what defined benefits in our society, the role they're going to play? is this going to go up at a certain point and start to come down again as defined benefit place less of a role? i know we are trying to encourage defined benefits, but that does not seem to be happening. is there some kind of a defined role of what the pbgc will be a? was that clear? i do not know if it was. >> as defined benefits declined, there are fewer benefits out there. there are still some really big

plans. when pbgc clubs at the future, it looks at the likelihood -- looks at the future, it looks as a likelihood they will go under. and they will also be underfunded. >> way down the road. so, as the idea will be perhaps relying less on contractors and bringing more of federal employees into the pbgc as a way of saving money and perhaps getting the job done better. that is not such a bad idea. >> it could be a good idea. they need to consider it. >> how long do you have to consider these things and who would consider them? would the board consider it? the board seems incapable of considering much of anything.

>> the board judd. it is a long-term strategic issue. -- the board should. it is a long-term strategic issue. >> if i could just add a point to that, outsourcing of benefit calculations in particular is perhaps one of the most complicated endeavors we have in our society. it is terrible. if there is a change from status quo do something else, whether it is one contractor to another or one contractor back into the government, there has to be a transition which may span several years. that is one point i would like to make. that thend point is backin majority of the plans that have been frozen are sponsored by healthy companies that continue to fund their plans. they are not terminated. they are not turned over to the

pbgc. certainly, pbgc has to take into account the likelihood that they might be turned over, but we need to encourage these companies to continue to fund them, as we are today. even though employers may not continue to be participating, there are hundreds of thousands of employers who are participating in funds that have been frozen. we want those to continue. just because those are not available for current employees does not mean that they are necessarily healthy and will not be a problem for the pbgc. all of these plans will come to the pbgc for their efforts. .> thank you spirit >> it seems apparent that we need new board and new governance rules and obligations for the board, and also a

contract procurement issue. in a lot of issues and questions, -- i have lots of issues and questions, but i was interested in the testimony about overpayment. you say that the management of the benefit determination process does not provide for separate reporting of performance measures for large, complex plans, but there are long delays in processing and in those cases overpayment. can you discuss that? >> it can be a long and difficult process to figure out if benefits are of to participants in a plan with pbgc trustees. we looked at this issue because a number of people in a particular company were getting notices that they had been overpaid by as much as $50,000. now, the odds that they are ever

going to actually repay that are very, very slim, because they would only lose a small amount of their benefit monthly, so that they would probably never get to the point of having to repay it. however, they were counting on a certain benefit level, and now the sky falls, and they are not getting it, and it is reduced a little bit. so after waiting as long as nine years for your benefit determination, that can be terrible. >> nine years? >> the average is about three, but it can go as large -- as long as nine pecan course some of the very large and complex plans, -- as long as nine for some of the very large and complex plans, as the steel plant's work.

-- as the steel plans were. what will we wanted to keep their feet to the fire was to keep track of how quickly and how accurately they are calculating benefits for large plans separately from overall benefits, and that is something they have not been willing to do yet. >> that is a huge problem. do you have any comment on the overpayment aspect, mr. porter? >> overpayment is a challenge. speculation of a benefit is sometimes exacerbated by a lot of factors that might have occurred 10 or 15 years in the past. so, i can see the problems. i do not think a defined benefit plan in the private sector would be allowed to take nine years to fix something. outside of three years and seems more than the normal range. but it is a very difficult

challenge, and something needs to be done, certainly to make this calculation more quickly so that people are not held up. that is an incredible amount of time. >> i asked about the premiums. do you say, in your report -- could you talk about the premiums? >> we looked very hard at pbgc finances. is premiums and better financing so that if a company goes out of business, they are better funded. the deficit reduction act of 2005 raised premiums. i want to say it is around $40 and a participant, flat rate. it moves with inflation.

there is another part that is about $10 for every $1,000 of underfunding. so the underfunding package but in some more as well. right after that, the pension protection act of 2006, strength and funding so that employers to sponsor defined benefit plans would have less time to get full funding and had certain assumptions, a range of assumptions that they had to use. the design was and so that when plans came to pbgc private would be in better shape. you would -- when plans came to pbgc, they would be in better shape. you would not have things like what happened at bethlehem steel. the problem was this was all

designed to take place at the time of the market meltdown, and companies were under serious stress. so, those particular provisions have been delayed in taking effect. our belief is that when they do take effect, it will improve funding, and it will mitigate the risk for pbgc. but every paper on the issue of premiums and says they need to be more risk-based, because no company on earth would operate the way we operate pbgc. >> mr. porter, you talk about investment policy and the assumptions. q believe the investment policy should be based on a diversified -- you believe the investment policy should be

based on a diversified portfolio. i guess we do not know the investment policy. >> i certainly do not, so i could not prognosticate on what the changes should be. it needs to have longevity. it needs to be executed in a way that is not detrimental. long-term investment policies have served the pension community generally very well, and we would like to see stability in this. there needs to be unbalanced -- balance. protection of participants has to be the public perception. the press has a view of what it thinks is right or wrong, but that should not be the driver. the driver should be to get a balance where we maximize return at an acceptable level of progress.

>> i know my time is now up, but i think we had a good hearing. we obviously have a lot to do in order to improve pbgc going forward. i know our new director is working on that. >> may i jump in for a tiny second? we have a report under way that looks at the investment policies and practices overtime. that is coming out at the end of february and i think the lancer some of your questions. >> thank you. >> thank you all very much. i appreciate you being here and your testimony and your work. thank you to the senators who have participated. as i said, this is another in a series of hearings we will be having on this committee regarding the broad overview of retirement programs in america and what is happening to retirement programs. this is obviously one big slice of the right year, the defined

benefit pension programs and the security, the financial security and stability of pbgc to meet its obligations. there are other elements of retirement security that this committee is going to be looking at, but certainly there are things that have come up today that are something we will be discussing with other senators on this committee to see what action, if any, we want to take. but i think there are some elements which of come out in the testimony today that i think umbrellas to do something about -- i think compel us to do something about continuity, boards, expertise, that kind of thing that i think we need to take a very close look at. so we will be discussing that to see what action we might want to take no, not this year, of course, but sometime down the

road. thank you all. with that, the committee will stand adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] ??ñ?xo >> the supreme court is considering a decision to release thousands of california inmates from overcrowded prisons with related health care issues. the number that could be released is estimated at 36,000-45,000. this oral argument is about 45

minutes. >> may it please the court, what the court has under review today is the release of between 36,000-45,000 inmates from the california penal system within a two-year. period. it strikes me, at a minimum, that is a extraordinarily premature. it may be that something smaller in scope becomes appropriate, but if this is supposed to be an order or remedy of last resort, then what the district court has

done is leap forward from the steps they should have taken. >> this is a problem for 20 years. is that not so? >> yes, that is correct. >> and there have been something like 70 orders from the district court. >> that is absolutely true. >> how much longer do we have to wait? another 20 years? >> obviously, the link of time you have to wait depend somewhat on what the state of the remedial state is in this case. in this case, there is a recognition of a substantial theblem that is inherent in penal system as it existed in the 1990's to the early 2000 us so. a receiver -- 2000's.

a receiver was appointed. given the extraordinary powers that the receiver had been accorded, what should have been the most logical point would be to allow the receiver to implement the extraordinary powers conferred upon him and then seek. because of it turns out the we are making progress -- >> excuse me. there is ben talk about proposals like construction. this as a legislature struck them down. the fiscal crisis has gotten worse, so construction is not really an option. i do not see how you wait for an option that does not exist. they talk about hiring more staff, but the conclusion was that even if you maximize the staff, you do not have the

facilities to add more staff, which is what you need to secure the constitutional violation. tell me what specific steps outside of this order should have been given time to be implemented. the receiver has basically said, i have tried, and thell progress we made has been reversed because the population just keeps growing, so we can never get ahead of the problem. slow down from the rhetoric and give me concrete details about what the least restrictive means, other than to say, give it back to a receiver and special master who are saying, we do not have a solution. >> i do not think that is a fair characterization of what the receivers said. >> council, that was one statement years ago. if that is all you are relying

on -- >> i would make the argument -- >> tell me. give me concrete steps. >> all you have to do is look to what the receiver has done since his appointment, particularly when the second receiver was put in place. first of all, 8900 has been enacted. there is significant construction. there is substantial facilities in place. second, there has been a success in the hiring process. >> is there, in fact, less overcrowding? i thought what this case was all about was that the receivers said, we cannot make any progress the ball until there are fewer peop -- progress at all until there are fewer people. we have no place to pu a potential first step is to have fewer people so that there

is more room for these facilities, more room for staff to upgrade. >> the fundamental issue in this case it seems to me, what is the real cause of the constitutional violation? the real violation has been a culture of disregard for the inmates. the reason the receiver was appointed, and properly so, not over our objections, was to change that fundamental culture and to provide construction, increased numbers -- >> but he cannot provide construction if the state does not provide money. >> since august 8th, 2008, literally hundreds of millions of dollars have gone to construction specifically, and more than $4 billion have been spent on the provision of health care in this particular system.

a great deal of that -- >> if there are these great changes in circumstances, so the medical care can be administered in something approaching a decent realm, you could go back to the single district court. you could say, it is no longer impossible to run this decent facility. >> i do not think we could get that ruling from a single judge district court. the order says that we have to get to 137.5% of the design capacity within three years. >> the panel invited you to come back to circumstances change.

>> the fundamental question here is, congress shifted dramatically the approach you're supposed to take. this is supposed to be a matter of last resort, which would mean that you would give the receiver a full opportunity to do what the receiver -- >> the receiver said -- it seems to me, to summarize what is in his brief on page 9, at two paragraphs, it sounds like overcrowding is a big, big cause of this problem which is horrendous. if you think it is accurately described, the description on the record, it is a horrendous problem. the receivers said overcrowding is a big cause of death, and then he is said -- because of it -- big cause of it.

then he says to spend $8 billion building more buildings, and and the legislature rejectios it. so, what is the plan? did they approve that? >> they approved two 0.3 $5 billion. >> he said in a $8 billion -- he said they need $8 billion. is there any evidence that you can solve the problem with $2.35 billion? >> obviously, there is some sense in which the receiver is reasonably satisfied with that as an opening gambit. but again, all of this goes to what is, from my perspective,

what the court should of evaluated in the first place which is, are we ready to give up hope? >> the receiver says that is a significant step, better than no construction at all, however, there is no evidence that the current compromise will result in sustainable health care at current population levels. that is what he says. so we have his views. and i am back to my question. what else is supposed to happen? >> when the receiver says that, and now remember, he says at current population levels. he does not suggest, and his brief is very clear, that he does not urge the court to -- can i finish?

the reality is that the population level has dropped pretty significantly since the august of this case. given the action of the legislature and 8900, there are a lot of expenditures on the table and substantial reductions in the population size. therefore, even under the receiver -- >> do we have information about the substantial reduction? in this record it seems to be that no matter how many efforts have been made, the population goes up. now you say, the population has gone down. from what point in time, and how much has it gone down? >> it is down to around 147,000, up from a high of 170,000. it has dropped because there has been a change in the good time credits. there has been a significant

number of transfers. >> is it possible that within the two-year time you are going to hit the mark? the three judge panel said if you implement most of the proposals being made, you are likely to hit the mark. so what you are saying is you're going to do it. and if you do not, they invited you to come back. you really do not think that if %, that the court is going to order an immediate release? it is going to ask you what you have put into place to reach that level over what period of time? >> there is a basic factual point to be made year. when we made our initial proposal to the three judge

court, suggesting what we thought would be a reasonable reduction within a reasonable amount of time, it was met with a motion of contempt and a rejection out of hand. >> so you are fighting about that the plan is wrong or are we fighting about the you are angry that you were told to do it in two years -- in 22 years, as opposed to in 25 years? >> this goes to the federalism point. >> can you do it in five years? >> balancing of the policies that the state has to take into account, i can get there? is it in the best interest of the state of california? if it is, then yes. >> it isn't it in the best interest of the state of california to deliver adequate, constitutional care to the people that it incarcerates. when are you going to get to that? when are you going to avoid

less to steps that are recorded in this record? when are you going to get around people sitting on at their tooshies for days. when are you going to deliver care that is adequate? >> do not a rhetorical. i will do my best. there has been a significant downward trend over the past four years. the prisoners in 2009 or 66% of the previous three years. more importantly, in response to your specific question, the record in this case was cut off in august of 2008. >> but the problem i have with that, mr. phillips, is that at some point the court has to say, you have been given enough time.

the constitutional violation still persists. the state acknowledges that. overcrowding is the principal cause, as experts have testified, and it is now time for a remedy. the court has to get some point focus on a remedy, and that is what it did. that seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable decision. >> i agree with everything you say, and with the last data. you needed a significant remedy, no question. but you gotta significant remedy when the receiver was appointed in 2005 and implemented a program in 2006. >>, time should the courts have given the receiver to develop this -- how much time should the courts have given the receiver to develop this plan and implement it? >> we believe we are entitled to a reasonable opportunity to comply with the orders and bring

ourselves into compliance. >> and if it had seven years it could get down to 1 37.5%. you did not seem to object to that. >> given all of the constraints, there is a fundamental difference between what you do under a district court order and what the state will do. that said, the state is absolutely committed -- i mean, go back to what is the root cause for the constitutional violation. it is not over crowding. california law violated constitutional rights in the middle of the 1990's. it was not because of overcrowding. it was because of a fundamental lack of attentiveness to medical care. that is unfortunate, to be sure, but that is the reason, that is why the receiver, an extraordinary remedy -- to confer upon an individual with

the authority to run the entire california department of corrections, not just a facility, but the entire department of corrections medical and health division is incredible. >> so when he himself says, i cannot do this without the first of reducing the population, nothing else is going to work. we must reduced the population to the point where there is room for clinics, room for medical personnel to operate. that was the view of the district judge in the special master in one case, the receiver in the other case, they all agreed. reducing the population is not going to cure it. it is not going to make everything perfect, but without doing that as a first up, nothing.

>> wellcome might even if you except that, and i do not -- well, even if you except that, and i do not think that is entirely correct, the idea that 137.5% is a cap that has to be implemented within two years, is a remedy that is neither necessary nor sufficient. it is not aimed at a specific class. it does not remedy the specific rights. >> you cannot have a remedy just limited to class. they want to have clinics and personnel. you cannot deal with this problem, helping the medical problems and the mentally l., without the space in date

facilities. -- mentally ill without the space in thecilities. >> if you look at the report from 2008, they say they have been able to successfully bring in very qualified personnel. they have significantly larger numbers. there is construction in place. it may not be as substantial as what was originally proposed, but it is significant. and congress was explicit that the remedy of a prisoner release the order should be the remedy of last resort. >> i'll let that this record. directors -- in a look at this record. -- i looked at this record. a referred to online evidence. i looked at it. it was horrendous.

you cannot have mental health facilities that will stop people from killing themselves or medical facilities that will stop tubercular infection in facilities like this. you have looked at them. i have looked at them. what is the answer to that? the special master said $8 billion is the answer, and they have not even come close. so, i, or you if you were in my position, what would you say to these three judges, who have to wonder pages of findings, what would you say as an answer -- who have 200 pages of findings, what did you say as an answer? >> you have to examine the orders that are in place and

whether those orders have had a reasonable amount of time. >> bucked the state did not find that either order in i -- but the state did not find that either order in either case has proceeded far enough to be a remedy. i recognize that congress imposed a special duty on us, but i think it means that overcrowding must not be ordered unless that is the only remedy in a permissible. of time. it seems to me there is massive expert testimony to support the proposition on the part of the

prisoners. >> first call, i am not sure that is consistent with a the -- first of all, i am not sure that is consistent with the language. i think that is a difficult and open question as to how to proceed, but it still strikes me that this sequence that congress envisions, the one that would make the most sense, and hopefully the one the would accommodate both the plaintiffs interest and the state's interest would be to allow a the receiver to stay on the course. nobody doubts for a moment that there have been very significant violations of constitutional rights in years gone by. indeed, the failures on the mental health side of cotton to the point where we are providing significant -- have

gotten to the point where we are providing significant remedy. but there have been significant movements in the right direction. if the court had not jumped the gun and said, look, we are going to leap ahead and go to f 3 judge court, this process would have played itself out. >> of this talk about what the receiver things can be done seems a little perplexing to me because the receiver did not testify before the three judge court. is that correct? >> they were not allowed to question him. >> but now he has submitted what is styled as an amicus brief. he explains his views. he tries to explain prior statements and supplement them.

>> i am a longtime believer that a meat is priests are open to interpretation. >> -- and a kimicus briefs are o interpretation. >> that is not true. >> in your presentation, there were representations about the special master. this was filed tuesday, understand this in context. he wanted to put into context -- filed to say, understand this in context. he wanted to put into context of the statements he referred to. >> this has been part of the case for quite some time, so i do not know what motivated the

receiver to file and out of time brief, but i think the most important part to keep in mind is that the receiver did not ask to reaffirm. he does wanted to clarify statements and put them into context. that is fine. we do not have any quarrel with that particular presentation, but to say that the receiver has insisted that he cannot get to a constitutionally permissible result without the order that has been proposed in this particular case is not consistent with what is in the record. >> the experts testified to that effect. >> experts may have reached that conclusion, but this court has recognized -- >> the strike force and the governor's commission reached the same conclusion. a strike team i think it was

called. >> again, there is a very big difference between what do you need to accomplish, to remedy whatever the constitutional violation is, part of which seems to have been absolutely eliminated because of the conduct of the state. >> we have all of these breeds. there are all of these experts, all of the reports, everybody's saying that we need to spend the money. if you really want to cure the constitutional violation, you of the legislature rejectihe $8 bill give us more time. i read the newspaper. it does not seem like california has been voting for a lot of money for new programs.

what is it specifically that could happen that would cure this problem, what would we say, what would happen if we were to say that this panel is wrong? what would happen that would cure the problem? a constitutional problem which the state itself admits, a state with a governor who has said publicly that there is a tremendous problem. what would happen? >> if the court were to conclude that the three judge panel should not have been convened, either way, it will go back to a court of equity. the receiver is in place. the receiver has a comprehensive plan in place which he is implementing even as we speak. >> they did not come up with the $8 billion but they did come

up with a $2.35 billion. i am looking at this brief for the receiver. there is a footnote, page 11, footnote 3, that says it is dependent upon approval and security and that such approval ultimately may not be forthcoming. >> $400 million has already been spent. the rest has been earmarked for this particular purpose. the expectation from the state of california is that that money is going forward. construction is under way as we speak. >> i think you did say earlier that this was a done deal, but this is a note telling us it is not so. >> it is not etched in stone.

i understand that, but our function, our expectations, and our belief is that that money is going to be used for construction. there are projects finished, projects under way, and project scheduled to begin within the next six weeks come up all of which will be funded out of that -- >> and what if the budget committee said no? >> they would ask for additional information, to be sure. but the expectation, again, is that that money will ultimately be approved and the facility will be built. we are moving very rapidly to get that construction under way, which is an enormous facility under these particular circumstances. >> might trouble listening to you is that it seems as though you are asking us to read find facts. there are judges that have been involved in this case since the

beginning, for 20 years. they say they've done everything they can. the receiver has done everything he can. this is not going anywhere and will not go anywhere until we address the root cause of the problem. that is the view of the judge is closest to the case from the beginning and the view of the judge court generally. how can we find a different result from people who have dealt with this for 20 years? >> first of all, remember that the receiver was appointed and then three months later there was a motion for a three judge court. the court was convened before the receiver had even finalized a comprehensive plan to bring everybody into compliance. that is the fundamental legal error i am asking this court to correct. even if you get beyond that, it seems to me that there is a

mixed question of law and fact. it is the kind of standard that this court ought to analyze on an independent review, whether or not overcrowding is the primary cause of the violation. what makes that inquiry particularlynt to this is that the district court arbitrarily cut off the record in august of 2008. there have been enormous developments -- >> the state has said that they do not want plaintiffs to tour these facilities anymore. they do not want something to go beyond the date in 2008. it was at this stage that was urging -- we do not need any

more discovery. we not want any more inspections. so how could they submit more than eight dead when the state said, that is enough, to the -- morris then invade did, when the re than they- mo did, when the state says specifically, that is enough. >> what the state wanted to do was bring forward evidence that proved that there have been significant improvements. justice kennedy conceded that we are in constitutional violation. we have been in constitutional violation. i do not know -- >> do you concede -- if you can see bet you have been a

constitutional violation then it seems jimmy -- if dickensian that you have then in -- if you concede that you have been in constitutional violation, then it seems to me -- >> it is quite clear, the statute could not be any clearer, that the burden is shifted to the plaintiff. if potentially 46,000 inmates are going to be released, again, going back, the receiver devised a plan. the receiver is currently is spending an enormous amount of money to get the system moving in the right direction with the

right attitude in order to bring us into a constitutional compliance. >> you are talking about one of the cases, but the other one, then you are one -- and then you are one -- the newer one -- collect if the court were to conclude a ultimately the we should -- >> if the court were to conclude ultimately that we should go back, that would be ok. but under the circumstances, the special master and the receiver have been going forward in a variety of ways. it only makes sense. the receiver is controlling the

provision of medical care, and the special master is taking care of trying to promote a very small slice of that. in the scheme of things, as you might expect, the receiver ultimately gets the authority to make the decisions to provide health decisions, both in quality, quantity, staff, construction. >> this issue about evidence. did you proffer to the judge anywhere in the record what the additional evidence was that you wanted to show? i know that the decrees a suicide -- decrease in net suicide happened post trial, as a you could not have presented that. but it seems like you could have presented the wait time between

diagnosis and treatment that was 60, 90, 100 days. we have reduced that to two weeks, or whatever the reality is. why didn't you? >> the district court could not have been plainer. when the opposing counsel said in the opening statement that he wanted to start talking about beneficial changes and where we work today as opposed to way back when, the three judge court said we have been as clear as we can be that we are not entertaining any evidence on that point. it was a futile act, and we had already annoyed the judge's bias making reference to it. i do not think we should have tried to -- >> you did not have to proffer

it as saying we are no longer violating, constitutionally violating the eighth amendment. instead, we will take what you have to proffer to show that the remedy is appropriate. >> to my mind at least, there is a complete disconnect. i will not tell you exactly where the constitutional violation is today. we will just assume there is a constitutional violation, now prove to me what remedy will or will not work under those circumstances. that seems a backward way to do it. >> your time has expired. thank you.

>> may it please the court, port 20 years the overcrowding crisis has caused prisoners as suffering from psychosis and life threatening illnesses to language and to -- languish and to fail. more then two thirds of suicide in prison are preventable. >> are you talking about current figures? >> that is from the case. >> that is what i thought. how do you address the point that the adequacy of the remedy cannot be measured unless you measure the state of the situation at the time the remedy is imposed? >> i think there are massive amounts of evidence about the constitutional violations that existed at the time that the remedy was imposed.

i can point to the jurisdictional statement appendix. the court said, nonetheless, the fundamental constitutional inconsistent -- constitutional violations continue to exist. >> they did not take any evidence. >> that is not correct, with all due respect. they took massive amounts of evidence of all conditions as they relate to the remedy. >> current conditions? >> current conditions. >> what was your friend talking about when he said they rejected attempts to show the evidence? >> my friend and i have a disagreement. the three judge panel said, this

is not the place for you to come in and say everything is constitutional. what they said was, we will consider, and they did in fact consider all of the evidence from the state. they had experts to rid the prisoners in august of 2008. -- tour the prisons in august of 2008. they testified. >> in 2008. >> that was the time of the trial. >> there was a cut off date two months before the trial. >> in august. >> but before that point, the experts that had testified were aware of the conditions that existed. >> exactly. >> when was the remedy imposed? >> the remedy -- well, the final order -- the close of evidence was in 2008.

>> that was in the one judge court. >> know, the three judge court. we then argue the case before the first trial briefing in february of 2009. the accord came out with the tentative decision about 20 days later. in august of 2009, it issued a 183 page opinion and the order. >> let me just keep track here. the evidence was cut off when in 2008? >> the trial closed it in december of 2008 after all of the parties had made all of their evidence. then posed try everything for a month. then arguments in february -- post trial briefing for a month. then arguments in february. >> you do not dispute the statement i have that between

october 2006 and october 2010 the population of the adult facilities declined by 14 belsen 832 inmates? >> -- 14,830 two inmates? >> i will agree that they'd population has declined by about 10,000 prisoners. most of that is due to transfers out of state. some has been a result of the marginal increase of good time credits which the state elected to pursue what it's done. >> what about the evidence regarding new construction. >> there was no evidence that was offered the was not considered by the three judge panel. they considered all of the evidence. their 183 page opinion is scrupulous in considering all of the evidence.

they distinguish the evidence and made credibility determinations based on it. >> can you explain what the connection is between the 137.5% figure in the constitutional violations relating to the provisions of medical care in general and treatment for mental illness? my understanding of the 137.5% figure is that that has to do with the total number of prisoners in the system, in relation to design capacity. is that right? >> that is correct. >> that does not speak to the number of personnel who are available in the system to attend to medical needs of poor mental illness. it does not speak to the extent of the facilities that are

available for those purposes. there seems to be a disconnect between those two. can you explain why that was narrowly tailored? >> yes. the court made a finding that 137.5% a was a maximum number of prisoners of the design capacity of the prison that the prison could have that would enable the state to have all of those things that you just mentioned, a staffing facilities, medication management, and to reach the actual prisoners here are -- >> that is what i do not understand. pinyon not have a prison where the cells are some would crowd -- can you not have a prison where the cells are somewhat crowded, and yet, there are

other facilities available for medical care, and plenty of staff to attend to those things. so, what is the connection? >> you are right. if the cells were crowded but the prison had all of the other facilities were available, there might not be a problem. i hope you can understand that in this case the prisons were built to double sell the prisoners, but they were not built to handle to hundred% of double selling. -- 200% double prisoners. the court went almost one-third over crowding above what all of the experts recommended. >> what order the release of around 40,000 prisoners, and the

great majority of them will not the in the class of these lawsuits, why release those people rather than build the facilities to treat medical care and hire staff? whot go directly to the problem rather than address what appears to be a different issue altogether? >> i >> it is important to understand this is not a release order. it is a population crowding reduction order. they can reduce crowding through more transfers out of state. to your construction point, it the state so chooses, it can construct new facilities to increase capacity, and the three-judge panel said if you increase capacity, you can

increase the population. >> the point about if all they do is build more cells, they do not address the problem. >> that goes to the second part, which is why do they not try ordering the prisons and hire more doctors or better medication management and all of those things? the answer to that is in the appendix to the coleman brief, which left 70 discrete orders, which the single-judge court tried over 15 years, which have proven singularly to be ineffective, and that is why the court analyze all those things -- the trial court analyzed all those things and made a finding that based on the statements by the special master, by the receivers' report, and by the general state of the horrendous conditions which they have in these prisons, that those would not solve the problem. >> i still do not get it. you say they were ordered to do a variety of things to directly

address the problem, and they did not comply. >> no. >> in order to provide some kind of remedy, we are going to provide something else that does not address the problem these lawsuits aimed at addressing? >> your honor, to the contrary. i think the court believes based on the fact that it found that this would be an effective remedy. all the testimony that they heard from experts from texas, pennsylvania, washington state, all of whom had dealt with crowding in the prison systems, had said that when you reduce the crowding, that is the critical thing that you have to do. because unless you reduce the crowding, nothing else is going to work. the court found that that was exactly true. nothing else over 20 years -- in one case in over eight years -- has worked. massive amounts of evidence showed that the primary reason it has not worked is one

singular word -- overcrowding. when you reduce overcrowding, the prison will be able to operate and provide those services that it cannot provide now, so the doctors will have room to be able to work, which they do not have now. there will be less prisoners, so officers will be able to take them from one place to another to get treatment. there will not be so many lockdowns, which inhibit care. >> it seems a very indirect way of addressing the problem, and it has collateral consequences. if i were a citizen of california, and i would be concerned about the release of 40,000 prisoners. i do not care what you term debt -- what you term it. 40,000 prs arisone going to be released. you really belie that if you were to come back here two years after that, you would be to say they have not contributed to an increase in crime in the

state of california? in the briefs that were submitted by a number of states, there was an extended discussion of the effect of one prisoner release order, with which i am familiar, and that was in philadelphia. after some time, they tallied up what the cost of that was. the number of murders, the number of rapes, armed robberies, assaults. you do not think that will happen in california? >> this trial court found, based on 50 pages of its opinion, based on expert testimony -- not only from our experts, but from the state's experts, from the intervenors experts -- they all came to the unanimous conclusion that there are methods by which you can reduce crowding that will not increase cre. e secretary of corrections, who was the secrery at the time of trial, testified that he was in for of increasing

prisoners' good time credits. moreover, there was statistical evidence, saying, looking at all the other state that had reduced their prison populion over about 15 years, and they all came to the same conclusion. all those studies came to the same conclusion, which is there is no increase in the crime rate. >> that is not what the three- judge district court determined. the prisoner litigation reform act requires that court to give substantial weight to adverse impact on public safety. then, it said to the state, "you come up with a plan that gets you to 137.5% in two years." the state did, and the state emphatically did not say this would not have an adverse impact on public safety. a little bit of a double negative there.

the district court said they were sure the state would not do anything that has an adverse impact on public safety. looking at page 4a. so it did not make those determinations, but the requirement is to determine at what it is ordering or at least give substantial weight to the public safety issue. is that not a basis for overturning the remedy that is imposed here? >> i respectfully disagree with that. >> i thought you would. >> at least it is respectful. i will tell you why i think that. the court examined all of the methods that are commonly used and that the governor himself has proposed to reduce crowding. the governor himself wanted to reduce prison population by 37,000. that was in one of his legislative enactments, and the

secretary testified that those were unsafe. >> did you want to do it within the two-year period? >> yes, your honor. he submitted legislation, and the legislature would not take it. the governor said, reacting to that, and the politicians in sacramento have swept the problem under the rug. >> my question deals specifically with the two-year plan, and i would like an answer to that. as i look at this record, i do not see that the district court did what was required by the act. they just said they were sure the state would not do anything to hurt public safety. after telling them they have to get to a plant in two years that gets to 137.5%. >> right. it did not analyze the plan.

well, there was no plan. what the court did was it said they want to give the state the maximum flexibility to determine how best to remedy the constitutional violations. they also said that they were sure the state could do it in a safe way. >> they said they were sure because they trust that the state will comply with its duty to ensure public safety as it implements the constitutionally required reduction. the state is saying it cannot meet the 137.5% in two years without an adverse impact to public safety. >> that is the state's position. the court findings that a population reduction of this magnitude were clear and not shown to be clearly erroneous here. the court said point blank that

it is they're finding that the state can reduce the population to its current level -- it is they're finding -- it is their finding that the state can reduce the population to 137.5% safely. they did not have to look at particular in an effort to give the state the maximum flexibility. they wanted to allow the state to choose the methods that it wanted. >> of course, they could do it safely if they build new prisons, but that is pie in the sky. >> they could also do it safely by good time credits. >> does that not let people out who would not otherwise be out? >> the evidence was a trial, and the court's finding about that evidence was -- and the state officials also testified that giving presents good time credits is not a threat to

public safety. >> would it be better course to say that the state said it could do this in five years without any public safety problems, so why not let them take those five years? >> because, as justice ginsberg and others have been saying before, the constitutional violations have been ongoing for 20 years. we are dealing with cases of life and death and serious injury. after all these years, when they heard the evidence and made the findings, which the state does not argue were clearly erroneous -- when they made those findings that it could be reduced safely, they had an obligation to provide the remedy that would provide constitutionally adequate care in the safest manner possible. >> i think justice sotomayor has been patient.

>> [inaudible] not been responding to the chief justice. did the district court not discussed different safe ways of reducing the population -- discuss different safe ways of reducing the population? >> yes, your honor. >> if i look at the state's final plan, i thought they had not only accepted all of the recommendations, but they added a couple of additional remedies that the court had not suggested. >> yes, your honor. >> is it a fair statement that the three-judge panel was saying, if you do these things, that is they're finding? you could do it without affecting public safety -- is that what they are saying? the other question goes back to something that justice scalia asked you, which is that you

made statements that no one was stopped from proffering evidence about prison conditions until two months before the trial. so what evidence was excluded? what point is the other side making that they were excluded from making? >> as we said in our brief, there was no evidence that was excluded. in fact, the state's witnesses testified about some of the conditions current as of the testimony. that way, even if the court made a ruling, which was error, which we do not believe it was, there was absolutely no prejudice. >> i am puzzled by the same thing. i read on page 253 a conclusion with the district court said it is our conclusion that they could reduce it by -- how many

was it? 35,000. that this could be done safely. preceding page -- whatever that was. it was 253. there were about two pages where they summarize evidence from all kinds of criminologists who say, for example, there are 17,000 technical parole violators being sent to prison who have not committed additional crimes, and they could perhaps be released from some of the time they are spending in prison. they go on to this good time, which would lead to people who are 50 or 60 years old who had been in prison for 40 years, would be released at age 55 instead of age 75. i guess that is some category there. and they had several other things. >> there was also testimony that the department of corrections was using a risk assessment instrument to identify the low- risk prisoners.

>> is it not true that one of the main programs cited as providing a safeguard is evidence-based rehabilitation programs? >> yes, your honor. all the witnesses from the state, the local witnesses, our experts -- they all found that those would help reduce crime, and they would be most effective -- >> what is the general record of the success of rehabilitation efforts? >> you cannot say generally because different programs have different -- >> what did congress say when it enacted the sentencing reform act? >> i do not know, your honor. >> i have a question that goes i recognize that the district court has to be given considerable discretion. it shows that 137.5% figure is half way between 135% and 140%.

if there are going to be release orders, it must be releasing the minimum amount that will affect the purposes of the remedy order. there was substantial expert opinion that 145% would be sufficient. does the evidence not indicate to you that at least 145% out to be the beginning point, not 137.5%? correct me if i'm wrong -- there were more experts that testified at 145% then there were that 135% was necessary. >> i respectfully disagree with you. the 135% figure came from a report by the former governor and a group that he organized. they said they could operate a crowded system at 145% of

capacity. that figure was high, the district court found because it did not take into account health care needs. it did not take into account health care needs, which is the issue here. because they did not take into account health care needs, 130% was the better number. it is the number that the strike team has bought up. -- has thought of. that is the number these professional experts believe would be sufficient. back to my answer to justice alito's question, the health care facilities were built to provide health care services to only 100% of the prisoners. >> the experts that were testifying were quite aware of the fact that overcrowding related to the constitutional

violations -- that was their whole theory. any number of them suggested that 145% -- >> i think there might have been only one expert suggesting 145%. the majority of the experts suggested 130%. the court found, and it has not been challenged as clearly erroneous, that the weight of the evidence went to 130%. they wanted to minimize the intrusion and maximize the population. even though the court had ample basis to issue an saying it should be 130%, they said in an abundance of caution, to give the state the benefit of the doubt, we are going to bump it up an extra 7.5%. >> i see no evidence that your clients said that 145% would not work. maybe you can answer, counsel,

please. >> my recollection of the testimony was that our experts said it had to be down to 130% in order for the other remedies to be effective, your honor. >> the expert who gave the 145% -- >> there was no expert -- well, there was one expert who said maybe in the best circumstances. all the others talk about 130%. >> let's go to the one who said 145%. >> he was a psychologist who has expertise in prison health care. >> did he say that 145% would deliver health care safely? >> he was equivocal on that point. he said at the outer reaches it might be true. i want to emphasize that the district court has allowed states to come back in at any time to modify its order and to modify this percentage point if

the circumstances change. >> there had been at least two significant changes. the california legislature did pass the law on the good time credits, also addressing the technical violators, the parolees. do you have information about that legislation? >> it was passed, i think, last year. i think it went into effect july of last year. i believe. >> do you know at all what effect it has had? >> it has had a marginal effect on the population. there have been no reports that it has led to an increase in crime. but to get back to my earlier

point and your point, justice kennedy, about the remedy and that it should be the least intrusive possible. this order is set to take effect over two years. during that time, if mrs. philips is correct that the conditions are constitutional and can deliver services at 145%, the state is free to make a motion to bring those changed circumstances to the court -- if mr. phillips is correct. if anything, the court has been incredibly sensitive to the desires of the state, and it would seem reluctant to end this order in the first place, and it would bend over backwards to give the state discretion. >> i do not see a finding by the three-judge court that -- 145%, is it?

that it would not be efficacious. >> yes, your honor. i do not think it explicitly says 145%, but it discusses the figure in the context of the fact that it did not provide for health care services. it discounted that a little bit and went down about 7%, but it came close to that figure. >> can i ask you a hypothetical question that i know is not your case? let's say you had the district court entering an order that said you had to bring it down to 137.5% in two years that will as a practical matter result in the release of 40,000 prisoners. the state co back and says if you give them four years, they can reach that figure without releasing all the prisoners. would it violates the prison reform act to say that they want it done in two years and we just

have to deal with the fact that there will be 40,000 prisoners on the street? >> the prison litigation reform act requires the court to give substantial weight to the public implications -- public safety implications of the decision. under those hypothetical circumstances, there is always the possibility that the degree of public safety problems might outweigh the harm. as you said, that is not the case. they found that we could do it -- the three-judge panel found that the state could reduce the population safely. there was no suggestion in the record that the two or four years would make much of a difference. putting the 35,000 figure in context, california releases 120,000 prisoners every year on parole. that is a lot of prisoners.

the findings of the district courts are even when california increases the number of parolees in the communities, that does not increase the crime rate. >> what are the recidivism rates for those parolees? >> it depends on the risk. >> in general, what is the recidivism rate? >> overall, are around 70%. for the lowest risk prisoners, the rate is 17%. >> what was the first? >> the first number, when you take all proles altogether, 70%. 0? bee7- >> 7-0. with parol reform, you could reduce that number, and in many ways, they describe how you could do that -- with parole

reform. the court found the risk ssment program could be used to make sure what happened in philadelphia does not happen again. >> if only the low-risk people are released, around 3000 are ever going to commit another crime. >> they do not have to be released. i want to make sure i emphasize the point that this is a crowning reduction measure. you do not have to release 35,000 people. you could improve the process them -- the parole system so that violators do not commit so many crimes. if you offer a number of diversions in the community. there are a number of options short of releasing prisoners. >> the 17% figure goes to exactly my concern. it seems likely this is going to have an effect on public

safety, and the experts can testify to what ever they want, but it this order goes into effect, we will see -- the experts can testify to what ever they want. -- whatever they want. >> i just want to clarify one point -- the figure does not always include crime. it includes lots of technical parole violators. people who missed their appointments, for example. it is not as brave -- as grave as the other side would have you believe. >> [inaudible] >> the first one to reach this court, obviously. there have been a few others that have been resolved by consent, as i understand it, or not appealed. >> is there any evidence -- i

see these suggestions that the technical parole violators go elsewhere. that the elderly, infirm prisoners -- some of them be released. the good time credits for older people the increase. and also, halfway houses and other kinds of prison facilities, which used to be less physica restrictive punishments, or taking money and building more prisons. that seems to be the gamut. is there any evidence -- statistically or otherwise -- because he used to be that states did rely on halfway houses -- because it used to be that states did rely on halfway houses. they would rely on certain camps, and some of them were pretty tough. and they're also used to be what was called intermediate punishment -- there also used to be what was called intermediate punishment.

is there evidence that this would not result in a higher crime rate? >> it is not clear, but the evidence found that these programs were more effective than prisons in reducing the recidivism and were less expensive. that is part of the reason why the three-judge panel concluded that a reduction in the prison population would not increase crime. >> one of the things that concerns me is that the state is responsible for a lot of different things. what happens when you have this case, another district court ordering the state to take action with respect to environmental damage, another court saying that they have to as much more on education or disabled, and another court saying they have to spend as much more on something else? how does the state sort out its obligations? saying they will spend more money to build prisons and violating this court order saying they have to spend more

money to build water treatment plants? >> in this particular case -- >> i know you like your particular case, but the point is there is a budget prioritization that the state has to go through every day, and it is being transferred from the state legislature to federal district courts across the state. >> i believe the federal courts have an obligation to enforce the constitution and the laws -- >> i believe that as well, but i'm saying you have conflicting orders from different district courts telling them that they have to comply with the constitution by spending $8 billion here, and another court saying they have a constitutional problem of their own, and they have to spend $8 billion there. what is the state's supposed to do? >> might simple -- my simple answer, and i do not mean to be flippant, but they have an obligation to follow the federal law, constitutional law, and other laws, and the federal

court has an obligation to impose a remedy. in this particular case, the state could either incarcerate 140,000 prisoners in a system built for 80,000, or it could incarcerate a lesser number. if it chooses to incarcerate 148,000 prisoners in a state built for 80,000, it will increase their obligations. we believe the state could choose to use less restrictive, alternative punishments to get a better bang for their buck, and have more public safety. but if the court impose that kind of role, then the state would be here saying it is violating provisions and making policy choices for the state, which i believe should give the state the maximum flexibility to make all the policy choices surrounding the incarceration of these prisoners. the constitution prevents the state from incarcerating

somebody and not providing them the basic medical care they need to escape from the prison and not die before their sentence, and that is what we have here. >> if you take the state's concession that it could meet the goal in five years, and the federal order is two years, we are talking about three years. is there any indication of how fast the state's remedy would kick in? are we talking about 5% differential for the last three years? >> there are a lot of things the state can do quickly. it could reform its paroles system, not re-incarcerate technical parole violators -- >> i'm talking about what the state could do compared tot the court has ordered it to do. >> the governor proposed to the

legislature that he reduce the population. he said it could be done safely by the same amount -- roughly 30,000 prisoners in two years. the court found basically what the governor believed was save -- safe. the five-year period is longer because it takes time to construct the facilities that the state wants to construct. that is the major difference between the two remedies. but the other methods -- the good time credits, pro-reform -- parole reform -- those could be implemented very quickly and substantial reductions could be accomplished in that amount of time. >> could they have said two years and construction -- would that not have been a more narrowly tailored solution?

>> the state has not really put up the money to construct those new prisons. this case has been ongoing since 2006, and they have hardly constructed anything. even if there was a more narrow remedy, the court found that construction would not be a viable alternative. my time is up. >> thank you, counsel. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. just a few points -- with respect to the state of the record and what was proffered and not proffered, looking at the joint appendix, there is a specific proffer made by the state of the -- >> i'm sorry, what page was that? >> 2085. that is volumes 6. the intervening plaintiffs say they would like to put on evidence of constitutional

violations, and the justice said they would not receive that evidence. they have made it as clear as they can. please do not waste time. later, we enter -- the assistant secretary in charge of health care specifically said he has read the december declaration, and it will not be received, to the extent that it says the state is in compliance. we have made our efforts. we were rebuffed. bamut is the actual declaration in the record? >> yes, i believe it is. >> on a different subject, does the state stand by its recommendation that it can do this without any public safety impacts in five years? >> yes, we made that recommendation to the court, and we believe we can comply with it. >> notwithstanding budget and economic differences? >> plaintiffs council talks

about all the things that you can do, and if you look at 70a, it specifically says above the line we can implement, and that will get you about 16,000 inmates, and below the line, you need legislation. the reality is you say you are going to release 30,000 inmates in a very compressed period of time. i guarantee you there will be more crime and people will die on the streets of california. >> but if there were five years, you think you could do it without any public safety impact? >> i think so, but i'm still concerned because the district court says they have not evaluated the safety impact of each of the states or the elements of the state's proposed plans, and it seems to me they have an obligation to do that. there is not a shred of evidence that 137.5% makes any sense

whatsoever. that is a number pulled out of the air. none of that is based on the constitutional violation that exists at the time you adopt that particular percentage. it seems to me that is the entire problem with this exercise, which is to say that we are going to fix this across the board, rather than what would make much more sense, which is evaluate the matters facility by facility on the basis of the various discrete elements of how you can reduce the prison population and do it in conjunction with a receiver who is in place and hand -- and can help implement this in a systematic way that will get us where we need to get. >> the court gave you absolute discretion to implement the plan that you wanted. it said, "we do not want to do facility by facility because we want you to figure out where you need to implement." your plan did not do that. why? either in your five-year plan

for your two-year. >> the district order says, "you have to reach 137.5% in two years." that is the categorical rule. >> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> tonight, a forum on a late pulitzer prize winner and a discussion on his impact and legacy. at 9:30, "q&a" from london. a conversation with film maker dan reid -- reed and his documentary, which chronicles the terror attacks of 2008. then, a conference organized by the americans against eight -- hate at 10:30 eastern, all here

on c-span. all week on c-span, we are talking with departing house members and the new faces that will replace them. today, starting with congressman paul kanjorski. the pennsylvania democrat lost his bid for a 14th term. we will visit with him in about 30 minutes. >> congressman paul kanjorski has represented the 11th district of pennsylvania for 13 terms. he is not coming back to congress, but it was the choice of the voters, not a retirement. how are you processing the loss? >> i hope i'm doing it well, from the standpoint that -- i'm not looking at as a rejection, to be honest with you. i had a great opportunity for 13 terms, 26 years.

i started to reminisce about what congress is all about and what history is and what place i .layed in that i have a sort of analogy or allegory, however you say it. i was born in a relatively small town in pennsylvania, and i had the good fortune of winning a seat in congress by an act of my constituents, so here i was, a sparrow in line with the mass of sparrows, and suddenly, just by the touch of a ballot, i became an eagle and was able to soar into washington. and i did that for 26 years. that is an exceptional opportunity, and very people -- very few people ever get it. in history, there has only been 1000 members of congress over

the history of the united states. i was just a fortune at one and lucky enough to hold it for 26 years -- i was just a fortunate one. there was a generational change of events, and that is what happens in democratic processes, and it is healthy. i talked about the analogy there to the waterway. if we did not have the tidal flushing of the waterway, north america would be uninhabitable because it would be festering with disease and infection, but because it affects our tides and swedes and out and cleans it -- in a political sense, that happens as well. >> you use the metaphor of the eagle, but right now, congress is about a 17% approval rating with the american public. what is going on? >> whenever you have economic

strife and disappointment, and particularly where it hits a category that can least afford to be hit -- this is not a fair recession, if you will. it is not equally distributed across the entire body politic. it is aimed and targeted at the lower third, lower half of our population. the less educated, the less financially substantial. over the last two years, i have been calling the attention of my colleagues to get out of washington and get home because if you spend too much time in washington and forget going home on the weekend, you get to observe the city of washington, which is not in recession. it is very prosperous, has a low unemployment rate, and everybody is making a very good income. if you pick that up by your senses, you would think that the whole country is in great shape because washington appears to be

in great shape. but it is only when you go home that you see the tremendous ravish of loss of manufacturing jobs. loss of jobs to the skilled people in the country that probably will have a long time in coming back, if ever, into what they are doing. and they are frightened to death about losing their jobs, losing their homes. their neighbors are losing their homes. the promises they made to themselves and their children are not being able to be kept. and they do not know what tomorrow is like. that is a frightening experience, so it is quite understandable that it is out there. i think they are going to struggle until they feel something happen. republicans may have great fortune. if we made the right choices in the last two years to correct the economy and get things going -- we being the democratic party -- the country will go

through the upturn, and the people really do not care who should be credited with that. all they want is the upturn. on the other hand, if it does not turn up, we will see some hard times for the next two to four years in this country. >> whatever is assigned blame, it is hard to point at. >> you cannot lose too much more than we lost in the senate. we had an exceptionally strong senate, and we almost lost it. and you look at the president's popularity, it has significantly suffered in the last two years. will that change? will that turn around? i do not know. i think the country is poised for a good economic recovery and a good political recovery, quite frankly. >> what are you going to do next? >> i did not know definitely accept i know i will not

practice law. i was a lawyer before i came to congress. i probably would enjoy teaching or doing some writing. i do not want to do a 9:00 to 5:00 or 12-hour days anymore. those are over. seven days a week at 12 hours a day -- those are so taxing on the system. i do not look forward to that. i look forward to a lot of relaxing, a lot of deliberation. hopefully, i can take some of the experiences i have had and put them in some ridings and important to the younger generation is that is possible -- put them in some writings and impart them to the younger generation if that is possible. >> what things have changed for the better and for the worse in the house of representatives? >> let's look at "for the better." through the computer age and the

internet and the communications, that has changed so significantly. i was just thinking the other day, when i got elected 20 years ago, when i would leave my district and drive to washington, and i was totally out of reach. on some of those occasions, i had to be reached by certain people, including the president at one time, and i remember state police racing down the internet -- racing down the street to get me to a telephone so i could talk to the president. that does not happen anymore because now, we walk around with little telephones and communicating devices that did not exist 25 years ago, so we are almost constantly in contact with everyone everywhere in the world. it is not unusual for me to get a call from somebody in moscow, russia, and talk about a current issue pending before the congress and hear that person, who is a thousand miles away --

8,000 miles away. so that changed. that compression of time has been significant. along with that, i should say, is the massive amount of information that is allowed to get out that you have to work out. unfortunately, we did not get that snap -- what do you call it? the brain cells that we would need to process that material. it has allowed for a difference in sincerity. i guess that is a good way to say it. there was always an unspoken rule in politics for a long-term successful politician -- his word was his bond, and he gave it with a handshake, a nod, a week -- wink, and it was understood. certainly not in writing, you

did not have to get an understanding. you did not have to have witnesses. today, with circumstances having changed, i think the death of -- depth of, shall i call it sincerity? i will not call them liars, but clever people are able to spread the effect of what they are doing and not communicate up front, as they used to, and that is unfortunate. so much of congress should be and always has been done that way. now, it is not as much. we were talking a little earlier -- i had a 56-year history with the house of representatives because i was a page in 1953 and 1954, so i had the advantage of watching what members of congress in that time -- the first eisenhower administration -- what kind of

relationship they had. what it is like now, it is entirely different. then, it was much more of a gentleman -- but there were more charlatans in the congress at that time. there were really strange folks that got elected appearing one way in the district and coming to washington and operating in an entirely different way. now, because of this modern communication, you have to be what you are, both in your district and in washington in general, so that has changed. all in all, i would say we are still fortunate. we have a good institution. it grows with its of growth. it does not grow on a continual basis. -- it grows with this -- it grows with fits of growth. america is trying to figure out

how we fit in with the rest of the world. we have been the dominant force in the world, so we did not have to pay a hell of a lot of attention to the rest of the world. now, we do, particularly with this challenge that will be coming from china and india. >> let me pick up on the thread of working across the aisle. we hear from callers all the time, and for some portion of them, so much of the decline in partisanship. for the 26 years you have been in congress, you live and came here just a few years after the vietnam era. there were so many decisions about impeachment of the president, going to war. is this really the most partisan time you have lived through in politics? >> most partisan in so far as it affects parties, but it was very

partisan in the mccarthy era, where there was a communist in aery base, and there was great parting of the ways of the two parties. i lived in the joseph mccarthy era, so that was very partisan in that it went to the very depths of a person's ability to operate. they cast aspersions on your basic integrity as a citizen. now, it is partisan in sort of a cheap way for political gain, political pressure. something i tried to say a little earlier -- there is an acceptance and a willingness now to be less stressful, if you will -- less truthful, if you will. you can say things that are diametrically opposed to real

facts and circumstances and get away with it because it is so complicated that people are not picking it up. to a large extent, this last election may have brought that out, and now, we have to discern how we handle that. i know someone this morning that wants to put restrictions on comments and speeches made based on the fact that they lie. yes, you can get away with it with this media we use now. you could really tell a walker, and it would not be picked up -- you could really tell a whopper. there is really little challenges out there. you could make a whopper of a story up and get away with it for years. nobody wants to challenge you. not only that they are not quite sure of it, but they do not want to spend the time and effort, and they search out extremes.

i get the most amazing to watch the talk shows. they are all put together with an extremist on one side and an extremist on the other side, and they yell at each other. nobody asks the question -- what is the final result going to be? what are we going to do? how are we going to come together and work things out? it is more like, "let's have a party and scream at each other and argue." which does not lend itself to good public policy. that is not how we function as a society. we really function by arguing and then finding compromise that we can live with with honor and come together and operate that way. there is less attempt to accomplish that in our society today. we just love to argue. with the media, it is great show business. you see that all the time. you do not run out and find a medium-sized individual who is talking reasonable things.

you find a politician making the most outlandish comments and cover that story. it is not only c-span that does that, but everybody -- matter- of-fact, c-span does it less because you have a higher standard, it seems to me. but some of the networks -- not to name fox at all -- but they really get extreme about it, and it really makes great programming. i should not point at only fox. msnbc does it in some instances as well. that is feeling that fire. compromise probably will return. that is an immaturity of dealing with the communications as they presently exist. >> there is a story you have told often that happens to be true. some of your time as a page, 1954, when the quarter rican

nationalists shotguns in the chamber of the house of representatives -- when the puerto rican nationalists shot the guns in the chamber of the house of representatives. could you tell that story? >> i was on the democratic side of the chamber. it was the first eisenhower administration, and there was a call that came in to be answered on the floor. i got up, took about two or three steps and heard what appeared to be firecrackers going off because it is a very large chamber. i had a high suspicion because as a kid -- and i was a kid at that time -- we used to go out and fired guns in quarries, and it gave the same that go -- the same echo. one of the shots hit about 10 feet above me off the marble column, and i got sprayed with

the material of the column, so i knew it was gunshots. there were these puerto rican independents that had come into the chamber and fired shots and struck five members of congress. a friend of mine, who later served with me in congress -- he and i were working at the same desk at the same time, and we got involved in carrying some of the members out, so it was quite an experience for a 16-year-old to see gunshot wounds. i had never seen a person directly shot with a gunshot. i was never really called upon to respond under those circumstances, so it was a great learning experience. dressed in personal experience was it was not until two or three hours later after we carried three of the five members out of ambulances, finally going to the hospital with one of the last members we

carried out, we got back to our living quarters, that it dawned on me what had happened, what i had experienced. over the last 57 years, that is probably one of the most famous things that happened within the chamber, and i was there that day. >> what was the casualty rate? >> there were five members that were struck. >> none killed? >> no, but one gentleman died five years later as a result -- they had to take his spleen out. one of the shots hit him and blew his spleen apart, so he never really recovered. >> you came into congress in 1984. congress was a very open place then. people could walk in fairly easily. there were not all the barriers around. that did not happen really until after september 11. i wonder what you think about the trade-off that has happened

as a result of the security around the capital in this modern age compared to the congress you knew when you first arrived. >> it is a bad trade-off, anyway, and i use the word advisedly bad. it is always a trade-off of safety and democracy and how the two should be separated or held together. that is part of the price of democracy and freedom, to take the chance of living in a free atmosphere, and i think we have a tendency -- it is interesting because i was just trying to discern what we should do on these searches going on in airplanes. how much invasion do we really want, and how unfortunate or unfortunate is it that we tolerate? i was thinking the other day, how many billions of people have taken off shoes? and we have all gone through

that terrible experience. we have been going through millions and millions of hours of exaggeration and experience, frustration with these shoes. me, i hate it because i wear tight shoes -- tied shoes, and i have to think about putting loafers on when i go to fly because i do not like to tie and untie shoes when i got a flight. those are all limitations on our freedom, and how much should we tolerate? maybe we are getting to a breaking point, and that reflects the argument a lot of people are making. people are hurt by expressions and commons, then we have to outlaw that. we now use the s-word, the n- word. that is all a limitation on freedom. those things are offensive to

some or all of us in some way, but that is what life is about, sometimes -- to be offended. there are people that offend us. we offend people. living in a free atmosphere, you have to have a tolerance for that, or how you are going to give up an awful lot. what you also may give up is understanding what people are communicating to you because you are not speaking the same language. it is all curtailed and contained. i'm not sure it is to our benefit. i think we have to get a little tougher and realize -- and that is what we do. we pay a price for that freedom. we do. i just did it yesterday. we experienced it. we very young man from my district in arlington that died in the war. they gave us the supreme sacrifice so we could have freedoms and abilities. in a way, it is almost sacrilege that we are asking people to

give up the ultimate of life to protect freedom, and we are not utilizing that freedom. we are so willing to give it up for convenience. i'm not sure that is a healthy trade off. the fight between freedom and democracy or security and safety and democracy and freedom -- we are starting to overpower and think we should give up for safety and freedom everything that ultimately cost us democracy and cost us our freedom. >> are you able to list for me the most significant votes you took over your term in congress? >> not all of them, but clearly, one of the most important votes was when i ran for reelection, the regulatory reform bill. the reason i said that is so important is because i think we got to the genesis of what caused the recession and the

crash, and we made the curative attempts and efforts, so that will not happen for another 70 or 80 years. that is probably one of the longest-term situations that i individually have participated in. i was one of five members of congress that voted against the impeachment proceedings of president clinton, and i was proud of that because i made the decision, i think, just before an election, quite frankly, but i remember thinking that although what he did was wrong, it did not measure to an impeachable offense. i recognize that very early as a political act against him as opposed to a legal act or constitutional act, so i would go along with that vote against

it, which is interesting because it cemented a friendship that i have had with the president for a long time. he understood why and what i did, and a proved to be correct. it was quite a political risk on my part because it was overwhelming. it was not the only reason we lost the election. i concluded and that between that and the rescue of 2008, i knew that those votes could cost us for me my seat. there were so important for the country in my estimation, even though when i lost and i am sitting in my back porch on my rocker, i will chuckled because

i made the right vote. the country will say it was the right vote. i am convinced we started out saying where are we going? we're starting to have a recovery and it is because we took those failed decisions and this little boats. -- fatal votes. >> there is a debate about earmarks and the district represents has -- to represent has had challenges. you have become known as someone who can bring federal funds back. what do you think about this debate? >> it is interesting. people do not realize, all districts, congressional districts are not the same. they do not have necessarily the same towns or institutions. cambridge, mass., where you have mit and harvard, it did not need earmarks. those institutions -- you do not

need remarks. those institutions will qualify and get almost any grant that one. if you take northeastern pennsylvania, left to their own ways, they get under funded in in terms of when they apply for grants and are competitive on a competitive basis. it cannot win for a lot of reasons. experience, scholars, just good writers. they do not have. if you are writing 1000 grants a year in harvard, you do become an expert. you can write one or two grants a year in scranton or wilkes or these other institutions, you will not get that kind expertise so you are disadvantaged. you are off the beaten path. bureaucrats have to make the decisions where money goes, members of congress do not.

they are like everyone else. given a choice between ajax or ibm, they will go ibm. if you buy ibm, even if it fails, you will take not -- not to arrest. if ajax does not work, you are gone. bureaucrats are not risk takers. parikh katz -- bureaucrats do not make the money. there's a lot to be said. it can go wild and ridiculous. during the republican years, i have to confess it did. disturbingly so to the point where i was cutting down requests for earmarks. i thought it was getting rather insane with the expenditures and the type of earmarks that were being asked for. on the other hand, i have had the occasion to ask for earmarks that were acquired and created thousands of jobs and we would

have not had those jobs if we had not done it. they brought us a long way to be competitive with the rest of the country in the world because of those earmarks. i can defend either side. a lot of it depends on what district year represent. some of these, berkeley in california, a cambridge, if you come from those type of districts, you do not need earmarks. you have institutions that will get that money. >> we have two minutes. let's see, who are some of the names that you will remember most fondly from your years in congress? >> fine people. we have some great speakers. -- timill, jim wright, o'neill. i will remember bill cropp --

bill clinton. brilliant mind, extraordinary capacity to change in a just and led the country super relatively well. -- a just and leave the country well. -- adjust and lead the country well. the budget act started us on the course of decreasing expenditures and for years later, it allows this to -- allowed us to balance the budget. if we continue that policy until now, maybe two years from now, we would have paid off the entire indebtedness of the united states. under the clinton policies, two years from now, we would be a debt free nation instead of two years from now being in that somewhere around $15 or 16 trillion dollars, an almost insurmountable amount of money. people want to dream falsely

that you do not have to pay a price for savings, you do not have to turn anything away and make harsh decisions and understand how to prioritize. he did the most magnificent job. probably of all the people i have met, he would be the one i will remember the longest and cherish the fact that i had the opportunity to work closely with him on some issues. >> what is the last place you will visit as a member of congress? >> the last place in the capital -- this will not be my last visit. >> you will come under a different office. >> probably the dining room. i will have lunch there with my staff so they can remember the time when we started and the time we ended. >> our half an hour has evaporated.

thank you for reflecting on those years with this. >> my pleasure. >> republican lou barletta will succeed cantor's the -- kanjorsky wi. >> lou barletta, elected to 11th district, beating back paul can jurors a hoot represented the district for 13 terms. what are your priorities for the 112 congress? >> one of the first things that we're going to go down and do is try to get the economy going. the people of northeastern pennsylvania and around the country are clear what they want out of congress. that is to create jobs.

we need to get the debt under control and spending. there's a lot of work to do. >> one of the first votes for you and the other new republicans coming in is a vote on the debt ceiling. >> we need to wear options. we cannot defaults on our bonds -- we need to wait out the options. options. ou our i believe if congress increases the debt ceiling, there has to be caps on spending so we do not get in this problem again. >> you would like to see some sort of agreement on spending cuts and so on before you agreed to of vote to raise the debt ceiling? >> that is correct. we need to cut discretionary spending and cut out wasteful

spending and shrink government, put caps on spending so that moving forward, we correct this problem. only then would i consider raising the debt ceiling. >> what would you cut first? >> we need to look at what programs are working and what are not. if programs, we need to analyze each and every program that we have. zero based budgeting is something we need to do in the federal government. and look at discretionary spending and we need to cut there. there's no question about it. we need to get health care costs under control. fund the health care bill. there are lots of places where we can find to shrink the size of government and make government more efficient. smarter, better, and more efficient. >> some of the big health-care

costs come from entitlement programs like medicare. are you willing to make cuts to medicare and social security? >> we cannot ignore the fact that social security and the costs of medicare kicks of such a large part of the budgets and there are numbers in the budget, whatever cost to repay. it cannot balance the budget that way. eventually, we're going to have to address those problems. this congress is willing to do that. one of the things we can do is have -- make health care more affordable and less costly. we cannot ignore the fact that social security and medicare and medicaid our entitlement programs that we need to control. some of the spending -- we need to control some of the spending if we're going to get the debt and deficit back in line. >> you are known for your stance on immigration as mayor

of hazleton since 2000. what is the illegal immigration really fact backs >> it was the first of its time in the country and what it does is punishes businesses that knowingly hire illegal workers. punishes them by suspending their business license -- it punishes them by suspending their business license and punishes landlords who harbor illegal aliens, punishing them with a fine and suspending their business license. what the ordinance would do is not allow either businesses or city personnel or landlords to determine anyone's immigration status. only the federal government will be allowed to do that. this is the magnet that draws so many into the country illegally, whether it is jobs or profiting

by -- people profiting by harboring and exploiting illegal aliens. this would be a step that i believe would show how local municipalities can work in harmony with the federal government in dealing with this problem. given youre been givin committee assignments. do you plan to introduce serve -- similar legislation in the committee that you put forth in hazleton? >> the first thing i would like to do, especially on the education committee is to look where we're going with the nation. we ranked 21st and 23rd and 25th out of the top 30 developed countries. there is a lot of work to be done and i will find ways to work on illegal immigration.

we have a lot of priorities 22 address. -- priorities to address. just throwing money at a problem does not always solve the problem. we need to get education down to the state level. sure will have an opportunity to see what the role of the federal government is and what i feel the role should be. >> you're going to be serving on the transportation infrastructure committee. why do those -- where the important to your district? >> we have many infrastructure or transportation issues. monroe county is one of the fastest-growing counties.

if we're going to get the economy going and create jobs, transportation plays a role. we all know that the infrastructure of america needs a lot of work and if you have a strong -- my family was in the road building business and my wife and i had a business that dealt with transportation. when we look at creating jobs and looking at the country's future, i believe transportation and education are two key elements and i am happy to serve on those committees. >> you be back -- beat back paul kanjorsky. one of the senior house members. you ran against him two times before. why did you decide to run a third time? >> when i ran in 2008, it was a close election. this was a district that is two to one democrat and i ran as a

republican in a year that was an obama tsunami. where president obama won this district by 15 points. congressman kanjorsky beat me by three. it was such a close election, i could not sit on the sidelines. i did it again and the informant was much different in 2010 that it was in 2008. >> we read some stories about your campaign after the election being in debt. has the dead and taking care of? >> -- debt been taken care of? >> there is some small debt in this election. it is not all taken care of. >> there is one story that you

took part in a debt retirement fundraiser. there were some that have been critical of the republicans coming in like yourself, who ran against washington and its culture and after winning, turning around and taking part in a fund-raiser that was indicative of what has been happening in washington. >> these campaigns, it is difficult for challengers to take on incumbents, especially a 26-year incumbent that has all the funds needed. unfortunately, that is part of our electoral process of raising money and i certainly am one that wishes we did not have to spend as much time doing that. if we want the voice of the american people heard in washington, we want new people to go there. raising money is part of it.

we all wish we did not have to do it. unfortunately, to get your message on tv and win in a district such as this, it takes a lot of money. >> are you calling, making fund- raising calls for 2012? diorio brand has not ruled out running against duke in two years. >> i have not. i have not made fund-raising calls. i am anxious and putting a staff together. i am working for the people who elected me. i am excited about the opportunity to do that and i'm going to work hard. i will be a different type of member of congress and i will be connected to the people here. we will worry about who is running against me and re- election at that time. it is simple.

what i do a good job for the people here, they will determine whether or not they want someone else. >> describe your district. >> this district is conservative democrats. blue-collar, hard-working folks. it was a coal region. a lot of people, they are conservative democrats, reagan democrats, like to say. and fiscally conservative. and hard-working. it is an area that they want their children to stay here at home in northeastern pennsylvania. they have seen many of their children leaving the area because of lack of jobs. we have the highest unemployment rate in the state of pennsylvania in this district. many people have lost their homes in the foreclosure crisis. they were ready for change. it did not matter whether it was democrat or republican this time. they wanted someone who was

going to washington, staying in touch with the people back home and going to fight for them. it is a district, we have a lot of work to do and i am honored and privileged to go to washington and work for them. >> the census data was released this week as we talk today on december 22. redistricting will be based on this data. it is likely that the 11th district will be changed so that it is easier for you to win reelection in 2012. it is largely a democratic district. what have you heard or what do you predict will be changes to your district? >> that is out of my control. i do not know how they can make this district any tougher to win. it is to one -- two to one. there will be determined by others. we did well here in 2010.

i have good numbers in the democratic district. i am the mayor in a district that is two to one. it is what is. as long as i do a good job and create jobs for the people here and represent them well, i believe the people of the 11th congressional district will send me back. >regardless of the makeup. >> how will your experience of mayor help you in washington? >> i believe i am bringing some inequalities to congress. i was a business owner before, an entrepreneur before it became mayor. my wife and i had started the business on $29.95 and a dream and the business grew to be the largest and the six largest in the country. what we sold it when i became mayor. that experience of starting a

business and understanding what small businesses need to survive, i will be bringing those ideas to washington and as a mayor, which i still believe is the toughest political job that anyone can have. dealing with all aspects of life on the local level and what communities need for community development, dealing with budgets and mandates and regulations. and the future. those experiences that i have in dealing with a national issue that has affected my cities such as illegal immigration were had to stand up for a long time before the eyes of the nation because of the problem that we were seeing. those experiences i believe will serve me well. -- surber well in bringing a different perspective to washington. >> as a mayor, you are familiar with the budget crisis that many

cities and states are facing. republicans like yourself are talking about making major spending cuts across the board to the budget. how will you balance the need of your cities in your district with those spending cuts that you want to make here in washington? >> that is part of the perspective that i just mentioned. i will be able to bring to washington and said at the table and understand that we need to make the cuts that will bring the country back on track. what is vital for communities to survive and how difficult it is, to provide the services, that is where the services are provided. i will have that experience to weigh the effects that it will have on cities but only when we create jobs, when we grow the

economy, will cities survive. county and state and federal governments, it will be small businesses with mom-and-pop businesses that will bring this country back, not uncle sam. i will be able to bring a lot of experience to the table. >> many cities and states rely on your marks. where are you on this band? >> you cannot spend money that you do not have. that is how we got into this problem. as the christmas season is here, we would love to go to the store and buy our children and grandchildren of the gifts we want and they feel -- that they feel they need. we have to pay for it. we are at the crossroads as a nation. the question is, how long can the world's greatest debtor remained the world's greatest power? it is time to make some tough

decisions and we cannot spend money we do not have. it is just that simple. we cannot afford it. that is the attitude we need in washington if we are getting the debt under control. our deficit and budget in balance. people are buying american is that and how long will they do that? and what rates? >> can the country afford this latest round of tax cuts that were passed? >> i disagree with the terminology. they're not tax cuts we're extending, it is the tax rates that exist. can america afford a tax increase at a time when unemployment is at 10% and businesses are not investing? they cannot. we need to remove the uncertainty that has businesses handcuffs right now. if we want them to invest and create jobs, that is what we

need to have happen. we cannot raise taxes on people at a time like this. these are not tax cuts. this has been the tax rate for the last 10 years. we're talking about a tax increase and i do not believe we can afford a tax increase. >> coulas a small-business owner, put that had gone. when these tax rates have only been improved for two more years, -- approved for two more years, small business owners are thinking, what will happen in two years? >> that is right. you are correct. they will not remove the uncertainty. -- there will not remove the uncertainty that businesses need. it will help because as i just said, we cannot raise taxes as oat a time like this. part of that is a longer vision

as to what businesses are going to need. it is further than two years, health care is another issue that businesses are looking at. when they are deciding whether or not to invest or hire more people or laypeople law. these are the issues we need to look at as to what creates uncertainty for businesses and are we doing everything we can as a government to remove that uncertainty so that we can unleash the entrepreneurial spirit that made america great? >> you touched on this a little bit. you are focusing on hiring staff. have you completed your hiring? do you know where your office will be? >> i have not. i know i have been very slow in hiring our staff. as a business owner and as mayor, i understand how important is to surround yourself with a great team. that takes a little more time than just meeting someone for

the first time. we will have it done and come january, we will have a great team together. i am going to stay close to other mayors and supervisors and business leaders, the common folks in the district, making sure i am listening and hearing, making sure my staff understands that the people are our boss. that is who is paying our salaries and our job is to take their message to washington and do their work and that takes time in finding the right team. chemistry is -- plays a role in having a great team. the answer is now. i do not have anyone hired, but i will. >> have you found a place to live? >> i did. i found a place to live, so we are in the process of getting some furniture and some have a

place to sleep come january 5. it is nice, it is one block away from my office. i will not have far to go. >> any roommates? >> at a. just my wife will be ever made when she comes down to visit me and our cats and dogs. i have four daughters and a grandson. i am sure there will be times when they come down and visit me so i will not be lonely. >> lou barletta, joining us from pennsylvania. thank you for talking to c-span. >> thank you. >> next, a conversation with representative mike castle of delaware. the nine-term congressman and former governor lost his bid for the senate in the state's republican primary. this is about 30 minutes.

>> she started public service in the mid-1960s, serving as attorney general in the state senate and a two term governor. your tenure in the house of representatives. you are leaving congress now after losing the senate republican party to christine o'donnell. given your long tenure at your popularity in delaware, do you regret running for senate? >> i do not regret running for the senate. i regret how i ran for the senate. there are things we could have done differently. i do not regret running. my choices were to run for the house or retire or run for the senate. i do not regret it. it was something i thought would help the state of delaware. i thought i was ready for it and i could contribute. i had a lot of support in congress and at home.

i thought it would work out and i was caught in a movement and they were very clever, to their credit. they took me out. that is the way it happens. >> what would you have done differently and as you answer that question, i am curious as to, given you said you regret how you run your campaign, what advice would you give to a moderate republican in 2012 facing possibly an even stronger tea party type movement? >> i have given advice to people who are talking. my advice is, you should be very cautious about this. we approached it from the point of view of we will probably win the primary but christine o'donnell could stay in after have to do would with her and the democrats. we should have focused more on the circumstance.

lisa murkowski had called me after her loss and i had gotten to know her and she said be careful. she was ready but i was not. i told people to be cautious and they need to watch their voting. not that they have to go from being a moderate to being conservative. being cautious about what you are supporting and did to raise your dollars and keep your profile. keep your political profile high in your own party and go from there. anybody who believes the tea party movement and i was taken out by a group called the tea party express will go way is mistaken. maybe after a few more cycles or something. in this presidential year, they will be players in the republican party and real players in the congressional and senate seats and incumbents who

are not necessarily tied into the tea party as i was not should be very cautious about how they deal with this. >> who has been seeking your advice? >> i have been talking to a number of people. to protect the innocent, i should not necessarily mention names. it is fairly self-evident. it is moderate republicans in the house and senate are getting ready to run in the next election cycle. they have been named and threatened by tea party group's and others are concerned about it. >> given that lisa murkowski was successful, do you look back and think, i should have tried that? >> i have given thought to that. i give a lot of thought to it and decided not to do it. i felt even though i did not like it, it was not a majority of the republican party that turned out to vote, mighthe pary had spoken to a degree and that should be what we did.

i was not in a position to endorse her. i did not feel that i should interfere with the general election. the way it turned out, she was beaten so soundly, in a way i regret not getting into it for that reason. could i have one? you'll never know. that is a guess. they had a poll the week before the election showing i had a substantial lead over the democrat. i do not know if i could have run on a write-in candidacy. i had five or six people contact me and people have spoken to me since. it would have been a toss of situation. it would have been sort of fun and challenging but ultimately it might not have been as successful and it could have been a difficult experience. it is what is and i will always wonder. >> what have you served 70 years as a public servant? >> i enjoy the work greatly. i got into public service at a

young age. i was 26 when i was approached by the republican party and they asked me to run for the house. i got involved with the republicans in delaware with a couple of friends. we have done a lot to help the inner city. we helped with leagues and we had raised money. they were impressed and i knocked on doors. i did not have much of a political agenda. i was not a committed republican but i wanted to wait and that takes -- i played some sports in college and i was determined to go out there and win. i was supported and one and upset a democratic incumbent. two years later, for the state senate. it was then that i got interested in the issues. i got involved with criminal justice issues and a variety of other issues. that interest grew as time went

by and i realized you could help people. if someone called, it could reach in and deal with a bureaucracy and help people one way or another. i was delighted to do that. a retired i thought. four years after that, pete dupont called and asked if i would run for lieutenant governor. i will support you for governor. i was elected lieutenant governor. i was governor with pete support. there was still life after the governorship and decided to run for the house of representatives. i was in the house for 18 years and i have enjoyed it. people ask about those jobs and ask about what was your favorite legislation. it is often the people who help other people, it is your staff. in delaware and washington. they have reached out and help people with everything from social security to immigration issues, you name it.

that is a good feeling and i get letters from people thanking me for that service. that is an important component of being an elected statewide official. a congressman or senator or governor. people do not see you are reaching out and helping people individually. big pieces of legislation or whatever and that has been rewarding. >> a piece written by george s the statee thdoe gop turn? roth and mr. castle may have blocked the path for others." >> i do not know of that is true. i thought i first came here i would be running for the senate's and bill roth decided to run. defeatedhen tom carvekarper

him. i thought he was going to take his retirement which he did not do. i was in the gubernatorial position and ran for the house where i have been for some time. there have been openings in the tenet governor since that time. we have had some good candidates. we were not able to bring republicans along on a statewide basis. i worry about the same thing that george hill word about 2 degree. he worked for me at one point and he is a good fellow. i feel that as a whole, we have not had a blockage so much as we have had advance republicans to getting them elected. i worry about the farm team. we had a bad election.

with the only state that had a bad republican election. we were -- had democratic gains. that does not bode well for the future of the republican party. there is a lot of work to be done and i hope to be helpful with that. in the meantime, christine o'donnell and the tea party people have indicated they want to take over the republican party in delaware. i am not sure that will work in terms of getting republicans elected. that should be a matter of concern. >> what is your device to republican colleagues? >> my advise is to get things done. this was a two-year cycle in which saying no to president obama on many issues was sufficient to get many republicans elected because people did not agree with some of the spending which was going on. the deficit spending and a continuation from the republican

years. they did not agree with the health-care bill and the stimulus and some other bills. the independents who had supported obama before tended to swing over to republicans in this election. it was a bad cycle. republicans are now in charge of the house of representatives in congress and can stop things in the senate. i think there is a great necessity to work with the president in a bipartisan way, to formulate legislation dealing with the deficit issues: no and noeft behind, righ rewrite just say no. there are conservative people elected and that may be a block in terms of working with the president. we did see in the tax package which is tax reduction continuation, which is going through the senate and house

now. perhaps there is some hope we will do better. there is not a single member who does not understand the economic opportunity and jobs are number one, republican or democrat. solve that problem, you can win a lot of elections. >> what is your advice to the presumptive speaker? >> my advice is he needs to listen to everyone. he will be very forced by the conservative movement in the house republicans to be very strident by -- in terms of what he is doing. he is a dead leader and a great job on no child left behind. he did a great job of putting it together. george miller and ted kennedy. he has the capability of doing that. he has to keep his ear to the ground and work with his republican leadership but my advice is he needs to talk to mitch mcconnell and sample what is needed by republicans.

he has to stand up to some of the republicans around the country who want to go further in terms of their politics that should be for the good of the country. he needs to create legislation which is going to show he has created that economic opportunity which is important to politics. >> do you agree with the no, aramark band? >> i more or less agree with that but i -- and more about what the replacement for will be. there has to be some middle ground solution. one of them is leadership by members of the appropriations committee should not be getting big bonanzas of earmarks were as freshmen members may not be getting anything. that has got to change. they're not necessarily bad. they're not all bridges to know where. creatingixing roads,

an economic opportunity. there are some good things in the so-called their marks. unfortunately, by the way it is played in the press and political parties pointing fingers, in remarks have taken on a - connotation beyond where it should be. someone needs to figure out how can we spend money properly which is helping them in the home districts and be beneficial to the country and not just say it is an earmark and someone is trying to help themselves politically or whatever it may be. >> tax cuts. the house is about to vote on the tax-cut deal negotiated by president obama. when president bush asked for the tax cuts, you oppose the idea. you voted for it once the package was reduced to about $350 billion and included $20

billion in aid to the states. why give in your concerns about the deficit and the voters' concerns about the deficit, why are you voting for this package? >> i will vote for the package and -- because this is the set of legislation the country has been living with. i do not think in the economic times we're in today is a good time to pull the rug out from under. in better economic times, one could do that perhaps. if you do not have economic activity, you have no revenue. the need to be careful about that. i'm concerned if we increase taxes, you will affect employers and individuals who might invest money in the economy. i have not learned all the details. i have to read more. this is a limited time and this can be revisited in a couple of years and decisions can be made.

the resolution on the state tax not lowernd let's end, but people with lesser income should not have to pay. when you get to the higher estate people, there will be paying. there is some good concepts in the legislation. it does need to move forward. i am pleased that president obama and the republican leadership's sat down and worked this out. that deserves a pat on the back in terms of where the country is going. >> you have served on the house financial services committee. your republican colleagues taking over.abaccus is >> you will not roll it back. president obama is in the white

house and he can veto. spencer is correct that there are aspects of that legislation that perhaps should be reviewed. there is a good consumer affairs -- are there other things that should be looked at? i feel the same about the health care bill. you will not repeal that either. you could look at that. there are components that could be addressed, most of us feel that they could have done with medical malpractice reform which affect revenue. perhaps you could reduce some of the cost reimbursement and save money. 2000 page bills are very complicated. and my sense is, both of those bills would have been better served if they divided it into parts.

it did not happen that way. it happened in a big push to get the whole thing done. i do not think it was created the way legislation should be created. >> does congress have authority under the commerce clause? >> one thing i never wanted to be was a judge. i do not come down on any side of the mandate. i do not know what the answer to that is. if you follow the court rulings -- i assume it will be a supreme court decision before it is all said and done and we will have to live with it. i did state and i got a politically criticized for this at home. it is passed and it is a law. we need to make it work as well as possible. i still feel that way. if the court rules that will not work, someone has to go back and look can figure out how can we

do health care changes and make it work? if they say you can have the individual mandate, we need to make sure that it works as well as possible in this country. i do believe that we should keep our eyes on that legislation and make changes. i am talking about both political parties and the white house. make changes as unnecessary and make sure it is as inexpensive as possible. and move forward from there. hopefully, some people will be able to get health care who did not get it today. hopefully, there'll be some cost savings in the system. medicare and medicaid, if they continue at the rates of increase they have in recent decades, are going to be almost failed to the budget of the u.s. >> you worked with democrats on note child left behind. reauthorization happens this year. what are your concerns for this legislation?

what do you think republicans or democrats could change that should not be changed? >> i believe that secretary arne duncan has done a great job with thathat. he has been meeting with democrats and republicans to discuss the needs. we have had this meetings for year with the idea of moving legislation forward. i think there is a chance of improving the child left behind. it will be renamed. there are things that could be done as you know. the governors are making some suggestions in terms of what the standards should be and the assessment testing needs to be looked at. everyone can stay together and good legislation should come from that. this is not a republican or democratic issue. it is educating kids. everyone has to set aside the political differences and concentrate on what is we can do

to make sure we are educating as well as possible. >> iraq and afghanistan. the president is announcing his assessment. i'm curious about your vote on the search. you voted against it. some say it worked. it is what turned iraq around. do you regret that about? >> i do not regret it. i am not sure that is what turned iraq around. if it can be evidenced it did turn around, i would regret the vote. in that situation. iraq and i have been there and i felt that iraq was a manageable situation. i do not feel the same way about afghanistan. i have also been there. i read about it and i talk and listen to people who know more than i do. i am concerned about the manageability of the country. it is a tribal country, it is

not used to having central government. i do not know how we are going to be there and not have the taliban try to take over. afghanistan is worrisome. our relationship is -- with the pakistan is worrisome. i will listen to the president and critics carefully on that issue. i hope congress does as well. i believe afghanistan is problematical for a number of years to come. >> do you think that could be the issue that dominates 2012? >> it could be a significant issue in 2012. the economy is still going to be the number-one issue in 2012. i believe the afghanistan situation on the foreign policy level is going to be significant in that election. >> who would you like to see run as president from the republican party in 2012?

>> that is a good question and one i am not ready to answer. i have been impressed by mitt romney. i feel he did some good things in massachusetts. he has his feet on the ground. i believe topology -- tim pawlenty has had a good track record and has done a good job. i do not support sarah palin. edenfield she has the qualities -- i do not feel she has the qualities to be president. also she walked at of the governorship of alaska. i am not sure that the others are being mentioned are going to be able to get there. newt gingrich and mike huckabee will not get there. john doon is competent, potentially a vice president candidate. that is a possibility.

i am keeping my powder dry on that. >> all the names you mentioned sound more conservative than you. >> they probably are more conservative than i am. mitt romney has gone from being more moderate to a little more conservative. -- more conservative in recent years. my sense is that the republican candidate for president is going to be more conservative than i am. he will half to beat more conservative. i expect that person to be relatively conservative but thoughtful. -- he will have to be more conservative. he has to be thoughtful and flexible in terms of what you are doing. to work with other people. some of those individuals have that ability. >> some in the tea party movement and not want republicans to work with the

other side. can the republican candidate in 2012 ignore the tea party movement? >> you are right. they do not want anyone to work with anyone else on the other side as far as i can see. >> they would say sticking to their ideology and principles. >> that is fine. i would hope that the tea party people would understand the republican party needs to nominate a candidate who would win. that is more important than perfect ideological views from where they are coming from. we saw this in delaware. we nominated a candidate who is a tea party candidate against me and very conservative. we got clobbered in our state, one of the worst defeat ever. we saw that in nevada. it was not up to being able to

win that race. perhaps in a few other states as well. the tea party needs to be careful and traditions of their selection of candidates and what areas they go into in these various races. hopefully, this election has taught them what they should be doing. >> your are part of this launch of the no labels group. is there an evolution in your thinking? >> i have been involved in moderate republican candidate for some time. we had the tuesday group. i got involved with the founder of main street. these are fundraising entities in helping moderate candidate and i think doing a good job. the new levels is a different thing. it is starting and not a

political party. it is a movement and had its first major meeting in new york and mayor bloomberg and others, including myself spoke there at that session. their concept is we need to work together as republicans and democrats. the slogan is, "not right, not left, but for." i do not know -- there are people who are good involved with it. they have to raise substantial amounts of money. i think there is some chance they will make inroads and be a factor. >> are you helping with the effort to raise money? where are they getting this money from? >> i am not helping with raising of money. they are getting it from

individuals who are interested in terms of what they are doing. from all over the country. i do not know how much money they are getting. the people organizing it to our volunteers but there is a lot of young people who are on the staff who are paid. they're doing fairly well with that. i am not raising money. >> what is your role? >> just to do what they ask me to do. i spoke to them in a seminar. and to keep an eye on it and encourage them. i have no role and i do not expect to. >> what is next for you? >> i do not know. i've been talking to a variety of people. the first decision is, doyle lived in wilmington or washington? door have to live in washington? i have been talking to law firms

and others about working with them. i do not intend to run for political office again. that is pretty much out. my wife has made it clear. i hope to stay involved and be able to help a little bit to revive my party and the something which will keep the wolves away from the doors. >> least favorite part about congress sounds like raising money. >> it was never a favorite and i had a fellow who would help me for years with this and i did not do a lot of it directly. i really made phone calls or did any methods. that was not a favorite thing. the schedule is the most difficult part of congress. i live by train one hour and 15 minutes, an hour awaand a half y in wilmington-delaware. i was taking the train. these poor souls who live someplace in wyoming or montana where the have to fly for five

hours and drive for two and a half hours, i feel sorry for them. i give the republicans credit for leadership. they put out a schedule that is two weeks in and one week off. which would be more definitive in terms of what you are going to be doing it will be easier to plan your life. it got very tough round here. we have 15 minutes votes. the for 45 minutes. five minute votes go on for 10 minutes. i think someone ought to get everyone in that room and keep things moving. the scheduling process in congress i found to be annoying. i am not alone. you could get every single member to say the same thing. >> favorite memory. >> most the people and helping people. i enjoy that. i enjoyed members of congress, i found them to be basically diligent and honest people, both sides of the aisle.

i enjoyed having a chance to go to the white house from time to time but helping people at home was tremendously important. my staff was important. i had very good staff help over these years. that has been tremendous. i have enjoyed that greatly. it has been a fun experience. the best job was being governor. i enjoyed being governor of delaware more than anything i have ever done. >> the first line of your direct you are a descendant of benjamin franklin. >> he was my great grandfather on my mother's side. he said the gene pool dies out in three generations. it is a fun facts. >> it is something that came