canadian debt levels have risen, which is quite the opposite in most other countries. but part of that's been because of canadian income growth here remaining pretty strong. canadians have taken advantage of low interest rates. but we're looking at that carefully. we've tightened mortgage rules before. if we have to do that again we will. but nobody should be under any illusion, as much as these are concerns, the real concern is outside the border, the u.s. economy, the problems in europe. these are the big storm clouds that we have to worry about and why we engage so regularly with our counter parts on these issues. >> speaking on that subject, a risk of a european banking crisis. the u.s. unemployment rate almost 10%. they've got a huge deficit. growth is very slow. what's your prospects for the u.s. economy turning around or because we do run that risk of a double dip.

>> first, in the european situation, our european friends continue to manage those issues. they're difficult issues, there are not easy solutions. i know the minister, what he said is the same thing i say to them, the more quickly you can deal with that and the more forcefully, the better. but so far they've managed to keep things from going into the ditch. the u.s. economy i do think that the latest agreement made between the president and congress will in the short term assist the recovery in the united states. the question of the united states deficit and debt problems, which as you know are really astronomical, they remain a serious concern. at the g-20 we all agreed we should have targets to have our deficit by 2013 and to eliminate them really by 2016. stable, at least stabilize our debt gdp ratios. canada is going to achieve that

by next year but countries like the united states need to have plans. unemployment would probably be higher if it weren't for the fact that a lot of young people and middle age people have sort of given up looking for work. i know governments are not always the solution, but surely you must be looking at some ways to get these people working. maybe it's retraining programs or something to -- because we need some hope. . .

we can do to continue to broaden the economy to create jobs and do so in ways that is affordable as we move forward. >> we have a very big deficit. you have been talking about how you want to get the deficit under control. we are in a minority government situation. are you willing to pay the painful cuts that may be necessary in the upcoming budget or run the risk of losing your government? >> let's be clear about canada's financial situation. it is far better than anyone. our deficit levels are a fraction compared to other countries.

we have got a low level of debt stocks so we do not have an interest payment spiral problem. what we have said is that we have to control our spending. the stimulus programs are ending. we have a wound most of those up as we said we would. it going forward, we have to be sure that any spending we do is targeted on the economy and job creation. we are not going to be slashing health care or education. obviously, we have to make sure that spending is done in priority areas. if we do that for the next few years, we should see enough growth to close the deficit gap. that is what we need to do in canada. it is not a matter of dramatic draconian cuts. >> and there are a huge political expectations surrounding your budget.

>> we are a minority parliament. there is always that risk. i think the canadian public has been pretty clear. they think the economy should be focused -- they think politics should be focused on the economy and on jobs. i don't think canadians want an opportunistic election for -- the government will do what is in the best interest of the economy, and that is focusing on the budget. that is why we are consulting with individuals across the country. >> we will be right back with more. >> still to come, a very special guest. >> mrs. harper, thank you so much for joining us. >> in our private life, that is what we do. >> we now return to

"conversation with the prime minister." >> i am originally from canada but i have lived a lot of time in the united states. i want to know why canadians suck up to the united states so much and in general have a lot of resentment towards them, a big contradiction. >> probably inexplicable because we have been talking for so long, but you and americans are envisioning a new vision for the border. what exactly does it mean? >> if i could respond to the comment because i certainly know there is ambivalence in our relationship. i tell foreign leaders that the americans are our best friends

whether we like it or not. i don't think that is the way most canadians actually think. we understand the united states is a great friend, a great neighbor, and we are very fortunate to have the relationship with the americans that we do. at the same time, canadians do not want to be americans. our economies are widely integrated. in the post cold war era, in the post-9/11 area, we face tremendous security threat. they are largely the same. obviously, we are trying to work with our american friends to see how we can strengthen our security and economic arrangement in a way that protects our interests and sovereignty but also protect the market. >> moving across the border has

been hampered since 9/11. are we doing this for americans concerned about security or to get our goods to flow more freely? >> we are looking at ways we can enhance both our mutual security and the economic access we have with each other's economies. i think all london -- i think all canadians are worried about access to the american market. >> the first question that comes to a lot of people's minds is are you going to be harmonizing policies? this is the whole question of sovereignty. it is that on the table? >> as you know, we are talking about making some changes ourselves. i think canadians are pretty concerned when they see a boat loads of people being smuggled into this country from overseas, just planting on our shores, of violating all of our immigration

rules. i think canadians are pretty concerned about that. i don't think we need the united states to tell us we need to be concerned about that. we have seen the things change before. we are going to continue to push that legislation forward. >> are you going to make that a confidence vote? >> one of the things i have tried to do to make this minority situation work a little better, i am not the one going around making threats. i don't think that is helpful. i think canadians understand this is it serious threat to the security of our country, to have boatload of people coming here, of violating all of our rules. i think they expect

parliamentarians to take that seriously. >> prime minister, just coming back for a moment, i know you have apparently been having one- on-one talks with president obama on this issue. is there -- i have seen a draft copy of it. are you looking -- is it looking like we are going to have an agreement in the new year? >> i cannot tell you. alike until you is that we are continuing to talk and looking at a range of ways to secure access to the american market. we have been on this tact of fairness since mr. martin assigned the economic and security partnership with the united states and mexico. that was a firmer that was set up back in 2005 -- that was a framework that was set up back in 2005.

we have a special relationship with the united states that is frankly not similar to the problems of the u.s.-mexico border. we are trying to manage their relationship in a way that secures our privilege, economic position, access to the american market, and also our security, but we still have a ways to go before i can tell you about that. >> the document was leaked -- >> i don think i have seen the leaked document but i know we are having these discussions, and i don't think it is a secret that this government wants to enhance the relationship with the united states. >> is it going to be talked about in the house? >> obviously, it changes to the law would go to parliament. >> is there the possibility that the government -- >> look, you have to talk to the

opposition. as i said, canadians want us to govern and focus on the economy, jobs, and i think they have given that message to all parties. that is what is going to be this party is a focus. >> we will continue the conversation right after we take this brief timeout. >> still to come -- >> we will not give any money to any element of the government we believe is a corrupt. >> we now return to "conversation with the prime minister." >> we would obviously like to see some form of support continue. >> many of our allies would like to extend the combat mission. >> i am from montreal.

and like to know when -- i would like to know when our boys can come home from afghanistan. >> it is like a never ending situation. >> even though combat troops are coming home, there will be a non-combat mission extending to 2014. what prompted you to change your mind on that to extend the present in afghanistan to 2014? >> the combat mission is in the next year, two-thirds of our forces coming home at that point. i looked at the situation on the ground and became convinced that to really honor and inshore the value of the sacrifice that has been made, we needed to do a further transition phase to help further train afghan forces.

it costs money but the risk to canadian lives is relatively small. so i think all things considered this is the best way to go forward. several in the opposition party agreed with us. i think most analysts agree with us. i think the military is very comfortable with this decision. i would just say this. you just used the term "lost cause." i think that is unfair. we should not underestimate gains better being made. i just talked to the investor yesterday about the gains being made in terms of education, immunization, irrigation, all the things we are focusing on to improve people's lives. the afghan security forces, the military -- they are becoming more robust. although i know it has been very difficult, we know that if we

just leave afghanistan to fall into chaos, we know it will come back to haunt us. i think all of the allies are determined to ensure that will not happen, that afghanistan will be a place that can manage its own security sufficiently to not allow it to again become a threat to global security. that is our objective and i think it is a very achievable objective. >> there is a clear division in the country. are you confident you can bring people along with this? >> i think polls have shown that the majority of the canadian people support this objective, which is to leave, but to leave in a way that does not cause immediate collapse, to continue to make sure the afghan people are taking greater control of their security forces. >> some are saying -- are we not

looking at rural leaders, yourself included, with what we ourselves can see that violence is far worse than it has ever been. aid workers are fighting. the taliban seem to be in greater control. i don't see how you think things are better. >> they are certainly saying there is the tempo of the conflict in some regions of the country is higher now than what it has been. part of it is because there is a very aggressive american surge pushing back on the taliban. that should not blind us to the real improvements that have been made. there are farmers and others who are seeing the beginnings of economic activity. and these are games. there are a lot of problems and a lot of security risks. there are a lot of problems with

the afghan security itself. >> talking about gains, one family has certainly gained a lot. we hear from the u.s. cables and wikileaks that president karzai's family, the biggest drug dealer there. are we propping up a corrupt regime? >> quiet don't think we have ever been silent about the fact of corruption in afghanistan. that is not to say that everybody in afghanistan is corrupt. the a canadian university. there are a lot of people who

are not corrupt, and this government, when we give assistance in afghanistan, we make sure our assistance goes to agencies that are not corrupt. we will not give any money to any element of the government we believe is corrupt. >> we see from wikileaks that president karzai's brother muscled in [unintelligible] >> security is essential around construction work. all of our construction contracts -- these things are done according to government guidelines. >> we have been kicked out of the camp in dubai, largely because of the initial landing rights in canada. this apparently is going to cost several million dollars extra, trying to get our equipment out.

is there a possibility that we could come to some compromise on the additional rights? >> the lease expired. we had a least that base, and the uae came to us with a proposal that was not in our best interests. we were prepared to make a compromise. i don't think we can be in a position as a country, where we, as part of doing our part as an international mission, we have men and women putting their lives on the line. we cannot use that to have our airline interests threatening canada. that is not a reasonable situation. i do not think we would ever want to be in a position subjected to the pressure of. >> other arrangements means getting our materials in there somehow.

it is going to be much more difficult in other ways. what is the plan? >> the military has already put into affect its other options. there are other routes. that is the cost of military missions. we are not in afghanistan so we can start negotiating how the canadian airline functions. that is not a reasonable demand. >> how do we get the heavy combat equipment out that has to leave next year? we are not going to take it to pakistan, are we? >> the military has plans for that. one of the first things our government did was to purchase as the airlift aircraft so we have the capability. >> finally in this segment, let's ask about the measure of success that you will be looking at in 2014, the measure of

success that is going to get canada -- >> i think the measure for all nato countries has always been in afghanistan that is sufficiently capable of managing its own security so it cannot be a safe haven for global terrorism. we are building up security forces in that direction. i think everybody believes this is an achievable goal by 2014, but we are phasing out already pretty steadily. the americans said they will do the same thing next year. it -- is afghanistan going to be a model western democracy in 2014? i don't think every book -- i don't think anybody believes that. of course, longer-term, we are going to continue to be there in aid and in development capacities to assist the

development of good government and to help ordinary people who have had pretty terrible lives in that country. >> we will be right back with more in our conversation with the prime minister. >> still to come, the woman behind the prime minister. >> how have you had to adjust your life? >> "conversation with the prime minister" continues. >> they want us to be in this house at work. this long, and registry is wasteful. >> $16 billion. >> mr. prime minister, i am asking you if you frown on decreasing the deficit by raising everyone's taxes in. >> i would like to know when you are going to do to win my vote for the next election.

>> there is the essence of their right there, prime minister. >> parliament resumes on january 31. will there be an election? will you be shoveling your cabinet? -- shuffling your cabinet? what are you looking forward to? >> we have a good a forward- looking agenda for some time, and i am looking forward to seeing parliament january 31. early in the year, i will be making some cabinet changes. we will be doing that. i think i told you already to not ask me about elections. i think canadians understand it is not the time for political gains. it is a very challenging situation globally.

we are going to bring forward a budget that is going to be focused on the economy and jobs and also in a way to make sure our deficit continues to be managed and continues to fall going forward. >> you have no seats in newfoundland. have you thought about picking up the phone and saying would you like to run for us in the next election and put him in his cabinet to sweep newfoundland? >> i talked to danny. you should know that i congratulated him in spite of our differences, which are legendary. i think premier williams has really done and a store job for the people of newfoundland and labrador it -- has really done it a good job for the people of newfoundland and labrador. i think he identified for

himself that this was the time to move on. i would always love to have a star conservative from newfoundland. >> in this parliament has runout. >> he has been saying that since the spring of 2009. i think, for other canadians, they are not looking for opportunistic elections. they are looking for canadians to be focused on the economy and on jobs. we would be happy to hear their ideas and. >> you want us to continue governing. that means you are going to have to work out an arrangement. that negates your whole story line, which is there is this coalition of opposition parties that you want to run with in the next election. >> my position since i have

been prime minister for five years now is that we do not go cut deals to govern with opposition parties we don't make deals with people like that to run the country. what we do is say we are open to hear their ideas. we come forward with what we believe is best for the country, and then parliament has to make its own decisions based on that. i have said all along -- as you know, i am running along a minority government in canadian history. the reason that is the case is not because we make deals with the opposition. we make sure we serve the needs of the american people to serve the country. >> we know we are not going to get you to say -- >> you are going to get me to say that i am not going to call an election. we are not bringing forward that

-- we are committed to governing. we do not need an election. canada is in a very good position for the long term but we need to stay focused on that and not screw around with a lot of political gains. >> you are doing well in the latest polls, but at the same time, you are not kissing a 40%. so, how are you going to break through and get about 40%? can you give us an idea of the strategy? >> lloyd, i will worry about that when an election comes at britis. i remember the polls before my first election. the polls said and i cannot get over 10%. when we ran elections in 2004,

2006, they said we cannot do over 30% 10. we will deal with that when the time comes. >> are we going to have an election in 2011? >> you know, i have said this before. i spent some years being a political analyst. i know now i am not a political ananalyst. we are always ready, but it is not in the country's interest, and we will not be provoking it. i think if the opposition coalition gets together to provoke an election because they think [unintelligible] i think the public will punish them for that. >> if you lose the election, would you stay on as leader? >> we have not had an election yet, lloyd. >> prime minister, it has been

great talking to you. in our next segment, we are going to be joined by laureen harper. stay with us a. >> when we return -- >> it is hard to keep secrets in this town. >> we now return to "conversation with the prime minister." ♪ [applause] >> future generations must never forget the heroism of our ancestors. we know all about the sacrifice it takes to have a family member in politics. >> mrs. harper, thank you so much for joining us. what a pleasure to have you here. you have been right up front with your charities and causes

this year. how do you choose which charities you want to support? >> a lot of it is random, people i meet, people i talked to. for instance, last year i was at a ranch in alberta and i were shown a beautiful letter from the mother of a soldier. a group people in the region together and make blankets for soldiers when they are injured, basically right on the battlefield almost. this soldier loved his blanket. don't put their name on it. they just send them off and hope they are given. this mother wrote a letter and found out from a tag that was sewn on the blanket. the mother was just thankful. i looked at the weather -- the letter and it was just wonderful. we invited them for coffee. we took some pictures and send

them back to all of these people. there are many groups like this all across canada doing things for no glory. i just love that, to be able to let the people know in that small town that their work was appreciated. those are the ones that i loved the past, people shining lights. a lot of it is a lot of charity, and they get no recognition. >> what a wonderful gesture. we understand, also, that you have been quite instrumental, if i may say that, in helping the prime minister move forward with his musical career, profiting him to step up at the national arts center. this latest performance, which everyone is talking about, do

you actually talk to him about this type of thing? >> anybody that knows us knows that any time we have a party he gets on the piano. we have a drum set in the corner as well as guitars. in our private life, that is what we do. >> every night? >> yes, pretty much every night. anyway, i think that is his personal side. i think he is happiest playing the piano. he loves music. i like surprises at she is very opinionated about song selection. >> i think he is pretty good. >> you are right.

>> it is hard to keep secrets in this town. >> you are involved in two of the most dangerous sports -- politics and motorcycle driving. a lot of people do not know this but you are whipping around the streets in ottawa with a motorcycle. why did you take of that sport? >> i grew up in the country and we always road near pikes -- we always rode dirtbikes. i think i got my first motorcycle when i was 10 years old or 11 years old. i love them and i have liked them ever since. it is the freedom. that is what sen like. >> do you ever give your husband on a motorcycle? >> just once. it was on an atv.

he said it was fun. of course it is fun. >> right here where we are, one of the benefits of being prime minister of canada. >> isn't it beautiful? >> a lot of adjustment. how have you had to adjust your life to be the wife of the prime minister? >> i had to go from being a working mother and having a business in a town where i knew everybody and had lived for almost my whole life to moving somewhere far away, far away from friends and family, so you have to start again. people are diplomats and soldiers and stuff like that all the time, so we had to do that. it was hard the first year. i have a lot of great friends here and we have a great life

here pretty quick and the children? >> they go to public schools up the street. they have their friends and. >> can they really have a normal life as kids do? >> yes, they do. there are kids coming and going all the time. he will come in the house and there will be shoes at the door. there will be so many issues that you cannot get the door open. it is like everywhere else. the kids coming go all the time. >> they have the same friends and of had the same friends for years at. >> and they have never come home one day and say that they wish you were never prime minister. >> it does not affect them very much. they go to school and have their friends. they do their music lessons.

they do whatever other kids do. they are like everybody else. >> what has been your most awful experience as the prime minister's wife? >> that is a tough question. you get to me very interesting people. you can invite -- when nickelback played in ottawa, we invited them over for pizza. all of the kids of the neighborhood were outside and excited, not because of my husband or anything, but because nickelback was in town. it does not matter. if you like music and you like what these people do, we get to me these great people. >> you are in a position where, not everybody, but almost anyone

in canada he would like to meet, if to say i would like to meet them, you can meet them. you have that opportunity. >> last night, the canadian tenors' came over. lots of fun. we are very lucky in that way. >> how do you feel about hockey? we had the prime minister talking about the stray cats that come in. are you interested in those subjects as well? >> cats more than hockey. >> i will watch a hockey game like anybody else. we had a big party. we had the stanley cup come to our house the one day. we had about half the neighborhood there. that was fun. the other -- i love animals.

i grew up in the country. we sent them back to the humane society last week. somebody adopted and adorable bluecat with blue eyes. probably close to 150. >> 150? whoa. >> there are a lot of cats in although what. >>-- ottawa. >> i want to know when he hangs up the shingles, would you decide to run for politics? >> i know you are never supposed to say never, but i say never, never. >> she is a great advisor.

>> pretty astute, politically. >> yes. >> when it finally comes to an end, how will you look back on it? >> it is a great experience. we have a great time. we do and a lot of fun family things. >> we keep saying to ourselves that when it does end, we are going to do the next thing. you see too many political leaders, whether because of happiness or unhappiness, they want to keep fighting the battle for the rest of their life. i hope we can go on with the next phase of our lives when this ends, but we will never have opportunities like we do now. >> has the experience of being the prime minister strength and the relationship? it is so stressful and you are

always under the spotlight. >> well, we have a strong relationship. to be frank about it, the demands are all on laureen. she is a very giving person. she allows me to concentrate fully on the job than other things. she does not put a lot of demands on me. it is one of the reasons why i have been successful in this business. in other situations, it would've been much more onerous. the house i a assumable be doing a lot of payback for many years. >> we want to wish you on behalf of all of our viewers and crew here on ctv the best of the holidays. we will see you in the new year. >> merry christmas and happy new

year to you and all of your families and. >> "conversation with the prime minister" will return in a moment. >> as we close out the special occasion, i can tell you this will be my last conversation with the prime minister. 21 of them now, through four prime ministers, a rare privilege for me. i have enjoyed every moment. >> it is an honor for me to be with you for these last five years doing interviews. i will miss you an awful lot. this is a minority parliament. his fate will be decided by the opposition party. >> anything can happen. have a wonderful holiday. thank you very much. good night.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> c-span is original documentary on the supreme court has been newly updated. sunday, you will see the grand public places it. and you will hear about how the court works from all the current supreme court justices. also, learn about some of the court's recent developments. eric for the first time in high definition, sunday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span.

monday -- americans for tax reform host a debate. live, monday from the national press club at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. on december 6, gov. sean parnell in juneau,n i alaska. he has held the office since july 2009 when sarah palin resigned. his speech is approximately 15 minutes. >> please help me welcome my friend, the 10th person to serve

as your governor of the state of alaska, the hon. sean parnell. [applause] >> that film just captured the fastness and the majesty of our great land, and i am thankful to be among the great people. thank you, john, mr. chief justice, thank you. lieutenant governor, thank you for agreeing to serve in this place. cabinet members, i thank you for being here and agreeing for service will. my beloved wife and best friend,

sandy, grace and rachel, thank you. i also want to welcome the consol of the russian federation and the consol of the republic of india. i think you for being here. the lieutenant governor mentioned the great work of another lieutenant governor, lieutenant governor campbell. i gave our lieutenant governor campbell a standing ovation because i know he often labors without being recognized for what they do. so i said thank you to attend a gov. campbell. we will miss you and we very much appreciate your service. thank you. [applause]

102 inspiring years, doctor. 102 more? [laughter] which is what to honor you two. what can i say? i stand before you with a grateful heart, thankful for the trust that you bestowed on me and the lieutenant governor. today, we celebrate alaska. we celebrate our people, our land, and our legacy, and we give thanks for the work ahead, for creating paths of opportunity for alaskans, accessing alaska is a vast resources, protecting the most vulnerable among us, and creating that transformational educational environment for our children. we relish this work and face these challenges with confidence because we are building on a firm foundation.

and abolitionist one said great men are rarely isolated mountain peaks. they are the summits of the mountain ranges. the men and women of alaska who work every day to make this date great. we remain grateful for our state's constitution pioneers. these good people steered us to statehood and shaped our destiny. we also honor and remember alaskans who we have recently lost, those mountaintops of leaders, like senator ted stevens. statehood champion george rogers. we lost law enforcement officers this year. all in the cause of freedom to allow us to be here safely today. we now turn to the future. we are alaska.

the land of the bundy resources and incomparable beauty. we are alaska, home to the strong and brazilian people that we are -- we are alaska, home to the strong and resilient people that we are. we set our course and determine our future, but to do so we must understand the challenges ahead of us. i think we know them. they are familiar to this people. our message to washington is clear. this country was founded on and made great by the principles of the self rule in determination. as ron reagan noted, the federal government was created by the state -- as ronald reagan noted, the federal government was created by the state and not the

other way around. [applause] with the government attempts to move adversely against interest, we will flock it. we will figh tit. -- we will fight it. [applause] alaskans are hard-working. we are smart. we possess something that is in short supply in washington -- common sense. we know best how to write our economy. we will work to fill the pipeline, reduce taxes, build roads into more private-sector jobs. we will be disciplined in their spending and focus on results for you. a great place to start is our land. for too long, and under resources have been locked up. we must have access to our own lands. it is time to put alaskas

resources to work for alaskans. it is time to provide more affordable resources to our community. it is time to help america and its dependency on foreign resources. [applause] with those goals in mind, we will tap the best energy potential of our waters. we will harness our wind for rural power and we will unleash trillions of cubic feet of natural gas into a natural gas pipeline. [applause] four years, alaskans have hoped for a gas line. today, it is within reach. it is our place in history to have had not won, but two successful open seasons. it will be our place in history

to seize the moment and get a gas line. [applause] but still, our objective is far more than mere economic growth. our vision is about our people. because happiness cannot be measured in dollars. today, to many alaskans live in fear. to many suffer from a domestic violence and sexual assaults, and to many families no despair and hopelessness. in our vision, alaskans live free of fear, every day with hope and opportunity. the doctor has cleaned a lot of wisdom in his 102 years, and he has a saying. "respect people, respect yourself, too, and other people

will respect you." we embrace the traditional value of respect because every person carries the spark of dignity ignited by our maker. increasing respect for ourselves and respecting others and power us and it powers us. it frees us appear so we can act. i am so proud of the group of high-school students. they already exist it is characteristic of taking action. they have been mentored since sixth grade to recognize the warning signs of isolation, bullying, and even potential suicidal tendencies amongst their peers. they have been trained to help in step forward if a bad problem becomes worse. they are inquisitive it. they want to know more about how to help. they are concerned about their classmates. we applaud their parents, their

school district leaders who have helped shape them. they represent a bright future for alaska. i know they will make a difference because they act. they are alaskans. they act in order to improve the lives of their friends, families, and classmates. we will do no less, achieving economic growth and good and strong families. it requires an comparable commitment -- it requires an unbreakable commitment of all alaskans. we will fight alongside you can fight for you. we will fight for a better alaska, and that is the promise. [applause] we will work to ensure that every child has a safe home. once our children feel safe, they are free to learn. our goal is a transformational

education for every child, one that prepares them for jobs and life. when we raised the bar, our kids stepped up. all across the state this year, our young people are taking more courses so they can qualify for alaska scholarships by completing a more challenging curriculum. by doing this, every alaska high-school student can earn a scholarship. in our elementary schools, we will and the social promotion of our students from one grade to the next. we will help them get the skills to move up and renew our focus on literacy in the early years. we will not enable complacency in academics when it comes to our future. you have heard it said. our people are our future. it is true. you are the very heart and soul of this land. we have a majestic mountains and beautiful animals, all resources

god-given for us, but this is about us as a people. we see inspiring examples of you in the state daily. in anchorage this year, we saw alaskans literally lift the wings of a plane to rescue members of the family trapped in said. another alaskan friend of mine courageously spent the night on the mountain, attending serious injuries while grieving the loss of her friends in a plane crash. two others lay down their lives for their community. these hometown heroes did what many say they would have done in the same situation, whether bringing food to a sick neighbor, volunteering in our schools, or running desperately needed ceram hundreds of miles across the state by dog team.

this selfless this, this willingness to act, this is what makes us a great people living in a great land. these traits defined alaska and the administration as well. in the days to come, we will tackle the task of growing our economy to leadership and action. we will say no to federal encroachment and say yes to on locking our resources for alaskas benefit. we will create opportunities for alaskans. the lieutenant governor, my cabinet, and i, we served because we love alaska. we love our people, our lands, our history, and we love who we can become as the people in the future. our vision for alaska is one of economic opportunity, access to our resources, safety for all alaskans, and a transformational

education for our children. we do not embark on this journey alone. wheelock arms and join hartwig you, our fellow alaskans. -- we lock arms witand join hearts with you, our fellow alaskans. alaskans, set your hand and face to alaskas future. it wrong with me to take responsibility for it. these are your resources. be bold, innovative, make the difference. we are alaska. that is what we do. thank you and god bless. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> and activist is on "book tv"

this sunday. she is the author of eight books. and joined our three-hour conversation with your phone emails, and tweets. >> maturity and a time of anchor, leadership in the time of uncertainty, that is what the nation asks of the net state senate, and that is what this office demands of each who serve here. >> search for farewell speeches and hear from retired senators in the c-span3 deal library. more than 160,000 hours, all on line, all free. is washington, your way.

>> now conversation with an author and radio talk show host from friday's "washington journal." this is about 45 minutes. public service. -- created by cable. host: welcome back. we are joined by bill bennett. like to talk about on this new year's eve. -- a lot to talk about on this new year's eve. let's look at the spending budget, which is the next big battle that this congress will be facing. what is going to happen? guest: i do not know, but i understand that wednesday, the session will start with a reading of the constitution. i think john der is going to read the constitution to set 8 -- john boehner is going to read the constitution to set a standard, if you will. but then the challenge will be to look at spending.

we had a young staffer at empower america who came to work with jack kemp and me in the 1990's. we thoht he was very talented and capable. he will be -- he will become the budget committee chairman in january. that is where the action will be. attacking the deficit has got to be done. starting tomorrow, a 10,000 baby boomers today will hit age 65. we go the demands on medicare. if we do not get things under control it will be 20 cents on

the dollar. do we want to be increased or one of these basket case countries? no. that will be a focus. the other will be to focus on obama care. this is one of the reasons republicans did so well in november. it is something that motivates a lot of people. it brought a lot of people here. public opinion is hardening against it. i do not think you will see it repealed because as i keep reminding people, though i was pleased with the november results, there are three branches of government and republicans have control of one branch out. host: you pointed out the bill clinton and george w. bush are among those hitting age 65. you are talking about the third or fourth real of american politics. social security, medicare, medicaid. how you tacklehat? guest: let me say, because he

touched it early on. he came up with something called the road map. it is on line. paul ryan's roadmap. a lot of people ran away from him as fast as they could. but he did not get electrocuted. in fact, a lot of americans said it was an hones approach. he even got approach by some on the left saying, this is not the way we want to go, but it is a candid and honest approach. the bipartisan deficit commission, which had serious recommendations -- i remember reading the economists on both its recommendations and on ryan's recommendations, saying, these are serious proposals. you may not like them, but they are serious proposals. when alice rivlin, a well-known

democrat, from a think tank, when she said that action needs to be taken on medicare, then you will have bipartisan action. host: political posted a story by someone who was traveling with the president. are we seeing an effort toward transparency with his religious -- with the president's religious beliefs? guest: i think it is good to see the president professing faith. i think it reassures of

americans. -- a lot of americans. i do not know the soul of the man, but i think it reassures people if they can believe it is sincere. host: you indicated this earlier, but the constitutionality ruled that the house is going to implement, making sure that each bill is presented in the house, is somewhere included in a constitution. how do you deal with that ... guest: it is not easy. -- how do you deal with that? guest: it is not easy. we are not a pure democracy. we are conitutional republic. they wanted two houses of representation. they wanted one that would immediately reflect the citizens, which was the house.

and then there was the senate that could slow things down if they were doing to could evade -- too good of a job. host: 2 good of a job? guest: sometimes. i think the question you are getting out is, will the congress, where the new members -- or the new members -- i do not think we have never seen a better team on the field than this group coming in. energetic, smart, a lot of conviction. but as they look at these -- this legislation, they are going to ask, based on constitutional legislation. will they go to the supreme court? obviously, these are debatable

positions. quote ben franklin in your book. what would you think? -- what would he think? guest: i have an old friend that says any time you ask a founder of what they think of things now, they would just be flabbergasted. adams was make -- was very skeptical. he thought that maybe we could last 150 years. we pulled it off a lot longer than a lot of people thought we would. host: this book is now in paperback, but what motivated you to put it together? guest: the motivation came from

a colleague of mine who worked with on a book ck in the 1990's. john had this idea and came to me and asked me if i would join the eort. the idea is to have a day for each date on the calendar. what happened on that day? we highlight one event that happened on that day and then we have the history parade, other things like sports and other things. the most controversial thing in the book is the 50 great american movies. there is a lot of disagreement. everybody has been to the movies and has this agreement. host: and your opinio guest: i start with the western because they are so very american. one of the ones i put in there that a lot of people did not like was "independence day." it is a new movie and i like the fact that, as we would say now -- and modern jargon is very

inclusive in terms of its heroes, but it is also about the american spirit. you get pushed, and you fall down, and you get back up and you win. host: i have heard the comment about the new "true grit" that you cannot duplicate what was done with john wayne. guest: i have not heard -- seeing it. bridges is a fabulous actor. host: the next big battle for the republican party is the chairmanship of the rnc. michael steele is being challenged by at least five contenders. are you watching the race? guest: i am watching it, not all that intently. i recommended michael steele. i was one of the people

supporting michael steele because i thought it was a good idea. he is a marylander. my wife is a marylander. i heard him speak in prince george's county and thought he was very impressive. i think he has done a good job. i think we probably need new leadership. i think a number of the criticisms are fair. michael an i are very close. host: will he be reelected? guest: i do not think so. it is possible. he has a fair amount of criticism of him. . . >> you have said repeatedly that you are not a candidate. >> i am not a candidate, heavens

no. this reminds me of a conversation i had with phil gramm. he said, i am going to have a 150 receptions over the next two months and i cannot wait to get to each of them. i thought, i would rather die than go to 150 receptions. somebody asked him if he wanted to be a presidential candidate. they said, do you want to meet all of these folks? he said, i wrote would love to. that is important if you want to be president. i like to talk to people on the radio. but we have too much talent on the field. i would not even think about going in. host: who do you like? guest: i'm not sure that the top candidates w

>> romney, beginning rich. huckabee, palin. plus, the a tons of gornors. i moderated a panel of the republican governor association. mitch daniels, bobby jindal. chris christie. rick perry. they are very impressive. i also lked at people like ryan. the rules have changed and barack obama had something to do with that in terms of how long someone has to serve to throw your hat in the ring. here is the point about ryan -- and i'm not predicted. it is just that he is in some ways the man of the moment given the issues and as chairman of the budget committee. will -- whether he runs or not it is worth talking about him

some because i think candidates will cite him either critically if they are opposed because of the serious proposals he has recommended, or they will cite him in support of what he is doing because he's leading the charge. he is the architect or will be the architect of the republican budget. and this is issue number one, two and three. host: we e talking politics and policy. looking at 2010 and ahead to 2011 with bill bennett radio talk show host and former reagan education secretary and author of 20 books? >> yes. could we mention director of drug control because it has fallen off the map and the numbers are all, terrible. use of drugs by kids is climbing again and attention needs to be paid. host: we will draw more attention of that in the next 40 minutes. scott joins us from sun prairie, wisconsin. democrat line. caller: good morning. ho are you ing? you are awesome.

have you ever been to paul ryan's district here? guest: severaltimes. caller: yes. if you have been there you know it is a pretty depressed area. the general motors plant is gone. all the small businesses totally gone. all the jobs have been shipped to china. you know tha the communities that depended on union jobs in this district are gone. guest: people pretty upset with it? host: you love breaking up and destroy unions. you want people working for minimum wage. if you want to tie that in and talk about the founders of the country, they re more worried about all of you having all of the money and giving nothing back to the working person. that is all i have to say. guest: wait, let me ask you

something. are people pretty upset about the circumstances and conditions? caller: yes. absolutely they are upset. guest: why do they keep putting paul ryan in office with 70% of the vote? host: because they watch fox news and are uninformed. guest: see this is one of the problems that peopl say well they are all brainwashed. i don't see that about democrats. i'm not a liberal democrat. i used to be. i don't think you should accuse people of being brain washed. i take barack obama seriously. i think he is mistaken on a lot of things. i think nancy pelosi and harry reid are but i take them seriously. i don't think they are brainwashed. i think they are mistaken. this community has been hit as all of america has been hit. but it is interesting because it is a swing district. when paul ryan ran for this

seat, or considered running he called me up and said should i do it, it is a tough district. i said you should, you a talented and you have good ideas and i think he wins with about 70%. that tells youing. host: bob is next in conway, arkansas, republican line. caller: good morning and happy new year to you both. the man mentioned a couple of ings. in the 1980's and 1990's i was a prosecutor in arkansas and saw how much good the drug task forces did and saw people who were politicians come out and discuss the drug issue. i'm a republican. i don't hear any of our people coming out and discussing the drug issue. i'm not talking about whether this or that but the drug issue and educating people. i see it here in arkansas. in about a week there will be an organization going to the capitol build and instead of a display ofow great medical marijuana is when the experts say you don't need it.

another issue i would like for you to discuss that and secondly on the issue of other issues that republicans care about. we used to talk aut liberal judges. my gosh, the two that obama put on the supreme court are just as liberal as possible. we need to discuss that. we need to discuss certain things involving affirmative action and set-aside. i think we forgot what they used to call some of the reagan issu. i wonder if you can discuss the marijuana thing, which would be a horrible mistake. en also the other issues that i think our party seems to have forgotten about. guest: fair enough. there is not lot of talk and both parties have pretty much ignored this issue. there are a couple of people who are interested in it. more attention needs to be paid. i used that line from "death"def a salesman"" attention must be paid. host: back to the movies. guest: well, that is a stage

play but it was made into a movie. i took heart from the fact that the initiative to legalize marijuana in california was defeated in california and noting that california got almost everything else wrong by my view. i s surprised by that but heartened. that tells you even in california you have something like 32% or 33% of high school seniors saying they have used marijuana easily. that is powerful marijuana. two or three times more powerful than the late 1960's or 1970's. people don't realize there are more kids in treatment for marijuana. it impairs judgment and memory. it impairs concentration. we don need more of that. i remember what the gentleman was talking about. i remember working with u.s. attorneys when i was the drug czar, like jeff sessions now the

senator from alabama. and others. and lots of of democrats. i worked with charlie rangel. he was chairman of my subcommittee when i was drug czar. we worked effectively. by the way, the years that we had bipartisan support and cooperation on this, 1989, 1990, up to 1992, drug use went down about 350%, which is a big deal. you will never get it to zero. but the country was attuned to it. you couldn't put on tv without seeing somebody diving into an empty swimming pool or two fried eggs in a pan and this is your brain on. this will light up the lines and people will say why not make it handier. before you jump into the breach talk to parents of kids who have had drug issues. it is an education everybody needs. host: during the first bush administration a viewer saying

the war on drugs is a failure. how would you fix it? guest: it is not a failure. you had very high drug use in the late 1970's and early 1980's. you have drug use down -- i'll trying to remember -- something like 22 million users if my numbers are correct. by the time you got to 1992 it was down to 10 or 11. that is a big deal. the number of users were down, number of regular users was down. the priceas up and the purity was down. we went after the cocaine and the big guys. the united states did with the brave people of colombia and it made a difference. you don't want another crack epidemic. you do not want to see this map to our cities. and here were some very important common grounds i had with people le charles wright who represented a district with serious drug problems. host: back to phone calls.

carlton from west virginia, our conversation with bill bennett. good morning. caller: good morning. boy, am i happy to talk to you guys! i'm going to load your plate for you, mr. bennett. with some -- i have cancer and i will never see any of these things done. but it is obvious that congress and the senate are not going to do anything until they feel some of the pain not just by election but if we could cut their wages by 40% until they balance the budget that would b all government agencies. then when they biological the budget they get it back. pay off china with the gold we have in fort knox because right now at $1,400 an ounce that would cult our money drain tremendously. we stop this social security payments for anybody making over $40,000 a year. close our borders by declaring

marshal law. and bringing in 50,000 marines from okinawa to man the border. close the u.n. it is nothing but a springboard for these people, sounding board for these people to attack the united states. host: a lot of issues. guest: his plate was loaded for sure. i'm interested in the immigration question whether the president will try to make a move there. all indications are that he will. i'm also interested to see what he does and what kind of movement he is prepared to make -- i don't want to use the word pivot but i did -- will we see the movement toward congress and the shellacking as he called it. i don't think wit this cro that is coming in, the new republicans and i have met a lot of them, vy impressed with them. i don't think you need to cut their salaries to moat rate them. they are highly vote mated -- motivated people. therm motivated by the people that sent them here. i think you will see a new

spring in the step of congress. there will be some fights and some bloody awful fights. but i do not think this congress, these new members and now 63 members will disappoint. th will not get everything people who sent them there want because the expectations of in new group of republicans, i think, are greater than the power they actually have. but they will sure, i think, make a big difference. particularly on the issues i talked about. i think they will try to make major moves on dicit reduction and obama care. host: we will go back to the issue of medicare, baby boomers coming writes one viewer. are you ready, wall street? cbs ns and we focused on it earlier and gave some statistics on how significant an impact in will have on the federal debt. frblgts consider the proposals. not call them republican or democrat.

consider proposals to say it is going to cut, it is going to hurt everybody, whether they be republican or not. the rain will fall on the just and unjust alike. if you are 55, this is one proposal, ryan has it and others, if you are 55 you are fine. but starting in seven years, eight years, we are going to start raising that reporter age of social security and we are going to start means testing benefits. for medicare some of the proposals are you have refundable tax credits that everybody has so these are high risk or other plans, different from the obama proposals. but of course the major issue that republicans face is obama care. it is an issue that democrats face, too. i was interested to see the other day a couple of democrat commentators, columnists, opinion writers, saying they thought this was a big political mistake for the president, that he should have focused on the deficit and budget.

if you look at the public opinion polls it is not strong for him. it is about 55-43 againstbama care right now. i think that if the republicans have hearings on it sunlights the disdisinfectant and you show the problems, i think it will be in more trouble. there is something like 230 waivers tt have been granted out of obama care to big companies that can't handle it. when you have that kind of number of waivers from that level and size of industry something is wrong. host: a couple of weeks ago the president had a private meeting with former president bill clinton late on a friday a then went to the briefing room the two speaking to reporters. former president clinton holding a 30-minute news krbs. some view that as the pivot point, the moment of triangulation for president obama. what do you read into that?

guest: at least he got the microphone back which some wondered whether it would happen. jimmy johnson, do you want to drive my car. former president clinton took the microphone like he never left it. pro bowl -- i thought it was a very funny moment. very human but keep the first lady waiting. he says no, i will take over. al haig. i remember al haig said i'm in control. i think president obama is a man of the left. i lived in universities for a long time and taught and know this way of thinking. wh he saeid i thought it was a very revealing comment the time of the came bridge police incident we know the police act the stupidly. we didn't all know that. a thumb of us give the benefit of the doubt to the police. then the comment about healthcare. he said just be great if you

could sit around with the experts and fashionhe policy that way and put it in place. unfortunately you have to persuade other people. that is the great unwashed us. the rest of us need to be persuaded. that is called a democracy or a constitutional republic. so i don't know whether he will pivot or move to the right. look, this -- i'm noticing a lot of liberal columnists are saying this was a tremendously successful congress the look at what they got do. healthcare, stimulus, don"don't ask, don't tell," et cetera. very productive congress singing its praises. maybe but not a popular congress. 13% popularity. and i think this last election was, if it had one word bumper sticker it was "stop." p.j. owe rourke had the funniest line, he said it was not an election, it was a restraining

order. host: the american patriot almac among your books and "america the last best hope" and best seller "the book of virtues" and children's book of virtues. on c tphfrpblgt tphfrpblgt and his radio talk show. we featured him on our book tv. that three hours available on our website. darway is from charlotte, north carolina. democrats line. caller: thank yo steve, i'm going to get back to the issue. i'm from liberia but i'm an american citizen. this is a guy that went to the university of miami of ohio with a bachelor degree in economics. you take a guy that came from

mr. bennett's went to congress and started making $100,000 right away. you think that is how much the average american makes? and you talk about healthcare for senior selgts like medicare. if you give them forms them he is not an average american. he is a millionaire. he's been on c-span more than six times. he is not an average american. the average american makes $50,000 to $70,000. host: so turn this into a question that he can respond to. caller: question. if the healthcare is not going to succeed, president obama is going to get it. that is not what if is all

about. it is about us. he is making $100,000. host: we will respond. guest: you don't pay lucrative speaking fees. the argument shouldn't be republicans are mean spirited and democrats are generous. the question is what is effective and what works. i have arced for a long time since studying welfare and education policy, which i guess is my one area of expertise, that republicans, conservatives should never yield the high ground of compassion to liberals and democrats. it is not compassion to bust budgets like this whether we do it or democrats. it is not compassionate to have education in a zhanglehold by the teachers unions and not compassionate to impose a health care system on a country that wi cost more, limit options, create discouragement for a lot of people in the medical

profession. that is not compassionate at all. when we had that three-hour discussion on c-span it was interesting to me that about 70% of the calls were about educati education. and this is an issue, i hope, at some point the new republicans wi take up. because there is a different feeling in the air. this movie "waiting for superman" has had something of an impact on the culture and debate about education. host: i go back to the political note because as a contributor to cn thfrpblgts you weighed i on the 2012 race. guest: i have. host: marco rubio as vice presidential running mate? guest: well that was a bit of a flip comment saying we already have the vice president marco rubio. certainly that is not a certainty. but what an attractive guy, what an experienced guy with experience in the house, terrific speaker. i will be going to his swearing in on wednesday. florida is an important state. one takes those things into

account. but we are loaded with talent. we were running through the list earlier and i forgot him. how do you forget rubio? i think he's going to be a very important player. note, too, this i not your grandfather's republican party. this election, suzanne martinez from new mexico, new governor. nicky hailey from south calina. tim scott from south carolina. first black republican since reconstruction. alan west. it is a very different group and different looking group and that is all good for republicans. stkpwr let me ask you abouthe hispanic vote because the president has ved to push that. there is a political component when it comes to where the hispanic vote goes in 2012. you have people like marco rubio who will excite the hispanic base. guest: you will. and i think republicans would be

wise to talk to him and the new representative canseco from texas, a number of hispanics and republicans who have been elected, for guidance. host: was it a mistake not to pass the act? frpblgt no, it was not. the act was misconceived. there are elements in the dream act that could be resuscitated in a better forum. but first things first. other things have to happen first. but people shouldn't forget this. the last time i looked at the results of november, i think of all people voting if you count all hispanics something like 39% of hispanics voted republican. that is not great but that is not terrible. those numbers can be improved. i think that they will be improved. there are a lot of latino citizens w do not identify with the illegal immigrant because they are n illegal and have resentment about it. the point is to talk about immigration policy in a sensible

and rational way. to make it clear, this is not about xenophobia or hating people from other places. this is about the law. host: president bush tried that and his effort failed. frpblgt people didn't like the legislation. i didn't like it. my listeners on my radio show didn't like the legislation. they thought it was something of a white wash and something of an amnesty program. since then, sponsors, people who were supporting it like john mccain, who knows of the problem being in arizona, have clarified their view in a way that i wish had been represented in that proposed legislation by the president. important for republicans to come up in this debate with an alternative that is sensible and will attract hispanic americans. i think they can do that. host: bill ben net's morning show hrd on how many stations? guest: 260.

host: karen from richmond, virginia. republican line. caller: it is a pleasure to speak, mr. ennett. steve says that you have included a copy of in the book. don't you think in the past two years you have heard the word patriot more than i can remember having lived here and [inaudible] fantastic. what i want to know is how do you see the influence of tea party people and what do you think of them, the influx in the congress? have you met any of them and what do you think of them? host: where are you from, karen, great britain? caller: i was born here but lived abroad. guest: i tphknow a lot of tea py

people and representatives who were lifted by the tea party. there was the most important political movement of the year ifou are doing the 2010 in review on the last day of the year. you would have to say that. the range of people in the tea party from conservative republican, very conservative republic, conservative republican, moderate republican, center, independent, and send tryst -- centrist democrats. it was a remarkable thing. "the economist" is a magazine at i read as much as i can. it is a center-left magazine but well written and well done. they talked about the tea parties and say we don't agree with everything. but unlike france where people took to the streethe minute the government announced a cut in benefits they said what other country would people go to the parks and public places,

demonstrate and yell at the government we want less, we want less. that is not what they do in greece or france. it is what they do in america. the question is will the moment stay. it is like a good second quarter or third quarter. will you keep the momenm through the rest of the game. host: next is sumter, sou carolina, line for independents with bill bennett. good morning. caller: good morng. mr. bennett, i just have three quick questions and, really, hoping that you can answer these qutions for me. the first thing is i always hear everybody talking about the economy. i don't know how much each president gets, i don't know. maybe they hand them a bag of money and it worth $90 llion. but what happened to barack obama, as soon as they handed

him the $90 billion other people say we have to fix the economy. give us $80 billion. then they took his money and everybody is yelling now hey, you are spending too much of that money. well, if the house is broken and is on fire and a drunk burnt the house down and i have to do repairs and spend my money why is everybody hollering at him and we come to find out he didn't spend enough money? can you explain that? that is the first one. host: let me stop you there. we will give him a chance to respond. guest: i'm not sure i understand it but the numbers are much more. $850 billion, $900 billion for the stimulus. that was not his money. but he acted as if it were and that is the stimulus bill. we were told it would bring unemployme unemployment way down and it didn't. there was an article this morning how so many economists could have been wrong about predicting that. look, there is no question that

he inherited very serious problems. host: but for the stimulus money the democrats have been pushing for the republicans pushing for the bush era tax cutscross the board that some say will increase the debt. es that is a matter of of debate. i think if you look at the whole history of tax cuts, tax increases overall, not all the time but overall, 85% of the time the tax cuts will stimulate the economy. some say but not in a perd like this. we will see. the deal is the deal and they both agreed. but suffice it to say the big stimulus didn't produce the results intended. will this? i don't know. i think the appetite for the big spend something gone but tre are still those arguing for a second large stimulus. i don't think that will happen. host: back to the caller in sumter, follow-up. you are on the air.

caller: i wanted to make it 100% clear that the facts are that obama looked at the bill and the bill said give me your money because even though he gave it to you we want the money to fix the economy and either way he was still screwed. guest: no, this was his plan. i don't agree. this was his machine. he and the democrats and they got their way and you can evaluate the consequences. host: we have to move on. we have a twitter comment saying --? when the c.r. comes up again in february or march t keep the government running beyond that date the debt limit is one issue that congress will debate. guest: this is where it will get tricky because i have heard some folks say, some folks on my side of the philosophical divide say no compromise. that is a mistake. you can't do that.

i like to cite the biography of tal tall and and it was said he understood the difference between a willingness on principle to compromise and a willingness to comprise on willing. be willing to compromise when you are not giving up a principle as i think the republicans did in the budget deal. i think the republicans did. you don't have enough power to be able to command the high seat on every issue when you don't control the senate or white house. but there are some real interesting possibilities in what you said, steve, about february and march, because it goes only that far and are opportunities here to do in terms of the purse what a lot of people want to do in terms of policy. for example, not funding some of

the work at h.h. and other places, which will be involved in the implementation of obama care. you could see some real skirmishes. host: we have tweurts that say you call it obama care as opposed to healthcare. guest: it is his plan. it is healthcare but the reason i call it obama care i can't think of another piece of legislation this significant that went through without the imprint or agreement of the other side. call it demo-care or democrat care or obama-pelosi care. because arlen spector -- specter switched parties and the al franken vote, being put into the seat in minnesota, you are talking about hairs of difference. very small differences. this went through without a single republican supporting it. that is an extraordinary thank in american history.

they wanted it,ny got it. they own it. they should be identified with it. they have to live with it. host: john says obama didn't write it. it is not obama care. guest: but he sign it. host: we go todale in canton -- we go to dale in canton, illinois. caller: i have a solution to the immigration problem that with solve it and budget which is easy but it is common sense and that is why it won't be utilized. if the united states government would create an organization to start finding these corporations that hire illegal aliens and take the money to pay for the system of checking and balancing that would solve the immigration problem because people wouldn't come in if they knew they couldn't get a job because they would be fired because the companies would hire them. the second thing is with the biological of -- balance of the budget. just freeze it six months except of cases of national disaster.

then ban all earmarks for six months. the third -- guest: i don't think that could get you enough. but the spirit is right. i think you are right, pretty much right on everything. i don't think the numbers add up. the first one, corporations should be fined for hing illegals. and by the way, there was an earlier suggestion get the troops onned border to stop the flow of illegals. two things in recent history have stopped the flow of illegal immigrants. one, our economy which was weak. so there were not thejobs. the other thing is we did stop the flow almost dead in its tracks right after 9/11 because right after 9/11 the country panicked, reacted and said we have to make sure nobody gets in who shouldn't and people didn't get in. drugs didn't get in either. this there will be a reckoning on that at the border with mexico because of the current problems. that is one the president will

have to face. so, i see the point of what the call caller is saying. back to the freeze thing, i think this is you talk about what is going to happen. i believe that the republican congress will propose freezing the budget at 2008 levels. the 2011 obama budt is $3.8 trillion. the 2008 bush budget was $2.9 trillion. if you can go from 3.8 to 2.9, that is $900 billion and that is not a hardship budget. that will be one of the first serious proposals. and because everybody's ox gets go gored it has a chance. host: translate that to a republican primary in 2012. frpblgt romney will have to live with romney care as obama will have to live with obama care. i'm consistent.

when you own it and sign it, then you take responsibility for it. i think it could be a problem for mitt romney though he is a very able and talented guy and has a response, as does barack obama. host: the new year will mark t send 10 yell of ronald reagan's birth. a lot of celebrations. you worked with him and you have your o relationship. how will histo view his presidency as we reflect in 2011 on his centennial? guest: i think it will view him favorably. the people who had been regarded with contempt who thought he was not up to it are seeing how he changed the world and he did. i love the revisionism that is coming up on both sides. i remember people in the cabinet who were very critical of ronald reagan, senior people in the cabinet who didn't like what was happening when he walked out on gorbachev, didn't like his speech at berlin when he said to tack down the wall and said i was there with ron and we did this together. they didn't.

but that is ok. everybody wants to be associated with reagan now, which tells you what his status is. i like george will's line, there are a million things written and he said he took command of >> tomorrow, the christian science monitor and correspondent examines president obama's relationship with the liberal and progressive wings of his party. and a retired colonel, the ceo of the center for weapons of mass destruction and discusses the state of homeland security in 2011. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> the one thing we absolutely learned over the last 30 years is that economists and other

sages of the economy are not very good at predicting what actually happens. >> in his columns, robert samuelson has written about politics, the economy, and social issues for over three decades. he will join us sunday night on c-span. now, bbc parliament tv takes a look back at the major events in parliament since september. that includes the election of the new labor party leader, the republican spending cuts, and the hike in university tuition fees. this is a one hour program. ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> hello, and welcome to the

record review. it is a freezing cold winter here. coming up, the coalition faces its biggest challenge yet, the increase of tuition for english university students. and, cuts, cuts, cuts. the coalition reveals what slashing the budget means for all of us -- all of us. to's begin with the decision raise tuition fees. they currently stand at 3,290 pounds per year. they will be raised to 6,000 pounds per year. students would not repay until they were earning over 9,000 pounds per year.

for the first time, a part-time student would not have to pay up front. it was a difficult decision for liberal democrats, who during the election campaign said they would not support any rise in fees. the debate began back in october, with a liberal democrats being reminded that all parties can change their views. >> such as the member on the right side and the new chancellor, those opposed to change, to the current leadership you have embraced attacks. the conservatives campaigned against graduate contributions. my own party consistently opposed graduate contributions, but in this current economic climate, we accept the policy is no longer feasible. [shouting]

and that is why i intend, on behalf of the coalition, to put specific proposals to implement radical and progressive reforms to higher education. >> he reminded the house that there had been a pledge signed opposing fees. >> promises were made which should not be lightly thrown away. the trust of politicians is not just a matter for the liberal democrats. it is the integrity of this house as a whole. >> a couple of weeks later, thousands of angry students converged in westminster. the huge demonstration filled the streets around parliament. the crowd, the sizable, was good-natured and peaceable in the early part of the day. later in the day, ed they

attacked the building housing -- they attacked the building housing the party headquarters. nick clegg was standing in for david cameron did they accused him of signing up for conservative policies. >> the chancellor said the data set will be dealt with by 2014, when -- the deficit will be dealt with by 2014, when this new system will hardly have begun. this is about him and going along the with a tory planet to -- him going along with a tory plan to shove the cost of higher education on to students. is it not true? the truth of it?

>> i know she now thinks that she can sort of reposition the labor party as a champion of students. let's remember -- [shouting] let's remember the labor party record against tuition fee increases, then introducing them in 1997. they set up the brown review which they are now trashing. they now have a policy which have the front bench doesn't even believe. maybe she will go out to the students who are protesting outside right now and explain what on earth where policy is. -- her policy is. >> as the vote drew near, the students protesting continued. there was a clash on the issues.

>> i was a student politician. [laughter] but i was not hanging around with people who were throwing a brick and wrecking things. [shouting] is it not the truth that you have better had it so good on planet cameron? he has taken away the child trust fund. he is scrapping funds and abolishing the education, and now he is or tripling tuition fees. is it the truth not that he is pulling out of the latter but he does not understand the lives of ordinary people. you are going to be taxing

people on 6,000 pounds, 7,000 pounds, 9,000 pounds. where is the fairness in that? the truth of the matter is, we tried to graduate? . we know it does not work. the liberal democrats -- we tried a graduate tax. we know it does not work. the liberal democrats tried it. they know it does not work. this is a political opportunity. you will never be a party of government. >> the most violent demonstrations took place on the day of the load. inside, the liberal democrats found themselves in disarray. it became increasingly clear that somewhere in a tent on voting against it.

-- that some woere intent on voting against it. >> under the scheme proposed, all universities start at the highest rate. one of the worries is that they might all be allowed to charge the highest rate. what rules, what guarantees that 6000 will be the limit for most universities? we must have a policy that provides a strong base for university funding, which makes a major contribution to reducing the deficit, and introduced as significantly more progressive system then what we inherited. i am proud to but for it of that measure.

-- to put forth that measure. [shouting] order. d'oeuvre, order, -- order, order, order. >> i would say to those ministers in back benches who are considering their position today, i do know what you're going through. it is hard to stand beside friends and colleagues with him you have shared many a battle. but i will say this, after you have done it, you will realize it is not have as bad as you thought it would be before you did it. it outweighs any temporary loss of position of power or income. mine is not the only political party in this house. there is usually a way back.

mr. speaker, this decision masters so much too many people -- matters so much to so many people. do not vote for it if you do not believe in it. >> being asked to vote to increase fees to 9,000 pounds and is not a compromise. it is not something that liberal backbenchers should be asked to consider. when a student is going to university, well, we have had tuition fees for over a decade. the numbers have gone up by 44%. 44%. >> maybe no one in your immediate family has stayed in school past the age of 16. but the bad debts you would --

it must be off-putting. >> 414,000 people have higher education in this country. is now 1.3 million. when you look at changes of that magnitude, you do have to think about how you pay for those things. >> raise the fees to 5,000 pounds per year. that will eliminate half of those from deprived backgrounds. raising it to 9000 would cut the number into thirds. -- into two thirds. >>323-302.

>> the government to london by 21 votes, one quarter of its usual majority -- government one by 21 votes -- won by 21 votes, a quarter of its usual majority. >> ed miller band was the surprise winner of his party's leadership -- milliband was the surprise winner of his party's leadership of the road. -- to vote. >> by my reckoning, there are hundreds of thousands of families -- >> [shouting]

>> and the question they are asking is this. why should a family on 45,000 pounds where one person stays at home lose their child benefits, but the family on 80,000 pounds should keep their benefits? as fair. it does not strike the prime minister is there. what i believe is fair and is asking better-off people to make a contribution. let me try putting it this way. think about it like this. there are thousands of people in his constituency earning 1/6 of what he earns. through their taxes, they will pay for his job benefit. is that really fair? the truth is that the prime minister has no defense of this policy. he cannot explain to families up

and down the country why they will sustain. let's be honest. this party has been a shambles from day one. the rest of the cabinet do nothing about it. the local sector city government found out from the media that it was being announced. i bet the prime minister wishes the bbc [inaudible] it time benefit, isn't the prime minister had the sense to it meant this? he has got it wrong. he has made the wrong decision. he should tell middle income families up and down britain he will think again. >> the right honorable gentleman has discovered middle-income families. we are now hearing about the squeeze metal. who is it to squeeze the the middle? who is it to double the tax?

"put out taxes one of the 22 times? who cut the pensions? suddenly, having done this, they want to stand up for middle- income earners. it is a completely transparent political strategy to cover-up the inconvenient truth that he was put where he was by the trade union movement. >> david cameron debating just one of the budget cuts. britain was straining under an enormous the visit. the chancellor came to the commons in october to announce results of the spending review and the biggest cuts sent to world war ii -- since world war ii. labour called it reckless. >> they have forecast a reduction in headcount of

490,000 over the review time. that is over four years. much of it will be achieved through natural turnover by leaving posts unfilled. there is a turnover rate of over 8% in the public sector. there will be redundancies. the pension age for men and women will reach 66 by the year 2020. this will involve a gradual increase in the state pension age from 65 up to 66 starting in 2018. the pension secretary is setting out proposals with my support to replace all working-age benefits and tax credits with a single, simple and universal trigger. the guiding rule will be best. it will always pay to work. those who get work will be better off than those who don't. it represents the greatest perform to our well for -- welfare state for a generation. i have taken the decision to remove job benefit from families

with a higher-rate tax. i wish it were otherwise. i cannot ask of those watching this earning 15,000 or 30,000 pounds a year to go on paying the child benefit of those earning 50,000 or 100,000 pounds per year. health spending will rise each year over inflation. this year, we're spending 104 billion pounds on health care capitols and current combined. by the end of four years, we will see 114 billion pounds. we can afford this because of the decisions of welfare i have announced. there will be an increase in the money to schools, not just next year or the year after, but for each of the next four years. the rush to cut the deficit endangers the recovery and reduces the prospect for employment in the short term and for prosperity in the longer term. >> we believe we can and should

have a more gradual reduction, securing growth. i don't believe the chancellor or the prime minister sufficiently understands the worries and concerns of families up and down this country. i think those worries will have multiplied considerably as a result of his statement today. >> how does he possibly imagine, after its statement, that a direct cut of our own 4 billion pounds can do anything other than weaken the ability of scotland in difficult economic times? >> open the next few weeks, the implications of those cuts became clear. it was a change to the housing benefit that promoted some of the fiercest anger. they want to 400 pounds a week. the leader and deputy prime minister reacted angrily to one

claim that the change would amount to social spending. >> it is estimated 200,000 people will be forced out of major metropolitan areas as a result of the government's proposals on welfare reforms, which will turn london to paris. the poor will be confined to the outer ring. would it not be iniquitous if, on top of being socially engineered and social logically cleanse out of london, the poor were disenfranchised by this bill? how does he propose to make provision for these displaced people? >> we all indulge in a bit of hyperbole. i have to say, quite seriously, the cleansing would be deeply offensive to people who have witnessed ethnic cleansing in other parts of the world. it is an outrageous way of describing it. i will tell you exactly what

we're doing. what we're doing is saying to people who receive housing benefits, it is perfectly reasonable for the government to say that it won't hand out more in housing benefits then people will go out to work, pay their taxes, played by the rules, and look for housing themselves. we are suggesting there should be capped for family homes of four bedrooms or 400 pounds per week. does he really think it is wrong? does he think it is wrong for people who cannot afford to live privately in those areas that the state to subsidize people to the tune of more than 21,000 pounds? i don't think so. >> there was the impact on council services. town halls across england face cuts in 2011 of almost 10%. it is the biggest reduction for generations. unions have warned that will mean thousands of job losses, including among staff.

the minister says cuts should be made in faculty staff, and the deal is progressively fair. >> the secretary state has spoken on a progressive proposal. he must be using a very different dictionary from the one i have. this will be devastating to my deprived constituency, with 40% of the budget being spent on the elderly and children scare, can he not see these cuts in everything else? won't he admits his agenda is shrinking the state and shifting the blame? >> you'll be pleased to know that there is a drop in spending of 6.5% this year and 4.3% the following year. that does not strike me as being draconian in any sense of the

imagination. i have to say the honorable lady has made a reputation on the shroud-waving in this chamber. she should be frankly addressing the needs of the people, who will continue to receive a high level of support from the central state to ensure reasonable provision. >> another controversial item, david cameron said 17,000 jobs -- 17,000 jobs will go over the next five years, and 25,000 civilian jobs would be cut. the nimrod aircraft program is being cancelled and all carrier jets will be retired. the replacement for the new clear system will be delayed until after the next general election. things went down badly when the plans were discussed in the house of lords. >> can i say to the leader of the house, i know a strategic review.

i have done a strategic review. this is not a strategic review. instead, it does not seem true that the country as a whole, this has been cobbled together on the back of a letter from the treasury calling for deep and random cuts in the defense budget? as such, [inaudible] >> what we have to do is get resources in place for the best estimates we can make up the risks we face, and the changes, if the unexpected happens, be ready to change, as well. >> i cannot say i welcome the statement on this defense review, but i cannot dignify it with the word "strategic." it will be reviewed with dismay by our hard-working sailors, marines, soldiers, and airmen. >> with students being expected to pay more, and cuts in almost

every area of public spending, how is this going down with the general public? i asked andrew, the chairman of the opinion poll. as the public think the cuts are too deep? >> i think the argument that it is too much, too fast, has a great deal of resonance. people, they do have, without wishing to sound patronizing, i think people do have the capacity to hold two opposing opinions' intention of the same time. the recognized the need for cuts. they recognize that sound finances what is needed, but they don't want that to affect their own quality of life and standard of living. what has happened over the last two or three months, there has been talk of cutting public service, cutting local authority spending, and cutting forces like the police. that is when public opinion has

suddenly -- it has taken a deep breath. they have said they are not really sure whether they like the way this is being executed. government will turn around and say there is no alternative. it does not make it easier for the public to hear. >> andrew hawkins. we will have more from him later. we have come here to the commons committee corridor. in these rooms, mp's take evidence and build into the with the government works. the way the commons is elected looks to be about to be changed. there's a string of constitutional reforms. first, a conservative plan to redraw the constituency map of the u.k., reducing the number of m p's and equalizing the number of voters. mp's are members of the boundary commission. >> if this passes, you will be under the obligation. if across rivers, we cross

mountains, we divide communities, you have an obligation to do that. it does not actually come into it, if that is divisive of traditional communities or identities. >> there are almost always two ways of doing it. two or more options. you start with the requirement that the electorate much -- must fit within a target range. you will have one option that crosses the river and another that doesn't. you went up -- you end up waiting two solutions to different degrees in different ways. you make a judgment on which of those as preferable. part of that is provisional proposals. listen to people's responses. there is an alternative the commission has already deliberate upon. finally, are you in charge of the naming of constituencies?

constituencies have remained northeast, southeast, very boring, they do not promote anything among people. you do not create a geographical affection. >> i will take that as a plea. >> also on the agenda, a plan for six-term parliament. ministers say the move will bring greater stability. the opposition calls it gerrymandering the system. >> this has a thing go purpose -- this has a single purpose, to remove the right of the prime minister suit -- to seek a solution of parliament for pure political gain. this innovation will have a very profound affect. the timing of general elections will not be a placing of government. there will be no feverish

speculation of the date of the next election instead, everyone will know how parliament can be expected to last, bringing greater stability to our system. if, for some reason, there is a need for parliament to dissolve burleigh, that will be up to the house of commons to decide. >> these proposals, whatever the merits of six-term may be, and i personally do not support the proposal, smack of gerrymandering the constitution in favor of a particular coalition. that is a bad thing. it is a subjective judgment, giving power to parliament. doesn't this smack of constitution-making on the hoof, ? what we need is a proper convention of some kind. >> democrats put forward one of their key pledges, a referendum

on changing the voting system of general elections. the government wants to hold the referendum on whether we should switch to the alternate to vote on may 5, 2011. if there is a victory for the yes campaign, it will mean the sitting candidates are on the one, two, and three. many don't want the referendum to take place on the same day as elections for the scottish parliament, welch assembly. >> the referendum will probably receive very little attention. those of us involved will not be wasting any time in discussing for or against this referendum. we will have greater priorities that affect many things, not a voting system that comes along every four or five years. >> thank you very much. which is it to be? will the referendum arrau's no interest whatsoever in scotland?

will it drowns out other voices -- willett drown out other voices? >> the honorable lady is missing the point. why does the media broadcast? everybody except that it will dominate. >> thank you very much. giving way. it was not clear to me whether his position is that there should be a referendum on another day, or whether this issue is so irrelevant to people, it should be held on noted. is it on no date or a different date? >> the gentleman and his but the next point. i will remind him of what i said. it is not to save the system is not important. it is low on the hierarchy needs. >> away from the constitutional change, there was plenty more change afoot.

the health secretary unveiled plans to put people in charge of commissioning care and managing budgets. it means abolishing the primary care trust and strategic health authorities. at the same time, it is asked to make 20 billion pounds of savings of the next four years. wanted details. >> we were here last and we said two things, firstly, we know there are certain costs associated not least with redundancy and the reduction of management. nearly 900 million pounds. for the current savings, they are such that that cost is more than recouped within two years. there are subsequent savings that flow from that. we have made that clear. beyond that, there will be for the costs, but there will be affected at the time of the

publication of the bill. >> [inaudible] give me a figure. people put it between 2 billion pounds and 3 billion pounds. >> i don't recognize that. as i said, we will publish it at that time the bill was published. >> surely you must know now. >> we will not publish a single figure now on the basis of -- >> you must have a clear idea. >> i do have a clear idea. i will publish it when the bill was published. >> how do you respond to the fear that this is going to result in some awful catastrophe that is about to happen as a result of having saved this money? .ou've achieved efficiencies >> i never expected that when we make changes, in particular that involve a reduction of 45% in

the number of managers and primary care trust that the senior care managers would express themselves delighted by this prospect. it would be unreasonable to expect that to be the case. >> the news was upbeat among mp's. >> he has been far in excess of the energy generated in the primary care trust. there is a world of difference between true leadership and a focus upon how we can better improve care for patients, and the enthusiasm generated by people being given the freedom to do that, as distinct from people going through what is essentially more of the bureaucratic process. >> andrew explaining his plans to change the way these nhs in

england as done. talked aboutf mp's of the work. 13 civilians were shot by british soldiers on january 30, 1972. the inquiry was into the events which was known as bloody sunday. it took 12 years at a cost of 200 million pounds. in the end, it concluded the soldiers' actions were wrong and none of those killed were posing a threat. the lord was asked about the cost. >> if you look at the appendix at the end of the report, you will see why they allowed the legal representation to do it. putting it in general terms,

[inaudible] you must protect your family's interest. they chose to callously murder people on the streets. have a lawyer to protect your interests? in the face where people have died as a result of state agencies, it is our law in article two that you should have legal representation. what is fair? what is just for the soldiers, civilians, or anybody else? unfortunately, lawyers are expensive.

very expensive. >> presumably, they did not tell you what they charge and you paid it. was their agreement as to what they were allowed to charge? >> these are a bit of a mystery. it is generally regarded as a going rate. that is for appearing in councils and inquiries and so on. >> that is what we paid. >> what does the hourly rate? >> it would depend on the council concerned and the amount of time employed. i could say here, there is criticism of my -- mr. justice christopher clark.

there were determining how many millions of pounds here on this inquiry. that is grossly unfair. he was at the very top of the commercial bar in 1998 when i asked him if he would be counseled to the inquiry. he accepted that assignment as a matter of public duty. if he had not done so as top of the commercial bar, he would have earned two or three times as much as he earned as a barrister for the inquiry. >> here in the house of lords, it was a time of change, but the attrit -- with the introduction of a cornucopia of meat. the house has a membership topping 800. in these new times, the coalition actually does. if ministers were hoping that would mean the government would get things its own way, they

were in for some nasty shocks. the government suffered a defeat over part of its plans to hold a referendum on electing mp's. ministers want a referendum to be taking place on may 5, 2011. the former minister questioned whether the referendum should be held on any date before october. the government was defeated over the scrapping of identity cards. it would make it possible for those who already bought one to make a refund. around 12,000 people purchased the car that a cost of 30 pounds. lord hunt said the government had every right to get rid of the cards, but -- >> what is not fair is the decision by the government to refuse to refund the 30 pounds to those people who purchased those i.d. cards. i must say that i have been disappointed by the somewhat unsympathetic attitude of the

number baroness minister, who said that, we recognize that some people who spent 30 pounds on the card will be disappointed that it will be canceled later this year without any refund. she went on to say, those who chose to buy a card did so in the full knowledge of the unambiguous statement by the coalition parties that the scheme would be scrapped if needed. she said to those card holders, they cannot expect taxpayers to bail them out. she then went on to say that citizens have to be aware of what is going on around them. it was clear this scheme would have a risky future ahead of it. she then dismissed the potential refund of 30 pounds as being rather less than most people pay for a monthly subscription to "sky tv."

>> the cost of the scheme has already been paid out, which is over 290 million pounds. another half million may not seem significant. it is the attitude the coalition government takes to public spending. we demonstrated we have a commitment to ensuring the and just public expenditure is stopped. >> there where the plant to abolish hundreds of non- department zero bodies. the amendment to restrict the government's power to get rid of them, and later, there was another speech on the same bill, this time as the government plans to abolish -- it was rejected by a vote of 122. there were smiles all around with the announcement that prince william is to marry his longtime girlfriend kate

middleton. they're both 28 and became engaged during a secret holiday in kenya. it will take place on april 29, a date which has been declared a public holiday. congratulations were offered on behalf of mp's. >> i would like to make an announcement regarding the engagement of prince william to miss katherine middleton. i'm sure that members from all sides of the house will join me in congratulating the couple on this most happy occasion, and will wish them all the very best for their future together. >> the level of immigration into the u.k. surfaced in the election campaign. the promise was made by conservatives. the coalition introduced a cap on the number of skilled workers from outside the european economic area. the new limit is to be put to 1700 per year from april. >> in the 1990's, net migration

to britain was consistently in the tens of thousands each year. under labour, it was close to 200,000 per year for most years since 2000. as a result, net migration totaled more than 2.2 million people, more than double the population of birmingham. we cannot go on like this. we must tighten up our immigration system, focusing on tackling abuse and supporting only the most economically beneficial migrants. >> the chance are not that britain contributes around 7 billion pounds in support to ireland. it was said ireland was a friend in need and it was overwhelmingly in britain's national interest to provide funds. in the commons, it was said britain would offer a loan and contribute to a biggereu and imf bailout fund. >> when this government came

into office, britain was in the financial danger zone. we have taken actions to put our own house in order. we were once seen as part of the problem. we are now part of the solution. ireland is a friend in need. it is in our national interest that cheap -- that we should be prepared to help at this difficult time. >> the start of december saw an unusually early cold snap in britain with much of the u.k. covered in snow. there was arctic weather and the ensuing chaos. there were traffic jams on the roads, trains canceled, and the airport was shut for two days. >> let me be clear. the question i am asking david to address is not whether we expect there to be disruption when we have and whether of this severity. it is whether there's anything

that could or should have been done that has not been done. >> the scandal rocked the last parliament to its very foundation, the revelation that mp's claimed public moneys for everything from mortgages to houses. it brought shame on the house of commons. a new system was rapidly introduced, the standards authority. ever since it was set up to process expense allowances, many have argued it is expensive and bureaucratic. one called it -- one said it was time for re rethink. >> we have handed over the control to an unaccountable body. it is both judge and jury, regulator and regulate it. mp's are rightly couple to the people who elect them. this body is accountable to nobody. they control the way mp's work.

they control the amount of time they have available to conduct duties. >> many were not given what they were entitled to. >> we have members who have for calls from friends. they're sleeping on floors of offices, which they are not supposed to do, because they are not claiming what they rightly should be to claim. i am not moaning on behalf of the existingmp's. -- existing mp's. i am not complaining on your behalf. i love all of you. what i'm concerned about is actually the function in the parliament for the next 100 years. where will we be in 30 years if we continue down this route where only the wealthy can serve? i thought we had moved on from there. >> and those who are mothers with teenage children, you are not allowed to have children in

london with members at any time. we are not allowed to have our children stay with us for overnight accommodations. if you're a single mother, if your child is sick or ill, you're told to collect her child, what are you supposed to do? under the regulations, they are not allowed to be with you. we have to be here to carry out duties. the regulations are particularly difficult. >> whether we have done something more not, we were all considered to be -- during my campaign, [unintelligible] i would have run after him and punch him in the face. i speak on behalf of other members of this house.

>> one argued the call for a changeable system was a backward step. >> do we or do we not seek authority to the body? it is an independent body to determine these matters, or not? that is the principle and that is the basis on which we legislate it. this resolution, which would have been improved, i would suggest, by my amendment that was not taken, but this amendment, which i will oppose and vote against, breaks that principle. what it does is it says that mp's should have the power to be determining such matters, and that principle was the fundamental weakness in the previous expenses system. >> in the end, they voted to give the body until april to make its systems a lot simpler. the change in the expenses

system has not made this parliament entirely scandal- free. mp's support of sanctions against three former officials. the three words seemed to be representing a fictitious company. all three men stood down in the last election. the committee on standards and privileges ruled that two have brought parliament into disrepute. the chairman of the committee began with a few words about the media. >> if it was not entrapment, it was something close to entrapment. while i do not -- i think the whole house will feel sympathy for them because of the way they were deceived. >> it was said that stephen,

who likened himself to account for higher, have apologized. >> unfortunately, the seriousness of his offense means that "sorry" is not enough. >> the committee recommended he have his parliamentary pass with a drawn to two years. >> the committee concluded mr. hu was given a session that he could reclines on defense policies on the basis of his inside knowledge. this was a particularly serious breach of the code. it brought the house and its members generally into this for spooked -- disrepute. >> his pass was withdrawn to five years, after which he could not bring parliament into disrepute. his pass was withdrawn for six months. someone but that was

disproportionate. >> to bring these things to the floor of this house, i think there is something wrong about this. >> in the end, they backed the sanctions would come and support. in the house of lords, three pairs were given lengthy suspensions after wrongly claiming thousands of pounds in expenses. one person was suspended until april, 2012, and told to repay more than 125,000 pounds. another person was suspended for eight months and has repaid more than 27,000 pounds. another person was suspended for four months and has returned 41,000 pounds. the initial findings were sent out by the committee. >> in the three cases, the subcommittee concluded in each case that the lords concerned wrongly designated the property in question as his or her maine resident. they wrongly claimed from 7,000

pounds up to 125,000 pounds. in each case, the supplement critiques of committee concluded made these claims in bad faith. >> all three appealed to the conduct committee. >> we found the main residence designated or not appropriately designated. there were properties outside london designated as maine residents who before, during, and after the parents and the question were found inside london. they did not reflect any natural interpretation of the term " maine residents." public money should have a prediction not been claimed on such cases. as a member of the committee, i believe that all three appears concerned fell short of the standard of conduct the house and public are entitled to expect. we must act appropriately.

the public expects us to react with firmness and unity to demonstrate our abhorrent of wrongdoing. >> there were concerns about the way the internal investigation was carried out, giving too much weight to the original investigation. now we turn to the subject of race. >> let me say from the outset, i do not in any way wish to accuse any member of the committee or the subcommittee of racism. that would be quite improper and wrong. but it cannot escape your attention that the only three members of your house referred to the committee for privileges and are being investigated under these procedures were all asian. i reviewed the list of members, 20 in total, who have had complaints referred to parliament. i cannot find any consistent patterns for the referrals.

combined, the inconsistency in approach, the this proportionality of the sanctions, my concerns are deepened. >> i don't except that somebody cannot understand that if they never stayed somewhere, it is not their main residence. i am very disappointed and very distressed. i am sat there here. there's something to be said about indian culture. i'm not sure which indian culture he is speaking of. the only indian culture i know of his honor. that is the indian culture. >> someone was stripped of his seat after a court ruled he made false statements about his opponent during a's general election campaign. the decision means he will return there will be an election in january.

a hectic few months with the government facing its first really tough test. before the election, we were told people liked the idea of the coalition. how was it going down? we asked andrew hawkins from the opinion polls what people make of this new style of government. >> it has been a difficult honeymoon, i think, for the coalition. it has been difficult to talk about how the coalition is doing in isolation from the two partner parties. when you look of the previous honeymoons, it has been a new prime minister, tony blair's honeymoon was an extraordinary blip. it is different from anything that has been before or since. this is a little bit more like john major's. this far into his premiership, we were beginning to feel the impact of black wednesday. david cameron will be hoping that the slide in support in his

experience will be matched by what happened to margaret thatcher. she had a similar slide in the support. by 1983, by her first general election as prime minister, she pulled things around again. overall, i think the conservatives are doing as well as they can hope to, given the bad news on the economy, and given the jury is out until we see some turnaround in the economic figures, which is about the only thing that will restore their fortunes. for democrats, it is a different matter. >> what are the liberal democrats doing quite so badly in the polls? >> they are doing so badly for one very simple reason. it is that the public feels they were elected on promises that they had no intention to keep. without going into huge detail or numbers, it is around 2/3 of

the public who feel they have been let down by democrats. if we go back to that first debate, one of the questions we are being asked, who gave the most honest answers? nick won by a mile on that measure. the public has been led into a false sense of security. they liked what they saw. they thought he was an honest politician. he has proved himself to be unreliable. i think that is really driving deceptions as a whole. >> andrew hawkins. the coalition government was a new style of politics. david cameron and nick cleg spent much of their news conference dealing with questions from the -- from mr.

cable, who was caught on tape by undercover reporters saying he had the option to collect the government by resigning. further damaging revelations later in the day heard him say he declared war on rupert murdoch. is news corp. is attempting a full takeover of east ib. the two party leaders decided mr. cable would not be sacked, but he was stripped of any responsibility for the decision. some noted that a conservative minister would almost certainly have been fired for this and comment. coalition government is a very different way of doing business. that is it for now. join us again on january 10, when parliament returns. we will be back with our daily edition of "the record." all the best from the comments, the lords, and the committee quarter. for now, but by -- goodbye.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> c-span's original documentary on the supreme court has been updated. sunday, you will see the grand public places, and those available to the justices and their staff. you will hear about how the court works from all the current supreme court that with, including the newest justice, elena kagan. learn about some of the recent developments, the supreme court, home to america's highest court, hearing for the first time in high-definition sunday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. monday, americans for tax reform hosted the debate among the candidates for republican national committee chairman. it is moderated by grover norquist and tucker carlson. live, monday, from the national press club, at 1:00 p.m. eastern

on c-span. now, a discussion on how the constitution is being interpreted by politicians, judges, and the public. speakers include angelo codevilla, and jeffrey rosen, legal affairs editor of "the new republic." the bill of rights institute hosted this event, which is an hour and 25 minutes. >> good afternoon. i am with the bill of rights institute. i want to welcome you to our first bill of rights and day forum. the institute is an educational non-profit. we're dedicated to teaching young people about the constitution through a variety of curricula we distribute to teachers in schools. we provide seminars for students and teachers about the founding document. we put on an essay contest, which, over 24,000 students entered essays. we're excited about that. of students entere this year. we are excited about that.

we want students to understand the issues surrounding the constitution, which is the purpose of the forum. purpose of today's form. we hope to pull educational products from the remarks we were here today. we want to develop the material so we can distribute it in clasooms. the commission did a survey to test america's knowledge of the bill of rights. that press release is i in your packet. i want to share a couple of particulars with you. -- of americans attribute one in five americans believe that is in the bill of rights. 60% of americans do not recognize that the united states stands apart from other nations in that our government derives its powers from the people rather than the other way around. clearly there is work to be

done. we are glad you are here today and that you are interested in the bill of rights. i didot mention this earlier, but one of the requirements to get in the room is that you have read the bill of righ. i will send you all have. there is a test beforyou leave the room. [laughter] be prepared for that. i am goi to introduce our moderator. michael cromartie is the vice president at the ethics and policy center. he is a senior adviser to the ku form on religion and public life. mr. cromartie is the editor of 16 books on society and politics. he was appointed by president bush to a six-year term on the commission on religious freedom. he was elected chairman twice. thank you for being here. >> thank you, tony. it is a great privilege for me

to be here a the institute for this important conversation and dialogue. we could not have two better people to address the question at hand than the two people i will introduce you to. is there an upcoming cultural war over the constitution? it is a complex subject. it is an urgent subject. we could not have two better people to address it. i am delighted that it could be here. i first want to explain to you a couple of realm rules before i introduce our speakers. after we hear from them, i am going to allow them to dialogue with each other for a few minutes. i am short they will say something the other one may want to address. afterhat, i want you all to comment. still free to answer any questionsou like. raise your hand and i will keep a running list of people who want to get in so that we can

move in an orderly and civil fashion. do not be shy. we are putting this on for you. if we want you to be able to answer the questions you have -- be able to ask the questions you have. please pull the microphone so close so we can hear you and be able to transcribe his conversation later. it is easier to transcribe if we can hear you. the best way to hear you is to have the microphone near your moh. please pull it near when you talk. let me begin by introducing professor codevilla from boston university. many of you here at the biography of our speakers. since we do have the viewing audience, i want to go through for our viewing audience the credentials of our speakers. professor codevilla is a professor at boston university. he is the author of 12 books. the most recent is "the ruling

class -- how they corrupted america and what we can do about it." he was a u.s. navy officer in the u.s. foreign service. he was a member of president reagan's transition team. he served as a senior staff member on the u.s. committee on intelligence. in his article -- he has written several articles. it is great to have professor codevilla with us to address this question, is there a coming culture clash over the constitution? he will speak for 25 minutes and then i will present dr. rosen. >> irote a paper, which i had assumed would be distributed to all of you before the session, but that is good to come to you afterward. please do read it. >> we did not want to read it

while you were presenting. >> it does not matter. sooner or later. look, why am i here? white meat? i am -- why me? i am it sor of in a position of the white man who has lived among the natives, speaks the native language, and have to explain why the natives are restless. i will do that. beginning with a fundamental point, whh brings us to the constitution -- the assumption within the white m's for is that the natives are restless because they lack wampum. they lack beads. they lack economic goods. everyone seems to agree on that

from bill o'reilly on the right to barack obama on the left. economic conditions improve, -- once the economic conditions improve, the natives will stop messing around. there is nothing in there about beads, but there is a lot in there about the constitutio why are people so exercised about the constitution? there is something going on fundamentally out there. it has very little to do with economics, but has to do th something much more fundamental. to bring it to the point of the

bill of rights, some of you are likely to have read pfessor rose and's article in the "new york times" last month which pointed to a certain weird view which is an out there. the weird view being the first clause of the first amendment was actually written to protect religious establishment. >> "congress shall make no law establishing -- respecting religious establishment." it is a weird view expanded by a

fellow i have never heard of. gosh, i got that weird view from somebody else, namely james madison. i think you will all agree that madison and everybody else to associated with the negotiations and went into this first calls what did the first amendment to be ratified by all 13 states. seven of those states had religious establishment. there is a prime facia case even if you have never read the debate or the accounts of the debates in the first congress out the first amendment. the case is we would not have a first andment if it had not

been written to protect religious establishment. then, of course, there is another view out there. forgive me for records a professor rosen's work, but there is this thing out there that did in modern nstitutional law that this is a position between the first and second clauses, namely prohibition of religious establishment and freexercise of religion. well, i can assure you that not only is there no prohibition of

religious establisent in the minds of the folks who wrote the first amendment, but there was also note notion that religious establishments, at least tell theirnderstood in the 18th century -- i am not talking about the early 17th century. that is another matter. there is no opposition between them and religious freedom. if you are free, concerning religion, collectively, you may well establish a church, but establishing a church by in the sense of america in the 18th century and, in fact, until very recently, did not mean that you could not praice their religion freely, publicly, as

well as privately. the fact that the opposition is an artifact of modern cotitutional law brings us to the main point, which is what does the constitution mean, all of it, every part of it, including, of course, the bill of rights? what do these words mean? there are two views on that as you all well know. the official view nowadays goes somewhat as follows -- obviously agreed to beforehand between senator leahy and elena kagan.

once upon a time i worked on the hill. i am it very familiar with all these are written. they are very useful. it does not take. the duo expressed a concordance of views. senator lhy said to protest -- set to prospective supreme court justice elena kagan, there are two views about the constitution. the word's meaning what they actually say -- by the way, you may have read the "new york times" yesterday in which a lot of the editorials excoriated justice scalia for actually reading the law as written. there is another view that says that y really ought to read

those words in a way that makes the case, out in a way that serves the public good -- makes the case come out in a way tt serves the pubc good. what do you say, taken? her reply was designed to show how moderate she was. she said, "i see some good in both sides. surely there are times when you read the words to mean what they say and applied them that way. there are times when you should not an should look at them on a case-by-case basis." a lot of dumb heads nodded/ . if they had thought about it a little bit, and i assure you that some did think about it and

did not have to think about it very long, did come to the nclusion that if in fact a judge or anybody can choose when and if words mean something, it is because they have already decided they mean nothing. that is cle, is it not? in other words, if i can decide when the words of the document mean something and when they do not, it is only because i am the decider, not the words themselves. the words are important only so far as i game at them. from time to time, they fit my needs. that is the dominant view of the constitution here inside the --

hear inside washington. outside, where the natives are restless, it is something very different. you see these supplements to -- simpletons to only know how to read. to them, the words mean what they say. that is very strange. the effect of this is to set up a clash, not unlike the clash that took place between the clerics of the catholic church and ordinary people when radicals like martin luther etc., readclifycliff, these pictures of themselves.

there is nothing in there about all sorts of things the churc says are absolutely is central. what are we arguing -- what are these churches arguing about? what is left for us? we were reading the bible. just imagine that u have millions of people out there who are just plain reading the bible and the constitution. when they read it, they want to know what all the constitutional law is about. the fine distinctions that are drawn, especially, ese fine distinctions appeared to have brought us to conclusions that seem to be at variance with the plain meaning of the word. for example, i do not think

there is any clearer example of this. it is trivial compared to the other, but it is very clear. it has to do with the fourth amendment and what is going on at airports these days. shucks, was that the - would be people who wrote the fourth amendment at gagged at the thought that someone would like a hand up their legs? no. they would not have gone for that. yet there is a body of constitutional law which would lead some to conclude that that is a legitimate government purpose. it is a legitimate government

purpose, then what is the worst of the constitution? one can go on to far more significant things, such athe invention of the right to abortion. it is an invention. i point out in my writings that it seems to me that anyone who can't read and has read the dread scott decision, even though when they disagreed with the decision,t does not proceed from -- it does proceed om some of the words of the constitution. ther is a certain approval of

slavery even though the words were never mentioned. the constitution does envision the conclusion to which -- the conclusion that the black man -- that the white man needs respect. they say you are a draft on the high seas. where does that come from? it doe not. that is the answer. it just plain does not come out. federalist letters 78 is very clear. that ialexander hamilton's main argument on the power of the supreme court. their main power is the power of

persuasion. persuasion that those w are affected by government action ought to abide by the decisions of the government's because they are right -- decisions of the arernment because they right and consistent with the deal. the constitution, if anything, is a basic deal. that deal n be chged. thomas jefferson made it perfectly clear and no one can disagree that the malls are for the living not beead -- that the laws are for the living, not the dead. the constitution is very clear on hal the deal is to be changed -- on how the deal is to be

changed. it is unconstitutional to suggest that the deal can be changed by other than amendment. you can interprett, but you cannot make b mean the opposite of a by interpretation. that is not kosher. that is a deal-breaker and leaves those who are affected -- if you do not abide by the deal, why should i? this brings me to what is really the central point. i have five minutes left.

these clashes do not arise merely from a difference of how the constituon is read it, they rise from propelled cultural differences which have developed within our country. as i point out in my paper, those who live here in the white house fort are living by a cuure very different from the natives. the natives have lost faith in the ruling class. that is really the fundamental. -- that is really the fundamental fact. this does not deal primarily with economics.

' is isbout ruling class performance in general and their attitude toward the rest of america. it is, i would say, a good 50% actual performance and 50% attitude, and perhaps may be attitude is more important because, as we all know, it is far more abrasive and injury. in a nutshell, the ordinary citizens now perceive the ruling class as having failed in everything it has touched in the past couple of generations. everything you have told us has

turned out to be wrong. we have all of you into wars and have had no victories, only blood, and no prospect for peace. anybody who has read it the common document, anybody who lives in the real world knows that what most americans expect from foreign policy is peace. white piece? peace? o we are not here to rule the world, we are here to live our lives. living our lives requires a piece. this is not pacifism. we can fight a war so long as we get the peace. why fight aar that does not get to peace? victory and peace or the natural outcomes of war jus as produce

is the natural outco of farming. people dig in the ground to get crops. people fight for peace. security -- economic security. social security was promised. no. social security is a ponzi scheme and everyone here knows it. people out there now with more than the people in here. i could go down the line of all of the things that have gone to discredit the ruling class. this is not a matter of policy. it is a matter of identity. this loss of confidence is not

something that can be remedd by changing policies or by elections. this is something that is a fundamental, culturaproblem. how it may be addressed is the story. the obvious beginning of addressing it is to stop insulting the voters. in a democracy it kind of makes sense not to insult the voters. keeping faith with the voters, doing what you say you are going to do -- but that is just e beginning. again, tell the cultural chasm is to be remedied is the elephant in the room. it is a big problem. the clashes over the constitution are merely one manifestation of that larger

probm. thank you. >> thank you, sir. right on time. professor jeffrey rosen is a legal affairs editor. he is also a professor of law at george washington university. he is a nonresident senior fellow at the brookings institution. he is the author of about six books. >> for, not 6. >> two in the works. his essays have appeared in the "new york times" and " ththe atlantic monthly." he is the most widely read legal commentator according to e "los angeles times." thank you for coming. >> thank you for including me in this stimulating conversation. thank you for prof. codevilla

for having written this provocative paper. i know you have all enjoyed reading it. there is much in his paper that i very much admire. i'd like the fact that he understands that the supreme court throughout history has not had a monopoly on constitutional interpretation. i liked the fact that he realizes it is a goo thing that globalized americans are reading the constitution, marching on the mall, and making their own judgments about what the words mean. in meyer him at agree with them that constitutiol change -- i admire him and agree with him that constitutional change has come from americans and not from judges. s paper in his argument deserved respect. i would be remiss not to play with professor codevilla and try not to stick in the night as far as i can. [laughter]

his basic thesis, which is to draw an antithesis between the country class and the ruling class -- the anti-government sympto of the country and the elitist alien sentiments of a unelected bureaucracy is one find unconvincing, both as an account of our politics today and our constituonal politics do well american history. i would like to try to persuade you that i aright and he is wrong. [laughter] professor codevilla yet argues that the country class, which the debate -- which he equates with the majority of americans, -- the ruling class says the constitution must help the government do good rather than restraint it. he says that the ruling class got up and running during the

progressive era. they began to impose rulings on the country class and the courts. he argues that to date this ruling class, elite this mentality raines not only in the obama administration, but also on the supreme court. he says that the country-class needs to reinstate the founder's vision of limited government. i want to begin by noting this inconsistent attitude towards judicially imposed limits on power. at his court, he criticizes the court repeatedly for not imposing boundaries on government power that he believes the founders would have insisted on. he wants to it -- he was the court to strike down naked body scanners, unconstitutional taking of property, and

affirmative action. those are just some examples. l of these measures were passed by the democratically elected legislators or regulatory agencies. most of them are extremely popular. let's begin with the body scanners. i was cheering professor kennedy on what i heard him say that the founders would have been appall at being felt-up at the airport. decisions approving a similar technologies are hardly an elitist conspiracy. the body scanners re popular with 80% of the country. when you talk about populist heroes, that immortal objection, unk," rates upmy jo

there with "give me liberty or give me death." decisions striking down campaign finance reform was unpopular with 80% of the country, democratic and republican. when it comes to affirmative action, it is a complicated question.

>> these are the dates about the will of the people. dred scott popular with the incoming president and congress. the court thought that both parties were using it for you did -- for judicial resolution. the national majority favored a national rather than a judicial resolution to the slavery question. the court was wrong to be unilateral. it was not a failure of textualism. to say that the establishment clause and the meaning of the

constitutional vision of church and state could be settled by reading the text is simplistic. it is true that my favorite teacher from law school agrees law angelo codevilla that the establishment clause was meant to protect the state establishment. but there is no consensus on the contemporary meaning of that. justice clarence thomas says it means the states should be free to promote religion in general as long as they do not promote a particular religion. a famous historian says it was a vision of religious neutrality that was intended. views cannotas' be reconciled with the views of madison or anyone else. there are serious disagreements on every side.

i said that i agreed with angelo assessment of the judicial premises and. in cases like roe versus wade in cases striking down 26 federal laws between 1995 and 2003, there is no one -- angelo codevilla is in favor of a dramatic increase in judicially and forced limitations on federal power. the justices struck down the most terrible loss. the most deferential was rehnquist. what about the roberts scored? to complicate matters more, i want to distinguish between three separate strands of judicial extremism. there are significant tensions

among them. they complicate the picture, suggesting that a simplistic opposition between those who believe the constitution means what it says and those who don't does not do it justice. these three visions are the tea party, libertarians, and the pro-business conservatives. who are the tea party constitutionalists? on the supreme court, they have only one consistent rep. that is justice clarence thomas. he combines religious conservatism, nt federalism, and opposition to elite. these were views clarence thomas had before the tea party was up and running. the constitutional brew of the

tea party movement is a man that angelo codevilla has heard of. this is the constitutional source most cited at tea party rallies. they waved his book on the mall when they march at tea party rallies. his views are most consistent with tea party senators. he combines religious conservatism and suspicion of the separation of church and state for the historical reasons that professor codevilla with a crew seated -- with a crusading anti-libertarianism. they believe the environmental protection agency is unconstitutional as well as the department of education.

this man argues that the 16th and 17th amendments should be repealed. he believes social security is a form of unconstitutional wealth redistribution. the tea party vision is at odds with the other to this is. the second legal movement is

libertarianism. its leaders are my friends at the cato is a true. unlike the tea party people, libertarians are pro-choice and pro gay marriage. they support judicial activism. they support judicial activism to strike down unconstitutional regulations like health care reform and much of the administrative state. the libertarian hero would be douglas ginsburg. he was nominated for the supreme court in the 1980's. he has called for a resurrection of the constitution in exile. he wrote a wonderful decision striking down global positioning devices placed under cars that can track people 24/7. i am sure he would not like body

scanners either. he is not a religious conservative in any significant way. in the third category is the pro-business conservatives. they are led by the u.s. chamber of congress, which represents the unified interests of business. they won 13 of the 18 cases they filed briefs on recently. this is not a surprise. both justice roberts and justice alito worked for the chamber. justice roberts supported unanimity. these business decisions are most likely unanimous. 80% of these business cases are unanimous. most of them are decided in a pro-business direction. pro-business conservatives are at odds with the libertarians and >> power -- tea party people when it comes to power.

their job is to represent the interests of american business. they saw the failure of banks as an existential threat. they will use doctrines like federal pre-emption that business favors because it provides a uniform national rules to thwart states' rights. you are going to see clashes between the pro-business conservatives and the tea party people in the next congress over questions like firm subsidies -- farm subsidies. we will also see that clash working itself out on the supreme court. they are expected to hear the health-care cases as early as next year. i was talking with someone about whether the court will strike down health care. neither one of us is confident

about that either way. i would like to talk about that in a bit. previously, aside from justice thomas, the conservatives on the robbers courts have rejected the pro-states' rights division. they embrace a broad vision of federal power to regulate the economy even when it has remote effects on interstate commerce. i am not holding my breath. professor codevilla denied it, but the accord follows the election returns. --denies it, but the court follows the election returns. the tea party constitutionalists are trying to have it both ways. they support legislative repeal of health care. it wants to rely on judges to

support highly contested constitutional arguments. these are the kind of argument that got conservatives into trouble. you could even call it elitist. it is the vision that judges know best. i do think that i would like to end by noting that rather than bashing progressive for their elitism, tea party constitutionalists might find common ground with the progressives in their opposition to the wall street mentality that led to the crash of 2007 and the opposition to the curse of bigness. my friend at harvard law school has called for a neo-progressive movement to react to the dangers of business. there is a feeling of alienation from a government controlled by wall street.

he says an overlap between the neo-progressive vision -- in that sense, it is the two visions that might find a common hero. that would be louis brandeis. he remarkably denies the strands that the professor was to insist are incompatible. he was a progressive and was devoted to judicial restraint. he was a constitutionalist who want to apply the fourth amendment to new technologies. he believed in the curse of bigness. he understood the bat -- he understood that political change comes from the political process and you could translate constitutional values in ways that congress could not anticipate. angelo codevilla wants to opposed to reading the document and reading the words -- once

to have people read the document and understand the words. this centralizing tendency of democracy continues to threaten human liberty for reasons that libertarian conservatives and civil libertarian liberals understand today. brandeis knew about the duties of public liberation. this might make us truly their own. this will require work. he said if we were guided by the light of reason, we must let our minds be bold. thank you so much. >> thank you. i want to get you all in. the professor might have a response or two. we will let these gentlemen have a quick back and forth. let me know if you have a question and i will write your name down.

>> we are a lot closer with regard to public policy than we are with regard to the constitution. the fundamental question is, by what right? the only thing i resent in your description of me is the notion

that i am somehow inconsistent by supporting the court striking down things that are passed by popular majority. there is no inconsistency there at all. after all, like most americans, like most people who believe in the constitution, i am devoted to maury versus maryland. -- marbury versus maryland. it makes perfect sense. if you have a conflict between the constitution and the state, the constitution prevails. there is a difference between striking down things like marbury and tracking down things because you do not like them. the notion that the court is

simply -- the courts simply likes and dislikes things because they are in tune with the culture of the time is certainly partially true. no doubt about that. there is a term in constitutional law for that. it is called locknering. the court lockners all the time. it follows popular perversions and makes them its own. it sometimes leads popular perversions and further perverts the people. of course. the majority of the people do

have alternately the right -- to have ultimately the right to have what they wish. the constitution's words have to presumptively rule over sentiment. do we have statements on the court -- the we have status on the court? does justice scalia have a state is? i debated him -- the us justice scalia had a status. -- does justice scalia have a status? i debated him a few years ago.

it was about fisa. is there perfect consistency out there? heavens, north. -- heavens, no. there are two substantive arguments out there. one is policy and the other is the law. the law is the basic deal. you get away from the basic deal and you risk the most important thing of all, which is people asking the question, why should i obeyed? you risk that, you risk everything. the small thing -- a last small thing about roosevelt. roosevelt agreed on a whole bunch of policy things. my point is that they came at these decisions from a different

basis. they did agree on a whole bunch of things. but it was for different reasons and those reasons are not to be discounted easily. i will leave it at that for now. >> jeffrey, a quick response. >> it is helpful to distinguish between the policy points and the legal point. i am glad we see eye to eye on some of the policy points, especially dealing with libertarian limits. >> i am not a libertarian. >> that is the part of your policy i agree with. i am not a social conservative. a majority of americans -- my

wife went through a patdown recently. she said to the security guard, you are going to have to give me a cigarette and a drink. [laughter] the thing is, the majority of americans do not agree with us when it comes to body scanners. you consistently make claims about what the majority believes. i think it is not convincing. even to the majority of americans supporting murray. -- supporting the artery. -- supporting marbury. they can name fewer justices on the supreme court then they can the seven dwarfs. i think that although you

disavow with, you support it. lockner was a decision that struck down maximum our laws in new york state for bakers. new york state legislatures by baking was a dangerous profession and you should be able to prevent bakers from working a certain amount of hours a day. there was a controversial decision. they struck that down. it said work hours for a constitutional right. there were 2 70 cents. -- two famous the sense. the most famous one was -- two famous dissents. one of the famous one was from all for wendell holmes. -- oliver wendell holmes.

he said when people can agree on what economic theories, judges should refer to the legislature. he said the problem with lockner was the failure of textualism. he said he would not tell people what he thought. he said regional people thought -- reasonable people thought baking was and on helping profession. it was not the job of the court to impose its contested vision

when the country as a whole had a different vision. you are an enthusiastic locknerite. you want a dramatic increase in the willingness of course to second-guess economics legislation. -- willingness of the courts to second-guess economics legislation. >> your problem with lockner is my own. these are the kinds of decisions that have to be made within the legislative branches and not by the courts. >> should the courts strike down health-care reform? >> yes. where does it say that you can do these things? that is simply reading the text and saying, the power is not there. >> it makes the point.

your objection is that if the power is not written down, you have to strike it down. that has not been the consensus since 1937. >> i suggest to you that that consensus is wrong. have millions of people out there who take that as common sense. if it is not fair, if the power is not there, it is not there. >> i understand. it is a powerful business. this has gotten the courts into more trouble than in history, which it has embraced this simplistic vision. >> i do not care if the court gets into trouble. i care if the country gets into trouble. >> it is a print court struck down the income tax and the minimum wage law and the new -- if the supreme court struck down

the income tax and the minimum wage law, you see a pattern developing. >> the court says that if you like, for example, the nra, then pass a constitutional amendment that allows you to set up these independent businesses. the question with regard to the epa is, where does it get its power? what is in the constitution that allows you to have something that has judicial, legislative, and executive powers at the same time? >> the epa and the independent regulatory agencies are constitution and need to be

struck down. >> i did not need him to agree with me. >> you are a tea partiers in this regard. it is a remarkably aggressive revision of judicial power. >> it is not an aggressive and vision of judicial power. it is the opposite. reading is not an aggressive act. remember that. reading is not an act of aggression. he can be found liable for reading and say, i do not see that. that is not aggression. >> we can continue. this is rich, but i want to get some others down and make it even richer. pull the microphone up to yourself, please. >> is this on?

i hope this will make it richer. i thought this was an interesting discussion you were having. i want to talk about article 5 for a moment. i am struck, angelo, by your description of the tea party is as --the tea party as a movement about identity. about a certain identity. i am just wondering. we do not self govern ourselves. we are a government that is supposed to be constitutional. i am wondering if you see the tea party movement in a circumstance where there will be proposed one or more constitutional amendments. how will the courts interpret

things? did you see that eventuality here? jeff, i am just wondering if you see it that way. politically speaking as a lawyer who follows the court, were you surprised at this development from the beginning of the obama administration? just curious. >> i do not know and neither does anybody else. i have to leave it at that. all i can tell you is the attitudes toward government that we are seeing are not classic american anti-government attitudes.

here is something new here. something that i as a former italian recognize. and do not like. when i came to america, i was civic ted to see the si commitment of americans and how it was different from an italian. s. i see a kind of walking away from government and the notion that it is to them versus us in the same way that i have seen it in europe. do not think for a moment that you have a docile sheep in europe. you have recalcitrant sheep. there is a part of this that is not healthy.

i am not simply praising the tea party. by the way, i am part of it. there is one tea party in my area and i am part of it. there are certain attitudes that are coming along with it that are at variance with the great american tradition. >> was i surprised by it? absolutely. i am a card-carrying member of the same elite that professor codevilla denounces. like obama, i imagine that these regulatory bureaucrats would be more quickly recede than they were. i learned about the tea party by going to rallies and writing an article. i talked to a woman and she said, i never thought about carrying a gun until the federal

government told me i couldn't. i respect that. i really respect the feeling of frustration that the tea party people have with obama, many of whom voted for him. that american anti-elitist sentiment is well capt. -- well-captured. in his book, he helps us understand the tea party. where will it go? i am and no better at predicting the future than i was in the past. people on the left and right have gone in two ways in the past. the left was absorbed by the major political parties and became mainstream. the john birchers marginalize

themselves when they accused eisenhower of being a communist. they were marginalized for a generation. it is unclear whether tea party senators like mike lee, and most prominent and thoughtful constitutionalist, will be able to articulate himself in a way that the majority will be able to embrace. >> let me follow up quickly. there might be decisions by the people and their proper government. is that what you are saying? a political, small "p"

movement. >> i think the best thing for the tea party would be to continue to focus its efforts on congress. i like the contract for america that says the senator has to specify the constitutional provision on which it rests. that is a wonderful provision. people should read the constitution. i think the more constitutional discourse, the better. do not make the mistake. this is a siren song. as long as these arguments are bought out politically, they have a chance of persuading the country. as long -- the moment you try to impose this on the country, you risk marginalizing yourself. >> the point i was making in the book, which no one has read, is

that one of the challenges with the tea party is not to ape what the obama administration has done, which is to show something down the throats of the people in the country. this country is about self governance and it is about to burst self-government's -- diverse self governance. the worst thing that could happen is have be a revolution from above to reverse the previous revolution from above. when that happens, that is a banana republic, and god willing, this will not be that. >> there is a whole lot that i

would like to throw out, but i will try to limit it to the use of the word activism. before i get there, just as an example of some of the other things that i could have spoken about, this one fits in with activism. the ordinary person who reads the constitution, which says there is more justification, you said something about there being nothing and the constitution about liberty of contact, but the constitution says that states shall make no law getting rid of the obligation of contract. so there is at least something in theire. since the case with madison, the

idea has been and certain circumstances, the judge must step in to protect these barriers against government. the question arises, when should they stepped in, when should they not step in? there has been this term that was first popular on the right, now is more popular on the left because they have redefined it. i would like to get rid of it all together, but you used it a lot, and that is the term judicial activism. and what bothers me about what the left says when they use the term judicial activism is they that then acknowledge right means and has always meant something completely different. to mean ite term when judge a strike down a law

yo. the right, libertarians, of course across the spectrum of the right said that is not what activism means. activism means when the judge substitutes his own opinion for the law and that is activist when a judge, because he likes a law, does not apply the constitution to strike it down, just as it is activist for him to do the opposite. i guess what i am asking is, is there a sense in which he did that difference of definition of activism could be knowledge to help the debate or is there a sense in which there may be a truth in which neither side uses that loaded term again?

>> thank the. very good question. i tried avoiding to use the term because i know it is contested and debates about it tend to be dreary and unproductive. i have used it as a shorthand for striking down laws it s. i like it because it is neutral. it does not say whether it is good or bad. i support activism when it comes down to striking down body scanners or free speech rights because i think the constitution, properly interpreted, requires that. it is just a neutral term. i find that the new alternative definition, mainly that judges should not substitute their own opinions -- >> that is not new, that it has always been. and i agree it is not a helpful definition because it is

completely in the eye of the beholder. no judge ever believes that they are substituting their own views of the constitution. everybody is trying to interpret it in good faith, but these are highly contested theories were text and history are pointing in different directions. i would just say as a descriptive matter, given the fact that the laws that they have insisted are unconstitutional happen to coincide with those they think are bad policy matter, which is the same case for the right. it is difficult for those who do not share the political predispositions of conservatives to feel like they're operating in good faith when they think that striking out all of the laws are bad ideas are also prohibited in the constitution and are chosen and consistently -- and are chosen and inconsistently.

i entirely accept your proposal of a truce to leave the word out, because we do not want to debate activism. it is much more productive. the professor really supports striking down the epa, striking down the independent regulatory agencies, health care. that is a very enthusiastic use of judicial power. it is a very broad and aggressive use of judges to restrain government. that has not been the traditional conservative position. justice scalia in a debate with richard epstein in the 1980's, epstein was calling for judicial and validation of many of these laws on libertarian grounds and justice scalia said it was founded in opposition, defined as the idea that

political debate should be solved in the political arena, not the courts. limited judicial power. he said we were right to restrain judicial activism. i think let's just acknowledged that conservatives nowadays want judges to strike down a lot more laws than liberals do. >> there is a little misunderstanding here. i am not insisting that the courts and validate the epa, etc., etc. i am saying that the epa is a constitutional anomaly, etcetera, etcetera, but i did not suggest it is the job of the courts to throw it out. far from it. this is a task for congress. this is a task for law. so please do not in feud -- >> forgive me for

misunderstanding. >> i would consider that also a kind of judicial activism, relying upon the courts to do something which is the job of the political branches to do responsibly with the votes to which they can be held accountable. >> so there are things like the epa that you think violate the constitution that courts should couple because it is up to congress to enforce? >> these things were passed by congress. perhaps when they were first enacted, they may have very well said, look, there is no basis for this, but the epa has been around for well over a generation. for the court to all of a sudden to say, well, no, you cannot have this at all, it is another thing for the court to stand by as the epa tries to regulate the

blow of the asian -- to regulate the flatulence of cattle. that is something else. i am not at all suggesting, because your criticism of me would be quite valid, but that has never crossed my mind. >> we have changed agreement on this? >> yes. >> just in response to the idea that the right tends to always seemed to see their policy choices and constitutional choices be the same, i offer the model in support of the right's definition of the activism and the converse of it.

the dissent in griswald, echoed by clarence thomas and texas, when they said i find this to be uncommonly silly, but our job is not to decide whether it is silly, it is to decide whether it is constitutional. those are both examples of times when in deed to the policy choices and the constitutional choices that the justices made were clearly the opposite. that is the model i am throwing out there. >> i have been an admirer of their dissents on those cases. i would just suggest those are anomalies. >> ladies and gentlemen, please join me and thanking them for a very stimulating discussion. our time is up. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] at the bill of rights institute, we end on time.

[laughter] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> you are watching c-span. every morning, ""washington journal," connecting you with elected officials, politicians, and journalists. during the week, our continuing coverage of the transition to the new congress. it also, supreme court oral arguments. on the weekends, our signature interview programs. you can also watch our programming anytime at c- span.org, and it is all searchable in our video library. it c-span, washington your way, a public service created by america's cable companies. >> now kansas senator sam brownback delivers his farewell speech of the senate floor. he will be sworn in as governor

of kansas on january 10. senator from kansas. mr. brownback: mr. president, thank you very much. i thank the majority leader for setting this period of time up. this would be my last speech probably to the body. it's a speech that i want to give in talking about leaving the united states sate. i was just elected to be governor of kansas, which i'm very excited about that post. i have served here a period of 14 years, which has been a wonderful chance to be able to serve the people of kansas, the people of the united states, and i love this body and i love this country. a lot of folks talk about when they leave about the partisanship and the bickering. i like to think about the beauty of the country and the ability to come together becau it does happen. the predecessor of the person sitting in the seat, i worked one of the flagship pieces of legislation on human rights protection, it was on human trafficking. the initial bill was with paul wellstone that i worked with from minnesota.

a delightful individual. it was a great chancer for us -- a great chance for us to work together on something we couldn't have been further apart. i think he was ranked the second most liberal member of the united states senate. he aspired to be number one, but he was second. he was a delightful man and dealt from the heart, and we got things done. i say that because i think that's really how we work in this place, is we fight about 20% of the issues, they are important, big issues, and then we can cooperate and work together on a whole host of bipartisan issues, such as dealing with things like human trafficking. and you do that i think primarily with people that deal from theeart, people like paul wellstone, ted kennedy, jesse helms. there are a lot of others and many people get many things done in this body, but i think it's just best when people deal from the heart. and when they do that, then there's a chance for us to com together around key and heartfelt things. this has been a great body to serve in and i've delighted in

being able to do that. there's much to be done, much to be done for the country. we've got to deal with creation of jobs in america. we have deal with our debt and our deficit. we have many, many issues to deal with. the -- my hope for here and my hope for our country is that we go back to the virtues of the greatest generation and look to those for ways to move on forward. it's kind of looking back at the old path at what worked in tough mes d moving on forward to the new path. i was -- i came into this seat after bob dole served in this body and served in this seat. senator dole from kansas i think is the icoc figure of the world war ii generation and of that greatest generation. just got out of walter reed hospital. he's been very sick and ill this year but is coming back and recuperating. i think he's 87 years old this year. most everybody in america would agree about the greatest