>> it would be great to say you disagree, that would be a wonderful example of leadership, it is tricky, because the president might say i am going to refuse to execute a lot that is unconstitutional, even though the court has upheld that, because i have a different interpretation. say that he disagrees with a discriminatory law and the court says that segregation is fine, but a liberal president, the total hypothetical, will say i believe in that original condition of reconstruction for republicans and then refuse to offer segregation on the state's time. . .

. >> and citizens in united, i got the feeling that the court was

reaffirming this fiction that corporations are a people. are we going to have corporations serving on that juries and a voting? [laughter] >> is there a stopping point for the rights of the corporations? what parts of the bill of rights don't they get to invoke? >> part of the public debate on this is unaware of the situation. since the late 19th century the supreme court has determined that corporations shared some of the rights of citizens. obviously, we do not expect them to serve on juries. we do wish they would pay their share of taxes. this is something we will be discussing for the next couple of years. it resonates with the public. >> next.

>> speaking about interpreting the constitution, to the best of my knowledge, the constitution is not supposed to be interpreted. the constitution is supposed to be clear. how could you contrast that true wealth of the people who from the populace? how can you measure the wealth of citizens in the united states [unintelligible] >> the question would be, how would i know what is the will of the people when i write this book? what we call it the will of the people changes over time. in the 1800's, there was a great deference to the gentry elite. later, big tycoons and war

veterans had the biggest voice. we look at adversarial court rooms, we debate, you turn on your television and there are pros and cons. there is not a lot of gray area in the middle. i can see what the fight was. i can see what the sides look like. i can see who won. >> just to pick up on the question. now that the polling is so much better and instant reactions are so much more precise, public opinion has become more and direct. >> be made a great point about technology. this book required me to think about what the supreme court did and to do a lot of research about how the public reacted. whether it is railroads or technology to change, you're

right, poles do not exist until the 1930's -- polls do not exist until the 1930's. now we know right away with the+ american people think. >> i have not read your book but i agree with the general thesis. nonetheless, i was surprised when you decided roe versus a way. the decision has been around for 37 years. abortion is now legal in a way more jurisdictions and then it was in 1972, still. the groups that have mobilized the counter-wrote versus weighed -- roe vs wade is still

unhappy. were you being predicted a when you made your comment about uápvr'g that it is going to be overturned -- your comment about roe, saying that it is going to be overturned? >> when the court decides, it may get it right or wrong. if the court decision makes sense in the context of what is happening in a country historically, that does not mean they always get it right. if they strike down the death penalty in every state and then 37 states reinstate the death penalty, the court says, ", we got that wrong, and then they reenact the death penalty. the american people have been right, they're not always

overwhelming, it depends on the provision of the law, but they are generally in support of abortion rights. but what people do not understand is that the casey decision scaled back those rights in major ways. women could be shown pictures of aborted fetuses and know what was happening. the remarkable thing about the casey decision was that if you went down a provision by provision what was challenged in at the case, it could also do a gallup poll provision by a provision and see the support. >> the dread scott decision declared people property. i have heard it said that in

another decision declared property people. when to corporations merge, does that legalize same-sex marriage? [laughter] >> very good. for that, there can be no response. >> this was not mentioned, but i am still trying to figure out how the supreme court made the decision in electing george bush for president. >> how did they do it or why? >> why? i know how they did it. i just had a comment that when president obama spoke the other night in regards to the supreme

court decision on the campaign issues, when i read about the decision that they made, i thought it was one of the most stupid decisions and that they had made, and i think that his response to the other night was appropriate, and i do not believe that portions of the media should have attacked him in the way that they did. he is president, but still, he has individual rights just as all of us do. >> do you want to take the first part of the question? >> let me talk about a bush immerses gore. -- bush vs. gore. people had extremely extraordinary reactions to it. it seemed very partisan. some called it a disgrace. you got that reaction in many

academic circles. the polls prior to the decision, when asked who should resolve the election controversy, over 60% of the american people said the supreme court. we had a similar controversy in 1876 in this country. i am relatively confident that people would not have even thought to say the supreme court. >> a reminder for those of us that care about public opinion that sometimes the court should be death to the calls of the public. -- deaf to the calls of the public. indeed dread scott decision, the public was calling on the court to resolve the issue of slavery. they thought they were doing a grateful nation a favor by making a decision. they were shocked by the

response of republicans. in renquist's book about the election controversy of 1876, he said, that when people are begging to the supreme court for an answer, they make it harder for the court to say no. in something as filled with tension as bush vs. gore, sometimes staying in your hand is the wise thing to do. >> when you look at the public opinion polls after bush vs gore, whatever you thought of the opinion, of course 50% of the people supported the decision. it did not cut into the court posole legitimacy at all. in fact, the legitimacy and bumped up slightly in the public opinion polls.

it was quite a different response, whatever we think about the decision. >> about 80% of democrats disapproved of the decision right after. 80% of republicans approved. but a year later, polls have gone back to what they were before, because 9/11 had happened. it shows that the justices are as bad at predicting what will be given legitimacy. justice scalia predicted that the court would give legitimacy to what bush called a the legitimacy of his election. that turned out to be wrong. the court could no more have anticipated terrorism than the reaction to the outcome of the

election. >> sandra day o'connor thought the election would go a certain way. after the decision and the backlash, in academic discussion circles, her decision seemed to turn a somewhat less -- i think she had an amazing barometer for where the public was on issues. she has had a response which was basically, "see what happens when i leave the court? " [laughter] >> she has also said in public that she is not sure that case was decided correctly. >> i want to make an observation and then ask a question. the observation is about deference on political questions, that the court would stay away from an issue if it

seemed too political. i recall that justice scalia was asked a question about the power to declare war and the fact that the constitution allows only the congress to declare war and how that has been done, and how presidents have used other means to engage the nation in war, and to what extent there still is a difference on political questions. bush vs gore is of course an outstanding example of not backing away from a political question. the real question i wanted to address is this. you have been talking about the court as if it was a single entity. it is in fact nine justices. the outcome of the issues that are brought before the court are very much a factor of the ideological and personal predispositions of each of

those nine persons. they are human beings who are sitting on the court at any time. >> your question? >> i wonder if you could address house that individual shifting of votes this way and that on the court affects your judgment as to how the court response to the democratic will. >> make a point about ideology, and then i will disagree with you. >> temper and is central in defining both how people vote and group dime and -- group dynamics. i think the justices who have been willing to put their ideology aside have to spend more successful. there are the law professor types to roberts was denouncing

the coup are sure they know the right answer and want to push it through. you can have a liberal and conservative pragmatist's. you can have justices like scalia who believe that text is all that matters. temperament matters a lot. >> when should say in response to that last question, up from the perspective of the court, that is the internal, institutional perspective, they will not resolve a political question. they will resolve a constitutional question. they did so in a way that had political consequences. to be fair to the court, in the issue of the two cases that were presented to them, all nine of

the justices understood that they were not in deciding who should be president, but the constant to original question of the controversy within the politics -- but the constitutional question of the controversy within the politics. i think we have to give the court credit for the perception of it had of what it was doing, whether or not you like the outcome. i do not think the justices thought they were making a decision in order to make george bush president. i do not think any of the nine thought that. >> when it is crystal clear that the consequences of deciding that decision will decide the president of the united states, i do not always agreed with the justices, but at that moment it

may have been smart for the court to sit back and think through the political consequences. >> i don't think it was anticipated that we would go to the eve of inauguration without a cut -- without a presidential choice. >> by the textbook definition of a political question, not a description of whether an issue has political consequences, this met all of the criteria. there were mushy standards susceptible to legal resolution. it seems almost comical that justice scalia said they could not hear challenges in the gerrymandering in cases when the political consequences applied so much more dramatically in the bush vs gore.

>> thank you for a stimulating discussion. my question relates to caution and versus pragmatism. i am focused on the chief's concurrence in the citizens united, which seemed to say, quite a ride. >> both justice kennedy and the chief justice in a separate concurrence marched through all of the reasons why they had to do this. the case is remarkable in the number of briefs that were filed and the arguments were made in stopping points along the way. by the time you walk through those stopping point to explain why you couldn't stop theire, oe wonders if you did have to go

all the way. >> i think it started in 1990 when it justice kennedy made a decision in a case. from that day forward he was instrumental -- when the court backed off of the statutory argument and called for new constitutional arguments, it was all over at that time. >> in the voting rights act, that was a case where john roberts did what he was supposed to do. everyone thought the court would strike down the voting rights j t(qin any 8-1 decision, they came up with a statutory argument that had never occurred to congress. they created a kind of technical provision that said that any municipal district can bail out

if they meet certain qualifications. >> why didn't he do the same thing in this case? he said people were protesting too much. he is shocked by any suggestion that he shouldn't have done this. but that is exactly what they did indeed boating rights case. >> this proves berries point perfectly. john roberts had a majority, and he'd lost it. i think that was a perception of where the country is by either john roberts wore the colleagues he had with him. the court hesitated and pulled back from it, and then reached for a very readily available statutory alternatives in order to decide the case. i think that was a case in

which the court clearly got cold feet, or some member got cold feet, and roberts would have gone to the whole way with citizens united if he could have. one more question. >> i join in the banking and the panel for a terrific discussion -- i join in thanking the panel for a terrific discussion. i thought you might want to comment on the apparent replacement of the amendment procedure as a mechanism for the people's will through the other mechanisms you described in the book. >> so, the framers arguably blue

something in writing the constitution. they arguably blew a number of things. one of them was at the framework for amending the constitution, which is extremely difficult. if you think about it, you do not want it to be a simple popular vote. but it is nearly impossible. had they not made it so difficult to amend the constitution, it is not clear if the supreme court would have taken on such an aggressive role in changing the constitution itself. had they gotten it right, i would be in a very different situation than i am now. that is what fosters this national debate that ultimately proper thought -- that ultimately forces the court to come on board.

>> please join me in thanking our panel. [applause] >> thank you very much for your participation today. it is clear that this book is destined for in the bedside tables of the nine most influential legal minds of america. if they are watching this program, i encourage any of this -- any of the justices to come to this center and tell us what they think. we will be signing copies on the way out. [applause] >> tomorrow on "washington journal," of the former director of the congressional budget office on his role in launching a new right-leaning think tank to deal with jobs and the

economy. then we talk about the latest economic reports on -- in the white house. following that, the ongoing relief efforts in haiti. "washington journal," live tomorrow morning on c-span. you are watching c-span, created a for you as a public service by america's country. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> earlier this week the national gay and lesbian task force held a meeting to discuss their political agenda. this event took place in dallas. this is 35 minutes. [applause] >> we love you. >> i love you too. a year ago when we came together, as kate said, we were digesting a couple of high- profile losses. but at the same time, we were filled with hope, our minds filled with possibility and promise. our sweat, hope, money and work had helped elect a new president and a more lgbt friendly congress. finally, it seemed, we might, we

might start building a solid floor of legal equality from which we could reach the sky of freedom. the bush-cheney years were behind us. change was coming, and it was no longer a question of if, but when. for those of us who had been fighting for so long, and that is everyone of us in this room, and the millions who are not with us today, change was sounding pretty good. we believed, and why shouldn't we? he said, i am running court president to build an america that lives up to our promise of equality for all, it promised that extends to our gay brothers and sisters. he said it is wrong to have millions of americans living as second-class citizens. i will never compromise on my

commitment to equal rights for all lgbt americans. we were eager to see what a fierce advocate could do. but now, it is one year into this new administration. it is one year into this new congress. there have been advocates, but not fierceness. change is more than words. change is action. [applause] if we really are all created equal, if it really does not matter who we are, what we look like, or who we love, then it is time for this president and this congress to take concrete steps to ensuring that equality. [applause] and since the president and

congress brought up don't ask don't tell alaska week -- last week, let us start there. if the administration does in fact implement what it now states it can do under the existing law, the lives of thousands of service members will begin to improve, and the witch hunts will and spirit i thank the president -- the witch hunts will end. i thank the president for showing leadership here. i really do. [applause] but let me be clear. a year-long study, does not in a fierce advocate make. a year is far too long to wait. it is time to start using the

executive branch to stop these discharges now while the congress moves to make these shameful practices and. -- end. mr. president, the ball is in your court. you have the opportunity to go down in history as one of the few presidents who acted decisively to move human rights forward. we must hold equally, if not more accountable, the members of congress who stand in the way of these equal rights. [applause] their hands are not clean. i have been out in day america for 27 years -- in gay america for 27 years. i know that change takes time.

but happen it must. we are in those wars and facing an economic crisis. we're dealing with health care reform and climate change. look at the calendar. we will get you. i am looking at the calendar, and it is 2010. 2010. should a quality be something we schedule? should we only act to and blatant discrimination when it is politically convenient? no! that is why we have come here this weekend. the change we seek must come from us, from our senior leadership working together. we thought we would finally have a leadership that would stand with us, work with us and for us. but that has not fully happened yet. so, it is still up to us to

push, and in fact to lead. [applause] we, we in this room, we across the country, are the agents of change. we have the power to compel change. while this struggle has become a political struggle, when used to divide people and turned groups in our country against each other to rally the electoral and political favor, if you step outside the entrenched political battle -- entrenched political battle, at its most basic, this is about our quality and integrity in this country. you either have it or you don't, and we don't. [applause] last june, we asked people to send us letters.

many of you in this room wrote them as well. i hand-delivered them to the president. when one woman wrote that she had to hide the fact that she had a partner and two kids and that she could lose her job if anyone found out -- equality is a moral imperative. the we are into we love should not be the subject of political debate. it should not be subject to the political whim of voters. certainly, our lives should not have to be on a trial. [applause] there can be no compromise on civil rights, no piecemeal human-rights. these rights must be unabridged, and we stand with all of those who seek the promise of equality and to struggle for fulfillment. [applause]

i suggest to those who say, do not push so hard, just wait, that sounds like somebody already enjoying the benefits of equality, as someone who can marry who they want, as someone who can serve their country freely, as someone who can enter nursing homes without having to go back in the closet, at someone who does not have to face the in dignity of filling out forms after form and having to cross out the word mother or father just to reflect the reality of our family. for that person asking us to wait, a little reminder, there is no such thing as being just a little equal. what has gotten lost in washington and communities across the nation is that this

is not a political question. this is a moral question. justice and freedom are not just american promises. they are human rights! [applause] when the president, when the president said he was committed to equal rights, and congress takes an oath to uphold the founding principles of our nation, that does not mean some rights, it means all right. non-negotiable. is 2010 and we have waited long enough. [applause] if we do not leave here this weekend together focused on real change, last year's winner will become meaningless once again. compeling change to happen is and always has been up to us. honestly, i take faith in that.

i have seen what we can do together when we dedicate ourselves, when we decide we are not going to settle for anything less than what we deserve. so, while we wait for action, for the president to move beyond words and into bold action, and for congress to find its moral compass, we are going to keep pushing and keep working, and much of the change will happen in our own cities and states across the country. [applause] that work is not easy. it takes sacrifice. both personally and for our families, we in this room know that deeply. we have seen a long days and long nights. at the end of those days there will be wins and losses. regardless, we keep moving forward. we keep working together. we keep getting more support,

and we keep getting stronger. no matter what happens along the way, the dignity of our lives will not be denied. [applause] that is what the pundits miss in their post-election discussions and analysis of change. one ballot measure was not a reflection of our movement or our goals. maine was not a definitive or a turning of the tide any more than it turns out california was. do our losses hurt, particularly for families in maine, california and elsewhere? absolutely. does it mean we are giving up? allowing a temporary loss to stand in the way of history? absolutely not. [applause] this year, this year we gained

marriage equality in a vermont, iowa, connecticut, new hampshire and washington d.c. [cheers and applause] you did that work. we did that work. we successfully fought back attempts to roll back protections in places like gainesville and kalamazoo. you did that work. we did that work. [applause] in the city's large and small alike softly city and redding, pa., we ensured protection once more. we did that work together. our grass-roots support is strong and growing. our progress on the deal local and state levels is definitively forward, not backward, and mark my word, we will regain merit in california and maine and elsewhere. [applause]

my grandmother has a magnet on her refrigerator. she has had it for as long as i can remember, and i keep a copy in my wallet. it says, "fall down seven times, get up eight." she is 98. it has served her well, and it serves our movement well. we have seen that when we come together, when we roll up our sleeves and date in, we create change. in the past decade, through our work together, the number of states recognizing a same-sex relationships increased from two to 20, including the district of columbia. the number of states out line

discrimination including based on gender identity, went from 1 to 14. [applause] we have collected hundreds of pro lgbt candidate and defeated those who are not our friends. just in this past year, through our work together, as kate mentioned, we finally passed and got signed into law the matthew shepard hate crimes prevention act. [applause] let us not forget that one of the important things about the signing of that act is that for the first time in this nation's history, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered people are covered in federal block -- federal law.

[applause] and through the advocacy of our new beginnings federal policy project, a collaboration of 20 organizations, we have already made tangible federal policy changes that will improve the lives of lgbt people, including seniors, people with low incomes, and we have ensured that our marriages and our partnerships will be counted in the 2010 census. [applause] this is what can happen. this is what does happen when we work together. this year, i have been reminded again and again that our real inspiration comes from each other. we are the people to enable us

to get up day after day and keep working. that is what really inspires us and keep us going. it is the transgendered high school student who goes to school every day dressed as she wants, no matter what is said, and no matter what happens. it is the soldier determined to fulfill his or her dream and his love for our country, even though it is greater than our country's love for him. it is the parent who have committed their lives to stopping violence from happening in the first place. it is the game and working against racial profiling. it is the straight neighbor who walks side-by-side with us in this effort. these are our heroes. these are my heroes.

for those of you to look at the last year and are angry, to those who are frustrated by the pace of change and the circuitous route it has taken, i say, so am i.. but that anger, unless channeled, will not bring us change. that frustration, unless redirected, will not move us forward. that frustration, it turned upon each other, is destructive. [applause] and may i say, that is exactly what our opponents want. they want us a bit distracted and downtrodden. they want us splintered and sniping and arguing that one tactic will save us over all the

others. they want as disorganized. our opponents have seen what we can accomplish united, and it scares them. [applause] that is why, that is why this year we will not ask for change. we will not debate change. we will not plan for change and we will not wait for change. we will create change. [applause] there will be a when people will wonder how our rights were even an issue or a big deal. this state of inequality can not be our children's or our grand children's inheritance. [applause] that means stepping up and answering the call at this

moment in history. we have an opportunity to lead. it is up to us to define what must happen next, and what will happen next. if we do not step up, and -- if we do not step up with an expense -- and expansive view of what it means to be a lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered, if we do not explain what it means to be human, we will be making a mistake. an agenda? yes, i have an agenda. certainly. let's fight legislative battles. let's and don't ask don't tell. let's overturned the so-called defense of marriage act. let's make sure there is a

domestic partnership enacted for all employees. state by state, let us enact anti-bullying of laws to protect lgbt youth. [applause] but, but, let's not be defined by those battles solely. let's not be limited to those ways of defining our lives. we cannot let others see us as just these issues. that others see our struggle as more, as a movement for justice, equality and liberation, as a movement for human rights, is critical to our success. so, as we step into this new year, let us lead, let us a really, really lead.

fortunately, there are no places, as of today, tomorrow we will see, there are no places that face an imminent threat of an anti-marriage or anti-lgbt ballot measure this year. however, if they come up, we will be there. and yet, with eight back to ban on affirmative action -- with a ban on affirmative action on the ballot in a one state and other anti human-rights issues in other states, we must be willing to step up to work on the issues

that affect our lives. let us work for meaning cut -- for meaningful health-care reform that protect lgbt people. let us stand with the people of you gotta to fight homophobic laws and expanded the -- the people of uganda to fight, public laws and expanded because of human rights and globally. our voices need to be heard in these fights and on these issues, but not just on these issues. we must lead on all issues that affect our lives and our communities. take immigration. if we are truly a community and the movement committed to freedom, justice and equality, and then at reforming our nation's cruel and broken immigration system must be on

our agenda for action. [applause] today, there are at least 12 million immigrants, including at least half a million lgbt people, who are forced to live in the shadows of our society. they are people like harold, and 18 year-old gay man who came to this country from the philippines with his parents. this is the only country has ever known. but today, because he is undocumented, he cannot get a driver's license, a job, or a student loan. he is going to be arrested and deported to a country where he has no connections, no prospects, and where he cannot speak the language. there are people like victoria, an undocumented transgendered woman who was swept up by the

immigration system, put into a detention jail, where she was denied hiv medication and medical attention, even when she was vomiting blood. this caused her her life. she died chained to a hospital bed with to immigration guards standing at the door. there are at least 36,000 by national couples who cannot live together here in this country because federal law bans recognition of their relationship. so yes, immigration reform is an lgbt issue. [applause] at some point, the president and congress will pick up

immigration reform. this fight will make the push for health-care seem like a walk in the park. [laughter] it will involve incredibly hard choices, but let us be clear. we will stand by our allies in the immigration movement come what may. [applause] we need to make this next generation the decade our nation realized that we faced a far greater issues than who someone loves and wants to marry. our strength as a people is weakened and lessened when we fight each other rather than the social, economic, environmental and global concerns that face us all. the lgbt community is challenge, but we are creative and we are ready to create a vision of

inclusiveness and a transformed society. if there were ever a time that we needed to work together as one people, it is now. [applause] believe it or not, there are still thousands of people who do not know anything about our lives, and to whom we our invisible -- are invisible. let us start right now to create some change. take out a piece of paper or your hand held. i am serious. now, at the top, right "-- write, "my life." below that, right, "talk."

as lgbt people and our straight allies, i want us to commit to taking three actions every month for the next year. each month, talk. talk to a neighbor, a co-worker, or a family member about an issue that affects your life. each month right. write a letter to the editor. right of blog. right on your facebook page. right -- write a blog. write on your facebook page. and each month, meet. meet with local officials. meet with those who can make a difference. if all of us, just at this conference, commit to this.

we will have taken over 72,000 actions just in one year to move toward the visibility of our lives and to engage and advocate. 72,000, just at this conference. i follow some of you on the twister and you are my friends on -- on twitter and you are my friends on the facebook. i know how far our reach is, and that does not even count c-span. last year, the right wing organization, americans for truth about some sexuality -- and believe me there is not a lot of truth there -- is a quote from my speech here for one of their fund-raising letters. like a good activist, we turned around and used their quotes in our fund-raising letters.

well, americans for truth about some sexuality -- about homosexuality, here is your money quote for this year. [applause] "we are still recruiting!" we are recruiting. we are recruiting a movement of people who care about freedom, justice and equality. and we will not stop until everyone can live without fear of persecution prosecution or attack just because of who they love. we are still recruiting. [applause] we will see what they do with that. [laughter]

for 37 years the task force has been at the forefront of change, and we plan to stay there. we want you there with us. we want the task force to be your home. for those of you to spend your days in public servants working for change as local, state, or federal government employees, you are home. for those of you to take action through blogs, social networking, or tweets, you are,. for those of you who are in the act up or clear nation, you are home. for those -- order -- or queer nation, you are home. for those of you like elton and

jon and lady gottaga, you are h. for those of you have the courage to practice your face, a faith that may have rejected you or others, you are home. for those of you who are straight but seat yourselves in the fight for lgbt quality, welcome home. [applause] the task force has never been homogenous. we are diverse, a dynamic and passionate. because of that, we have not always agreed with each other. but together, we always

compelled this country to pay attention to our lives. we always compel others to evolves toward fairness, and that is what we are going to keep doing. let us inspire each other to lead, to create a society where equality is unconditional, where it the acceptance of diversity is not a goal but a given, and where the concern is not who we love but that we love. let's go create change. thank you. [cheers and applause] thank you. >> still to come on c-span,

tennessee congressman marsha blackburn on the job growth and the u.s. economy. later, israeli and palestinian journalists gather in the jerusalem to talk about the middle east conflict. tomorrow on good news makers," -- tomorrow on "newsmakers," bob corker. that is tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern, here on c-span. >> book tv weekend continues all day monday with programs dedicated to american presidents. this coming week, but tv is live in a prime-time, starting

tuesday night with contemporary authors taking your phone calls, e-mails and tweets. for the entire schedule, go to booktv.org. >> and now a discussion on jobs and the economy. from friday's "washington journal." . . . # h7@@ u@no carrierringconnect 0 1eand ççthe

>> we are doing the listening sessions where people can come in my district and talk to us about what they think we're doing right and wrong, where they think our country is on the wrong track. in august, we had the town halls, and people showed up in record numbers. what we need to do now is here from the american people and give them the opportunity to have their say. we should let them know that we are listening to them and are going to take action. we're going to focus on solving the problems that exist. number one is jobs. we are one year after the stimulus. people are saying, where are the

jobs? they want the economy, jobs creation to be bogus number one. we have the administration -- to be the number one focus. the administration is talking about a $3 billion budget and a stimulus #two. washington does not get it. we are going to make an effort to be certain that our constituents have the opportunity to voice their opinions. host: we would like to give you the phone number so you can join in with our conversation with marsha blackburn. we're going to talk policy and politics with her. this survey that i suggested also asks about the tea party movement as one place where some

of the anger at washington is being vocalize. i am wondering if you can explain your relationship and decision not to take part in last weekend's convention with the tea party and where you think the tea party movement those -- goes. guest: i think it is a great grassroots movement. it is a revitalization of the energy that people are seeing in bringing to public debate. the tea party meetings are taking place all across this nation in towns large and small. it is energy and focus. one thing that has interested me is, when i have spoken to tea party groups, the crowd and number of women in the crowd, so many women are looking at what is taking place in washington and saying, you know what, it is time for washington to get its house in order. they're showing up and voicing

those opinions. i like the energy that i see there. in tennessee, we have quite a history with tea party is. when i was in the state senate in the late 1990's and early 2000's we had a push in our state. we had a republican governor who wanted to institute a state income tax which we do not have in tennessee. we had not a four-day, four- week, or four-month battle, we had a four-year battle to defeat that. we did. the great people of this state rose up and we had tea parties at the state capitol in national -- national -- nashville. people in our state look at the state budget and said, wait a minute, we know that the government never ever get enough of the taxpayer money. when we look at the state government and ask how much is

enough, there was not an answer for that. we know that there never is it going to be at top to that. as to how much is enough for them to take out of your paycheck. i led thatñi fight against the state income tax, working hand in hand with so many wonderful constituents. the people of the state stepped forward, came to the state capital, we had our tea party, and after four years, we defeated this tax. in tennessee, we're probably a little ahead of the curve on this. we know there is tremendous energy all across this nation with people looking at government and both parties and saying, in if is enough -- enough is enough. we have had it. it is time for government to

begin to be good stewards and be accountable for having those dollars. host: can you explain what you were not at the convention? guest: absolutely. i would have loved to have been there because it was a great gathering of conservatives. the organizational structure of the event was a for-profit organization that cause concerns. as we said it to the committee on standards, they came back with concerns. they suggested that we not go. in order to not have a violation and stay within the rules of the house, we had to decline the invitation to be part of the convention. host: last question on policy. we talked about jobs creation and the deficit. is there a consensus among your conference in the house about the best kind of jobs program, vis avis concern over the rising federal debt.

guest: the best economic stimulus is a job. what we're hearing from small businesses as they would like to see tax reductions, tax credits, and incentives. we continue to hear from them that they would like to see us move forward on. they would like an elimination of capital gains taxes for a couple of years. small businesses would love that and it would give them the opportunity to reinvest in their businesses. for many of our small business owners, they are saying, look, eliminate withholding for a couple of months -- three months, for one quarter. let the american worker get their full paycheck for ua 3- month period. that would put money back on main street and give them money to address their needs. it is a great way to incentivize the economy at the main street level, which is where people want to see the

focus place to, not on wall street. host: let's take our first telephone call. it is from oklahoma city on the republican line. caller: good morning. how are you today? host: if you have your television in the background, it creates the back. could you turn it off? caller: let me turn it off. real quick here, the republican leadership -- i realize the atmosphere of what -- i do not think they realize the atmosphere of what is going on in the country. conservative principles -- that is why we lost in 2006 and 2008. the arrogance of the administration has been poisonous. the administration is a train wreck. where one to put -- when are we going to put out talking points to talk to american people and remind american leadership where we stand?

thank you very much. guest: that is a great slush -- great question. in 2006 and 2008 we did lose the majority because much of our republican leadership in the nation was focused on pork and perks and privileges, rather than people and problem solving. i agree with the caller on that. a couple of points, because i think our leadership and republicans as a whole, republican-elected officials realize that the american people are sick and tired of the out of control spending in washington, d.c. and sick and tired of the out of control growth of government, not only at the federal level. we're seeing this in many of our state governments also. we're seeing this in many cities across the nation. it is the desire for accountability, which is a very good thing. the american taxpayer is

demanding transparency. a couple of points i would like to make to the caller. i am a republican who always felt like, even with president bush and republican leadership in the house, we spent twoo much money. one of the disappointments not only for us but for the american people as been that the obama administration's spends much more. speaker pelosi and her team spent much more. here is a great point that came to us from some of our budget committee members. when you look at the 12 years of republican control, the average annual deficit -- when you pile those annual deficits in -- was about $104 billion per year, the annual average deficit. you had a surplus and then the largest deficit was maybe $530

billion in deficit. when you look at the three years of democratic control, their average annual deficit is $1.10 trillion per year. the average annual deficit for republicans has become the average monthly deficit for democrats. that is when you look at spending. when you take into account that there is a $3.80 trillion budget on the table this year that is going to double the national debt in five years and triple the national debt in 10 years, the american people are joining fiscal conservatives and the same, we have got to stop this. the spinning -- the spending is out of control and the taxpayer will not put up with it. host: can you name thing -- one thing you would cut to get the deficit in order?

guest: i would direct people to my website where they can get more information on this. the best way to approach this is the way that some of our states have. it is across-the-board spending cuts. every year, when i was in the state senate in tennessee and again in congress, a proposed three bills calling for 1% from a 2%, and 5% across-the-board cuts. this is important because it resets the baseline. the federal government does not work from performance-based budgeting. they were from baseline budgeting which means they start with what you got last year and build on top of that. when you make those cuts -- the spending reductions, actual reductions -- you are resetting and lowering that baseline. for 2006 budget, the deficit reduction act, we were able to get the 1% across-the-board

cuts. that provision, as a part of that bill, was on the discretionary, non-defense, non-, and security spending. -- non-homeland security spending. think what would happen if we did that over five years. think of the way we could reduce that bureaucracy and a cheap of this disease -- and achieve efficiencies and get rid of redundancy. a couple years ago i was checking on economic development programs, approximately 118th economic development programs that are available via the federal government. but if those were consolidated in simplified? -- what if those were consolidated and a simplified? put the money into savings, rather than building debris bureaucracy.

-- building procuracy -- bureaucracy. caller: thank you for c-span. i have been calling you since the 1990's. i hope you can be on the presidential candidate and maybe you can win the state of tennessee -- al gore could not win it. i want to talk about social security. i am 55 years old and unemployed right now. i am trying to figure out -- i made much more 10 years ago in gross pay than i am making today. i think americans should wake up. i think one other problem is that, in tennessee, where they have six or seven government houses -- they are drawing section 8 and the government is paying for food stamps, i think this is a program that has been

abused over the years, just one area of the country. i think we need to put some of these people who are healthy back to work. i realize some of these people legitimately need assistance, but i think it is being abused. host: thank you. guest: let me talk about two separate areas in the question. one is about waste, fraud, and abuse, in the federal government system and the other is concern over the sovereignty of the social security system. some of us have tried to work on the solvency issues for medical -- medicare and security -- medicare and social security. the federal government has first right of refusal on your paycheck. they have taken that money out of your paycheck to put into social security. that should be your money.

they have taken money out of your paycheck to set aside for medicare. our seniors have prepaid medicare. when we go through this health care debate, and that is something that needs to be remembered. that is the taxpayer money. it has been extracted from their paychecks. when it comes to social security, one of the items that i have saw to do is to make certain that the federal government as to put a wall there. what is happening right now is this. they take the money out of your paycheck, then they put it over into a line-item for the social security trust fund. but they end up spending that money in the general fund. the federal government is borrowing that money back. then they write and i know you -- an iou every year to the social security trust fund.

the trust fund? these up -- the trust fund stacks these up. by the time we get to 2019, we will run out of surplus which means that social security will not have more money coming in than going out. at that point we start drawing down those ious. the estimation is that we run out of those at 2042. i believe the federal government should be blocked from borrowing and spending that money. i have had legislation around for a few years that would do that. i have had legislation that would deal with the medicare issue and allow individuals that turns 65 and are still working and like private health insurance to be able to get there about your from medicare for what they have paid in, this is their money, and use that to stay in the health-savings

account or a private auction that they have available to them through their job. -- or a private option that they have available to them through their job. the second issue he mentioned, waste, fraud, and abuse, i bet you if i were to go around the room with my constituents and say, tell me where you think the federal government is wasting money, everybody in the room would be able to give me a solid, concrete example of some area of waste or fraud or abuse that they see taking place on an ongoing or regular basis, or something they have heard or seen on tv or been a part of. they want to see this end. they are looking for transparency and accountability. as we work through the appropriations process, i am going to continue with my across-the-board spending cuts.

we continue to fight your marks -- your marks -- earmarks which need to be revisited or done away with and have transparency brought to that issue. it is important to our constituents and to the health of this nation, as well as our children and grandchildren, that the fiscal house of the united states of america is brought into order. host: our next question is from georgia on the republican line. guest: good morning. host: what is your question? caller: my biggest concern is, when you look at the budget deficit, a lot of people looked at -- president obama is like a woman on macy's -- at macy's on

a spending spree. it kind of makes people wonder where his ties are. i think he is trying to bankrupt the country. host: why would he want to do that? why would he want to bankrupt the nation? caller: i really do not want to mention it. then people will come down here investigating me like joe the plumber. host: thank you. guest: the out-of-control government spending is something that i hear in my district when i am in my colleagues districts -- we hear the same things. it is interesting me that all across this country people are going, wait a minute, government does not have sources of revenue

other than what they get from the taxpayer. the taxpayer is saying, we are overtaxed and government, you are overspent. it is time for you to do -- and this is a great example. yesterday afternoon i was visiting with a small business. they said, we have gone through every single area of this company. we are doing everything we can possibly do to save money and make certain that we are not laying people off. we are working diligently on this. why do bureaucrats in washington, d.c. not do this? why did they not sit down at a table -- why do not members of congress require these federal agencies to do with less? they were astounded that there was a $3.80 trillion budget. all of that is going to be filed

-- piled onto the debt. we have in your agency debt, public debt -- add them together and our debt total is now over $13 trillion. we put another $1.40 trillion in this year's annual deficit onto that debt. people are saying, look, i do not have any more money to send to washington. they get first right of refusal on my paycheck. i have too much month left at the end of my money. government cannot take any more out of this. if i have to pay more in taxes and fees, i am going to have fewer people that i can hire. if they go implement this cap and trade bill, i am going to see my fees go up. if they implement health care, i will see the cost of that health care increase.

what is happening in washington, d.c.? it seems like, and rightfully so, to a lot of our constituents that what we're seeing right now is more emphasis on growing government in stimulating big government, and not the emphasis on creating jobs, and making certain that theñr environment s right for creating jobs in the american -- grading jobs. the american people are still asking where the jobs are. they know that they are looking at this budget that is going to spend too much and taxed too much and far too much and keep that on the heads of our children and grandchildren. they are saying, no more. enough is enough. the time has come for you to get spending under control and your fiscal house in order. host: with a democrat calling from atlanta. you are on the air.

caller >> good morning. i would like to start off by saying -- caller: good morning. i would like to start off by saying that the vice-president said deficits don't matter. now all of a sudden they matter. i will be 70 years old on march 1. you have said nothing i have not heard for the last 40 years. it is the same, old, same old. i have a good suggestion, i think. based on the tea party crowd, the town halls, and the faces that i see, i would suggest that we discharge everybody from the military that does not look like you and you can be the recruiter in tennessee, my home

state, memphis, exactly. you can recruit an all-white military, based on the faces that i see in these ridiculous protests. thank you for listening. host: anything for that you were? guest: like many people, she feels as if what comes out of washington is a lot of rhetoric and not a lot of action. i think that is why people want to see legislators take action and solve the spending problem and address many of the problems that our nation has. the economy is the number one issue on the table. host: health care continues to be an important topic for the president. i wonder if there is a consensus on how the republican conference will handle this in addition to the health care meeting at the white house. guest: it is very interesting,

isn't it, that we have been asking the president for a meeting since last year and then he was courageous -- gracious and accepting our invitation to come to baltimore and visit with us. i asked him in baltimore about health care. when he -- when does he plan to bring our ideas to the table? when does he plan to bring the lesson learned to the table? we've had a couple of experiments in the public option health care, one being here in tennessee, which was the tenncare program put in place in 1994. the other one was in massachusetts. we know from scott brown's race that in massachusetts there was only a 32% approval rating for that health care plan. they have seen their cost rise over 20% in the past 18 months and have a $5 billion state

budget deficit that they are trying to deal with, in large part because of their health care plan. in tennessee, which is a plan with about 15 years of experience, we have a governor who is a democrat who has done a very good job of trying to rein this program in and make certain it was the been the state could afford. i mentioned at the top of the show that the state income-tax battle that was of four- -- a four-year battle. all of a sudden, it had quadrupled from the original estimates. it was about to bankrupt the state. it was an executive-order program that the legislature could not deal with. you have to figure out a way to pay for it. people are very concerned, and rightfully so, about the

implications. what about the problems that would exist if you implemented this kind of health care plan? as the president has invited us to discuss on february 25, i think there are a couple of things that would be very important before those discussions begin. number one, the american people want to know that the health care bill that went through the house and went through the senate is going to be thrown away and not on the table. what they want to see on the table is a clean sheet of paper. they want to know that this is going to be starting from scratch, because we, as republicans, have ideas that would address the issue of portability of insurance and insurance accountability, and according to cbo, would reduce insurance premiums by about 10%

per year. that is per individual and per family. that is significant. those ideas deserve to be heard. we also have called for addressing liability in tout -- liability and tort reform. we need to remember that many of these plans passed in 2006 on a bipartisan basis with bipartisan support. there were sent to the senate where the republicans have the majority but they did not have the 60 votes and they did not get " sure -- get cloture. there were never able to take up small business health plans and association health plans and insurance accountability and buying interest across state lines addressing purchasing models. all of these issues have received bipartisan support in the house in the past. they deserve to be put on the

table and to be done with a blank sheet of paper -- blank sheet of paper, coming up with a bill that will lower the cost of health care and lower the cost of health insurance and make available to more people affordable health insurance. those with pre-existing and chronic conditions, make sure they have access to affordable help out insurance. [no audio] public option health care and what the pitfalls are. what should we be wary of? he has said this would be the mother of all unfunded mandates to our states. much of the burden would be shifted to the states for paying

for the implementation and expansion of services in these programs. host: our next call is from kentucky on the independent line. caller: i am an avid viewer, but i have not called in before, and i really appreciate "washington journal." i appreciate the programs you do, you do a great job. the concerns i have as i listen to the program this morning is that, both parties appear to be wedded to corporate interests. i think that is probably more on the republican side of things. i think there is little bit more of an affiliation with corporate interests on that side and the democratic side. nevertheless, i think both parties are wedded to corporate interests.

they are not -- at least in the legislature, we are not, as a people, seeing the legislature do the business of the people. we are not seen the legislature getting things done. i think that is a problem. i think that representative blackburn would agree with that, that we're not seeing things get done for the people. my question is, i think that we have -- there are two good things i have concern about. one is that we have a president, who from the very beginning, said, we want judd gregg to be involved -- i think it was as secretary of commerce or something. they extended that from the beginning and have routinely taken a conciliatory stance in reaching across the aisle.

but he has been met with such big three all -- vitriol. it is unheard of and very bad decorum. when she heard, "you lie," we have to put, "boy," on the end of that. there is an undercurrent of racism, it seems to me. it is unfashionable to express our racism, so we sublimat into -- the sublimate it into tea party. host: i think we understand your direction and we will give the congress woman a chance to respond. guest: a couple of things. again, and expressing what we hear continually that the american people are tired of talk and want to see action and

want to see problems solved. they want that laid out clearly. give us a timeline of how we are going to move forward to address some of these problems. when it comes to being the party of no, which is something the mainstream media as many times said about the republicans are the party of no. we are the party of k-n-o-w. know what is announced legislation and in the bills and we are against the policies being brought forward. increasing taxes is not a good policy and does not need to happen right now. when you have an economy that is in a situation that we are in right now, increasing taxes is not what you want to do. you want to move back and reduce taxes. increase spending -- increased

spending is not the right message. it sends the wrong message to other nations that own the debt of the united states and to the markets. most importantly, it sends the wrong message to the taxpayers of this great nation. it says that the federal government is not going to get that spending under control. they have not kept their appetite for the money that is in your paycheck and the american people want to see less spending, their taxes lower, government to be more accountable, more transparent, and they would like to see trust restored in some of these foundational institutions that exist in our nation. all across this land, we are hearing that. people are showing up from every walk of life to express their

discontent with the path that our country is on right now with some of the policies that are being moved forward. they are not in favor of when they hear speaker pelosi, leader reid, or the administration bringing forward when it is a policy that will increase the size of government, a growing bureaucracy, and mean that more money is coming out of their paycheck. host: new retail sales numbers are in from the commerce department. they posted better than expected increase in january, a welcome development that could mean a stronger economic numbers in the coming months. they said friday that retail sales increased by .5%, the best showing since november and higher than what was expected. sales posted a 0.6% increase, better than expected. strength in consumer spending is important because it accounts for 70% of beckett -- economic activity.

let's go back to calls for congressman market -- congressman marsha blackburn. caller: good morning, susan an dmar -- susan and marsha. i am an old mississippi state alumni and i appreciate what you're doing in washington. we're getting some of the snow down here. i am sick of it, too. the year after i finished at mississippi state in 1975, i bought a farm. yet the federal bureaucracy has run me off from the farm. we need to get back to our constitutional republic.

our foundation of our country was not socialism. it was people getting out and working. i know that today there are about 30 million government workers. i had to become one of them when i left the farm. you cannot make any money farming anymore. there are 25 million manufacturing jobs. i am asking when they are going to realize that it is the physical economy that is going down the tubes and quit worrying about the financial economy? guest: thank you so much, and, ago, bulldogs -- and go, bulldogs. this stimulus bill -- as i said, february 17 makes of the one year on the stimulus bill.

what it did was stimulate the government and stimulated growth in government. what he is talking about is when you look at all of the jobs creation in the country and where job growth has been -- and did you see it in manufacturing? no. did you see it in retail? no. what you saw it in was in government, and the public sector jobs is where the growth is. it takes all the private-sector jobs, getting that paycheck, making that money, sending that money in in, in order for those to be that government -- those government jobs. many people are looking at these numbers -- i think this is one of the great things that comes from having so much of this information available on the internet. when reports come out like you're talking about, so many of our constituents log on and read

those reports. they then have that information. the growth there seen in public sector jobs is a concern. i had a constituent last week that said, i read that over the next 10 years, with the implementation of the expanded government programs, they are talking about employing several hundred thousand new federal workers over the next 10 years. the concern was that the estimation was most of those employment would be in washington, d.c. and it is an expensive -- expenses -- expansive growth of government. there were concerned about the impact that would have on their federal income tax. there question to me was how much those rates were going to escalate in order to pay for that big expansion of government.

more and more workers are looking at this and saying, what is enough? what percentage of my paycheck is enough? what is enough to send in and pay for your expanded government? when are you going to say, -- what the taxpayers are saying is that they have decided that it is already too high. it needs to be lower. government needs to learn how to do with less. host: we have just a minute or two left. let's take our next call from louisiana. this is from the democrat line. caller: i am a vietnam -- hello? host: can you hit the mute button on your tv and then ask your question? caller: can you hear me? host: we can hear you just fine. caller: i am a reagan democrat.

i am sick of the bipartisan whatever it is. all you do is sit up there and say, what can we do today, how can we get to obama? we got into the vietnam war, which was a stupid war -- and now we are into wars. you have supplemented these wars. you are -- i sat and watched you all morning. yap and capped -- you yap, yap, yap. we have to now pay for the worse. why do you not get the facts right? host: concern about the cost of the wars. i have been getting a lot of twitter messages about the budget of the war and the obama budget compared to the bush

budget. guest: i will be happy be -- happy to talk about that and i want to thank the caller for his service to our country. when you look at the budget process is put into place and bringing those costs on budget, rather than running them as supplementals, that is something that, as you look at the budget process, needs to be done so that there is a regular order to the budget process. unfortunately, as they were approaching this, they were looking at making tremendous cuts to some of our military posts. one of our concerns was with fort campbell, which actually sits in my district in tennessee, where they were seeking to realize 40% reductions. we had troops getting ready to deploy and families that are going to have needs. we were fortunate to be able to work with general lynch and general stanton and our

leadership at fort campbell to address this. more people want to see a regular order budget process. they want to move away from earmarks and it would like to have greater transparency to the budget. if individuals want to look through what has been proposed in that budget, they can go to the government printing office -- gpo.gov -- and of on and pull down this year's document, the 194-page summary. there are about 1400 pages of historical data. those who want to do research can go back and look at how those fundings have been put in order over the years, and then balance that against what they are seeing in the budget this year. that is a great place to do it. host: our last call is from

colorado. it is the independent line. guest: i have found at least $525 billion in at taxable -- in a tax bubble. if we discontinue tax money paid to federal employees and subcontractors for services and goods, and lower the levels by the current income-tax rate, we would be saving $525 billion and the government would be buying everything at 35% less than the public. saving money and getting more -- is that not true? guest: joshua, i do not know what formulary -- exactly where you're going there. i will tell you this, i love it when i hear from constituents who are trying to find solutions. that is what or and more people want to see. that is what more and more

people are doing and why it is important to look at the documents that are online, whether you go to the agencies or my website. people are finding and figuring out ways to save things and bringing those ideas to us at our meetings. it is one of the reasons i look forward to having listening sessions. i want to hear from my constituents the best ideas -- some of the best ideas i have ever had have come from these meetings. we take those back to washington with us. that is the beauty of representative government and it is what more and more members of the house should be doing with the time that they are spending in their districts, especially during this time. host: we are out of time. thank you for being with us. we will see you when you get back to d.c.

guest: absolutely, thank you. >> more about jobs and the u.s. economy with a look at the report on how to create growth. also from friday's washington journal, this is about 45 minutes. on the screen is bruce redd, ceo of the democratic leadership council -- bruce reed. one of the headlines was grim outlook on jobs. what is this about? we had recessions in the past. what is it about this recession making jobs so difficult to begin to foster? guest: the big problem we have had in this recession is that it comes on the heels of a very weak job market to begin with. xdthe american job engine was actually sputtering before this recession began. in the 1990's we were creating ççjobs at 2.6 million a year,m

2001 through to about seven, it dropped by more than half to 1.1 million a year, -- from 2001 through 2007. in a recession when lost 7 million. we have and particular to -- we have a problem with job creation. job losses have leveled off but the real key to job law -- growth over time is for new jobs to be created and that is what the president is focused on. host: we will talk about jobs with bruce reed. new concern questions by phone, twitter and e-mail. mr. reed, ceo of the democratic leadership council, which was very much involved with the clinton-or administration. he was a domestic policy adviser to president clinton and before that very much involved with his campaign for office. he is speaking about policy issues with the present. have you talked to him since his heart -- guest: i have not.

it sounds like he is doing well. host: news reports suggesting might be getting back to work soon. guest: he has been working so hard in haiti. he is a c-span junkie so he very well may be in a hospital bed watching us now. my sympathies for that. host: my question with regard to the democratic leadership council -- where do you have an avenue for your id is today? it seems as though with each administration there isçç açk take -- thinkç tank that has an ççear for a particular white house. it was the case during the clintonç administration. now the progressives seem to have a larger voice. ready have an avenue for your guest:çççç we have a lot ofs inç the obama administration. the we houseç is all ears when it comesçñmççw3ç toçxdçç: you foundç him receptive? i think president

guest: president obama is not ideological in the slightest. they have been great to work with. it is great to be working in a democratic think tank in a democratic town. host: for people not familiar with this, it used to be referred to as the third way of thinking, the middle ground between the two groups, which would explain or your platforms emanate from. guest: it was founded in the mid-1980's because the democrats had a problem in that the country was not buying the ideas we were selling. we had just come off a string of landside losses, and we have tried over the last 20 years to move the democratic party forward into the center to try to focus on non-ideological,

pragmatic solutions and to try to move away from the partisan gridlock that frustrates americans about washington's. host: we a been showing a new york times poll with americans' attitudes about congress at its lowest point in the surveys that have been done in recent years. as far as the dlc and others that are trying to break some of the gridlock that seems to be the order of the day -- guest: americans are a very practical people. they are not ideological. they want to solve problems and they want their leaders to work together to find a way through this. nothing president obama has bent over backwards to try to -- i think president obama has bent over backwards to try to get republican cooperation that has been mostly spurned which, is a

shame. i think one of the things you see is that the president is right to be persistent in continuing to push for cooperation. eventually, americans are going to hold both parties accountable for working together. i think the republicans have had a clever short-term strategy which may help them in this fall's election, but over time, they will only get back in power if they showed that they know how to solve problems and that they have answers to those. so far they have not been willing to engage in that debate. host: with regards to jobs creation, following yesterday's senate budget committee about this debt, senator conrad suggested that history will judge the current political leaders on howçó they work throh our current situation. when you look to jobs grecian, how important is your consideration of the deficit --

job creation, how important is your consideration of the deficit? guest: the administration has made the right decisionútt not pull back from investment in the economy in the midst of this recession. washington is able toñi stack se of the cutbacks at the state level. over the long haul, there is no way we can sustain this. we cannot go on as the world's greatest economic power to the world's greatest economic power -- greatest economic bar work. there will be a reckoning. -- greatest economic borrower. there will be a reckoning. host: i want to show you some recommendations. we will get some calls from people after that. a transfer of $30 billion in

unused park -- tar -- t.a.r.p. money, simplify and make ñipermanent tax credits,ñi and established an american investment bank. ñrwhat are the philosophy's her? guest: the private sector is the real engine of job growth in this country, starting with small business and new business. one thing we found is that a real challenge that we have in this recession is that small business creates more than half of a new jobs and new businesses create about 2/3 of the new jobs. they are the ones hit hardest by the credit crunch. 90% of small-business financing comes from banks. they are really hurting, which is why it is right to propose a small business lending fund using some unused t.a.r.p.

authority. it is also why it is useful to target a jobs tax credit, as he has done, to helpçó -- to be mot helpful to small and new businesses. over the long haul, research and development are essential because innovation isñi what over the long term and the kinds of investments that the government in the private sector can make right now in broadband and networks, and high-speed rail, will pay off in the short run in job creation and in the long run, in new businesses that will be able to work the properties. host: on the jobs tax credit for employers, last week we had a representative ofñi the small business association here on the program and they do not support this tax credit because they said it will cost the country a good deal. no employer is going to take an employee that they do not need, even with a tax credit. hiring has to come because

people have more demand for products. guest: i think we need to do both of these things at the same time. clearly, a tax credit in an of itself is not the number one factor for a small business. it is important to reward small businesses that are growing their peril and make it possible for them to succeed. -- growing their payroll and make it possible for them to succeed. it provides up to $5,000 of tax relief and eases their burden a bit. it is not the only thing, but i think this proposal works quite well and was designed to help the businesses, not big companies. host: let's get some calls. we begin with mary on the democrat -- ken @ on our democrat line. caller: the jobs here in america have been sent overseas. the president has tried to

address health care, to address the employer is paying for people's health care so that they compete with other countries who subsidize their worker health care. he was trying to work with congress to deal with that, but one of the main things that has happened -- the american people have been hoodwinked. the tea party -- those people paying their $500 to go to that -- those are republicans who lost the election. those are the same people who lost the election who are now trying to call themselves the tea party. those are republicans trying to fool these people. those people with dividends and stocks overseas with their slave labor -- those are the people who are trying to push this agenda on the president. we need to wake up and see these people for who they are. thank you. guest: i could not agree more.

health care costs are a huge tax on our economy and employers. that is one of the reasons why most americans have not gotten a raise over the past decade and one reason why job creation has been as low as it has been. we cannot walk away from health care. we need to get something done here. i think there are ways to bring jobs home, too. at the president's job summit i met a remarkable entrepreneur who runs a company in florida that does home sourcing. what she has been able to demonstrate is that by having a solid broadband network in florida and around the region, she is able to convince american companies that they are better off having their call centers here in the united states than outsourcing them to india or elsewhere. host: we're talking to bruce

reed about jobs. john on our republican line. caller: give me an opportunity to speak. number one, he stated earlier -- he talked about obama coming into an economy and the 1990's early on when clinton had jobs. the fact of the matter is that bill clinton had absolutely nothing in those eight years, along with the republican conference -- it was oa boom that had nothing to do with the government. we had 9/11 and we had a false market of housing booms, in which we created tons of jobs and lots of money. obama ran on the fact that he would resolve these things, and everything would be different. once he became president, he reverted back to being what

nobody knew he was anyway, because there was no research -- nobody knew anything about him except what was written in this book. let me say this last thing. when you talk about obama reaching across the aisle and doing whatever, publicly, when he gives speeches, he says the things that i want to hear and everybody wants to hear -- but when you look at governing, as far as the power, it is totally contrary to what the people want. he did not present any thing to allow policy and harry reid to draft legislation. under those things, specified what it is that they are going to do.

d excellent suggestion for both sides to say here of the fiber 10 things we need to do. and i think there is room them that there has to be calling -- willingness to set problems aside. it would be better for everybody if you look at the popularity ratings that congress has -- they are all in trouble. host: i think that different analysts who suggest this is not a time for big solutions to any policy problem that is bigger to take things incrementally because of the state of our issues -- would you agree with that? guest: that is where the electorate is. the challenge that president obama faces is that the problems that he inherited are bigger than the country is willing to

trust the government and political system to solve. that is especially true in health care. -- it is a huge part of our economy, people feel passionate personally about it. and even though he has proposed a private sector solution, people get nervous about big change. we may end up with an instrumental solution. healthcare is the kind of problem where if we are really going to tackle it over the long haul, you are going to have to get everybody in the system, you have to get all of the players collaborating to control costs. so he is right to keep plugging away. but it is a very tough time to be doing it. host: of the admin is cheap -- the administration usurped tried to overhaul health care when things were better. guest: health care is the middle

east of domestic policy. it almost always ends in tears. as the president said, you can't walk away from it because it is such a big problem for our economy. host: indiana, ken, on with bruce reed. caller: thank you for the opportunity c-span offers to little people. i remember when i was young and little town in indiana, the doctors were supplied with a home, sometimes a card to make house calls and the insurance was based on people who were healthy pain into a fund that took care of people who were sick on a small bases, and until politics got involved and the politicians in discounting decided they wanted to be involved in this funding that was from people who were paying in to take care of people who were sick and could not pay end.

welfare state or a community church would take care of people. but it has gotten so far involved in politics and sometimes religion even that it has gotten completely out of hand. i would like to see the democrats and the working-class party get involved and bring it back to that basic part where people are working and paying into an insurance fund to take care of those who are 6. that is the way insurance works. i would appreciate any comments you might have. guest: to live ever much. i grew up in a small town like that -- thank you very much. i grew up and small town like that. i wish we could go back to that model completely. a the basic principle is exactly right, that we ought to have a health care system good for people who work and we should

have a health care system that doesn't put employers out of business for offering health care to their workers. because the only way we are ever going to sustain an insurance system, a safety net, is to have it built around working and rewarding work. host: with regard to your first proposal, transferring $30 billion of the unused tarp authority, senator judd gregg is among those suggesting there is not that the tory authority to use tarp funny -- tar money for this. guest: i and not an expert on this. there is an argument about whether this was unused part money or authority. one way or another, everybody from both parties ought to be to agree there is an incredible credit crunch for small businesses. it would be good if banks took care of themselves -- of it themselves but they haven't

despite the jawboning by the present. incredibly self-defeating if we do not do this. we will not see job growth until we see small businesses able to get credit. host: texas,, on the democrats' line. -- tom on the democrats' line. caller: i want to make a statement in terms of some of the rhetoric going on in terms of president obama. the way this country has got in trouble is really with unfunded tax cut and unfunded wars. i work for a large multinational country and i know what happens when you get a tax break at a high tax bracket. you take that money and you make an investment. to believe that money will go back and create american jobs is a total fallacy. this has been going on since

1980 when ronald reagan came along and it kind of bamboozled the american people to believe we would have this trickle-down economics and jobs will be created. jobs has -- have left% he had taken over and we are not at the point of -- have left ever since he had taken over and we are now at the point where jobs overseas. when someone at a higher level gets money in terms of a tax break it is underfunded, they will take it and invest and invest some place. they will go into china. which is a communist country. the people here, the tea party people calling barack obama a communist are totally ridiculous. we are taking money that american investors make, and their primary thing is to make money and they can care less about creating jobs in america and they invested overseas. -- invest its overseas. we really have to get back where we are talking intelligently

rather than the way the tea party is taking things which is the total unintelligent childish way of dealing with things. i really don't have a question. just the statement i wanted to make. guest: you raise a really good point. particularly over the past decade we have gotten away from the old way of doing things, making long-term investments in areas that will make our country and economy stronger in the long haul and have gotten too far into promoting consumption and especially excess of borrowing. everybody has dealt with this in their own lives. we have to be able to live within our means as individuals and as a country and as a government. and the government needs to shift from trying to promote consumption, to promote people to buy things and put that

investment into areas that are going to make us stronger over the long haul. host: with the concern about jobs leaving the country. in hindsight of 15 years, is nafta a good thing for the united states? guest: i think so. i think trade is good for countries. the president announced in the state of the union he wants to double exports over the next five years, which is a terrific idea, an idea that has support across party lines. and for good reason. americans are deep in debt. having trouble finding scratch to go out and buy stuff. but other countries whose economies have not been hit as hard by the downturn want to buy our products and we need to make sure that we continue to tear down market barriers so that they can do this. host: the next call is from franklin, tennessee, marshall on

the republican line. guest: two questions. the proposed r&d tax credit only panders to large corporations. why not change that to a tax credit for small businesses where true economic growth will occur? my second question is, in the last couple of years we lost like 7 million jobs but obama's stimulus plan really only looks like it will create 100,000 jobs a year. what about the other net loss of jobs? guest: first, on the r&d tax credit, you are absolutely right. we proposed simplifying it and making it permanent. the existing r&d tax credit is not as good for small businesses as it should be. if we simplify it it would provide more bang for the buckok for small businesses. on the second point, the recovery package have done a lot of good.

gdp would have probably grown two points less or dropped two it has made a huge difference in keeping r&d spending from dropping even further than it has. and it has saved or created far more than 100,000 jobs. more on the order of one or 2 million so far. so we would be a lot worse off if it did not happen. but our work is far from done. host: what i am looking for and cannot find it -- hear it is. economists expect shifting work force. this piece in "the wall street journal" suggest as we come out of it, the kinds of jobs the new economy will need are not the kind of jobs that were lost in the old economy. how do we factor in workers for

the next generation of jobs as we move out of this recession? guest: a great point. one of the most important things we can do in the next few years is to make sure people have access to the kinds of skills they need. for example, we work closely but the obama administration of their plan to help community colleges, which are a tremendous resource for people who are looking to upgrade and learn something so they can get a new job. there is enormous potential to make community college accessible to everybody. a lot of community colleges are putting their curriculum on the line now, which means if we have broadband networks and plaze, efficient networks where people can stream of lectures and take a class from home, then somebody who is working can take that class at a time that is convenient for them and continue to upgrade their skills. because it is pretty clear you

are not just going to be able to go to college and be done with it. now are going to have to continue to learn throughout your career. host: long island, good morning. steve on independent line. caller: i would like to take a little trip down memory lane. as the congresswoman before was saying -- social security and medicare are automatically deducted from our pay checks. i would like to know, does the democratic leadership council still consider the lock box -- you remember the lockbox as a viable part of its plank, of its program? or are the lines to blurred now to make that effective? i will make the wait for your answer offline. guest: thank you. it was not so long ago when al

gore ran for president in 2000 he proposed a lock box that would protect and strengthen social security and lock with the surpluses we build up -- built up. with fiscal discipline in the 1990's, that was one of the great things washington has squandered in the past decade. i think we could get back there. we are going to have to deal with the social security funding problem in the next few years. it would be difficult to get to a lockbox in the short run. host: this is the democrats 'line. caller: am i on the right track? have the economy not fell -- most of the jobs in the united states are provided by writing -- private investments, correct? guest: that is right.

caller: was the economy fell, the jobs fell. we needed the recovery act to put money back into the system. it does not mean that is socialist. it is a way of getting things started again. the money -- there was no money for private investment. until private investment -- private investors start putting money back into the system, there will be no jobs. am i correct? guest: you are exactly right. job creation is tied directly to business investments. what the recovery act tried to do and what the rest of the engine that is trying to do is leverage much more business investment and private investment in ways that will make the economy stronger. recently, the president went to florida and announced expansion of high-speed rail. an expansion of high-speed rail.

it will not happen without government pushing for it but the big benefit of that kind of efficient transportation network is going to redound primarily to business. host: this year suggests it is the tax code that is the source of jobs creation. put in place a flat tax for all without exception of income source -- interest, earnings, etc.. guest: i do think over the next five years we are going to have to reform our tax code. it is a mess of loopholes on the individual and corporate side. it is difficult to do one straight flat tax without soaking ordinary people. but there is no question that there are all kinds of holes and move -- loopholes and the current tax code that were designed and another era, inside dealing in washington. host: bruce reed on jobs.

west virginia, dave on the republican line. caller: my question -- i really have two questions for the gentleman. on c-span several months ago they had a gentleman on their that wrote a book on the medical plan throughout the world. he offered to give it to the senators and congressmen and even to the president's -- president, how to fix the medical plan. i had operations on my back. on "60 minutes" they showed that what happens is people are getting treated for pregnancy tests and something on 89 year old women who are passing away because the hospitals have to make up the difference -- because what they lose on medicare and stuff. my question is this. with the people passing laws -- the supreme court passing a law

that people can donate money to the senators and stuff and have these things going on in washington, d.c., who is there to trust in there? i used to be a republican from reagan's days and now i don't really feel i have any representative at all pleased -- republican, democrat, anybody. host: david brings us back to the first discussion about the new poll about the trust in washington. guest: it is a real problem. one of the reasons why people want both parties to work together is that to they are suspicious and were read and not sure who they can trust and feel if both parties make compromises and work together and try to find common ground, that would produce a solution. i think it is important for

voters to hold washington and their leaders accountable. that is the reason that barack obama was swept in with a landslide in 2008, because his predecessor had not delivered results. i think in this kind of climate it is important for elected representatives to do the work and get the job done. host: 8 minutes left with bruce reed. lafayette, louisiana, jack, independent line. caller: what was the unemployment rate at the time ronald reagan lowered our taxes for all of the taxpayers? what was the rate one year later of unemployment? the same question goes to the george bush 2001 lowering of taxes. what was the unemployment rate

at the time he lowered taxes and what was it one year later? host: jack, do you know the answer? guest: i did take a shot. reagan tax cuts passed in 1981 and i believe in the short run unemployment went up, not necessarily because of the tax cut but because we were in the midst of recession, unemployment was very high that year. in 2001 bush came in, unemployment was at historic lows, below 4%. he passed his tax cuts again in the midst of recession, unemployment went up. i think the bigger consequence of both of those tax cuts was not so much on the unemployment rate as it was on the long term debt and deficits and dug deep holes that make it difficult for the country to get out of later. host:ok how much did the deflatn

of the dot com but will contribute? guest: the dot com crash at the end of the 1990'sç hurt some bt that was a relatively modest recession. the real problem coming out of that recession in 2001 was business investment never really recovered. as a country we were pushing so much emphasis on individual consumption and on over bar wing -- over bar wing that we never saw the business investment recovery we have seen in past recoveries -- over borrowing. host: mansfield, ohio, and be on the democrats' line. caller: i would like to thank you for c-span2 get all the different views on tv. host: thanks for watching.

caller: i would like to talk about how government helps big businesses and big banks with the bailout. we've got millions of people losing their houses every day now. there ain't nothing to help them up. i'm talking about middle class people, not the poorest of the port. talking about tax breaks for the rich. and if the trickle-qdown economics obviously does not work -- i would just like to make that comment about some kind of accountability of the people on welfare to go out and try to get a job and not surround and the lady. -- and be lazy. guest: i think people are sick of bailouts and understandably so. i think what everybody wants to see -- everybody wants to see over the long haul the

government having to do what they had to do over the past year. see what they can still afford and what they need to do and what decisions they need to make now that will end up with better results than the decisions we might made over the past decade. so, it is important -- but with the middle-class is better over the long haul is if we have small businesses starting up, if we have an economy where somebody has an idea, they are an on shipper nor and taken started and raise capital -- they are an entrepreneur and they start and raise capital. caller: i have been listening to this. to me, the big problem is that years ago with president carter and the democratic congress and senate kept the import tariffs

off where we had to compete with the rest of the world without -- was being taxed heavily. people don't think about these things. then the government taking over -- having social security that is going bankrupt. medicaid is going bankrupt. now they want to take over medicine. let's get real. the government is not doing the job they should be. thank you. guest: i disagree with you on the tariffs. i think one of the good things that happened over the last few decades is we made real progress in lowering trade barriers so american exports have been able to dominate and that led to enormous number of jobs here at home. we need to do more of it if we are going to have more jobs. on social security and medicare, nobody wants a government takeover. a govet

çpro(ápsçç it doesn't need toç be strengthened for the long haul. -- itw3çq doerççokw3 need to e strengthened for the long haul. one of the great canards of the health-care debate is somehow health-care debate is somehow democrats want a government run was >> you are on the air. caller: i am -- about the nafta, i disagree with that. that took a lot of jobs and gave it to other countries. it took away jobs from americans. if you see the containers that are coming into this country and the trade that is going back out is less than half of what is coming in, out can you create

jobs if you are outsourcing all the jobs to other countries? i just saw the other day about the $2 billion that barack obama paid for jobs for windmills. there are companies in china getting all the work and nothing is going to the u.s. could you give me something on that? thank you. guest: i thought expanding american exports was vital and theñr more we sell around the world, the better off we will be. the more other countries bring down their trade barriers, the better off we will be. i think on the energy front, you raise an important point, which is that some of our competitors are doing a lot more than we are as a country to promote the kind of new energy technologies that we will need to thrive in the

global economy and also protect the planet. host: you are the last caller today. collar >> thank you. i was just wondering why no one says and it -- caller: thank you. i was wondering why no one says that it is because of the unions and what they charge and pay their employees -- they can go over there and get it done for 1/10 and it looks ridiculous that they go on like that. host: thank you. we're just about out of time. guest: it is not as much of a union issue as it is a wages issue. in order to keep our economy is drawn into have a thriving recovery in the competitive world wide, we have to reduce the excessive costs we have. the biggest one of those is health care.

host: we have 30 seconds. please react. we've been talking about the jobs bill, bipartisanship, gridlock in washington. senator strikes a bipartisan jbeil on -- bipartisan deal on job creation. he threatens to reduce the support of the republicans. ñiguest: i think there is the opportunity for bipartisan progress on energy, jobs, and hopefully, on health care. there needs to be over the long haul on the deficit. it is a hard slog in this dam. host: and that is what we leave it on. thank you for being with us on lincoln's birthday. >> tomorrow on "washington journal." the former director of the cdo talks about his role of leading up think tank -- a think tank.

then roben farzad and following that jay newton-small on his recent trip to haiti. washington journal as live tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. ñihere is what is coming up on - ñispan, next israeli and palestinian journalists gather in jerusalem to talk about the middle east conflict. later, the national today and lesbian task forceñi -- the national gay and lesbian task force. and later, pakistan's role in afghanistan. >> this bfilm was the focus of

recent meeting. he is sunday night on c-span's "q&a." >> last month, israeli and palestinian journalist gather to talk about the conflict in the middle east. we will hear about defining the two-state solution. the event was hosted by the mideast press club and is about one hour and 20 minutes. >> greetings, shalom, and welcome to this very special session. i am the president and ceo of the media alliance, a nonprofit american news agency. it is wonderful that each and every one of you here, despite how difficult it was this

morning to get into. i am proud to open this session of the mideast press club. please turn off your cell phones and i want to take a moment to acknowledge our board members here today. many are sick, as you can hear from my voice, unfortunately.

>> i also want to thank our distinguished guests who will be addressing us today and offer them my very special thanks. i also want to thank the impressive array of editors that are here today. it is about democracy, folks. we in the media perception bear an awesome responsibility. no institution is more of an indication of a nation's relationship with democracy than the press. all of its modern -- with all of and it -- all of its modern manifestations. being here today is testimony to democracy. i do not think we could have accidentally made 500 phone calls and sent the hundreds of e-mails that it took to pull this altogether. it is democracy -- if democracy is judged by press freedom, that

freedom demands access and today, the palestinian participants are being granted the access so necessary in order to fulfil their journalistic roles and so necessary to israel's own sense of the democratic process. for this, a bank -- i thank and applaud you. you did so much to make this happen. thank you to our participants who cleared their calendar to be here today because they realize how important this event is. when we created the mideast press club in 2005, we were concerned that interaction and corp. were casualties and the result was turner as das journalistically intolerable. reporters on both sides were denied access. complete stories could not be told the mideast press club

began to rebuild communication by reintroducing members of israel's press corps to their palestinian colleagues. we held events and chartered buses to physically bring colleagues together. .

have not been regular participants among press covering events here. this historic inevitable often needs a push and we are delighted to do the pushing. as an american organization, the media line is proud to offer good offices in support of democracy. that is the theme of today's session, symbols of democracy, speaking for the record. we are meeting today in the most visible and tangible manifestation of israelis in the knesset. we are joined by the most necessary and irreplaceable figure of palestinian democracy, free and independent for the state. this is going to accompany the palestinian people into statehood. we want to welcome the speaker.

thank you for being with us. in all honesty, the first sessions of the mideast press club were marked by apprehension, as attendees from both sides openly questioned what was to be gained by their participation. it was only after several sessions and a lot of exchanging business cards and cell phone numbers that we realized how productive it is to have a colleague strategically placed to answer questions, run down leads come even supply forces, all in time to meet a deadline. i am sure we can relate to that. the mideast is an amazing laboratory for the study of democracy and the most cursory evaluation can be accomplished by looking at the nation's press freedom and the degree to which the media infrastructure creates a system of checks and balances on political leadership. at this time, i want to call

upon the knesset member to offer his greetings. before i do, i have to take a moment to thank avishay braverman for being here. i know you will not be able to stay. we want to take one moment to say a couple of words. >> speaker, my distinguished colleagues, deputy foreign minister, when i used to visit at the university, i knew we were together. in the five minutes the director general and the finance minister were gathering the cabinet for meeting, i will just say a few

words. ñrçóisrael's democracy is añi vt democracy. we must fight for democracy every day, the with the speaker's riding, the way all of us are. i will say one piece about the israeli arabs. ñrñii feel that the israeli ara, 20% of the population, are voting as israeli jews. this government, which i hope my attention and the prime minister, by the end of this month, we shall say also at the meetings, we have committed ourselves for everything with decisions of the government to change the location of resources so the israeli arabs

are only 1/3 of the jews. it is because the government did not give the same allocation of resources. i believe if you are for the order, people from the right, or if you are from the left or the center, this is something that should be done. it is not only justñi, we must prove we will practice what we preach. it is also good for the jews and the economy. the growth of israel in the future is based on two populations that are essentially the root of orthodox. the arab population of 20% is eager to participate fully in the labour force in all its power.

all my intention, and i believe all of the members here believe in that, i will do all in my power, as the prime minister promised, a new government. declaration and words are insufficient. my last point, the prime minister and myself are all leading israeli businessmen. many of the leaders, all of the leaders, jews and arabs, say we must commit ourselves in israel to a new deal of serving the israeliñi population. the largest corporation of israel agreed to do what should be done. i believe it is a paradox.

the prime minister could be the greatest leader, but he needs to follow certain things. there must be equality and partnership fully to the israeli arabs. i apologize. if you continue, i will come to answer questions after the meeting with the finance minister and secretary general. [applause] >> thank you, minister braverman. he was the president of the university and minister of minorities. at this time, i want to call upon another member to offer his greetings. we rick -- we decide the time was right for this section.

he immediately saw the importance and they did what they could to make this happen. let's share a few words. he has served in the knesset more than 20 years, during which time he has held numerous senior positions in government, including ministerial portfolios. he currently chairs the foreign affairs and defence committee. thank you very, very much. >> thank you, felice. i want to welcome the chairman of the house, the speaker of the house. they made a special effort to be here with us today. i want to welcome all my colleagues. of course, all of the

journalists that are here today. feliec defined me as the -- felice defined me as the host of this event. we have guests, we have muslims, christians, jewish people. we have parliamentarians from the coalition and the opposition. put aside the distinctions and differences. you will find that all of us here share a common vision. we are united because we have a common commitment to preserve and enhance the palestinian- israeli dialogue. this is what unites us all. we are not presumptuous to take the role of the negotiators. we don't have the authority nor the skills for that.

but, our decision to initiate this unprecedented event today marks our recognition, the israeli and palestinian media can have a huge importance and influence on the peace process and on the future of both peoples. millions of israelis and palestinians still do not sit in the negotiation rooms. they don't sit on the negotiation table. they read the newspapers. they listen to the radio. they watch television. they surf the net. if the israelis and palestinians will get to know each other better, consumers will gain a better understanding of the two societies. reporters can communicate and intimate in an open manner. they will be able to describe fears and frustrations in hope

of both peoples having a genuine spirit. the way to peace and reconciliation passes through objective media. it can serve as an honest mediator and it affects ideas and emotions. this is why the work of meetings and the media line is so crucial. this is why i agreed to host today's meeting. this is why i encourage you all to proceed relentlessly with your vital activities. eventually, they will bear historic fruits. i wish a solid very fruitful and successful deliberation. -- i wish us all a very fruitful and successful deliberation. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. >> you are beating me to it.

>> i actually have a gift for you. >> thank you. ok. >> mr. speaker, allow me. ok. first of all, the speaker is one of the most senior political leaders. i venture to say, one of the most respected. his term has been marked by the commitment to the democratic process. we really thank you. i have here a letter for you. i hope that you will recognize this today, as a historic day, and i will read what it says. >> on behalf of the professional advisory board and membership of the mideast press club, it is my privilege to extend our gratitude and appreciation for hosting this historic session of the knesset. the mideast press club of the media line agency was created

out the need to foster communication between journalists in spite of the political climate. based on the axiom the complete story cannot be written unless he/she seeking to write it has access to all sides, the mideast press club has created -- has been greeted at a time when journalists had no opportunity to chase down a lead, conduct an interview, were pulled the men and women on the opposite st. because of the unbridled violence. mr. speaker, the report things are not as great as they once were, but obstacles still to continue. your unhesitating willingness to post this historic meeting, complete with the presence of the leading palestinian journalists, pays tribute to this body and its speaker, realizing the inextricable link between democracy and a free and

dynamic free press. you have taken a significant step towards the enhancement of media coverage of this region, and of better global understanding of this complicated issue by virtue of the results and enhancement of the journalism practiced here. in appreciation of your efforts and for your commitment to the democratic process, on this 19th day ofçóñiñi january, 2010,ñr wk you. >> thank you. uch.hank you. chairman of the defense committee, the deputyçó ministe, deputy speaker of the knesset, i ñiwelcome you to the shrine of e israel democracy, the israeli parliament, the knesset. i must say that most of the compliments that were addressed to me belong to hanegbi.

ñrthis is a very important meeting. israel is a jewish democratic state. by this very definition, we have a conflict. we stand behind the conflict. the conflict between the idea of a jewish state, we have the right to return to the jewish state, what we have here among us are people who were bornñi -- jews believe there is the çóñiñiñrhomeland, and we have ta way, in order to reach between the idea of israel as a jewish state and israel as a democratic stateñiñi. in some ways, it is not reachable. we have a debate. we have a debate between jews

and arabs. we have debate between jews and the definition of a jewish state -- jewish state according judicial ideas of the orthodox people on the jewish side. how come we can say that it is a jewish democratic state, but no one of the members of the knesset can change this definition to define as real as a jewish state, and at tk same time say that no one can change the nature of israel as a democratic state? that leads to a lot of confrontation, a lot of debate, a lot of differences of opinion.

nevertheless, week, everyone of us, also those who were brought not as socialists -- i do not mean to patronize any one region that has caused me problems lately. i can see everyone is a human being. i believe it is the right of the jews to create their own land, their own state, and to return back to the homeland. we have a lot of thoughts because of that conflict. this is a conflict between two people. both of them areçó absolutely believing they are on the right side. i would like to say one thing. here, my family has come here 200 years ago, only because my ancestors believed that they should not break to jerusalem three times a day, but they

should go and live in jerusalem. "they left the diaspora. they came to jerusalem because they said, why should we pray three times? we have returned back. we found all our friends, all our neighbors. they became very good friends and very good neighbors here in jerusalem. during the years, we had some ups and downs. we learned to understand that we are not doomed to live together, not in the middle east, not in israel. we are together and we have to find a wayñr to l]ujt)q). sometimes, we have differences of opinion about the way. i have a very good relationship with all the palestinian and israeli serving in the knesset. aíá!át time, our ideas are

almost ununreachable. there is no way to depart as. there is no way to learn how to live with the conflict, to find a way. i welcome you once again. unfortunately, this is a day we have the annual meeting with the high court judges in israel. i apologize that i will have to leave this forum. i would be delighted to hear what you have to say. welcome once again to the knesset, shrine of israel's democracy. thank you. [applause] thank you very much. >> thank you very much, speaker. thank you for your time and important thought that you shared.

the deputy foreign minister was elected as adviser to the united states. he took up leadership as chairman of an organization and is well known in his current position. daniel avalon, please share a few words. thank you. >> thank you. good morning. the honorable hanegbi, members of the knesset, and deputy speaker of the house, felice and michael, media line, i want to congratulate you for this great, great initiative, and for all the work you're doing every day. i also welcome the board of media line and the members of

the press, israeli press, arab, palestinian press. i think that such events are the most significant in really achieving what we all try to achieve here, peaceful reconciliation, which is reallyi coexistence, dignity among everybody, justice among everybody. when you do it on the people to people level, it is much more significant. it is longer lasting, hopefully everlasting, then just protocols or agreements between rulers or government. as the speaker of the house said, we are destined to live here together. i think that living here to gather would be much better for all of us in terms of sharing resources, in terms of building its future to get there, in

terms of coming in a way, burying the past, without forgetting it, but burying it, would be much better if we all believed that this is not a zero sum game. unfortunately, at this point, i am not sure that all of us, and i am not blaming anyone side here, because this is not the idea, but i am not sure people understand that this is not, not a zero sum game. i think that byñi reconciliatio, by working together, everybody will stand to gain. now, let me tell you one thing that might be a little bit provocative, but it is not. when i hear that the goal -- bigger buddy says the goal now is a two-state solution. i am sorry to say, this does not really speak to me. it does not really speak to me

because it is so narrowly defined. it is so narrowly defined because a two-state solution could be anywhere and everywhere. if you don't put the real content to it, this is meaningless. i say that the real definition of our objective should be peace, should be historic reconciliations between palestinians and israelis, between arabs and jews, throughout the middle east. this should be the real goal. peaceful coexistence, dignity,çó justice, and security to all, which will bring prosperity to wall, now. if, if the way to this goal of real peace is through a two- state solution, let it be, which

is fine. don't put this as the panacea to all the problems. once we respect each other, and i do understand that at this point, because the motions are too high, -- because the motions are too high, we cannot effectively discuss the past. palestinians have their own narrative, just as jews and israelis have their narrative. i do say to many of my palestinian friends come at this point, there is no really point to argue about the past. we will never agree. let's build a future together. we can build a future together. if you look at what this government did, from day one, april 1 of last year, it has now been nine months, we went a long

way, first by realizing that two-state solution is the way to achieve the peace that we all want. prime minister netanyahu started with this historic speech, i may say, because it comes from a good prime minister. it went on by reiterating this and by trying to move forward in terms of bringing the palestinians into the table to sit and discuss everything, together, all the tough issues, of refugees, of jerusalem, of territories, of everything else, without preconditions, ñireally with an open mind and open heart. let me tell you hear that -- you here that the leadership role today is to really b