were facing a projected surpluses of over $6 trillion over the next 10 years. instead, the bush and administration insisted on passing two tax cuts paid for with borrowed money. then they waitded into two wars. if it was important enough to fight, it was important enough to pay for without the tax increases. . .

>> the problem was underestimated. = we tax the in the first place. the economy it wound up being in far deeper free fall than the white house or anybody recognize. when i talked to the administration economic team, they made clear to me in the beginning that they thought they needed a package $1.20 trillion to make up for the hole that was developed in the private economy. we were facing a $3 trillion multi-year hole in the economy and we were trying to counter that by having temporary, i

emphasize temporary, public spending in order to generate the consumer demand that would create a demand for products and help put people back to work until the private economy could recover. what happened then was that in making concessions to conservatives who were nervous about going that route, the size of that package was cut down and when it went to the senate, it was cut down more in order to get republican votes. we went up with a stimulus package about half as large as the package that i think we needed. in addition to that, no one could reasonably expect the stimulus package alone to solve our problems. we still had a huge problem in house agreed we still had a huge problem with respect to worldwide credit markets. all of those things were a huge problem for the country. you cannot expect one

appropriation bill to solve all those other ancillary problems. the other bad rap that washington gets -- the republicans today are whining about the bailout. in fact, the mother of all bailout, tarp, was pushed through the congress by the bush administration. i happen to

i don't like the way implemented it but i think the most important vote that has been secretary of the treasury and tried to push it through congress and they held it against him. we knew it was going to be an unpopular vote. it is important sometimes to cast unpopular votes for the good of the country. today, we see that most of that program is in the process of being paid back. in the end, the price tag of that package will probably be less than 25% of what we feared it would be at the beginning. i think that for the republicans and democrats who voted for the package, i think that was an act of high statesmanship. the need of the program was evidenced by the fact that

george bush, john mccain, and barack obama all supported it at the time because they recognize that we were in mortal danger of worldwide economic collapse. >> considering our time is short, let me move on to the other body. do you think the senate is broken? >> the senate produced some very important wall street reform. we got some good -- big things

done the process was discredited in the act of getting those things done because the american people simply do not understand why the united states senate is the only legislative body in the world in which if you get 51% of the boat, you lose. they just don't understand that. those filibuster rules destroy accountability. the other problem you have is with these situations where one senator can hold up action on virtually every presidential appointment until he gets them to bend to his will in terms of a spending proposition in his own district. there is something wrong with that. that should not be allowed. i have had a bellyful of having to explain to my constituents what you have that kind of accountability destroying a process in the senate which creates huge public frustration. some senators will say to me to keep my nose out of this. any time it affects legislation that we have sent to the senate in a negative way, that is my business and it is the american people's business. >> what about the rodeo -- what about the review, where does it

come from? >> it has to come from the institution itself. it is very unlikely you will see that kind of reform. until you do, we are going to see the lowest 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. >> you and i are talking on a day when the house is likely to vote on a revolution of censure of longtime member charlie rangel in the 1970's, you became associated with a package of reforms known as the obey commission. >> i think ethics have increased -- by the ethical standards have increased significantly since i have been here.

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 can't happen anymore. when i came here, we had virtually no financial disclosure. the public had no idea whether there were any conflicts of interest or not. secondly, members of congress could give speeches to interest groups, collect speaking fees for those and we have ended the practice. we ended the practice of being able to use a law practice in order to make money on the side. when we proposed to eliminate income from law, one never came to me and said i don't understand current his law practice did not take any of his tongue.

as he rises in seniority, the lobby tosses business is way and he gets a piece of the action. i said i know and that is why i am changing the rules. that should not happen. we have changed many things like that. the ethical standards to which members are held are significantly higher than when i came. that does not mean the public knows that. with 24 hour news cycle, it is always easier for somebody in the press to write about a scandal that it is to analyze the budget or analyze a complicated piece of legislation matter what congress does, it will never get very much credit for it. that is just the way the system is. >> some of the big scandals which have brought down mr. rostenkowski, mr. gingrich and the like, those are the products of better at the trials?

-- better ethics rules? >> some of these things are rather trivial. a member of congress be in trouble because he has misused his stance in the office -- -- misused his stamps in the office? that is bad business but it is not a major league at the problem in comparison. to some of the old days when members of congress were owned by various industries when they were on the payroll on the side. of your major corporations. i think it is good that members are held to a higher standard. you cannot simultaneously 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 doing its job, it would not have people reprimanded or censured for bad conduct. >> as we have been talking, over your shoulder some famous faces from wisconsin political history, i am wondering if you can tell me what the wisconsin progress of tradition future is? >> when bob lafollett first

>> first of all, he was incredibly farsighted in terms of natural resources,

conservation, the environment. he was also one of the initial opponents of the vietnam war long before it became politically safe to oppose that war. i think he was probably one of the most well like senators in the history of the united states senate. he was a superb human being as well as a superb legislate toward. or. >> can you tell me about the chandelier? >> that used to be in the white house. teddy roosevelt wanted to get rid of it. [inaudible]

he brought it down here and put it in the appropriations office. >> this fireplace and the mantle, do you know anything about the architecture? >> the most important thing to me about this -- the first one says if you are here asking for money are you willing to recognize that you have to pay for what ever you want people to spend money on. people forget that. the second one simply says "what do you want me to do for something besides yourself that is as important as what you want me to do for you." people often come in here and think they should be first in line and they don't give a minute spot to other people

whose -- whose needs are greater it is the java people like me to remind them that someone else might have a bigger need and deserve to have a higher priority. >> you will be packing up and moving on to the next phase of your life. have you made a decision about what to do with your archives? >> i have sent well over 500 boxes back to the wisconsin historical society. >> will you go through those? >> i do not know. it is 41 years of stuff. we went through last five months. the papers that were organized by my staff are pretty well organized the papers organized by may are in chaos. [laughter] >> when you set up your own desk for the next phase, what will be part of it? >> i am not sure. i don't know where that desk will be or how much room i will have. i should mention what the

portrait is. that is james garfield. he is the only appropriations committee chair in the history of the country to become president and then he was shot. we have tried to avoid that fate. >> banking very much. -- thank you very much we appreciate it. >> glad to have you. >> appropriations committee chairman david o. be served 42 years in congress. his seat will be felt this january by republican and sean duffy. the 39-year-old, a former sports announcer and reality tv personality is a district attorney for ashland county having been elected four times to that position. he is married with six children. >> the senate is often called

the most exclusive club in the world, but i wonder relief 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 a desk in that small school to a desk on the floor of the united states senate and a search for farewell speeches and hear from retiring senators on the cspan of video library with every cspan program since 1987, more than 160,000 hours, all on line, all free. it is washington your way. >> today on "washington journal," the co-founders of the no labels movement. after that, our series on food policy continues with tracy fox, president of the food, nutrition, and policy

consultants. she will discuss childhood nutrition legislation "washington journal" your calls live every morning starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. friday on c-span, the no labels national leadership meeting. the group was founded by former george w. bush speech writer david frum. the meeting included getting citizens involved in politics led by a newark mayor cory booker. that is friday at 8:15 a.m. here on east -- cspan. our as a republican congressman john shattuck is retiring this year after 60 years in the u.s. house. republican dan quayle, the son of former vice president dan quayle, was elected. we spoke with congressman shaddig about his congressional

career and his future. this is about 30 minutes. >> john shaddig will be leaving congress after 16 years. how are you different than the one that came in all those years ago? >> somewhat change. i came in believing we could change the world, thinking that we could turn this town around. perhaps i was way too idealistic. it is a very difficult town to change. power in this town is wielded by a various people and it is held jealously and people were to hold on to that power 24-7. in some ways, i recognize that it takes constant work and an ongoing battle. >> walk me through the trajectory of the class of 1995

that came in hoping to change washington. what was the rise and ultimately what happened? >> people have asked me that. we came in on a huge pipe. high. newt gingrich came in and everybody wanted change. it was a complete adrenaline rush. the first night we were here, the day we were sworn in, we worked until 3:00 in the morning. my family went on to the hotel i was there on the floor continuing to work. we were full of excitement and fall of the belief that we would in fact change the world. we did at that time have the house and the senate, unlike today. similar to today, we were elected in response to a reaction to an overreach or a perceived overreach by the clintons and hillary-care.

the rise continued for another two years. we did some great things, i think. i was on the budget committee early on. we went around the country and talked to people about the fact the government was spending too much money and we need to cut back. interestingly, everyone said that my program is the most important program the government ever does. it might help the elderly . they would ask for more and more money, but if you cut the program, we will make it work. another person would get up and say they had the most important program. they might aid children that are abandoned. it is the most important program. we not only should not be cut, we need more money. if you cut our program for

children that need help the same amount as other programs, we will make it work and that was a fascinating experience and it led us to do across the board got started we were filled with lots of hubris and there was the government shut down and the opening up of the government again. once the class reached its second year so it was no longer the majority, you begin to lose some of the revolutionary zeal. ultimately, though the class came to change washington, in fact washington changed the class. that is the challenge for this new class. >> how important was the leadership to that process? >> leadership is very important. they say that legislative leaders don't actually lead their majorities, they follow their majorities. we came in and i think there were many old bulls who had been

here long time. republicans had not been in power in 40 years. they had seen democrats, their predecessors, all the years being ranking committee members, they watch the democratic chairman of any committee will power and pulled the lever is a power and do things they wanted. those old bulls said they wanted the power it once we get the majority and brazil began to drain out of the young revolutionaries, the old bulls quickly went back to the old ways and began spending and earmarking and allocating power to benefit themselves. over a span of years, from 1994- 2006, we have fundamentally fallen short of the promises in the contract to america. we raised spending again great we allowed chairmen to get waivers and stay beyond their terms on their committees.

we suffered corruption without dealing with it correctly. the democrats said that we did not change washington, we became washington and they threw us out th. >> you are advocating fiscal measures and are concerned about the deficit and the debt. how were you seen inside your own conference as they became more washington? >>john shaddig has always been seen as a revolutionary and more willing to take risks and challenge leaders. i once voted against newt gingrich all alone. he had told me in the morning that i could. he said i could vote against him but don't work against him. this was in my first term and i

voted against him and walked out and thought nothing of it very within seconds, one of his lieutenants came and said newt gingrich wants to talk to me. he asked what i was doing. he said i could do it. he said yes, but that is the wrong about. there were dozens of members of congress standing around us watching us. we were below the dais in the back of the room. i was willing to discuss a but not in front of everybody. we stepped off the floor. ultimately, we agree to disagree. two other republicans had followed me. newt gingrich said it did not matter any more. i think i have always been an independent thinker. for that reason, there were times when i led the freshman class. newt gingrich understood that a group of us republicans who were more conservative had to be

dealt with and that was fine and that was good. >> was it fun? >> yes, this is a town that needs to be shaken up. when the people sent a message that they want change, they did it clearly in 1994. you can argue they did it clearly in 2008 if not also 2006. certainly, obama 1 on a platform of saying we will change washington. i would argue that he failed to change washington and that is why we have the result of a couple of weeks ago. i think it is fun to shake things up and challenge the old ways. i think this is a town that needs of refreshing and renewal. it is a town that is under scrutiny because of the internet and the instantaneous media. years ago when my dad worked for barry goldwater, he would fly off and you would not see him

for months. people did not know what is going on. this is a town that is now undergoing scrutiny by the american public like it never has. >> i have read your announcement about not seeking reelection. you said you will take your commitment 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 big government care for them alter their laws but rather 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.

i may be leaving the house of representatives and that might not be the place to stay but i will never leave the cause of believing in people and limited government and the kinds of things that ronald reagan and margaret thatcher talked about. >> do you expect to stay in washington? >> i don't have definite plans. if i continue to fight, i will spend some time here. arizona will always be home. >> you recognize that staying in washington becomes part of what everybody says happens to former rep is. >> i will not move my family here or become a permanent resident. we will keep our home in arizona. if i continue to come to washington to visit -- this is a great place and it is you need. many americans don't understand how lucky they are. >> you bite records early in the conversation to the tea party. you have been involved with which you think is going?

>> i think there are two possibilities. it either becomes an ongoing force in america as part of the political process or there is some risk that if they are not listened to and the powers that be don't hear the cry for change by the tea party people, there is the possibility they become a third party. i think that is a possibility but i am 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 in 40 years. i don't know that republicans won a majority based on the contract with america. in part that one as a reaction to bill clinton. this time around, republicans have won the majority largely in

reaction to an overreach by nancy pelosi more than president obama because it was she who said we will push for this health care bill, consequences be damned. rahm emanuel talk about compromise. the tea party people are now expected republicans to produce. if the republicans don't, if they break their word a second time, i think the tea party could in fact split off and i think the republicans could be back out on their ear very quickly. that would result in a different fate for the tea party going forward. >> we were talking before about the new members arrived in washington this week. the tea party members who are coming here are full of idealism from winning their elections and have lots of enthusiasm.

what do you see as the potential for their reaction to the gop leadership in the house? what are the promises and pitfalls if you are a tea party newly of that crop -- elected member of congress? >> you have to be a realist about what can get done. i think you have to make sure that the people at home understand they are only one body. they are only the house. the rack -- their reaction to the leadership is kind of like the reaction of the people to them. their view is that leadership is on probation like the nation views the whole republican majority in the house as on probation. trust but verify, let's see what they will do very that will 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 was.

nancy pelosi has set up a clear example of a leader who did not listen to the american people or her conference. many people in her conference lost their jobs because they listened to her rather than listening to the people back columbahome. republican leaders have said they intend to listen to people back, and if they do that, the members of the class, the hard- core conservatives in the class will be pleased with that. it all depends upon how the leader's response to the members. >> what will be the early test? >> a very early test will be a number of members given waivers to cut -- continue as committee chairs. john boehner has said they don't

be does not want that to happen. yesterday i heard that there is some acclamation to shrink the size of committees and some freshmen are afraid that if they shrink the size of the committees to much, none of the freshmen would get on 'a' committees. they feel they represent the desire for change. if they all get but 'b' committees, that is not responding to the will of the people. that would be an interesting test. whether they take a lot of time off -- congress gets sworn in and takes three weeks off. the members of this class say they want to go to work. how quickly they have a vote to undo some of the worst parts of all bombcare or -- obamacare and

if they take that seriously and genuinely work to pass legislation repealing it and replace it with better things and offering good ideas to solve the problems in health care, all of that will be early tests. the big one people talk about is the vote to increase -- increase the debt limit. that will come very soon and that will test if republicans are truly committed to reining in excess spending. >> john boehner is making promises all along with his transition team. about transparency, openness, and listening and access. if we go into our video library, we could speak every speaker making the same sorts of promises. what happens between the promise and the execution? >> this is a town in which it is difficult to achieve change.

the things that happen in this town, the power that gets exorcised behind closed doors or in smoke-filled rooms gets exercised their for a reason. it benefits those with power. typically, leaders get in power and then they intend to do whatever the but they figure out that if they want to exercise power and control, they need to do it behind closed doors or by offering bills on the floors in which there is no chance to a man to them. --amend them. absolute power corrupts absolutely. in this case, i think the town will continue to have a hard time resisting that because of the age of the internet, the age of ability. a story came out maybe eight months ago about a member, a democratic member who went home.

a woman confronted him about a bill and instead of telling her to call his office, he decides to debate her. somebody was there with a video camera and it becomes painfully clear that she knew the bill better than he did. the people are afraid of openness. i think it works against their power and weakens them -- their power when they are trying to build their power. quite frankly, nancy pelosi had one of the most closed government she ever had. she did not want debate. that was because her own conference was torn between the hard left and some conservatives. she was afraid to see that debate out in the open. john boehner says that he likes to see that give-and-take on the floor. i think he will have an easier time, causing some of those changes. to break that promise, and

barack obama's promise that there would be no power to size behind closed doors, john boehner is aware that he has to open up the process. we will say. >ee. >> talk about the ubiquity of digital media. things are treated instantly and there are small video cameras everywhere. >> you are always on whether we had those cameras or not. it is not just audio or in the written word. it is in video. it lets the people see their government. in a democracy, they should. you know that in the last year, there have been a couple of members caught on camera. one member put his arm around somebody and muscled him.

i think it means that you are more accountable than ever. one of the biggest problems for politicians is the era in which they can say one thing and do something else or in which they thought that what i do back there will not be recorded or reported back home is gone. you are on 24 hours a day, seven days a week. i walked back and forth to bovotes and i get grabbed by a liberal blogger and start getting asked questions. it can be ugly. i wound up almost building a friendship with one of the guys because he would try to get me every time. i would answer his questions. i see how some can lose their

patience over it. some members tried to avoid that. the notion of this government is that people and power to the government and the government is supposed to use that power in the people's interests, not in there so on -- their own self- interest. that is the big conflict. my advice to the freshman is did you come here to change washington, to lower taxes, to achieve an unproven of the government or did you come here to build your power? that is a struggle. if the people are watching and they see that you are making decisions to enhance your power and not to do their well, you will be in trouble. >> some people may react to the ubiquitous presence of media to become more scripted. i rode down"the word authenticity."

how would you a advise people to balance between not taking risks because they might be caught verses being authentic? >> i personally believe the voters' trust politicians who are honest and candid with them even if they disagree with that. that comes out of my experience with senator goldwater. the first i came to washington was during the presidential election of 1964. people thought barry goldwater was phenomenally popular in arizona because that is a conservative state. it is a conservative state but the key to his success was that he was genuinely candid. if he said something, he meant it, he believed it, he said it. that is the way i have tried to operate because i think it gives

people that authenticity. they understand that i must really believe that. they will accept things that they disagree with and they will listen to you. they may disagree with you on the substance but they understand that you are being honest with them. if the ubiquitous media produces more disciplined politicians who are always in shaping their words, i don't think that will be good for america and ultimately, they will be discovered. i personally think that candor is the right message if you genuinely are here to do the right thing. if you do what you believe in and you are working for them and not to advance yourself. >> let's talk about the gop. we had an offer on recently who was one of the others who are looking at the demographics of the country and suggests that looking at the demographics and how this country is growing and the kind of people in it that

the gop is destined to be in the minority in the future because younger people who are more broadly ethnic and the middle age population in this country tend to be more progressive liberal and more comfortable with government programs are demographically going to be in positions of power and in the majority over time. what do you think about that? also, what about the gop and its outreach to minority populations? >> number one, there is no question but that the gop continues to need to reach out to minority populations. it needs to reach out to all minorities and particularly to the hispanic minority, the issue of border security has at least raised the specter of some republicans talking anti-

hispanic. that is a problem. i'm concerned about that issue and why it is important for republicans to make sure they are reaching out to hispanics on many. iss issues./ culturally, hispanics have a lot in common with republicans. the party needs to reach out and make sure that they are exploiting their philosophy and that is an opportunity for everybody and people get to exceed of their own merits and that should be a huge draw for minorities. i think it can be. republicans need to work at it. with regard to the age demographic, it is an interesting argument that i believe is dead wrong. yes, young people tend to be more liberal or progressive when they are young. i think it cuts the other way.

if you look at today's technology, you will discover that the single most dominant characteristic of young people is not a political philosophy that says they want to be progressive or not, it is that they want choice. they want 1 million different cell phones. the use them in many different ways. some of them use them for everything. they want choice and everything they do. they do not want to be told how to live their lives were told by anyone that this is the norm and you should accept it. they are seeking a choice. they are seeking options for their lives to a greater degree, i think, than any generation. they are, in many ways, they don't want to conform to one way.

they don't want an all-powerful central government that runs their lives. i think they will won independence and i think they want the ability to control their own fate. i think it is an accurate observation that young people are more liberal, i don't think it is accurate to say that means they will grow up to be democrats. they tend to avoid -- you choice as a characteristic of life. if you try to tell them that health care will be these limited choices or that jobs will be these limited choices or live with the new normal which the president just talked about a growth is at 2% and not at 5%, they will say that is not for me.

i don't buy that theory. >> looking back over the 16 years, what is your proudest accomplishment? >> staying true all the way along to my philosophy and it never folded and deciding that i have to be more reasonable. i would have to put that at the top. >> what is the lowest point and what you took away from it? >> umm, i guess the personal lowest point was losing a leadership election in 2006 for whip in which i wanted to see if i could not convince the conference to change and a brace more aggressive change. >> in a funny sort of way, do

you feel responsible for john boehner being speaker? >> in a serious sort of way. the job was going to go to roy blunt i jumped into the race not believing i could win back in 2005 or 2004. i want to slow the thought process down. we were going to anoint roy blunt without thinking about it. i got into the debate to slow the -- i get into the race to slow the debate down. i think john boehner won that race, the majority leader in significant part because i got

in. people voted for me in the first round, voted for him in the second round. i have a lot to do with him being the guy. >> how do you feel about that? >> he has a different style than i have. i am much more aggressive. i am glad that we won and we won big. i think it gives us a chance. >> did you you use the word" jason's?" if one of your kids -- chastened. would you encourage your kids to run? >> i would encourage it but it is not easy. i talked to the freshman class and it comes down to holding onto the values you take when you go there and you grew up with, your core beliefs. that is what is necessary to succeed in this town and be happy but it is hard because the

pressures are there. i would never encourage one of my kids not to run. my dad did not want me to run in a way because he dealt with politicians. at the same time, it's bright, careful, thoughtful people don't run because the price is too high and painful, then we don't get the best government. if they decide they want to do that, i will be all for it. >> thank you for the interview. >> my pleasure. >> he is retiring after three terms in the house and his seat will be felt this jet or by the former vice-president dan quayle's ben. he is an attorney and business honor. this is his first elective office. >> the senate is often called the most exquisite club in the world, but 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 a desk

in that 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 cspan video library with every cspan program since 1987, more than 160,000 hours, all on line, all free. it is washington your way. >> this weekend on american history tv, joy beasley on the recent discovery and excavation of 200-year-old slave quarters. as the congressional black caucus marks its 40th anniversary, an oral history by a former congresswoman on the work of the caucus and "work on behalf of homemakers and working women. richard and f stephenord share their memories about the only man to be president of the united states without being elected.

you can also press the cspan alert button and have our schedule e-mailed to you. monday, january 3, a debate among the candidates for the republican national committee chairmanship. the event is hosted by the americans for tax reform and is moderated by grover norquist and tucker carlson. michael steele will debate five about it. that is live monday, starting at 1:00 p.m. eastern here on c- span. . . .