the time gal was talking about -- gail was talking about in 1994 while clinton dealt with the opposition. that was when clinton had to decide whether he was going to go back and go back to when he campaigned as as a centrist. barack obama campaigned as a left-of-center progressive. clinton decided that he would go back to his roots. .

results in people's lives now rather than action in washington. people are distinguishing between legislation passed and what does it mean for me and so far people don't realize what the congress has done and what president obama has done has made a lot of difference in their lives.

maybe they'll change their minds. so the question is, so the spirit of accommodation from the lame-duck session where you'll recall that this extension of the bush-era tax cuts was passed, unemployment benefits passed, the senate ratified the start arms control treaty, there was the passage of the legislation to help the first responders after 9/11 which became a big issue, will that continue? and without taking too much time, i think that's up in the air because you're getting a lot of noise in the system now that the republicans pushed by the tea party this conservative movement around the country, a lot of republicans are nervous that if they don't stand up to obama and draw contrast with him they are going to be challenged in primaries by the tea party and a lot of them are afraid of that. so they have this feeling, i

think, among a lot of republicans of how far do they go to compromise and if they go too far does that mean they are going to be in trouble within their conservative world? and so i think that's the big question, you know, as gail and ross are saying, we have a lot of things that are going to come up immediately such as health care. the house wants to repeal it. may have the votes to do that. doubtful 9 senate does but then you have the whole question of defunding health care. in other words, try to take it on piece by piece by not paying for it. and there's a piecemeal approach to it too. i think that's going to be a real flashpoint in the next few months. and there's really no way to know how it's going to turn out, but i think that's going to be a real test of accommodation, compromise and the spirit of comedy which everybody is talking about but i don't know that they're going to deliver on.

>> tony, constitutional challenges to the health insurance reform. four judges have come down with opinions on that. challenges to the first sentence of the 14th amendment about the question of whether people born in the united states are citizens of the united states. it's going to be a busy year in the court? >> it is, although some of those issues may come to the court. it takes a while. it may not come to the court for a year or so, but you're talking about the state of the union address and there is going to be this interesting dynamic of president obama and the congress that they're maybe trying to repeal health care reform. you'll also have a group of supreme court justices in the audience who also -- who may hold the final say on health care reform unless it's repealed. i think there is a bit of

suspense as to how many justices will attend. you may recall last year president obama kind of chewed out the supreme court and the justices were right there in front of him for the citizens united decision which repealed -- or overturned a part of the campaign finance laws and allowed corporations and unions to make unlimited expenditures in campaigns. president obama. and the democratic senators kind of stood up and cheered obama and glared at the justices. it was kind of an awkward moment. several justices have since said they don't want to be seen

as political pawns. so i think there is this dynamic between those two branches, the supreme court and the executive and, of course, congress as well. of course, ross wrote a book about the relationship between the supreme court and congress which is a very useful text. but anyway, i think there is a real danger for obama in these court challenges to the health care reform legislation. several judges have already said it is constitutional. one judge last month ruled that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. in other words, there's a part of the law that says all people must get some kind of health insurance. and this judge said the powers of congress don't extend to

forcing people to buy something , and that's a real test of the power of congress. so how it will come out, i really am not sure. i would guess that the bill, the health care reform legislation will be upheld in the end. even this supreme court may not feel like it should overturn this massive piece of legislation. it should perhaps leave it to the elected branches. >> tony, there is in the supreme court and traditionally been the presumption of constitutionality and congress, there has to be something glaring for them to find an act of congress unconstitutional. >> well, that's right. that's the tradition. it's a tradition that fades

away. you get five votes to strike something down. and that has happened fairly often. in fact, senator specter, who is departing from congress unvoluntarily, he made a speech after speech about how the supreme court is dising congress, it isn't differential to congress and its enactments. i think he had a good point in a way. of course, if congress enacts something that's obviously patently unconstitutional, that's what the supreme court is there to do is to say you can't do this. but in kind of gray areas, you're right. there is or should be a presumption of constitutionality. >> well, there are a couple of

really interesting kinds of explosive things. the whole question about the extension of the debt limit coming up, which i think most people will come up early march. is there childish chicken game by people who want to use this as leverage to force down government spending? >> nothing childish about that issue. it's real and it's big and people have run on it. they're committed to it, but it does sound a lot like -- i don't know how many of you studied world war i history. are you familiar with the phrase "glorious little war," the sense that a war is coming, it's going to be great and then they discover trench warfare for -- how long did that go on? three years or something. it's not great when you are in the middle of it. there are freshmen very eager. you heard them on radio

stations, television making comments about this. we are ready for this. we want to see this through and we are not going to vote to raise the debt limit. well, i think part of the difficulties of this issue is that there's a lot of people think the way not to reach the debt limit is you don't reach your debt limit, you stop spending for a while and then gradually things will even out. but most of our budget, the federal budget isn't discretionary spending. it's things like from on the national debt. interest rates go up even a little bit and, you know, $14 trillion of debt mounts up rather quickly. and bankers want to be paid. so that sense of what can actually be done between now and april to stay below that debt limit, that question hasn't been engaged yet. freshmen are still talking about it ases just a matter of political will and even if those foolish democrats will agree to some cuts in spending

we'll be fine. what i'm excited about with this congress, especially on the house side, is a promise we'll see if speaker-elect boehner keeps the promise, it's a promise that there will be amendments on the floor. that hasn't happened in quite a while where you can see a real debate on the house of representatives on an issue where a vote actually means something. so you're going to see a whole series of very pointed discussions about what actually is a wasted dollar. where can we cut? what will happen when the country runs up against the debt ceiling? we have some examples in europe. it's not pretty. greece is not a pretty picture right now. the thing that concerns me beyond the fact that i don't think we're really understanding what the consequences are yet of hitting the debt ceiling and what reasonably can be done between now and then to prevent it is a

lot of freshmen have told me -- many i talked to -- that they think fox news will save them. they think that the difference between now and when newt gingrich went toe to toe with the white house of sitting down government is people just didn't understand that it was really clinton's fault. they think that this time, thanks to fox news, which a lot of people listen to, people will understand that it's the democrats and president obama who are not willing to rein in their free spending ways and that the republicans are really standing up for righteousness. they also think that if government shuts down it will be short. well, the reason it was short the last time is republicans got scared about the outcome. i think a lot of this is even though i started out by saying everyone remembers history, there's a sense in which we don't remember history or we're remembering it in a fresh way. and i think the fresh way of understanding this very important vote is, one, it's

going to be a splendid little war. two, we have a 500-pound gorilla on our side with fox news. and, three, we can really stare the democrats down into making spending cuts they wouldn't otherwise make over the threat of a shutdown but in the end we know it won't actually happen. >> there are a couple kind of interesting things that are going on in terms of the white house would like to do, wanted to do, have obviously encountered obstacles which is the environmental problem of greenhouse gas which, of course, they do have a supreme court decision behind them on this, that 2007 massachusetts vs. e.p.a. case. you think they're going to push the regulatory lever far enough or if the republicans will try to push back on that? >> well, that's a sort of fundamental question we're asking ourselves looking at the

next two years. the president does have in place an activist e.p.a. administer and a lot of people around him who want him to do just that, to use the e.p.a.'s regulatory power and that supreme court decision to push ahead in effect circumventing congress and take on greenhouse gases. i think obama is ameanable to doing that, but one thing about obama is that to some extent he's somewhat of a mystery as to how far he will go. not only on the e.p.a. issue and regulation but just in confronting the republicans and so on, but this idea of him using regulations and using the powers of the executive to get things done is something they're debating actively at the white house because of the problems they feel they're going to have in congress. so you're going to see a lot of that unilateral action from

president obama. the question i have and a lot of other people have is, as i say, how far will he go? a couple people have pointed out, i think a very interesting dichotomy, is that he is a liberal practicing matist. he's not -- pragmatist. he's not a liberal theologan. using government to help people sort of thing, but he's not interested in running off a cliff in frustration and futility. there is a point he will hold up and say, well, if we can get half of what we want or whatever, let's do that and not just try to be too ideological about it. now, i happen to think that's right. but how that's manifested is a big question that we're going to have. and i think we're going to see that on the regulation. the more he does of the regulation i think more of the conservatives will be furious that he's defying the will of

the people. and that will really stir up the pot. and, you know, he's -- obama, i think at heart, is really not a confrontational kind of guy. and so that's a big question for the next two years, how much will he -- is he willing to confront the republicans and draw these stark lines or not? and just one final point on that, i was reminded of this whole notion of obama as a guy who does not like confrontation. during his vacation in hawaii, a lot of people think of him as a chicago dreeture, you know, as an arm twisting tough politics of chicago. but he was brought up in his younger years in hawaii which is a whole different atmosphere. something called the aloha spirit. everybody needs to get along. and he was really deeply affected by this. he talks about it to his friends all the time. and a lot of people at the white house say, well, when he goes to hawaii he's not going on vacation.

he's going home and he's getting refreshed with this whole idea of all these people living in these islands in the middle of the pacific and they have to get along because there's no other place for them to go. that's at least how they define it there. and so i think that that's another part of obama we talk a lot about, the idea of him being an accommodationist rather than confrontational. >> you think, ken, that the republicans see him as somebody who can be rolled? >> yeah, i do. and i think if you look at what happened in the lame duck it's a good case to be made for that because he did go along with the bush tax cuts for the wealthy and did get some things in return, but there's a feeling that there's a sort of softness to obama. not sort of an iron spine there. and that's another thing that's going to be tested, but i think -- i've interviewed obama a number of times now and you do get a sense that he's a very

reasonable guy and maybe he's going to have to, you know, stand up and say no a few times to be taken seriously in a negotiation. >> after the lame duck, the last month, didn't the republicans feel like they were snuckered by obama that he gave up some but he got a lot back? >> yeah, he did. but i think the feeling is that they did get all the tax cuts, which was a goal, and on the start, the arms control treaty. you have basically the whole foreign policy established with it. so we are all the objections they were overwhelmed by that. you see that lame duck spirit fading very quickly as people start to think, well, 2012 is what we're focused on now, and like tony says, some people

thought conservatives thought they could have gotten more from obama but you had deadlines and i think in the end there was a sense that maybe he was too quick to compromise. i know a lot of liberals thought he was too quick to compromise. so that's the other side of it. >> when you use the phrase, rolled, the idea is i say x, you say not x and then as you approach me i say, oh, maybe not x. what alarmed democrats about the lame duck was that the president, when he negotiated over the tax deal, volunteered social security, volunteered cutting into the social security payroll tax. well, there are democrats who would cut off an arm rather than yield an inch on what they considered the most perfect piece of legislation that the democrats ever produced. they do not want to begin cutting into the viability of social security and the idea not that the president was rolled into doing it but that he offered to do it is what bothers them.

we need a term other than rolled. >> no. it's true. there's a sacred relic of the democratic party ven rated by all democrats and social security. >> that's it. >> tony, one of the things -- whenever i come to the topic of federalism with my students in my intraamerica government class, the topic of federalism comes up and you have eyesed glazed over. you have people in arizona challenging federal immigration policies by passing laws that clearly, if you -- i think even the most flexible reading of the constitution says it's purely from the realm of the federal government, immigration law. >> absolutely. there's -- we've been talking about the dynamic between the three branches of the federal government but there's a dynamic between the states. a lot of states are impatient. they say if congress isn't going to fix immigration we're

going to roll up rain shower sleeves and do it ourselves. you have this legislation in arizona which outlaws hiring illegal aliens in a way that doesn't quite fit the federal scheme. you also have it in global warming. a number of states have -- the more liberal states have gone on regulating climate change in industry where congress hasn't yet acted. so it's a constant issue before the supreme court. i know it does seem -- it's hard to make it come alive, but it really is a very important dynamic. the supreme court hasn't really got a clear position on it. it almost depends on what is

the state going ahead and doing, and if we like that then it's ok and if we don't like it then it's not ok. for example, when states do wacky liberal things like medical marijuana or the right to die, then all of a sudden the justices who are in favor of state sovereignty, they suddenly find a reason to oppose it because they don't like what those particular states are doing. so it's a shifting scenario that's hard to predict. >> let's bring the audience on this now. questions for our panelists. [inaudible] >> i have a question. do you think it will take a

while for the supreme court to go on the health care bill? [inaudible] >> well, that's a good question. the supreme court, if you ask the justices that question, he or she would say, oh, we don't pay attention to public opinion, but, of course, that's not true. they live in the world. they read newspapers and the media. so i think -- i think public opinion will be a factor. i mean, an issue like this so complex you can find reasons to say yes to uphold it and to turn it down. so how do you -- it's not like a clear black and white issue. so how do you choose one or the other? and i think public opinion will be a factor. if, for example, in the next

six months the public starts to like the health care reform and say, gee, we're getting all these benefits, don't take them away, i think that would be a factor that the court would consider. they wouldn't say it but they will. >> yes. actually, i want to talk about the race between garner and obama compared to what clinton did with newt gingrich? >> you mean boehner and obama? what you're hearing is a lot of talk that boehner is not as hard a case as gingrich, that he doesn't want to be as

upfront. you're seeing a lot of coverage of that. as gail said, he's not calling all the attention to himself and he's trying to be more of a humble speaker, if that's possible. i think what obama is going to try to do is to use what some people in the white house are saying as a charmer. that's an overstatement of what's going to happen. boehner is, for example, a golfer. so you'll see obama ask him to play golf. he's going to invite people to camp david. now, maybe this is all superficial. >> he's a good golfer. >> that's a good distinction to make. so we might not see many shots of them playing together. the contrast may not be good. i think you'll try to see him use the personal dimensions which obama has not done a lot of, even with democrats. and liberals and so on. or the media for that matter. but i think you'll see much

more of a personal -- try to develop a much more personal relationship and sort of smooth a lot of the edges, the rough, sharp edges. but on the policy i don't think that will make much of a difference. in the end they'll go back to their beliefs and their caucuses and their politics. so you might have a little bit of a -- a more of a cordiality in public. -- realize that clinton and gingrich got along privately. they saw common traits within each other. very smart, intellectual, knew or thought they knew something about everything, you know, that sort of thing. and so in private they actually got along pretty well but in public it didn't really come across that way. >> you know, there actually are some areas where they could agree. i mean, much to the discomfort of parts of their parties.

i think education is one of those. i have been astonished that, first of all, that the bush administration could put through an education flan in a party that campaigned to eliminate the department of education, to put through an education plan that gave such a strong role of the federal government. very controversial strong role to the federal government. along comes president obama and what does he do? he picks the prize superintendent from the bush years and makes him education secretary and then he proceeds with precisely the same set of assumptions that accountability is good, that testing is good, that we can -- we need to hold feet to the fire of schools that are not performing, of teachers not performing, of teachers unions that are not performing. there could actually be an agreement between a republican congress and the obama education department on cracking down on prerogatives of teachers unions.

appalling thought but it could actually happen. >> it's more remarkable when you think of the incredible percentages of members of the national jokse association of 10 democrats delegating it? >> no. it's a huge part of the democratic base, unions and teachers unions in particular and the fact that the president would be even considering some of these moves. this doesn't fit any model of political science i know. >> question. yes. yes, you. >> i have a question for tony mauro. you spoke briefly on immigrants. it has become a popular issue of debate. what's your position on it and how do you see it being enforced? >> i don't know i have a position. reporters aren't supposed to

have positions. but i -- and i think it's kind of a dead letter now, isn't it? it's not going to pass. but i think it probably will be constitutional, but i honestly don't have a -- i don't have a position on it really. >> tony's not being evasive. reporters are different from columnists who write opinion pieces. if you deal in the way that gail and tony and ken, you really got to call them as you see them. you have to call it straight and not inject your own opinion into the reporting of it. yes.

>> flauble knuckleball -- [inaudible] this is a general question. how do you think the mid term election will affect the 2012 presidency race? and do you think over the next two years that there may be any surprises that come out of washington that will maybe change the face of the government? >> well, i think i can start on that. i think the mid terms will have more of an effect on republicans than the democrats. there's a lot of chatter in the democratic party about obama being renominated. i think the only real challenge he would face for renomination is not from really anyplace except anti-war liberals because what i get the sense of is there's really no person that can carry the banner effectively and generate enough

emotion and response to make a challenge worthwhile except in the anti-war left. and so a lot will depend on what happens in afghanistan this summer, the rate of withdrawal, what's going to happen in iraq. a lot of people in the anti-war left are increasingly upset that obama is adopting bush policies, staying in iraq, staying in afghanistan, and that would be the only place i could see a challenge. and i don't even think that's going to happen. so i don't think it's going to be that difference. the mid terms would not make that much difference for obama. i think he will be renominated. everyone expects him to run again. on the republican side i does think it will have a big impact because i think you have this whole tea party factor that we talked about earlier and a lot of the republican presidential candidates are seeing the power that the tea party had in some places. not everywhere but some places, and are worried about them getting outflanked to their right. so i think that's the concern.

you know, you could throw out, you know, a dozen names of who might run. you know, the conventional wisdom -- in republican presidential politics, there's sort of slots or avenues that candidates run in to get to the nomination. there's the person at the top of the ladder, sort of the enentitlement candidate who ran before -- entitlement candidate who ran before, who it's that person's turn like a bob dole or ronald reagan. you have this very common feeling in the party. so there's the person whose turn is is. then there's the candidate of the fiscal conservative wing, the business type outsider. now, that may not make a difference this time. it may not be that way, but that's sort of the way that a lot of republicans think of it. you have these sort of people sort of take on these roles and get the nomination through those different ways.

most of the time the entitlement candidate bakes the mom knee, but that may -- nominee, but that may not happen this time. i think a lot of candidates are paying close attention to this tea party conservative resurgence in the party and i think that's going to be a big story for the next two years. >> i love your question because all elections in a way set up the next one. whether it's the next president is going to be not the last one. it's the pattern we've seen in the past. what i think is very interesting about these mid terms is what happened with the state houses and the governors because suddenly you have tremendous republican gains in state houses and legislatures which means it's a republican legislature that's going to decide how to redistrict in light of the last census. the census was a big boost to states that vote republican, but that's a little bit misleading because if you look within those states those

sfates have big cities, and the big -- states have big cities and the big cities often vote democrat. who gets to carve it out? do you create your new districts in districts that will help republicans and do you carve up the states that are usually blue states, that are going to lose seats, do you take them away in way that disadvantages democrats more than it helps republicans? those are political questions, but so much of -- so much of what's happened in our elections has been the result of gerrymandered districts, you look at them on a map and no rational reason that this district should look like this. some of them are not contiguous any more. most of them are not competitive any more. i was astonished when i came across a speech who richard strikeout, a long time

"monitor" writer, probably the best-known writer we had, he wrote for us for 70 years, wrote for the new republic and he had two voices. for "the monitor" his voice was very balanced, historical, looking forward and back. for another it was edgy. it was fun to read in both venues. he wrote a speech in the mid 1960's in which he said how appalling it was that the house had been so jerry mannedered that it was not competitive anymore. that in any given election no mar than half of the seats were competitive. i'm thinking, half the seats? if it's 35 out of 435, we think, whoa, very competitive election. but look how much has changed. and when you say, who gets to jerry -- who gets to decide where the districts are? the fact that it's republican legislatures and republican governors in the year when the census that had disadvantaged

republican states, that's a very big issue. it's not as personal as the campaigns are. it's very structural. that's why i like your question. i think that will have a lot to do what politics in the next 10 years looks like. >> take two more questions. yes. >> hi. i'm michelle. this sque is for ken walsh. you mention -- this question is for ken walsh. you mentioned obama is soft. i've heard boring. [inaudible] has it changed his support level? >> well, that's actually an interesting question. you actually have been following this in a very impressive way because, yeah, some people think that obama is boring. like i said, i've interviewed him four times now, and you see this -- you hear this from a

lot of his friends and people around him. obama is not a sort of a back slapping storytelling sort of personable kind of guy in person. he -- in the campaign he seemed to be a tremendously charismatic kind of figure. in private he is very professorial. he's a guy that's very methodical and disciplined. when you interview him i wouldn't say dull but he takes his time explaining things in a very careful way. he will come back at a question. a lot of politicses, -- politicians don't come back to questions. he will leave it and move on. obama will say, you asked me something 10 minutes ago, i'd like to come back and explain myself further and he'll gone. you see this at his news conferences. his opening statements, the length of his answers.

it frustrates a lot of white house reporters like me because he only calls at most 12 or 13 reporters at a news conference in an hour because his answers are so long. and a lot of people think it's dull or monotonous. >> the filibuster is not restricted to the senate. >> right. but i think he's trying to explain himself. he wants people to learn what he wants to say and usually, by the way, a president in my experience would make get to 20 questions. so this is about -- a little more than half of what we're used to. so that causes a lot of hard feelings in the press corps that he's not getting to enough people. i think in policy terms, people wonder if obama is reaching out enough in a personal way to them. you hear this from people who talk to him, from associates and people who he wants to get something from. it's not like he'll say, well,

how's your family or, you know, finding something to bond with a person with, he won't do this. the final point, the last time i interviewed him, when i walked him, instead of asking about some common experiences he might have had, in every experience with every president, he said, i've been thoroughly briefed. fire away. that's how we got through the interview. that's the way he is. last question. >> right in front. yes. >> how much influence do you think the tea party will have on the election compared to the 2010 election, and do you think the republicans can win with just the strictly tea party candidate or do they need

someone that's more of a moderate? >> anybody. jump ball. >> there's mixed results. the sharon engel like in nevada, you can't be too extreme. you can lose as a tea party candidate even though you might win the republican nomination. but i think there's a lot of concern, as i said earlier, among republicans that they will be challenged. and just a challenge in a primary scares a lot of them. i think there will be more of a sensitivity to tea party activists and conservative activists and i think that's going to be the big impact, not only in rhetoric but in legislation. that's sort of my short answer. >> you're also going to see a lot of real cuts between now and then. people will know what it's like to see less government spending. how will these people respond and who will they be? will they be striking teachers or firemen or policemen or will

you see a kind of public sector backlash? will there be sympathy for that? will people stuck permanently unemployed or underemployed respond in some way? i mean, in the last election we only saw the tea party and some of these sort of usual union suspects. i think in the next election there will be other groups without names yet that are organizing to come to what they say. it's hard to predict what they'll look like, but my suggestions would be public service workers, unemployed, underemployed, people protesting trade issues, a different issue mix but not necessarily supporting the typical tea party agenda. >> well, i like to thank all three of you and -- [applause]

i think the value to you of people like gail and ken and tony is that these people have really touched the bones. they have spent time with the people that we read about, and they know them on a personal basis and have a sense of who they are as people which i think is really very, very important in understanding what's going on. so i'll just turn it over to tony. oh, wait a minute. this is the famous presentation. >> excellent. >> of the festivity. gail, ken and tony, the handsome, handsome vinyl briefcase. look what i brought with me. [applause] >> working on a luggage set. >> we certainly thank you and

appreciate your time this morning and on behalf of the washington center and the inside washington students, thank you for spending your morning with us. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by natonal captioning institute] >> the first families return from their vacation from hawaii. the president has a meeting scheduled with defense secretary gates this afternoon at the white house. also looking to fill some staff positions at the white house. among them a new chief of staff and someone to head the national economic council.

>> coming up shortly, the discussion on the 112th congress and the use of the filibuster which senate democrats are aiming to weaken this session. arguing they have constitutional authority. republican senator lamar alexander of tennessee, among the speakers at a heritage foundation event. you can see that at 2:00 eastern live here on c-span. >> the 112th congress gavels in wednesday with the swearing in of members, the election of a new house speaker and a vote on new rules. watch live starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on "washington journal." interviews with members, leadership, reporters and your calls right up to when the house gavels in at noon on c-span. >> and be sure to watch

tomorrow night when we'll reair the day's proceedings from the opening of the 112th congress. that begins at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. looking ahead -- the health care repeal debate will be brought up by the house republican leadership. you can watch that floor debate this coming friday with a vote expected next wednesday. the repeal isn't likely to get passed the senate as democrats are still the majority there. >> i think news organizations have adapted. is it great that we're not -- that overall news organizations probably aren't doing much for news, they're doing more domestic news? the public bears some responsibility here. the public bears responsibility of keeping themselves informed. >> sunday, abc news senior foreign affairs correspondent, martha raddatz, looks at wars in afghanistan and iraq on a political, strategic and personal level at 8:00 on c-span's "q&a." >> a look now at the

inauguration of alaska governor shawn parnell. >> we live in a wonderful place. over the past year and a half, i've had the honor and blessing to work for a man of great integrity, a man with the courage, compassion and steadfast resolve to serve and lead all alaskans. please help me welcome my friend, the 10th person to serve as your governor of the state of alaska, the honorable shawn parnell. [applause]

>> that film just captures the vastness and the majesty of our great land and i'm thankful to be here among you great people. thank you, john, mr. chief justice. thank you. lieutenant governor, thank you for agreeing to serve in this place. and cabinet members, thank you for being here and for agreeing to serve as well. and my beloved wife and best friend, sandy, grace and rachel, thank you. i also want to welcome council general from the republic china. and consulate general from indonesia, we want to say thank you for being here and for taking the time to be here. you know, the lieutenant governor mentioned the great work of lieutenant governor

campbell and having been a former lieutenant governor, i want to say a personal thanks. i gave our lieutenant governor a standing ovation because i know that lieutenant governors often labor without being recognized or acknowledged for what they do when they actually do perform a unique and personal function. so i say lieutenant governor, we will miss you and we thank you very much for your service. thank you. [applause] >> and doctor, thank you. 102 inspiring years. 102 more? [laughter] please. and we want to honor you and say thank you. fellow alaskans, what can i say except i stand before you for a grateful heart, thank you for

the trust you bestowed and our lieutenant governor for today we celebrate alaska. we celebrate our people, our land and our legacy. we give thanks for the work ahead. the work of growing our economy, creating paths of opportunity for alaskans, accessing alaska's vast natural resources, protecting the most vulnerable among us and creating that transformational educational environment for our children. but we relish this work and face these challenges with confidence because we are building on a firm foundation. be a listic thomas higginson once said, "great men are rarely isolated mountain peaks. they are the summits of ranges." today we give thanks to our own sum its and ranges, the men and women of alaska who work every day to make this state great. we remain thankful to our state's constitutional

pioneers. they shaped our statehood ands destiny. we remember the alaskans those we lost, people like senator ted stevens, governor wally hickle, constitutional convention delegate george sunborg, statehood champion george rogers. we've lost law enforcement officers all in the cause of freedom for those who allowed to be here safely today. we turn to the future. we are alaska, land of abundant resources and incomparable buttey. west alaska, home to the strong and resilient people that we are. we are alaska. we are a place of unlimited possibility. together, we set our course and together we determine our future of the 49th state, but to do so we got to understand the challenges that are ahead of us and i think we know

there. they are familiar to this people. we face a federal government bent on expanding its regulatory reach at the cost of freedom and of jobs. our message to washington is clear. this country was founded on and made great by the principles of self-rule and self-determination. as ronald reagan noted, the federal government was created by the states, not the other way around. whether the federal government stays within its constitutional framework, we will honor it. where it attempts to move adversely against alaska's interests, we will block it. and where our national government exceeds its legal authority, we will fight it. alaskans are hard working,

we're smart and we possess something that's in short supply in washington. it's common sense. we know best how to right our economy. we will work to fill a pipeline, reduce taxes, build roads to resources and fuel more private sector jobs. we will be disciplined in our spending and we will focus on results for you. a great place to start is our land. you know, for too long alaska's abundant where he sources have been locked up. we must have access to our own lands. it is time to put alaska's resources to work for alaskans. it's time to provide more affordable energy to our communities, both rural and urban. and it is time to help america end its dependency on foreign resources. [applause] with those goals in mind we will tap the vast energy

resources through hydroelectric and geothermal projects. we will harness our wind and currents for rural power and we will unleash trillions of cubic feet of natural gas into a natural gas pipeline. you know, for years alaskans hope for a pipeline. it is within reach. it is our place in history to have not one but two successful open seasons. and it will be our place in history to seize the moment and get a gas line. 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, too many alaskans live in fear. too many suffer from domestic violence and sexual assault, and too many alaskan families know disbare and hopelessness. and our vision, alaskans live free of fear, alaskans live every day with opportunity of hope and fear. the doctor has gleamed 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. embracing respect for ourselves arched respecting others empower us, empowers us. it frees us from fear so we can act. we're yearkans. that's what we do. i am so proud of a group of

high school students. they already exhibit this characteristic of taking action. these young people have been mentored since sixth grade to recognize the warning signs of bullying and suicidal tendencies among our peers. they have been trained to help to step forward and prevent a bad situation from getting worse. these students are engaging. i encountered them. they're inquiz tif. they want to know know more about you. we applaud their parents, their school district leaders who help shape them in the way they are. these students represent a bright future for alaska. i know they will make a difference because they act. they're alaskans. they act in order to improve the lives of their friends and their families and their classmates. and we will do no less. achieving economic growth and building strong families require an unbreakable -- and

to see alaska challenges as our own. my administration will carry the same spirit. we will not sit idly by. we will fight alongside you and we will fight for you. we will fight for a better alaska and that's a promise. [applause] we will work to ensure that every child has a safe home, and 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 raise the bar our kids step up. in fact, all across the state this year our young people are taking more courses so thick qualify for alaska performance scholarships by completing a more challenging curriculum and by doing so, by taking this more rigorous curriculum, every alaska high school student can earn a scholarship.

in our elementary schools, we will end the social promotion of our students from one grade to the next. instead, we will help them get the skills to move up. we will renew our focus on literacy in the early years. we will not enable complacency and academic underachievement when it comes to our future. you have heard it said, our people are our future. and it's true, you are the very heart and soul of this land. we have majestic mountains and we have beautiful animals. all resources god given for us. but this is about us as a people. we see inspiring examples of you in this state daily. in anchorage this year we saw alaskans literally reach through smoke and fire and lift the wings of a plane to rescue members of a family trapped inside. another alaskan friend of mine courageously spent the night on a mountain beneath another

plane wreck tending serious injuries while grieving the loss of her friends in that plane crash. two brave yeashans laid down their -- alaskans laid down their lives for their community. extreme cases perhaps, but these hometown heroes did what many alaskans said they would have done. whether bringing food to sake neighbor, volunteering in our schools or running desperately serum hundreds of miles across the state by dog team, they have this willingness to act, this is what makes us a great people living in a great land. these traits define alaskans and they define the parnell-threadwell administration as well. in the days to come, we will tackle the task of growing our economy through leadership and action. we will say no to federal encroachment and say yes to unlocking our resources for alaskans' benefits.

we will roll out a fiscally responsible budget and we will create opportunity for alaskans. lieutenant governor threadwell, my cabinet and i, we serve because we love alaska. we love our people. we love our land. we love our history and we love who we can become as a people in the future. and 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. we lock arms and join hearts with you, our fellow alaskans. we pursue greatness together with you for this land of ours. so let me close -- let me close by renewing the challenge i gave when i first became governor a year ago. alaskans, set your hand and

face to alaska's future. run with me to take responsibility for it. this is your state, these are your resources, be bold, be innovative, make a difference. we're alaskans. that's what we do. thank you and god bless. [applause] . .

>> good afternoon, thank you for joining us here at the heritage foundation. we welcome everyone here who joins us on our web site and internet viewers that questions can be submitted throughout our program, addressing us at speakerheritage.org. we will post it on our web site. the last courtesy check, make sure that cell phones have been

turned off for those recording today. hosting our discussion as well as introducing our special guest, mr. frank. he serves as vice president for government relations. mike. >> thank you and good afternoon everybody. my honor today to introduce our key note speaker, senator lamar alexander from tennessee. it occurred to me that we could have titled today's event, why can't the senate be more like the house, because that is what we are going to talk about, both senator alexander and the panel that will follow. there is a proposal that will come before the senate the next few days or weeks that could change one senate rule, fundamentally change the nature of that body. in a way that was probably never intended by our founders.

debate that goes to the essence of what the founders envisioned when they created a chamber designed to create the interests of the states, especially smaller states that didn't have the proportional representation in the house. there is a lot at stake. may not be cow incidental. i counted 49 sners in the incoming senate who previously served in the house and especially the top three, democratic leadership, all of whom are former house members and yearn for the days being in the lower body. so they are trying to do things to the filibuster rule that would turn the senate into a body like the house. our speaker, senator lamar alexander of tennessee. he serves on committees overseeing education, clean air, highways, science, appropriations and not unimportantly for a senator from

tennessee, tennessee valley authority. he was elected both governor and senator. he has been u.s. education secretary, president of the university of tennessee and professor at harvard school of government. and he served on president reagan's commission on american outdoors. in private life, he helped find the largest provider of work site day care. he is a classical pianist and author of seven books. please welcome senator lamar alexander. [applause] >> thank you, mike. and ladies and gentlemen and to heritage foundation, thank you very much for sponsoring this forum and for inviting this distinguished group of panelists. i'm one of the former number of

governors and i don't have the desire to turn the senate into the house but that is what we are talking about today. i saw the title and i changed it a little bit. i borrowed a line, which you will see in a few minutes. i have a short video to show you what some prominent americans have said about the idea of changing the senate filibuster rule. but this is what a radio announcer during the world war inch i era had to say about the filibuster. he said it's democracy's finest show, the right to talk your head off. that's the subject of what i would like to talk about for a few minutes this afternoon. voters who turned out in november are going to be disappointed when they learn the first thing that some democrats want to do is to cut off the right of people they elected in

november to make their voices heard on the floor of the united states senate. now, in the november election, voters showed that they very well remember the passage of the health care law on christmas eve 2009. the night sessions, voting in the midst of a snowstorm, backroom deals, little time to read, amend or debate the bill. it was how it was done as much as what was done that angered the american people. minority voices were silenced. those who didn't like it were told, we won the election, we write the bill, we don't need your votes. the majority's attitude was just that and one person said you can read it after we pass it. of course, the result was the law that the majority of americans now believe is a historic mistake and the passage of the bill launched the beginning of an instant effort to repeal and replace the bill. voters remembered all of this on

november 6, but only six weeks later, some democratic senators seem to have completely forgotten it. on december 18, every returning democratic senator sent a letter asking the majority leader to take republican abuses to our rules to -- democratic abuses to our rules to an end. some have threatened to change the rules so it would be easier to do with every piece of legislation. ram it through with a partisan vote with little debate, little amendment, little committee consideration and without listening to minority voices. the brazenness of this proposed action is that democrats are proposing to use the very tactics that in the past almost every democratic leader has denounced, including president obama and vice president biden when they were senators, who said such a thing would be a nuclear option, a naked power

grab and destructive of the senate as a protector of minority rights. the democratic proposal would allow the senate to change its rules with only 51 veets ending the historical practice of allowing any senator at any time to offer any amendment until 60 senators decided it's time to end the debate. as investors business daily wrote, quote, the senate majority leader has a plan to deal with the republican electoral success. when you lose the game, the newspaper said, you simply change the rules. when you only have 53 votes, you lower the bar to 51. this is called election null fix, unquote. now there is no doubt that the senate has been reduced to a shadow of itself as the world's greatest deliberative body. a place which, as senator arlen specter said in his fair well

address, has been distinctive because of the ability of any senator to offer any amendment at any time, unquote. but the demyself of the senate is not because republicans seek to filibuster. the real obstructionists have been the democratic majority, which for an unprecedented number of times used their majority advantage to limit debate, not to allow amendments and to bypass normal committee consideration of legislation. to be specific. according to the congressional research service, number one, the majority leader has used his power to cut off all amendments and debate 44 times, more than the last six majority leaders combined. number two, the majority leader has moved to shut down debate the same day, measures are considered, nearly three times more on average than the last six majority leaders. and number three, the majority leader has set the record for

bypassing the committee process, bringing a measure directly to the floor by passing committees 43 times during the last two congresses. let's be clear what we mean when we say the word filibuster. let's say the majority leader brings up the health care bill, which is his right to do. i go down to the floor, senator from tennessee, to offer an amendment and to speak on the health care bill. the majority leader says, no, senator alexander, and he cuts off my amendment. i object. majority leader calls what i tried to do a filibuster. that's what he defines as a filibuster. i call what he did, cutting off my right to speak and to amend, which is what i was elected to do. so the problem is not a record number of filibusters, the problem is a record number of attempts to cut off amendments and debate so the minority voices across america cannot be

heard on the floor of the senate. so the real party of no is the majority party that's been saying no to debate, no to voting on amendments that minority members believe improve legislation and express the voices of the people they represent. in fact, the reason the majority leader can claim there have been so many filibusters is because he is counting the number of times he has moved to cut off debate. instead of this power grab as the new congress arrives tomorrow, the goal should be to restore the senate to its historic role where the voices of the people can be heard rather than silenced, where ideas can be offered as amendments, rather than supressed and those amendments can be voted and debated upon rather than cut off. to accomplish this, the senate needs to change its behavior, not change its rules. the majority-minority leaders

have been in discussion on steps that might help to accomplish this. i have been part of those discussions, some of them. i would like to discuss this afternoon why it is essential in my opinion to our country that cooler heads prevail tomorrow when the senate convenes. one good example the democrats might follow is the one established by republicans to gained control of both senate and house of representatives in 1995. that was the so-called gingrich revolution of 1994. on the first day of the new republican majority, democratic senator harkin of iowa, proposed a rule change diluting the filibuster. every single republican senator voted against the change, even though supporting it clearly would have provided at least a temporary advantage for the republican agenda. here is why the republicans who were in the majority then and democrats who are in the

majority today should reject a similar rules change. first, the proposal diminishes the rights of the minority. in his classic book "democracy in america," it was written that one of the two greatest fears for our democracy was the quote tyranny of the majority, unquote. the possibility that a runaway majority might trample minority voices. diluting the right to debate and voting on amendments deprives the nation of a valuable forum for achieving consensus on difficult issues. the founders knew what they were doing when they created two very different houses of congress. senators have six-year terms. one-third of us are elected every two years. the senate operates largely by unanimous consent. there is an opportunity unparalleled in any other legislative body in the world to debate and amend until a

consensus finally is reached. this procedure takes longer, but it usually produces a better result. and a result that the country is more likely to accept. for example, after the civil rights act of 1964 was enacted by a bipartisan majority over a filibuster led by senator richard russell of georgia, senator russell then went home to georgia and said that although he had fought the legislation with everything he had, quote, as long as it is there, it must be obeyed, unquote. compare that to the instant repeal movement that has been the result of jamming the health care law through in a partisan vote. third, such a brazen power grab by democrats this year will surely guarantee a similar action by republicans in two years if we gain control of the senate, as many observers think is likely. we have seen this happen with

senate consideration of judges. democrats begin the practice of filibustering president bush's judges even though the nominees were well qualified. democrats are unhappy because many republicans regard that as a precedent and have threatend to do the same to president obama's nominees. those who want to create a freight train running through the senate today as it does in the house might think about whether they will want that freight train running through the senate in two years when the freight train might be the tea party express. finally it's hard to see what partisan advantage democrats hope to gain from destroying the senate as a forum for consensus and protection of minority rights since any legislation they jam through this year or next year without bipartisan support will undoubtedly die in the republican controlled house during the next two years.

the reform the senate needs is a change in behavior, not a change in rules. i have talked with many senators on both sides of the aisle and i believe most of us want the same thing, a senate where most bills are considered by committee. come to the floor as a result of bipartisan cooperation, are debated and amended and then voted upon. not so long ago, this was the standard operating procedure. i have seen the senate off and on for more than 40 years, from the days in 1967 when i first came to washington as howard baker's legislative assistant. in those days, there was only one legislative assistant in each senate office. i came back for a while to help senator baker set up his leadership office in 1977, and i watched the way that senator baker and senator byrd led the senate from 1977 to 1985. when the democrats were in the

majority for the first four years and the republicans were in the majority the second four years. then, most pieces of legislation that came to the floor started in committee. then, that legislation was open for amendment. there might be 300 amendments filed. and after a while, the majority leader would ask for unanimous consent agreement to cut off the amendments. he always got it, because he let let anyone offer any amendments they wanted to offer. the voting would continue. the leaders would work to persuade senators to limit amendments so there wouldn't be 300-amendment votes. that didn't always work. so the leaders kept the senate in session, during the evening, kept in session during friday, sometimes even into the weekends. senators got their amendments considered and the legislation was fully vetted, debated and finally passed or voted down.

now senator byrd knew the rules. i recall that when republicans won the majority in 1981, senator baker went to see senator byrd and said this, bob, i know that you know the rules better than i do, so i'll make a deal with you. you don't surprise me and i won't surprise you. senator byrd said, let me think about it. and the next day senator byrd said yes, and the two of them managed the senate effectively together for eight years. what would it take to restore to today's senate to the era of senator baker and senator byrd? well, we have the answer from the master of the senate rules himself, senator byrd, who in his last appearance before the senate rules committee on may 19, 2010 said, quote, forceful confrontation to a threat of a filibuster is undoubtedly the and ti dote to that malady.

senate majority leader reid announced that the senate would stay in session around the clock and take all the procedural steps necessary to bring financial reform legislation to the senate as preparations were made and a deal was struck within hours and the threat of filibuster was withdrawn. senator byrd said i also know that current senate rules provide the means to break a filibuster, unquote. in those remarks, his last ones, as i said, senator byrd went on to argue strenuously that our founding fathers intended the senate to be a continuing body that allows for open and unlimited debate and the protection of minority rights. senators, senator byrd said, have understood this since the senate first convened. then senator byrd went on, quote, in his notes to the

constitutional convention on june 26, 1787, james madison recorded that the ends to be served by the senate were, first, to protect the people against their rulers. second, to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they might be led. they themselves as well as the numerous body of representatives will err from fickleness and passion. a necessary fence against this danger would be to select a portion of enlightened citizens whose limited number and firmness might seasonably interpose against i am pet youous counsel. that's the end of that quote. that fence, was the united states senate, the right to filibuster anchors the necessary fence but not a right intended to be abused and then senator byrd concluded, there are many suggestions about what we should do. i know what we must not do.

we must never ever, ever, ever tear down the only wall, the necessary fence this nation has against the excess of the executive branch and the result and haste and tirn any of the -- tyranny of the majority. that was senator byrd in his last appearance before the rules committee. what would it take to restore the years of byrd and baker so bills are first considered in committee and when more amendments were considered, debated and voted upon? first, we have to recognize there has to be bipartisan cooperation and consensus on important issues. the days of we won the election, we jammed the bill through are going to have to be over. senator baker would not bring a bill to the floor when republicans were in the majority unless it had the support of the ranking democratic committee member. number two, recognize that senators are going to have to

vote. to say that may sound ridiculous to an outsider but every senate insider knows that a major reason why the majority cuts off amendments and debate is because democratic members don't want to vote on controversial issues. that's like volunteering to be on the grand ole opry and claiming you don't want to sing. if you don't want to vote, don't run for the united states senate. and the third thing that would restore the period of the 1980's, according to senator byrd would be the end of three-day work week. the senate convenes on most mondays for a bed check vote at 5:30. the senate during 2010, did not vote on one single friday. let me repeat that. the united states senate, in the year 2010, did not vote on one single friday. it is not possible for the

minority to have the opportunity to offer debate and vote on amendments or for the majority to forcefully confront a filibuster if every senator knows there will never be a vote on friday. now, there are some other steps that can be taken to help the senate function better without impairing minority rights. one bipartisan suggestion has been to end the practice of secret holds. it seems reasonable to suggest or to expect a senator who intends to hold up a bill or nomination to allow his colleagues and the world to know who he or she is, so that the merits of the hold can be evaluated and debated. second, there is a crying need to make it easier for any president, republican or democrat, to staff his or her government with key officials within a reasonable period of time. one reason for the current delay

is the president's own fault, taking a long time to vet his nominees. second reason is shared responsibility, the maze of conflicting forms and f.b.i. investigations and audits and ethics requirements and financial disclosures required both by the senate and the white house. i spoke on the senate floor on this tying my speech "innocent until nominated. third obstacle and one we should do something about is the excessive number of executive branch appointments requiring senate confirmation. there have been bipartisan efforts to reduce these obstacles with the support of the majority and minority leaders and perhaps we might achieve some success. if all of these efforts succeed, there will be delayed nominations, bills that are killed before they come to the floor and amendments that never see the light of day. this is nothing new. i can well remember when a

senator from ohio put a secret hold on my nomination when president bush nominated me to be the secretary of education. he held up my nomination for three months, never really saying why. i was very perplexed about this, so i went to see senator warren ruddman of new hampshire. i asked hm what to do about the hold and he said nothing and then he told me his story. president ford appointed warren ruddman to be a member of the federal communications commission in the 1970's. the democratic senator from new hampshire filibustered ruddman's appointment until he asked the president to withdraw his name. is that the end of the story, i asked warren ruddman? he said no, i ran against the so and so and i beat him and that's

how i got to be in the senate. during his time here, senator metzenbaum would hold up every one. senator allen of alabama did the same. and in the 1960's, senator williams, whispering john, he was on the floor regularly objecting to federal spending. that is when i first came here more than 40 years ago. now, i have done my best to make the argument that the senate and the country will be served best if cooler heads prevail and democrats don't make their power grab tomorrow and try to make the senate more like the house of representatives. to permit them to do with any legislation what they did with the health care law, i have said that to do so will destroy

minority rights, destroy the essential forum for consensus that the senate now price for difficult issues and surely guarantee that republicans will try to do the same thing to democrats in two years. more than that, it's hard to see how democrats can gain any partisan advantage from this destruction of the senate and invitation for retribution any bill they force through the senate in the next two years in a purely partisan way will surely be stopped by the republican-controlled house of representatives, but on this subject, i am not the most persuasive voice. i'm not the most persuasive voice against tomorrow's proposed action. other voices are. and i have collected some of those voices, mostly democratic leaders, who have wisely argued against changing the institution of the senate in a way that

would deprive minority voices in america of their right to be heard rather than tell you about those voices, i would like to conclude my remarks this afternoon by showing you a short video about what some of them have said. >> half of official of washington is here. here to talk your head off. >> we must never ever, ever, ever turn down the only wall the necessary fence that this nation has against excesses of the executive branch. >> the checks and balances which have been at the core of this

republic are about to be evaporated. the checks and balances which say if you get 51% of the vote, you don't get your way 100% of the time. >> you got majority rule and got the senate over here where people can float things down, where they can debate and have something called the filibuster, it seems like it's a little less than efficient. well, that's right, it is and deliberately designed to be so. >> totally oppose to changing the filibuster rules. that's foolish. >> that's why we have a senate, to amend and debate freely. >> the whole idea of the senate is not to have majority rule but to force consensus and force a group of senators on either side have to respect each other's votes and protect votes on important issues. >> i can understand the temptation to change the rules to make the senate so unique and at the same time so terribly

frustrating, but whether such temptation is motivated by noble desire to speed up the legislative process or by pure political ex pedensy, i believe some changes would be unwise. >> the senate is the only place in government where the rights of a minority are so protected a minority can be right and minority views can certainly improve legislation. >> american people know that it's not just the voices of the senator from kansas or senator from iowa that are supressed when the majority leader cuts off the right to debate and right to amend. it's the voices we hear from across this country who want to be heard on the senate floor. >> you just can't have good governance unless you have good ideas brought forward. >> to my fellow senators who haven't served in the minority, i urge you to pause in your enthusiasm to change the senate rules. >> it's part of the fabric of

this institution we call the senate for 200 years we have the right to extend the debate and not some procedural gimmick. some in this chamber want to throw out 214 years for the quest of absolute power. they want to do away with mr. smith as depicted in that great movie being able to come to washington. they want to come do away with the filibuster. >> if the majority chooses tond the filibuster and choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse. [applause] >> thank you, senator. the senator will have to leave quickly so i will ask one quick

question. you alluded to it in your remarks, but if this rule were to be adopted and the senate were to change, the only place where there would be open debate is in committees. do you have any thoughts -- would the committee process in the senate change as well because that might be where the need to offer amendments and debate and vote would then default to? >> well, that's a very good insight, but the problem with that is, over the last two congresses, as i mentioned in my remarks, senator reid has set a record for bringing bills to the floor directly and not going through committee. i mean take the health care bill over a year ago. sure there were a lot of committee hearings, but when it got down to writing the bill, what did they do?

they went off in a room by themselves, they being the democrats. and this was in december, the snow was coming down and then they brought it out more than 2,000 pages. we were told you could find out what's in it after we pass it. so the problem with relying on committees for this is that one of the problems of the last few years has not just been cutting off debate or amendments on the floor, it's been bringing bills directly to the floor without going through committee. you take the 9/11 bill that came up in the lame duck session. everybody wanted to help the 9/11 heroes but show up with a $7 billion proposal that hasn't been carefully considered to see where the money is going, is it going to people who really need help, that's what the committees are for. when i say we need to get back to the era of the 1980's of senator baker and senator byrd,

i don't just mean allowing any senator to offer any amendment, but let the committees work a bill over. and i mentioned just in passing that senator baker, when he was the majority leader, had a habit, i'm not sure he did this in every case, he would tell his republican committee chairmen, don't bring a bill to the floor unless you have the ranking member's support. you bring a bill to the floor and you could expect that you are likely to achieve some sort of consensus and you get better result and better september tans. i think it's very important to emphasize the fact that there are several reasons for consensus, for cooperation, one is you get a better result. but the second is people accept it. people are more likely to accept it. in the 1960's, lyndon johnson had big majorities in the

democratic congress, but where did he have the civil rights bill written? in the republican leader's office. and why did he do that? one reason was to be able to surmount a filibuster, but the other reason was that president johnson knew that was a volatile piece of legislation. he did it piece by piece from the 1950's on. and he knew that if he had a bill that he and the republican leader passed, written in the republican leader's office that people across the country, many of whom didn't like the bill, would say well, if senator dirk sen is also for it, maybe it's ok and maybe i'll accept it and you have that image of senator russell who led the opposition to the bill instead of launching a movement to repeal it, went

home to georgia said, it's the law of the land and we need to obey it. >> thank you, senator. [applause] >> if i could invite our panelists up here. in the order in which their names appear. going to introduce the speakers in the order in which they will speak. first i'm going to introduce steven duffield and is policy director to crossroads g.p.s. dedicated to educating the public to advance free enterprise, limited government and individual liberty. steven is known to us for his service for at least five years or so in the u.s. senate where he worked for senator kyl of arizona and senate republican conference. then bill wichterman. he is senior legislative advisor

in government affairs at a local law firm. what he brings to the table today is two decades of experience in the house and senate where he worked for former senate majority leader bill frist and at the white house. he understands the senate as well as anybody that i know. james wallner who is currently legislative director to senator jeff sessions of alabama also worked on the house side. has the experience of working in both houses. i won't ask him if he likes the house than the senate. i know how i feel about that, but he is a scholar of these things and we know james. and brian darling, who is director of government relations and has many years of senate experience and brian focuses on educating senators and their staff about the heritage research product and has appeared regularly on network

news broadcasts and columnists for human events and he keeps tense of thousands of readers rivetted on his commentary on what is going on in the senate. graduate from new england school of law. steven, you go first. >> i meet with mike to talk about different issues and one of the things he complains about is every discussion we have on policy did he involves on discussion of senate rules and to that i say, this is why, because this is exactly what is at stake and the policies that is being impacted by the procedures that the senate has set up. senator alexander covered a lot of things. we will skip over some things or be repetitive. first thing i want to say in listening to all of this, we haven't divided the issue in two

parts yet. one there is the substantive and the majority is trying to force upon the senate right now, weaker minority, fewer tools to debate, amend and be involved in the legislative process. there is also the method and the method is referred to as the constitutional option, which is what senator udall refers to it as and common use of the term now. these two issues are separate and related, but together, they amount to the same thing and that is an incredible, but not entirely unexpected power grab by the remaining majority in the senate right now. i can't imagine that anybody thought that the lesson of the last election was that the voters wanted a stronger democratic majority in the senate, but that is exactly what this is. and from a basic, very basic democracy, republican governance

governance standpoint, you have to look at that and ask yourself is that in any way what the voters were looking for and is this in keeping what the voters wanted. it's very consistent with the way this majority has operated over the last year or two. you could go back, and the most astonishing thing for us all is when senator brown was elected and we thought that perhaps the most liberal state in the nation, no offense to vermont, had elected mr. brown to the senate. when that happened, that this would put some kind of brake on the health care reform, but instead encouraged democrats and the majority to push it through. mr. wallner will discuss all of the particularly -- data and words that don't mean anything

that don't follow the senate but are important. filling the tree, filing cloture, skipping the committee process and shutting off debate as soon as a bill even comes up. all of these processes are all about shutting out republicans, shutting out the minority from being able to discuss issues to amend, to debate, to deliberate. and it's been an ongoing process that has gone on for some time. and we see this now even when senator alexander emphasized some questionable interest of the democrats to do this, they are still pushing forward to do this. i will say without getting into the numbers, the numbers that you see thrown around on a regular basis, this number of filibusters, respectfully they are largely garbage and that is because you have to get into what happened in each case and

whether there was an attempt to block the decision, try to have more amendments, to delay, every situation is different. the democrats know this. the members know this. i think most of the activists that are running the groups, they know this as well, but they throw numbers around and they have adopted the same numbers as though they are true. they are not. and you can't be very statistical about understanding what each one of those events were without looking what happened in each case. there is a tremendous -- the most obvious point that has to be made clearly and senator alexander started with it, the pendulum swings. does the democratic leadership even want this? i understand they are being bulleyed and concerned about keeping their leadership positions and the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedingsmen are concerned about the people who are antsy to move forward but do

they want to do this and the likelihood that republicans will be stronger in the senate if not in the majority in two years? i really question whether they do. and there is division within the democrats that the press has done a lousy job of investigating and exploring because that's the real story of what is going and how the caucus is breaking apart on this issue and other issues related to that. related to that, i think it's important as senator alexander mentioned to focus on the fact that there's a point of principle here for republicans. republicans in the majority in 1995 opposed making themselves stronger in the majority. they unanimously opposed and there were two senators trying to gut it. they opposed it then.

they oppose it now when there is another likelihood that republicans could benefit from it in a few years here and the house is the backstop right now. so there isn't a real concern. the house is a backstop. who cares, let it go through. we have the ability to push it through. it's the wrong decision and they oppose it on principle e then and now. the thing about this is, if this were a serious effort to actually reform the senate and make the senate work a little differently, then you wouldn't come forward with this massive rules change other -- under another discussion. i'm happy to do some writing on it if someone wants to answer questions but crazy to push them through like this when the process is to go through the rules committee, sit down, debate, have actual text of amendments.

has anyone seen text of an actual rules change, has that been discussed? have they sat down and figured out how it would work? no one has done that. this is a knee-jerk reaction to a frustration, frustration from the voters. and now we see the idea of rules change without any text. anything we can work with. there is a process for this. to bring up briefly and i think it's better to deal with it later, the 2005 scenario with the constitutional option having to do with judges, there was a rules process and debate about the specific issues and specific kinds of remedies. although senator schumer had rules committee hearings, those hearings in the end were not about specific changes but merely about do we have a problem and those are the hearings that senator byrd testified and a lot of ambiguity

of what the results were in the end. i don't want to -- one minute? ok. the last thing i'll say is and the senator touched on this pretty well, what it is that minority rights guarantee and i use the word deliberation and i use it broadly. it's about amendment. the right to have amendments legitimately offered and debated. it's about making sure that bills are written openly and are able to be considered. it is a broad-based transparency approach and it's exactly contrary to what we have seen in the last couple of years in the way things have been run. i think one example and then i will be quiet that's important, think about what happened with the dream act in the last couple days of this last congress in the senate. that was a different dream act that had gone through committee. there were important changes that had been made to it.

in order to cut a deal thinking they had bought off the last few votes, the sponsors came out and offered a different piece of legislation than it was before, with substantive changes that were different than before, but didn't offer any opportunity to debate it in length nor an opportunity to amend that. when you do that, they are going to reject it. we can offer amendments that can change that. maybe we'll vote no in the end but we'll try to fix the thing that you are going to pass and get a majority together for that. that was a tremendous book end to the congress to have that be one of the last votes that came through in the end and to be something that was just ram, inc. something through. and here they want to ram something through in the next congress and it's very disappointing. >> the story goes when thomas jefferson who had been in france

during the constitutional convention asked george washington why had they created a senate, washington reportedly said, we pour our legislation into the saucer to cool it. my graduate work in political philosophy, so that's where i have been tacked to discuss with you, why does it matter, why should we have a senate and have one legislature like nebraska does, or have two house of representatives, counting the different structure for the states versus districts, but have the processes and structures for each chamber the same? well, i would argue the reason for a senate goes well beyond the question which is what most of us are taught in school, big states and small states and their interests had to be addressed. in fact, it goes to the discussion of will versus passion. majority rights versus minority rights. you see, we have a speedy

process in house of representatives to pass legislation. but the framers were very concerned about putting brakes on the majority. it wasn't just the senate where they had brakes, you have the independent judiciary, you have the supreme court, the constitution, you have representation rather than direct voting by citizens on individual matters. you have the veto and the higher threshold to override the veto, the electoral college. indirect election of senators, each one of these things was intended to be a brake on the passions of the majority. why was that? was not because the framers were just out of step and couldn't see clearly how to implement a more democratic form of government? clearly not. the framers said they were very worried about unadull ter rated democracy and you don't find the word democracy in the

constitution. that would come as a surprise to many americans. the words they use is democratic republic and the distinction being, it wasn't about the majority passions at the moment, which they feared greatly, but about approximating justice, philosophically speaking. there is a notion you might have heard in latin, the voice of the people is the voice of god. majority, 50-plus-one, the father's generation understood there was a difference between the democracy and republic because they understood this notion whether or not justice exists and trying to approximate it or whether or not justice is defined by 50% plus one, which the framers rejected. so what's at stake here? the danger in making the senate more like the house is that we are taking our foot off the brakes. now i would argue this could

well break down to the republicans' advantage perhaps in the short-term. i think the likelihood of the senate to flip from democratic to republican in the next election is pretty high. republicans could well recapture the white house. that might mean more judicial nominations through, might mean the repeal of health care reform. but regardless of which party benefits in the short-term or the long-term, the country will be the worst for changing it more into a democracy, something we have been steadily doing over the history of our nation. we are not a democracy. we are a democratic republic. not an unimportant difference or subtle difference either. it was a short time ago as senator alexander made the point that democrats were arguing against reducing the filibuster. that was judicial nominations.

one quick point on this and i'll conclude. you may remember in 2005 the strong effort by senator frist to stop the filibuster of judicial nominations and some would call us hypocritical for on the one hand, supporting the constitutional option in 2005 vis-a-vis judicial nominations and fighting for the legislature now. prior to 2003, there had never been a judicial nominee with clear majority support that had been denied confirmation due to a filibuster, not one. what we were doing in 2003, 2004 and 2005 in trying to do the constitutional option was trying to restore senate tradition. what senator udall and senator reid and schumer are doing now are upending senate traditions, making the senate more like the house, which i said is dangerous. the filibuster is a vital

expression of the founding's desire to thwart legislation. conservatives and all americans should defend it as an important institution that can make us slow down and think carefully before we act. it has proven frustrating to me and to both parties and no doubt the misuse along the way, but we must -- we risk much more than political setbacks if we weaken the filibuster. >> good afternoon, my name is james wallner and as mike mentioned, i have worked in both the house and senate, albeit for a limited time in both chambers they are different positions and some people have their likes and dislikes and i happen to like the senate very much. it is an ancillary institution, anybody knows that it is a very

confusing institution to follow. yet, this issue, the one we are talking about today, the constitutional option, nuclear option to end the filibuster for legislation, judicial nominations, has created a lot of interests both inside and outside the institution and inside and outside the beltway. and for that reason it's important to look at the data and the metrics that we used, because that's the problem we are talking about. if there was no obstruction or no claims of obstruction, there wouldn't be any reason to change the way we do business. so it's important to have an understanding of what are the numbers that we refer to mean. on december 3, the majority leader referred to the inability to reach an agreement in the senate on what if any amendments would be allowed to be offered in the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

this was not the compromise later reached. he said they, being republicans, have had lots of opportunity to offer amendments. it is not the offering of amendments. they are not satisfied with that. they want the results. they are not willing to offer an amendment they may lose. they are only willing to offer amendments that they want to win. that is probably true. i wouldn't disagree with that. but i think what is left unsaid here, the majority of democrats were unwilling to allow the minority to offer amendments that could win. unlike the house, minority amendments are not subject to majority approval in the senate. rather the ability to offer amendments to legislation on the floor is a long-standing feature of the institution's traditions and used and abused by both sides. the senate majority was using the senate's procedures to block the senate minority from offering amendments that could potentially pass and their

concern being to undermine the message they were trying to advance or policies they would like to see passed. and as this example illustrates, obstruction in the senate is dependent upon a new perspective on what we use to measure obstruction. the conventional wisdom is used by the hill and in think tanks and by the media is that individual members in the minority party collectivelyville procedural rights to obstruct the majority and that is correct in the senate. the wisdom goes on to say members of the minority obstruct the majority by utilizing their right to extend the debate and offering amendments or what they call poison pen amendments to obstruct the majority to advance their agenda and do this by policy and electoral gain. and the dramatic increase in the number of cloture motions filed in the last 25 years supports

this argument. that is what is mentioned on tv shows and academic papers. this obstruction the argument goes leads to gridlock and nothing gets done. i think there are several problems with this. there is a narrow focus. many followers of the senate will view cloture motions and filibuster as synonomous. both the scope and frequency of them is thereby incorrectly interpreted as leading to a similar increase in the number of cloture motions. these may be related but not a direct cause and effect of one another. when combined, the cloture rule allows the majority leader to effectively obstruct the ability of individual senators to participate in the legislative process. and block amendments and time for debate on the senate floor and allows the majority leader to exert control over the senate

agenda. in instances in filing the motions, the majority leader's control increases as well. this is a logical thing. they want to pass legislation they support and will utilize if they have the ability to do some to set up procedures to accomplish that end. such agenda control or efforts to such agenda control isest dent when clot tur is filed early before any obstruction is said to be occurred. .

you would think if you have legislation on the floor for a while and a filibuster occurs, the majority could say, we need to exercise procedures to shut off debate an the filibuster. in the 111th congress only three timesed by the -- did the majority leader file cloture on the third day of consideration. 110th, two times. one more thing, the majority leader can use this process with the process of the amendment. when this is done in tandem, ending the minority's ability to debate and also precluding their ability to offer amendments on the floor, it's pretty dramatic. the majority leader filed cloture on the same day three

times. in the 109th congress, 78% of the time they did. 110th congress, 56%. a lot less than the 109th congress. in the 111th congress, 14 of 15 measures the majority leader filed the amendment on, hed that a 97% rate. that shows the majority leader uses this to control consideration of with the majority wants and reducing the ability of the minority to debate. why is this important? i think for the most part, that a new perspective allows us to get a better understanding of the ways in which the senate is

broken. just because the numbers say one thing, doesn't necessarily mean the senate is the best institution, doesn't mean we should change or shouldn't, it just lets us have a better understanding. the numb of cloture motions filed, if you take out the same-day cloture motions, newspapers and others say, we have x numbers of clotures, in the 111th, 136 cloture motions were filed if you take out those that were filed on the same day, it's 98. if you take out the second day, it drops to 80. if you take out the third day of cloture, the number drops to 77. it's a similar pattern for other congresses. that undercuts the key reason or key evidence that supports arguments that the senate is broken because we have too much minority obstruction. i think one other aspect or why

this is important and what i would like to draw attention to is that this draws our focus to the way the majority uses the procedure for their own advantage. this is true also for the cloture rule. the cloture rule was intended to give the cloture. you can use cloture to prevent unwanted amendment receiving votes, without cloture, the majority has no ability to expedite floor consideration of legislation and establish a firmly agreed upon floor table for consideration. you can exert timing over floor procedures and you can use it for symbolic purposes. it is widely considered that the

dream act would not receive the votes for cloture, but the majority wanted toest tably the fact that they were for it and the minority was against it. it is important to say with the cloture process, the majority leader would not have any of these, albeit limited, tools at his disposal and would be unaible to structure the process to his agenda. >> brian darling closing here, i hope i don't filibuster too much. first things first, i wrote a paper called, the filibuster protects the rights of all senators and the american people, but i'd like to spend my time talking not about that but about some of the myths i see out there. i see four big myths in this debate that have been promoted. we'll hear over and over about the constitutional option that presumes the filibuster is unconstitutional. i would argue that the -- that arguing that the filibuster is unconstitutional is a myth.

the filibuster is perfectly constitutional. it's within the senate's rights to make its own rules under the constitution. the constitution states that eachous ho may determine the rule of its proceedings, and the senate has done so. in 1917, the senate adopted a cloture rule. it's changed over the years. but to argue that this rule that's been in the senate since 1917 is unconstitutional, i don't think it passes the laugh test. if you look at the senate rules itself, senate rule 22 today states invoking cloture in the proposal of senate rules requires 2/3 of the senators present and voting so senators decided they wanted to set a 2/3 vote standards to end debate when debating a rules change. that is part of the senate's rules, the senate is empowered by the constitution to do so. i would argue that you're going to hear that myth over and over again, that it justifies the attack and the filibuster, the

fact that they will claim it's unconstitutional and that is false. another myth you'll hear and you'll hear it over and other again is that the filibuster was an accident of history. sara binder is somebody who has talked about this, i don't want to pick on her because others said it too, but when she testified before the rules committee on april 22 of last year, she said, quote, when we dig into the history of congress, it seems the filibuster is made by mistake. that's not true. if you look at the john quincy adams diary, he wrote a history of the senate published in 1874, he wrote that in 1806, then vice president aaron burr advised the senate that moving the previous question which was at the time the meck my to shut off debate was unnecessary as part of the senate's rules. the senate listened to him, he made a 20-minute speech, after the speech they adopted his idea to get rid of this move the previous question. then the filibuster came to be

as a result of that. now if you take that alone as one incident, maybe they are right, maybe it was an accident, but then you have to look further. if you actually, one of the greatest books ever written for nerds, people that follow the senate like people like me, robert c. byrd's "the senate: 1789 to 1999," that's a great boofpblg me wrote, henry clay in 1841 proposed the introduction of the previous question but abandoned the idea in the face of opposition. so at that time, the senate rejected the idea of having a mechanism to shut down debate. byrd wrote also that when senator douglas proposed permits the the use of the previous question in 1850, the idea encountered substantial opposition and was dropped. they said it failed on a vote of 25-30 and byrd also cited other

instances where the senate specifically rejected the idea of having the move the previous question to shut down debate. the cloture rule obviously came to be in the senate rules in 1917. there's a long history where the filibuster developed and so stay it was an accident is a myth. another myth is that the senate is not a continuing body. you'll hear that over and over again. you hear already the argument that the left is making now, somehow the senate's rules operate through the whole two years and then the senate ends the year and in those moments before the senate starts out in the new congress, there are no rules. and the filibuster doesn't apply. therefore you can change the rules of the senate without having the application of the filibuster rule to rules changes which require a 2/3 vote. in this -- this came, the senate being a continuing body is memorialized in the senate's rules. if you look at the senate's

rule, they sate, -- state, quote, the rules of the senate shall continue from one congress to the next congress unless changed as provided in these rules. that came to be as a result of negotiations back when senate majority leader lyndon baines johnson negotiabilitied a change in the cloture rule and there was a change in the cloture rule, they changed it to 2/3 of senators in consideration for having the memorialization of the idea that the senate is a continuing body. but you have to also look at the fact that the senate, the way it's set up, it's obviously a continuing body. you have a body that elects new members, members serve a six-year term, only a third of the senate is up every two years, the senate can conduct business if senators weren't sworn in at the beginning of the new year. and the myth that the senate can change its rules magically by a simple majority on the first

dive a new congress is a myth. one thing you'll see happen and a lot has been said, so let me talk specifically about what i expect will happen tomorrow. tomorrow, the senate is going to come into session and there's going to be an effort and maybe the process will start where one member will make an objection saying that the filibuster rule is unconstitutional, and ask for the ruling of the chair that will start a series of plo seedings that will probably last a few weeks, may not be resolved, may be resolved through negotiation, may be resolved through votes. the funny thing is, their argument that the senate has no rules means that you basically have anarchy and chaos for those moments before the new senate gets sworn in, you have no rules, you have no means to conduct business in the senate according to their theory and the irony is, the first thing they'll do before this happens, before a senator gets up and makes a point of order is that they're going to swear in new members.

so for the new senate will come in, they'll actually swear in new members before they start debating this question of whether the senate is a continuing body or not and when they do that, they're operating under senate rules two and three to swear in members, they have very specific process for swearing in new members. the senate will actually be operating under the rules of the senate to tware in new members before liberals in the senate try to claim that the senate is not a continuing body, it doesn't have any rules, therefore the filibuster rule with regard to senate rules changes won't apply. why don't i stop there and we can take some questions. >> our panelists will be glad to answer questions. please wait for the microphone and if you would be so courteous as to express your name and affiliation, that would be appreciate nismed questions from the audience? we have one back in the back, then i'll let the panelists

debate. right here, right in front. >> i saw that in the "new york times" vice president mondale, walter mondale, had an op-ed and in the argument he said, well, maybe we could change the rule to 55. he threw that out there as a possibility because with the 60, of course it used to be 67, the 60, it's hard to get things through and when you have, you know, the kind of world we live in, maybe we should make it just a little more toward getting things done, what about changing the rule from 60 to 55, what walter mondale recommended? who was in the senate for many years? what do you think about that? >> i don't like it but i'll tell you why. i think when you look at the

recent news reports about the -- all the accomplishments of the obama administration, it's funny the news is pretty overwhelmingly reporting that this was a very successful year for congress in the end, pass a lot of legislation. the president can say, i went to congress and i got my obamacare, i got my wall street reform bill, got the new star treaty passed and ratified in the senate, there were a lot of accomplishments, what more did the left want that they didn't get? it's a solution without a problem, in my view, because you have this solution, change the filibuster rules so we don't have so much debate, yet the senate conducted quite a bit of debate and passed quite a bit of legislation especially at the end of congress and it seems that in isn't a big problem. maybe there's a problem when people turn on c-span and they see nobody really debating, see them in quorum calls and multiple pieces of legislation being pending at once. i don't see it as a problem. -- as a problem in setting the number at 55 isn't a magic

number. i mean, why have any number if you're just going to move the previous question? >> the thing i'd add is, it's not as though the filibuster rule or any other rules of the senate ought not ever be looked at or changed. maybe something works well, something else works differently or better. there's a good process to do this. you've got a rules committee with people -- attorneys who are good at figuring out how things would work. if you've got a solution that's going to work, irrespective of which party is in charge, there's a process to go through and do it. the end result of that is you have to get 67 senators to agree that this is good for everybody. i think that the natural way of doing it if you're going to do it, is to then make it in effect at some point in the future when you don't have a pretty good sense of who is going to be in challenge of the different political branches of government so you take the long view and not something focused on the

immediate partisan gain or loss and say it's going to go in effect in 2016 or whatever the year may be that would make sense in the context. there's a process to figure it out and everybody should make an agreement. what's happening now is is trying to put a gun to the head of the majority -- of the minority saying, we're going to force this thing through and you're going to live with it or else. i'm not terribly interested in any of the theoretical ideas for reform being put forward in the press or by operations that are set up with websites run by -- funded by staples of the democratic base, right now, that are just theorizing about what might make better sense. there's a process for this going forward. and the idea that 57 votes is insurmountable is not a lot, most legislation passes by unanimous consent and we've had changes before and we've had

changes as recently as 2007. they got the votes they needed to do it, senator alexander, i believe, is going to be the ranking member of the rule committees, senator alexander will be the one at the table with senator schumer and others, they can fig you are you are -- figure it out. i said there was a method issue and the result issue. the method is outrageous in this context because there's a process to go through and they could do that. >> another question from back in the back. >> this morning, there was an article on the question of filibuster but the author, chris ackerman, raised the question about the capacity of individual senators to pass a -- place a nomination on hold which he said leads to an increase for the use of recent support, he licked it with the filibuster question. could somebody respond to that issue?

>> essentially -- first of all, it's often said a single senator can prevent something happening. that's not the case. the majority leader has the option of filing cloture. if he had 60 votes, he can go ahead and do it. the thought that a single senator can actually prevent it, no. they can prevent time agreement from occurring, prevent someone from coming up by unanimous consent, but the majority leader can do it, so i think that's one thing in the whole judicial nominations process, given how see sloe the white house has been in sending judicial nominations up and the time they've devoted to judicial nominations, i find it puzzling, the constant refrain the -- that the majority is stopping these things. in contrast in 2003, when we spent all of february of 2003 on a single nominee, miguel ochada,

and had seven cloture votes on him, all of which got majority support and still wasn't able to clear him, that's a whole different issue than senator reid saying i'm not going to schedule a judicial nominee far cloture vote. >> a hold is merely a senator saying, if you bring up this measure this nomination will filibuster. there's nothing inherently wrong with the hold. it's notifying leadership that you will go down to the senate floor and filibuster if they take out something. and much of the senate's business is done by unanimous consent. many times you have bills coming up without any hearings, without any debates, nominations for that matter coming up, they are passed with no vote. senator demint calls it secret consent because you have these things coming up and they pass if they become controversial, no member will take ownership over it because it's something that passed by unanimous consent, they didn't have a chance to

study and understand it, they're not on the record 100-0 voting for this. the idea of a hold, a hold really isn't anything that scary, it's a member saying, if you bring up this measure, i want to exercise my rights to have some debate and have a roll call vote and whatever other rights i have. >> all the hold is, allow the bill to come up but i'm going to make sure i have the rights to the following amendments considered. that happens very commonly and then with you find is no, absolutely not, we're not going to vote on those amendments. that's the joke senator and asker was making, the senators are afraid to vote. they're absolutely afraid to vote. house members are also afraid to vote. speaker -- speaker boehner, i'll just say it now, made the point of saying, we got elected, let's

vote. the same problem over in the house where they're afraid to have any votes on amendments. that's what happens a lot of times with holds as well. that's another piece of the puzzle with understanding what's happening in each case, which is different than the other. >> on the notion of holds, obstruction and unanimous consent, the majority oftentimes will review -- refuse to schedule stuff on the floor, for whatever reason, good or bad, that they don't want to pass unanimous consent, then a senator who chooses not to give their consent is labeled as obstructing. this is an important point. unanimous consent the same as voting for something. it is very interesting that one would be outraged that you would expect a senator of whatever political persuasion to vote for something that they don't want to vote for and then call that obstruction and be outraged by it. that is the nature of unanimous consent. >> do we have one last here in the middle? just a minute for the mike. >> i'm chairman of the community

learning and information network. i wondered if you gentlemen would have any comments about, since i had several of my promotions held up by senate, if you would comment about the czars, 37 of them up there in the white house they bypass all this stuff and they certainly create an awful lot of papers for you young people to shuffle. do you have any comments about that? >> i don't like them. i mean, that is a big separation of powers issue. you have many members of congress that believe that if these so-called czars, if they take over the responsibilities that cabinet secretaries or other officials, confirmable positions, should be doing, then you have an issue. then you have an issue where these individuals should go through a confirmation process and what is congress' means to restrain and have oversight over individuals that will refuse,

probably, to come in and testify at hearings. this is a serious problem with the explosion of czars over the last few years. i do agree it's a problem. i guess congress, the only thing they can do, they can threat ton cut off pay for these czars if the czars don't come in and testify and at least give testimony to congress under oath to talk about what their activities are. there is a big separation of powers issue here, the white house has the authority and constitutional duty to have confidential communications with their staff but we're now getting into a realm where it doesn't look like that's happening. we're having a lot of people sitting in the white house conducting activities that cable officials should be doing. >> permission to make one final point? >> sure. >> the senate is known as the world's greatest deliberative body. jean jacques resew talked about

how russo talked about the -- -- rousseau talked about the quicker you came to a group with knew yu nan anymority, the more likely it was the right decision system of the question first asked is 55 the right number, is 60 the right number. i think there's a more fundamental question, is it a bad or good thing that the senate forces consensus to be formed through the deliberation. the framers clearly believed that justice was more likely to be achieved through greater deliberation rather than less. >> good redemption using rousseau that way. i want to make one small point i can't resist, senator udall and the others think that the whole issue is that the senate is not a continuing body and they can just operate under no rules.

brian got into this a little bit. there's a fundamental division within the democratic caucus right now, they're in a real mess internally on these questions. you can see it coming out in these little small ways. the senate website yesterday often had a special page about the senate's first day in which in the second paragraph it said, the senate is a continuing body. this is the senate website run by the secretary of the senate, apointed by senator reid. so he's letting this stuff go out, but they're not consciously concerned about that. the most vivid example of this, think about this when you hear, the senate is not a continuing body, the rules don't carry over. when they come back into session tomorrow, they will be operating under an order, what is that order? it is a unanimous consent agreement entered into in the final moments of the last congress. it was proposed by senate bayh on behalf of senator reid and

the order says they shall come in and they will swear in new members and enter a period of what is called morning business a -- which means a certain kind of discussion provided for by the rules. so they already baked in from one congress to the next that the last congress shall control the next congress. now this is interesting from a legal standpoint, if one actually buys all this conversation about the continuing body and how that works. i differ with brian hon the legalities of this but the important point is, they're in disarray on this. they went out creating a fundamental problem for their back benchers who are going to come in and try to blow the place up tomorrow. it'll be fascinating to see how they work this through and see how they work out the results. i'm looking forward to seeing it. >> i reserve the balance of my time. >> thank you all for your kind attention. thank our panelists again for this presentation.

[applause] >> we hope you'll join us at heritage again on a future occasion. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp 2011] >> the 111th congress -- 112th congress gavels in tomorrow. watch "washington journal" for interviews with leaders and your calls, right up until when the house gavels in at noon on c-span. >> be sure to watch tomorrow night when we reair the day's proceedings from the opening of the 112th congress, that starts at 8:00 eastern here on c-span.

looking ahead, the health care repeal debate will be brought up by the house republican leadership. watch that floor debate this coming friday with a vote expected next wednesday. the repeal isn't likely to get past the senate as democrats are still in the majority. >> congressman pallone, democrat of new jersey, welcome back. >> thank you. >> let's begin with some news of the day. house republicans taking control tomorrow and next wednesday. vote on health care bill that the president signed into law . what is the significance? guest: i think it is a huge waste of time. what i understand is they would do an outright repeal, very simple. and, first of all, i think the bill actually accomplished a lot and a lot of the patient protection provisions have already kicked in. january 1 we had significant ones, about 50% discounts for seniors in medicare with prescription drugs.

the fact that health care premiums, 80% have to be used for paying benefits. and when i spoke to people, i think the general feeling is, look, we had this debate, let the bill play out, let provisions again, and see how it works, and if we have to make changes, eventually we will, but i think most americs want us to focus on jobs and the economy and they did not want to repeat this health care debate, which is what the republicans seem determined to do. host: but congressman david dreier is tolerant -- calling it a job, health care bill, putting unfunded mandates on states. guest: again, i did not think it is the case at all. from an economic point of view, i think the health care bill actually improves the economy, it actually creates jobs because much of the funding goes to help community health centers to hire me health care professionals. beyond that, also over 10 years

it reduces the deficit by $100 billion. one of the things i was amazed to see is that the new house rules that come into effect, i guess, tomorrow, ifhey are passed, would actually exempt that $100 billion deficit reduction from being offset in any way. so i think he is wrong. the health care reform actually helped the economy and it decreases the deficit. host: the deficit and the erl debt continues to grow. this is from the treasury department. we had a $9 trillion national debt in 2007. we went up to $10 trillion in 2009. and we now exceeded $14 trillion. let's put one figure on the table. we have gone from $13 trillion up to $14 trillion in just seven months. how did that happen? guest: i think part of it has

been economy. i think the major part the economic downturn. but a major part is what happened during the republican years under bush when all we really did was basically reduce taxes, primarily for corporations and the wealthy, and that old trickle-down theory did not work. the economy got work, fewer jobs were created. also, the war in iraq and afghanistan were not paid for in any way. when democrats came in four years ago we took the majority, we instituted a very strict pay- go rule and now with the republicans are going to do tomorrow, as i understand, change that dramatically and that thing basically their goal is to go back to the sam bush economics which is to be centrally -- essentially to allow tax cuts to not be paid for. and i think they will start a

whole new round, if u will, of trying to help the wealthy and big corporate interests by giving them tax cuts and tax breaks, which is only going to increase the deficit more and not create significant number of jobs. host: if you look at the next two years -- because you have the bush era tax cuts agreed to by president obama and democrats and republicans in congress. that is a lot of the land next o years. taxes will not be going up. where do the cuts come from? where did you bring the number down? guest: the way you will ultimately improve things is to improve the economy. thisongress is to focus on jobs. it does not need to rehash the whole health care debate. you can create jobs through a combination of tax cuts and also reduce spending -- new spending on things like transportation to create jobs, building roads, also helping with mass transit. but what i see on the republican

side is just going back to the old bush economics. all they want to do is encourage more tax cuts and not focus and target spending in a way that is actually going to create jobs. we had the pay-go rule and now they have the cut-go rule, saying if you want to spend money on domestic programs, decants offset by closingax loopholes but you can reduce -- you can't offset it by closing tax loopholes. and the deficit keeps ballooning. i think the way they are going about it is very hypocritical. it's good republican, darrell issa, new chairmanf oversight - host: republican darrell issa, new chairman of the government oversight committee, looking at freddie mac and fannie mae and also wikileaks, his opinion that the justice department did not do enough to go after julian

assange. guest: again, same thing. i have no problem with oversight. that is pt of congress that irresponsibility but i think spending all this time on oversight on things that did not directly relate to the economy and job creation. i think the lesson of the last elections americans want us to focus as a laser beam on job creation and the economy and spending time on some of these peripheral things, you know, again, i don't -- the public doesn't want congress to waste its time. they want us to zero and exclusively or prioritized the economy. host: democratic ldership, is in the house meeting with reporters. you are in the minority. what is the agenda, what are the priorities and how you get anything done being the minority? guest: i think we would like to work obviously on a bipartisan basis. that is the most important thing. guest: the lame-duck was

actually a very productive time. the tax-cut bill was a way that the president could show he could work with the republicans and the democrats in congress as well. i know that the democrats would really like to see more bipartisanship and working together. again, like a laser beam on the economy and job creation. host: cutting internal budgets -- should members of congress take pay cuts? should staff take a pay cut? guest: my understanding is that we will have a 5% or less budget cut across the board for a house offices. i have not exactly seen what john boehner has proposed, but that's what i've heard. host: do you like that idea? guest: in these times, it makes sense to see where we can cut.

host: congressman fred upton appeared on fox news two days ago. the issue ohealth care came up. here's more from that exchange this past sunday on fox news. >> as part of our pledge, we said we would bring up a vote to repeal health care early. that will happen before the president's state of the union address. we have 242 republicans. there will be a significant number of fodemocrats, i think, that will join us. en it passed in the house, it only passed by seven votes. if you switch four votes from last march, that bill would not have gone down. we will take the democrats who voted no. we will ta other democrats who probably agree with speaker nancy pelosi's stement that we will pass this and then see what

is in it. now we know what is in it. it is unpopular across the country. i do not think we will be that far off from having a vote to override a veto. host: congressman frank llone, again, more from the republicans. the vote will take place next wednesday. guest: understanding is that they will introduce it tomorrow. this is a huge waste of time, as was said by the commentary with the fred upton. the senate has indicated and certainly the president, that they will not take up this repealed. why are we doing this? the problems that the health- care bill addressed, the lack of coverage for more and more americans, and premiums, they are not going away. this was an honest attempt to come up with a solution to try to provide more coverage, and to

try to stabilize premiums, and to provide patient protections. why would you want to start the new session with an outright repeal? it seems to me that it makes a lot more sense to let this unfolds. the patient protections are gradually unfolding. the coverage rules will gradually take in. on general one, 80% of the premiums have to go towards -- on january 1, it kicks in that 80% of premiums would have to go towards it. this is having a very positive effect. if you are reasonable about it, we will say, let this unfold. have some oversight hearings and propose some changes as we go along. that is fine. we can work on a bipartisan basis. to start out with ts repeal as the first act of the congress,

it's a misplaced priority. host: the next cep will be to take different aspects of the health care bill and have a series of vot that could deny funding. guest: again, that ishe same thing. before you even let the measures in the reforms kick in and have a positive effect, you try to take away the funding, which is the same as repeal. they never get off the ground. i think that is a huge mistake. if wetart to see all the emphasis in the republican congress on repeal of the previous congress did, and oversight in many areas that are not related to jobs, i think the public will be very upset with the republican leadership and what it is trying to do. host: $14 trillion. that is one of the news items today. at's what we're facing in our national debt. the white house senior economic adviser said that if congress fails to increase the debt

limit,t would be catastrophic. we heard from incoming republican michael kelly and michelle bachman saying then they will not vote to increase the debt limit. guest: the tea party is not being pctical. the full freight and credit of the united states is at risk. how do we operate as a country if we refuse to honor our debt? frankly, i think it would result in a worldwide depression. i cannot imagine that. again, it is this reckless idea that is basically ideologically based. if you listen to what some of the tea party leaders are saying, it's all ideology. they're not concerned about the practical impact of what we do here in washington. host: we are tking with w jersey democrat frank pallone.

steve is joining us from south carolina on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. the democratic platform is based on making life fair for everyone. the meltdown was due to careless banks and careless investing. another one was the government telling people that everyone deserves homes, regardless of their ability to pay. i cannot believe you would look at the camera and tell everyone that theeltdown was caused all by the republicans and george bush. i cannot believe you can actually look at the camera and say that. now you want to tell everyone that you can make health care fair for everyone. you have some sort of magical bullet. every time you try to make things fair, like giving people welfare, you end up devastating the family. every time you make things fair or try to make life perfectly fair, it causes tremendous

problems. and then you turn around and obfuscate the whole blame and act like george bush repealed glass-steagall. bill clinton did that. host: steve, thank you for the call. we will get a response from congressman frank pallone. guest: you mentioned several things. on the health care initiative, you said -- di think i have the magical bullet? i do not think i have anything magical. i'm saying let's get away from the ideology. let's talk about the practicality. the fact of the matter is that premiums continue to go up. in many cases, double digits. more and more people do not have health care coverage. more and more people using emergency rooms. your people see a doctor on a regular basis. we spent years coming up with a

measure that would practically address that. you may argue whether or not it is. i'm saying let's have an opportunity to test it and let it play out. if it does not work, we will go back again. what the democrats have tried to do over the last two years in trying to address the economic downturn has been very practically oriented. the republicans said they did not like the stimulus -- the revery act. it was a practal solution to create jobs and prevent job losses. that is the fact of the matter. most economists say two million jobs to 3 million jobs were saved. maybe you do not like it, but at least we're trying to do something to make things better and not go back to another deeper recession or depression. let's work together in a practical way, democrats and

republicans, to try to find solutions. the tax-cut bill that we passed in the lame duck was an example of one way that we can come together and try to find solutions. not everybody agrees with that. maybe it will not work either. at least we are trying on a bipaisan basis. host: representative frank pallone in his 12th term in the house of representatives. he is also on the house natural resources committee. another critic is gary, who points out -- if anyone needs to tighten their belts, why didn't the democrats reduce overhead expenses when they had control of the purse strings? guest: 40 talking about congress? -- are you talking about congress? host: the 5% pay cut boehner has oposed.

guest: is that is what he is proposing, i think that is something that should be implemented. you know, rather than saying it is a democrats and republicans initiative, but let's just try to save money. host: this your says the republicans never created a health care plan. instead, they destroy, destroy obama's plan. guest: that is all we hear -- let's repeal the obama plan. we have an immediate problem here. more and people do not have coverage. premiums continue to go up. we have a solution that is in place. it seems to me that if you have this problem, it makes no sense to say let's repeal the solution

and try again when we are in the midst of this huge problem. host: jane joins us on the line for democrats. ller: good morning, representative frank pallone. representative, as a member of the grass roots of liberal constituents, i wish to warn the democratic party, but also the others, that prescription drug fix is a measly pie of junk. i'm going to tell you of a z.org.e, eemocrdemocrat we are willing to written to

aid.anies like right te- we're going to rip into some ohio companies and an ohio a kentucky company. the dcc chairman, mr. israel, he voted for medicare part d, which is a slush fund for drug compans. i'm not going to give any money to the democratic party because of that. we are going to go after the companies that give money to conservatives with boycotts. people can go to that address, www. democratz.org, and they

can sign a position that says we nt a comprehensive legislation action, and we're going to boycott these companies that give money to conservatives. we know that asking john boehner directly and mitch mcconnell directly -- we know we will get nowhere. we're going to go after their corporate donors. thank you very much. host: we will get a response. congressman pallone? guest: i do not know if you wanted a response, but i will say this. the health care reform was a practical solution. of course we had to get the necessary votes to pass it. some people prefer a single payer system. some people wanted a public auoption. in terms of the prescription drug benefits, it does go far and ultimately eliminate the

donor hole. prescription drugs go up over a certain amount during the year, they do not get any help. last year, 50% discount on brand-name drugs and once they reach that level -- that went into effect on january 1. e drug companies h to agree to the 50% discount. this was an effort to try to plug the donor hole. it will be eliminated over the 10-year life of the bill. i think it makes more sense to continue with this and let it play out rather than talk about trying to come up with some immediate solutions right now or outright repeal, as the republicans are proposing. twitter page --r twitter fro

guest: the president is taking a two-pronged approach. to. -- to the deficit. when he ierited the deficit, we had to have some spending to get the economy moving again and create jobs. if you look at the budgets he has proposed, there have been cuts in a lot of programs. i also think you have to be careful. you do want to address the deficit over the long term. it was also necessary after the recession to make sure we did not starve the federal government and states so much that the recession got worse and became a depression. we give money back to the states for teachers a police and other purposes. i think a lot of that was

necessary. host: david is joining us from new jersey on the lineor independents. good morning, david. caller: mr. pallone is a picture of everything that's wrong with congress. first of all, he has been there too long. he has no idea what goes on in the private sector. he set up and watched the pharmaceutical industries, the growth and visioengines of our , get hurt by his colleagues. it is an absolute lie that this health care bill will lower the deficit. as a matter of fact,hat they did -- i am an accountant by background. they took revenues for a longer period of time but did not take cost until four years io the

program. he then tells the people -- oh, you should not even try to change this. it's like he is a ruling elite. it's like he has contempt for the ople. i got my new health-care statement for this year one month ago. it says right in a statement that because of the health-care bill, your premiums will rise. it is in it in plain english. he keeps going on. he has contempt for the average person. even the way he looks at the camera is like -- don't tell me what to do. i'm a congressman. last part on bipartisanship. he set up and rejected every amendment that came from the republicans. i have watched this. he does not realize, or maybe he does and he does not care, that the people who watch c-span --

you cannot sit there and give talking points. we know what is going on. every amendment like buying insurance across state lines was rejected by the democrats. now he talks about bipartisanship. there's not a bipartisanship bone in his body. it's really sad hos. host: thank you for the call. guest: david, the pharmaceutical industry worked with the democrats and the republicans putting together the health care reform. we are very supportive of what we were doing. they had to give back certain things, but they were still supportive of the initiative. reduction in thedictio deficit, we go by the congressional budget office did it says that it reduces the deficit by $100 billion over 10 years. some people say they should not be the arbiter of these things, but they are under the rule.

i know that the health insurance companies are increasing their premiums and blaming the health care reform for the increases, but that is not the case. you simply cannot believe them. who is in favor of the status quo? the only people in favor of the status quo before the reform was the insurance companies, because they continue to raise premiums and exclude people who have pre- existing conditions. they have all kinds of caps on coverage to make it more difficult for people to access care. naturally, they are going to tell you that the health care reform is t bad. they want to continue to increase premiums and put all kinds of limitations on access to care. you simply cannot leave them. host: if you're listening on c- span radio, we welcome your callas well. our conversation is with democratic congressman frank pallone, who is part of the

112th congress that will be sworn into office tomorrow. we will have live coverage, beginning with "washington journal" and the ceremony gets underway at noon eastern. dennis joins us from michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. happy new year to the both of you. would like to ask a couple questions to mr. pallone. one, why has health care never been put on a national referendum for the citizens to vote on so you would get a true feeling on what the people actually wanted, an? that poins get to guest: we have a representative form of government and you elect representatives to make these cisions, rather than have a

national referendum on health care or other initiatives. that's a more direct form of democracy, but that's not what we have. you could argue that about any bill. i think we've had two years where we debated this. we've had numerous hearings in committee. my own committee had countless hearings. after two years, we adopted a bill. that's the process. i do not suggest we get rid of the representative process and move towards national referendums on every important issue. host: dennis, we will follow up caller: i concur with what he says and i agree to a point. with things like health care bill, and as explained, it has taken two years of debate, it is still dragging into a third year. i think that is a protracted

this agreement upon the implementation or the people's agreement to such a plan. i just want to know what exactly will be the outcome of this health-care bill. thank you both for your time. guest: dennis, i'm t suggesting that we should continue to debate and have oversight of the health care bill as it takes in -- kicks in. i'm saying that we should not waste our time by repealing it out right and start anew. i think that's where the waste of time is. i think that is where the new republican leadership, instead of doing that, should be focusing on the economy and jobs and not rehashing this whole debate. host: paul ryan is another key player. anne has this twitter question . guest: one of the things that

really bothers me about the rules package that the republicans are going to adopt tomorrow is that the chairman of the budget committee, it gives him the absolute authority to decide on spending and revenue limits to the appropriations committee. it's not at all clear if there will even be a budget resolution. i think that this granted that authority to the chairman of the budget committee under these new rules. i think it is very arbitrary and contrary to thellegis transparency that the republicans talked about during the election. we will see. certainly, that rules package is not a good indication that there will be a lot of input on the budget, especially when it comes to spending caps and spendingcaps. host: another budget item.

the pentagon and wars in iraq and afghanistan. one of our viewers says the health-care debate has been a great distraction for what he calls "six wars of our country is currently engaged in." guest: i would agree with you. if we simply rehashed this health care debat and spent the first few months of this session talking about repeal -- i have said that the major priority is the economy and jobs. also, you are right when you talk about the wars and how we will continue to fight them and how we will continue to pay for them. that all becomes secondary as well. i agree that it is a mistake to focus so much attention on repeal of health care reform. host: representative frank pallone. judith joins us on the line for independents. good morning. caller: thank you.

i want to focus on two separate issues. one is the health care that you have been talking about. the first thing you said -- the job killing health care bill. i think this is a talking point. if you look at the way the health care bill is implemented over the four years, the health- care industry is currently 1/6 of the united states economy. it will actually en d massive ad jobs because there are number -- large numbers of people currently unemployed. as they get into theystem and the children all get their proper immunizations, which is usually covered now, you have the older people who cannot afford health care because the social security and medicare

plan only pays 4/5 of their bill -- it is insane. if you look at the single payer option, you actually save a great deal of money because you do not have 9 million different companies all competing with people who tend to be poorly educated on the subject and do not know what they are buying. a perfect example is a motorized wheelchair for many of the handicapped. if you purchase this through a medical supply store, the price is $6,000 a with a with1,500add on for an elevated seats. you can buy the exact same share online for $3,000. host: we have just a couple of mites. we will give the congressman a chance to respond. let me clarify. the language of calling a job killing health care act comes

from the house rules committee. you can go to the house rules committee website. next wednesday, they will vote on what they call the "job killing health care law." that language is coming from the house g and in particular the rules committee. your response? guest: i think you're right that the health care bill stimulate the economy and creates jobs. essentially, what isappening is that as more and more people are covered with health insurance and they're able to see a doctor and get primary care, there will be a need for more docts, more nurses, and more health assistancts. there's no question that it will create jobs. would a single payer system have squeeze more money out of the system? probably. again, i do not want to rehash the whole issue of whether we

should have had a single payer or a public option. i think we passed what we could. it will create jobs. it will cover most americans. let's play it out, rath than move towards immediate repeal. host: ken is joining us from silver spring, md. on the line for democrats with representative frank pallone. caller: good morning. first thing i want to do is commend you. you have a caller from new jersey who called on the inpendent line. he uses the same terminology like gulag and things like that. i'm not going to repeat it. i consider the republican party and the tea party the american liban and al-qaeda. keep doing what you're doing inside the repeal. -- and fight the repeal.

you have a firm grasp. one quick thing i want to say. the stimulus bill, you know, you had a lot of republicans against it. no one will say now that general motors was saved. when you look at all the republicans that have bmw -- it's no surprise why they did not mind the american manufacturers to go under. my call is to mail in support you and the democratic part and also the people -- is to mainly supported you and the democratic party, and also the people. it's not going to go anywhere. thank you. guest: thank you. i appreciate what you said. i think the one large point you've made is that it is easy to be the monday morning quarterback, but the bottom line is that we had aecsion two

years ago. with the recovery act and the tarp -- a lot of people do not like the fact that we saved the banks and gm. i think those things had to be done. it's easy to now say that you should not have done it or there was a better way to do it. the reality is that we accomplished those goals. i think the same thing will be true about health care reform. a lot of the patient protections have already kicked in. you will see that premiums will stabilize once this goes fully into effect in 2014. most americans will be covered. host: carl allen has this point of view. he is from new mexico. "how about giving republicans a chance before you start beating the hell out of them?" guest: i am not suggesting that the house subcommittee that i chaired should not have hearings

and look at what is happening to health care reform. that is the job of congress. to just say that we are going to repeal this and start over again, it's a waste of time. practically speaking, as we said earlier, the senate is not one to pass a repeal. the president has opposed a repeal. why are we doing that? why is that the cornerstone of the republican leadership's plan over the next few weeks? host: our last call is howard on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. it's nice to see you. if anyone wants to know what a professional left politician is, just open your eyes. there he is. i have a question about nancy pelosi's statement. the idea of getting into the weeds about what is right and what is wrong with this medicare

bill, or obamacare bill, it is difficult. it is one-sided. as we going to the congress, it will be quite interesting to have an opposite view siing across the table now. i know there are restraints on time, but we have a lot of congressman walking around the halls at 7:00 a.m. i think we can have a group meeting. to get back to nancy pelosi's statement, when she said we have to pass it so we know what is in it. thank you. have a good day. host: thank you for calling. you have a number of new members tomorrow morning on c-span's "washington journal." representative frank pallone, your thoughts? guest: i know there is this

notion that somehow the speaker or members did not read the bill. let me assure you nancy pelosi knows everything that's in that health care bill. she went through it line by line before the democratic caucus. we spent a lot of timand we know what is in the bill. that is why we support the bill. we think it will go far toward stabilizing premiums and covering all americans let me just make this final plea on health care reform. everythingt repl that was done over the last two years. let's work on a bipartis basis to try to address the country's problems, create jobs, and improve the economy. thank you. host: we began the cversation this morning talking about the situation in states. across the country, $140 million in potential budget debts.

david has this comment. that is one argument we're going to hear in the new congress. guest: one of the best manifestations of this is the tea party constitutional amendment that says that/3 of the state legislatures would be able to veto any federal law or any federal regulation. i think that we ne a strong federal government. and, you know, the notion that it is somehow unconstitutional for the federal government to deal with education, transportation, or energy -- i do not think the founding fathers had in mind. they expected a strong government. the only way we became a strong nation, in my view, is because we have a strong government.

i do not want to take away from the powers of the state. one of the things that the federal government should do, and we try to do in the last congress, was to help out the states. we spend money -- we sent money back to the states so they should not -- so it would not have to lay off teachers and police. that was done under the democratic congress. i do not know if the republicans want to do that. we need to help the stas as well. maybe we can come up with some bipartisan solutions. host: you have been in the majority. you will nowe back in the minority. for you personally, what is the biggest change? guest: the biggest change is that i will not be chair of the health subcommitteenymore. when we were in the majority, and if i can use my health subcommittee that i chaired as an example, we were quite a bit with the republicans. i would say 80% or 90% of the stuff we passed was on a bipartan basis. the new chairman, joe pit

congress gavels in wednesday with the swearing in of member, the election of a new house speaker and a vote on new rules. watch live starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on "washington journal." interviews with members, leadership, reporters and your calls. right up to when the house gavels in at noon on c-span. >> be sure to watch tomorrow night when we'll re-air the day's proceedings from the opening of the 112th congress. that starts at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. and looking ahead, the health care repeal debate will be brought up by the house republican leadership, watch that floor debate this coming friday with a vote expected next wednesday. the repeal isn't likely to get past the senate as democrats are still the majority.

>> florida's new governor was sworn in today in tallahassee. here's 30 minutes of the ceremony. >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome "god bless america." ♪ while the storm clouds gather far across the sea let us swear allegiance let us all be grateful for a land so fair

as we raise our voices in a solemn prayer god bless america land that i love stand beside her and guide her through the night with the light from above from the mountains to the prairies to the oceans white with foam god bless america my home sweet home god bless america

my home sweet home ♪ [cheers and applause] >> we're taking the oath of office as the 45th governor of florida, mr. richard scott, accompanied by his family and administered by the honorable chief justice charles t. kennedy.

>> please place your left hand on the bible and raise your right hand and repeat after me. i, rick, scott, to solemnly swear that i will support, protect and defend the constitution and government of the united states and of the state of florida. that i am qualified to hold office under the constitution of the state and that i will well and faithfully perform the duties of governor. on which i am now about to enter. so help me god. congratulations. god bless you. [cheers and applause]

[applause]

[applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, former governor charlie cyst. >> the former govern already now present the great seal of the state of florida to governor scott.

ladies and gentlemen, governor richard lynn scott. [cheers and applause] >> thank you, thank you, thank you. please sit down. so, at least we have nice weather now, right? it's florida. that's right. yesterday morning we had greta van set stress stren and she was explaining about the weather. i would not complain about this weather. first off, i thank everybody for coming. i think first off, governor

crist, thank you very much. the governor couldn't have been more gracious during this transition period and thank you very much. [applause] mr. president, mr. speaker, members of the cabinet, mr. chief justice and members of the supreme court, distinguished guests and my fellow floridians, first off, i thank everybody for coming. there are so many people that have been part of my life. ok. so, we gather today to talk about florida's future, to define where we want to go. and to plan how to get there. clear goals and hard work can achieve amazing things. the trees that surround us here are what they are because they had a plan. once we take the right steps, i am absolutely convinced that

florida will become the most exciting place in the world to live and work. let's begin by -- [applause] that's right. let's begin by facing squarely the challenge of our time. a stalled economy. this morning more than a million floridians got out of bed and faced another day of unemployment. for months they've searched for work. they fill out applications, they beg for interviews, they face rejection after rejection. many people who once earned a good leaving on construction sites when the economy stalled, buildings stopped and they found themselves with skills but no degree and absolutely no job. some are young adults who got a degree and were eager to get started on their lives but they couldn't find a job and they've had to move back home. others are middle aged adults who have been steadily employed

for years and then lost their jobs almost overnight. unemployed parents struggle to put on a brave face for their children, but it's hard to hide the fact the wolf is at the door. for all the unemployed, life without a paycheck is a desperate daily scramble to provide the basics. i've been a child in a home like that. my father was often laid off. my mother took an ironing just so we could have food on the table. i have a clear memory of their fear and uncertainty as they strove to provide for five kids. so for me, job creation is an absolute mission. [applause] my personal memories fortify my commitment to this mission. there are millions of families across florida quhose future depends on the steps we take to create jobs. america was built on the

promise that anyone could succeed who is willing to work hard. but when an economy falters and jobs disappear, that american promise seems hollow. left uncorrected, high unemployment creates a spiral down into hopelessness. we will not let that happen in florida. [applause] faced with a deep recession, some say the answer is to expand the role of government. that's the approach the administration has taken in washington. that is absolutely the wrong approach. [cheers and applause] it requires magical thinking to expect government to create prosperity. government has no resources of its own. government can only give to us

what is previously taken from us. [applause] a huge cut for the government middle man. a lean and limited government has a role to play in providing a safety net. but prosperity comes from the private sector. only from the private sector. [applause] the only path to better days is distribute only path to better days is paid with new private sector jobs. in my own life, my first jobs were low paying, but they gave me a toe hold on the future. they taught me self-discipline, they gave me self-respect, they made me a productive citizen rather than dependent. the availability of those first jobs is essential to steady improvement in the lives of

young floridians. but those entry level jobs are not enough. the availability of better jobs is the key to a long-term prosperity. florida has to develop a broader-based economy with a wider diversity of employment opportunities. our incredible natural resources, our wonderful climate, our beautiful beaches have given us a competitive advantage in agriculture and tourism. we have a long history as a critical national resource for the support and training of our military and the manufacturing of defense-related materials. those sectors will always be the bedrock of our economy. but we have to capture this full spectrum of business activities and opportunities. we need to manufacture more things in florida. we need to capitalize on our geographic location as a natural connect and distribution hub for the growing economies of central and south america. we need to become --

[applause] we need to become the premier location for cutting-edge technology. the people of florida elected me to get this state back to work. and i believe in this mission. [applause] we have hard-working people who are desperately looking for jobs. we have energetic entrepreneurs with plenty of ideas and we have persuadeble investers with ready carve -- cash. all that's been miss sgget determination to create the most favorable business climate in the world and we will. modern businesses can locate anywhere. so the conditions florida offers aren't the best, they'll locate somewhere else. what does it take to create the most favorable business climate? florida has to offer business people the most -- the biggest opportunity for financial

success. but not a guarantee, just a fair chance. three forces marketedly reduce that chance for success. taxation, regulation and litigation. those three form the axis of unemployment. [applause] they choke off productive activity. florida has wisely refused to impose an income tax. under my plan, we'll elimination the -- he will eliminate the business tax and reduce the property tax. the state of florida raises enough revenues to meet its needs. it has to focus on spending those revenues smarter, setting better priorities and demanding more accountability.

we'll also re-examine every regulation to make sure its benefits outweigh its costs. unless they are pruned, regulations grow like weeds. while there are some regulations that are essential for health and safety and others that are essential to the protection of our prices and environmental, it's past time to demand that every regulation be re-evaluated. [applause] we will do a -- we will do a top to bottom review of all existing regulations and get rid of ones that hinder job growth. today i will sign an executive order creating a state office of fiscal regulation to determine their impact on job creation. [applause] every floridian should have a

right to access the court system for a redress of harm. but we will not allow excessive lawsuits to strangle job creation. [applause] and we will not allow a small group of predatory lawyers to stalk the business community in search of deep pockets. [cheers and applause] in the absence of serious tort reform, florida will lose opportunities for job growth. we have to do tort reform. whatever they do in texas, we're going to do better. [cheers and applause] no special interests can be allowed to triumph over the goal of full employment. job creators need to know that the great state of florida, the government of the great state of florida, we are here to work with business people and job creators, not against them.

[applause] it's very important to recruit companies from around the world, but it's just as important if not more important to make sure we take care of the homegrown companies right here in our great state of florida. [applause] small businesses are incredibly effective weapons against unemployment. but small businesses are also the most vulnerable to poorly drawn regulations and analyst delays in permitting. all i heard in the entire campaign was, the unbelievable time it took to get permits in our great state. that doesn't make any sense. it will stop. interaction between business owners and their government, their government, should not be confined to demand for fees and forms and more permits. [applause] our main massachusetts message

to the district job creators is, how can we, the great state of florida, help you succeed? [applause] private sector jobs are in places where the public sector spending is kept within bounds and we will keep our spending within bounds. all of us who are lucky enough to have a job working for the state of florida have a duty to watch over state spending like a hawk. we have to be very vigilant. floridians have entrusted us with their tax dollars, their tax dollars. they worked very hard for those dollars. they badly need those dollars for their needs. we must treat those resources with the respect they deserve and keep our demands to an absolute minimum. [applause] we will require accountability budgeting in state government so we will review every state agency and look at how every state agency is spending every

dollar. we'll get rid of the -- agency -- we'll get rid of these programs that don't work, we'll expand programs that do. that will be in the paper. [laughter] that wasn't part of the script. once we take the right steps, florida will -- we will become the most exciting place to live and work. we will clearly do that. [cheers and applause] we're going to make florida the place for innovation. we're going to encourage modern thinkers, the out of box thinkers, we're going to become the place, the place, there's not going to be anyplace in the world, we're going to be the place where high quality education is going to be translated into high quality jobs. [applause] you can tell my focus is on

jobs, right? we're going to make it easy to grow and build a business in florida. so the enterprises are going to have to compete to find space in our great state. we're going to tell the world, if you can dream it, it's easy to make it happen in the great state of florida. [applause] why not? if you look at it, we've been the destination for dreamers. the place where somebody with a big new idea could get started. railroads into wilderness, a magic kingdom, a trip to the moon. freedom from a foreign tyrant. better health, life without winter. right? they said it was not colder here than naples. and it's not. large and small, dreams are the stuff that florida is made of. what we said about becoming the best place in the country to create jobs, we'll also take a fresh look at education and health care. few things matter to us as much as our health care and the education of each of our children. it's time to offer floridians

more choices, more opportunities to select the services they want and they need. [applause] we're not going to clean debacles created in the prior century. we're not going to let bureaucracy create our dugses -- decisions for us. as we know, every child is unique and every child can learn. [applause] we will have an education system that allows the maximum amount of choice. a system focused entirely on what's best for individual student learning. not for special interests. we're going to create a work force for the future with an -- we're not going to create a work force for the future if

we're stuck in an education model for the past. to capture the world's best jobs we have to offer businesses the world's best educated work force and we will do it. [applause] i got to ask -- i got asked if i care about health care. in the health care sector, top-down government programs treat patients like interchangeble parts. that will stop. we're going to treat patients as individuals, choosing their own doctors and making their own decisions in consultation with those doctors. [applause] we're not going to allow bureaucrats and our federal government to trample all over our relationships with our physicians and our right to make our own decisions on health care. [applause] the very wealthy have plenty of

options but for most floridians, they have far too little say in how their children are educated or how their health care services are provided. none of that is written in stone and it will change. [applause] we just have to have the courage to change. here's how we'll provide better service. first we'll refuse to allow increased government intrusion in these areas. we'll put floridians back in the driver -- driver seat with increased use of free markets. when government -- when government does the buying, government choose what is services are available, the truth is he who pace the piper calls the tune. now we're going to call the tune, not the government. we're going to price the same tools that business people use, we're going to measure everything. we'll implement changes based on what we learned from those measurements and most importantly we'll hold everyone accountable. i expect to be held accountable, everyone in government accepts to be held

accountable and i believe in it and we will do it. [applause] in the next few months sperble special interests will try to stop what we're doing. one thing i ask for each of you is to stand up and hold us accountable and help defend what we're trying to do. you know, write letters to editors, you know, call us, let us know that you believe in what we're doing. i'm dempled to do everythingky and i know every elected official up here wants to do the same thing. i want to make a real and lasting improvement in the lives of fellow floridians. i believe that each of us is responsible to our maker. for what we do. with the time allotted to us on this earth, recognizing that my maker is watching over my service as governor, i will be resolute in seeking bold, probably more bold than some people like, but bold positive change. [applause]

in the last years, floridians have had a tough time. high unemployment and declines in our housing market have left a trail of destruction probably as bad as any hurricane. but every generation of floridians have faced tough challenges. and every generation has been resilient. in the 1880's, yellow fever hollowed out entire communities. in the depression in the 1930's, more than one in five families required relief funds to survive. in the 1940's over a quarter of a million floridians served in uniform and their worried families were sometimes short of basic necessities. in every decade we've had to rebuild after horrific hurricanes. after adversity, florida has always come back stronger. our current problems are absolutely solvable. and our future is in our hands. we are resilient people. [applause]

whether the national government takes the right steps or not, here in florida we have what we need to make the next four years the most exciting time to live and work in florida. and we will make it happen. [applause] this is the right time to act, this is an unbelievable opportunity for everybody in elected office and for everybody that lives in our great state. shakespeare put it this way, there is a tide in the affairs of men which taken at the flood leads on fortune. i believe this is high tide. this is a time we can do great things together. if we have the courage to act, our children and our grandchildren will someday thank us for it. may god bless the great state of florida, let's get to work. thank you very much. [cheers and applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, please remain standing. pastor curt anderson will deliver the ben diction. >> we at naples community church have but one regret. we're going to miss these people. we love them very much. receive the ben diction. now let's work hard that all may work, let's pray fervently that all may be humble, let's be thankful in the good times, patience, in the hard times, and worship at all times to the glory of god in the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit, amen. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the 112th congress gavels in wednesday with the swearing in of members, the election of a new house speaker and a vote on new rules. watch live starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on "washington journal." interviews with members, leadership, reporters and your calls. right up to when the house gavels in at noon. on c-span. >> i think news organizations have adapted. is it great that we're not -- that overall news organizations probably aren't doing as much foreign news, they're doing more domestic news, but the public bares some responsibility here, too. the public bears responsibility of keeping themselves informed. >> sunday, abc news senior foreign affairs correspondent martha raddatz looks at the wars in iraq and afghanistan on a political, strategic and personal level. at 8:00 on c-span's q & a d.

>> two former members of congress today agreed that redistricting is making congress more partisan. republican ronald sarson and democrat bob carr spoke about the future of congress after the midterm elections. >> morning. just to get that last item of business out of the way first, readings for tomorrow are chapters one, 11 and 12 in the book. late yesterday afternoon i was over in the russell senate office building and decided to go down to see my friend, the senate librarian, and went into the senate library, excuse me, and found her poring over the

rules of the senate because of the effort by some of the democrats to reform the filibuster. and, you know, there are certain people in washington who specialize in the very arcane area of congressional rules. and very often you find that these are -- people are actually employees of congress. these are the parliamentarians, the people who really are so well versed in the often very complex procedures of congress that they alone really know the answers. but even they were struggling to figure out what would be a way to proceed with the possible reform of the filibuster. and as i was mentioning yesterday, senator udall's proposal is one -- proposal,

one of them is to require senators to be on the floor and actually be speaking in order to block legislation and the filibuster's interesting because it's a two-point -- it occurs at two points in the legislative process. i mean, it really is designed to slow things down. first you can filibuster what's called the motion to proceed. the motion to proceed is just to debate a bill. that's all it is. that can be filibustered. you need 60 votes to close off debate, just to debate. the second point is on the vote itself, you can filibuster again. so it's a very, very powerful tool. but it's interesting because the critics of the filibuster seem to be simultaneously arguing that the 111th congress accomplished a great deal, and whether you like it or not, you know, the health reform legislation, the reform of

financial regulations, you know, the start treaty, all of these things, the extension of the tax cut, were major accomplishments. whether or not you think they were a good idea or not. so they're simultaneously saying, well, you know, we did all these great things and by the way the filibuster obstructed everything. you can't make that argument. even though they really are making it. and it's true, the filibuster, you know, is an obstacle. there's no question about that. but it doesn't completely preclude action by congress. and in the senate, you know, there's always been, i think, people who have -- wanted to change the filibuster and there are others who have maintained that it's really a defining characteristic of the senate. and it all has to do with what it means to be in the minority.

and it's the minority that uses the filibuster. because it's a device to slow down and obstruct. and there's this kind of a little meditation that you can make on what it means to be a minority. we assume that being a minority means being disempowered. well, that's not true. because if you have an empowered minority, that minority can really do something. and that's what the situation is for the minority in the senate. with the filibuster the minority is given power. in the house of representatives, where there is no filibuster, frankly the minority is often almost irrelevant. i mean, we don't like to think that in one chamber of congress that the minority party really has no influence, but whether the democrats or the republicans are in control of the house of representatives

the minority, the role of the minority is really quite limited. and this is one of the defining characters, it's one of the defining differences between the house and the senate is an empowered minority in the senate largely because of the filibuster and a disempowered minority in the house because of the relatively small number of things that the minority party can do. so if you've got a solid 218 votes in the house of representatives, that's half of the membership plus one, you can do pretty much what you want to do. in the senate if you have 51 votes, there's not much you can do of importance because of the normal resort to the filibuster to slow down or block legislation. there are other things that senators as individuals can do and one of the very

controversial ones and one of the things that the filibuster reformers have been aiming at is the reduction of the use of the hold. the hold is in effect a minnie filibuster. it's when a senator doesn't want a nomination to be considered, doesn't want a bill to be debated and so on and an individual senator can place what's known as a hold on a bill or a nomination and the hold may have nothing to do with the substance of the bill or the person who's being nominated. it may simply have to be -- have to do with the fact that the senator has something, some problem, that needs to be answered. and, you know, you think about what it is to be a united states senator, you know, it's a pretty -- it's a pretty impressive power to be able as a single individual, one of

100, to say, there's something about this nomination or this particular piece of legislation that i don't like. or simply that i've got an issue that i need addressed and i'm going to hold things up until people come to me, until the leadership comes to me and says to me, senator, what's your problem? and this of course is used and many would argue abused. that if every senator, all 100 of them, are extravagant in the use of holds, it does really slow things down considerably. so going into this new session of the 112th congress, these procedural issues are going to play a very important role and it may be that we don't have any really quick answer on it because there are people who feel that the filibuster is on

the whole a beneficial thing and something that defines the senate as an institution. going over to the house side, throughout history there's always been tension between the party leadership in the house of representatives and the chairman of the committees -- chairmen of the kest. and the balance of hour has -- committees. and the balance of power has shifted back and forth over the years. party leaders have a built-in desire to present to the house a comprehensive set of policy options that reflect the needs and preferences of the national party or the president, for example, if the president is of the same party as the house majority. the chairs of the house committees have very different kinds of objectives. in the 20 committees of the house of representatives you have very distinctive

characteristics of some of these committees. some of these committees, not surprisingly, have very strong regional or functional biases. for example, the agriculture committee is obviously going to attract members who come from states in which agriculture is very important. the armed services committee usually atract people, members who have military facilities or large military contractors in their districts and so on. now, the interests of these members, the interest of farmers, the interest of defense contractors and so on, may be at odds with the overall national perspective of the party leadership. so over the years the power relationship between party leaders and chairmen has shifted and of course it would seem logical that a speaker of the house, being the preeminent party figure in the house of

representatives, would want to be able to get as much power at the expense of committee chairs as possible. speaker-elect boehner seems to be taking a different position. he seems to be interested in allowing power to devolve back to the chairmen. speaker pelosi very, very much centralized power and many of the major decisions in the house of representatives were made by party leadership rather than in what speaker boehner likes to refer to as the regular order of the legislative process, with which most of you are familiar. that is the introduction of a bill, hearings on the bill, marking the bill up, reporting the bill out and so on. that rather than that regular traditional kind of textbook order of procedure in the house of representatives, that speaker pelosi would often get together with, for example, people from the white house, with senator harry reid, the

majority leader in the senate, and basically put together the legislation, bypassing the committees. well speaker-elect baner isa wants to get back to a more traditional way of forming legislation. and one of the more spectacular examples of this is his proposal to really give to the chairmen of the new budget committee, representative paul ryan of wisconsin, an extraordinary amount of power through the use of the budget, to limit the ability of the appropriating committees of the house to appropriate money. obviously a desire to save $100 billion from the budget, to cut $100 billion from the budget. and it's really quite interesting to see this kind of thing developing in the house of representatives.

you've seen the center of gravity of power in the house move back and forth from the leaderships to the chairmanship, to the chair leadership to the chairman. we're seeing it go back now. now there are also interesting developments in terms of what's going on at the white house. congress in the 111th congress was very much concerned about the possibility that detainees who were held at the u.s. military prison in guantanamo would be brought back to the united states for trial. this is a very, very big issue in washington. and that is of course whether or not the so-called art cal three courts are capable of -- art cal three courts are capable of -- article three courts are capable of trying these detainees.

the possibility that civilian courts would be more lenient with these detainees. as i mentioned yesterday a case in new york put a fright into many people in congress saying, well, this is exactly what's going to happen. civilian juries are going to be much more lenient toward these detainees, let's limit the ability of the president to transfer these people back to the united states by using the appropriations process and denying him the money to do it. and also, you know, for bidding him by law to do it -- forbidding him by law to do it. what's happened is something very interesting. during the bush administration the democrats were highly critical of president bush for signing bills that were politically difficult for him to veto but a pending to these bills something known as signing statements. and this is something that presidents have used since very early in the 19th century.

and what these signing statements generally say is, i will sign this bill but this is the way i interpret it. that my view of this is that it is inconsistent with my constitutional responsibilities. and president bush appended about 150 of these signing statements to legislation, including one very controversial one. senator john mccain had introduced a piece of legislation which was enacted by congress to for bid the use of torture -- forbid the use of torture. the president felt politically he could not veto it. he signed it and then added a signing statement to it saying that, i basically disagree with this. this interferes with my powers as the leader of the armed forces, the united states commander in chief and so on, and i will execute this law as

i see fit, in effect. well, there was just this absolute cascade of criticism particularly from democrats. among them the then candidate for the democratic nomination for president, senator barack obama, of illinois, who said, you know, the use of these signing statements is terrible and it subverts the constitutional order and so on. well, guess what's happened? since congress has made it difficult for president obama to move these detainees back to the united states, he's signing legislation with, guess what? signing statements attached. also saying, as president bush did, i will interpret this as i see fit. and i will not carry this out in a manner that's inconsistent with my responsibilities as commander in chief of the army and navy of the united states. so, you know, if you're ever looking for a good example of

the old adage that where you stand depends on where you sit, that's a great one. it really is. and even a few things to be said about the judiciary, it's traditional at new year's for the chief justice of the united states to make -- to issue a message about the state of the judiciary and one of the things that chief justice john roberts did this year was made a very, very strong criticism of the senate for basically delaying the federal court. and this has been a big issue and it's one that a very conservative judge, john roberts, has with republicans in the senate particularly, in their efforts to block the

nomination through holds or filibusters of president obama's nominees to the u.s. district court, u.s. court of appeals, and so this is something that concerns the chief justice very much because there are many, many vacancies on federal courts and what that means, of course, is that cases just aren't being processed in a very efficient manner. so all of these things are developing, all of these particular cross currents and dynamics are unfolding this week, that even before the 112th congress is sworn in, the politics precede as pace, always interesting, sometimes exciting, sometimes baffling, it's a very big and complex government and it's kind of hard to track everything, but i think you're really in a very

good position to see so many of these important developments unfold in the week that you're here. and do we have our -- yes, i see congressman back there. and -- congressman carr is not