the internet with gigi stone of the consumer group public knowledge and dean garfield. that is 8:00 p.m. on c-span 2. >> the supreme court heard oral arguments on whether to strike down a california law banning the sale of violent video games to minors. it passed in 2005, but was never enacted. it finds retailers $1,000 for each video game sold to a minor. a lower court to uphold that the law was too vague. a decision and this case is expected sometime before the term at the end of the year. this is an hour. >> we will hear argument first this morning, schwarzenegger or versus entertainment merchants

association. california is no less concerned with a-access week -- with a access.s the permit states to regulate and access to such materials all outside the presence of a parent, it did so for fundamental reasons. first, this rule permits parents to claim authority in their own households. secondly, this role promotes the state's independent interest in helping parents protect the well-being of children in those instances when parents cannot be

present. this morning, california asks this court to adopt a goal of law that permitted -- permit -- permit states to restrict minors from buying a violent video games. >> what is a deviant a violent video game as opposed to what? normal violence. >> yes, your honor. >> there are established norms of violence. >> if we look back with --the level of violence -- >> are fairy tales ok? are you going to ban them, too? >> what is the difference. how do you cut it off at the

video games? what about family? what about comic books? what about fairy tales? why are video games special? does your principal extend to all television and violent materials, in whatever form? >> no, your honor. it is not just offensive of violence. it is violence that meets all three of the terms set forth. >> back mrs. the question. wide just a video games? why not movies and? >> the california legislature was presented with substantial evidence that demonstrates that the interactive neighbor -- nature of violent video games were young adult is the aggressor especially harmful.

>> do you have studies that showed that video games are more harmful than movies are? >> i believe it is the genteel study regarding violent video games as exemplary teachers. the authorsir note that a video games are not only exemplary teachers of a pro social activity, but also exemplary teachers of aggression. that was the fundamental concern of the california legislature. studies are being released every month. >> suppose a new study suggested that movies are just as violent. then they could regulate movies just as it could regulate video games. >> your honor, there is scientific literature out there regarding the violent media on children.

>> i do not know if that is answering the question. the andersen study says that the effect of violence is the same for a bugs bunny episode as it does for a violent video. can the legislation now say, you cannot love bugs bunny? utlaw bugs bunny? >> cartoons do not depart from the established norms of the level of violence to which children have been historical rate exposed to. we believe the level of violence in these videogames -- >> that same argument could have

been made when the movies came out. every time there is a new technology, you could make that argument. >> that is the duty of incorporating the miller standard. it ensures that only a narrow category of material will be covered. >> how is this any different from what we said we do not do in the first amendment field and stevens were we said we do not look at a category of speech and decide that some of it has low value? we decide whether a category of speech has a historical tradition of being regulated. other than some state statutes that you played too, some of which are very clearly the same as those we struck down, where is the tradition of regulating violence? >> california segments that when the rights of miners are at

issue and not the rights of adults, the standards should be more flexible. the constitution should recognize that when the audience is minor, the same standards should not apply. it is whether or not the constitution guarantees m inors rights. >> have you heard of some of the original violent rap music? some said had been sung about killing people and other violence directed to them? >> i would agree that it is egregious. however, -- >> why isn't that obscene? >> i am not sure that it is directly harmful to the development and the way that we know that a violent video games can be. violent material, sexual

material, appeals to a basic instinct. it can be presented in a manner -- >> what age group are you talking about? what age of a child should the manufacturer had in mind? 17, 10? >> just like in the absence of a i would for the minerors, submit that the jury would be instructed to consider them as a whole. that is under 18 years old. >> how can they do that? isn't the average person -- what is appropriate for a 17-year-old may not be appropriate for a 10- year-old. >> juries and judges to do this

every day. >> california does not do that. california has in big letters, 18. part of the statute requires labeling these videogames in big numbers, 18. it does not make any distinctions between the 17- year-old and 84-year-old. >> i think a jury would be charged with the standard of of an average minority. -- minor. >> i think a jury could be instructed as to the typical age group that are playing these

games. >> why we do not simply say that a video game that appeals to the mortgage interest of those 18 are under -- it is not suitable in the community for those 18 and has no redeeming importance of any kind, no serious literary value for those 18, at least says to those, you cannot sell it without the parent. you cannot sell to a 12-year-old something that would be horrible for an 18-year-old. would you be willing to accept that if necessary to make this ok? >> absolutely. >> could i take you back to the original question with what counts as deviant but violence

-- a deviant violence? the only thing covered -- presumably, this standard applies to more than one video games. what kind of video games? how many video games? how would you describe what morbid violence is? >> ok, i would go back to the language of the statute. it covers videogames for the range of options available to the players include naming, killing, dismembering, torturing, sexually assaulting, and those types of violence. i would look to games where -- >> anything that has those types of violence counts? >> we would move to the three prongs of the miller standard.

>> i think a jury could be instructed with expert testimony, with video clips of games, to judge for themselves whether -- >> i am concerned about the producer of the game still has to know what he has to do to comply with block. -- comply with the law. a jury can make up its mind, i am sure. how is the manufacturer to know whether a particular violent game is covered or not? >> i really would not know what to do as a manufacturer. >> i am convinced that the industry will know what to do. they write their video games every day on the basis -- a rate their video games every date on the basis of violence. >> what is covered here?

>> some mature rated games would be covered, but not all. >> just like with sexual material, we can trust individual pandarus of sexual material to judge whether or not -- >> it seems to me the great majority of the questions today are designed about whether or not this statute is to take. he said the beauty of the statute is that it utilizes the categories i have been used in the cincinnati area. there -- in the obscenity area. for generations, there is been a societal consensus about sexual material. sex and violence have been around a long time.

there is a societal consensus about what is offensive before sexual material and there are judicial discussions on it. those judicial discussions are not precise. if you could at the same questions today with reference to an obscenity statutes and we have said there are certain materials letter not protected. those rules are not precise at margins. you are asking us to go into an entirely new area. this indicates the statute might be vague. is that you would like to know that reaction. [laughter] >> as with the regulation of sexual material, we had to start somewhere. california is choosing to start

now. we can build a consensus as to what level of violence is offensive for minors. i believe the key is the similarity of violence has with sex. >> what about excessive glorification of drinking? movies that have too much drinking. does that have an effect, i am -- i suppose so. i am concerned with the first amendment. it says that congress should make no law abridging the freedom of speech. it was always understood that the freedom of speech did not include obscenity. it has never been understand that the freedom of speech did not include portrayals of violence. you are asking us to create a

whole new prohibition. the american people never ratified it when they ratified the first amendment. obscenity was bad, but what is next? after violence? drinking? smoking? will that affect them? of course. eyas those -- i suppose it will. why is this particular exception ok? >> i would like to highlight the fact that the material was not obscene. >> he wants to know what james madison thought about the video games. [laughter]

the enjoy them? -- did he enjoyed them? >> i want to know what james madison thought about violence. is there any indication that anybody thought that there was an exception to the first regarding for speech violence? anybody? >> i believe that looking at some of the historic statutes states have passed and enacted in the past, there was a social recognition that there is a level of violence. >> but is the earliest statute? -- what is the earliest statute? >> i do not know it off the top of my head. i believe they go back into the early 1900's, perhaps later. >> it has been quite some years since this court has held that one instance that the country

legislatures can regulate are fighting words. we regulate fighting words, don't we? they provoke violence. the american psychological association and the american pediatric association of said that certain types of video games create violence when children are exposed. what are we supposed to do? >> in going back to this question, i find it hard to believe our founding fathers intended to guarantee -- a guarantee of video game that retailers are first amendment rights. >> he is asking because this court with respect to these fightingords, the court has

been very careful to court and got off because it does not have any spillover potential. you did not last onto fighting words. your analogy is to obscenity for teenagers. i understand it. >> yes. with regard to fighting words, the interest in preventing acts of violence is different than the concern at issue here today. >> could i just make sure i understand? the state has given up its argument that the interest protected -- the state is not saying the that is the interest in block. is that correct? the interest and a lot is in protecting children's moral

development generally. >> we welcome that as the effect of california's regulation and. the primary interest is the intrinsic harm to minors. >> i have a point of clarification. justice ginsburg talk about labelling parts of this act. the circuit court struck those portions of the act. you have not challenged that ruling. there are two sections to the act. one is a criminal act for selling to the minor. the others require that you label and a certain weight each video. the district court said both were unconstitutional. correct? >> yes. >> your brief does not address the labeling requirement at all. >> one holding of the night circuit hand upon the other. in striking down the body of

california's law, the restriction on the sales, the court found that it is not illegal to sell video games to 18 year-old, the government purpose behind the label itself was misleading. i do not have the case before me. the government can require labeling so long that it is necessary to prevent misleading the consumer. the ninth circuit found that because they struck down the body of law, all label would be misleading. >> that is an interesting concession on our part, that the labeling does not have to be separate from the restriction of sales. i would've thought that if you wanted a lesser restriction, you would have promoted labeling as a reasonable scrutiny restriction to permits the control of sales of these

materials. you seem to have given up that argument altogether. >> i certainly did not intend to can see that the opinion was correct in any sense. >> you have conceded it. your case on a labeling rises and falls. >> at this point, i would agree, your honor. >> if the parents want the kid to watch this violence, they may even like a violent kids, the state of california has no objection? right? as long as the parent buys this thing, it is probably okay. >> it is important a state of california that the parents they did that we ensure that the parents can involve themselves in this important decision.

>> this is a lot to help parents. is that right? >> it is one of the two fundamental interests that are served by this law. california wants to erect a barrier between a resale sales clerk and a miner with regard to violent materials just as we allow for access to sexual material. california seized but the developmental harm that has been caused is no less significant than has been recognized in this court. the material at issue -- >> california has a law. >> california has a ginsburg- type law. >> yes. >> there is a prescription on

the sale of sexual materials to minors. california's act incorporating the three prongs of miller goes even further than the ginsburg law at issue. >> you have been asked questions about the vagueness of this and the problems of the seller to know what is good and what is bad. does california have any kind of an advisory or in office that will view these videos and say, this belongs in the deviant violence and this one is just violent, but not deviant backs is there any kind of opinion that the seller can get to to know which games can be sold and which ones cannot be? >> not that i am aware of.

>> would you consider creating such an office? >> we ask juries to judge sexual materials and its appropriateness for minors as well. i believe that if we can -- >> we let the government do that? >> juries are not controllable. that is the wonderful thing about juries. do we led government pass -- do we let the government pass on a board of censors? >> the standard is quite similar to that in the sexual material,. california is not acting as a sensor. it is telling manufacturers and distributors to look at their

material and to judge whether or not the levels of violent content meets the prongs in this definition. >> even if we did that -- it passed difficult questions about the vagueness and how to interpret this law, isn't there a less restrictive alternative? >> i believe you are referring to the parental controls available. as we submitted in our briefing, a simple internet search for bypassing parental controls brings of video clips instructing young adults, to bypass the parental controls. the v-chip is limited to television, justice kennedy. >> the california law at issue

of restricted distribution of expressive works based on their content. california does not seriously contended unsatisfied the usual first amendment standards that apply to such a law. it is asking this court to grant an exception that would deny constitutional protection to some ill-defined subset of expressive works. not just video games, but movies, books. >> what about the distinction between books and movies may be that in these video games, the child is not sitting there passively watching something? the child is doing the killing. the child is doing the maiming. that might be understood to have a different impact on a child's moral development. >> it might.

the state of california has not marshalled a shred of evidence to prove that it is true. >> the state of the record is that they were aware and made a judgment that they could decide that obscenity -- klutz the court acted on the basis of common sense? -- >> the court acted on the basis of common sense? >> yes. they thought it was proper for it to adjusted on the outer boundaries. >> to today's children, those magazines would seem rather tame. >> that is certainly true. it did not pass on the particular material before the court. this is somewhat larger definition of a variable obscenity. >> we are talking about common

sense. why is it common sense to say that if a parent wants their 13- year-old child to have a game, the child can sit there and imagine that he is a torturer and imposed torturing and violence upon small children and women and did this 4 hour or so, and there is no social redeeming value, it is not artistic or literary, why is it common sense to say the state has the right to say parent, if you want that for your 13-year-old, you go buy it yourself? >> the state has to have some reason to think -- >> i you looked at the studies. it seems to me that dr. ferguson and dr. anderson are in a disagreement. they have looked at a whole lot of video games, not movies,

video games. both groups come to the conclusion that there is some tendency to increase the violence and the american psychiatric association, the american pediatric association signed onto a long list that this does hurt children. i have to admit that i am supposed to be a sociological experts. i cannot choose between them. >> there are two aspects of harm. whether parents need additional help in recognizing the role they have played. >> they need additional help because many parents are not halt when their children come home from school. many parents have jobs. we hope. when their children are there, they do what they want. all this says that if you want that gratuitous torture, what

you do, paris, you go buy it. he is 13 -- parents, you go buy it. what is the common sense and signs of that? >> there is a whole variety of things that parents have access to. >> in the 13-year-old can bypass parental controls about five minutes. >> that is what elegant -- that is one element. parents are doing the purchasing 90% of the time. the game is being played in the home on the family television or computer most of the time. any harm that is supposed to be inflicted is supposed to be -- is supposed to take place over a couple of years, not minutes. there are parental controls, which are very similar to the

court -- to those that the fat -- the court has found to be significant. >>, to these videos cost? >> they cost between 50 and $60. >> it seems very likely -- there are very likely in the 16-year- old category. >> if you are going to go back to common sense, what common sense is there in having the state of the law that a state can forbid and say to the parent, a 13-year-old kid cannot go in and buy a picture of a naked and london. but the child can go in and buy one of these video games, gratuitous torture of children, okay? you cannot buy a naked woman, but you can go by that.

what sense is there to that? >> there are various aspects of this. violence has been a feature of works that we create for children and encourage them to watch the about the history of this country. we have a very different sense of what violence is. >> what is the difference between sex and violence? >> there is a huge difference. [laughter] we do not make films for children and which explicit children have been sprayed we do make films for children in which explicit violence happens. >> shooting people in the legs

so they fall down, or poured gasoline and set them on fire and urinate on them. we do not have a tradition. we protect children from that. we do not actively expose them to that. >> whether you will create an entirely new exception under the first amendment. if you are going to do it, whether you could figure out what the scope of that exception is. >> i know this is a challenge. is it your position that the first amendment could not predict the sale of the video games and i just described? >> most people -- we do not try to sell it to minors. >> i know you do not. >> you are avoiding the answer. >> does the first amendment protect the sale of that video? >> there is not a violent

exception to the first amendment and there should not be. >> the first amendment cannot, no matter what type of law, the state legislature cannot pass a law that says, you may not sell to a 10-year-old a video and which they said girls on fire? >> there is no possible way to draw up an exception to the constitution to the first amendment. >> but if california took the list of video games that your association rates as mature and said, there is a civil penalty. >> we have decided -- >> what if they decide there is a civil penalty attached to that? >> that would transform the private voluntary system that exists in to dissenters said commission that this court struck down.

-- the censorship commission. you have way too much discretion. it is a licensing authority. >> there really is no good reason to think that exposure to video games is bad. exposure to really violent video games is filing to minors? >> it is important to distinguish between harman and appropriateness. families have different judgments that they make about their children at different ages and with different content and with different values. >> is there any showing that the state could make that would satisfy you? i understand that you think that the current studies do not suggest much of anything. are there studies that would be enough? >> i guess i could imagine a world in which expression could transform 75% of the people that

experience into more murderers? -- into murderers. the vast majority of people playing the games will grow up and be just fine. he acknowledged that the effects of these games are not one whit different from watching cartoons on the television or reading violent passages in the bible. >> you really do not want to argue the case -- i gather you do not believe that the first amendment reads that congress should make no law abridging the freedom of speech, except those that make sense? >> my main ground is that this court said last year that it does not havee-wheeling authority to create exceptions to the first amendment. this is a test of that. >> we have a new medium and it cannot possibly have been

envisioned at the time when the first amendment was ratified. it is totally different. it is one thing to read a description as one of these video games promoted as saying, what is black and white and red all over? disposing of your enemies in a meat grinder. reading that is one thing, saying it is graphically portrayed. doing it is still a third thing. this presents a question that could not has been specifically contemplated at the time when the first amendment was adopted. description in a book of violence was not considered a category of speech that was appropriate for a limitation at the time. it is entirely artificial. >> we do have a new medium here. we have a history in this country of people with vastly

over reacting to them. it started with the crime novels and the late 19th century. the start with comic books and movies in the 1950's. social scientists came and and told the senate that half of the juvenile delinquency in this country was being caused by comic books. we had television, we had rock lyrics, we have the internet. >> the thing that all videogames our speech and the first instance? the modern-day equivalent of monopoly, they are things that people use to compete. when you think of some of them, the first period game was -- the first video game was pong. >> but things we are talking about have narrative and plots. one person is hurting another

person. we're going to regulate it. >> are we going to separate video games and -- are we going to separate video games into narrative video games and non- narrative video games? >> what about a law that says you cannot sell to minors a video game, no video game in which a minor commits a violent attacks? maiming, killing, citing people on fire? what about that? would that be regulating speech? >> of course, your honor. >> it is not speech.

what a law would be directed at was not the plot, not the video game, but the child back to -- the child act of committing murder. >> what happens in the plot is a combination of what the game gives you and what the player adds to it. there is a creative aspect coming from the other side. it is a dialogue between the player and the game. >> the child is speaking to the game? >> the child is helping to determine what happens. you are acting out certain elements of the play. you are contributing to the events that occurred and adding a created element. >> your challenge is a facial challenge.

if there is one or any applications that would satisfy the constitution, the facial challenge fails. right? >> those tests do not apply it in a first amendment context. >> we reference them last year in the steven's case. the only reason we did not have to decide is that we adopted an approach we did not decide whether it could be applied in that case to videos. >> that is correct, your honor. but there is no argument here, i think, if you confine one game out there, even though it would be unconstitutionally applied -- bill >> i and understand. there may be games, less violent games sold to a 17 year old, but something like sold to a 10- year-old might not violate the

first amendment. the way we approach the issue in stephens, or we had videos -- with say that it is too broad to apply the law to everything. a more narrow statute might pass muster. why isn't that a good approach? >> you certainly could do that. if you strike down this law, a this lot is much broader than any one game. there is no way that anybody is going to be able to come back and try a statute that gets to what they claim. you have been arguing your point. which is fair. you have some experts who favor you. you make that point very pretty good one. it is very hard to draw this line under traditional first amendment standards. but i would like you to do with their point for a moment.

there is no new first amendment here. there is a category which involves things like torturing children, etc.. maybe you do not like to sell led to anybody. -- sell it to anybody. they fit within a millard type definition, they are much worse than the simple girlie magazine that was involved there. they will use traditional first amendment tests, there is each an issue, that speeches be limited, it is being done for a good reason, a compelling interest, and there is no less restrictive alternatives that is not also significantly less affected. i want you to deal with that

directly. what you have been doing is saying that we would have to be in a new area, etc., but their argument is that you do not have to be in a new area. apply traditional first amendment standards. that is your argument. i want to hear what you have to say about that. >> they do not suggest that there is any exception -- existing exception to the first amendment. >> this is not an exception. it is a traditional strict scrutiny of first amendment test. >> to get you to focus, i will say that i have made the argument. >> if you apply strict scrutiny of their comment you do not come close to the kind of showing that would be required. they have not shown any problem, let alone a compelling problem, requiring regulation. in a world for parents are fully

empowered are ready to make these calls, or violent crime has been plummeting in this country, it is down 50% -- in a world where parents are fully aware of what is going on in their homes and aware of the rating system -- >> why could you make the same arguments with respect to obscenities? >> obscenity does not have strict scrutiny applied to a trades if they did, you could make the same argument. the violence be treated the same? >> we do not have the same history of it. there is no historical pedigree of that exception. there is a fundamental difference factually. ginzberg works tolerably well. violence would require you to

apply a much different line. given the lack of historical pedigree, and given the nature of what you are trying to do -- >> the court struggled for many, many years. they are still struggling with obscenity. they came up with the miller standards. the state has said, this gives us a category that we can work with with reference. >> if you take the miller standards, you take out of it explicit sex and nudity, and you take out -- what do you have left? you have a structure with no apparent meaning. there is no way to know how a court would apply deviant violence, more violence, offensive violence, let alone decide which video games have redeeming social artistic value. the hyatt -- the video game is

in the eye of the beholder. >> you can make all those arguments with reference to obscenity. >> we all know -- adult obscenity, it is a very difficult line. ginzberg works well because it has sex in it, it is designed to be appealing to people's. interests, he did not give it to minors. >> when you started ginsburg with something that is prescribed a bolt even with regard to adults. you know that there is such a thing as obscenity. in this case, i do not know that there is such a thing as morbid violence which could be eliminated from ordinary movies. >> a little history is helpful here. this court has twice been dealt with laws attempting to

regulate violence works in the past. one was in the 1960's. the city of dallas had an ordinance were there was a commission that was going to review each movie. >> your argument is that there is nothing that a state can do to limit minors' access to the most violent, sadistic, graphic video game that can be developed? that is your argument. >> my position is that strict scrutiny applies. given the fact that the problem is already well controlled, parents are already empowered, strict scrutiny is satisfied. >> at this point, there is nothing the state can do. >> there is no problem it needs

to solve. >> the answer is yes, your honor. >> there is plenty of proof that children are going into stores and buying these games despite the voluntary rating system, despite the voluntary retell restraint by some. there is still proved out there that kids are buying the games. there is proof that some parents have not been able to supervise that. starting from the proposition that there is a problem, it is a compelling state needs, why are you arguing that there is no solution that the state could use to address that problem? >> the existing solutions are perfectly capable of allowing this problem to be addressed, assuming it is a problem. >> 20% of the sales are going to kids.

>> that is when they send somebody in there to test the system. there is no evidence that actual children are disobeying their parents and secretly buying these games, bring them into the homes and plant them for years with their parents are aware of them. >> could you have a law that says the state has to -- that the dealers have to put violent video games in a particular area of the video store? >> you are going to have -- i do not know how this differs from the current law. >> you are saying that there is nothing they can do. am i right about that? i am right.

all of the highest rated videos have to be on the top shelf, had reached. can they do that? >> -- out of reach. >> that is what they do with cigarettes. >> cigarettes are not speech. >> i know that cigarettes are not speech, mr. smith. the record does not support the idea that these video games are harmful to children. >> the record does not support it. even if you take the studies at face value, -- >> there is a steady by the fcc -- the question is whether the violence can be restricted during the hours that most children are awake, at just the

way pornography is. i do not remember the hours. it is something like from 10:00 in the evening -- but didn't they say yes, we could do the same thing with the violence that we are dealing with sex, except that we do not think we ought to do it. >> they spent several years trying to come up with a definition. they eventually punted, and said, we have no idea how to do that. this is a very difficult task, trying to use language to differentiate levels of violence or types of violence in a manner that would in some way to tell people what the rules of the game are. if you think that there is some problem out there that needs to be solved, you should think very

carefully about whether you would authorize the creation of some new rules. no one will have any ideas of what the scope of it is. >> 16-year-old in california have -- do not have $50 to buy video games. and parents are always home watching what they do with their video games. and the video games have features that allow parents to block access to the violence, which cannot be over, by computer savvy 16-year-old. >> i think the problem there is the line between 16 and 17 and 18 is so fine, you will not be able to identify any real category of games that kids into that category.

it is important note that california has not told us how we should judge a five or seven or 10-year-old. nobody is going to be able to convince a jury that this is an 18-year-old game and not a 17- year-old game. >> we draw that line in forcing the death penalty, don't we? we do it for drinking. we do it for driving. >> you are assessing works of expression. i do not think you can cut it that finely. i do not think that works. if that is the test, the statute essentially would restrict nothing. if the test is five-year-old -- >> maybe it would restrict the total gratuitous torture. why is that such aid to europe

-- why is that such a terrible thing? >> publishing a game has to know what the rules of the game are in advance. someone took -- that is $1,000 a game. >> why would the first-ever be that you follow your rules? it would be limited to people who are over 18. let's see if we ever get prosecuted. >> our rules would not help you at all. these ratings conflict with the ratings that are already on the packaging. they are being used by parents every day to make these judgments. the prospect of that would interfere with the information on the package.

>> you have four minutes remaining. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. i want to address one point that was -- that addressed the access to these games. they certainly can afford them and can access them. i also want to draw out the point that california's law really is not an ordinance that is directed to a plot of the game. it is expressly directed to games with essentially no plot, no artistic value. this is the hopeful nature of the third prong of the miller standard. it is going after the nature of the game -- >> if it has a plot, it has artistic value? is that going to be the test? >> it will be one factor to be considered.

>> one factor to be considered, a short skirt so long as it has a plot, it is ok? -- one factor to be considered, shore. -- sure. so long as it has a plot, it is ok? you cannot have artistic videos that involved a maiming and eviscerating people? as long as it is artistic? >> it is the level of the violence. but the level of the violence causes the game to lack the artistic -- it is a balance, your honor. that is why violence and sex -- >> is that going to be the test? >> those under 18 years old. >> do you think mortal kombat is prohibited by this statute?

>> i have not played the game and exposed it sufficiently to judge for myself. >> it is a candidate? it is an iconic game. i am sure that half the clothes that work for us spent a considerable time in their adolescence playing it. [laughter] >> i do not know what she is talking about. >> i meant that the video game should look at it. i do not know off the top of my head. i am willing to state that it would be covered by this act. i think the video game -- >> with a video game that -- would that be covered by the act? >> the act is only directed towards our range of options

that are being able to be inflicted on humans. >> it is not a human being. it is a commuter -- computer simulated person.

>> a discussion auntie role of limited government. that is followed by 9:30. examining the new british coalition government and its plan to cut government spending. later, at 10:30, a discussion on redistricting and whether class, rather than race, should be used when it drawing

congressional boundaries. a discussion on electoral reform by the no labels national leadership conference. they discuss open primaries and fairness with political elections. no labels as a new organization which aims to bring together americans of all political affiliations. hosted by columbia university in new york city, this is 30 minutes. >> wide that is such a problem. >> the reason why it exists is that people always act rationally and if you were a legislator, you would not want

competition. the natural thing is to be able to go to election cycle and move toward being president of the united states. they do what you expect them to do. they make sure that they do not have competitive races. as long as they are the ones that set the standards, i do not think you can expect much change. it will be interesting in new york where ed koch greater than organization that if reelected, you will go and do fair non partisan redistricting. i hope that they do what what

they committed to. >> is there any way you could have a binding contract? >> you would have to change the constitution. that is certainly not going to happen. some places you can do it by referendum. in florida and california. some places, it would be debated in the courts. when we talk about fair, a nonpartisan elections, it is not clear what your definition of fair is. is its equal opportunity? is it equal results? >> it is in the title of your organization. how are you defining it? have you define the problems and

the successes that you have enjoyed? how have you dealt with some of the challenges? >> florida has the distinction of being pretty much the worst gerrymandering state and the country right now. we have a situation in florida where we have about 700,000 more registered democrats in florida , but we have 75% of all legislature is republican. that is due to the way the districts are drawn. i would say that the elected legislators to think that is due because everybody loves him very much. but the districts are drawn in such a way that whoever is drawing districts puts the opposite party of voters in

large numbers into a very small number of districts. it puts the -- it puts their voters and spreads them out over twice the number of districts. basically, that is the way that it has been done in florida for years. this year, a 63% of the florida voters said, we do not want districts that favor, that are drawn for the purpose of favoring or does favoring a political party or an incumbent. that spoke very loudly about the mood of floridians. these amendments say districts shall not be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor political parties or incumbents. we now have another provision that says minority voting rights

must be maintained. district will now have to be compact. presently, we have dozens of districts that go for 150-200 miles splitting counties, splintering cities, and connecting areas that have very little in common. districts will now have to be compact and they will have to follow a geographical and to city and county lines to keep communities together. so that voters will be able to the vote alongside their neighbors for their representatives instead of finding that their neighbor next door is actually in a district that is totally unrelated to the district that they are in. there is a lot of reason to think that with fairness in redistricting, this is supposed to take the rating at of the district. >> this is the arbiter?

>> i agree that the legislators think fairness is draw a district that will protect themselves or their political party. this new constitutional provision that we have in florida outlaws that. it is fairness to the people. >> in his eyes? >> do the people's lives, obviously. 63% of them voted for these amendments. fairness means that the district is not set up to be a republican district or a democratic district. if, in fact, the district is rigged, you know what that means. if it is a democratic district and a member of congress will be elected in a primary with very little chance of a challenge across the aisle.

if it is a republican district, same thing. when you have a situation where there is no real competition of ideas in the election, who gets elected? the person who is either on the .ar right's or the far left what happens? when they get to the legislature, they almost did not know how to come together to find solutions that will work for all of florida or all of the united states. they have only had to listen during their elections to people to war on the extremes of their party. >> her point is well taken. when you have these districts that are so skewed, you do get what you asked for.

that type of person, that model is what gets elected. as a former republican, now an independent, i can speak with some authority on we have several thousand more registered democrats than we do republicans. what does that tell you? the mayor is much better than math than anybody. they did a very good job of it to in years ago. >> you were citing a version of this. it is the mechanism of the primary process. tell us what you have been up to. do you and -- agree with the redistricting? in california, there is an advantage.

they were able to restrict themselves. we have arnold schwarzenegger who won in an open primary. it was a recall special election. he would have never become governor of california. i have always said, how do you reform the way you elect politicians? i have been working in primaries for 14 years. we had closed sessions and we have a pot holes. it needs to be filled. it was a caucus problem in sacramento. we asked how we focused on growing the republican party?

republicans were focused on how we build the democratic party. that is the problem of we have had. that is what proposition was meant to do. >> briefly, how is it that the open primary alters the dynamic you described? >> you say no labels. this is fantastic. it is a giant step forward and i support it. in california, in 19 days, i wrote senate bill six. we amended the constitution. the people voted 55%, starting in 19 days, the people of california will get to vote for their elected officials whoever they want, everybody is on the same ballot. guess what? you do not have to put an "r" or "d." you put your name, and the top two vote best candidates and vote-getters, get the runoff in

the general election. open minded, reasonable, and pragmatic. that is what america needs today. >> how would an open primary be different in your situation, congressman castle? >> i would be sitting next to you as a senator-elect castle today. it is an interesting question. we only have one member of the house of representatives. that eliminates a lot of the federal redistricting issues. we do state redistricting, which is important as well. a democrat from tennessee, and i introduce legislation to do what we are talking about here -- to have fair redistricting throughout the united states, which i think is essential. there are some incredible this.

my staff has been preparing for this and talked about the 17th district in illinois. it apparently was drawn right along a river, and it is in and out, 100 yards wide, houses excluded. that is the way reapportionment occurs across the united states both at the state level and the federal level. i am delighted to be here. what has happened in florida, and i am excited -- the fight for the open primary situation. i was in a primary in delaware. i was in a primary in delaware, and i was heavily favored to win the general election, and the tea party came in and spent a lot of money. i would have been better suited to an open primary. i had mixed feelings about that. parties exist for a reason. so i can understand the argument

that they should be closed primaries. but i can see now much more clearly than i could before september 14. [laughter] i may be on your side. >> two things we are talking about -- open elections and redistricting. a lot of redistricting is there for reasons that copy the u.s. constitution. the constitution has two houses, one is proportional to the population. every state gets two votes, whether the state is populace, small, urban, what ever the case. a lot of people would argue that is the right way to do it, and the founding fathers had that in mind. when the original route the constitution, it basically was male, white landowners. >> the good ole days. >> not the good ole days. that is where the history is. in america, ethnicity is an

important thing. the courts will say repeatedly, if a redistricting takes away the number of seats of ethnicity "a," "b" or "c," then it's not fair. you cannot have it both ways, to say we will not look at everything. >> you bring up an interesting point about the white male landowners, which is the ideals of the constitution that is laid out of originally. over the past few hundred years, there has been an ongoing moral progression and systematic progression to expand the basic premise of the quality through all people. >> we are much more democratic than we used to be paired >> without question. what i am saying is what is the next layer and the progression? is the next layer, having come

as far as we have come, better thought it -- better fought in redistricting or in primary reform? you are talking about the constitutional issue with redistricting. >> when i first came into office, i supported it with a lot of money, an attempt to change new york city's primaries to open election. and we were resoundly beaten. the city is overwhelmingly democratic, so you'd think the republicans were in favor. no. as a matter of fact, it was hard to find anybody in favor of it. since then, a lot of good government groups have said, yes, we should have done it. i thought to myself, where were you back then? if you want to have something that is totally open, then i do not have a problem if you can display the "r" or "d"next your name, as long as everybody can put the same name on your ballot. in 113 days, close to that, is

going to have six, seven candidates. it would be all democrats, because the democrats are so overly democratic. 5% of the people are going to put each of the two candidates in a runoff into the election, and most people are totally disenfranchised. >> how do you avoid that? >> i think redistricting is important. even if you have a fair redistricting plan, with a close, primary election, which is a midterm election where the voter turnout is low or, you still have to go to the right to win the republican primary and you still love to go to the left to win a democratic primary. that does not take out this

partisanship. when you sit in an open primary coupled with fair redistricting, now we are rolling. as the mayor talked about, we have that in california. we had an open primary in 1998, where you have to put an "r" and "d." what we did in california this year, is we asked the voters, given the choice to the candidate to put the "r" or "d," and that will pass constitutional muster with the supreme court. coupled with redistricting, we can move forward. politicians today, think about it, you want to unite the republicans and democrats, introduced an open primary initiative. they hate it. you are accountable to party proxies. now, every elected official running for office better have a message for november, because of your message is only for june,

you will lose, because in california you have two democrats running against each other, and i can tell you which will win -- the one that can get the independents and republicans. that person will be open- minded, reasonable, and pragmatic, and we are on our way. [applause] >> again, from this side of the room, it is interesting to hear that if everybody does not want this, meaning if the incumbent political power structure does not want this, the redistricting, the open primaries, can align like this on a bipartisan plan to make sure it does not happen, should that not mean that it should be at the absolute top of the list of the problems? they are telling you what is most valuable to them. they are telling you that which

is most sacred and must be protected and would truly compromise the power structure. the american people are saying, we believe the power structure does not function in a fair, competitive way. it is almost like a scientific experiment, where you try to figure what the variable is that matters. we found the variable that matters. at what point, and what would it take to organize, not just in florida, not just in california or new york, but using a platform like the one that is being discussed today with no labels, a coalition that can have a very clear, very easy to understand, very easy to understand -- without that you're doomed -- mechanism to advocate for this? >> you need to do what ellen did in florida. by advocating fairness, that is exactly what she did in terms of redistricting as it relates to state district in florida going for it. over and over and over again, when you market that in an

effective way, that talks about the amendments on the ballot, -- you go straight to the people, not to the party bosses, but straight to the people of florida, and then they overwhelmingly passed it by 63%. to her great success, she did it. you advocate no labels. you talk about the country before the party. you talk about the people instead of the party bosses. as i travel florida, which is one of the most diverse states and the country, and you talk about what they want for the future of florida, the future of america, what they talk about is that what people that are fiscally conservative, spend money wisely as the mayor has done in york, but socially moderate.

the me along. we are an independent bunch of people, -- leave me alone. if we have a good defense and good education, and you just search for common sense, these things can happen, and america will be stronger for it. >> you know, the governor points out an important thing. we put together in florida a coalition of what used to be called good government groups, and they are almost obsolete today, right? but all of the organizations that fought for fair districts were non-partisan, and the supporters of fair districts were non-partisan, obviously, since we got 63% of the vote in florida. but the campaign against -- this relates to this no labels concept -- the campaign against these two amendments was to try and label them as left wing, left-leaning, liberal-leaning power grabs. and this was -- i am pleased to report that we had success thereby having a substantive

amendment that actually said, in its language which the voters saw when they went to the polls, which actually said, district shall not be drawn to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent. voters saw through that, but it was a very, very ugly and powerfully stated campaign against trying to label these non-partisan -- and make them appear to be partisan in nature. >> to the extent that you're able to model any sort of effectiveness, whether in california with open primaries, or in florida with the redistricting, what are the

barriers to scaling any sort of effective solution that will exist on a state or county level that can be brought into an adopted into larger spheres? obviously, you are frustrated because he would love to be able to do these things, and you run into barriers. what could be done to celebrate, amplify, or better understand what people are doing that is successful in this regard so that the pressure to scale it into places that are more resistant to it starts to diminish? >> it is not clear that the average voter wants what we are advocating. if you take a look what happened in the u.k., the liberal party was the darling of the press. everything was focused on the liberal party, but they were the king makers, they got cameron in, but they lost half a dozen seats. in the end, when you have an independent candidate, it is the two major parties that get most

of the votes. that may be that the independent candidate cannot win and they want the lesser of two evils. it is not clear that the average person feels themselves disenfranchised or want a lot of the things we advocate. >> at the same time, if you look at the statistics on the american view of politicians, if you look at the statistics on the american view of the incumbent power structure -- >> they say, throw the bums out and then vote for them. i do not like the postal service, but i love my postman. that is a phenomenon that has been there. a lot of it is name recognition. a lot is ethnic familiarity and

solidarity. a lot is lethargy. if you do not bother to vote, you help one or the other. i come back to how far this country has come from what the original framers of the constitution envisioned. the good old days were not always the good old days. things are , a better today where everybody in theory is in franchise. at the margins, no. almost everybody has a vote. >> i would like to change the tone for a moment. as was mentioned earlier by joe scarborough, in terms of the funding of campaigns, or outside money was supporting campaigns then through the two political parties and the candidates themselves. this is become a huge problem in america. i had the pleasure of introducing something called the disclose act last year. [applause] it got me in a lot of political trouble. it was the case called the citizens united case which said that corporations and labour unions and nonprofits could contribute more directly to

advocacy for candidates in this country. so five of us said, fine, and we introduced this legislation. and basically it said, if you are going to make these kinds of contributions, you need to disclose who your chief executive officer is and who you're 10 largest contributors are. politicians do that any out. political parties do that. we felt they should do it. -- politicians do that anyhow. it passed narrowly. there were two republicans that voted for it. it went to the senate, where it was never taken up. that is a huge problem in america. money in politics is a tremendous issue right now. i think it needs to be

addressed. now we have the spread of these outside groups coming in and getting involved with campaigns, not even going to political parties or candidates. and that is a problem. even in this room, we have people who are advocating the public financing of campaigns. that may be multiplied by something -- that is something we need to be considering in america today. we need to clearly deal with that particular problem. while i am on my horse, one quick point made earlier today, and that is that the influence of the political parties and the caucuses in washington, d.c., it's incredible the influence of the republican and democrat party. they will get you in caucus meetings, and they will say, you have to vote this. it will get republicans elected. they will try to put you in that position. the will to stand up and say i

will not vote that way, i will look the other way, is something that is lost. i think both parties -- doing anything that is meaningful. then there is the complete choking when it comes to deficit reduction and some of the major issues of the environment that face this country. there are significant problems in how washington, in particular, operates right now. >> we are talking about reform. congressman castle just talked about it. nothing good could come out for a reasonable, pragmatic person in the republican caucus. we have to do this or that. no one is talking about the big issues -- the budget. republicans do not want revenues. democrats, they do not want to cut. there are three ways to balance the budget -- you can cut, raise revenues, or you can borrow. you do not want to do any of the three, there is no leadership.

they use this labeling to stand behind the leader and say, my leader does not want me to do that. customs and immigration reform. we're getting nowhere. nobody wants to touch it. my father cross the border in 1963. republicans should own that issue. his son is the lieutenant governor. >> i'll leave it on this. you hit this point well. this country is based on a tremendous number of ideals that are tied to fairness and equality that have never, have as yet to completely manifest themselves. however, if you look at the amount of effort -- i was up in seneca falls on friday, which in in addition to be the town upon which where the women's suffrage movement started in 1848, at that point in time

women were considered property. it was ok to whip them. it was a slave country. those people worked against those types of oppressions, which were so much more violent and present in the actual lives of the disenfranchised community, or in it this case, half the population. it took them 70 years from 1848 up through their ability to vote. i really believe that this organization, that this panel and this particular conversation about electoral fairness and collect -- electoral reform is the latest chapter in an ongoing conversation between the desire of self preservation and the destructive acts of change that caused those who are trying to preserve themselves to find themselves in a transposition. for that reason, it should not

be as frustrating as many of us find it to be, that this is finding resistance. it is natural that this conversation comes into a tremendous amount of resistance. that goes into the civilian narrative around this organization. the resistance to this type of change is a natural occurrence among human beings. then that frustration will not enjoying you to respond with the level of aggression or frustration that might otherwise occur and yourself if you understand those things and understand that as you can see on this panel, and this panel is a fraction of the people in this country who are very much in favor of the ideas that existed. i cannot think the five of you and of not only for being here today but for giving me the opportunity and honor for being able to manage the conversation with the five of you. it's cool, and i get to wear my sneakers. thank you very much. [applause]

>> tonight, primetime on c-span, the discussion on government and with william kristol. that is followed at 9:30 p.m. body"q&a." and later, at 10:30 p.m. eastern, a discussion on redistricting. >> house budget committee chairman john spratt was defeated in his bid for a 15th term in the november election by republican candidate. the democratic congressman was

elected in 1982. the state's northern fifth congressional district has not been represented by a republican since 1883. we spoke with representatives spratt about his time in congress, his service on the budget committee and his future. this is a half-hour. >> budget committee chairman john spratt, 30 years in congress, and leaving by the choice of the voters. i really want to start there. all of the c-span watchers probably wonder what it is like to be a politician and lose an election after all these years. can you give us some reflection on that? >> it is fascinating from my viewpoint and to leave public office and public policy making.

it is dismaying to work hard and be turned away by your constituents, but i understand that the move is sweeping the country. every county in my district is in double digit unemployment. you have to go back to the 1930's or maybe 1940's to see that. people do not understand health care and allow people are opposed to anyone who voted for the health care reform bill. generally speaking, people are worried about debt accumulation. they're concerned about members that voted for debt accumulation. they simply do not agree with the bailouts.

i thought that was something that we had to do in dire circumstances. >> as fascinate -- fascinating is a word that takes you out of the picture and looks through another lens. it also has to be painful. >> i was there for 28 years. life goes on and there are a lot of things i can do. the phone is ringing with a lot of different ideas. eyeglass up -- i'm glad that i had the opportunity to serve. >> what are you thinking about? >> it would be teaching. it would not be practicing law or any of that. teaching or taking part in the activities of one of the many think tanks around town. >> we were talking before we started recording. you came here in 1983 after the 1982 election. i was looking back over some public opinion polls and the first couple of years when you

were in the house, public opinion of congress was generally 46%. the last one i looked at was 70%. has the country changed or has congress changed? >> i do not think that congress has changed that much. is it different? yes. there was a similar situation when we came here in 1983. it has gotten worse, but i do not think it has gotten worse to the point where you get the number dropping to 17%. congress is a responsible party. they took it out on us. >> it is interesting that you talk about 1982, when there was bickering. over and over again, you hear people waxed nostalgic for the

time when tip o'neill and ronald reagan would disagree, but then would go a share a drink. >> there was a little apocrypha in that. tip o'neill was the speaker and he did not mince words when it came to ronald reagan for his lack of good will for the people. he was the sort of guy that you could sit down and enjoy a drink with because he was a great storyteller. >> what do you think about all of this concern about the partisanship in washington? politics, by its nature, is partisanship. are we too partisan now? for weeks to discuss it for one never has been? >> when the framers " the constitution -- when the

framers wrote the constitution, they knew the laws would be slowed down and considered. when you consider the tools that could be used for a long debate and amendments, it is not surprising to see the constitutional intent. it could be an example of civility. it would be a good thing if we have more of that in the congress today. it would help us get our work done. the role and mission of the current congress, as expressed by senator mcconnell, is to make sure that the president as i get a second term three what kind of stability can you have when the central intent is to be president in the next election?

-- beat the president in the next election. >> can you talk to was a little bit about the democratic south that once was and what has become of that today? >> the democratic south emerged from the 1890's with the decision of the supreme court to stop reconstruction. it became the solid south for the next 75 years. it has definitely changed in terms of its makeup back home. people think differently. they live differently than years ago when we have these solid democratic parties. i think that that has been an improvement over the past 75 to 100 years. we have recognized the american

purpose. we have given meaning to the american public. we have overcome slavery and desegregation. that is true in the south today. no question about it. both political parties support the idea. >> i want to revisit the american purpose. what are you thinking about there? you just said that we reinvigorated the american purpose. >> i think that we have. >> what does that mean to you? >> it means that everybody has a chance to succeed in america. everyone has the opportunity to pursue education to the fullest extent of their talent or ability. it means that this is a country of opportunity and opportunity means education for all americans to the fullest extent that they can appreciate it. and the essentials of life.

health care, good education, and basic food so that they can survive. the american -- is a country that pulls together. i think that there are hits and misses when it comes to that. >> let's talk about the politics within your own party. the post-election analysis looks at nancy pelosi and the views she had about the role of government and society. what do you think about the democratic party and its ability to govern? >> i think that we have shown that they have the ability to govern, at least in the house. some of it may not have merited,

but numerous copies still lie in the senate. we have moved a lot of legislation, including health care, including legislation dealing with global warming. some really tough legislation was passed and i give the speaker credit for passing that legislation. getting back on the strategy, i think that we could have done it differently and more persuasively. i think that it would have been good if we have taken the health care in segments, piece by piece. perfecting -- adopting a plan that would help small businesses in particular and individuals as well obtain health insurance at an affordable rate. start with that single quest and before we make it all together

for two hundred page bill, do it step by step by step -- 81400 -- a 1400 page bill. we simply say that projects are ready to go and we will find those. i think that we could have done this differently and come out better. >> what is different about the politics of today that great big landmark pieces of legislation could be passed? i am thinking about civil-rights legislation. >> in this case, it would have been incremental. the cost is so great and

economic circumstances of the country -- the people were alarmed with the proposal and it had to be explained again and again and again. people got it and agree with the basic concepts of that. one of the things that we stipulated on the budget committee, of which i was chairman, what we did could not have been done. it to their credit, the democratic leadership kept the bill from costing any more or having any more impact on the deficit that was something that we were able to do. you have to sell the package. this is a good example of how we should take more time to think about how we would merchandize this. a lot of leaders said that the people will not buy it.

we cannot sell it. >> with all of those years at the gavel, how do we get out from where we are right now -- this $13 trillion debt. >> the programs that gave rise to the swollen debt -- for example, the tarp shows that it will probably repay with interest all the money that loaned out and the first place. the recovery act will cease to be a factor this calendar year. as it does, the bottom line of that is at the budget will get better. we provided in a piece of legislation last year that when the tarp money came back again,

it could not be respected. in addition, a number of programs, everything from fdic bailouts to medicaid, a number of programs were way up during the recession and then they come back down again as the recession receives and it gets better. over time, if we simply do not get carried away and start trying to make sure that these things have that impact on the budget, that will help us. >> i wanted to do a little exercise with you. you have the bird's-eye view of looking at president's from the vantage point of congress and

the relationship between the two branches. i would just want to run through the names of presidents that were in office when you were in office and give me your recollection of them. do you mind doing that? >> sure. >> start with president reagan. >> he made people understand that communication is part of the policy -- the process of setting political policy. yet to make people feel good about it. he made americans feel good about stuff again which was quite an accomplishment. >> mr. bush 41? >> a very decent guy who limited -- who did not capture the ability of mr. reagan to

ignite the public spirit. nevertheless, he was a good man who was liked by everyone who knew him. >> bill clinton? >> a very bright guy. but also with a gift of persuasion and explanation. you can sit down at a table with del clinton in the lincoln room -- with bill clinton in the lincoln room, and when you got up, there was always give-and- take. he was a very quick study. >> what does the impeachment process look like to you? >> the fact that he was so effective is reflected in the fact that the impeachment came and went and he survived it all

politically. that is a strong indication of how strong a personality bill clinton was. >> president george w. bush. >> somebody who could have done a lot more than he did. decent guy. a good sense of humor. easy to talk to. someone who was content to take something, some conclusion, some recommendation. he was a very bright guy. he was a very effective guide. a very personal guide. when it came to examining and reading something, he was not the and he was not profound. >> and now the current president, barack obama. >> really one of the brightest people i have ever sat down with. as i said about bill clinton, if you sat down with barack obama tomorrow in the whiteouse, you would have a fair exchange.

he would be on top of the material. you would both get up from the discussion with a better understanding of what was before you. >> what is it that this country needs in the position of president? >> the first thing that we need is a leader that can bring people together and help people find common ground. make them understand that we all have a common stake in this. it is something that a president has to do and ronald reagan taught us that that is an essential element of the job. >> let's turn to your own part of your 28 years here. what were your best years? >> in terms of public service, my biggest accomplishment was the balanced budget act of 1997. it was the budget resolution

that put the budget in surplus for the first time in 30 years. it was a big accomplishment. we got together and initiated the process and gave the administration of the budget. every time we met, his team was on the floor and they were in the room with us. we were able to negotiate over a period of six months. we were able to put the budget in balance for the first time in 30 years. that was the biggest accomplishment i have had here. i had a hand in drawing the law to stop nuclear testing. that was very important. and never -- when i came here, i got on the armed services committee for a couple of reasons.

i had a military base in my district and i could help them out -- the armed services committee had big defense industrial base is. i had a small hand in that. it was easier in that context to the independent and self directed. that was a nice achievement, being able to assume the chairmanship by the armed services committee after two terms. >> i wanted to compare that process when the budget chief scott together and found a

compromise for the current process with the debt commission. what do you think about the tactic of these congressional presidential commissions to for a consensus or find a path for policy? >> it was shown to work in previous cases. in this particular case, the president said that we have done quite a bit and that we need to let these factors played out. they would have been much more respectable level. since this involves all of us, it involves taxes and spending, everybody has to be at the table and everything has to be on the table for to succeed. the best way to do that is to form a commission that has a direct line to the president.

that is what we did in this particular case. the cochairs of the committee decided that it would precipitate action on ambitious proposals. they were trying to be very provocative and break us from our traditional ways and think outside the box. it would be interesting to see what happens. whatever happens, i think it is clear that the process cannot end where it is right now. >> during this debate, people keep harkening back to government during the new gingrich years. what was that like? when the government was essentially shut down in negotiations fell. >> that is an example of play in

your hand. i know from here in new gingrich say it several times, that we should shut the government down and nobody would miss it. they sat down with the american people asked if the federal government ceases to fund social security, where does that leave me. it did not take the republican leadership wants to know that they were way out on a limb. i think it would happen again. nevertheless, i enjoy the fact we have a government that does have so security and medicare and does it well. >> in a sense, it provides a

point to where no party wants to return? >> i do not think anybody would likely do what they did last time. i think that newt gingrich thought that he was on the wrong side of this dispute. that lesson has been learned but everybody in proximity succession groups. i do not think it will soon be forgotten. >> i wanted to talk to you again about speakers. i can either run through the list and you can give me a few comments on their leadership or you can pick them out. why don't we just do that? first off, tip o'neill, what you think about his leadership of the house? >> tip left with respect and compassion. by being a very good order, we would speak about him in those terms.

tipped him out of nowhere to the house caucus on the house floor and he saw that the bill was drafted. that was the first time that ever happened. he was known as the g.i. congressman. he went on to tell the story of how he served. >> i said -- asset i think we had better regroup and reconsider. there is a good example of how through the power of his oratory he could affect the outcome of something. you do not see that as much today.

everyone was hanging on his words. he could turn the whole thing around in the space of 10 minutes. >> he was followed by jim wright. >> he was a hard worker, effective, personable, easy to know and like. there were those who were not easy with jim wright. he was a very partisan player. the first time they took a swipe at him, they took it. i think jim played his cards wrong. she said i should not have received a royalty for the book's sales. tell me how much to pay back and i would pay it to charity of your choice. instead, he challenged the

ethics committee. as a consequence, it got deeper and deeper into his personal affairs. he finally just gave up and quit. he was a good man and an effective legislator to. he was a good technician and craftsman. >> did you remember being on the floor of the davis resignation speech? >> yes, i do. the man was exhausted. they had worn him down. he knew he could not gain back the of moral authority, so he said i am belling out of this. i am sure it was a tough decision for him to make. >> tom foley? >> tom foley was a wonderful storyteller. he was articulate, and an effective spokesperson across

the spectrum of issues. he had been chairman of the agriculture committee with the provincial topic of -- he also used his time to travel quite a bit. it is very well versed in foreign affairs and foreign policy and liked by everybody in the house. i cannot think of a speaker in my time who has been more liked and respected than tom foley. in the end, he was not as effective as jim wright. jim wright named for things were going to do, and he set about and did them. tom did not have that kind of easy successes. everybody felt good about his leadership. >> what about newt gingrich? >> i give him credit for being good on his feet.

he was able to pick up on a metaphor and squeeze meaning out of it, but i think superficially, his understanding -- >> dennis hastert. >> a really decent guy, a nice guy, but while a good speaker and a solid speaker, no flair, nothing special stands him out amongst the crowd. i think he served longer than any other republican as speaker of the house, but he does not leave much in his wake. >> you already spoke about nancy pelosi is legislative accomplishments. what are your views of her as a leader? >> i remember when she first got to be majority leader -- no, she was speaker. the california delegation was

meeting to pick a certain committee for people in that part of the country. i went by to ask her support for somebody else outside california. i said to nancy, why don't you just left the caucus make that decision for you? then you are not responsible for it. you cannot win and you are going to antagonize some people and alienate others if you go forward with the proposal to put a certain person on a certain committee. >> she said it has to be done right, and i hope in the long run i will be vindicated. that is our attitude about things. she will take a risk. she works extremely hard. i worry about her traveling as much as she has in keeping that stamina going, but she certainly

has the stamina to do the job she does. in the last election and the month before it, she went all over the country, every weekend, supporting different democrats. just the energy it took to do that is remarkable. >> thank you of your insider views of speakers. as we close, on your scale of pessimism to optimism, i am wondering how you feel about the congress and the country right now. >> if the economy improves, as people go back to work, i think the whole atmosphere in congress will be different. both among democrats and republicans. what caused republicans to lose a couple of years ago was because we had the larders recession since the great depression.

-- the largest recession since the great depression. we have not been able to work miracles with the economy. once the economy is behind us, we can turn ourselves back to the issues that really matter to the american people. >> thank you very much for the interview. i appreciated. >> my pleasure. >> republican south carolina state center mick mulvaney defeated house budget committee chairman john spratt, a democrat, 55%-45%. we will show your interview with representative elect mulvaney in just a few moments. tonight, primetime on c-span, discussion on thee of limited government. that is followed by c-span is "q&a", examining the new british coalition government and its plan to cut nt spending.

later, a discussion on redistricting and whether class, rather than race, should be used when redrawing congressional boundaries. >> now, our interview with representative elect mick mulvaney. he is the first republican to represent south carolina's fifth district since 1883. this is about 20 minutes. >> represented elect make mulvaney here to talk to us. he beat 14 term incumbent john spratt for the seat. what are your priorities for the 112 congress? >> running against the budget chairman of the year when the budget committee did not even offer a budget, fiscal issues to front and center of the entire campaign. that is really the reason i ran. it is what we are looking for to

focusing on. the priority is spending. >> was the budget committee assignment important to your district? who you are replacing, mr. spratt, sat on that committee and was chairman of that committee crew cracks he did a good job of educating people over the course of the last decade or so as to the role of the budget committee, how important it is for fiscal conservatives to have a say in that process. mr. spratt offered himself as a democrat who was still very fiscally conservative. that is very much in tune with the demographics, the mentality of the people who lived that congressional district. to the extent that anyone was concerned about losing our say on that committee by replacing mr. spratt, i think it sends a pretty strong message as to what my priorities are going to be and whether they will still have

a say at the table, and they will. >> what do you cut first? >> the size of the government is what it comes down to. there have been really good studies on bringing federal pay in line with the private sector, especially in the white-collar areas. up to $50 billion a year could be saved there. cut the size of the government in terms of requiring two people to drop out of the system before an agency can hire a new person to replace them and try and manage the size of the government down. there is actually a program that the obama administration has implemented that has not gotten a lot of attention, which is an in sourcing policy or the administration has identified third party contracts out with private industries, not renewed the contracts, and then reached out to the employees of those private firms to bring them on as government workers. those are the types of things i think we cut first, the size and structure of the government. >> the things you just mentioned

make up a very small percentage of the federal budget. you did not mention in tom and deform -- entitlement reform. all right wanted to restructure a social security and medicare. are you on board with that? >> i did not run on privatizing social security. i have not seen the work that was done on medicare and medicaid. i understand he is promoting a voucher type program that senator demint has proposed on the senate side. i don't know enough about it yet to get into it. keeping in mind that even as of today, the information i have available to meet is the same information that you folks have available. i have not gotten any of the first hand primary source information yet, so we are still trying to find our way and get a handle on things like the size of the deficit.

the size of the budget is hard to grasp, $3.80 trillion. that is a great deal of money. >> i read one article that you were given four hundred pages of reading material for you to look at over the holiday season to get you up to speed on what the budget committee funding means. >> it is a scintillating 400 pages. i moved through most of the data sources, the census bureau, the various fell -- federal agencies that collect and distribute the information. i have started on the imf and world bank on the plane up here this morning. it is really fascinating stuff. we need help sleeping at night, it also helps with that. >> you said i want to know what is the debt and what is the

economic impact of 13.5 trillion dollars in debt, and how does that impact job creation and the future employment of our kids? have you been able to answer that question? >> it is such a huge sum of money. i have focused on what that means. it is too big a sum of money for any human to understand. 13 trillion dollars, we did discussion about what $4 trillion was, which is roughly what the annual budget was. it is a stack of $100 bills that is 3,000 miles high. trying to break it down into numbers we can get our hands around, at 6% interest, that is one trillion dollars in year of -- a year of interest payments that we have to pay. you are talking about not very

long from now, having interest gobble up huge sums of money, especially if interest rates go higher. that is what i am trying to understand, the size of the annual deficit and the impact it has on our future ability to fund government services and not create a huge drain on the private sector. >> if you are still grappling with those questions, why did you come out already saying i am not going to vote to raise the debt ceiling? >> actually, i did not say that. i said right now, i have been asking folks what i think are reasonable questions. what happens if we don't? i was at one of the leading think tanks in town and ask that question. there were a bunch of smart people of fraud who did not have an answer to that question. i think that is a reasonable question to ask -- there were a bunch of smart people up front.

>> it could damage the dollar value or cause a partial government shutdown. >> i don't think the last point is true. i am trying to still get information. my understanding is that it isn't that that was voted on march 30 are april 15, whatever the date is. the government has to continue to live on its cash flow. it cannot go to the back window and borrow more money. that is why i am asking the question. the mistake i do not want to make is panicking. i don't want to have to vote based upon that information. a lot of reasonable minds have disagreed over the tar ". the same rhetoric i hear -- disagreed over the tarp vote.

a lot of folks make decisions based on less than perfect information and i just do not want to make that mistake. >> you disagree with john boehner who said we are all adults and we need to do with it like adults. the federal government has obligations, and we have observations -- obligations on our side. senator demint struggles with the fact we are not borrowing new money. the government has made promises and we need to keep them. i have an economics background. i have talked to people about this over at heritage. i said i am more inclined to think that not raising the debt limit would be a bad thing that i was on the tarp bailout. i am more inclined to a group of folks who say this will be a catastrophic event. i just want someone to explain to me in common sense terms what it means. it cannot say to me that if you

do not vote this way, the world is going to end. you have to compare it, at some point to a cost-benefit analysis. if we don't raise the debt ceiling, this is going to happen. they just voted at the beginning of this year to raise its $1.90 trillion. if we do that, what is the impact of that? it comes back to the conversation about the size of the debt and the size of the interest. it is going to come down to that this will be one of the first messaging boats. the first opportunity to say this is where the country is headed. this is the change of direction that this new congress represents. if there is no real commitment by leadership and by republicans to get the fiscal house in order, it will be a very tough vote for people to take.

>> your in the campus center corker who says we need to come up with an agreement on spending cuts -- you are in the camp with senator corker. >> the intent is not to shut the government down. the debate is about whether congress is really going to make difficult decisions on spending. are we going to change the structure of the government? are going to have a debate on repealing health care or about a balanced budget amendment? are we going to make steps toward changing the way government works in the future? i think it becomes more likely that you get support to raise temporarily the debt limit. if it is business as usual between now and april in the first big decision we get to is raising the debt limit, i think the speaker is going to have some difficulties. >> you have served in the state legislature and know what states

are facing as far as the budget crisis, that there needs to be cuts made on the state and city level. how are you going to balance your state and district needs with money that they need from the federal government and make some spending cuts here in washington? >> we have already had a sit- down with governor-elect haleigh, who is a friend of mine. i serve with her in the state legislature. her car was clear, we do not want any more handmaids. -- we do not want any more handouts. south carolina has started to make the difficult decisions. we have a balanced budget requirement in our constitution, so we have been forced to make those difficult decisions and do something that politicians don't do very well, which is look people in the eye and say no, we cannot do that for you this year.

a lot of us in the south carolina delegation know that the states have made the difficult decisions. other states like california that can borrow, they need to start making the difficult decisions. when they go looking for a bailout, which we all know is coming, the answer is going to be a very firm not. let the states make their difficult decisions. there will be less federal money this year, but south carolina knows that. the committee does not get a lot of attention on the hill. a% of my folks work at small businesses in the fifth district of south carolina. small business has mitt -- has really been moved aside for the last few years.

there have not been meaningful impacts on revealing what it has meant to small business. focus our attention has been paid to wall street and large corporations. small business has sort of been ignored. i am looking for that to change dramatically with the new leadership. the primary purpose of the committee is the voice of small business in congress. i am very excited about that and think it will be good for the folks back home. >> what in your background lends itself to working as a member of congress, representing a district? >> that is a great question. i don't know of anybody who has practiced law at a firm, i

started my own law firm, went to business school, started a couple of businesses. i have been in the real-estate business. when the industry sees to dress, i went to the restaurant business. -- when the industry ceased to exist. i hope i have been an effective lawmaker. i am excited about the opportunity. i think i know enough about the process and how it works to be good at it, but i am the farthest thing from a career politician. >> what is a lesson learned from being in the rest of business, where you have such high turnover? >> there is a long list of lessons in the restaurant business. one of them is, you have to be there, which is not really consistent with doing this. i am out of that business at the end of the year. turnover is a big part of that business, and finding the right people is critical. it is not easy to find good people, as spokesman recognize.

if there was a consistent theme that i learned from industrial manufacturers is that they cannot find folks. they have actually gone out and try to rehire people that they laid off during the last downturn and been told that i have eight months of benefits left, call me in 7.5 months. the official unemployment rate is about 14% or 15%. the actual rate is probably higher than that. that is an eye opener. that are having difficulty hiring people in manufacturing at $16 an hour. >> we are doing some last minute hiring. we will fill up the legislative team. we have some small, administrative things. there were 90 of this year for the orientation and some things

fell through the cracks. we thought we would come in while it is nice and quiet and try and wrap up some things. >> why did you want a small business owner as your chief of staff? >> customer service. mr. spratt, with the exception of the last two-four years when something very different happen up here, he was always one of the most approachable members of congress. you could walk in his office and meet with him regularly. we want to get back to that. there are two pieces to a congressional office. one is the legislative side and the other is the constituent service side, which is really nothing more than customer relations. if you can make money in the textile business in this day and age, you have tremendous customer relations skills.

i have told the story many times, i went to see him at town hall meeting. this was back at the beginning of the tea party movement. i went to go see the people. it was right at the edge of my senate district. i had a stafford tell me that i could not begin to see my congresswoman without a driver's license. i got in and saw mr. spratt talking about lowering the cost curve. i really frustrated and ask my wife if i could run for congress. that really is how i got into it. i never expected to win until scott brown's election later that year or early next year. we recognize that the time was different than i had expected.

mr. spratt has only had to retrieve serious challengers in the last 28 years. it is sort of by accident that i am here. >> describe your family. >> we had triplets 10 years ago. we live on 12 acres in the country. my wife has a wars and my children raise chickens and sell eggs to make money -- my wife has a horse. and selling is not a profitable business, but selling chicken poop is. it is a normal family. the kids were not very heavily involved in the campaign. thatfe's requirement was we insulate the children as much as possible. forn't think it is normal

children to see people chanting of their dad's name. distilled disconcerting to me to go to those rallies in -- it is still disconcerting to me to go to those rallies and have that happen. i was on fox news a couple of nights ago and i called upon to tell my daughter. they forgot to watch because they were doing something else. >> where will you live here in d.c.? >> i am hoping to crash with mike chief once he gets settled in maryland. there is only one hotel in colombia that can rent you a room on per diem down there. it is not the fanciest hotel in town.

>> i was wondering where you would find an affordable hotel in washington d.c. >> where i am staying is not a priority at this time. getting started is what i want to do. >> eric cantor put out a booklet to all the new incoming freshmen republicans saying you need to keep your profile up, because people in your district think you are there member, even though you are not sworn in until january. >> it is interesting it having people call and complain about how i voted on this particular piece of legislation. i have to keep reminding them that is not me yet, so that is a little bit frustrating. the tax-cut compromise was not

extraordinarily popular back in my district. it would have set an interesting tone to go against leadership on the first time out of the gate. i was disappointed with the level of spending. my question was simply, why did we not think we could get a better deal after the first of the year? if that question not answered behind closed doors, then so be it. i did not get it publicly. >> do you think president obama one that negotiation? >> it is one of those things that time will tell. to be candid, i could care less about the politics of it at this point. i still have the luxury of being somewhat ideological since i just got elected. i told people i would not spend money that we did not have. this bill spends money that we do not have.

i think it is a pretty easy vote for me to vote against it. could i have been convinced to vote for it? sure. i am willing to sit down and look at realities. it is always hard to say how you would or would not vote when you do not have all the information available to you. it is fair to say that i was very disappointed with the level of spending cuts. >> represented elect rick mulvaney. thanks for talking to c-span. >> north dakota senior center, democrat byron dorgan, gave a farewell address on the senate floor. he announced he would not seek a fourth term in office. he reflected on his service and offer advice to the future congress during his remarks. this is about 30 minutes. >> mr. president, those of us who are leaving the congress at

the end of this year are given the opportunity to make a farewell speech, but more is an opportunity to set thank you to people that we owe thanks to come and to colleagues, family, the staff and the senate and the people of north dakota who gave me the opportunity to serve. it is an opportunity for me to say thank you. one of my colleagues talked about the number of people who have served in the united states senate. since the beginning of our country, there have been 190018 people who have served at the united states senate. the rabin to hundred 12 senators with whom i have served -- there have been 212 senators with whom i have served. it is hard to get here, and it is hard to leave here. all of us to leave, and the senate always continues. when you do leave, you understand that this is the most unique legislative body in the world.

in congress, and when we all show up the first day, we feel so very important, and we believe that the weight of the world rests on our shoulders. and then we begin getting mail from home, and i have long described a letter that was sort of levinning to me, sent moo -- leavining to me, is sengtsz to me by a school teacher. her class was to do a project to write according to nonwashington, d.c. and i paged through the 20 letters from fourth grade students and one of them said, "dear mr. dorgan: i know who you are. i see you on television sometimes. my dad watches you on television, too. boy, does he get mad." and so i knew -- so i knew the interest of public service of trying to satisfy all of the very interests in our country. it is important, it seems to me, that we do the right thing as best we can and as best we see

it. that dad from that letter showed up at a good many of my meetings over the years, i think -- didn't introduce himself. but in most cases, the people that i've represented over these many years were people that -- ordinary folks who loved their country, raised their families, paid their bills, and wanted us to do the right thing for our country's future. now, i have a lot of really interesting memories from having served here. 12 years in the u.s. house and 18 years in the u.s. senate. the first week i came to washington in the u.s. house, i stopped to see the oldest member of the house, claude pepper. i'd read so much about him, wanted to meet him. walked into his office. his office was like a museum with a lot of old things in it really interesting things. he'd been here for a long, longs, long time. and i have never forgotten what i saw behind his chairs -- two photographs. the first photograph was of or ville and wilbur wright, 1903, making the first airplane flight

the. signed:-to-"to congressman claude pepper with admiration." and beneath it, a photograph of neil armstrong, signed "to congressman pepper, with regards." and i'm thinking to myself, here's a living american in one life time, has an autographed picture of the person who learned to fly and the person who flew to the moon. think of the unbelievable progress in a lifetime. and what is the distance between learning to fly and flying to the moon? well it wasn't measured on that wall in inches, although those photographs were only four or five inches apart. it is measured in education, in knowledge, in a burst of accomplishments, in an unprecedented century. and this country has been enormously blessed during this period. the hallmark, it seems to me, of the century that we just completed was self-sacrifice and

common purpose, a sense of community, commitment to country, and especially -- especially -- leadership. in america, leadership has been so important in this government we call "self-government." and there was a book written by mccullough about john adams and john adams described that question of leadership. he would travel in europe representing this new country, and he would write letters back to abigail and in his letters to abigail he would plaintiffly ask the question, where will the leadership come for this new country we're starting? who will become the leaders? who will be the leaders for this new nation? then in the next letter to abigail he would again ask, where will the leadership come from? and then he would say, there's only us, really only us. there's me, there's george washington, there's ben franklin, there's thomas jefferson, there's hamilton, mason and madison, but there is only us, he would plaintiffly

say to abigail. in the rearview mir he of history, the only us is some of the greatest human talent probably ever assembled. but it is interesting to me that every generation has asked the same question that john adams asked: where will the leadership come from for this country? who will be the leaders? and the answer to that question now is here in this room. it's always been in this room. my colleagues, men and women tested by the rirgs of a campaign -- tested by the riggers of a exairntion chosen by disefns their state, told, you provide leadership for this country. now, for all of the crit simple about this chamber and chose in which -- those who serve in this chamber, for all of that crit cinches i say that the most talented men and women with whom i have ever worked are the men and women of the united states senate, from both sides of this aisle.

they live in glass houses, their mistakes are obvious and painful, they fight, they disagree, then they agree, they dance around issues, posture, delay, but always, always there is that moment, the moment of being part of something big, consequential, important, the moment of being part of something bigger than yourself. and at that moment, for all of us, at different times there is this a cute awareness of why we were sent here and the role the u.s. senate plays in the destiny of this cufnlt you know, the senate is often called the most exclusive club in the world. but i wonder really if it's so exclusive. if someone from a town of 300 people and a high school senior class of nine students can travel from a desk in that small school to a desk on the floor of

the united states senate, i think it's more like a quiltwork of all that's american, of all the experiences in our country. it allowed someone from a small town with big ideas to sit in this chamber among the desks that were occupied by henry clay, daniel webster, harry truman, lyndon johnson, and so many more, and feel like you belong. theals the genius of self-government. -- that's the genius of self-govment now, i announced about a year ago that i would not seek reelection after serving here 30 years, 12 in the u.s. house and 18 years in the u.s. senate. i am repeatedly asked, as is my clerks senator dodd, i'm sure, who is leaving at the end of this year, what is your most significant accomplishment? and while i'm proud of so many things i have done legislatively, the answer is not legislative. i have always answered it by

saying, well, the first month i was here 30 years ago next month, i stepped into an elevator on the ground floor of the cannon office building of the u.s. house of representatives. that step into that elevator changed my life. between the ground floor and the fourth floor, i got her name, and that's a pretty significant accomplishment for a lutheran norwegian, and this year we celebrated our 25th wedding anniversary. my life has been so enriched by my wife kim and children scott and shelly and bren done and haley and my grand southern. they serve, too. families are committed, too, to this life of public service, weekends alone, and i am forever grateful to the commitment and sacrifice of my family.

and i want to say a few things about some other people as well. first there is our staff. all of us would probably say -- but of course i say with much greater credibility -- i have the finest staff in the united states senate. i have been so enormously blessed. i am so prated of all of them. they are talented. they are dedicated to this country. and i have been blessed to work with most of them for many, many years. then i want to say to the floor staff of the united states senate, i come here, as do my colleagues, and we say our piece and we get involved in the debates and the floor staff does such an unbelievable job. when we're done speaking, we often leave. they're still here. they're the ones that turn out the lights. they refrain from rolling their eyes when i know they want to during these debates, but, boy, are they professional. and all of us owe them -- just such a great debt of gratitude.

and to my colleagues, i -- i just -- there's nobody in here -- i kind of feel like will rogers, "nobody in here i don't like." a great place with some terrific colleagues, especially kent conrad. we've been friends for 40 years. 40 years we've been involved in the politifights and the political battles in north dakota. a great senator. and i said last night at a reception, the best u.s. senator in the united states senate come january. but i -- but i should have said right now, he's an outstanding senator and makes a great contribution to this country. and congressman pomeroy with whom i have served, the other part of team north dakota, three of us who worked together on campaigns 40 years ago, 35 years ago in north dakota, and then for 18 years became three members of the -- the only three members of north dakota's congressional delegation. it's been a great, great pleasure and it's -- we will continue these friendships but i

say thanks to senator conrad especially for the work we've done together. now, you know and it shows that i love politics and i love public service. always have. john f. kennedy used to say that every mother kind of hopes that their child might grow up to be president as long as they don't have to be active in politics. but, of course, politics is the way we make decisions about america. it's an honorable thing. i've always been enormously proud of being in politics. i've run 12 times in statewide elections since age 26. i've served continuously in statewide elective office since the age of 26. never outside of elective office statewide. a long, long, long time. 40 years. it's been a great gift to me to be able to serve and i -- i'm so forever grateful to the people of north dakota, who have said to me, we want to you us. -- we want you to represent us. and now it's time for me to do some other things that i have long wanted to do and that's why i have chosen not to seek

reelection this year. let me be clear to you. i didn't decide not to run for the senate because i'm despondent about the state of affairs here. it's just not the case. these are difficult and troubling times, however, but i didn't decide not to run and choose to criticize this institution, although there's plenty to be critical of. i just don't want to add to the burdens of this institution. this institution is too important to the future of this country. and i could talk, by the way, for hours about the joys of serving here with individuals. you know, i was thinking about the late ted kennedy when i was jotting a few notes standing at his desk back in that row over these years. i think -- and no one will mind me saying this -- i think he's the best legislator i've ever seen in terms of getting things done. but ted kennedy, full of passi passion.

and on certain days when he was agitated and full-throated, you could hear him out on the street fighting and shouting for the things he knew were important for america. i think of bob dole, who would saunter on to this floor and he almost seemed to have an antenna that knew exactly what was going on, what the mood service and what he could and couldn't do and how you must compromise at certain times. he had a knack for that unlike any others that i've seen. i think of a strom thurmond who left us i think at age 100. what -- if everybody could know his life story, what a -- an unbelievable, courageous story. and one of the things that happened with strom thurmond is i was very involved and have always been involved in organ transplantation, to save people's lives. and i did a press corches a bill i was introduce -- conference on a bill i was doing on organ transplants. and strom thurmond showed up. i think he was 90 years old. and he signed an organ donor card. and he said, after he signed the organ donor card at age 90, he

said, i don't know if i've got anything anybody wants, but if i'm gone, they're welcome to it. [laughter] and robert c. byrd, who sat where my colleague is sitting now, and they just don't make him -- they don't make them like robert c. byrd anymore. i recall one day when another colleague was on the floor and robert c. byrd got very angry about what the other colleague was saying. he felt it was disrespectful and so he rushed up to the chamber and the other colleague had left by that time, and i don't know that he ever understood what happened. but senator byrd, being very angry at what another colleague had said that he felt was disrespectful to the president, senator byrd was recognized and he said simply this. "i've been here long enough to watch pi pygmes strut like colasses. he said they, like the fly in aesop's fable sitting on the axle of a chariot, observe, my, what dust i do raise." and then he sat down.

and i thought, you know, they don't make speakers like that anymore. the senator who left didn't understand what senator byrd had just done, cutting him off at the knees. but i take a treasury of memories. i should mention as well one of my best friends, tom daschle, who served here, a wonderful friend and i think a great leader for a long while as well. i just take a treasury of memories from this place. this place, however, has substantial burdens ahead of it. and if we're going to make good decisions, tough decisions and exhibit the courage needed for the kind of future we want, we're going to have to put some sacrifice on the line here for our country's future. so i want to talk just for a bit about a couple of those issues. while there are always big issues -- and i've always been interested in debating the big issues -- my principal passion has been to support family farmers and small business folks

and the people that go to work every morning at a job. the family farmers out there, who live on hope, plant a seed and hope it grows. and they risk everything. the main street business owner that this morning got up and turned the key in the front door and went in and waited because they've got everything in their financial lives on the line, hoping their small business works. and the worker that goes to a job in the morning every day -- every day -- and they're the ones that know seconds. you know, those workers at the bottom of the economic ladder, they know second shift, she she secondhand, second mortgage, they know it all. and the question is: who speaks for them? the halls of this chamber aren't crowded with people saying let me speak for those folks. the first book i wrote, the first page, a book called "take this journal of proceedings and shithis job and ship it," the ft page i wrote about franklin delano roosevelt's funeral.

and as they lined up in this capitol to file past the casket of the deceased president, a journalist was trying capture the mood of people who were waiting in line. and he walked up to a man, a worker, who was holding his cap in front of him, standing there with tears in his eyes. and the journalist said to this working man, well, did you know franklin delano roosevelt? and the man said, no, i didn't, but he knew me. and the question is, it seems to me, for every generation in this chamber: who knows american workers and who stands up for the people that go to work every morning in this country? as i said, there are big, big issues that relate to workers and farmers and business people and others in this country. and let me just mention a couple. you all know and we know for america to succeed, we've got to fix our schools. 30% of the kids going to school aren't graduating in our high schools. that can't continue.

we can't have schools that are called dropout factories. we need the best schools in the world with the best teachers in the world if we're going to compete. we need substantial education reform. we also have to get rid of this crushing debt. we know that we can't borrow 40% of everything we spend. we know better than that. all of us know that. we've been on a binge and it's got to change. we can't -- we can't borrow money from china, for example, to give tax cuts to the wealthiest americans. somehow we have to change all of these issues. it's time for this country to sober up on fiscal policy and leadership from this chamber as well. we need a financial industry -- a financial industry that stops gambling and starts lending, lending especially to those businesses that want to create jobs and want to expand. we need a fair trade policy that stands up for american workers for a change and promotes "made in america" again.

we're not going to be a world economic power if we don't have world-class manufacturing capability. and it's dissipating before our eyes. this is all about creating good jobs and expanding opportunities in this country. it's not happening with our current trade policy. it's trading away america's future. and we know better than that. on energy, we've ridden into a box canyon. 60% of the oil we use comes from other countries, some of it from countries to don't like us very much that. holds us hossage and we can't continue -- hostage and we can't continue that. we need to produce here at home of all kinds of energy. we need to conserve month, we need more -- conserve more, we need more energy efficiency, we need to do all of these things to promote stability and security in this country. and let me just say on one other issue that i've intent a lot of time -- spent a lot of time working on, deals with american indians. they were here first. we're talking about the first americans. they greeted all of us. they now live in third world conditions in much of this country.

and we've got to do better, we've got to keep our promises and we've got to honor our treaties. this congress, let me just say -- and i've had the privilege of chairing the indian affairs committee -- this congress, however, as tough as it has been, has done more on indian issues than in the previous 40 years. we passed the indian health care improvement act, the first time in 17 years. we passed the tribal law and order act that i and others helped write which is so very important. we just passed yesterday the special diabetes provisions that are so important to the indians. we put $2.5 billion in the economic recovery act to invest in health care facilities and education and the other things that are necessary in indian country. we just passed the cobell settlement which deals with the problem that's existed for 150 years in which looting and stealing from indian trust accounts went on routinely. and president obama signed the bill last night at the white house at 5:30. those five things are the most important elements together that have been done in 40 years by a

congress dealing with indian issues. but it is not nearly over and we have to keep our promises and honor our trust agreements. so the point is that we face some pretty big challenges, but the fact is, our grandparents and great-grandparents, they faced challenges that were much more significant as well and they prevailed. the noise of democracy, as you know -- all of us in politics, especially know -- the noise of democracy is unbelievable. it is relentless, incessantly negative and it goes 24/7. and we've got bloviaters onth out there all over the country trying to make sounds from the chest be important messages from the brain. they take everything from anything from all corners of the country that seems stupid and ugly and way over the line and they hold it up on their program and say, isn't this ugly? sure, it's ugly but it isn't america. it's just some little obscene

gesture somewhere in the corner of our country. it's not america. there's this old saying, bad news travels halfway around the world before good news gets its shoes o. that happens all the time. this country is full of good. it's full of good things, good people, and good news. every day people go to work on build, create and invent and they hope the future will be better than the past. you know, there was a book called "you can't go home again" by thomas wolfe and he said there's a peculiar quality of the american soul, a peculiar quality of the american soul, that they have an almost indestructible belief, a quenchless hope that things are going to be better, that something's going to turn up, that tomorrow's going to work out. and somehow that has been what has been the hallmark of american aspirations. i want to just finally say this.

when i graduated from college with an m.b.a. degree and got my first job in the aerospace industry at a very young age, the first program or project i worked on was called the voyager project. and we were, with martin marietta corporation, building a landing vehicle for mars. that was 40 years ago. that program was discontinued after about four years. but five years ago, the new program resulted in firing two missiles, two rockets from our country, one week apart. we aimed them at mars. one week aparts, the rockets lifted off with a payload. when they landed 200 million miles later, they landed one week apart on the surface of mars. the payload had a shroud and it opened up, and a dune buggy drove off the shroud. a dune buggy about that big. started driving on the surface of mars.

first one did and then a week later, the second arrived and they were named spirit and opportunity. five years ago. spirit and opportunity. we drove them on the surface of mars. it was an american vehicle. it was supposed to last for 90 days. we're still driving those dune buggies on the surface of mars five years later. spirit -- very much like old m men -- got arthritis of the arm and so they say it hangs at kind of a permanent half salute. and spirit also has five wheels and one wheel broke and so the wheel didn't break off but now it is digging a trench about two inches deep around the surface of mars. and the arthritic arm just barely gets back there, and it buries slightly deeper into the surface.

and opportunity fell asleep a few weeks ago. it takes nine minutes to get a signal to mars. so they sent a signal to a satellite that we have circling mars and had the satellite send a signal to spirit and spirit woke right up. and so it is that two dune-buggy sizessed vehicles are driven on the surface of mars driven by american genius. my point is, first of all, they were aptly named during challenging times, spirit and opportunity. manufactured to last 90 days and driving on the surface of mars five years later. if american invention and american initiative can build rockets and dune buggies and drive them on the surface of mars, surely we can fix the things that are important here on planet earth. i'm about to say this isn't

rocket science, but i guess it really is. this country, it seems to me, is an unbelievable place. and this is all it seems to me a call to america's future. where we've been and what we've done, all of these things together ought to inspire us that we can do so much more. george bernard shaw once said life is no brief candle to me, it's a splendid torch which i'm able to hold but for a moment. well, this is our moment. this is it. i have -- i have -- if i might tell you that about 15 years ago i was leading a delegation of american congressmen and senators to meet with a group of european members of parliament about our disputes in trade. and about an hour into the meet, the man who led the european delegation slid back in his chair and he leaned across to me

and he said, mr. senator, we've been speaking for an hour about how we disagree. but he said, i want to tell you something, i think i should -- you should know how i feel about your country. he said, i was a 14-year-old boy on a street corner in paris, france, when the u.s. liberation army marched, and he said an american soldier reached out his hand and gave that 14-year-old boy an apple as he marched past. he said, i will go to my grave remembering that moment, what it meant to me, what it meant to my family, what it meant to my country. and i just sort of sat back in my chair thinking, here's this guy telling me about who we are, what we've been, and what we've meant to others. it's pretty unbelievable. but it's nothing compared to where we can go and what we can be as a country if we just do the right thing. this senate has a lot to offer the american people.

and i know its best days are ahead. that splendide torch, that momet is here. and i feel unbelievably proud to have been able to have served here with these men and women for so long and i'm going to go on to do other things, but i will always watch this chamber and those who will continue to work in this chamber and do what's important for this country's future and i'll be one of the cheerleaders that say, yay, good for you. good for you. you know what's important and you've steered america toward a better future. i thank my colleagues.