have adapted. is it great that we are not --

that overall they aren't doing as much for news and more domestic news? the public bears some responsibility here too. the public bears responsibility of keeping themselves informed. >> sunday abc news senior foreign affairs correspondent martha raddatz on afghanistan on a strategic, political, and personal level on c-span's q & a. >> host: carl davenport is energy respondent. thanks for being here. >> guest: thanks for having me. >> host: the epa rolled out new rules on climate change. tell us about what they have presented. >> guest: well, this is basically the administration's first foray into regulating the industrial greenhouse gases that cause global warming. as you'll recall, there was an effort by the democrats in congress last year to pass a broad climate change law.

some kind of legislation which failed. so this is the administration moving ahead, using the epa, using the executive authority of the e. -- of the epa to start regulating those industrial pollutants with or without action from congress. >> host: and you report in "national journal" the incoming chairman of several high profile house committees including energy and commerce of fred upton -- >> guest: yes, this -- this set of regulations is almost tailor made for the incoming republican house majority.

it's a new set of regulations on industry, it's, you know, it's coming from the executive branch. it's very environmental, and so it's an environmental regulation and so this is definitely -- the incoming republican majority in the house has made very clear this is going to be a long with health care one of their absolute top targets as they look at pieces of the administration agenda to attack. it is going to be a very -- it's going to be sort of blown up into this very political, symbolic kind of fight. you know, several leading members of the new house majority and these new chairman have made clear it's a top priority. we can expect to see that narrative unfold starting pretty quickly. >> host: what do the new rules mean? i have a story from npr

elizabeth, and jeff who headed the epa under president bush says it will increase energy cost and halt construction. that's because there's no clear rule book. officials will evaluate each project to see what technologies could cut the pollution. >> guest: well, what's interesting about the rules, they are not completely clear. if you look at the kind of political summer that is unholding around them. thenal look at what companies and what industry have to do, they don't really match up. the big sort of political fight doesn't really match up with the practical changes that are going to have to be made. in the first year, not that much actually has to happen. these rules first apply only to the very largest polluters. only industrial emitters that emit more than 75,000 tons of co2 per year, which is just --

it's about 15,000 entities. so it's really big power plants, really big oil refineries. but in the first year, the only entities that will have to do anything different are new -- if you are building a new power plant or new oil refinery. existing polluters won't have to do anything in the first year. what you'll have to do, if you are a company plans to big a very large oil refinery or coal fire power plant, you'll have to go to jr. state environmental agency and get a roster of pollution permits for various other pollutants. that's standard. now there's a new pollutant permit for greenhouse gas emissions. in order to get that allowance and permit, you basically have to show that you will use the best available technology to reduce your emissions. so that's -- it's not all that hard. there's no cap.

>> host: no set numbers. >> guest: no set numbers. but it's not necessarily clear what those best available technologies will be. so state agency, state environmental agencies are trying to figure out what that will be. in the early years, the epa has indicated really that might mean just operating with the best energy efficient technology, which a lot of companies are already interested in doing to save money anyway. so it's not -- it's not -- in the first year or so, you know, it doesn't -- if you look at what companies actually have to do, it's not a whole lot. although that will scale up as the years go on. >> guest: we are talking about the political battle were versus what companies and corporations will be facing. >> guest: right, the political battle is symbolic. executive branch stepping in. it is absolutely a big new regulation on industry. and, you know, it's something that lends itself well to a big political fight. but the practical changes, i've talked to a lot of the state

environmental agencies about this. we don't see this as being a huge deal. we feel ready to go. you know, it's not going to be -- for the first couple of years, it's not going to be a huge channel. >> host: coral davenport about the epa new rules. and if you are an independent caller 202-628-0205. the rules we are talking about stationary sources. not cars, not moving vehicles, power plants. potentially critics have said hospitals other big facilities aren't generating power, not as a primary responsibility, but they leave a large footprint. >> guest: this is a big talking point. the initial way these rules would be interpreted, once the epa became required to regulate greenhouse gases, it put the --

it put the government in awkward positions. because greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide are ubiquitous without the economy. anywhere energy is used, you are going to have emissions. houses, schools, cars anything that runs the heat. that would be in the epa in the position of potentially have to regulate 6 million polluting entities, including all of the small businesses. the epa itself, the federal government realized that was nightmare. it didn't want to have to do that. most of those small sources are not major contributors to pollution. so it issued a rule known as the tailoring rule where it scaled back and it applied -- it applied the new rule that said it -- the regulations will only apply to stationary sources that

emit more than 75,000 sons of co2 a year. so it tailored that back down to those big, huge major source that is are really the biggest source of pollution. so, you know, you do see these attacks saying oh these rules would mean we'll see these regulations all throughout the economy and these small sources. the way the rules are written right now, that's not so. >> host: so the new epa rules apply to stationary industrial sources such as coal fire plant that -- >> host: just capsulating what our guest has reported. the supreme court, 2007 ruling found that the epa has to regulate greenhouse gases. this was thrown into the administration lap. >> guest: yes. what happens is there was a 2007 supreme court ruling in massachusetts versus epa.

and the supreme court determined that the epa had to make a decision as to whether greenhouse gas are a pollutant that endangerrered human health. anything that's defined as a pollutant that dangers human health the epa has to regulate. the bush administration, the epa did not act on it. when the obama administration came in, they took up that decision. in 2009, they made the finding. they said scientificically, we determine that co2 and greenhouse gases are a pollutant that endanger health. as a result of that finding, the epa is actually legally required it must under the law regulate these greenhouse gases. the hope of the administration was that congress would act before the epa was obliged to do

the regulations. since that didn't happen, -- and this is one the political arguments too. this is not necessarily the administration wielding executive authority out of it's pocket. there's a set of legal requirements that make it that if it doesn't do these regulations, it's in violation of the law. >> host: let's hear from our callers. kenneth, democratic line in virginia beach, virginia. good morning. >> caller: good morning. happy new year. >> host: do you as well. you are on with coral davenport. >> caller: yes, ma'am. again, this is an example of the republican administration of george bush selectively enforcing the laws and the statutes of the united states. as they desired. i don't think they had any intention of following what congress had historically set the epa up for. and that is to protect the

citizens and the environment of this country. they just chose to ignore it, and they did a fine job of ignoring many laws in this country without any -- any consideration of the effects that they would have. >> well, you know, it's interesting. when you talk to folks -- to people who have been working within the administration within the context of epa and environmental law for many years, they say that -- there's sort of a traditional pace of environmental regulations that you see year in year out, particularly these clean air act regulations in the 40 years since that law has existed. they say basically throughout the bush administration that pace slowed in some cases almost to a stand still. the sort of steady rate of environmental review, new environmental laws, enforcements

of regulations, kind of really, really came to a, you know, slow down and so with the advent of the obama administration, you know, the way some folks see it, you see the flood gate unleashed. and defenders of the obama administration say they are essentially picking up and making up for that slow down that we saw for eight years. and it's certainly true there are many environmental regulations being rolled out kind of all at the same time. not just these greenhouse gas rules. industry is not very happy about that. but within the administration, you have people saying no one had been doing this for the last eight years. we are kind of catching up on all of the rules on the pace. it's true that there are -- this does present a challenge for industry too. they are dealing with a lot of new regulations at once. >> host: let's here from tobias, independent caller in georgia. how are you doing? >> caller: hey. how are you doing? we had a bunch of volatile

atmosphere in washington, d.c., and, you know, okay, one minute the republican, then the democrats and republicans, my question is, okay, obama wants to allow this to happen and allow the epa to finally let some of these regulations come out. you know, start taking care of the environment which is important, you know, to the whole world. what will happen if they, you know, come on 2012 we get a republican president, can all of this stuff that you got in law what he's passing as an executive order be pulled back? seems like they are going to try to do everything to pull back all of the stuff that he's doing to hold it back. >> guest: definitely the epa regulations could be vulnerable to legislative attack. and we'll see that before 2012. we'll expect to see that in the republican-dominated house there will almost certainly, the house will almost certainly enact

legislation to veto or roll back the regulations. it's possible the senate may follow. there are a number of moderate democrats in coal and oil states that are uncomfortable with these regulations. right now we count that there could be maybe as many as 59 votes in the senate already to at least delay the regulations. the obama administration has indicated that if congress passeseses -- does vote in both chambers to do the regulations, that it would veto them. that would put the president in a very politically position vetoing legislation that had passed through congress with bipartisan support. certainly in 2012 we had a republican administration, republican congress, these would be top on the list. these would be very vulnerable, very open -- it would be a big political target. we should be looking at republican attacks on these

rules for a while. >> host: ed in georgia. republican caller. good morning. >> caller: good morning. yeah, what i'm always concerned about, they are talking about trying to stop global warming. 90% of the people i think of the united states without very seriously if there's global warming. there might be global change, but we've experienced that. i'm in my 60s. i've seen quite a bit of global change in my life. what i'm more concerned about is that we have 350 million people in this country. and by 2050, we're going to have 650 million people in this country. i can hardly breathe with all of the people that we have now. is that our goal in the united states to fill up the country with people? >> guest: i can't imagine that it is a -- a political goal of anyone to contribute to mass overpopulation. you know, to the caller's first

point about the science of climate change, certainly polling of the public has shown that -- i think last year a poll done last year showed that 70% of the american public believed that climate change was an important problem -- was a legitimate scientific problem. i think that went down to just a little over 60% by this fall. but it's interesting he said the number 90%. within the scientific community, the intergovernmental panel on climate change which is an international body on scientists, the science is very clear, you know, again, the majority of peer-reviewed scientist within the science community show there's greater than 90% certainty that the fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions produced through combustion, produced through energy combustion do contribute

to a broader global warming. it was the science that the epa used in making it's endangerment finding. but it is -- it's interesting to see that we do see a change in u.s. public opinion. that doesn't really correspondent with what we see in the science. >> host: we see from "the new york times" the six gases, carbon dioxide and methane are included. now a caller. >> caller: yes, ma'am. i was calling about these birds. these birds are all over the united states. and it's a very serious thing. why haven't they really got up there and trying to investigate and find out what's going on with them? and another thing, obama is very entailed of the president. and republicans goes against him on everything that he gets up. i thought it was against the law to fight the law. i thought we were told to keep

the law of the land. instead of trying to fight against a law that's already passed. >> host: well, it's interesting, the caller talked about, you know, the movements in congress to undo existing law and, of course, that's going to be a big theme that we're going to see in the coming months right away next week. we will see a move to try to undo the health care law after that undo the federal regulations. but it's certainly the prerogative of his elected officials, of our legislative body to dismanned -- dismantle a law they think is not appropriate. it's a difficult process to do legislatively, legally, politically. we will definitely be seeing the fights and effort to undo existing law. i don't know if anyone in congress will be addressing the birds. the sudden death of the birds in arkansas. i know it was a topic of conversation yesterday in the first day on the hill. i heard a lot of people talking about that.

>> host: let's go to brian, republican in arizona. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i do not believe that the environment is a threat to america. i do believe that the epa is a threat to america. i think that epa had a purpose in 1970 when it was begun. in 1970-- when it was begun. and when it was begun, there was smart and it was tangible and you could see it and smell it. and they finally got rid of it. i think it is now just a bunch of people that i do not want to see. guest: the caller raises a point about the nature of pollution and the political will to go after it. one of the great difficulties that the administration has had in trying to create political

will to address the issues of global warming and greenhouse gases is that online small, you cannot see it. you cannot smell it. it does not really affect your day- >> you know when you have smog you can immediately see and smell and experience these public health problems whereas, you know, the broader greenhouse gas issue, we may not experience the tangible effect of that for another 50 to 100 years. it's very difficult, i think, for a lot of people to wrap their heads around what this pollutant is and what it does and why there is effort to control or regulate this particular kind of pollutant. it doesn't lend itself well to regulation and to, you know, political understanding. >> host: comment on twitter. address how the coalition for responsible regulation and powerful groups like the refiners association shackle the

epa. we are getting an opinion there, but what is the relationship between some of the big business lobbying groups, and what's happening in capitol hill? >> guest: well, most of the major industrial lobbying groups are fighting against these new regulations tooth and nail. they are taking two tracks. on one hand, they are communicating very clearly, not just to the republican allies, but especially to their democratic allies who they hope line up with republicans saying, you know, these regulations hurt us, they are an energy tax, and you hear those, you hear that concern reflected. you hear those concerns and talking points from the republicans who are working against this. you also seep the major -- you also see the major industry groups are suing the epa, suing the government. this is probably one of the most complex, biggest and most

complex cases in environmental law that we may ever see. certainly, it will be a landmark environmental law case. we'll see that in the dc circuit court of appeals this year, a battle between the government and environmental groups and several states also fighting the epa regulations, so they are investing in fighting these regulations sort of on every front possible. >> host: let's talk about the states. 17 states are suing over the new rules, but all of them are going along to start the implementation process other than texas. you reported in "national journal" this is setting up a big battle between governor rick perry and perhaps a moment of state rights and what's happening on the state's front. >> guest: yeah, governor seems to almost be relishing in this fight which may tie in nicely

with presidential presidential bid ambitions, so, yeah, 17 states are fighting the regulations not wanting to go along with them, but 16 of them at the same time are saying until these lawsuits are settled, we're going to go along, work with the epa, try to comply so that if the lawsuits are settled in the name of the government, the states will already, you know, have their regulations in place. those states are walking the line going both ways. texas has absolutely refused to comply, and we're looking at a situation where the epa will probably end up stepping in and taking control of part of the environmental protection agency and running that greenhouse gas permit program within the state and the state of texas and rick perry are throwing this case

down as don't mess with texas. the federal government is taking over, you know, all the texas response to this new regulation has been very public. you know, even if you read the letters back and forth between the texas environmental agency and the epa, usually they are very bureaucratic type letters, but these are full of language that, you know, chastised and slammed the federal government for this takeover. they are kind of fun reading, actually. this is, you know, the obama versus texas is definitely going to be a theme, a dynamic that will play out, so that will be an interesting fight to watch. >> host: james on twitter is writing about this very topic. he puts in these terms, epa retaliation of taking over texas' right to permit their own plants there. what would that look like or mean for the epa to take over

that role? >> guest: well, you know, once again this is a situation where the political optics of this are probably a lot more dramatic than the reality. what this means is, you know, once again, what companies and factories have to do if you are an oil company in texas and you're building a new -- only this year, a new refinery, you need to get some kind of permit to emit co2. if you don't, you can be sued, so you'll get your permit from the epa instead of from the texas state environmental agency, so you'll write up a plan saying i'm going to build this refinery. this is how i'm going to use technology, energy efficient technology to keep my emissions to a minimum. the epa will look at it and give you a permit to pollute, and this will probably amount in 2011 to, you know, maybe a dozen

new entities, maybe more. texas is obviously a heavy oil state, so it's the epa doing what the state agency would typically do, but no one is going in -- i don't think we'll see a situation with federal agents going in and strong arming the state bureaucracy, and so, you know, the companies get their permits, they'll build. i don't know how much of a fire storm there will be in the prosays of what actually happens. >> host: new york, new york, anita on the independence line. hi. >> caller: thanks for taking my call. i'd like to make a few brief points and a question, and then i'll let her respond. first of all, how is it that we could feel that either the obama administration or the epa when for our right to travel we're being told that we need to

experience iodining redduation and a rape down of our dignity. carbon die dioxide is what the plants and trees are. it's a cycle. it went from global warming to climate change because the last 8 years the air is cooling. the sun has to be factored in. >> host: is this an infinkment of rights? >> caller: well, i see it as poor science. one example is the east e-mails that the mainstream media didn't cover -- >> guest: there was plenty of coverage of that over the past year making a media sensation. >> host: the question was about kind of an infringement on -- we've lost her, but the idea of science being overblown leading to the regulations.

>> guest: again i would point to consistent peer reviewed science. well, the e-mails have been reviewed by several different international acclaimed scientific bodies and scientists who wrote them have been acquitted. they've been charged sort of with bad behavior and bad manners, but nothing in those e-mails undercut the foundation of decades of climate science, and certainly the records show the last decade has been the hottest on record, and i'm certainly not a scientist, but i report closely on, you know, what these scientific reports find, but, you know, anita's point about something else i'll note that within the climate science and environmental community, there is great concern that the message about climb science has really gotten lost, and that that is also kind

of public opinion about climate science is furthering inflaming this debate, and so there will be an effort within the environmental and climate science communities to do a reeducation on climate science basics. i think we saw a lot of climate science community assuming science was settled, and they didn't have to sell that to the public anymore. we'll see them coming back and trying to bring that message back and sort of put that data out there in order to tamp down that piece of the debate. >> host: charles from arkansas, a republican calmer. good morning. c-span: good morning. i have three quick points and means i'm paying for c-span, i'd like to get the points across. >> host: you don't pay for

cr. >> host: -- on the phone: climate change will cost us money. >> host: what are your comments? >> caller: the epa forced the state to have the local people send me a note in my water bill that something changed 5%. the epa doesn't drink our water, the local people take care of it. they drink it. i have all -- i'll take care of what we have here. i believe what they do is very important. i don't need the epa, and by the way, young lady, you learned your talking points pretty well. what are you going to do about china and russia? china opens a coal plant once a week, and that's pollution according to you. >> guest: well, the caller makes an interesting point about

china and russia. certainly china has become the number one polluter in the country and is driving its economy forward by indeed a huge up vestment in new coal fired plants, and one of the elements that's very difficult for the administration, one of the reasons why these regulations are so difficult politically is the international negotiations, the sort of international facts on the ground much you know, the united nations has been trying unsuccessfully for a number of years to come up with a new global climate pact in which the nation's -- world's biggest economy commit to cutting carbon emissions, and it's very difficult politically within the last two commit to policy or law that would cut back the u.s. climate emissions

and potentially constrain some elements of the economy when china is unwilling to sign on to such a pact when china says we have a growing economy, we cannot commit to anything. we need energy to do that. certainly true that china is growing in emissions, in its economy, and unwilling to commit to the kinds of cuts the administration is trying to enagent here, and it's a very difficult political problem, and you know, many people here and on capitol hill and throughout the country are increasingly uncomfortable with the dynamic with china and the process of cutting carbon emissions, limiting industry as china is not limited to such cuts adds very much to the political debate. >> host: democratic caller, judy from texas. good morning. >> caller: you covered the points i was going to tell you about texas, but you covered

everything, so as a texan -- i'm so nervous. i'm sorry. >> host: that's okay, take your time. >> caller: i just get scared of mics. 0 of us here -- 40 of -- 40% of us are democrats and never will have the majority, but i don't want the united states to think we're all republicans. what will rick perry do for money? >> guest: there are politicians who will be sort of on the end of the microscope here as these potentially discussed in congress looking for this two year delay. who are some of the members of congress who might get stuck, democrats who might get stuck in the push-pull here from coal states or other states?

>> guest: certainly democrats from industrial states, michigan, again, coal states, senator rockefeller, his house counterpart, congressman rayhal, a state like west virginia that is so dependent on coal, it's really difficult for those lawmakers to feel comfortable signing on to a policy that absolutely will change the future of use of coal as a generating source. if you represent could miners, it's very plightly difficult. -- politically difficult. you know, just a number of moderate, bob casey from pennsylvania, nelson from nebraska, in some ways, these

are the moderates who, it just puts them in a difficult position with their constituents to be seen supporting something that is so -- that is, you know, that the talking point against it is it potentially harms industry or coal or oil, so, you know, there's a group in the senate, i think of about 10 or 11 democrats who are going to be in a tricky position on this. >> host: ron in new york state, republican caller. hi there. >> caller: hi. i just want to explain to this little lady that the epa is what is putting our country out of business here. it takes 20-30 years to get a permit to build a plant. the best thing in the world that boehner could do right now is starve you people and the epa right out of business because the way that if they did that, they would see this country come

back to life. i -- >> host: we'll leave it there, ron. she's a reporter and not a spokesperson for epa. >> guest: thank you for clarifying that. i'm not a spokesperson for the government or epa. they raise a point that the epa is aware of and in the administration they are aware these regulations makes them open to attacks they will be regular lating or hurting industry. that's why he's regulations are coming in gradually. in the first year with these new requirements, it's only new or expanding entities that have to get these permits, and then the way the rest of the industry will be phased in is industry if you're a are manufacturer or

power plant, you have a five year pollution permit. when existing polluters have to renew their permits, that's how they are phased into the program. if you welcome at what it'll actually do, it's not clear it will reduce emissions all that much because there's no cap or limit, they are just saying, figure out some way to reduce your emissions in a cost effective manner. you know, environmentalists say these new regulations aren't really very strong environmentally. they don't, you know, the epa is really trying as hard as it can and the administration is trying as hard as it can especially with the 2012 campaigns are already on us to kind of steer away from the idea that they are hurting industry because that talking point is out there definitely. >> host: a call from tennessee, james on our democrat's line. hi there. >> caller: yes, i got a comment

more than a question. we just got one earth. we better take care of it. understand our media is corporate owned and we are influenced, manipulated, and educated by the media. that's a big issue on our environment and what we got going on here. >> guest: well, some immediate wra is -- media is corporate owned. my employer is atlantic media which is privately owned. at the end of the day, i would probably support the caller's position that there's one planet, so i think the -- i thank the caller for his remarks. >> host: a twitter remark from joe. where does the congress authorize epa to regulate all commerce, not just interstate commerce. any comments on that?

>> guest: that's where i would look too. >> host: thank you for being with us. correspondent for "national journal". you can read her stories at national journal.com. >> congressman emanuel heads the --

>> as the 112th congress gaveled in this week, the congressional black caucus held a ceremony swearing congress for its 12 members. house minority leader nancy pelosi also spoke. >> as we recognize the members, we must know 2011 marks the 40th anniversary of this caucus. the cbc board in 1969 when newly elected representatives of the

77th congress joined six incumbents to form what was then a democratic select committee. in february of 1971 with the motion of charles b rangel, that committee was renamed the national black caucus with several founding members. they were william l. clay, senior of missouri, gorge collins of illinois, jon conyers of michigan, agustoc hawkens of california, robert nix senior of pennsylvania, lose of ohio, and delegate from washington. the caucus received its first national recognition when its members met with richard nixon in 1971 and presented the president with a list of 60

recommendations for governmental action on domestic and foreign issues. the president's response was considered inadequate by the caucus, and it further strengthened their efforts to work together in congress. today, the cbc is 43 members strong and represents 22 states including the district of columbia and the virgin islands, a far cry from humble beginnings in championing difficult politically veers causes that affect african-americans and others throughout the country, and the cbc counts among its recent accomplishments, the signing of black settlement for black formers creating the recovery act and the inclusion of focused efforts on minority health in 2009's land mark health reform bill. at this time it is my pleasure to introduce today's guest of honor. they are introduced by leadership position, and then in

order by seniority. for the sake of time, hold your applause until the end, and we would like to take this opportunity to remind you that your cell phones are off or on vibrate, preferably off, but we'll settle on vibrate. please join me in welcoming the black caucus including donald m. payne. [applause] representative barbara lee, outgoing chairperson. representative emanuel cleaver ii. now in seniority order, representative john conyers, j.r. from michigan. representative charles b. rangel, 15th district, new york, founding member of the cbc.

representative towns, 10th district, new york. representative john louis, 5th district, georgia. representative eleanor hems norton, delegate of district of columbia. senior waters, 25th district of california. representative stanford bishop, j.r., second district, georgia. representative james e. klineberg, assistant democratic leader, representative al c. hastings, 23rd district, florida. representative eddy berniece johnson, 3rd district johnson. representative bobby rush, 3rd district, illinois. representative robert c. scot, third district of virginia.

representative melvin e. watt of north carolina. representative vineny e. thompson, mississippi. representative shaka, 2nddistrict of pennsylvania. representative jesse jackson, j.r. representative of illinois. representative donna christianson, delegate virgin islands first black chair of the national caucus. davis, 7th district illinois. representative gregory meeks,. representative clay, first district, missouri. representative davis scott, 13th

district georgia. representative gk butterfield, j.r., representative north carolina second vice chair congressional black caucus. representative al greene, 9th district texas. representative gwen moore, 5th district of wisconsin. representative evette clark. representative keith, 5th district minnesota. representative hank johnson 4th district georgia. representative law rayhal, california. representative johnson with congressional black caucus. representative donna edwards, 4th district maryland. representative marsha fudge, representative ohio.

karen bass, representative california. representative happenson clark, distribute michigan. representative henry, alabama. representative richman second district of louisiana. representative allen west, 22nd district, florida. representative frederick wilson, 7th district florida. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in congratulating the congressional black caucus of the 112th black congress. ♪ [applause] ♪ [applause] ♪ [applause]

♪ [applause] ♪ [applause] >> thank you. it is now my pleasure to introduce the reverend dr. myron mccoy president of the school of theology delivering the e vocation of the event. he became the 4th president of the st. paul school of theology in missouri. please join me in welcoming dr. myron mccoy. [applause] >> i invite us all to be in an attitude of prayer. oh, god, who walked with us from sun up to sun down and days past, we thank you for rich legacy of heros who stood in the gap with freedom and justice on their minds. they stood in the midst of all manner of legitimize and organized oppression and

opposition. they reminded folks who didn't want to believe or accept that we, too, are american. we thank you for them and allowing us to stand on their shoulders and to build on their efforts. how grateful we are for allowing us to see this new day even with its grossly changed terrain from two years ago and the mistaken feelings of some that they have lost their country. we are mindful that the struggle continues, and that there are still many miles to go before we speak and that we have to learn to live together as dr. king suggested or perished together. we thank you, oh, lord, that you promise never to abandon us or leave us alone. we thank you, our god, for all the returning members of the cbc

and the successes that they were able to achieve in the last congress and in days past, and the many noble causes they have championed over time. we thank you for the nine new members added to the ranks as members of the congressional black caucus. we remember all the members as they ceremony take vows to support a constitution of these united states against all their enemies, foreign and domestic. help them, lord, with their vows and help them with all their enemyies. lead each of these public servants in such a way that they serve the public well. give them political acue men in all manner of situations to persuade their colleagues who may be blind to the casualties

of existing laws and newly promised legislation. these are black caucus members in doing justice and dmn straiting love and kindness and walking humbly with you our god. e-mails bold in them to find conditions to be housed, sent to school and offered a sense of safety and security with dignity . we pray especially this day for your servant, preacher, prophet, priest, and public servant, emanuel cleaver to serve in the collection of these leaders. give to him and all the members strong support from staff members, families, and friends. give to our brother energy, wisdom, and paishz and

harvesting the awesome privilege, potential power and possibility this caucus possesses to serve the public good and ultimately you, our god. this is our prayer. so be it. >> just a few housekeeping notes before we continue here. one, i want to quickly recognize mr. michael and joshua, both from the white house. if you would please stand and be recognized this morning. [applause] thank you. also, i want to personally apologize to representative karen bass, 33rd california. where are you? i introduced her and demoted her. i did not call her representative. i read what was written. i'm not real bright, but representative karen bass and

congratulations and thank you for joining us this morning. also, i want to know there's a number of empty seat because they are in route joining us shortly. that being said, our next speaker was elected new jersey's first african-american congressman by an overwhelming majority winning by a wide margin in each subsequent election as well serving 12th term, congressional donald payne served the state of new jersey and local black community as realm and served as chairman. national black caucus in 1995 and currently serves and chairman of the black caucus foundation distributing millions of dollars in education and community programs across this country. he is a senior member of the house commote on education and -- committee and labor and the committee on foreign affairs as well. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome chairman of the national black caucus foundation,

congressman donald payne. >> thank you very much, brother melvin, and let me welcome you all here this morning to this wonderful occasion of the swearing in for the national black caucus for the 112th congress. it is always a pleasure to be here and to see the colleagues and our staff to the friends and families and guests of the congressional black caucus. certainly honored to serve as chair in the national black caucus foundation, and before i go further, let me acknowledge the fact without a strong board and support, no organization can function, and i know practically all of us here are involved in some organization or group, and you know that it takes a whole lot of folks. almost takes a village to keep an organization going, and it's the same thing with the

congressional black caucus foundation, so i would like at this time to acknowledge the members of the congressional black caucus foundation and the corporate advisory counsel which is an advisory group to the national black caucus. those members that are present, why don't you stand? [applause] look at that. terrific. [applause] thank you. thank you very much. and also, it would be impossible without having a cracker jack staff led by dr. lc scot and all the staff persons on the national black cause cues foundation. we remain committed on changing the landscape on capitol hill by creating a diverse pool of candidates and employees to our signature internship and fellowship programs. that's really what we're all about primarily.

since 2004, we have distributed more than $24 million in educational programs, scholarships, and community-based programs. $24 million throughout the united states of america. today, we have a major research and development arm focusing on health care for blacks throughout our black health empowerment program, and the recently released health care guide to help us navigate the new health care reform. it tells the truth about the reform. we have our home ownership and financial leadership workshops, and many more extraordinary national and international initiatives to improve the black experience in america and globally. today's program provides an excellent forum. to briefly talk about the critical bridge that connects the national black caucus foundation to the correct me if i'm congressional black cause

cues and why our work is vital to improving our quality of life here in america. i want to thank cbc chair barbara lee as chair in the 11th congress, representative lee has done an outstanding job carrying the torch for the congress in black america. thank you so much, barbara. [applause] as our leader, she was a powerful voice who stood on principle and purpose, never backing down or away from the challenges before us especially during these horrific economic times. once again, thank you congresswoman lee. this year, we are celebrating the 40th anniversary of the national black caucus. before the caucus was started, there were few blacked in elected or appointed positions in capitol hill. you could walk through the halls of congress and think, where's the black people?

where's the diversity? well, the fact is there were few blacks in office, and even fewer black staffers. it was the absence of blacks on capitol hill that led our ease steamed founders, some of whom are still with us today as you already heard including congressman charlie rangel and john conyers and the lay congresswoman who had visions and led our founding fathers of the congressional black caucus. we are forever grateful for them for their vision and for their courage and for their action. what some of you may not know is the educational length between the caucus and the foundation. the caucus has made it possible for more than 1,000 young people from cruise the nation to serve as interns and fellows in congress. i stress the foundations

collaborations because i caution you not to underestimate the critical lengths between hands on experience, networks opportunities, career development, and a potential for elective office for our interns and fellows. the old cliche, they are our future and that holds true today as it did in the past. it is essential that we continue the development of leaders to further the policy and legislative work of the caucus, to continue the philanthropic research work of the foundation, and to continue to build upon a strong legacy of our founders. i do not embrace the program. if we do not embrace the programs to prepare the future leaders to lead washington, then we have failed our founders, ourselves, and our young people and compromise the future of many young african-americans

here in the country. today swearing in allows for a ceremony yal passing of the pa ton to represent emanuel cleaver and the new relationship of the national black caucus. congratulations to you all, and it also serves as the validation of the mission to create future leaders. as a result of both strong congressional support and to our fellow leadership programs, we have now a foundation alumni working in congressional and committee offices and throughout the federal agencies in washington, d.c.. we are actually changing the landscape here on capitol hill. those in the pharmaceutical industry often refer to making of future block busterring drugs as the pipeline for struggling black and la tee knows without -- latinos out of school and without a job. it is referred to as a pipeline

of prison. the cbc fellows and our fin program and internship program are the pipeline to career opportunities and potentially greater leadership roles in both public and private sectors of this great country. we are here to make a positive difference in our community. we will cause friction. we will take a stand. we will continue to argue for what is right. that is what we were elected to do. we have a voice and a choice to prepare young people for a pipeline to know where or for a pipeline to promise and prosperity. in addition to reaching back for young people, we must accomplish another part of what davis referred to as it's not the man, it's the plan. when he spoke at the first caucus dinner 40 years ago he said that america is at a cross roads and a plan was needed to

mover forward. together as black people our plan must include empowering people to be civically engaged. civic engagement must be embraced, encouraged, and accomplished to succeed as a people, not only here on capitol hill, but in the halls of congress and every state and every hallway throughout the nation. i don't have to tell you there was a political tsunami on november 2. we all know about it resulting in one of the most dramatic changes in the political landscape in our nation's history. the midterm elections remind us of the dairming of relying solely on periodic elections such as the primary presidential elections to advance our agenda for change. it is imperative we vote and become civic economy engaged, and we must do it now and not

once every four years, but have that has a a continuing program within our communities. [applause] in closing i want to again congratulate the new leadership and my colleague congressman emanuel cleaver who is the right leader at this time. the challenges that lie before congress will be difficult as we try to maintain the progress we have made in the programs that our communities so badly need. his training and his experience will bode well in this new congress. i am confident he will continue to carry the torch of our founders as we together continue our commitment to be the voice of the voiceless and the congress. we will later be joined by the minority leader pelosi.

we invited speaker boehner, but there's a number of programs going on, and he personally apologized for not being able to be here, but he knows about this and he wishes us well. at this time, i would like to introduce the next musical selection by mr. ed jones. as you know, she's a performing arts scholar to sing america the beautiful. thank you very much. [applause] ♪ ♪ oh beautiful for spacious skies ♪ ♪ amber waves of grain ♪ for purple mountain majesty

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ [applause] [applause] >> the swearing in of congressional members is a time honored tradition that signifies the start of a new congress to administer the oath of office is the honorable jake, chief district judge of missouri. he has served on the state trial bench for the 16th judicial

court and appointed to the court of appealings serving for 5 years. in 1991 he was appointed by george bush to be a western court judge becoming chief judge in 2007. ladies and gentlemen, the honorable fernando jay ga rrk ton, j.r.. [applause] >> i'll ask you would stand and raise your right hand and repeat after me. i, and state your name, do solemnly swear or affirm, that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic, that i

will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that i will take this obligation freely and without mental reservation or purpose of evasion, that i will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which i'm about to enter so help me god. congratulations. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen of congressional black caucus of the 112th congress. [applause] [applause]

[applause] >> entering her 7th term serving california's 9th congressional distribute, congresswoman lee's hard work and thoughtful style earned her the respect of her peers and lots of voters as well. first elected in 1998, a lawmaker established a reputation for principled and independent stance taking on the tough issues and giving voice to the voiceless working to establish a more secure and just america for all people. she has faithfully served at the chairwoman of the national black caucus for the past two years in a very active period in which cbc members enjoyeded unprecedented power if congress. during her tenure, she introduced the landmark opportunities for all pathways out of poverty, shared an agenda to create jobs and accelerate

economic growth especially in communities of color. in her district they are known to say barbara lee speaks for me, and it's true. barbara lee remains a powerful voice for a whole lot of folk. ladies and gentlemen, i'm pleased to present to you the outgoing cbc chair, congresswoman barbara lee. [applause] [applause] [applause] >> thank you, craig, for that very warm introduction. first, take a moment to thank all of you for being here. also to dr. scott, the staff, cbc foundation, thank you again for putting such a wonderful event together.

want to take a moment to say to the chair of the foundation, congressman payne who really is an international, a world leader. i have to just say you are to be salute the and really you -- sleuthed, and you are to be congratulated for your stellar and steady leadership. give congressman payne a round of applause. thank you so much. [applause] and to our assistant democratic leader, congressman jim clay clayburn, you're a sense of history, your clarity of purpose and your steadiness reverberates not only throughout this congress, but throughout the country. thank you so much for your strong and bold leadership. [applause] and let me take a moment to salute and to thank my distinguished colleagues in the congressional black caucus including our retired members

and our new members. these members are some of the boldest and brightest and most committed public servants i have ever had the privilege to work with. each and every one of you were extremely helpful and supportive throughout my time as chair, and i just have to thank you for the awesome honor of receiverring as the leader of this caucus for the past two years. it has been an amazing experience, the fastest two years of my life, but i just have to say it has been magnificent experience. to my executive committee, to congressman cleaver, christianson, butterfield, and clark, i just have to thank you all for your hard work, brilliant leadership, and for always watching my back. that's so important in this town. thank you so much.

give the congressional black caucus another round of applause on behalf of all of us. [applause] and i have to take a moment to thank our staff. also my staff and the cbc's staff for their service over the past two years. they have done a tremendous job and put in many long days and nights mind you too to ensure that the cbc continued its important work. give our staff a round of applause. [applause] and i know that our democratic steny hoyer arrived. where is he? thank you for your steadfast leadership and friendship and for being such an outstanding member. [applause] let me say a couple of things

very quickly. in terms of where we go from here, the american dream as we all know too well turned into a nightmare for many, poverties, foreclosure crisis, health disperties, unemployment, lack of economic and educational opportunities, violence and crime, all disproportionally impacts the african-americans and communities of color. during the 111th congress, the cbc did not miss a beat, and they fought each and every day to address and attack and close these disperties and fought for equity and for justice in every major piece of legislation. these members also fought for party in our economic policy especially in africa, caribbean, and central america. with four full committee chairs, our nine cbc task forces,

legislation included provisions which never, which never would have been part of these bills nor part of the debate had it not been for the vigilance, for the brilliance, and for the hard work of the cbc, and i saw how each and every member worked day and night for the last two years to make the change that we so desperately need as part of our legislative process. our opportunities for our pathways out of poverty agenda really guided our work, and the cbc continues to be the voice of the voiceless, and the conscious of the congress in this new era of change. now with the former member of the cbc serving as our great president, barak obama, we worked with him to create jobs and turn this economy around. i know that the cbc will continue to fight to make certain that our communities are not left behind, and let me just

say to the entire cbc, we've come this far by faith, yes, but also diligence, hard work, with passion and with commitment, and in spite of the enormous challenges and reverend congressman emanuel cleaver, i just had to go to the scripture, and i went to galations chapter 6:9. let us not become weary in doing good for the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. that is, congressman reverend cleaver, i just have to say i know, i know, and i'm confident that you're going to lead the cbc to greater heights because you are a man who has never given up. congressman emanuel cleaver came from humble beginnings. growing up in public housing in

texas. he would go on to earn his bachelor of science degree and coshology from -- cosh prayer view. he was in kansas city as an activist in the southern leadership christian conference charged with founding the kansas city chapter of civilization. after the kansas city chapter of the fclc received its charter, he began his pastoral career in united -- excuse me, st. james united methodist church with the a membership of 47. today, it's my understanding that st. james has a membership of 2800. now, with that record, i know that our congressional black caucus will grow its membership in leaps and bounds from 47 to

2800. [applause] in 1979, congressman was elected to the city counsel of kansas city. after three terms, he ran for and was elected to the office of mayor where he made history as the first african-american to hold the city's highest office. first african-american to serve as the mayor of kansas city. [applause] as mayor, emanuel worked tire resly to improve the quality of life for the city's residence championing programs designed to create jobs and stimulate economic development including infrastructure improvements, city planning, and youth outreach. his leadership earned him a two-term position as president of the national conference of black mayors. now entering his fourth term representing the 5th district of missouri in the house of representatives, congressman cleaver continues to make a

positive impact for his con stitch wents and the entire -- constituents and the entire country. he serves on the financial services committee, homeland security committee and select committee on energy independence and global warming. above all, his proudest achievement i know is his beautiful family. he and his wife, diane, have been married for more than 30 years making kansas city their home. they have four grown children and three grandchildren. over the last two years, he served as first vice chair of the national black caucus and shared in the effective economic recovery task force. i valued his wisdom, his counsel, and can say with certainty, with certainty that in spite of the challenges and difficulties, he does not get weary for he knows that the cbc must continue to fight for what

is morally right and also must continue to take many times unpopular stands. it's my pleasure now to introduce to you my colleague, our friend, a dynamic leader, the new chair of the national black caucus, congressman emanuel cleaver. [applause] ..

>> and there's no disagreement among the members. and as a point of remembrance of these soft, easy years that you've led us -- [laughter] >> -- we would like to present you with this memory piece that we hope you will keep with you. it's presented to congressman barbara lee, in recognize of your outstanding service of the 111th congress of chairperson of the congressional black caucus. [applause] [applause] [cheers and applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> i'd like to thank chairwoman lee for that very kind introduction, and i would like to know introduce until 12 -- noon -- today, the majority leader of the united states congress, my friend, steny hoyer. [applause] [applause] >> my, my, my. [applause] [applause] [laughter] >> thank you so much. thank you so much. i need to go to a lot of events over the next hour and 50 minutes. [laughter] >> barbara lee, an extraordinary leader of our country, of the cbc, and of the congress. thank you so much for your

service. [applause] >> to donald payne, elsie scott, and angela ryan, thank you for your leadership in various different capacities. this organization to a man with the most beautiful wife and son, i know this is a proud, proud day for you. i'm not sure where you are emanuel's father or father-in-law. father. i know it's a proud day for you. neither of my parents, none the three parents i had, my father step was alive when i was elected to the congress of the united states. but to have your son and your husband and your father given this great honor who had been proceeded by so many great americans who have led this country so well is i know a very special day for you. but i want you to know it is

also a special day for the speaker and i and all of emanuel's colleagues who know him well. i'll speak to that in just a second. to all of you who are such critical members of the democratic caucus. but more importantly than that, of the congress of the united states. i don't know of any group in america who would be any more justified in being cynical, angry, and diseffected than african-americans. treated so badly in a country that pledged itself to a equality for all, but failed to practice equality for all. and indeed enslaved some of it's citizens because was color of their skin. the fact that you have dedicated

yourselves to positive participation in building a more beloved community has benefited my children, my grandchildren, and my great granddaughter. so i'm here to thank all of you, each of you, for what you have done, are going, and continue to do to make this country all that it can be. [applause] >> i'm here to congratulate barbara lee on her outstanding work as chair of the black caucus and welcome emanuel cleaver to his new leadership role. i was proud to work beside barbara on so many things. important legislation of the 111th congress, together we stood up for small business to create jobs in our community,

for access to higher education, for drug sentencing, aid to our disaster-struck neighborhood haiti, end genocide in sudan, and for peace and self-determination in south sudan. and for so many more that barbara and the black caucus have been the conscious of the congress and the leader in the congress. ensuring our focus on those issues. we all know that these are going to be tougher times for democrats. but that's just why it's so important to stand by the principals that have motivated our work, and indeed, your work for such a very long period of time. principals of security and opportunity for all americans, and all working people. for four decades in the majority and in the minority, in times of prosperity, and in times of trial, the congressional black caucus has led congress and the democratic caucus in the work of

living up to the promises and principals and hope and vision and opportunity of the declaration of independence and of the constitution who's words we will read tomorrow on the floor of the house of representatives. those words have always been compelling. but as the congressional black caucus knows better than any other group in the congress of the united states, words alone are not enough. words are not self-executing. they require the blood, sweat, and toil of literally millions of people. some who are famous and so many who are unknown. so make us a more beloved community. the congressional black caucus has been and will be our leader in that effort.

and now i'm pleased to again say to my friend, emanuel cleaver, who has become a dear and close friend as was his predecessor, and frankly through his predecessor, i became his good friend. my dear friend, emanuel cleaver. [applause] >> as you have heard, from barbara lee, he is is man of great faith, a leader of his flock, a leader of his city, as its mayor, and a faithful and effective representative of his constituents. i know as you know he will again excel and inspire in his new role in leading the congressional black caucus.

congratulations, emanuel cleaver. america will be a better place. the congressional black caucus a stronger part of our party, and of our congress, and of this country because of your leadership. may god bless you as you bless america through your leadership. and to each and every one of you, who has over come discrimination, rejection, racism, and so much more. to emerge as positive leaders of principal in this land of the free and home of the brave. god bless you, and thank you. thank you all. [applause] [applause]

[applause] [applause] >> before we proceed, let me introduce the surgeon general of the united states, dr. benjamin. [applause] >> thank you for your joining us. and let me just introduce and present my wife diane and my father who has been my father all of my life, and i say that because there is meaning in that. there's never been a time when i didn't have a father. thank you for being here. for my entire family, friends, thank you for being here. [applause] [applause]

>> and our whip until 12 -- noon -- came late. he was at a concern -- they had a prayer meeting earlier today, and he was there praying for me. thank you, mr. chip. >> oh boy. [laughter] >> this is truly a great moment in the 40-year history of the congressional black caucus. and to my colleagues, i must say i am humbled that you have chosen me to lead as the 22nd chair of this great body during such a time as this. thank you all for being here this morning, and reaffirming your support for the work of the cbc and celebrating the legacy during this historic swearing in ceremony.

standing before this vast number here today, weeing -- we, the congressional black caucus, the 112th congress of the united states of america are inspired and filled with robust hunger to defend the advances made through those who so ably and vigorously toiled in these hallowed halls long before most of us arrived. they ran the race, and that race is continuing in us. what a company. the name set any african-american heart to beating faster, conyers, rangel, jordan, clay, hawkins, knicks, metcalfe, collins, diggs, and

roy. these are the hero was our political history. [applause] >> mr. chairman, mrs. chairman, thank you so much. [applause] >> they were courtiers who practiced state craft at a level which brought about sociopolitical change that laid the foundation to make the promise of america the practice of america. and we will devotedly and unwaveringly, follow the example of bold and prothetic work. as the incoming chair of the cbc, there's great hope that i will as every chair before me, move forward beyond compromise agenda of this body. to the chairs whom i've observed since my election to congress, a mere six years ago elisha

cummings, and oakland's barbara lee. please know that i will not allow pride to prevent me from imitates the best of what i have seen in each of you. [applause] >> when i consider the vastness of the challenge ahead, i can't help but chant the prayer of the old breaton fisherman when he took his craft up on the ocean. he prayed oh my god, my boat is so small, and the sea is so great. nonetheless, all anxiety is cast away from the flaming of the lamps of my 42 colleagues. we're at a critical point in the nation's history. as african-american, we lived the by bitterness of slavery, hd

on for progress, reached and in countless cases achieved the american dream. today the cbc declares what the song writer, we ain't no ways tired. from the chaining of slavery across the bridge in selma and to the highest office in the land, we climbed the great ladder of equality and advancement. yet, there is more work to be done. for the past 40 years, the congressional black caucus has continued to fight the good fight, the cbc has involved in a myriad of legislative initiatives, ranging from full employment to welfare reform. south african partide, and expanded educational opportunity. it's always been our mission as a caucus to preserve a national

commitment to fair treatment for urban and rural america, the elderly, students, small business, middle and low income families and the economically disadvantaged to give voice to the voiceless. 40 years since our founding we have been successful in rising to strategic positions on congressional committees to effect change in federal policy and now to the highest offer within the nation, can you believe it? one the members of the congressional black caucus now sits in the white house. [applause] >> and -- [applause] [applause] >> and to say it in the words of the old preacher who wanted to use a big word to impress the congressional, he said we are hippopotamus proud.

[laughter] >> i stand before you today to count our historic accomplishments and share a vision of who's to come. if we don't tell our story, who will? it's time we stand and declare who we are. the 11th congress, cbc members held three committee chairs and 18 subcommittee chairmanships. we are freedom fighters, justice seekers, equalizers, and pursuers of the american dream for all americans regardless of race, color, and creed, we stand for parity and economic opportunity for all americans, we stand for equality in education, we stand for access to health care for all americans, we stand for reclaiming the american dream

for all. strangely, there's a question raised by some in the media. in fact, this morning during an interview with the chair of hispanic caucus, it was the first question and it will continue to be a question until we put a stop to it. and this is the question: is the congressional black caucus relevant in this postracial era? to that assertion, i must politely say, get real. [applause] [applause] >> the long and laborious march taught our society that puts down issues of race will eventually arrive at it's destination.

but today is not that day. to be sure there will come a day when the people of this nation see other americans from different backgrounds and different races with their hearts instead of their eyes. but today is not that day. when the day does arrive, and it surely will because it is near, when all americans choose to discover new truths about each other, at long last lingering prejudices will subside and we will have a postracial nation. but today is not that day. it is important that we obliterate the notion that we have reached race relations nonviolent. because the failure to do so prevents us from engaging in the demanding but necessary work. clearly, we've come a long way. but our work is far from over.

we have so much more to accomplish before we sleep. to paraphrase robert frost, we have miles and miles to go before we sleep. and miles and miles to go before we sleep. had we slept during the 111th congress, there would not be a section 342 to the dodd-frank wall street reform act which created the office of minority and women inclusion in each federal, financial service agencies. [applause] [applause] >> nine members of the financial services committee following our leader maxine waters met in her kitchen and decided to stay together until we were successful in getting this through. had we slept, during the 11th congress, there would be no fair sentencing act which reduced the disparity between crack and powder cocaine.

[applause] >> had we slept in the congress, african-american and native american farmers would be waiting for the $4.6 billion that has been owed to them for over a decade. had we slept during the 111th congress, there would be no american recovery and reinvestment act that injected $800 billion into our economy and helped families, small businesses, and our work force. >> that's right. >> recovery during what most of us believe to have been a depression. had we slept during the 111th congress, there would be a major gap in funding for the historically black colleges and universities. had we slept in the 111th congress, the pell grant program would be a pittance of what it is. had we slept during the 111th congress, there would be no

health care reform. and this congress congressional black caucus will continue the good fight. why? well, let me tell you this way. one day i decided so go to our sunday school to observe what was going on because in the united methodist church we are subject to a bishop. united states methodist church or catholic churches have bishops that can appoint and disappoint. [applause] >> in an attempt to protect my appointment, i thought i needed to make sure our sunday school was working fine. so i went into one of the

teenage classrooms. the teacher welcomed me. she said pastor come right in. she said i'd like to ask some questions of the students. she said go right ahead. she said, billy, who knocked down the jericho wall? he said pastor, i didn't do it. i know i have a bad representation around the church, but i didn't do it. [laughter] and then the teacher stood up and said, pastor, he's telling the truth. i watched him when he got off of the bus. he came in. he didn't do it. [laughter] >> i thought to myself, i've lost my appointment. this is the end. so i called a meeting with the church officers, usually after the service with reverend russ.

i said we have a crisis in the church. we have to deal with it. we have to deal with it now. i said look i went to the sunday school. i asked little billy who knocked down the jericho wall. he denied it. and i worse still, the teacher came behind him and corroborated his statement. and so the chairman said, well, pastor, whoever knocked it down, we'll pay for it. [laughter] >> well, my friends, the wall of protection of the unemployed is down. the wall of summer job security for young people is down. the wall of middle east peace is

down. the wall of disease is down. the wall of civil discourse is down. the wall of home ownership expecting 1 million foreclosures this year is down. the wall of separation between financial predators and the poor is down. but good news, we've got 42 wall builders. [applause] >> standing ready to rebuild the wall. we don't care who knocked it down. we are going to rebuild the wall. wall builders, the cbc, will rebuild the wall. [applause] [cheers and applause]

>> keep in mind, this is the only caucus that did not lose a single member in the last election. this is the only caucus that gained membership in the last election. these are wall builders. [applause] >> are we relevant? the answer is question. the congressional black caucus will be relevant as long as we continue to have work in front of us, as long as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, we've relevant, as long as our communities suffer a depression while the rest of the country talks about about a recession, we're relevant. as long as the first recommendations presented by our caucus to president nixon in march of 1971 has some relevancy to the state of our union, we're relevant. as millions continually call out to take their country back, the

caucus stands ready to continue it's relevant work. of creating a nation for all americans, black, white, rich, poor, old, young, and immigrants alike. a nation inclusive of all god's children. sadly, the people's house has become a bitter, bailful, and venomous venue for unresolved scabble, over the nation and perhaps the entire world. as a result of the course and offensive communication between members of congress, we are having work that is much, much more difficult to address. yet congress at it's worse

demands the congressional black caucus at it's best. this bewildering fog of tribalism and instantation by the media and a fact-free debate, the cbc will embrace the historic mission. let the word go bard that -- go forward that the cbc did not come to congress to make enemies. we game to make a difference. our enemies are bigotry, war, and failure. it's clear that our time to stand up is now. our time to reclaim the dream is now. we must leave the charge. we must continue on this great journey, and when all is said and done, the promise of america will no longer be just a promise. it will become the practice. let me conclude by sharing with you, particularly with my father here, we had to go to church

when i grew up. i come from a family of preachers. so on saturday nights we have to go to bed so we can go to church and stay all day. i'm just saying. [laughter] >> but we could stay up on friday nights. which was great because friday night at 10:30 we had the "monster mash" that was the highlight of my week. there were eight cleaver kids, four first cousins, and we tried to spend the night every weekend. we'd get around the tv, start the horror movie, the most delicious films ever made. my cousinses and my three

sisters they would be afraid when the monsters came. i was there looking at the monsters directly trying to see every bite. [laughter] >> and then when some insensitive person drove a stake through the heart of dracula, my sisters and first cousins went out for bed. for me, the best was yet to come. i would move over in front of the old black and white television and i would hear an announcer say we've come to the end of another day of broadcasting. tune in tomorrow morning on channel 6 when we would resume programming. then my heart would begin to beat heavily, and then finally i would see it. a silver jet would fly through

the clouds, leave soft almost elable -- edible looking clouds, then the music would play, and then a golden voice would be heard. oh i slipped the surely bombs of earth, and dances the sky on laughters wings, climbed the clouds, and done 100 things you'd never dreamed of, i've wheeled and soared, and swung high in the sunlit silence. hovering, i'm chased and hung my eagle craft through the hall of air, up along the burning blue, i've climbed a height where not a lark or even eagle flew and with silent, lifting mind, i trod, the high untrespassed

sanctity of space, put out my hand, and touched the face of god. in 1941, an 18-year-old american-born pilot by the game of john gillispie was killed when another plane's spit fire inside the clouds. fortunately, a few months earlier, he had sent the poem back to his father. it's called high flight. high flight. over the next two years, the congressional black caucus as it has during the past 40 will be on a high flight. your mission, should you accept, is to be with us, encourage us, nudge us, and sometimes even

criticize us because we dare to chase the shouting winds along. thank you very kindly. [applause] [applause] [cheers and applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the new leader of the caucus, representative emanuel cleaver. i didn't make it to church last sunday. but i don't feel bad about it now.

>> we are almost to the end of our program. before we move on, really quickly, we do want to acknowledge. we know we have a number of active united states military members in our audience, a number of retired members as well, we would like a take a quick moment just to acknowledge the members current and retired, the members of the united states military. please stand and be recognized. [applause] [applause] >> and it is with great pleasure that i now introduce the democratic leader of the 112th congress, representative nancy pelosi, the speaker nancy pelosi.

[applause] [applause] >> good morning. >> good morning. >> yes, i am still speaker of the house for -- [laughter] [applause] >> -- for a few -- short period of time. one of my last acts as speaker of the house, the 111th congress is to come and congratulation the congressional black caucus of the 112th congress. in their short period of time between their swearing in and swearing in of the congress. i come on behalf of all of my colleagues to not only offer congratulations, but thank you for the contribution that the congressional black caucus and many friends have made to the strength of our country and with the recognition that so much

more needs to be done and the channels that we face ahead. there's a tradition in the house when you hear somebody very eloquently presenting the case that you just decide to say i associate myself with the previous speaker. and call it a morning. but i do want to acknowledge how blessed we are to have emanuel cleaver as the new chair -- head of the cbc. [applause] >> he follows in some mighty foot steps of congresswoman barbara lee, fulfilling a vision that she set forth starting of this caucus which has been said over and over started four decades ago. congratulations to you, congresswoman barbara lee for your acceptional work as leader of the cbc. congratulations to emanuel, and

good luck to you. i'm happy to see emanuel senior along with emanuel junior, along with emanuel the third joining diane. congratulations to the entire family for the wonderful benefit that we will have. emanuel senior, i have to tell you this, when emanuel was a new member of congress, we asked him to speak as a freshman member at a meeting, at a rally that we had. he talked about you the whole time. he talked about how in church one day the minister was saying that the -- they took up the selection and he said that the money was tainted. go back. it was tainted. it was tainted. then finally the collectors bring it up. he said it's tainted. it taint enough.

[applause] >> that was our introduction to emanuel cleaver. needless to say, did not do justice to the way he told the story. but that was when the world knew what you all knew and we suspected that we had a great leader in our midst. we ought to get the message across. i was reading -- and we take such great pride in the cbc and the 40 years of it's leadership in the congress. but i was reading that now we see chairman conyers and chairman ann -- rangel as the two charter remembers. founding members. thank you for your leadership. that they were originally -- okay. [applause] [applause] >> there originally were 13 original members. i was thinking how interesting. 13 original colonies, coming together to fight for freedom, 13 original members of the cbc

coming together to expand freedom in our country. ten years before that, and we will observe this this month, 50 years ago was the inauguration of the president john f. kennedy. january 20th we'll observe that. many of you were drawn into politics, well, many of you were not born. but generations -- [laughter] >> i was there that day. so it maybe history to you, but it was my youth. to see that swearing in and the beautiful words that were said about how important every person is in our country. and in the course of that time from the president's inauguration and with president lynn don johnson, but it was people like john lewis and my -- our distinguished assistant leader jim civer, people many of whom are present here, working

hard to teach america what our country was about in the civil rights movement. and because of what they did, what are we now 42, 43 strong here. we want more, of course. but 43 strong from the original 13. i really -- it is an honor again. thank you craig melvin for your introduction of one title or another, and emanuel, barbara lee, congressman donald payne, thank you for your leadership as chair of a foundation, and yvette jones, congratulations on receiving the foundation's performing arts scholarship. it's very important to recognize the talent among us in many different ways and how -- what a great honor to receive that from the cbc. get back to john f. kennedy, he said at the time, this nation was founded by men, -- men of

many nations of backgrounds. it was founded on the principals that all men are created equal, and the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man is threatened. i did not really mean that as a source of humor. [laughter] >> but in any event, the fact that the one -- when the rights of one person are threatened, then the rights of every person are diminished. what we are facing now as we go forward, and emanuel addressed this, this is the essence of the congressional black caucus. if we are talking about the dignity and worth of every person and that everyone is equal, then it is really important in our society that dignity be afforded the ability to make a living. suitable to the talents that

people have. it isn't enough to say we are going to put people back to work. many people have not had work. because for the number of years they have been excluded. because our system has favored the high end. under president obama and the conscious of the congress, the cbc, we have fought to change the leverage. with wall street reform, the greatest consumer protections ever where we are saying no longer will recklessly on wall street cause joblessness on main street, the worker must be valued, that the consumer, the greater consumer protections in history, and talking about health care reform. where again the leveraged moved to the people, away from the insurance company. these are all if their own right

important. but as a source of job creation in a new way what we want to do on energy independence and new green jobs in a new way so that many young people in the african-american community and minority community are on the ground floor of building the future for our country. so what we are saying is as we go forward, we expand concern extent a hand, a willing hand of friendship if our colleagues are interested in creating jobs for all americans, if they are interested in strengthening the middle class by enhancing those who are there and pulling many more people into it, and by reducing the deficit so that we are not giving tax cuts to the rich and sending the bill to our grandchildren and future generations as it increases the deficit. create jobs, strengthen the

middle class, reduce the deficit. that helps all americans. that helps create american jobs. i was so pleased to see the acknowledgment of our men and women in uniform and the african-american community has played such a big role. in fact, the minority community in general played such a big role in keeping us the home of the brave and the land of the free. so thank you for your service to our country. we owe you more though than that thanks. we owe our returning troops jobs. we owe them jobs. that when they come home -- [applause] >> -- we are building a future worthy of their sacrifice. so this before you, you see probably the greatest collection of idealism, of imagination for what you would have in a connection to people and their needs.

to energy and stamina, to get the job done. to a relentlessness and dissatisfaction with the status quo until many more people can partake in the american dream. so i've come here to say thank you for that. our great president, barack obama has said we will measure our success by the progress that is being made by america's working families. if relentlessness could be expanded within intensity, that only beginning to tell the story of barbara lee, emanuel cleaver, and the members of the cbc on behalf of working families in america. relentless, dissatisfying, persistent, creative, entrepreneurial, imaginative, patriotic for our country.

we have our own preacher in the leadership, jim clyburn, who makes us reflect upon our purpose as we begin our meetings. and again we had a service this morning at church, an interdenominational service. i came here and heard preacher cleaver. it is true though that what he was saying, it is about our values. about what we carry inside of us. and if we go to church and talk about god's blessings on all of us, and how we are all equal in his eyes, and where we are all equal in terms of our constitution. that equality has to extent to economic opportunity for all americans as well.

dr. martin luther king taught us a lot about how to be effective, how do get a job done, how to stick by your principals, right, john, and taught america so much. we learn every day in the congress that instruction continues from our cbc. said before and others have said, they are the conscious of the congress. your support of them intellectually and in every way, personally and every way is a great resource not only for them and the congress, but for our country. so we will not rest. again, we extent a hand of friendship to create jobs, grow the middle class, and reduce the deficit. we look for common grounds to solve the problems of the american people. their help, their jobs, the

saving of education. where we cannot find common ground, we must stand our ground on behalf of the pledge that we take every day. with liberty and justice for all. that includes economic justice for all. so i come here to thank the cbc for being who you are to congratulate your growth, to wish success to your new leader, emanuel cleaver to express appreciation, to barbara lee for her leadership to the foundation and donald payne to the family for sharing emanuel with us. but this looks like one great big family to me i sigh diane watson, who's going to be leaving us now. but we'll always be part of our family. [applause] [applause] so we all know what our important role is, has been, and will continue to be.

two years from now when we come together, things will be different. things will be different. [applause] >> we are all know engaged in the campaign for americans, what better than the congressional black caucus under the leadership of emanuel cleaver. thank you all very much. congratulations. and i'll see you on the floor of the house. thank you all very much. [applause] [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, speaker of the house, ms. nancy pelosi. [applause] [applause] >> we would also thank the congressional black caucus has the four decades as it has served as the conscious of

congress. as we move further into the this century, we look forward to your dedicated service and leading us into the next phase of the community, and we ask now that all of the members please stand. ladies and gentlemen, one final time, please join me in saluting the congressional black caucus of the 112th congress. [applause] [applause] >> members we ask that you remain for a few moments for an additional photo. it will take two or three minutes. please remain standing in position for a photo. we'd also like a take a moment for our audience in joining us with the congressional caucus, as we move through the 2011 calendar, we look forward to witnessing, witnessing the

important work of the 43 dynamic individuals that we have saluted today. we invite you the audience to greet members immediately outside of this auditorium, outside of being the operative word there. again, thank you very much and this concludes our program for the day. [applause] [applause] >> we would like to remind our members to all stay in position for the photo. >> staying with congress, an event from paul ryan. the republicans want in turn for their support. he mentioned immigration, tax reform, and energy as areas where he hopes to work with

president obama. >> let me ask you to take your seats. i'll do a two-minute introduction and turn it over to the two pauls. from wisconsin. the first half will be on the packers, and wisconsin's unfortunate defeat, culminating a great week for the big 10. i guess they lost five games out of five. i'll let them do that. i'm bill kristol, i'm head of the board of the sponsor organizations of the excellent event which i'm looking forward to. one the sponsors is the manhattan institute. relatively enactive and board member of that fine institution, and also relatively enactive board of the other sponsoring institution, i get to do the

introduction and leave. listen i should say, of course. listen attentively. you know it's a fine think tank in new york. it was best known for the contribution for the policy ideas that mayor giuliani took lead on in the '90s. i'd say in the last two or three years, the manhattan students have done terrific work. people on the state pension, and also on the fiscal crisis actually, the financial crisis to call joe and others. manhattan institute is happy to be a cosponsor of this event, as is e21 a smaller and younger think tank, just about a year and a half old, dedicated to innovative public policy ideas for 21st century and public policy. both web sites, i should say, are worth going to each morning. you can sign us and get an

e-mail from them to save yourself from having them each morning. manhattan institute, you can search for their web site, e21's web site is economics21.org. i honestly recommend that to keep up on the economic policy debate. both at the state level and the federal level, the budget debate, fiscal policy, monetary policy, really both are worthwhile. on behalf of both organizations we are pleased. we're going to have a series of conversation, major public figures in which the conversation will be moderated by, led by another major public figure. this is really a terrific one. we will have mitch daniels and other governors and senators actually and other political leaders or consented to do this. it's really terrific to kick it off though with paul as you go and paul ryan the two paul's

from wisconsin. paul as you go wrote the best column in the years he did in the wall street journal, then went to new york to assume the editorship, and he has done an equally excellent job. paul ryan came to washington in 1998 as a 7-year-old and -- yeah. he came as a young, very young 28-year-old member of congress. hard to belief he's entering, just entered his 7th term as a republican member of the house from wisconsin, now chairman of the budget committee. obviously, the crucial position to have. he was already crucial for his intellectual leadership, but now crucial constitutionally as well in terms of what happens over the next few years in fiscal and budgetary policy. i will turn it over to poweful as -- paul as you go and paul

ryan. >> it's a great pleasure to be here. it's a pleasure to be here with congressman ryan. let's just just -- the plan tods two of us will talk to 40 minutes and open up to all of you. let me start by some of the details of the budget year and debate. let me ask you to think ahead two years to 2012. >> packers will have their second super bowl ring by then. >> you are more optimistic than i am, i'm afraid. but you are running for reelection, you want to present to the voters who you've accomplished. thinking about ahead, what is it that you want to be able to tell the voters, show the voters that you have done in these two years? >> that's probably the most important question right there. what i hope we will have done is we will have been responsible, we will have conducted ourselves with humility, we will have worked with president obama on

occasion where we can find some common ground on the issues to get things done for the country, but at the end of the day in 2012, i think there are just large chasms of difference of opinions of of governing philosophies that won't be bridged. so i feel we owe it to the country to give them a choice, an alternative future for the court. and so by 2012, hopefully americans will have in front of them a very clear choice to make. a choice of two futures. on the one hand would be the future that we had in front of us right now. based upon the current trajectory, based upon all of the government that had been created in the last two years, and everything proceeding that from both political parties which is putting us on a path of debt ruin. which is putting us on a path of becoming really more like a european democracy, social welfare state. that's the path we're on today.

hopefully we will give the country a choice of a different future. one where we reclaim the american idea. where we embrace american exceptionalism, where we reject the future of the manage decline and reapply the future and show the country of a debt free nation, a nation with a prosperous growing economy, an opportunity society with a safety net, versus a cradle on the grave welfare state and give the country our choice. i believe for one we will win that referendum, and therefore have the moral authority and the opportunity in 2013 to make good on that vision. to reapply these principals and fix these things. party of growth and opportunity, not crony capitalism. we have fallen into that party track before, that we believe in

being pro-market, not necessarily pro-business. so what we believe then is a system and society where everybody has the chance to make the most with their lives and that we have prosperous, growing, internationally growing economy where people have a bright future. we know for a vote irrefutable fact we're getting the next generation and inferior standard of living based on the future we have right now. >> we owe it to they to show them a different path, one that will give the next generation higher living standard, and that that's what i hope we can present from that. >> you didn't mention any legislative achievements necessarily. you seghtded that the main -- you suggested that the main goal is to suggest a choice. as you look at two years from now, do you think there's anything legislatively that you

realliment to have done? so i think in order for that -- >> so i think in order for that to take please, we have to define ourselves by our actions. we have to draft and pass legislation through the house to frame that choice. accomplishments we want to have by then and it's difficult to answer that because it's not sure what the president will be willing to sign into law by then. it's tough to say. the way i hope this goes is the president, and i think it is a fore gone conclusion. he has to come to the middle to get some things done to work with house republicans, and so hopefully he'll say to us on a, b, and c, i agree with you on those things. hopefully some spending cuts, spending reforms, and then we'll do those things, but on x, y, and z, repeal of the health care law and replacing it with the consumer directed -- i don't think he's going to work

with us on that. we will still advance legislation doing these x, y, and z things so at the end of the 2012 period, people see a clear choice. that's way we owe them. >> but you have to pass a budget. not only do you have to take care of the rest of fiscal 2011 and that you have to pass a budget resolution for 2012. you're taking over the budget committee with a spending as a shared gdp's of about 25% this yore. the deficit is 10% roughly, and the deficit itself is about $1.2 trillion. do you have any knew mare call -- knew numerical targets? >> i will when we get our baseline at the end of the month. the president submits his budget which is a week of feb 14th when

it's coming, and then we get another set of numbers from c berk o in march. that is where we see where we are and and what targettings we can hit in. april that's when the dead deadlines are hit and we map out how to do thimgs differently, what our fiscal prescription is and also growing the economy and doing progrowth economic reforms to get prosperity back not country. that's what we're putting in the budget resolution. the technical part of the budget resolution that's necessary is fy2012 discretionary spending as a role of the government shut down talk coming into play. we're going to have a really low number, probably a lower number than the president has, but over

the course of the summer and fall we'll negotiate like we have to in march, negotiate a resulting number that comes out of that for discretionary spending to continue. >> so, first of all, you have to deal with fiscal 2011. there's already a lot of talk in the press and probably heard democrats bash you an backtracking on the $100 billion reduction. can you respond to that? >> if people think we are scared of cutting $100 billion, they have another thing coming. this is just the beginning. >> they're going to meet that target. >> no, what this is is when we put out our target which brings it down to o8 levels, and in october that scored at $100 million. what happened then was a co occurred belowed the president's numbers >> that runs through march. >> yeah, two things happened

since then. the cr itself brought spending down and half a fiscal year spend is is gone and out the window. hitting the spending target we pledged to hit now scores around $60 billion and not $100 billion. the savings estimate of our policy in october was $100 billion, and now it's not because half the money is already out the door because of this cr. it's not a backtrack of policy. the republican policy stayed the same. it's the savings estimate of the public's policy changed. >> is it fair to say that the 100 bill is just a down payment. >> wait until we do our fiscal year 2012 spending bills, we'll keep going. >> you mentioned discretionary accounts, do you think you can get a lot out of that? does that include defense and

national security? >> yeah, the way i look at it is lower the caps and have a fight underneath the caps. you can't expect waste to occur. >> you would reduce the cap on different departments including defense? >> i would reduce the entire discretionary cap, 302a. >> and defense with education? >> we prioritize. i don't do the job of the appropriations committee. they are guarded about their jurisdiction, to the way i look at the defense spending is number one, let me say something that's counter to what you thought i was going to say. everybody wants a peace dividend budget, but we are not at peace. we cannot have a peace dividend budget when there's two wars beginning on. number two, there is waste at the pentagon. we have to save money in the dod budget >> any examples?

>> oem and procurement as well. >> particular programs you have in mind? >> i'll let the appropriators handle that. i have opinions, but i'll keep those to myself right now. i would like to go after the waste in the pentagon, get savings there, and replow that into huer priority defense spending to prevent us from doing supplementals. what we typically do is pass a defense appropriations bill and pass a $100 billion plus bill on top as if it's an emergency we don't know we're in afghanistan. i would rather see savings occur from within the pentagon budget by cleaning up the books and reduce the need to have supplementals that occur outside the budget. that, to me, is a better way to go. when it comes to treasury spending, bring the entire cap down and force government to prioritize within.

when you do that, you cannot have a peace dividend budget when we're not at peace. >> are the 2008 targets still -- >> that's 2011. we're going to 2008. 2012 you're talking even lower. yes, i'm talking more savings coming in the budget. i can't give you a number because i don't have any yardstick yet to give you a number, but we are going to continue pairing back -- parring back spending after this current fiscal year expires. >> okay. now the other big question is if you reduce spending is the entitlement accounts. are you going to include those and reductions in those, reform in those as part of your budget resolution. >> i don't know the answer to that question. >> if you had your -- >> my road map is what my answer to my performances are. what everybody seems to think these days is i'm the chairman now, i can make the road map the

budget solution. that's not how it works. i wrote the road map in 2008 and 2010 to reach the consensus of myself. i now have to write it to win the con sen us of 218 people, the majority of republican caucus. it's difficult to say what that's going to be since i don't have the baseline yet, but we cannot ignore this. i just came from a meetings in ways and means and we are launches lots of hearings and hearings in the budget committees on entitlements, commerce committee is doing hearings on finance reform and governors will be coming up and medicaid solutions will be looked at. we're going to look at all parts of the federal budget. nothing is going to be immune from oversight and from hearings so that we can go out and get the best ideas to figure out how to get this thing turned around,

but ultimately you can't fix or preempt the debt crisis without dealing with entitlements, and we have to take sizable steps in that direction. >> your argument in the republican conference will be we must do something about medicaid, medicare, and social security in this two year time frame despite the fact that the president is a democrat and the senate -- >> i wouldn't put the three of those in the same sentence. for instance, in the debt commission which i served as a member of, social security reform should not be a function of deficit reduction or debt reduction. social security reform should be to fix and reform social security. whether or not we do social security reform, i don't know the answer to that. i would love to see if the president wants to engage in dialogue on that. >> let's say he doesn't. >> i don't know the answer to that question. >> would you recommend it to your conference? >> the last budget i wrote which was in the minority, i put modest social security reforms in there. i took the orzag plan from

brookings and put things in that we did block on medicaid to the states. >> would you like to see that? >> yes, i would. i think blocking medicaid to the states is one policy to consider given the fact that states are so different from one another. it's crushing state budgets and leading to state insolvency and contributing to their fiscal problems. >> what do you think the prospects of that happening is? >> in the interim, that holds the best promise. social security and medicare reform will take much longer time to achieve just because i don't think those issues are there yet. >> right. >> because of the divided government we have. >> medicare is obviously the most politically difficult -- >> i'm familiar with that. >> not with standing and not only because of the difficult politics generally, but because you're party ran against in the last election the medicare cuts

as part of the health care reform, so does that complicate your task this year? >> well, if you look at what we said and some people have dropped the last sentence in this. we were against taking $522 billion of medicare money to create another government program. >> right. >> and it didn't do anything to contribute towards solvency. reports spell this out clearly. a lot of republicans drop that last sentence e and were against cutting medicare. >> imagine that. >> imagine that. political seasons do such things, but taking $522 billion and rating that to create another entitlement was a bad idea. medicare is going broke. medicare is the biggest fiscal problem of all of them so i do believe we need to make some down payments on medicare reform. >> in this two year period? >> i think we need to start talking about this.

i'm going to have hearings in the budget committee on this. whether -- i don't know whether or not we have con sen consensus in the party or not. i don't know. i think it's something we need to consider and talk about. >> okay, let's talk about the politics of this more broadly because you're young, but you're still old enough to rep 1995 and -- remember 1995 and 1996 when you attempted, the republicans, i think you were an aid at the time -- >> yes, i was. >> and newt gingrich was the speaker at the time pushed dramatic reforms in entitlements, medicare and medicaid in particular, and parties were undoing politically. >> that's the historical view right now i would say. i think there are a lot of members of your party that think that. >> that's right. if you ask bob dole, i think he

would concur with that. the question is what is different politically now than then to make you think that you could make the same kinds or similar reforms and survive politically? >> because the economic day of reckoning is right around the corner, because the tens of trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities are right out there in front of us. medicare is going insolvent later in the decade, and medicare is the greatest cause of our debt problems, and because the baby boomers start retiring this year, we're going from approximately 40 million retirees now to 80 million retirees. we're increasing the consumer generation by 100 percent but only increasing the tax population by 17%. we have looming insolvency. gao on liability figure, it's a

measurement -- >> general accountability office. >> general accountability office. in 2010, it was a $74 trillion, and it's 86.4 trillion this year. we are going that much deeper into our hole that much faster. after that 1996 medicare political football issue, john broe and john kerry and others put together this bipartisan commission. i think it was broe-fries, and that recommended some innovative reforms to medicare that would have put it on a path towards solvency. we coauthored some reforms that are innovative putting medicare on the way towards solvency. she and pete and other, i forget what they called that one, but they advocated medicare reforms to put it on the list of solvency. let me tell you what the road

map does on medicare. i'm not suggesting congress is going to propose this, but what people like me have been saying is let's guarantee current seniors get the benefits they have coming to them because they retired. people near retirement as well. if you are 55 and above, you're in the program. if you are under 55, guess what, it's not going to be there for you. you have to severely and deeply ration medicare to seniors at that time if we keep this program going as it is, and the new law puts rationing mechanisms in place. >> my guess would be if you put a question to the american public that said even today with all of those facts about the looming crisis -- >> sure. >> which are real and if they were understood, would you favor reductions in medicare spending in the future? you would get 60%-65% against?

don't you have a significant education problem ahead of you? >> you do. you can put down payments on it without fixing medicare, but you won't fully fix the budget situation without fixing medicare. whether we do it this year or next year, i don't know the answer to that question, but we have to keep talking about this. whether we pass legislation, i don't know if we'll do that, but we can't stop talking about it. >> i guess my question would be, is this the kind of major change that you need presidential support for? >> i think so. >> either party? >> i think that's right. two actually accomplish? >> to accomplish. >> yes, i do believe that. >> if the president says don't touch medicare. we need it. we just took $500 million to help health care reform, then the republicans, should they march right into the fixed bayon

nets? how many sponsors do you have? >> well, i haven't reintroduced it. i wasn't looking for cosponsors. >> okay. >> i can't tell you whether we're going to put comprehensive medicare reform in our budget or not, but we are going to be talking about comprehensive reform and doing hearings on it. i'm going to be personally advocating my personal legislation outside my role as budget chair. ? okay. let me ask you about the president because last time we talked in november after the election, and you were pretty pessimistic about the degree of cooperation you would get from the president as the republicans moved forward on their agenda. since then, you've have the tax deal which was something that you supported. >> yes. >> and it passed with big majorities in both houses. is that negotiation lead you to think that perhaps the president really is going to move more dramatically then you thought

then on more items where you can actually get things done in the two year period? >> no, that deal doesn't lead me to think that. he had to do that. he didn't really have a choice on the matter of taxes. >> because why? >> because the votes and tax increase was happening. anybody, whether you are a classical economist were arguing at the time it will do damage to the economy. he didn't want damage to the economy, and so he had to do this, plus the votes just with respect there. >> correct. >> for his school of thought i guess i would say. he had to do that. i don't look at that tax deal as necessarily a sign of things to come with respect to cooperation. i do believe, i'd like to think we're going to have cooperation on some issues, but i think those are more the exception than a rule. >> where would -- you mentioned trade. >> i mentioned trade. >> what other areas? >> spending reforms? >> like?

>> like automatic reductions if you exceed the caps. >> budget limits, budget caps, budget reforms. i have a line of vetoed bill in the past that i had with democrats. >> you want to push that? >> yes. that's among the things i'll push. >> does the leadership support that? >> they always have. >> okay. what else, where else do you think you can get agreement with the president? >> i'm curious to see what he'll do on immigration reform whether he'll make it it a political issue or try and get some things done on that. two years is a long time of doing nothing. obviously our high prior my is getting the border under control, but we have other issues in the immigration law that need to be addressed, and so that's also for economic reasons, so i wonder out loud whether or not -- i was talking to john mccain een,, and he thinks there's a shot at this.

i don't know if it's possible or not. energy as will. i would like to think there's a chance this administration will let us explore for domestic energy supplies, and i would like a shot at that. i'm pressing natural gas more than oil, but in the inner mountain region of natural gas, that's a cleaner burning energy supply. nuclear, i think there's probably some opportunities there, and so hopefully on some energy legislation we have a shot at something. >> but is the price for that you have to give the president more clean energy subsidies, so-called clean energy. >> not in my opinion. >> no, no. >> we have enough of that stuff. >> you're going after subsidies -- >> destroying capitalism, that falls in that category. >> okay. all right. so you still think he might compromise on energy?

>> i don't know, but i think there's a chance of it. >> okay. what about tax reform? >> that's the other one i was going to mention. >> you have talked about this for a long time. dave campus talked about it for a long time, and even charlie rangel supported a cut with a tax rate from 35 down to 30 -- >> 32.5, yeah. >> the president may have hinted, tim geithner hinted, is that something you might be able to get to? >> yeah, that's the other big piece, and we'll see what he says in the state of the union address. most people who i've been involved in the tax reform have causes for a long time, but they all involved broadening the base and lowering the rates, so how you do that matters greatly with respect to our economic competitiveness, but i would like to think we can get con accept sus on broadening the

base on making it more competitive, so i hold out hope there's a shot at some actual maybe not wholesale fundamentals, i'm a bush flat tax guy myself, it's not going to look like that, but hopefully a step in the right direction to make us competitive and belter for -- better for small businesses. >> would you support a more narrow flat tax? >> sure. >> just attack the corporate tax structure, lower the corporate tax rate and lower loopholes, you would support that? >> yes. >> how do you feel that goes with the all-republican caucus? >> well, i think generally speaking pretty well. my own tax reform bill basically does that. you know, in the budget i brought to the floor last time, last session, brought the corporate rate down 25% and does through base broadening measures so we've already voted for that, you know, in the house republican caucus. we have to confront the tax

expenditure gawpt let. i've been on ways and means comet for 10 years, and the tax expendture lobby has an interest in this. they've succeeded well in protecting those interests through both political parties. we have to confront that, and if in 2012 we do our job right, we're looking out for the american people and the american economy, not for this narrow special interest with a little piece of tax code carved out that serves as a barrier to entry for competitors. we want growth, real competition, lower barriers of entry, the haven for capital formation to be this country and not another country, and fundamental tax reform is the way to get there. >> all right. there's a debate i want to ask you about going on in the republican party on handling the debt ceiling. i think the president today seems to admitted his formal request that the debt ceilings be raised. it's going to have to happen

this spring and the timing people disagree about but sometime in the next few months. jim demint is one making this into a moral issue says i will refuse to vote for the debt ceiling increase without major spending reforms. what do you think of that? >> without spending -- >> they may have said period. can you, i mean, can you -- what do you think about that strategy? >> well, well, just refusing to vote for it, i don't think that's really a strategy. i believe, i don't want to rubber stamp big government in raising the debt ceiling. do i want to see this nation default? no. but i want to make sure we get substantial spending cuts and controls in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. that is related. it's not an unrelated item, and

so i believe if we're going to do this, and obviously you can't default, we need to have some real fiscal fixes in order to do that. this is very serious. it's something we care a lot about, and we're not going to turn the fiscal shift around overnight but we want to point it in the right direction. the debt ceiling is not dealing with current spending. it's old spending. >> right, but fiscal recklessness of the past is your watch. >> it's our watch, and so will the debt ceiling be raised or have to be raised? yes, you can't not raise the debt ceiling. default is the unworkable solution or the alternative, unworkable alternative, but we do not want to have a naked debt ceilings increase. we want to have real fiscal controls, real spending cuts that go with this. >> the senator, former senator, you know phil graham told me one

of his political rules was never take a political hostage you're not prepared to shoot. you have to pass a debt ceiling increase, so that's a hostage you are not prepared to shoot because you can't. how is that a winning strategy? >> how long will we raise the debt ceiling for? two years, one year, i mean, there's different ways of doing a debt ceiling increase that can speak to the strategy. i don't like negotiating out open in the media on approaching this issue, but one thing is the republicans are not interested in a naked debt ceiling increase. >> you want something in return at a minimum? >> in conjunction with that increase. >> what you want remaps to be negotiated? >> yeah, we're talking on what would be the best course. >> what if the president refuses and says you guys are irresponsible. you are risking the faith and credit of the united states, and that's irresponsible. >> that happened in 1996. >> i think it would be

responsible if the president -- i think it's irresponsible of the president if he doesn't bring the debt ceiling and makes the country fall in default. >> do you think you have the bully pulpit? >> i'm on the stage, >> i'm a lonely journalist. nobody likes brinksman ship, but we don't like run away spending breaking this country, and we want to see the fiscal direction of the country changed. the debt ceiling is a symptom of the fact that our fiscal policy is way off track. we want to do some things that get us pointed in the right direction as this debt ceiling increase occurs. it's going to be the spring. the letter this morning skas march 31 to may 16 i think. there's a actual time period, but nobody knows the answer for it. >> they have wiggle room. >> they do.

it's in receipts and, expenditures that are unforseen. >> another issue likely to come up is the fiscal positions of the state. you have major states that are in very tough fiscal positions, big deficits, and there's a prospect that one or more may come to you and say we cannot avoid truly awful cuts in services without another help from the federal government. what's your response to that? say california. >> we can't do a bailout. if we bail out one state, then all of the debt of all the states is not just implied, but explicitly put on the books of the federal government. then the federal debt goes from here to here by the amount of state debt. there seems to be an implicit belief that these are federally backed. they are not.