i understood the value of education. i have the best education. it was a challenge to me -- for me. some of my people dropped out but they never had that. [unintelligible] in know, when you see your father -- you know, when you see your father, it does not leave you. in know, when you see your father -- you know, when you see your father, it does not leave you. you live with it. all of my years, angry wars. i learned to let my game ergo. -- my anchor go. my first books, i do not like them. i do not want to quote them.

i learned to put all of my anger in the first writing, where no one is living. the i started teaching at university, teaching french literature. i see all of these who do not know what was going on. no one wanted to talk about it. one day i abandoned my job and decided to educate the low income people in the village, and destined to be proud of themselves, and express their own opinions. then, educate people on the issue of environmental -- i thought i was doing something. all that i was saying was

teaching local people to stand up to all for their rights. it was against the will of the government. i was fought out of the country and today i am in exile, but today, i am proud of it. i learned from it, they are actors, there are writers, and i published a volume. what am i doing here? we talked about before, of other places, and i think the united states for giving me the opportunity to be here, but we know we can make a difference. although i am here, they still feel me over there. agitation puts knowledge in your pocket. you -- education + knowledge in your pocket.

-- pellets knowledge in your pocket. -- puts knowledge in your pocket. [unintelligible] you come to my class to tell, to create your own story. let us not silence the stories. let us bring people to talk. when you talk, you are cured, and you make your other people. thank you. -- mike your other people. thank you. [applause] >> it is very good to be here every time. i now live back in liberia. every time i come back i forget that america gets very cold, so i am walking around without a winter jacket.

people must have thought i was a crazy man. in life, there are so many things that we forget. i remember being in liberia getting malaria used to be like the flu, you've got every year. the thing was something like malaria is when you are sick, you forget what it is like to be well. when you are well, you forget what it is like to be sick. there are so many things in our lives that we forget about. the issue of war, and being in the middle of a war is something that remains forever burned in your memory. before the liberian civil war, we never thought we would experience war, bloodshed, or human suffering. he then watching it on the television screen, the most

graphic war movie really does not put you into what it is to be in the middle of a war. that is how extreme it is. obviously, the movie cannot convey that sense of fear that you fill in the middle of the war, the smells that you experience -- the smells of death and disaster, or just extreme human suffering. having that experience as a child, being 9 years old, and been thrown in the middle of a war, for me, it really tore my life apart. in effect, for children in the middle of a war, it hit -- in fact, for children in the middle of a war, it is almost as if you are torn between two worlds, trying to hold on to the innocence of being a child, in joining what comes with that and not having to worry about

finding food or what you are going to eat. i often go back and say that is what did choices of been the child. you're not worried about the light bill or the water, or where food is going to come from. that no since it is taken away, and then all of that -- that innocence is taken away, and then all of the sudden you go into a war situation where all of the things children are not supposed to be concerned about, you are worried about. in my life, at 10-years-old, i moved from being an adult -- from being a child to end adult. my first organization started when i was 14. people say they -- that i did incredible things. our situations were different. i have lost that childhood. thousands of children

essentially lose their childhood. the difficulty of it is that it is something that cannot ever be replaced. there are so many things that can be replaced, but the idea of losing the childhood cannot be replaced. imagine for a moment, and i was not used as a child soldier, but imagine for a moment -- ago i was not used, my life was extreme. the situation i went through was extreme. just imagine for a moment the child who is forced to fight, and the child who is forced to kill. these are young children who are forced from their families, or in some cases these are young children who decided to enter the war because they felt either it was a way to provide for themselves, or to fight, or take revenge, for something

happen to them. that journey into being a child soldier and fighting, and imagine for a moment the youngest person who fought in the liberian -- liberian civil war was 6 years old. in fact, rival armies in liberia, that was their strongest fighting force. it essentially, with a child, not like an adult, and i'm sure adult soldiers who are here -- most adults, i hope all adults, have developed a sense of right and wrong, of life and death. a child has not developed that sense yet. so, what they are capable of doing, and the fierceness of the killings they are able to commit, and the atrocities they

are able to commit is far more vicious than adults soldiers. in lubbock area, -- in liberia, when they saw adult rebels, they would be happy to go to them, but when you saw a child rubble, you would freak out. you could never tell what passed them off, and they could be passed off easily. it is probably one of the most difficult things in the world. it is extremely, extremely difficult in my work of trying to go through and work with these young people -- nothing proves harder. i want to wrap up, but unfortunately we have this situation where there are so many countries, because you guys, and i remember when i

first came to the u.s. in 1998 and i went to high school. i was coming from africa and an african country, and i went to a school in delaware. my friends in high school were like a "diskette must have been fighting -- in this guide must -- this guy must have been fighting a lying and swinging in the trees. i am a skinny guy. in five weight at a lion, i am going to pass out. so many people were simply not aware -- i if i wink at a lion, i am going to pass out. some people were simply not aware. people want to know how to get involved. what i have seen, all the time

that i have been here and in all of my work is that change in the world is no longer about governance. it is not above the u.n.. it is not the big, international organizations. i truly believe the change in the world will come when we, as individuals, especially young people because everywhere in the world they make up the majority of the population -- if we, as young people stood up and we fought, and not with guns, but we fought intellectually and with our determination and strength, the world would slip around. unimagined as tomorrow morning every young person everywhere -- imagine if tomorrow morning every young person everywhere in the world stood up and said no to child soldiers, and no to war. do you know what would happen?

>> i bet all of the money that i have, and it is not a lot of money, but i bet you the day after the world would be a different and better place. we can do it, we just have to get up, stand up, and find something, anything to do to make the world did better place. see why. -- thank you. >> thank you, kimmie. >> manish, before you share your story, i have spoken to so many of the of over the past days and many of you in the audience who are here with a story, and to have been telling your stories to drop the week. it is so powerful. this is one of those ways that combines healing and education, and actually being together in

ways than help us create something that is very different. thank you, kimmie. manish? >> thank you. i would also like to bring three scenarios that i confront. every country in south asia is grappling with some kind of conflict. the three scenarios are upbeat -- are a bit pessimistic, but later on i will talk about optimistic hope as well. the first scenario is about stealing the life of children. this encounter happened to me in afghanistan. i was visiting an orphanage. there was a child who had not been able to really make friends with other children. he was kind of trouble. the person who was managing the

orphanage was in a dilemma on how to settle the issue because he always beats the other children. he has this hatred language. i then ask the manager where he came from, and he gave me the scenario of telling me that in afghanistan and pakistan there are radical schools where children are prepared to be suicide bombers, and this child was rescued from their. this is a scenario of stealing of a life of a person. this is the first scenario. the second incident that happened to me was while i was working with the disabled some students -- children,

[unintelligible] imagine 70% of these people. we aren't dumping 19,000 people -- we are dumping 19,000 people, giving them $50 a month for their living and everything. this particular incident happened to me when i was interviewing one of the children. i was interviewing this guy who adjust been discharged. i asked him what he was going to do now. he answered me, well, i do not have any future because if i go back to my society, no one will except me because i am the cause of the death of my parents, the death of my family

members, and the death of my neighbors. so, this is a story of stealing the hope from chosen -- from children. we are still in the future. this is a story where children are not seen the future. the third story happened to me in sri lanka. we have a university there. this story happened to me right on the day when the head of ltt was found dead. there was a big fanfare. food was being distributed.

at the same time, and the other isle, i was at the airport waiting for a taxi. unfortunately, i was sitting with a couple and a child who were just flying out of india. [unintelligible] for some reason, i was talking to this child because he was sitting in my lap, and i was asking her a question. why are you happy today? the answer struck me. "we killed." here, you are still in the hope of a child. where does the reconciliation

happen? we are teaching about us and them. these are a few different stories with different scenarios, but a very pessimistic picture about how we are going to deal with these things. in one story, we are talking about still in the life of a child because i do not know what would be the future of this child who was prepared to be a suicide bomber, then we're talking about a child to cannot go back to their society, and the third story is a child who does not really know about anything but has a bias about other people. for me, i think the only solution is education. in the morning and know we talked about education, but

there is also a problem with agitation. i can cite two examples. one example is from afghanistan. i was doing research on looking at the educational patterns in afghanistan. i came to know that right after september 11, in 2002, in this up wasted -- unicef wasted money on a text book. there was a blunder that cause them to throw it out. education is seen as a public good, and every country wants to instill education. as happened in afghanistan unicef decided to -- this happened in afghanistan. unicef decided to reprint all of

the textbooks. in the textbooks, there was languages which were projected for the soviets. in mathematics, they have pictures of guns and bombs that they use to tout the numbers. these kind of textbook -- out the numbers. these kind of text books are used. sometimes, education is always very political language. there is a problem with agitation as well. a funny story happened to me when i was recently on a trip where they were trying to change the text of a history book. a panelist was talking this

morning about how if there were powerful within the world would be peaceful. i do not see that in bangladesh. in fact, in south asia we have a lot of powerful women. they were changing the text book and i was asking some of the people, and they said this happens every year. it happens when another lady comes as she tries to protect the history based on her family contributions in making the state. sometimes, education is also a problem. my focus is on peace education, the real school where we can bring some changes, and instill some hope to this kind of scenario. i would like to use a statement -- "since war begins in the minds of the men, it is in the

minds of the men that the defense of peace must be constructed. all i think that is the hope. >> thank you, manish. thank you, everyone, for sharing your stories. i am aware of the time. i would like to take it one more step before we open it up for just a few questions to the panel. kimmie, you brought up the good point about rehabilitation and how difficult that is. how do we educate the children who have experience been child soldiers in order to empower them to engage positively? i do not want to stop with that question, mainly because of the time. i'm going to lay that out to inspect -- contextualism, knowing that is such a serious problem. knowing that all of -- no in the work that all of you are

doing on the panel -- the global campaign, so many good things happening, tell us, from your perspective, in the midst of this all systems break down, all over the planet, where is the all systems breakthrough? what is working? what is it that if we were to focus on more of that in this emerging world view of cooperation, and really working together as so many of you have commented on, that we could indeed not just to rehabilitate and in power, but actually proactively agitate for peace and entire generation? talk to us about that. >> manish said something that is so true in so many countries. first of all, the simple thing is listening to the people themselves. and one they say something that

is happening in so many post- war countries, the big agencies are wasting a hell of a lot of money doing crazy things. i make peace activist, but i want to find someone and not them on the head. in the case of liberia, there are young people that have fought from 1990. the war formally ended in 2004. these child soldiers -- they were taking in millions of dollars in funds. these guys collected the child soldiers and they said they had a fund for rehabilitation, reintegration, it's cetera -- it's set at -- etc.. they went out and started giving each of the child store it -- soldiers $150 until they depleted the fund. if you're a child soldier and

you are and $150, they went out and they bought sneakers, jeans, and new cd players, but someone had to write a report saying that the process was complete. obviously, it was not. they came back again in 2004 took the child soldiers, and put them in a room. this is a true story the five- day rehabilitation process was to essentially having them watch war movies. that is what experts said was the solution. it does not make sense, but these are the guys coming from princeton and harvard. nothing against princeton and harvard. if people listen and spend more time listening to the people themselves, to the child soldiers -- often we make the mistake, especially the large aid agencies, of assuming we

know what is right and what the people need. if we actually went there and we went with the perspective that we know absolutely nothing and listen, we would do so much more, and so much better. that is the premise of my work at use action. we listen to the people before we develop the programs. >> i will go to the people, lived to the -- live with the people, listen to the people, learn from what they are doing. i go to the people. i live their life. i let them merit their stories -- narrate their stories.

[unintelligible] my word is different from someone. if i go and listen, we think education is simply going to sit in a classroom, but knowledge can be given and all of us here can do it if we live with the people, listen to their story. if there is a problem, we did not say there is a problem, let them say this is the problem, then simply ask them all to solve their problem. at that moment it is not monetary, it is bringing in ideas. as i say, i am doing it, and i think it is the best way to educate people. >> thank you. roger, i know you want to say something also, then we will open up for a couple of questions. >> i went to a school in south africa.

these children had two kinds of war. they were left over from the apartheid government where nelson mandela eventually became president during that uprising, but they are also undergoing an incredible war of time -- crime. i visited with principal daniels, and the first thing principal daniels did when he went to the school and his first day -- blowholes started coming to the classroom --: all started coming to the question. he had no idea is what was going on. his first lesson was to teach the children how to hide on the floor. secondly, he noticed there were over 400 bullet holes in the school. this is 600 elementary kids. he discovered that the bullet holes were from six rival gangs that had been fighting each

other for over 40 years, and they fought for the property of the school for their territory because they could use these children for drugs and prostitution. the oldest was 10 or 11 years old. the second thing mr. daniels did was patch up 400 bullet holes in the school, and then being courageous as he was, he went out to meet the games. he asked why they were shooting through the school. he said the unemployment rate is 70%. we robbed and we still, or we starve to death. -- steel, or we starve to death. we do not get any choice. principal daniels thought for a minute and he said look out the front of the school. there are several acres that are lying dormant. plant a farm.

grow crops. solemn on a roadside stand. this sounds preposterous, but they did. -- sell them on a roadside stand. this sign -- this sounds preposterous, but they did. it is called the peace garden. the city provided them with water. they have enough money selling vegetables to support every member of all six games and their families. there has not been a shot fired in the elementary school since 2004. now, the value that comes out of this is always respect the dignity of your enemies. most politicians nowadays do not do this, but principal daniels had an enemy -- six games putting a bullet holes through the windows of the children.

he respected their dignity, maintained their dignity, worked with them, and it ended up on national television in south africa because here was someone who reduced the crime rate, solve the problem, created peace, maintain the dignity of everyone, and was able to continue with the education of the children. education is very important in solving the problems peacefully it like that. is the only way we are going to do it. >> -- is the only way we are going to do it. >> thank you. in all honesty, we're only going to have time for two or three questions. no pushing and shoving. it is a peace summit. two or three questions. yes, of course. step up. if you have a comment or question, please share your name.

>> i am from montessori high school. i was just wondering your opinion on how the project children and being in wars. during my freshman year i did studies on sierra leone and liberia and the children, and in my opinion they blind us as children in education about what happens in other countries because i think, in my opinion, countries think they are better than other countries and do not believe their students and education system should know about these problems. if we know about them, we can take the small steps to make bigger steps, like most of your organizations that started with little steps and made a big impact. i was wondering on why you think they do that to blind other countries and students and their education systems on things of this matter.

they think it is small, but they are not. there are really huge. >> that is such a good question. you know, and i do not like to be seen as someone who is a conspiracy theorist, but i like to believe that if, again, something as simple as the millennium development goals, the plan for ending extreme poverty, there is a survey that showed less than 1% of americans knew about this, and that is something that is supposed to end human suffering. around the world, it seems to me that if every young person was informed not only about the issues, but about the real possibilities for change, that it is not a utopian dream but it is possible. i will give you one simple

example -- education. . it cost $6 billion per year to send his children to school. we cannot find the 6 billion in the year but does have much we spend in perfume? $12 million. we spend more on perfume. that tells us if we really wanted to bring change we could do it. the willpower is there. the force is not there because we are not being informed. the other thing is there are both sides of it. you will see the party and human suffering and in other parts of the world, but on the other side of it, even in the communities, even a day after war, there is

so much hope and happiness. as you saw in the film, those children were trying to play even though there were gunshots happening right there. and the humanity is in all of us, even under the worst situation, especially for children. we just have to find that and support it. >> i think it has to do with how the message is delivered as well. i think it is so easy, especially in this country we like to politicize things. we like to pick right and wrong, black and white, red and blue. it is so easily -- that message can so easily become that. it is better when it is the tragic story.

we need to make sure the message we send does have a hope. and it is a tragic story, but here are people doing things to make it better. it is important that you make the connection, because we do not live in our hearts. our hearts to not want to live in tragedy, they want to live in hope. it is the import we make the connection so we do not politicize it and we provide hope. >> one of the things i would like to highlight is media and plays an important role in this. i really do not like the media here. i challenge to a group of people be journalists. d've

what they're listening to is bbc. they can tell the name of the prime minister of canada if you ask the people. media is a big difference in terms of indicating. >> thank you, and think for the question. thank you for the question. >> i am a u.s. marines retired. and i want to bank all of the distinguished panelists, the moderator for all but they're doing here. points of interest for myself on the knowledge of spiritual connection through the children and healing of the sold through education.

i just got done with the fall of catholicism after doing just one of the poems of the vietnam children's project. and i question -- my question to each of the panelists and the moderators, the native americans sacred ways and the first peoples of this country, i see no where represented here in panel discussions. i am very honored to have sharing from my sister, if i may call her that with great honor, for the issues she brought up, the very issues of it is now time for the women to take their rightful place of the head of their nation to educate the

children. the sacred ways of indigenous people of this country such as [applause] -- such as [inaudible] the sacred sundance. ghost dance, whichtandard is still illegal in this country. the sacred sweat lodge. the sacred talking circle that my brother bear held at this gathering, the phenomenal works the soldier's heart organization does and dealing with combat veterans and their ptsd -- not

ptsd, post soul disorder or the works of the phenomenal lady in her book. >> thank you.. is there a question you would like to pose to the panel? >> if there is one more book. we listened, but why can't we listen to the children? the people who really get it, the little grandmothers and grandfathers. to restate the question, how can we in this country best do,

caring means sharing the burden? going to ask that the panel hold that question and please step of to the microphone and ask your question and then we will get the final comments. >> my question for you is what has been your biggest obstacle in conveying these messages and what have you come across as ignorance or lack of knowledge in regards to child soldiers? what has been your biggest issue in conveying this message? >> let me start by saying that we have to start doing something.

when i watched the poem i had tears all around. the story of these kids, i saw my mother is being bombed. we have to connect with one another. we hope that we do not only listen to one another, we hope we connect. so that when we finish at the end, we have to -- [inaudible] i wanted to take my children to africa. we keep on working with my

colleagues here, you connect and try person to person. and you will be able to change your personal life. and do not let the structure prevent you from doing it. anmy people come back with tattoos they're so happy and honored and changed. the first obstacle is that it is not always easy when you get at the center of these things. we just have to anchorage one another. encourage one another. all these questions may prevent

you from talking about we have to learn how to connect. let me just finish, you cannot change the world after we have gathered here. do you know who is sitting next to you? look at the person, take good notes so that the dialogue continues after we have finished here. >> thank you. .hat beautiful wrap up here ye i invite all of you as we wrap this up and shared there are many young heroes of peace. and there are many heroes of peace to understand that if we want a new future, we need a new story. turn to the person next tiu, introduce yourself, but first panel.help me sayin thank the [applause]

>> this evening on c-span, interviews with outgoing members of the house, including david obey. that is at 6:45 p.m. eastern. and representative john shadegg. he talks to us at 7:25 eastern tonight. at 8:00, a form on african- americans in the current economy with mark mouriel. then at 9:30 matthew p after that, a jamestown discussion on terrorism threats and pakistan and afghanistan. that is at 10:30 eastern. >> watch "book tv" all this

week in prime time. also this week, laura bush on her memoir. then it tony blair on his memoir. that is all this week on c-span 2. c-span original documentary on the supreme court has been updated. you will hear about all the court works from all of the current supreme court justices, including the newest justice, elena kagan pier yen the supreme court, home to america's highest court. and >> now a supreme court case

on the status of an unmarried foreign- citizens' born child. and and and what falls there has to fill a minimum 10 year residency before maintaining the same right. this is just over an hour. a >> hear the residential requirements that are at issue here have no biological basis. they set up barriers to the transmission of citizenship by younger fathers but not number mothers and are based upon gender stereotypes that women would care for non-marital

children. the claim that congress was concerned about state business, but the record does not support that claim. -- statelessness. >> what separates a stereotype from a reality? do you say that it is not true hat if there is al an illegitimate child that it is much more likely that the women will care for it rather than the father's? >> i think it is more likely. >> in all the cases it is true in general, but there are people who do not fit the mold. a stereotype -- is it true or maybe the majority of cases?

>> absolutely. this is beyond an empirical stereotype. and at the congressional hearings it was said that the woman is the sole legal parent this child, totally excluding the man. in addition to the fact that the empirical portion of it, there is the notion that the legal parents was the woman. >> was that said in relation to the principle that only where paternity was not established that the child would be regarded as having citizenship of the mother under the law of every virtual country at that time? >> as a lot of many countries, the citizenship did go through the mother, but the statute, congress drew up this

distinction between all parents -- all fathers of non-married parents. the very law that congress relied upon says that citizenship goes through the father. the bottom line is the very article they relied upon said that in one instance it goes to the mother, but in the instance of the people that are affected by the statute, it goes through the ball there. and there are number of situations -- >> it went to the mother? >> i respectfully disagree. there are a number of situations where would not go through the mother. in china and japan if the father was known it would not go through the mother. and there are three other countries in which if the female

citizen gave birth to a child somewhere other than in their country, citizenship would not travel through the mother because of the laws of those particular countries. and in all of those situations the citizenship would not go through the mother, it would have to go through the fall there and the statutory scheme does not provide for that. this creates severe risks of statelessness for married fathers. married fathers who are married to an alien. if the father was precluded by walls such as the war in the united states the child would end up stateless miss as well. thernumerous countries that have basically reinstituted the role that if the father is known, citizenship would not translate through the mother. those are primarily in the middle east and africa. >> how you deal with the

argument that really this is a classification where the unmarried woman is being favored because the unmarried father is being bracketed with a married couple? but the wom is getting a special favor and the unwed father is treated like most people, like most married couples who have children. and >> there was no discrimination against women up untn. it was clear that the non- marital children of women did get citizenship. there was no discrimination that

was being remedied in that situation. and >> that does not answer the question. which is as this appears to be an exception to a generalized non-gender based requirements. couples, male and female, all others are subject to five years. only unmarried mothers get this. why shouldn't everybody be put into the broader category rather than extending the largest to the greatest number of people? >> we're not talking about an exception. and there was no significant residence requirement. congress imposed residents because they were concerned

about the foreign influence in mixed marriages. meaning someone who was married to an alien. in those situations congress specifically said in the record they were concerned that when the children were born abroad they would have been more foreign than american. >> , is that the five-year residency requirement? would that honor the concerned about there being a substantial tied to the states? >> it absolutely would, but that is not applicable when you're talking about two u.s. citizens , the non-marital fathers are in the same category. those non-marital bothers to raise the children on their own are not subject to that type of foreign influence, so they should be grouped together with

the women and with the two- citizen families. it is only as to the mixed marriage couples who are married with there is the foreign influence problem and they're the ones to who the expanded residence was applied. with respect -- the solicitor general raised concerns about the doctrine. i would argue that does not apply for couple of reasons. the first is we're not talking about the admission of aliens. the second is that the court has made clear that even when exercising that power congress's power is limited by constitutional implications. congress made it very clear in passing the statute that they consider those people who gained citizenship as a birth to be differently situated in aliens. thas a tradition that gated

-- that dated back to 1850. >> are you taking in this direction that congress gives less deference in determining nationality been admission to a land? >> what i am saying is we're talking about the petitioners bother to transfer citizenship and that is a traditional interest, citizenship is extremely important and a tradition that citizens have been able to do so for years. constitutional limitation should apply when congress is applying distinction between men and women --- >> you want us to write an opinion that says congress has less deference when it is determined to should be a national of this country than when it determined to should be admitted as an alien? >> -->

>> are you asking us to write that in an opinion? >> i am saying it is applicable in this context because it -- >> what is your authority for that answer? it seems it should be the other way around? >> it is the tradition i have been discussing. congress in 1940 considered people who gained citizenship by birth abroad as being different is situated from aliens come aliens who naturalize. that was universally -- >> that was congress that made the distinction. you are asking us to say that congress has less authority over the essential issue over who should be nationals in the united states. maybe there is some authority for that. is there something i can read that tells me that? >> [unintelligible]

this is the first case where it was in a land of mission case. about citizenship being transferred by a united states citizen. and the petitioners father has equal protection against the discrimination here because a similar lead-situated woman would be able to transfer citizenship -- >> i did not quite follow this. as i understand it, what remedy will there be if you are right? a child is born abroad, one is american, one is born. if they're marri that child is american only if the father

or the mother has lived in the united states for at least two years. now it is five years. as opposed to not married and suppose the american is the fall there. same role. now suppose they' not married and american is the mother. now it is not five years or two years, you only have to live here for one year. suppose i agree with you, i did not see any sense to that whatsoever. suppose i agree with you, then why doesn't the remedies away whether it is the father or the mother the general rule applies, they have to live in the united states in the five years or two years? >> there are rich couple of reasons for that. there is a structural limitation to oppose a leveling-down

remedy. citizenship cannot be taken away once it is granted. >> some people were lucky and are ready citizens under this. nobody will take that away. we're just looking at the statute. in the first part of the statute they have and sectiong of 1 401. if you are right about this, and it is totally unfair and there is no good reason whatsoever for distinguishing on the basis of gender, we strike g. that would seem to be normal, but that is not going to help your client, so how do you get to some other thing, instead of striking g? what we do is strike the whole thing before and show them all

into g, which is not so easy to do with this language. >> this statute contains a several ability clause -- >> but we strike g. sorry, we. c, and you want me to strike a and g and show the people in there and to g. i want to know how you get there. >> by extension. >> i thought your argument was you are not touching married couples. >> that is correct. >> you are talking about equating the unmarried father to the unmarried mother. is there any notion of how many people we are talking about? the court generally extends when there is a small class being

covered. in a large class that is already covered. the reg has been we would be most destructive of the legislative will if we said you could not cover that. so as -- in a group of unmarried mothers, and unmarried fathers, if you have any notion of what the numbers would be -- >> i do not have any statistics to provide the court. >> maybe you would like to answer justice breyer's question. >> the remedy we are requesting is extension. the court looked at language in the several ability cause that was similar to this -- the severability clause and said that type of language gives

courts the power to a remedy. >> there is another slight problem with that. reading this carefully, which i hope i have done, it seems to me it may also discriminate against fathers. that is because c says that the woman has to have been physically present for a continuous period of one year. i read at least one article as says that word does not appear with the father. that is as someone is living down in texas and happen to go visit on christmas their father or across the border for five minutes, that they cannot take advantage of this. is that true? >> i did not know the answer to that. >> if it is true, with think that the father -- i would think that the fathers are really

worse off. it could turn out that is really a problem. does that help you with the remedy? >> traditionally, immigration law when you have continuous requirements, it is a short trip, cash will trip, and that requirement is not considered to have been violated. admit i'm having a hard time following the question. >> i'm trying to be helpful in my question. i'm looking for a way that you could get to your results. i'm not saying i would do it, but i just want to know what the best way is of getting to that result where you shove everyone into c. >> the best way is to follow the course of the benefits cases where the court granted an extension remedy -- >> that would help you. is there a reason for doing that? >> the reason is that the language contained in the

severedability clause is similar to what the court already allows. the other problem is that if the court does not grant an extension remedy, it leaves the petitioner basically without a remedy. >> he would have a remedy. the remedy for an equal protection violation is to treat everyone the same period you could do that by lowering the people given the benefit or increasing the people who are not. his objection is my father and mother are not being treated the same. that is all he is entitled to. >> you are absolutely right. that is the state of the law. structurally, the remedy is unavailable because you cannot take away citizenship from the people who have already gotten it. the notion that you could grant perspective relief does not make sense either. the statute, the one we are talking about today, does not apply has people who were born before 1986. but if someone were to come into

court after an opinion and say they want to claim citizenship through their mother, that person would still be entitled to citizenship because it is as of the day of birth. this is a retroactive provision, so the prospective relief notion does not make any sense in this context protection violations basically all already occurred at the time the person who would make a citizenship claim was born. the petitioners father would say that they were unable to transmit citizenship to their son and a woman who was similarly situated was able to, so that type of remedy is unavailable. in the court's decision in iowa vs. bennett, the bank case, they ordered a refund of the taxes collected in a discriminatory manner dating back in time. if you could make a relief that would take away the benefit that others would receive, i would agree that is available.

that is not possible in this situation. >> the chief ask you, the court has to give a temporary solution because the legislature cannot be convened on the spot. and the court actually did go through the at the time, most conspicuously in west of. it said that is what we have been doing in all these cases. we say you were discriminated against. you get the allowance that up until now has available only to male officers. the father got the same child care benefits as the mother, so thourt was making a decision. it recognized it had to do that. >> absolutely. in many of the benefits cases,

the same analysis was available, and that is the analysis we are asking that the court apply here. >> you are asking, i think, that the court pronounced your client to being a united states citizen. isn't that the only pronouncement from a court that is going to do your client any good? >> this is a criminal case, so technically, we are asking for a reversal of the judgment -- >> reversal of the judgment on the grounds that your client is the united states citizen, right? >> that it would be possible for him on these facts to become a united states citizen. >> did you have any other case a court has conferred citizenship on someone who under the statute as written does not have it?

>> that was one of the issues that was debated. the court has not said that yet, but it can in this case for a number of reasons. first is the fact that this severability clauses applicable to this claim. congress passed in the same scheme that said when we are talking about the naturalization of aliens, then you cannot get naturalization under those circumstances any other way than what is set out in the statute. they did not say that as the claims of citizenship as a birth, so there is an implication that they were not precluding this type of remedy as to a citizenship claim for planning and equal protection violation. the second point is that if the court is unable to grant that remedy, that would leave the equal protection violation in place. as justice harmon made clear -- >> unless we solve the violation

the other way, by saying that the father gets the shorter period that the mother has. i'm sorry, that the mother gets the longer period that the father has. you say we cannot apply that retroactively. ok, we do not apply that retroactively. people who have citizenship cannot constitutionally be deprived of it, but for everybody else, it is ok. >> even prospectively because the statute says you have citizenship as a birth. people could still say they had citizenship as a birth, which was before the courts decision, so that would be no remedy at all. >> any of the remedies that you are discussing involves this court in a highly intrusive exercise of the congressional power.

let me just ask you this as an analytic matter or a matter of logical priorities. we usually talk about substance first and remedy second. do you think it is permissible logically for us to say that because the remedies here are so intrusive, that bears on our choice of whether or not we use intermediate or rational basis scrutiny, and because the remedies are so difficult, we are going to use rational basis scrutiny. is that a logical way to proceed? >> i think the court has traditionally said whether or not there's an opportunity to make a claim and the remedy for it are analytically distinct, so i do not believe >> -- i do not believe -- >> it also says the remedy cannot be complicated. it must go one way or the other way. they cannot do any fine-tuning. it all goes back to congress to do what it will, but it is just

in the interim we need a solution. >> that is correct, and congress could do that. what was being balanced was concerned about, according to them, concerns about statements on the one hand and connections to the united states on the other. if congress had not assumed based on gender stereotypes that men were not caring for children, then it would have been able to put them in the same category as women because they would understand that both of them would be caring for children. it is not just the situation in 1940. as time has gone on, the national women's center 3 points out that the number of men raising children in single- parent families has been increasing over time, so the problem, if anything, is getting worse. >> by congress did make at least some change, right? it is no longer five years. is only a two years. >> the current system is five

years, and it we will years after the age of 14. that age requirement here completely precluded the father from being able to transmit citizenship, not because of his age -- that kind of complete preclusion would never apply to a woman who is similarly situated. >> thank you, counsel. >> mr. chief justice, may it please the court, congress, in deciding who among the various people born abroad shall be made citizens of the united states, has toe into account various factors that may bear on that question and its judgment. they include congress's prediction in the case of conferring citizenship at birth, what will be that person is likely connection to the united states. congress also has it considered the interaction with the laws of other countries where these people may be born. may take into account equities.

these are complicated questions to which the courts should defer. >> intermediate scrutiny is not without some deference. unless we apply strict scrutiny, which no one is arguing for, the question is is it rational basis that it brings some intermediate scrutiny. >> we believe that under this court's decisions, that they should be a rational basis scrutiny. >> but you cannot really mean that. because we could put a hypothetical that is very simple, and you would explain to me why a u.s. citizen should be burdened in this way, and the hypothetical as let's assume congress determined that there are too many for unborn children

of u.s. citizens coming into the united states and that those for unborn children, those born of women -- those foreign born children, those born of women are placing a greater burden on our economic system. they need more care for reasons the congress determines, analytically or statistically. they are spending more government money, and congress passes a rule that says only the foreign born children of men can come into the country, not of women. with that not be a rational basis? >> the answer to that question in the course formulation of the test applied in this particular context, and that is the one that there has to be a facially legitimate and bona fide reason -- >> there is a facially legitimate --

>> i think the court could have no trouble concluding that an arbitrary choice between men and women -- >> what other -- what is arbitrary about a government saying, "i want to less money on a new citizen"? >> the old reason may be legitimate, but i think the facial legitimate test also encompasses means, not just end, and congress is just our referral in choosing between men and women or people of different race, i think given escorts tradition, they could conclude that those would be permissible bases under the well-established test. for the reasons we say in our briefing -- >> the well-establish tests? >> the cases underlying cells. >> discuss the rational basis you are talking about.

we are just going to continue sort of tweaking the definitions and creating more variations on our review standards? >> i think it is a test that this court has articulated to address this very situation, including the situation where asserted constitutional rights of u.s. citizens in this country are being claimed. we agree with justice kennedy that the standards should not be more demanding, but if anything, should be less demanding. >> it is hard here because both the father -- this father, but many fathers and mothers are actually u.s. citizens who want to bring their children over as u.s. citizens, so if the father was making the claim here, you would still argue that was a rational basis that even though

he is a u.s. citizen entitled to all the protections of the constitution -- >> that was the case in which the plaintiffs included u.s. citizens, claiming the in a very perilous situation -- claiming that special privileges for illegitimate children to reunite with the mother were an unconstitutional discrimination against the fathers of such children, and it was a u.s. citizen fathers and children among the plaintiffs, and the court nonetheless said that there is no constitutional right to pass citizenship. this is a question of congress's judgment about who is believe should be made citizens, and one important fact congress looked at is connection to u.s. citizens, that is in turn a proxy for what the likely connection is. >> i understand that, but what you are doing is applying a lesser standard to gender discrimination that is

ordinarily apply to gender discrimination. is there any reason to do that? i think that was the thrust of the question. >> that was the thrust of the question. >> does the same thing applied to racial discrimination? do you also apply a lesser standard to racial discrimination? >> i think the facially this criminal standard would render a reliance on race -- >> this suddenly is cutting a big hole in the 14th amendment. >> i do not think so. i think that is a principle that would be given effect. >> firstly, in the case, we were dealing not with citizens. this was a resident alien wanting to bring in a parent or a child, so it was not -- that case was not about who was a citizen at birth. >> it was not, but in the eyes of the constitution, anyone born abroad is an alien unless and

until congress passes a statute making them a citizen, so analytically, it is the same question. >> congress has passed a statute, making certain people citizens, and the question is, has it done so in a way that is compatible with equal protection? i thought the classification that was dealt with -- was it not unwed parentage, rather than gender? >> there were claims based on both illegitimacy and gender. claim is based on both.tion if i could move on to the way that statured operates. we think it satisfies either standard of review in this case. if i could just step back for a moment. there are a number of factors that congress takes into

account. 1401 deals with married couples. when both parents are citizens, all that is required iat one of the parents have resided in the united states prior to the birth where you have mixed parentage, the background of the enactment of this in 1940 and reenactment in 1952 and continued up to the present day is congress was concerned that such a child may not have the requisite connections to the united states. they have a connection to the parent, but not a connection to the united states such the congress wanted to grant citizenship. what congress did was to require prior residency of a parent a connection to the united states of 10 years. five years after the age of 14. congress has liberalized that, but that was the basic thought. where you have unwed parents,

what cons did was to follow general principles of the law of illegitimacy or children born out of wedlock. if a father legitimates a child, then it is as if the child was born in a marriage, and the rule with respect to marriage applies. that is true whether both parents are citizens or in a mixed marriage situation. if a father legitimates a child and both parents are citizens, then the child benefits from the rule that of either parent was present in the united states before birth, it is a citizen. does not have to satisfy the one-year unbroken residency requirement. if it is a mixed parentage, and the father legitimates, then the rule is applicable to married mixed citizen parents, as if the

child had been married at the outset. it is a perfectly sensible provision or approach, and consistent with the way this has been done. what congress did with respect to the mother of the child born out of wedlock where there may not have been legitimization is to conferizenship on the basis of a one-year residency. as counsel for the petitioner explained, a mother in the situation who at the moment of birth, as this court understood -- that mother may be the only either legal parent or the only apparent at the moment of birth with the requisite connection to the child to have an opportunity for the sort of connection at birth. the mother in that circumstance is very much like the two- citizen parent family. the only parents are parents with connections to the united states. >> the classification then were that we want to encourage the

father/child relationship, so we are going to give that advantage. that is, one year. for fathers. we but the mothers together with married couples. would that be compatible with equal protection? >> i think that would depend upon a different rationale. hear, -- >> i told you what the rationale was. we have lots of statutes nowadays. like the family medical and leave act that attempt to encourage fathers to have a relationship with their children, to be an equal parent. that is the rationale of this classification. they want to encourage the father/child relationship. therefore, they give this one year for the father.

everything else is the same, except it is the father who gets the one year and mother who gets the -- what is it? 10 years. >> i think that would be a difficult questi because congress would be responding based on the expected behavior's and talents, maybe, of men and women. what is different here is that is not the basis for this classification. >> it would be acting on the basis of what has not been the general pattern. but what is becoming a new pattern. >> right, and in that situation, it could be expected and maybe should be required on a gender- neutral basis because it is prefacing on the behavior. >> so there is -- even though we are still citizenship, you recognize that there are categorization is that would run afoul protection?

>> the question would be whether that is a legitimate rationale. i would want to know -- i think i would want to know about what the record for such a justification would be, etc. >> the same as in the family's medical and leave act, making it a parental leave instead of as has been historic fleet a maternity leave. >> right, and i think that situation was expanding on a gender neutral basis rather than singling out one parent or the other. but i would like to finish the description that i have because it is incomplete, and there is a critical piece left out, and that is the council for petitioners says that of a father legitimates and out-of- wedlock child, he is in the same position -- or that child is in the same position as the child of an out of wedlock mother. and back is not likely to be so, and it is not likely to be so at

birth, and this is the reason why -- when a child is legitimate, there are two parents that have a strong connection that was described in this court's decision for that child. the u.s. citizen father, but also the alien mother in the other country, so you have two parents whose interests have to be taken into account. in ation congress was addressing, the situation of the child born out of wedlock, where there was no -- at the moment of birth, likely to be no recognized father, you have only the mother. if we think of this as parallel to the cases involving illegitimate that this court has had in a domestic context, i think that is instructive. in a case where the question was whether the father of child born out of wedlohould have received notice of a prospective adoption, the court explained that the father had not taken the steps necessary to form the relationship with the child and therefore be a father

in the eyes of the law, then the mother alone -- >> we have the briefs that are filled with pros and cons of up the business and whether it was real, and i have read those, and i would like your comment on this, but i want to comment on what may be a very minor thing, but i did notice that for the women, there is a sense in which it is tougher, and that is because of a continuous period. i guess it depends on how that is in force, but there could be a class of people living on the border near canada or mexico where they just stepped across the border on christmas day to say hello to my cousin. does that stop them from taking a vantage of that? in other words, how is this enforced? >> it does have to be continuous residence. you are correct. it may be very minor exceptions where you go across the border on christmas eve.

>> is there or is there not? to your knowledge, is this an force would total rigidity, or is it enforced that maybe you could go once a month or on your birthday? >> i think in the situation, knowing the example -- >> in the situation, you cannot go across the border? >> was told was if you have someone who lives in mexico and commutes to the united states five days a week, you can under 1401, and of each day and get to a total of five or 10 years of continuous -- excuse me, of actual physical presence. that would not satisfy the requirement. >> sof it is tough and really meant to be tough, what is the rationale for treating women in this respect worse than treating men? >> congress, the one-year provision -- >> i grant you the time, one

year, is treating them better than the time five years, but the word "continuous" is really tough is what your answer leads me to believe, and that they really mean it. and that is treating them worse than the man. i would like to know what is the rationale for treating the moors? >> while i said -- the rationale for treating them worse? >> only u.s. citizens are the parent and have some connection, congress was balancing the duration of the ection or taking into account the duration of the connection, and it chose to make it a little bit tougher. i think that is perfectly legitimate because you only have one parent, and congress was deciding if someone has been here for a continuous time of one year, then there is probably a greater likelihood that that person will have roots here. and for example the other situation where if you have a

child born abroad in the same home on this summer, that child may not be regarded as an american in the same way, congress was focusing on a longer duration, which in its judgment could give rise to a greater connection to the united states. >> if the court were to determine that this does violate the equal protection clause and the court were also to determine that this is not a case that should be the first one in history in which it grants naturalization, what do you think the court ought to do? >> i think the court ought to strike the eligibility of anyone to get citizenship on the basis of one year. i think it should constrict the class to those specifically governed by 1401 on the grounds that it violates the equal protection, and it is a remedy -- >> what about your friends point that that retroactively deprives

people of citizenship, that we would be saying they should have gotten if the equal protection clause had been in force? >> i think the court could legitimately take into account the conferral of citizenship and the reliance on that i think is parallel to with the court upheld the statute in which congress took reliance interests that have built up -- under my scenario, we do not have a situation where congress has addressed the problem. so what do we do? if someone who under the theory that we say this person should not have been denied citizenship because of the unequal protection in the law, and he comes in and will be deported for not being an american citizen -- does he get the benefit of that or not? >> no, i think he does not. i think the answer is, partly for the reasons that you alluded to, we do not think that a court

it should properly grant u.s. citizenship, and that should inform the remedy, but for the people who have been granted citizenship, i think the solution would be to invalidate the 1-year residency requirement -- >> why would we grant that when it does not do this petitioner any good whatever. it is a remedy that does not remedy. am we are not in the habit of granting relief that does not provide relief. >> i suppose the court could decide at the outset that would not be appropriate to grant that relief and not go any further. >> if the reason it does not grant the relief is somewhat unusual in this case. it only does not read him really because of the third-party standard. he does not care whether he is treated equally or not. he just wants to claim the benefits of citizenship. the person that would get relief would be a father because the relief he is entitled to is to be treated equally. that is it.

this person is asking not to be deported. so the problem of the relief being granted is really complicated by the fact that it is the case of third-party standing. >> i agree with that as well which i think is all the more reason for the quarter to be cautious about entering into this. >> i know you are familiar with the wise and fell case. the question was this was a father who was denied benefits to take care of a child whose mother died in childbirth, and the court came out with a unanimous judgment but split three ways on why. one of the members of the court said this is discrimination against the child, even though the classification was -- it is called a mother's benefit. it is discrimination against

this child because it shou make no difference at all whether the missing parent is female or male, that that was utterly irrational. he seems to think that the discrimination would be against the child, and accounted for equal protection. >> here, the only claim that has been raised is a violation of the parents -- >> that is what -- the father was the plaintiff, but the rationale of at least one justice was that the discrimination is really against the child, but the father can raise it. >> in so far as any claim of discrimination by the child, since it is not based on the gender of the child, i think that would clearly be a rational basis for facially legitimate standard, and justice o'connor's

opinion in miller versus albright addressed the rational basis there. here, it is not just based on the gender of a parent. it is based on the complexities of legal history with respect to illegitimacy and how children born out of wedlock are dealt with. based on longstanding legal regime is not just in this country, but in other countries that until the father does something to have a meaningful relationship, the mother is the only legal parent or in the terminology of this court's decision, the parent likely to have been meaningful relationship. once the father comes forward, the result is not that the father gets the veto power for only the father's interest are taken into account. >> that was the case where mother versus father, but here, it is a single parent. this is not a case where the

father is doing something that the mother kills is advantageous. that was in the last case. and you said something about this has nothing to do with stereotypes, but wasn't the law because of the vision of the world being divided into married couples where the father was what counted and unwed mothers, where he was a ghost father, and mother, and because the law did not regard him as having any obligation? >> i think this is an issue the court addressed when they said that there is a difference at the moment of birth in the potential and therefore the likelihood of a connection of a child his parents at the moment of birth, that justified the requirement that the father take a step to legitimate the child in awarded to be on equal footing with the mother with

respect to the rights. hear, the residency requirement is what measures the connection of the parent to the united states, not the child to the parent, but we think the same point of genes. as a moment of birth in another country, example, they might take the same view that this court took, that the father does not have a meaningful connection to the child in the sense that one would predict citizenship on the basis of, until there had been some formal steps to establish the relationship with the child. if it was constitutional for congress to do that, it is constitutional for congress to take into account what other countries might do -- >> i thought this would be right on the biological passing, which is not so year. there is no question that this is a natural parent of the child. >> but the court did not look at the circumstances of a

particular case. it looked generally to what would have justified congress is acting categorically, as we think congress has to have the flexibility to do. i think the questions that the statutory positions show that there are numerous competing equities and considerations that have to be taken into account, and that is what congress did hear with this -- that is what congress did here. if i another country, a father has legitimate it or down those steps, then you have a u.s. citizen mother and father in another country that is directly parallel to the mixed married parents mix, and that is -- congress is concerned whether the child will be sufficiently affiliated with the united states to justify a control of citizenship. >> if we just -- justify that the only remedy we can impose is

to add to the burden on the mother rather than relieving the father, do youe authority for the composition t we can address that issue hypothetically? in other words, without making a decision on the equal protection question on the merits? >> -- in other words, looking ahead and you say the only remedy we will be able to benefit this person is a remedy that does not really benefit him -- >> i did not have authority from the decision of this court. but i do believe in a special context of citizenship that there might be a justification for the court's doing that. >> that will be in effect saying that we have no jurisdiction because there is no standing. there is no remediation that the court can make. >> i suppose that would be one way of looking at it. the court traditionally has look

ability,ions of severa but this is for sure a very peculiar situation. >> there have been a number of cases with this nullification, and in every one of them, the court did take the choice. the court did make a choice, and it was in their case with the court equalized down, but i do not know anyone of them. >> i think that is ordinarily the case, but this is it difficult complex, and it just does not go back with a complication from the remedial approach chief justice suggested. if the court declared a remedial expansion ship and that

applied to everyone rather than just the petitioner, it would raise questions about whether congress would have the freedom after such a declaration or perhaps dramatic expansion of citizenship under the prior law to remedy that with respect to people following the court's decision, at least the logical court decision, which suggested they were citizens as well. >> is there anything that rings a bell in your mind? the right of an american citizen to pass his american citizenship on to his children, and when we talk about congress's power over naturalization, is there anything that has drawn a distinction between the general power which are people who are not citizens to become citizens, but it seems to me and intuitively different situation of the right to pass your tizenship on. >> there is no such right -- >> i'm not saying there is such

a right. i'm just wondering if this rings a bell at all that this has ever been discussed. >> the court decision, the dissenters discussed this, but we think it is clear that under previous cases that that is equally exercise of congress's naturalization power, which is subject to the same plenary standards. damages looking and trying to get your memory, the something come to mind the opposite way that where the court did go into long exegetes about the law, including constitutional law, and say in the end, you are not entitled to a remedy because of some other issues? >> this is going back to remedy. i do not know. >> thank you, counsel. mr. hubicek, you have a for your minutes remaining. >> the rationale is that further

assumptions can be made that even after men do the things that the court said were legitimately required of them, that the legitimate that they have an relationship with their child, the further gender-based assumptions should be put into place and say that you are not going to be the real father or the real parent, whereas in the case of women, we assume that when they have a non-marital child, they will be in charge and when a father legitimates and does whatever is required, we are going to assume that the mother is involved still, but the facts of this case demonstrates that is not the case. in this case, the petitioners father raised him, and the petitioners mother was not involved in his growing up and brought him to the united states -- i'm sorry, i thought i was getting a question -- said it is basically piling for their gender-related inferences on top of the ones already in place in order to serve to justify this

distinction. there is a tradition of allowing citizens to transmit citizenship. one case involves getting aliens into the united states. there is no tradition that dates back to 1350 where citizens enjoy rights to bring some aliens into the united states, but it does bring back the ability to confer citizenship on your foreign-born children. so it is different is situated. it is different is situated in the very structure of the statute we are talking about today. congress specifically eliminated the ability of the courts to change the rules of naturalization of the aliens, basically used language very similar to the court's decision in ginsberg, and said you could be naturalized under this decision and no other way. citizens as a birth are treated differently. there is a clause in the statute that would apply to them, and it brings into play all the various remedies the court has granted with respect to extension over

the years. >> you refer to the tradition of passing? you agree that there is no such right? >> i agree that the constitution does not guarantee that right. we believe congress has always provided for it, even between 1802 and 1805 when the draft was strangely drafted. the court made clear that when congress remedy that situation, it made that remedy retroactive, so we basically have an unbroken tradition dating back to 1850, which is why i think this right should be treated differently than the? of admissions of aliens. and again, there is also a price that makes clear that the constitution limits the power of congress, even in the context of naturalization. with respect to the third-party standing issue, the court has granted third-party standing to criminal defendants raising third-party issues in their criminal cases, and the same

analysis should apply here. if we can still look at the rights from the perspective of the petitioners father, and if the court grants a leveling down remedy, that would not remedy the situation the petitioners father would be in because both before and after the decision, the children of similarly situated women would be citizens, and the petitioner's father and son would not. >> what were the criminal cases where the defendant was permitted to raise -- >> campbell and powers were both cases where the defendant asserted rights. those were discriminatory preemptory challenges in those cases, and the court allowed those criminal defendants to assert those constitutional rights. members of the court also found that there was standing in miller. there is a very forgiving standard when a third parties rights are issued in the case.

>> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. >> the honorable court is now adjourned until monday next at 10:00. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> c-span's original documentary on the supreme court has been newly updated. sunday, you will see the grand public places and those available only to the justices and their staff, and you will hear about how the court works from all the current supreme court justices, including the newest justice, elena kagan. the supreme court, home to america's highest court, caring for the first time in high- definition sunday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. the new congress gavels in january 5 with republicans now in the majority in the house. a number of members retiring this year. among them, representative david

obey, a democrat from wisconsin's seventh district. he served in the house since 1969 and share -- chaired the appropriations committee. that is next. >> we appreciate the time you are giving us. you are leaving congress of your own volition. can you share with me a little bit about what your motions are like? >> i'm going to miss this place. 42 years is a long time, and you develop a lot of have it's about the place. but along with my six years in the legislature, that is 48 years i have been in public life. i think that is more than enough. while i will miss the place,

there are certain things about it that i will not miss. i just think it is time for new people to come in, new legs. a renewed determination to attack some of the unfinished business in this country. >> you gave an interview to the "washington post." you said when you came here, it was 50% politics and 50% legislation. now, it is about 90% politics. can you walk me through how congress has changed? >> share. politics has become nationalized. when i was first elected, i spend $45,000 or so on my campaign. my opponent spent $65,000. i won. in those days, very few members of the house had holes. virtually none of them had campaign consultants. if they did, they were amateurs

from home. today, you have both political parties that tried to dominate races at the local level. politics has become nationalized. you also have the 24-hour news cycle. the trivial becomes mixed in with the important. that intensified as polarization around the country. i always tell people that what i find frustrating is they will watch fox, and people who are not sure what they think watch cnn, and there's never any real crossbreeding of ideas. people self select the news that they get, so they never really consider the other side of an argument. when you add to that the fact that since 1978, when newt gingrich came here, people were actually taken to school by him and others and taught the art of

tearing down your opponents personally, not just politically, all of that has turned this place into much more a political sounding board rather than a problem solver, which i think it was when i came. >> what is the net effect of that on the institution and on the country? >> on the institution, a used to be that members really did not campaign against each other. they did not participate in campaigns against each other. it was rare. today, instead of looking at someone on your committee as a colleague who you have to work with in order to solve problems, instead, you are looking at a colleague who has probably contributed to your opponent, who is helping to raise money

for your opponent, and it just politicizes all kinds of relationships. in addition to that, you have the camera with which c-span and brian lambert are responsible for, and that has, i think, made the institutional political. it used to be that speeches on the house floor were aimed primarily at persuading people who were on the fence on an issue in the chamber. today instead, most speeches are given to send a message to the country, a political message of one kind or another, so that also has made this place a more difficult place to get things done. >> staying with that last point, when you first came here, you were a big proponent of opening up committee hearings to cameras. in hindsight, were you wrong about that? >> i mean, it is one thing to say that something is right or

wrong. it is another thing to say it has had a measurable effect. i do not think you can deny the effect. i think it is important for the committee hearing to be open. it was ludicrous to have public hearings be behind closed doors, as they often were in the appropriations committee when i first came here, but nonetheless, you have to face the fact that that has had certain consequences. you also have all of these single issue groups who will not come until they get their role calls on the house floor, and they use those not only to bludgeon members who have cast the votes, but they also use those roll calls to generate their ability to make money for their own organization by sending out mass mailings and using these roll calls as a fund-raising tool. all of these things have created a much more political

institution. i also think the direction of the problem is different today than it was when i came. when i came, the people who were the most angry, the people who were most willing to bet somebody else were on the left. i would say about 1/3 of those who were opposed to the vietnam war were so angry about that war that even if you agree with them you were against the war, but if you differ with them on tactics, somehow you were morally defective. it became very personal. today, that kind of nastiness has largely gone on the left, but instead, it has risen on the right, so you get the same kind of nasty this coming from the right today that you were getting from the left when i came here over 40 years ago.

>> when you came, you were the youngest member. if there was someone in their mid-20's that came to you today and said they would -- they love politics and would like to be in the house of representatives, would you encourage it? >> a share. i think public service is a calling, every bit as much as being a minister or priest or rabbi. secondly, you can have some profound effects on the lives of people around you buy things that you do here. so it -- by things that you do here. i would by all means incurred people to run if they have the right values. if they are here to be somebody rather than to do something, they do not belong here. you do not need egos here. you need people policy problems, who are willing to risk their careers in order to get things done. example -- health care.

i do not think this last election was decided on the basis of health care, but it and had been, and its members lost their seats because they voted for health care, that is an issue worth losing your seat for because it will improve the lives of 30 million or more americans who no longer will be in the situation my sister was in when she was dying of cancer and was hoping that she would die by the following friday because that is when her insurance ran out. >> you have chosen to spend your life -- your present life in the appropriations process, and yet, appropriators today seemed to be particularly the target of public frustration. why do you think that is? what has happened? >> i think the committee has been demagogued by the right wing in this institution. the people who do not really understand how government

functions. people say, "where did all this spending, from?" -- come from?" it came from two wars, and spending on security after 9/11. that is largely with discretionary spending has come from. what we are supposed to do here in congress in my view on economic terms is try to recognize that this is a market- oriented economy that is a capitalist economy, but that system produces certain rough ifges that can chew people oup they are living life on the underside, and it is our job to moderate the negative impact of some of those developments in the economy, so that is why we

provide funding for education. that is why we provide funding for child care, things like that. but it is easily demagogued, and that really masked the fact that we have had the biggest transfer of the income scale in the history of the universe, to the point where in the last six years of the bush administration, over 90% of all the income growth in the country went to the wealthiest 10% of the american people. we have had a huge redistribution of income up the income scale, and i think we have got an obligation to do something around here to soften the edges of capitalism so that it is not a charles darwin, survival of the fittest operation. >> you say that right now, bubbling about earmarks -- for this interview, and for the

record, what do you think should be done about your remarks? >> i think they are inconsequential if you are going to be trying to solve the major problems in this country. first of all, they do not add to spending because the way the process works is that each of our subcommittees is assign a dollar amount, a ceiling on spending. if any of those bills exceed that ceiling by a single dollar, a single member can knock the bill off the floor. so much is going to be spent in community aid rather than community b. if the army corps of engineers has a flood control project that the administration wants to see accomplished, it comes to congress. congress looks at it. we say, we don't think it is ready for public money so we

want to move this to another project that we think is more ready to proceed. that is an earmarked. tell me what is wrong with committees using their judgment about these projects to alter what the administration does? as long as i have been here, no congress has never changed in the president's budget by more than 3%. that 3% difference is the difference between having a president and 18. >> social security -- a president and 1a king. >> with the retirement of the baby boom regeneration, what is the appropriate way to address that? >> people are concerned about the deficit but there are a lot of deficits we need to be

concerned about. we need to be concerned about the budget deficit, about the investment deficit, about the education deficit, the science and knowledge deficit, because all of those impact the future prosperity of the country. the fact that we got in the situation today because when bill clinton left office, we were facing projected surpluses of over $6 trillion over the next few years. instead, the bush administration insisted on passing to tax cuts paid for by borrowing money, to benefit the highest income people in this society. then they waged to wars without paying for it. if it was important enough to fight, it was important enough to pay for through tax increases. i have never seen any previous

president who said to the country, we have an emergency on our hand. we're going to cut your taxes. that is essentially what caused the deficit. that and for instance the republican prescription drug program which was pushed through underbrush, which was also paid for with borrowed money. we have brought this government back to surpluses because of the actions taken by the congress and by president clinton in 1993. and when president bush came in, he reversed all of that and put us right back into the dumpster on the deficit. and when the economy collapsed, it added hugely to the deficits facing us. the most important thing that you can do is to put people back to work, because unemployed people do not pay taxes. employed people do. that is the difference between

having adequate revenue and not having adequate revenue. do what is necessary to make the investment that are in this country's national interest. >> talking about congressional remedies, you're the architect of the $700 billion stimulus package. it was much change in the debate between the house and the senate. do you have the sense, and i have heard you speak about her frustration with the process, any sense about whether the program as you envision that would have a different position right now? >> i number of things. the problem was underestimated when we tackled it in the first place. the economy wound up being in far deeper free-fall that i think the white house or anybody else recognize. also, when i talk to the administration economic team,

they made pretty clear to me in the beginning that thought they needed a package of $1.2 trillion to $1.4 trillion to help consumer demand and the economy. we were facing $3 trillion malted-year hole in the economy and we were trying to cover that by -- multi-your hole in the economy and we were trying to generate consumer demand that would create a demand for products to put people back to work until the private economy could recover. what happened then was that in making concessions to conservatives who are nervous about going that route, we decided it was kind and that it was cut down in the senate to get republican votes.

so we wound up with a stimulus package about half as large as i think that we needed. in addition to that, no one could reasonably expect the stimulus package alone to solve our problems. we still have a huge problem in housing. we still had a huge problem with respect to the world wide credit markets. all of those things were a huge problem for the country. you cannot expect one appropriations bill to solve all the ancillary problems. the other matter i think washington gets is that -- the republicans are whining about the bailout that they say obama engaged in, when in fact, the mother of all bailouts, t.a.r.p., was pushed through the congress by the bush administration. i happen to think that the bush administration was right to do

that. i do not like the way that they implemented it, but the most important vote to be cast in the congress in the last 20 years was that vote on t.a.r.p., and what that program did was to help stabilize the world wide credit markets. we were facing a situation in which the entire world economy was about to freeze up. if that happened, if you would have seen unemployment at 15%, 20% if we were lucky. president bush much against his instincts listened to his secretary of the treasury, pushed it through the congress, and that congress voted against the first time. we reconsidered. we knew it was a very unpopular vote but it was important some time to cast on popular votes. and today we see that most of

that program is in the process of being paid back. so the price tag on the package is less than 25% of what we feared it would be in the beginning. i think that for the republicans and democrats who voted for that package, i think that was the act of high statesmanship. the need of the program was evidenced by the fact that george bush, and john mccain, and barack obama all supported it because they recognize that we were in a danger of worldwide economic collapse. >> let me move on to the other body as it is called here. do you think the senate is broken? >> the senate produces is home very important legislation. we did pass health care, credit card reform, financial reform, so we got some things done.

but the process was discredited in the act of getting those things done, because the american people simply do not understand why the indicted state senate is the only legislative body in the world in which you get 51 percent of the vote and you lose. they just do not understand that. those filibuster rules destroy accountability. the other problem you have is the anonymous holds, when one senator can hold up action on virtually every presidential appointment until he gets them to bend to his will in terms of suspending proposition in his own district. there is something wrong with that. that should not be allowed. i frankly have had a bellyful having to explain to my constituents why you had that kind of accountability- destroying process in the

senate, which creates huge public frustration. some senators will say to me, this is a senate matter. anytime that it ethics legislation we send to the senate -- it of tax legislation we sent to the senate, it is my business and the american people's business. >> would you view of the reform? where would change come from, inside the institution? >> has to come from the institution itself. it is unlikely to see that kind of reform. but until we do, we're going to see -- you will see a low common denominator politics practiced in the senate, because that is usually what has to happen in order to pass a bill, when you need 60% of the people voting. >> on congressional ethics,

we're talking on the day when the house is likely to vote on represent -- but on censure of charlie rangel. in the 1970's, and he became associated with the reform known as the obey commission. -- you became associated with the reform known as the of the commission. -- obey commission. >> old-timers who were here before i was used to tell me that cash contributions from party leaders to rank-and-file members were passed around on the house floor. that cannot happen anymore. when i came here, members of congress -- first of all, we had virtually no financial disclosure. the public had no idea whether there were any conflicts of interest on not.

secondly, members of congress could give speeches to interest groups, colette speaking fees for those, -- collect speaking fees for those, and so we ended that practice. we ended the practice of using a law practice to make money on the side. one member propose to eliminate the -- opposed to eliminating that, said that you do not understand. my law practice does not take any of my time. i get a piece of the action. i said, yes, i know. that is why we are changing the rules. that should not happen. we have changed a lot of things like that. so i think the ethical standards to which members are held are significantly higher than they were when i came. that does not mean the public knows that. with 24-hour news cycles, it is

always easier for someone in the press to write about a scandal than to analyze the budget or a piece of legislation. no matter what congress does, it will not get much credit for it. that is the way the system is. >> the big scandals -- mr. rostenkowski, are they the results of better ethics rules, the platforms? >> keep in mind that some of these things are rather trivial. a member of congress getting in big trouble because he has misused his stamps in the office? that is certainly bad business but it is not a major league ethical problem in comparison. some of the old days, senators

and members of congress went on a lot of stocks and when they were on the payroll on the side of your major comfort -- corporations. i think it is good that members are held to a higher standard. you cannot simultaneously say drain the swamp and then squawk about the fact that people have been reprimanded or censured if they have done something wrong. the fact that the ethics committee has brought charges to the floor is an indication that the congress is doing its job. if it was not, you would not have people reprimanded or censured for bad conduct. >> would have about five minutes left in our half hour. as we talk about your wisconsin political history, i am wondering if you could tell me what you think of the wisconsin

progressive tradition of which you have been the standard bearer in this congress. judy it is why i got into politics the first time. when i first ran for public office, the senators worked on by the big industries. we brought policies to the government that favored average people. then we took that same philosophy to washington, working with people like woodrow wilson and teddy roosevelt, people like that. to me, when people say, though, our government is too big, we need to whittle it down, my responses, i do not want the government big. i want government strong enough to keep the big boys honest, so that people of average means have a chance of a snowball in

you know where of getting some of the benefit of this economy and society. the tradition is totally opposed to what has happened in this country of the last 30 years when you have seen, in my view, the biggest rip-off of the middle class by the economic elite in the history of the country. >> but where is that tradition going to carry on? who represents it in today's political world? >> very few people anymore. i regard my biggest failure in politics as not being able to be effective with others in reversing that trend that has slowly but surely poured money up the income scale into the pockets of the very wealthiest. i think it is a national disgrace that the percentage of national income in the pockets of the wealthy at -- what else

the as 1% is worse today than it was in 1929, before the initial stock market crash. you want to know why this economy is in trouble today? because some of the real top dogs in society -- let me put it this way. a state senator from my district put it this way. what is happening in this country is that people who have almost all the money at convince people with a little bit of money that the people holding them back are the people who have almost no money. that is essentially is what has happened unfortunately. it sounds like herbert hoover is trying run the economic argument rather than a progressive like fdr. >> that is your biggest failure, what would you most like to be remembered for? >> showing up for work every

day giving a dam about average people and doing my darndest to see that. >> what would you be doing next? >> i do not have the foggiest idea. >> are you interested in writing? >> i am not interested in writing another book. it takes a lot of time. >> will you stay in washington? >> i will be doing something in wisconsin and year. i cannot imagine not having a foot in both places. >> thank you for meeting with us. >> thank you. >> we are in room 218 of the u.s. capitol witches chairman david obey's office of the appropriations committee and is working office. this is had a storage room. tell me about the room. -- this is an historic wrong. >> at 1 point it was the speaker's office. it became their office of the

chairman of the appropriations committee. that was over most of the 20th- century and beyond. if you take a look at wall ac-- the wall here, this picture is from my home town. i took it in 1940. that is the copy of the painting senator robert byrd gave me from world war ii. that is one of two paintings that he did. i admired his fealty to the constitution. he was the chairman of the appropriations committee when i became chairman. we work together a lot. >> he did art and music. >> that capital offenses, we

call ourselves. >> that is another person. over your desktop is a sign piece of legislation with the pen. >> that is the economic recovery act of the stimulus package. [inaudible] we saved over 2 million jobs in this economy and we're proud of that. didn't you here for several decades. why did you hang this one? >> i think this one made the most impact on the most people in a very short period of time. all so because of my contrary neighbor. -- contrary nature. when people are sitting at something, i think that is when

to get an independent because conventional wisdom can be wrong. that is my political hero of heroes, franklin d. roosevelt. i think he was the greatest president this country ever had, with the possible exception of eight lincoln and george washington. -- abe lincoln and george washington. >> i put it over my shoulder this nature i do not screw up too often. >> this is bob when he was running for president in 1824. he is seated in the car behind him. bob died in 1925. young bob took his place. this is his picture. he wrote the congressional reorganization act of 1926. then he was defeated by joe

mccartney, who was the worst public service this country ever produced. character assassination. this is jerry boyle, the last progressive republican to represent my district, 1930- 1938. he succeeded him as the chair of progressive republicans in the house. in 1957 in wisconsin, it used to be a one-party republican state. this was the first democrat to break that and get elected. >> he was famous for his golden fleece award. >> here is my mentor and

friend, who next to bob fall off -- fawke the month -- the greatest legislator wisconsin history. first of all he was incredibly farsighted in terms of natural resources and the environment. he was also one of the initial opponents long before was politically safe to oppose the war. it was probably one of the most well-liked centers in the history of the united states senate. it was a superb human being. >> we will turn around here.

a couple of interesting pieces of art here. in the chandelier used to be in the white house. teddy roosevelt [unintelligible] [buzzing sound] >> he said get them out of here. that put it out front in the appropriations committee. >> people are hearing the signal for the house. over the fireplace in the mantle, did you know about this? >> i didn't. [inaudible] the first one says, if you are

asking for money, are you willing to go home and tell people the president's tax cuts are so large they will be no room in the budget for it? a lot of people forget that. the other one says, what you want me to do for someone besides yourself that is more important than what ever is you want me to do for you? people often come in here thinking they are first in line. they do not care about people who need something. it is the job of people like me to remind them that someone may have a bigger need and have a higher priority. >> we're talking in december 2010. you will be packing up and moving on to the next phase of your life. have you made a decision of what to do with your archives? >> with a sense of 500 boxes of material back to the historical society. >> you think you'll be going over those over time?

>> it is 41 years of stuff. we went through a lot of the last five months. the papers are organized by my staff through the years are pretty organized. the one organized by mean is a mess. in this room will be part of your next phase? >> i am not sure. i should mention what that portraitists. that is james garfield, the only appropriations committee chair in the history of the country to become president. and then he was shot. so we try to avoid that fate. >> thank you very much. very special to get a tour of your office with you in these final days that you're here. after all these years, we appreciate it. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> sean duffy will succeed david of the in the house. he is the former district attorney, marriage, and has six kids. he has appeared on "the real world." >> the senate is also called the most exclusive club in the world. i wonder really if it is so exclusive. if someone from a town of 300 people and a high school senior class of nine students can travel from my desk in the small school to a desk on the floor of the united states senate. >> search for a farewell speeches and hear from retiring senators on the c-span video library, with every c-span program since 1987, more the 160,000 hours, all long one, all free. it is washington your way.

>> watch both tv all this week in prime time. tonight, with your phone calls and a look back at the year in books, live with a jenn risko. from the book festival, laura bush on her memoirs. then tony blair, along the survey labour party prime minister, with his book. both tv in prime time all this week on c-span2. >> former vice president quayle as a son, ben, will represent arizona. he is succeeding incumbent john shadegg, who is retiring after eight terms in the house. we spoke to congressman shadegg for half an hour. >> john shadegg is leaving the congress after 16 years. we wanted to start with the broadest question of all as we reflect in your time here.

alloys that john shadegg that leaves congress different than the one who came in? >> i came here believing we could change the world, thinking that we can actually turn this town around, perhaps too idealistic. you discovered that it is a very difficult to cam to change. difficult to cam to change. power in this town is wielded by various people and a guard at and hang onto it 24/7/0365. i recognize that it takes constant work and an ongoing battle. >> walt me through the trajectory of the class of 1995 that came in hoping to change washington. what ultimately happened? >> the class of 1994. we came in on a hike. -- high.

news had become a national figure. everyone wanted the change, and we started to with the complete agenda on rice. the first day we were sworn in, we worked until 2:00 in the morning. my family went on to the hotel and i was there on the floor continuing to work. we were full of excitement in the belief that we would in fact change the world. we had both the house and the senate but similar to today, we were elected in response as a reaction to an overreach, perceived overreach by the clintons and hillary clear. that continued for another two years. we did some great things. i was on the budget committee early on. we went around the country and talk to people about the

government's spending too much money and we needed to cut back. interestingly, everyone says, my program is the most important program the government ever does. it is the elderly, we will say. not only should you not cut it, but it needs more money. but then we would always conclude by saying, but if you cut my program by the same amount as you cut every other program, we will make it work. and the next person would say, my program. we eight children that have been abandoned. it is the most important program the government does in the entire country. when not only should cut it, but if you cut our program for children that need help, by the same amount as the other programs, we will make it work. that was a fascinating experience and that led us to of a across-the-board cuts. there was a government shutdown and the opening up of the government again without much

from the shutdown. from the shutdown. and once the class reached its second year, no longer the majority, you begin to lose some of their revolutionary zeal. and a lot of people say, the class came to change washington and in fact washington change the class. that is the challenge. >> how important was the leadership to that process? >> it is very important. they say and i think it is true that legislative leaders do not actually leave their majorities, they follow their majorities. we came in and there were many old souls who had been here a long time. the republicans had not been in power for 40 years. they had seen democrats, their predecessors, they have watched the democratic chairman of any given committee wield the power

and pull the lever is a power any way they wanted. they said that we want that power. once they got the power, once we got the majority, the zeal began to drain at the young revolutionaries, the old one back to the old ways and they began to spend and earmarking and allocating power to benefit themselves, and over a span of years, much longer than the democratic majority, we have fundamentally fallen short of four broken most of the promises in the contract to america. we every spending again. we allowed chairman to stay beyond their term limits on their committee. it suffered corruption without dealing with that directly. we let them steal the headlines and the american people said that they became washington and they threw us out. >> tactically and policy-wise,

it continued to be emphasizing central measures concerns about the deficit and the debt. how were you seen inside your own conference? as they became more washington? >> john shadegg is always been seen as a revolutionary, one step outside, more willing to take risks. i once voted against new gingrich, i disagree with him in the conference. do not work against me, he said. this was my first year and i'm voted against him thinking nothing of it. within seconds, one of his lieutenants came and got me, and said he wants to talk to you. i went back out on the floor and he said what are you doing? i'm voting no. you tell me that morning that i could do that.

but that is the wrong vote, he said. there were dozens members of congress watching us. we were below the diocese in the back of the room. i am willing to discuss this but not in front of them. so we stepped off the floor. ultimately we agree to disagree. i stepped out of the cloakroom and two other republicans had followed me. it doesn't matter anymore he said. i think have always been an independent thinker. for that reason, there were times when i led the freshman class and i freshmannewt understood that a group of up -- and newt understood. it was fun. this is a town that needs to be shaken up. when the people send a message they want change, and in my political lifetime, they did it

clearly in 1994. you could argue it was clearly in 2008, certainly obama 1 on a platform of saying we are born to change washington. that is why we had the rubble to a couple of weeks ago. i think it's fun to shake things up and challenge the old way. this is a town that needs refreshing and renewal. it is a town that is now undergoing scrutiny because the internet and the instantaneous media that it has never on gone -- undergone. goldwater would fly off in february and you would not see him until may. people did not know what was going on. this is a town that is now undergoing scrutiny by the american public like it never has. >> i want to quickly stay with

you. when i read your announcement about not seeking reelection, i think that put sun, i am going to take my equipment to fight for freedom and a new direction, what does that mean? >> it means that my personal beliefs about the philosophy, the conservative philosophy about empowering people to make decisions in their own lives, and not having a nanny state or a big government care for them all for their lives, but giving them the freedom to find their own future, i think that as a gift that america has uniquely and we need to constantly struggle to improve. the house of representatives not -- might not be the best place to stay for my working career, but i will never leave the cause of believing in people, bleeding and limited government, the kinds of things that ronald reagan and margaret thatcher did. >> do you expect to stay in

washington? >> i do not have any business plans. i will certainly spend some time but arizona will always be home. >> staying in washington will say that that is what happens to all of them. >> i will continue to commit like i have been. i will not move my family here or become a person resident. we will keep our home in arizona. if i have to continue to come to washington to visit, this is a great place. it is unique in all the world. americans do not understand how lucky they are. you made reference to the tea party. you had spoken at some of their rallies. where you think it is going? >> an interesting question. i do not know. i think there are two possibilities. i think they are an ongoing force as a part of the political process, or there is some risk that if they are not listened

to, and the powers that be do not hear the cry for change by the people, it is a possibility they become a third party. i think that is a possibility. and i'm not convinced it would be good. when republicans took the majority in 1994, no one had any reason to doubt that they would do what they said. they had not been in power for 40 years. i do not know the republicans won a majority based on the contract for america or anything on that basis. but they won as a reaction to bill clinton. this time around, republicans of one majority partly in reaction to an overreach -- you might even say by nancy pelosi more than president obama, it was nancy pelosi who said we're going to put the health care

bill through. the president and rahm emanuel or possibly talking about a compromise. the tea party are expecting republicans to produce. and if the republicans do not, if the republicans break their word a second time, the tea party could in fact split off and the republicans could be back out on their ear very quickly, and that would result in a different fate to the tea party going forward. >> you and i were talking before we started recording about the new members arriving in washington. specifically as your reference the tea party members who are coming here, full of idealism from winning their elections and a lot of enthusiasm, a natural for anyone, what do you see as a potential for their reaction to the leadership in the house? what is the promise and pitfalls if you are a tea party newly elected member of

congress? >> you have to be a realist about what can be done. you have to make sure that people back home understand they are only one body, they are only the house. i think their reaction to the leadership is like the reaction of the people to them. i think their view is that the leadership is on probation just like the nation views the whole republican majority in the house as on probation. trust but verify. let us see what they're going to do. that would be the reaction of the freshman class to the leadership. the leadership will have to demonstrate that as leaders they are listening to the conference and doing what the conference once. i think that mrs. pelosi has set a clear example of a leader who did not listen not only to the american people, but to her conference. a lot of people in their conference lost their job because they listen to her rather than to listening to the people back home.

the the the republican leaders stress that they intend to listen to people back home, and if they follow through with that, the members of the class who are in the tea party, the hard-core conservatives in the class, will be pleased with that. it all depends upon how the leaders respond to the members, going back to the legislative leaders leading or following the conference. >> will be the early test? >> of very early test will be a number of members getting waivers to continue as committee chairman even though their term limits have expired. leader banner has sent some signals that he will not let that happen. -- linder boner has said some signals that he will not let that happen. -- leader boehner assets -- sent some signals that he will not let that happen.

we represent the new class, we represent the majority, and we represent the desire for change among the american people. if you put this on these committees, that is not responding to the will of the people. that would be a mistake. that would be an early interesting test for the leaders and for the majority. i think whether they take a lot of time off, often congress comes an earlier in january, then takes three weeks off. i think the members are going to say that we need to go to work. we need to have a vote to undo some of the worst parts of obamacare or repeal it out right. if they genuinely work to pass legislation repealing it and replacing it with better things that offer good ideas to solve the problems in health care, and the big one that everyone talks

about is the vote to increase the debt limit. that will come very soon and that will test the proposition you mentioned earlier, or republicans truly committed to reining in excess spending? >> mr. boehner is making promises along with this transparent -- transition team about transparency, openness, listening, access. if we went into the library, we would see every speaker in modern times making the same promises. what happens to the execution? >> this is a town in which it is very difficult to achieve change. the things that happened in this town, the power exercised behind closed doors or smoke- filled rooms, it benefits those with power. leaders get into power and they

intend to do something then, but they figure out that if you want to exercise power and control, they need to do behind closed doors. or by offering bills on the floor in which there have been no chance to amend the them. in the words of lord acton, absolute power corrupts absolutely. in this case, the town will continue to have a hard time resisting that because of the age of the internet, a story came out maybe eight months ago about a member whose race is in doubt. a democrat member who went home, went on to be with his family, all women confronted him are about the bill. he decided to debate her in this restaurant on the substance. someone is there with a tv camera and it becomes painfully clear she knew the bill better

than he did. the people are afraid of openness and i think it works sometimes against their power and weakens their power when they're trying to build it. quite frankly miss policy at one quite frankly miss policy at one of the most ms. is policy did not want debate. she was afraid to see that debate out in the open. boehner says that he would like to see that give-and-take on the floor. i think he will have an easier time accomplishing some of those changes. i think he also recognizes that to break that promise falling nancy pelosi claiming that the most open and honest, and barack obama's promise that there would need -- be no power acer's us behind closed doors, the new speaker knows that he has opened up the process. we will see. >> talk about the ubiquity of

digital media and what that has been like for you and your family, especially the last three or four years, when things are twisted instantly, -- tweeted instantly and you are always on. >> you're always on whether you have the cameras are not. but now it is down to video. it lets the people see their government. in a democracy, they should. i think you know that in the last year, there have been a couple of members caught on camera, one member put his arm around a person in the video and it seems solicitous. i think it does mean that you are more accountable than ever. one of the biggest problems for a politician is that the era in

which they did say one thing and do something else, and it would not be reported back home, it is just on. you are on 24 hours a day, seven days a week. if you are out in public and saying -- seen. i will be grabbed by a liberal blogger who has a camera and ask a question. >> knowing that you will be shown. >> it can be -- i almost build a friendship with one of the guys because he would try to get me every time. i would just answer his questions. but i can see how some members can lose their patience over. some members take the tunnel to a takeover -- to stay away from it. the notion of this government is that the people in power to the government, the government should use that power in

people's interests, not in their own self-interest. that's the big conflict. a lot of time -- that is my advice to the freshmen. did you come here to achieve something, to change washington, to lower taxes, to achieve an improvement in the government, or did you come here to build your power? that is a struggle and the people are watching and that they see you're making decisions to enhance your power and not to do their will, you will be in trouble. trouble. >> some people may react to the ubiquitous presence of media to become more scripted. i wrote down the word authenticity, which we often hear from callers that there's seeking from politicians to date. how would you would buys not taking any risk because they might be caught versus being authentic? >> i personally believe that the

voters' trust politicians who are honest and candid with them even if they disagree with them. that comes out of my experience with senator goldwater. the first time i came to washington was during the presidential election of 1964. he was working on the goldwater campaign, my father. people thought that goldwater was popular in arizona because it was so conservative. that is not true. it is conservative, but the key to his success was he was genuinely candid. if he said something, he meant it, he believed it, he said. that is the way i have tried operate. it gives people that on this and says -- that authenticity. he must really believe that. then they will accept things that they disagree and they will listen to you. it's an interesting point of view. i may disagree with you on the substance, but they understand

you are being honest. with the ubiquitous media, producing more discipline politicians to work shaping their words, they will not be good for america and ultimately they will be discovered. i think that candor is the right message if you are genuinely here to do the right thing. and if you do what you believe in, if you are actually working for them and not just to advance yourself. >> let's talk about the gop. we had an offer on recently he was one among others working -- looking at the demographics of the country. it's just that looking at how this country is growing as the people are growing up, that the gop is destined to be in a minority in the future because under people were much more broadly ethnic and the middle- aged population in this country, they tend to be more progressive liberal and more

comfortable with government programs. are you demographically going to be in positions of power and in the majority over the time? and also about the gop and its outreach to minority populations. >> let me put this into two categories. number one, there is no question that it that gop continues to need to reach out to the minority populations. it needs to reach out to all minorities, and particularly to the hispanic minorities. it has raised the specter of some republicans sanding and that aspect. that is a serious problem. it is one of the reasons i am concerned about that issue. and why it is important for republicans to make sure that they are reaching out to hispanics on a lot of issues. important to republicans that

that problem gets all fairly quickly. culturally, hispanics have a lot in common with republicans. i do think that the party needs to reach out and make sure it is expanding its philosophy of opportunity for everybody. and people get to succeed on their own merits, that ought to be a huge draw for minorities. i think it can be. but republicans need to work at it. with regard to the age demographic, it's an interesting argument but i think it is dead wrong. yes, younger people tend to be more liberal and progressive when they are young. but actually i think it cuts the other way. if you look at today's technology, you will discover the single most dominant characteristic of young people is not a political philosophy

that says they want to be progressive or they believe in government programs, it is that they want choice. they want 1000 different or a million different cellphones and use them in many different ways. some use them for everything, but they want choice in everything that they do. they do not want to be told how to live their lives were told by anyone, at this is the norm and you should accept it. they are seeking choice and they are seeking options for their lives to a greater degree than any generation. they are in many ways, that they do not want to conform to one way. i don't want that particular cell phone, i want this one because it does this. that seeking of choice and diversity, i think, says they do not want an all-powerful central government there runs more and more of their life. i think they want independence

and the ability to control the rhone fate to a greater degree than any generation. -- their own fate to a greater degree than any generation. i do not think it is accurate to say that they will grow up to be democrats because quite frankly that tended few choice as an essential characteristic of life something that very much one. if you try to tell them health care will be these limited choices were jobs are going to be these limited choices, or live with the new normal, that the president just talked about, and growth that 2%, not 4%, i think they will say not for me. >> we only have four minutes left. so many questions. let me go to the 16 years, proudest accomplishment? >> staying true to my

philosophy, never folding. i have to be more reasonable or more washington? i would put that at the top. >> lois point and what you took away from it? >> lowest point? i guess personal was losing a leadership election in 2006 for whip, in which i wanted to see if they could not convince the conference to change and to embrace more aggressive change. >> and what you took away from that was what you talked about earlier. in a punny way, do you feel responsible for john boehner being speaker? >> in a serious way.

he was not going to get the job. i thought the conference should make a more thoughtful decision. that was back in 2005, i guess. 2004. slow the thought process down. we were going to anoint roy blunt. i got into the race to slow the debate down, more than anything else. i did not think they could win. i did not think the conference was ready for someone as conservative as i was very yes, i think john boehner run because a lot of people who voted for me in the first round, voted for him in the second round. i think i have a lot to do with them being the died. >> how do you feel about that? >> john has a very different style than i have. i am much more aggressive. we will see how he performs as

speaker. i am certainly glad that we won and won big. i think it gives us a chance. jetted final question. when asked about how you feel about 16 years, if one of your kids came to you and said, dad, how like to make a run for congress, knowing what you know after 16 years, would you encourage it cannot question mark >> yes, i would encourage it. i would say that it is not easy. i said, it really comes down to holding on to the values you take when you go there and the values you grew up with, your core beliefs. that is what is necessary to succeed in this town. if you're happy, it is hard. i would never encourage one of my kids not to run. my dad not want me to run away because he had dealt with so many politicians whose campaigns he managed. but at the same time, its bright, thoughtful, caring people do not run because the

price is too high or too painful, then we do not get the best government. if they said they wanted to do that, i would help him. >> mr. shadegg, thank you for the interview. >> my pleasure. >> former vice-president dan quayle's son, ben, represents john -- succeeds john shadegg. fort -- born in 1976, been quayle as a first-time office holder, an attorney, and a business owner. the new congress gavels back in january 5. we will have live coverage here on c-span. >> the senate is often called the most exclusive club in the world. but i wonder really it is so exclusive. if someone from the town of 300 people, and the high schools senior class of nine students, can travel from a desk and that small school to a desk on the united states senate. united states senate. >> search for