well, let me just make a few comments to sort of get things going. there is this very interesting organization of the former members of congress which i think is really a comment on the nature of people who serve in congress, that after having served that former members want to be available to the media, to educational groups and so on to talk about the work of congress. .

one of the things that they do is they have a program called the congress to campus program in which your school can request the appearance of one or more former members of congress to come to your school to talk about the work of congress. and i think this is just a great program and perhaps the

congressmen can fill you in more about it. although congressman bob carr of michigan hasn't arrived yet, i was wondering if i could call on congressman to come up and begin to talk a little bit about his experiences in congress and how he sees things from the perspective of being a former member. terrific, good, ok. we now have a full come pleament, good morning congressman carr. i was explaining to the students yesterday you are one of those rare members who had a truly competitive seat and much of what you hear about the comfort of incouple bepts is something you never enjoyed. i would like to have our panelists join me up here.

congressman bob carr of michigan congressman sarah sin of -- sarasin of connecticut. well, i would like to kick things off by asking -- whether you formed any early impressions of what's going on with this 112th congress. >> me have an opinion? [laughter] -- i spelt it right -- the first order of business

in both chambers is to first off swear in the new members and things like that in the house. but the second order of business is to adopt the rules. and that will govern the state of play of the various contests that will play out over the next two years. and the one to me -- there is one in the house that's kind of interesting and i think people on the democratic side have snickered and made a big to-do about it over nothing is the reading of the constitution and rule that apparently requires the sponsor of a bill to cite at least as a general proposition where the constitutional authority for that piece of legislation is.

and senate, the bigger play is going to be whether vice president biden as the presiding officer, declares or defends the notion of the senate as a so-called continuing body. let me deal with that one first and then go back to the other one and i'll try to be brief. if biden -- biden will be expected to be challenged on that or maybe through some things before he gets on the podium, he will -- they will figure it out and he will declare that the senate is not a continuing body. why is that important? it's really important only in regards to the filibuster. if the senate is a continuing

body, then it does not have to re-adopt its rules at the beginning of this session and carry on with the rules that have been there in place and the most important one from the standpoint of people who want reform is the filibuster rule, the notion that you have to have 677 senators to in-- 67 senators to invoke cloture to cut off date, et cetera, et cetera. and there have been a number of people in the congress, senator tom harkin, mark udall among them who are going to contend today that the senate is not a continuing body and that that is a terrible fiction that works an outrage on democracy. and if it's not a continuing body and the senate is called upon then to pass its rules,

then on the vote on the rule, it's expected that only a majority is necessary. and if they adopt new rules and adopt a rule without the cloture rule of 67, then, today, we could on see the demyself of the filibuster -- did he myself of the -- demise of the filibuster. senator biden -- being from delaware and of course the -- it can be looked upon as the tyranny of small states. people from small states tend to favor the filibuster because it gives them enormous amounts of power in the senate. that means that a very few senators can block action.

on the other hand, i do know and i have been part of some discussions with others -- i'm not a principal in this but been party to some of the discussions, that if this fails, a legal action will be brought to challenge the -- the senate rules in court. and we can go into that later. there are pluses and minuses to that. there is arguably a good cause of action for that, but how you get into court on that is kind of a tricky question. any way then just briefly in the house, actually i'm a democrat who thinks it's a neat idea to read the constitution and i think the constitution is sort of in the eye of the beholder

and a lot of the folks who got elected thinking that the constitution is one thing is going to find out that the constitution is a lot different. so this is a learning process for a whole new group of members of congress and indeed, the american public, too. >> thanks, bob. on that, the idea of the constitution being read, i also happen to agree. i think it's a great idea. members and others, general public, seems to have a very vague idea of what's in the constitution and might be nice to remind them every once in a while. with regard to the issue that every bill now has to cite the authority from the constitution, that's not a difficult thing at all. and i don't think that's going to slow anything down or change anything they do. so much hangs on the commerce clause, for example, which enables the congress to do a lot

of what it does and i think a legitimate question is have they gone too far trying to interpret or expand the commerce clause. commerce clause is a simple statement, says the congress shall regulate commerce between the states and that's been carried to allow all kinds of things to happen. that's all they have to cite is the commerce clause for the authority of a bill that does almost anything you want it to do. there are limits on this. we see that in the question of obamacare and whether or not the congress can force people to buy something in the public market and buy health insurance and the authority they are claiming there is primarily the commerce clause. and at least the virginia judge said it doesn't go that far. you can't extend it that far. we have to remember that our constitution is the only document in the world that tells the people that are subject to

it what the government can do, rather than what the people can do, and that makes it a different document. and we tend to forget that it's a restriction on the ability of government to just have every power that's out there. the 10th amendment says the powers that are not specifically given to the federal government are reserved to the states and to the people. that is sort of ignored, but it actually is a very powerful statement in the constitution and i wish more people would pay attention to it. >> well, being former house members, i'm sure you have a pretty good fix of how the boehner speakership is shaping up. how is this different from the gingrich speakership or pelosi speakership? >> there is a history. it's within the memory of man

that the republicans ran the operation a few years ago. and that was not the case when gingrich took over. it was 42 years and no one was alive in the congress that had experienced the republican majority. and so it was a little bit different. it was a lot of feeling your way through it. now i think they have a lot more experience and they also know what they did wrong. and hopefully, they will be able to correct the problems, the excesses, the earmarks, all of those other things that led to the difficulty that caused the republicans to lose the majority a couple years ago. and i think they have -- they know enough now, i hope, not to repeat the same mistakes. so i think this is an opportunity to do it all differently. they have talked about that already in the rules process where they really are saying that we are going to expose this legislation, it's going to be on

the internet before it gets voted on. people not only in the congress, but the public is going to be allowed to look at this stuff, if that happens, that's going to be different. because they get a little i am patient as time goes on on and say, well, we have the majority and have the votes, so we are going to make it any way. so much for people looking at it, we'll just exercise our majority and pass this legislation. that's what tends to happens to both parties and they say they're not going to do it this time and i hope that doesn't happen. >> i'm wondering and looking eager to find out which republican party john boehner is leading. normally, this is a problem that democrats have. and we are kind of used to it. democratic party is really not a

party but add hocrasy. i think there is an element of truth that there is only one party in america until this last election any way and that was the republican party and there was everybody else. and everybody else got together once in a while and called it the democratic party and they win. it is sort of that ad hocrasy. and with the tea party, tea bagger, whatever you call them, it's not to my way of thinking. what's happened there, it's a different discipline centered in the republican party. republican leadership in the past, and i think ron can either affirm or tell me i'm full of baloney here but i was always

impressed by the republicans because of their ability to have party discipline and to stick together and circle the wagons and maybe some of that culture came from being in the minority for 40 some years. there was a survival instinct that, you know, you grouped together and you stick together and you unify and discipline. and i think that that -- that continued that culture continued under gingrich's leadership almost to the point where i think we had -- we came close to abandonning a constitutional democracy in favor of a parliamentary democracy where parties rule versus -- and the checks and balances were party versus party rather than institution versus institution.

but now we have a republican majority in the house where i think there are different centers of discipline and different centers of where right and wrong is and how boehner rides that bucking bronco is going to be quite interesting. >> i agree. and i think some may have been predetermined by the selection of chairman. it looks like a lot of the old bulls have become chairmen, hall rogers, great earmarker and he is known for that and promises to give up that sin of his. so i'm not sure what will happen there, but it does tend to be the older bulls and not the newer tea party types or more conservative types that just got elected who will still be

running the trains. and how that works out will be something to see. the congress is not a homogenous body in the broad sense in either party. i was in the minority and never been in the majority and once in a while we would stick together, but that wasn't all that often. we had moderate and liberal congressman. i was a moderate republican being from a new england state, which wasn't surprising, but in my own state i was patrolly the most conservative. -- i was probably the most conservative. and i think you see that distance in both parties. what has happened, though, in recent elections because of one, the redistricting process that's gone on over the last couple of decades which has made it so

there aren't too many real contests for congress. there are so many safe seats now that you don't have the variety that you had before. and both parties have ex punked the wings and i'm not sure that has helped. the republican party, a lot of the moderates, nancy johnson and chris shays lost. this cycle with the republicans taking over the majority, the blue dog democrats have lost their elections and so you end up with a bigger spread, much more conservative on the republican side and much more liberal on the democratic side. whether that holds together as time goes on and people kind of sort themselves out, i don't know. but i don't think we're going to get to the parliamentary party situation we had before. we are a unique legislature in that every member of the

congress is really a very independent soul. they have a large staff to allow them to be independent unlike any other legislature in the world. a member of the house, for example, gets 18 staff members to spread between their district and their office. each member represents essentially the same amount of people. in the senate, members get depending on the size of the state, they get larger and larger staffs. as they go up in seniority, they get committee staff. so they are independent. and the idea that they always work in lock staff, all the democrats vote one way and the republicans vote the other way is more of a myth than reality. i think the problem today is that the place has become too much partisan and it wasn't that way, at least not to the extent it is today when bob and i were in the congress. it has changed and changed

dramatically and changed for the worst. i would hope republicans are figuring out ways to ease that pressure. people get elected thinking they have to hate the guy on the other side of the aisle and don't have to listen and pay attention and that's plain dead wrong. that's not the way the system was designed to work and doesn't work well when it becomes too partisan. >> one of the things that interests me is what appears is speaker-elect boehner's efforts to revive what he refers to as regular order, in particular, not having the major legislative decisions made by a small group of people, leadership, but reverting the committee's traditional role of hearings, markups and so on. is that likely to happen? >> i do. that's the way it was when we were in congress.

i think the committees had much more power than they had in recent years. the chairman would control a lot of that legislation. if the chairman didn't want it, it never saw the light of day, but there were other ways to bring pressure on the committees. as a minority member, i never felt i didn't have a piece of the action. and even though i couldn't do everything i wanted to do, i always felt that i was making a difference, that if i had some good idea, people would listen and work it into whatever they were trying to work out and maybe i didn't get credit for it, but i made a difference. it was enough as a minority member to say to at least myself, ok, it's worth coming back here, i am making a contribution and doing something that i think is important. and i'm not sure in recent years that's been the case. i wouldn't want to be in the minority in either party because they were simply shut out.

the legislation was accomplished behind closed doors, no minority participation and that's just not the way it ought to be done. >> now, i was interested to hear you say that because one of the things -- one of the critsisms you hear about the house of representatives is that the minority party doesn't have much ability to influence legislation, that their ability to offer amendments on the floor is very limited through the actions of the rules committee. and that has always seemed to me to be a built-in feature of the house of representatives. >> wasn't always that way. and when i was -- i was there 30 years ago and the world has changed. but the ability to offer -- you may not succeed with the amendment and probably wouldn't, but at least in most cases, you had a chance to offer it.

they were not all closed rules. and there were a variety of amendments offered, some succeeded, most did not. and at least you had a chance to make a difference and sometimes whatever you were trying to do eventually got worked into somebody else's amendment and so your thoughts weren't lost on the system. >> it's an interesting paradocks, if you study both legislative bodies, even if you don't care for the particular rules or management style of the speaker or the house at the time , the house is made up of 435 people and manages, by and large , to have its trains run on time. and yet, the very much smaller u.s. senate doesn't. and why is that? it has to do with what we talked

about earlier, and that's the rules. the rules can be such that you have to have virtually unanimous consent to do anything, which gives a very -- one person, say a hold on legislation in the senate. you know, you can have rules that can make the smallest group the most inefficient and you could have rules that can make the larger group very efficient. i mean it's -- its output, you may not like, but it will go through the process and get the job done whether you like the job or not is a different thing. so the rules by which we play are very important, whether you use the sports analogy or some other one. but we don't hear much talk about the rules that will be debated today if they are

debated at all. they will be adopted on a party-line vote. the more interesting one is in the senate. >> tell me, in terms of your role as members of the house of representatives, did you ever find yourself in a situation which what you felt was in the best interest of the country might not have been in the best interest of your particular congressional district, the people of your district? do those kinds of tensions --? >> many times. i think so, but a member is elected to exercise his or her best judgment. and not hold a finger to the air or figure out what the latest poll said, but they get elected to exercise their best judgment. that judgment could be wrong. certainly there are some votes that i would love to go back and do over again based on the history or experience or

whatever. but in most cases, i'm very comfortable in everything that i did. and i think every other member is as well. but that's their responsibility and it is not to simply run along in lock step, but try and decide what's best for the country and what's best for their district. there are tensions, no question. there are some things that don't have any bearing on your congressional district, yet you know they are important for the country. you have to do something about it. and one of the classic examples of that is the vote that's coming up here, which is the debt ceiling. republicans will vote against it. not my problem. now they are in the majority, what are they going to do? they are going to have to support it. they think the debt is too high. and boehner is going to have to come out in favor of the vote on

the debt ceiling. but this is the responsibility of being in the majority. you can't let the full faith and credit of the united states fail. just can't. >> i frequently -- i'm from michigan and i frequently faced the dilemma. personally i'm very much a free trader. my -- on foreign trade issues, my personal feelings probably were much more aligned with those of the exporting and importing states, west coast and the east coast. but in michigan where there has been a tremendous amount of job loss and where the automobile manufacturing base has been challenged by foreign competition and where labor organizations are very, very strong, you can imagine michigan really wasn't so high on the idea of free trade unless it was

in their favor and while i was in congress, it wasn't in their favor. so on votes like the north american free trade agreement, i had to think long and hard about whether i was going to do what i thought was in the interest of america or in the interests of the people who essentially were my boss. and it's not unlike everyone in the workplace occasionally has to face the dilemma. you have a boss who wants you to do one thing but your better judgment thinks something else. so those kinds of dilemmas are throughout our society. they are no different than those on capitol hill. >> do you think it's a really essential role for a member of congress to go back and explain things to constituents?

policies are complicated and who's going to explain it. from the media, you might get very, very bias opinions and so on. what do you do in a situation like that? >> that's the dilemma and especially in recent years, certainly since the time i was there, we would go back home all the time and you hold town meetings every weekend and be in a public place trying to explain what you were doing and what the issues were and remind people you don't deal with sound bites or easy issues. the black and white issues have been handled someplace else. the easy stuff is done somewhere, but not here in washington and certainly not by the congress. what you get are gray areas and you get very complicated pieces of legislation. long bills, we have seen them longer in recent years, 2,000 pages, who can read and understand everything that's in 2,000 pages? so now you keep discovering thicks things that were part of

the legislation that you didn't notice the first time around. what you have to decide as a member, is there enough good in that legislation to support it or enough bad to oppose it. and these are not easy decisions. these are really difficult decisions, but that's what your responsibility is, and no one is going to spend the time, no constituent is going to look at the legislation unless they have a particular interest in a particular part of it to try and come up with their best judgment. they deal with sound bites and deal with what they hear in the media or what they read in the newspapers and tend to be oversimplified and these issues are never simple and they are always very, very difficult, otherwise they wouldn't be before the congress. >> i wish i had a proportional vote where i could vote 60% yes and 40% no, something like that, because i always knew my opponent was going to if he can cuss on that one section or that

one thing in a bill that was overall very good that didn't make any sense or could be ridiculed so you are subject to the tyranny of distortion and -- but like ron says, you can only vote 100% yes or 100% no on most of this stuff. so it's very hard. the ability to educate your constituents is interesting. it is very limited. it is very limited. if legislation arises through your committee and you sat through a lot of hearings and you got your degree in shoe making or whatever happened to be the bill of the day and your constituents didn't like that piece of legislation, you were at least armed to tell your

constituents why it might not be in the short-term interests, but in the long-term interests, children's interests or however you wanted to put it, you could educate them and you can probably end up getting most of your constituents to say, well, i still don't like how you voted, but i now understand that there was a different point of view and that you made a rational choice. on the other hand, so much of the legislation that comes before you to vote, you're not on the committee that produced it and you have, as ron says, you don't have time to read the legislation and taking everything from secondary sources. the groups around town are spinning it one way or the other and it becomes very, very hard. and on those particular issues, it's much more difficult to go back to your district and say this is what i did what i did

and i'm sorry you didn't like it and get away with it. so the other thing i would like to say in that regard is some people come to washington, indeed some state legislateors come to washington -- were you in the state legislator? >> yes. >> i was not in the state legislature, i did work for the state legislature, but i found that legislateors who come to washington who come to the house of representatives find a much different legislative body than the one they came from and they have not a one-to-one translation of whatever they learned in state x, y, z legislature coming to the congress. rather, the congress, i think, is better examined as a

federation of legislate you ares, each committee being a legislate you are of a subject matter jurisdiction and the house floor is where the appeals were taken for those who lost their various amendments in the committee or who didn't get a chance to offer an amendment. i came from a state where committees were kind of advisory. they were the place where stuff got started, but the legislation was really written on the state house or the state senate floor. >> well, that's an interesting analogy and i think to a large extent it's true. the world is different at least my experience, the state legislature and the congress. the thing i was most surprised about when i came to congress, people didn't pay much attention to the language of the legislation. in the state legislature, we agonized over words. we knew that at some point there

was a court that was going to look at that legislation. we worried about those things and we understood them better. the floor is where the final product was really put together. but it was a much more coliegial place and i thought i had an advantage coming from the state legislature because we would yell, scream and fight for principle and go to dinner with the guy you had been arguing with on the house floor and these became your best friends. and it was a better atmosphere. we didn't have to agree politically or philosophically, but we liked each other as people. if the other guy was talking, we listend because we knew he had some pretty good ideas and maybe you could learn something. you get to congress and that's a little bit lost. back to the question of language, the congress passes language and it's the bureaucrats that flesh it out and a lot happens between that

point and the point where it actually affects people and a lot of changes are made much beyond whatever the congress probably had in mind and that's because they don't pay enough attention to the language. but bob pointed out the way the committee system works, it does make experts out of members of congress in very narrow areas and those are the committees on which they serve. they listen to the testimony one side or the other and do the oversight within the committee itself and they really do become experts. then the question is how is that expertise shared among members. sometimes it's not shared at all and because you don't hear anybody else. when i was in the minority as a republican, we had a couple of organizations that were really designed to help share that. not everybody was a part. one was called chowder and marching society, which started

in the 1950's, i think, and another was called s.o.s. and no one knew what it meant and it was save our souls or society of statesmen. s.o.s. has fallen by the wayside when gingrich took over because they were busy as committee chairs that they didn't have the time. what i did and the two would try to find a couple of guys in each class and invite them to join and i was fortunate enough to be selected to join s.o.s., myself and one other freshman member. we would meet every week on a tuesday afternoon in a member's office. the member would be responsible for laying out the booze and the cheese and crackers and sit there and talk about what your

committees were doing and be there for an hour. and you had to be there on time. you would get fined and the money went into -- >> earmarks. >> the booze fund but there would be people who were more senior people on all of the committees in congress, everything would be represented there, so i would be able to listen to the ranking member of the ways and means committee talk about issues before the ways and means committee and what was happening and what wilbur mills was doing now and john anderson, jerry ford was a member. these people were the experts on their committees and every week, they would report on what their committees were doing and i would report on what education and the committee on aging. and you got to hear all this stuff and know a little bit so if you went back to a town meeting and someone asked you a

question you had enough knowledge and would repeat what this other guy said and that kind of made you an expert. but you were exposed to an awful lot of information. i found that to be the best source of information that i had. plus each party does a news sheet on the legislation coming up. i had managed to sign up for the democratic sheet as well, so i had them both. and this would provide you information. your staff is there to provide you information. you listen to lobbyists and hear voices on all sides of the issue. that's how you become as expert as you can be to make the decisions you have to make. just a variety of input, but the best thing i found was s.o.s. that was a great experience. >> i think a member of the house of representatives would say, i just don't have the time to do that. >> it was only an hour a week. but in that hour, it was a classroom experience. >> and that gave you the ability

to educate your constituents because you had a view of what was going on. let open it up for questions. there are a lot of interesting topics that have been brought up here. i would like to hear what you thought about them. explanation? yes, young lady in the aisle. >> i'm yale university. as former members of congress i was wonder if you had any insight into any upcoming legislation on education on bilingual education? >> i think all of us are for people learning another language. we have to recognize that in the united states, we are behind the

curve than every other country in the world and people are learning their language and learning english and we should be learning chinese and spanish. but we have strong feelings that we are an english-speaking country but in favor of languages being taught and requirements that people take languages other than english. >> yes. back there. >> my question is basically about the constitution that needs to be cited for bills. i was wondering whether or not this has some unintended consequences. and i wonder if only because it

violated -- [inaudible] why can the supreme court be the only -- >> members take an oath to support the constitution, so i don't think it's beyond the realm of sensibility that they somehow be obliged to at least acknowledge the fact that whatever they are trying to do has a constitutional basis, otherwise they can't do it. if it's not part of the constitution, they really are not allowed to do it. shouldn't be allowed to do it. the constitution is broad in that sense, but there are limitations as to what the federal government can do or can't do. >> here is something that gets overlooked and we get sucked into the notion that only the

supreme court can say what the constitution requires. that's not true. they may have the final word where there's a dispute, but everyone who is a constitutional officer of this government has a right, i think, a constitutional right to say what the constitution means with regard to their actions. >> i agree. >> so if i want to introduce a piece of legislation that says that we should banish from u.s. citizenship, all people with crooked teeth and i think that the constitution in some twisted logic gives the federal government the right to do that,

that's it. that's a constitutional judgment that i've made, et cetera. you can't argue it. so the whole notion of a legislator saying that the legislation that they want to introduce or are introducing is -- has constitutional authority is not a hard standard to meet. >> not at all. >> at all. >> but the constitutionality of legislation under discussion come up very frequently? >> it's used -- every time i heard it it was interesting, because i tend to like constitutional law. the thing that got me into being a lawyer was constitutional law course i took as an under grad

and directed me into law school and i have paid attention to supreme court decisions and things like that. and those are all very interesting, but you'll occasionally get members of congress who will be on a committee, it will be a markup and someone will oppose someone else's amendment on the basis that it's not constitutional. baloney, if i say it's constitutional and the committee agrees, it is constitutional. and it is law if the president signs it. and it's constitutional unless and until the supreme court on some other day in some other decade says, may not. >> true. >> right in front.

>> i'm from san francisco state university. my question is before declaring health care unconstitutional. can that be debated? >> i think there is a distinction at least the argument is being made that there is a distinction. first place driving an automobile is not a right, but a privilege and there can be conditions on that privilege. you have to have a license and do some other things and the purpose of the insurance is to protect other people, isn't really to protect you. and that's viewed a little bit different as saying you must go out in the private marketplace and you must buy this particular product. and i think that goes beyond what at least where the court has already taken the commerce clause, in my own opinion. i think it goes too far.

>> i would disagree. i'm being forced to pay for a war in afghanistan that i don't believe in. we have this throughout our society both in terms of the private marketplace and in terms of our participation in all the endeavors of government. because of the tax code, i'm paying for deductions for uses that i might not want even though the congress and the state legislatures have said it's in my best interest, but maybe i didn't want it. so i don't -- you know the courts are divided now and they tend to be divided along the lines of which partisan president appointed them. so we'll see what happens. >> i'm all for reviewing the --

[laughter] >> do you recall in your experiences in congress very much repealing of legislation? >> no. and that's the problem. you don't look back at it. there's oversight and hasn't been as much oversight in recent years as there used to be, but you just never seem to go back and say does this thing work, is it doing what we thought it was going to do. all these laws get passed with great noble purposes, but congress never takes the time to go back and they have constituencies of their own, have a half life every other year. we are doing too much. and i think we have to go back and look, but we don't do it. that's part of the problem. something gets passed, it stays in existence forever. >> i think that's true. we used to have a proposal out

there, kind of gone out of favor right now called sunlegislation that would require -- sunset legislation that would require every piece of legislation to have an effective end date and would have to be re-enacted and presumably updated and modernized if it was to take into account new situations. but like ron says, people get entrenched in terms of how it is and even relatively unpopular pieces of legislation linger on the books for years and years and years. they may fall into a dead letter category where no one pays much attention to them. but actual repeal? not very often. >> you think the prospects for the repeal of the health insurance reform is pretty unlikely?

>> oh, yeah. actually i was delighted as a democrat and i would be in favor of a single payer system ultimately. i think if this was to succeed and it would be repealed, it would be an open door for those people who want at least a public option. but i think i was delighted at the scheduling for a rule on friday and a scheduling for a vote next week to repeal, because i think -- and this goes to the question of boehner and what kind of a speaker he's go go to be. i can't believe that john -- i think he's suspending good political judgment at least long-term by having this quicky stunt vote. there will be bad unintended

consequences from the health care legislation that was passed and it will play out over time over the next year, 18 months or so. and that's a real ripe opportunity for the republican leadership to examine this law, posture itself as looking for the bad things to root out and maybe something on the positive side to reinforce and they'd look very thoughtful and they have lots of publicity because this would roll. every night it would be on the news and da-da-da. and they would come time for the elections to make some kind of massive change. on the other hand, the longer this thing goes, it's like

medicare. i'm sure there were a lot of people the day after medicare was passed, wanted to repeal that. and i'm absolutely sure there are people on medicare today who wouldn't give it up in an instant who probably were among that group. so i think as people learn about what it is and what it's not, it's going to be hard to repeal, but i thought the republicans had a real opportunity to posture as we are already going to go for obamacare reform and now they have shown their hand. >> i'm not sure that that's -- i don't agree that it's a mistake. i'm not sure it will be repealed, but that's the practical politics of what happens when it gets to the senate. a repeal vote will pass the house, just because of the numbers. and a lot of democrats will vote that way because democrats who used to be members of congress

lost on just that issue and everybody else knows it. and what happens when that bill gets to the senate, if it ever comes up and harry reid controls whether it comes up or not, so it probably won't unless there is some way to bring it up, but if it comes up, there are a lot of democrats who are up next time, democratic senators, who will be looking back at what happened in this recent election in 2010 and say we can't support this the way it stands. there is a possibility for repeal but unlikely. the house will vote to repeal it and has to -- repeal has to pass the senate as well. if reid never brings it up, then you are going to see pieces of it brought up separately and those have a better shot of -- the repealed pieces of it can be repealed and then what are you

left with because it's a house of cards. some parts depend on other parts and you take away part of the foundation and the whole thing just can't work or you don't have the dollars for it and so forth. so it will be an interesting process. >> going to be an interesting thing to watch and for all you fellow intellectuals out there, something for you to think about. see if you can correlate the votes on the repeal of health care reform, particularly among democrats who vote against who happen to be in states where the re-apportionment process is controlled by republicans. the question really is because of this being a re-apportionment year, there is a different audience out there, not just the voters, but that very select group of people in each state

who are going to draw the congressional district lines. and i'll bet that plays into the calculus of how people vote particularly on the democratic side in next week's repeal vote on health care more than how they think the voters are going to look at it two years from now. >> good point. >> yes. questions? yes. >> i'm from suffolk university and i'm from massachusetts where it's required we have health care and why are people opposed to it when it is beneficial to them. >> why i'm opposed to -- >> why are people opposed to buying health care when it seems to be beneficial? >> because of the costs and because of all the requirements that go with it. part of the problem with health

care -- and it's been a progressive thing. the states have managed to screw it up to a large stept by creating man -- extent by creating mandates saying if you are going to sell insurance in this state, you are going to have to provide benefits for this, this, this and this. and it's like saying you only drive one kind of a car and complete cadillac. maybe someone wants to drive a volkswagen, but you can't do that, because of all the mandates and costs that are built in. wouldn't it be nice if you could pick and choose the insurance you want to have yourself covered for and we can't do that any longer. that's part of the problem. plus the fact we're told you have to buy this insurance and the costs are already going up. there's no free lunch here. you can't tell the american public that you can keep your adult child -- be covered until

they're 26 years old without impacting the cost of the product. you can't say that you are allowed to buy insurance even though you have a pre-existing condition without impacting the cost of the product. maybe there are ways to do it but there are ways to allow product to be sold throughout the states instead of the way it is today, do something serious about tort reform, liability reform. and i think there are ways to skin this cat, but not the way it's been done. >> yes, way back there. >> i'm from wesley college. in the european union, they have universal health care system. do you think the united states would oppose to having a better welfare system or do you think it would affect re-election with

the constituents? >> depending on who's paying the tax. if you are saying let's tax the rich, the majority of people are in favor of that because they don't consider themselves rich and they figure they aren't going to pay that tax but get the benefit. i think we pay too much in taxes today, and i think the system that of taxation is not as fair as it might be. so i would like to see some changes there. but i think we are all willing to pay something for the welfare of people, it's a question of how far you go. >> the question way back there. >> i'm from the university of san diego. my question is for former senator carr and clarify your

logic behind the constitutional interpretation. you are insinuating it is a relativetiveist document and it seems like it's almost irrelevant. there are some very cut and dry outlines -- guidelines for congress to follow. the 10th amendment that reserves -- rights not given to congress to the states. i'm wondering what your logic was specifically behind constitutional interpretation that it's just open. >> well, the logic is you are a constitutional officer and while you take an oath to uphold the constitution, you don't delegate in that process to someone else to say what the constitution is.

you are a constitutional officer, but you are entitled to your own interpretation of what that constitution requires. and there will be wide -- sort of evident in our society wide differences on what things -- what the constitution requires. very few things in the constitution that are not really subject to interpretation. one is that the president shall take the oath of office on the 20 of january. that one's a hard one to argue and interpret unless maybe you are into some kind of astrological different calendar kind of thing. that leads to very little disagreement. it is that day. unconstitutional to do it one

day before. but congress shall make no law -- that is kind of a strange phrasiology, congress shall make no law. it really should read constitution -- congress shall not make a law abridging the right of freedom of speech. .

now quite clearly in a system which is hopefully rational that person stands alone. and all other similar constitutional officers say, eh . you know, we're not going to do that. and when the congress as a whole speaks by its actions that then is presumtive of constitutionality. until overturned by the supreme court. or vetoed by the president. yes, this young lady. [inaudible]. >> you mentioned that the health care reform bill is

unlikely to be repealed. do you say the same way regarding the birth right portion of the 14th amendment? >> the one that says -- >> oh. >> anyone in the united states is a citizen of the united states. >> oh, well, yeah, you know, to repeal a constitutional amendment requires a 2/3 majority. and then ratification by 3/4 of the state. that isn't likely to happen. >> i'm not sure that the amendment has to be repealed. i really am not. i think it's a question of interpretation of the 14th amendment because of the language in the amendment that says that people who -- i can't remember it now. the 24th. no wonder i'm in the wrong place here.

all persons born and naturalized in the united states and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. that's a question then are illegal aliens subject to the jurisdiction thereof? and to i don't know, i think you could interpret that a little bit differently and say that you don't have -- that babies who are born here, the subject -- whose parents are here illegally in violation of our laws are not necessarily -- i can't think of the name now they call for babies who are born here -- anchor babies. they're not necessarily anchor babies and shouldn't be citizens of the united states. that's not the way it's interpreted obviously but i don't think you need an amendment to say that, well, we really ought to look at this a different way. >> i want to call on somebody who hasn't had a chance. yes, this young woman in the pink.

>> [inaudible]. i've been in this country not too long. i used to work in london for five years. [inaudible] i only pay the prescription. my question is still the health care reform. it's possible in this country when we see the doctor it's free of charge. in tchine we -- in china we don't pay anything. we see the doctor is free of charge and we only pay the prescription. it's possible in this country? health care reform like this? i'm just curious. thank you. >> as i take the question, it would be -- do we have a say europe-style -- european-style health care system and i'd say the answer is no.

i mean, if you're over 65 with a co-pay, a small co-pay, you can see a doctor if the doctor will take you and you can get, if you sign up for a separate prescription drug benefit you can get your drugs. but typically until what year was it? it was during the bush administration when part d came in, prescription drugs were always on the private market. >> we'll take two more questions. yes. >> these guys are getting a good workout today. >> i'm from the university of san diego. i was wondering, do you think there will be retaliation from tea partiers if the moderate republicans pass the ceiling debt? if so, what form will it take?

>> i missed the question. do i think what with the republican? >> do i think there will be retaliation from tea partiers if the ceiling debt passes? >> oh, do we think there will be retaliation from the tea party types if the debt ceiling passes? yeah but what are they going to do? [laughter] you know, i mean, as a practical matter, it's something that has to happen and it goes with the responsibility of being in the majority. you can posture against it as obama did when he was -- as a senator and objected to it, and the republicans do when they're in the minority, but now they're in the majority, they've got to bite the bullet and say, look, we have to do what's right. and i think they will. >> if you're interested in it, you might want to pursue some scholarship, i'm sorry, i can't bring that scholarship to you, but i seem to recall that there

is some history behind the congress being forced to e-- raise the debt ceiling. that is required by not the constitution but by some statute that was passed at some period of time. now the folk lohr from at least the democratic skide is that -- side is that republicans who were outraged at keynesian economics in the 1930's and the new deal were the ones that during a brief hold of power in the congress and the white house passed legislation requiring -- passed a statute requiring the congress to raise the ceiling on the debt periodically. and if that's true then it's

kind of justice deserves that the republicans now in control are facing this dilemma. all of what a i've said is subject to check. don't put that down in a paper and tell your political science professor it's true. >> until you check it. >> the debt extension is what is referred to in congress as must-pass legislation and historically the vote on the debt limit extension has resulted in some rather interesting conditions being attached to it or other legislation attached to it. for example the graham-rudman-hollings balanced budget amendment was actually passed because it was attached to the debt limit extension. so you can -- it doesn't have to be passed with a clean bill. there can be other chings attached to it and obviously members of congress are going to use any opportunity that there is in must-pass legislation to get amendments added to it and sweeten it.

george. >> my question is for congressman. will the addition of the statement of constitutional meaning, do you think it will actually change congresses the way that they enact legislation or write the legislation? you spoke about how many don't even read it or don't even understand it fully and start to learn things the more they read into it, even after it's been made a law. >> i don't think it will change the way the legislation is written. it's actually legislation is written or at least cleaned up by a staff of people who are supposed to be knowledgeable in all of that stuff. so i don't think any of that's going to change. there will be an additional line in the bill, somehow it will be worked in there, i don't know how they're going to do that, but it will just give you some reference to the

constitution. and again a lot of what the congress does is within the jurisdiction of the commerce clause so you simply cite the commerce clause, whatever section of the constitution that's in. again, i don't think this is a very difficult issue for the members of congress and i think it would be important for members to start reading the constitution again and thinking about what it says. for example, the great majority of the public thinks the constitution says there's a separation between church and state. that language is not in the constitution. at all. and so it may be an awakening for some people to pay a little bit of attention to the constitution. >> that's an interesting example because christine o'donnell pointed that out in the debate -- >> and got all kinds of hell for it. >> was ridiculed for it and her opponent who is now the u.s. senator, i can't remember his name, if he'd have been on his

toes he would have said, well, as interpreted by the supreme court it requires neutrality, not separation. >> i remember when i was working in the office of a u.s. senator we got an inquiry from a very indignant woman who said, where is it in the constitution that separation of power is required? not understanding article one, two and three. so many of the public opinion polls that attempt to ascertain the public's understanding of the constitution, particularly the bill of rights, i mean, the results are truly disheartening. it's not something that people know very much about and i'm hopeful that perhaps this new emphasis on, you know, stating the constitutional basis for legislation, i mean, clearly they're not going to read the constitution every day in the house of representatives, but i

think a little bit more awareness of the constitution i think is definitely a good thing. >> we certainly don't teach it in high school and college very much. i think it's -- i do think it's important. >> yes? >> i was just wondering why do you think the dream act didn't pass and if there's still hope for it in the future? why the dream act didn't pass and if there's still hope for it in the future. the main reason. >> i personally don't know why it didn't pass. to me it's just sort of dumb logic to enfranchise these people, particularly when you're putting some fairly significant requirements on them. but, you know, one thing to

think about in terms of legislation is that it really never goes away. in my 18 years in the house i was always, always, always impressed by the notion that very few new issues came up. we were always chewing on the same issue over and over, sometimes repackaged again and again. and this one, this one's not going to go away. it will get passed eventually. >> i think something like that may be passed. i think the basic issue or the problem to get over is the question that somehow you're rewarding illegal acts. and that doesn't sit right. and it also allows people who have come in to the country illegally to jump ahead of people who are trying to operate within the system. and i think that's another reason it failed.

so i don't think i would have supported it if i had the opportunity to vote on it. >> yes. yes, right down front. >> hello. i live in nashville. my question before i ask it, i want to line some things up. in 1998 and 1999 we've seen microsoft being sued for being a monopoly. they owned 90% of the market. the u.s. postal service is a monopoly to eliminate duplicated effort. in addition, my main question is, assuming the health bill, you know, the bill passes, would we see the government using the commerce clause to form a monopoly on health care and they themselves will be providing the service? >> that's not the way -- neast

that's not the way the law reads now. but you do -- i think embedded in your question is a more interesting phenomenon that speaks to why we ought to revise our laws and re-examine laws constantly and that is that technology, among other things, changes the boundary between what is thought to be properly in the private sector and what's properly in the public sector. in a day and an age when few people could afford the super computting capability of a mainframe computer to do certain things, if that was required you kind of thought, well, this has got to be done by government because we don't have the ability to do that as

individuals or as states or cities or businesses. but, you know, now we've got a laptop, i have more computing power in my iphone-4 plug than i did, you know, 10 years ago in a desk top computer. and so our ability to do things is changing. our education level hopefully is changing opportunities so that today we have a government that is said, at least the president has said that the u.s. government is no longer going to be the monopoly on launching space vehicles. and they're encouraging private enterprise to enter into an

area that could not have been private before. so that dynamic -- and microsoft, talk about microsoft being sued for -- as being a monopoly, nobody thinks about that anymore. they're worried about google versus facebook versus, you know, what's next? so all of this is, you know, we have a very dynamic situation and one of the precepts that always has bothered me is that the ability of the private sector and individuals now tech logically is race -- technologically is raising -- racing along much faster than democratic institutions which tend to be slow, cumbersome and clunky, to either deal with it or maximize its advantage and things like that. it took a lawsuit by a fellow

against at&t to break up the monopoly. it wasn't the federal government that broke them up. the huge monopoly on telephones. it was the a private individual and a judge by the name of green, a district judge that unraveled that whole thing. because the democratic institutions couldn't do it. >> what congressman carr was talking about was something i was saying yesterday about the fact that unlike so many other democratic countries in the world, we have two avenues to making policy. one is through legislatures, the other is through courts. somebody sued. linda brown's parents sued the school board of kansas and that's how the case got to the supreme court. i think other countries look at this as a rather unusual way to make policy, but this is one of the things that we've done.

yes, i see way, way back. >> university of st. thomas. congressman sar sin, you stated earlier that you would like the opportunity to go back and change some of your votes after the fact because you weren't satisfied with what happened. what are some examples of that. >> i'm not sure i heard all of the question. is it referring to the tax code? >> just in votes in general that you weren't satisfied with that you said you wish you could go back. >> the things you voted for that you wish -- >> oh, again, most of them i think -- i am more than comfortable with. something not too long ago think a had voted for and frankly now i forgot, it couldn't have been too important. hm. i don't know. i honestly cannot think of -- and not that there aren't any,

but i can't -- nothing jumps to my mind that i would change. although i'm sure there were many of them. >> i can kind of inject with a political question in here? it's my impression that both of you represented very different congressional districts in terms of the degree of competitiveness. you i know, congressman carr, were in a highly competitive district. my impression, congressman sarasin, that you had a pretty solidly republican district. >> not at all. i had a very competitive district. i defeated a democratic incumbent to come to congress who had been there for 14 years. i came to congress in 1972 just in time to get embroiled in watergate. and then as a republican member of congress trying to run for re-election in a democratic district was not a fun time and i was running against the speaker of the house who died sunday.

did you know that? >> i didn't. >> bill is my -- bill, we talked a moment ago about partisanship but this was a very competitive district. bill and i served together in the state legislature, he was the speaker of the house, i thought he did a magnificent job, i was in the minority, he was in the majority, obviously. we became great friends. in 1974 he ran against me for congress and we debated 28 times, it was like, nobody remembering my reference now, but it's like the bob and ray show. nobody knows who bob and ray were. but at any rate we could have taken each other's part in these debates and we became greater friends during the campaign. fortunately i won, he lost. he came back three years or two terms later when i was running for governer to run for the open seat and he won it and came here to washington, served here for six terms and remained

my friend. we were still great friends, we'd go to dinner together often or lunch together and unfortunately he just died on sunday and he was a couple of months older than i was. but those were the kind of relationships you had back then and we don't have today. but as far as a competitive district, it was very competitive and it's gone back and forth several times since then and it's now democratic again. very competitive. just another side, i lived in the smallest town in my district. i grew up in a town that when i was a kid had 2,500 people in it. i called it my power base. and obviously it was. it was also a very democratic town and i was a republican. i lost my home town the first time i ran to the incumbent democrat i was running against. the moral is if you're going to run for congress and lose your home town, make sure you come from the smallest one in the district.

at any rate. >> but yours, congressman carr, was -- you had actually exchanged income bensies with your republican challengers over several elections, didn't you? >> yes, i was there 18 years and i skipped a term when i was defeated and then came back and won my seat back, which incidentally is pretty hard to do. you have toin jerl tell voters they made a mistake and voters never -- [laughter] it's a very, very tough job to run for your seat after you've been bounced. my district was always -- had a republican tilt to it. i'd say this is an oversimplification but in michigan at the same time we had a ron sarasin-type governor

and my district was the state cap -- capital of lansing. but bill was very moderate republican and the people he drew to government were a very moderate republican. and among that group were moderate republican women and so my margin of victory, i could always sort of lay to the moderate republican pro-choice women who would vote with me and i had these very narrow victories. any time straight party voting reasserted itself i was in trouble and that's when i lost that one time was when ronald

reagan defeated jimmy carter. it was a republican tide. so you can do it, but it's very, very difficult to survive in a district that doesn't favor your party. >> we have obviously just had a census and later on today we're going to have someone talk about the reapportionment process. knowing that the district lines will be redrawn, what does a house member do in order to get the most favorable outcome? >> pray. it's the legislature that will redraw it, at least in most states, and that tends to be a very partisan exercise. the fact that so many legislatures turned over this year will make a difference in

the next congress because their districts will be redrawn with a more favorable tilt i think to the republicans. and again as i said earlier, there are so many safe districts where they have actually been created x number for democrats, x number for republicans and then there are a few districts in each state or one maybe that's really a contested district. things happen, of course, but otherwise most seats are pretty safe. that will probably change at least for a while. i'm not sure the system is a good one for figuring all this out. iowa changes their congressional districts with some kind of a nonpartisan committee that actually creates or tries to create cohesive districts. if you look at congressional districts in the united states you see the most bizarre looking shapes. i mean, talk about jerrymandering. he never had in mind what exists in some of the states

today where you find a district that's the boundary is one street that connects two bockets of people -- pockets of people. and many miles away. more cohesive districts where they have an economic cohesiveness, cultural cohesiveness or whatever probably makes more sense. that's what iowa attempts to do but most states are purely partisan. they're putting people in and out for the basis of political gain. i wouldn't have been in congress in 1972 if it hadn't been for the 1970 census which didn't change the number of seats in my state of connecticut but required a redistricting, required better balance and they actually took some towns out of my congressional district and put them into a republican -- too many some democratic towns of my congressional district, what later became my district, put them in the republican district

next door, attempting to defeat the republican congressman who held that seat. and instead the democratic congressman lost. i would have lost the old district and i won the new district. and it was only the basis of reapportionment that made that. it boo have been a very narrow loss but that wouldn't have been as much consolation as winning the district because of what the democrats were trying to do very partisanly, trying to defeat the republican next door, he won, i won, and they lost an incumbent democrat. >> i want to come back to something i said earlier and that is that we're in a period of time, a reapportionment time, where there is going to be a distortion in whatever democracy we have in the house of representatives as members of congress cast votes with an eye on what the reapportionment process is going to mean for them. and so they're really in a way serving two masters. the legislative redistricting machinery and their

constituents and so look for lots of distortions and voting behavior -- in voting behavior. the other thing is that -- keep in mind that a lot of states for whatever reason may deadlock and i think you'll see more litigation this time than we've seen in the past. my districts that i ran in were always drawn by a federal judge not by the state legislature. there was also a deadlock. i had to raise money and along with a republican friend of ours, carl and i intervened as parties in the case in michigan reapportionment in 1992. so the freshman district judges

-- federal district judges frequently draw federal boundaries. and of course then people are starting to look at, well, who appointed those judges and how partisan are they going to be? and it's all very interesting. >> let me -- >> time for one more question. >> actually, congressman sarasin has requested a little bit of time to talk about the congress to campus program. >> only because there's so many of you here. bob and i have both participated in this program. it's a creature of the united states association of former members of congress, we do have an alumni association and we do a lot of good things within this group. one of them is the congress to campus program and we encourage you to go back to your schools and ask your professors to invite us out there. what it will do is bring two

members of congress, two former members, a democrat and a republican, out to speak to your classes, it usually works through the government section of your school, the political science section, and they would set up the schedule for us, the school is responsible for housing us and feeding us for a couple of days, we go out usually for two days to take -- go on a sunday, come back on a late tuesday, and we would then go to classes. we do it together, it's a two-fold purpose. one to encourage people to be -- one, to encourage people to get involved in public service and secondly, to show by way of example if no other way that a democrat and a republican might agree on more things than they'd disagree about and they might even like each other and -- which comes as a surprise to an awful lot of people. i don't know what bob's experience has been but i've done this -- i've dot done a lot of the programs and quite

often with somebody i didn't serve with and so it's my first time to meet them as well and it's an amazing experience because it's obviously a friendly thing a but we do find that we agree on more issues than we would disagree about. for us it's wonderful because we've been out of congress now for a number of years, nobody really cares what we think anymore. and so it's good for our ego to be asked what we think about these issues. so i encourage you to go back and encourage your political science department and so forth to come to the u.s. association of former members and invite members back to your college campus on the congress to campus program. anything to add, bob? >> i really like ron sarasin. [laughter] >> anyway, thank you. [applause]

>> i'm from the washington center and on behalf of the washington center i'd like to thank the u.s. association of former members of congress in helping us to put together the panel and requesting that these fine gentlemen, former congressmen, be with us today and we also have washington center gift bags for each of you so won't go away manufacturehanded. congressman baker, sarasin, carr, thank you so very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> senate democrats are looking to use a procedure known as the constitutional option. and it can only be used on the first legislative day of the session and what it entails is asking for a ruling from the chair to adopt a new set of rules for the 112th congress. and essentially asking a ruling from the chair to amend the existing senate rules. the ruling would only need to be ratified by a majority vote in the senate. and that's important because usually it takes 60 votes to pass any legislation in the senate because of the filibuster rule. and it takes during the rest of the year 67 votes to change the legislative rules. or rather the procedural rules in the upper chamber. so they're looking for a ruling from the chair to change the filibuster rule, to make it

tougher for republicans to obstruct legislation on the floor. >> republican leaders are characterizing this as a power grab by democrats. can you tell us about that? >> well, what the proposal would do and it has been now, but number one it would eliminate the filibuster on the motion to proceed. right now it takes 60 votes to even begin debate on legislation in the senate. and that really slows things down. the other thing it would do is eliminate the use of secret holds. right now senators can block legislation and nominees nonely just by playing -- -- unanimously just by placing a hold with their leader. the third thing democrats want to do is require the minority party or the party that's filibustering legislation to actively muster 41 votes, to stop action. right now the majority party, the burden is on them. they need 60 votes to get something through the senate. this would now put the burden

more on the minority party and whether it's a power grab or not is up for debate. but it certainly would make it easier format jort to get its agenda passed. >> who's leading the charge on filibuster reform? where is this coming from? >> tom udall, a democratic senator from new mexico, he's the leader. he's been most outspoken on this. but there are several democrats working with him, including tom harkin, a democrat from iowa, a democrat from oregon, and a democrat from minnesota. >> is there any discussion of compromise on the rules? >> there's some talk of compromise. one thing that republicans want is a concession from the majority leader harry reid that he'll stop the practice known as filling the tree. it's a procedural tactic that blocks republicans or members of the minority party and the majority party, too, from offering amendments to legislation that reid doesn't want to hold votes on. >> how will this be brought up

when the senate gavels in? >> well, this, you know, it was long expected that this would happen tomorrow, the first day of the legislative session. it appears, though, that the senate democrats have some disagreements over what should be in the new rules package. so it seems like what they're going to do is recess the senate at some point tomorrow and then reconvene after a two-week recess. technically it will still be the first legislative day wlfment they do that tom udall most likely will make a motion for the senate to consider changes to the rules and that will be ruled on by the chair. it looks like this whole showdown will be delayed by some rangeling amongst senate democrats over what exactly the changes should be, although even a postponement isn't official yet. that's something that's being negotiated and discussed right now. >> alexander bolton of "the hill." we thank you for joining us. >> thanks for having me.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> watch live starting at company 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 11th 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. >> 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 than doing domestic news? but the public bears responsibility here, too. they keep 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." on today's "washington journal" we focused on the instability in pakistan and how it impacts the u.s. presence in afghanistan. this is 40 minutes. >> "washington journal" continues. host: juan zarate, good morning. guest: good morning. host: we're when to begin with the situation in pakistan. a deadline was in place that

could result in the collapse of the pakistani government. and the country is facing inflation rates at 15%. what does all of this mean? there is political instability in pakistan. the current government -- now you have the opposition party starting to assemble against the government. much of this has to do with internal issues related to the economy. subsidies, price hikes, those types of things that matter quite a bit too pakistani population, and less about the war in afghanistan and less about the issues in the tribal areas that tend to dominate our media attention. pakistan always has political instability. right now, are facing quite a bit of it. one of the concerns we have in the united states, what will this do to our ability to prosecute the war in afghanistan, and what will this do to overall security in south

asia? host: one of the photographs in "the washington post" -- a look at the slums in islamabad. guest: we tend to be myopic. we have to remember that the pakistani economy has been in trouble for the last couple of years. issues of poverty, economic subsistence, becomes the central in the politics of pakistan. that said, i do not think we should overreact. it is not unusual for them to have these types of tussles. we should not overreact. this is certainly a period of instability. host: let me ask you about iraq. i want to set way back to the afghanistan. as troop levels come down in

iraq and the president says that basically u.s. troops are out of iraq in 2011 -- they are not welcome beyon that. what impact does that have on our relationships with iraq and our role in that region? guest: the question of the u.s. presence in iraq has always been dictated by conditions on the ground, but also by the political necessities in baghdad. we have a status of forces agreement signed by president bush and prime minister maliki, and that has survived. president obama h adhered to that time line. prime minister maliki is dealing with the realities on the ground. it's not politically popular to talk about having american troops on the ground longer than 2011. some of what we're hearing has to do with internal political dynamics. a new government is warning and

they're having to set the tone for what is happening internally in iraq. for the united states, one issue of concern is whether or not we will see the kind of relationship and stability in iraq that we would like to see that our troops on the ground represent. our troops have been multipliers for the iraqis. they have helped train and undercut the ability of al-qaeda in iraq to be a destabilizing force. our ability to help the iraqis and also to serve as a stabilizing factorecomes an important question. we will just have to see how this plays out. the dynamics on the ground may change. that may change the political rhetoric from baghdad. host: while that is happening, u.s. troop levels increasing in afghanistan and stayed at that level for at least the next year or two. review is coming up this summer. what impactoethe situation in pakistan have on the troops in afghanistan?

guest: it's a great question. that's a critical question to the administration. theyame out with their strategic review in december. that said that therhas been progress but it has been fragile, and could be unstable. they talked about pakistan being the central element of the strategy, in part because the militants find safe avens in western pakistan. the ability of pakistan to deal with tho safe havens in the ability of nato troops to deal with the momentum of the taliban has much to do with the stability and the ality of the pakistanis to deal with e militants in the west. host: this is a headline from "the new york post" from the attorney general. guest: i think there's a great

concern in the counter-terrorism community. attorney general holder represents that in many ways. what concerns counter-terrorism officials most is the volume of cases in the uptick, as well as the variety of cases. and also american citizens who have fallen prey to the ideology, who have been radicalized, who may find their way to training camps abroad, or may be self radicalized and self motivated, who are willing to kill americans. that has been a major concern for u.s. autrities. that's why the fbi has put a lot of pressuren these cases. the portland case, for example, that sting operation in the dc metro plot, and another case in maryland just last month. you have seen a lot of attention to individuals within the

homeland. i think that is troubling. i uld not yet call it a trend, but it is a troubling dynamic. host: have we moved from the uss cole and the two attacks on above world trade center to these individual smaller attacks by homegrown terrorists, funded maybe in part by al-qaeda or other operatives? guest: unfortunately, we are seeing a more complicated environment. we still have the threat from al-qaeda core. that is largely in western pakistan. that's why we've seen plot's driven by them. the europe plot that the u.s. advice to travelers about last year is an example of that. you have al-qaeda affiliate's, like the group in yemen, tried to hit the homeland. the failed attack over detroit was a good example of that. and then you have these self starters, self radicalized

individuals. a lot of cases i dimension fall into that category. they may not be directly connected to a terrorist group, but they clearly fallen prey to the ideology that they have to attack the u.s. in a taxable american power, and attacked u.s. citizens. the problem is not just coming from the outside-in, but maybe from the inside out. host: our guest is a former counter terrorism advisor. u can also join our conversation on twitter. alex is joining us from ma ine. caller: good morning. a like to ask him about the role of the pakistani isi in supporting the taliban. it has been documented that the

isi is in great part supporting the tribal colagues in the border regions and in afghanistan itself. essentially, u.s. support in vast amounts of u.s. money are now moving into pakistan, where the isi is using them to support the taliban. how does he feel about that? est: it's a great question. it is a question and issue that has bedeviled u.s. policy makers. there's a sense that the isi being incredibly important in capturing high level al-qaeda figures, for example, in the settled partsf pakistan. there's also a sense that the historical ties between the isi and the afghan television, as well as networks, are not only

historical but continued. and the isi is perhaps a blessing of the highest levels of the government or otherwise continues to deal with these groups as a way of hedging their bets on what happens in afghanistan next. viewers should recall that pakistan views afghanistan as a defense against india in some ways. the pakistani establishment in the intelligence services, in some ways, view afghanistan as rt of the broader proxy battle for influence in defense against india. that is part of the tableau. it's one of the issues the u.s. government has to deal with. if the u.s. government wants the pakistanis to move to places like the tribal areaswhere we know there are al-qaeda training camps, -- i think the caller is right to point this out.

is one of the troubling problems in pakistan. it is something the u.s. government has to deal with it. the bush ministration dealt with it and the obama administration is doing with it today. host: you served on the last four years of the bush administration. bin laden has been talked about for the last 15 years. it's been almost 10 years since september 11, 2011. why is he so difficu to capture? is he still relevant? guest: i would say is one of my great regrets that we were not able to capture bin laden. it was one of my goals before we left office. bin laden is still relant. not only is he a symbolic centerpiece for this global jihadi movement, but he is still relevant strategically. he still driving many of the moving parts of al-qaeda, not just in pakistan, but globally. in many ways, bin laden is still a central figure, i think. the reason you want to capture

him is not just for symbolic reasons or to bring him to justice for 9/11 and all the other atrocities he has committed around the world, but if you are able to take him as a picture -- in some ways, you stt to crumble this global network. it still relies on a hierarchy. it still relies on the theological, moral direction of these leaders. without them, there's a lot of tension and fractured movement and ideas within the jihadi movement. strategically, it's still very important that we find bin laden. as i often say, they are not ghosts. their flesh and blood. the problem is that fear in some of the most treacherous terrain in the world. it is a part a world that we're literally not in. host: eric is joining us from

dayton, ohio. good morning. caller: i just have a comment about the war in afghanistan. i think it would run a lot more smoothly if groups like blackwater and halliburton were not involved in it. with them involved, it becomes a profit motive, like, as long as they are involved, we have no reason to exit. the government is giving money to these groups to set up a permanent occupation there. host: juan zarate, your response? guest: there's been a growing debate about the role of private security companies. i read something about this that was written in 1998 that talked- about the growing use of these committees by legitimate governments and the likelihood that they would be relied on more and more. it's a huge debate. president karzai called for the

permanent exit of any of these private security companies. in part, this was because the state department aide organization, the people delivering humanitarian assistce on the ground, rely on these private security companies. unfortunately, it's a reality. in these wars jones, the u.s. government, then on governmental organizations will need to rely on private security, in part because the military is not able to provide those services. it is notble, given its other missions, to do that. there is a role f these companies, but i think we have to be cautious. we have to be cautious about overreliance on these companies. there s to be restrictions on whathey can do. i am that article in 1988 -- 1998, i talked about a licensing regime to make sure they get here to particular standards. 've seen the industry move

toward similar licensing regime. i think the caller raises an important question. the reality is that these private security companies are here to stay because of the need to secure movement and goods and services on the ground in war zones. host: anoth question has been the flow of information, especially when the president is out of washington, d.c. he is returning today from hawaii. the story in "the new york times" last month -- "obama's traveling team stays focused on terror." what changed from last year to this year? how does the president outside of the white house get the information he needs on a timely basis? guest: as i often say, the present is never fully on vacation. travels with a communications package that allows him to reach anyone in the u.s. government quickly. he is also constantly briefed. even if the president is out

golfing, he is briefed. he is paying attention to events. clearly, the administration wanted to demstrate that this christmas, versus last christmas, they were on top of a potential threat. the president was ready to respond if necessary. john brennan, a friend of mine, was in washington monitory yvetteing events. nick resin was in hawaii with president obama. what the administration did this time, as opposed to last year, was to assume the worst. understandably may not know everything. let's assume the worst, terrorists are coming at us from los blagojevich 0.3 let's make sure we are ready to -- ready to respond at an moment. host: last year, the president had to rely on operators to

connect him with certain individuals, including john brennan. that changed this year. even within e mechanics, the situation rule is now in place outside of washington, d.c. guest: usually when the president has a compound, there are facilities to communicate properly. they learned that they did not have what they need in hawaii last year. a have -- they have it this year. host: our guest is juan zarate. next is a bill from minneapolis. good morning. caller: good morni. est: good morning, bill. caller: how can the united states still consider pakistan an ally in this war? i think they just want our money. you know, if they were a full ally, ey would either have boots on the ground in western

allowed our boats on the ground. they're trying to have it both ways. that cannot happen. host: thank you. guest: it is an important question. if you talk to pakistani officials, they remind me often that they have had 3000 troops killedn engagements with extremists. they have hundreds of civilians killed by a tax in pakistan, -- by a tax in pakistan. they have helped to capture or kill numerous al-qaeda figures. the problem is, there's a balance that pakistan has undertaken.

especially with assumptions that the u.s. will not be there for a long-term --or the long term. and the concerns about overextending themselves in the tribal area where they had an uneasy peace for decades. they do not want to stir a hornet's nest if they do not need to for domestic reasons. this is a tough battle and tension within the pakistanis. the caller is right. there is an uneasiness with what pakistan does with the money we send, as well as whether or not they're fully committee. is this something that no doubt each administration has had to deal with. host: in egypt on new year's day, this photo from "the telegraph" in great britain. guest: this is an incredibly event.ant inven

this is a serious attack, not only within egypt, but signals a broadening, perhaps, of the sectarian tension within the region and certainly an attempt by al-qaeda elements to foment the kinds of sectarian tension we've seen in other parts of the world. we have not seen a lot of this in egypt. there has been some within the christian and muslim population in the past, but this is a severe case. this has really served as a flash point. it has not only highlighted problems within egypt, but highlighted the potential tension between the minority and the muslim majority. and how the government response here will be very important. can they protect the minority? can they enter there's not gat attention that results from this. we saw this more dramatic and in a volatile way in iraq in 2005

and 2006. al-qaeda really took advantage of the sectarian tension and tried to inflame the war. we know from experience that al- qaeda members try to take advantagof these various types of fisher's preleasing and in nigeria and egypt and elsewhere. the key is for them to try to rally against these terrorists. host: our guest is also a transitional threat adviser. sharon is joining us from hudson, fla. on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you very much for taking my question. through the executive orders of president obama, who had several people be able to move from the gaza strip to america that we

have possibly encouraged home grown terrorism? represented king holding hearings on homegrown terrorism and the problems the democrats have had in regards to allowing those hearings to be conducted. thank guest: i would encourage representative kingara to look closely at what has happened -- rep -- rep keen to look closely at what has happened with homegrown terrorism. there are wayshat you can be aware of the issue.

and not aware of that coming from the people from the gaza strip. i think it has been the bush administration in tension and the obama administration's intention to strangle tt in the gulf. certainly, the flotilla incident was an issue, but it remains the u.s. policy. i do not see anything coming out of this administration that changes that too much. host: what is pakistan's nuclear capability and are those safe? guest: paktan is a nuclear capable country. of course, the main concern has traditionally been potential nuclear war in south asia between pakistan and india.

we have seen both countries come to the brink of war on two occasions in recent history based on terrorist incidents, the latest incident been in mumbai. there's always a concern as to what happens in southeast asia with the nuclear material. in recent years with the bush administration when i was wh the n.f.c., we worried quite a bit about the ability of turf terrace, al qaeda and other types, to get a hold of -- the ability of terrorists, al qaeda and other types, to get a hold of nuclear material. if we said this publicly right after 9/11, that al qaeda was meeting with nuclear scientists before 9/11. we know they were in talks. and it has always been a concern that you would to proliferation to terrorists through the pakistan system. -- that you would see proliferation to terrorists

through the pakistan system. the government there does not want to see that happen either. there is a bipartisan report at the end of the bush administration called "world at risk" looking at nuclear terrorism and biological terrorism that we put the spotlight on pakistan. the greatest concern for nuclear terrorism perfect -- proliferation came from that. host: you can read some of it on our website c-span.org. our guest is also a contributor to cbs news. ralph is joining us. good morning. caller: this homeland security is becoming quite a comic -- cottage industry. everybody is making bets on it. there has been able to page article written about it that is unprecedented since world war

ii. we seem to be running out of enemies and we are creating enemies. then we have the government of here and they bring in these morons who have no idea what a bomb is made of or how it is going to be made and they are going to place a bomb in some location where they have ver even heard of because they are being guided by the government and the fbi is holding their hands. guest: it is a serious question. there have been a series of articles posted about this issue. the articles of a fragmented -- tended to conflate our intelligence capabilities at large to deal with not just terrorism, but korea, china, iran. and anna and of the caller is right, we have to look carefully at the budget and -- but the caller is right. we have to look at the budget and make sure that we are not

overreacting to potential threats. the one of the concerns i have had in the last couple of years is that we, as a society, not trash about and respond to the latest threat and overreact. theerrorist take fuller advantage of that. they have seen how we have responded to two failed attacks, the shahzad failed attack in times square and the failed attack over detroit. those were failures. it was in our reaction, though, that i think we gave solace to the enemy. and we gave the series -- the terrorists a sense that they can move to a strategy of disruption verses destruction, the ultra the u.s. government and its society into a tizzy -- that will throw the u.s. government anits society into a tizzy. we're going to do something called operation hemorrhage is what they call it. it is like throwing spaghetti to

the wall to see what sticks and force you to react. and we should be cautious about ovreacting. we should not overreact and give the enemy a strategic victory. host: homeland security secretary tom ridge, and you worked with in part, and also janet nepalitano have said repeatedly that the u.s. government needs to be right 100% of the te. natarus only need to be right 1% of the time -- terrorists only need to be right 1% of the time. has that resulted in over reached? guest: we have made the an blevins strategy the inability of terrorists toperate in the homeland -- we have made an emblematic strategy the inability of terrorists to operate in the homeland. in some ways, we have created an expectation for ourselves of zero tolerance when the reality is that terrorists may get through once in awhile.

we have got to be resilience in that respect. we want to prevent any recall -- we want to prevent any attacks, but there are things we can do. we saw this debate with the pat downs and the scanners at the airports. we have to have that debate, but we also must realize that terrorists may be successful once in awhile and we cannot overreact if that happens. and we have to be measured in our response and solid in how we react. host: next call joining us from texas. caller: i am a retired military veteran with 22 yes of service and three wars under my gut. as far as immigration is concerned, it is long past due. here in texas i see them coming from many parts of the world and they have no love for this country. they only come here because they

have opportunity to make money or spread their own hatred of the united states. it is not a joke, a gentleman. before anyone should even be allowed to visit the united states they should go through a background check. it is time for this. it is time to stop a pre access to this country. and why are so many visitors vises overstayed no one can find them? guest: george, first of all, thanks to your service -- for your service to the u.s.. immigration is siong a debate when you consider people coming from abroad and the -- immigration is a debate when you comconsider people coming from abroad and radicalizing homegrown terrorists. you see that with the somali community in minneapolis were there are certain individuals who radicalized american somali youths and send them abroad to

die in somalia. that is a major concern for law- enforcement offials. the caller is right, there has to be a debate about who we let in and what they a doing. at the same time, we have got to be careful because it is the open-door policy, the open-door natu of our society that contributes to our strength, not only our image abroad, but productivity iran the world true globalization. i am the product of a mexican father and a cuban -- productivity of around the world of globalization. i am a product of a mexican father and a cuban mother. people who live here, who are american citizens need subscre to the ideals of an america that is inclusive and integrated. that is why the immigration debate has grown so important. president bush talks about aid in him -- in one of his books, he talks about not saying that

immigration reform through. i think it is still something on the plate for this congress in the coming years. host: david makes this point on our twitter page -- till the case today based on your expertise? guest: i do not think that is necessarily the case. the challenge right now is actually finding bin laden. david is right, though, in the 1990's and in the run-up to 9/11 there was more information about where bin laden was. there was also more information about where he was in the battle of torah bora. we thought he was holed up in the mountains, which he was, and we failed to get him. i was a failure on our part. certainly, in the decade running of to 9/11 we had opportunities to get bin laden, leader in sudan, on his way to afghanistan, in afghanistan.

i think there was a reticence in those days to do anything that would appear to be to expansive, appear to be to war making, put our troops at risk. we knew he had troops in john karr. and but we did not put troops on the ground or invade -- had troops in kandahar. but we did not put troops on the ground or invade. certainly, we know in the pre let --re-9/11 days at the cow to this was made not to go after him as aggressively as we did after 9/11. host: we could see some changes in the next two or three days in pakistan. also, we are discussing the impact in afghanistan and iran the world.

john is joining us. it could morning. -- are relatively world. john is joining us. good morning. caller: the government has been working on the geopolitical strategy for decades. all they seem to have done is taken us from one unnecessary war to the next from vietnam to present day, afghanistan, and all in between. could you please tell me if you think there should be a thinking geopolitical strategy change coming out of these think tanks? isn't it about time? that is my question. guest: well, it is a fair question as to whether or not there is groupthink in washington. you have a number of think tanks i am associated with. csis is an incredibly fine institution. everything is led by one of the

most respected leaders here in washington. but the caller raises a good point, that we need to reassess our policies and how we view the world. to often, and i think this goes to the caller's point, too often we view the world purely through the lens that we face, the -- through the threats that we face, the challenges that we face. one of the challenges of think tanks is helping government and policy makers and even folks in the private sector and citizens think about what are the opportunities, for example, in the 21st century for america, that frankly, has been a leader of globalization, a leader on innovation -- you know, how can we take full of vantage of the things that the u.s. does well and we are great at? too often, what you see in a national security environment is a myopic view of what the perceived threat tart and a definition of our strategy a round bout. we need to define our strategy

is much more so around the opportunities we have to shape the environment around the world and then that also promotes our national security interests. i would not agree with everything the caller said, but it does raise a good point about how we tend to be myopic about national security. host: let me bring this back to afghanistan and where we -- pakistan and where we started this conversation. they have been given three days for a verdict to avert a potential collapse in pakistan. and here is a tweet. guest: it is a good question. i think more broadly, the concern in pakistan is on the security of the country, security with respect of not

only afghanistan, but southeast asia. its onomic viability and political elements are being driven by bad economics, on the ground issues for people in pakistan. we have to watch carefully how this works out. a vote of no-confidence with a very weakened as are very-led government -- with a very weekend zadari-led government could cause political turmoil in that country. you have got to wonder if at some point if the politicians in islamabad are fiding while rome is burning, in a sense. watch it veryto carefully. i would not despair, but we need to watch it carefully. host: juan zarate, who served the second bush

administration on counter- terrorism. we're joined by a caller in riverdale, california. caller: i have a two-part question. the first part, could the gentleman explain to me why we are still in afghanistan and iraq and other parts of the middle east considering that this country is currently undergoing a disaster with our money problems and these wars are causing -- costing us billions of dollars. the second part, the role of so- called contractors who are nothing but mercenaries usi these wars to rack in billions of dollars of taxpayer money running around playing at war. how will we clean up this mess? guest: great question with

respect to not only the patience of the american people and our ovseas commitments, but also the cost of the war in afghanistan and our deployment -- deployment in iraq. those questions are in part why you see the obama administration robustly to move troops out of iraq and partly why this 2011 deadline that the iraqi leadership is talking about may not be a bad thing from a obama administration perspective. in part, to be able to save the resources that we have been deployed in iraq for many years now. in iraq -- in afghanistan, one of the major debates this summer will be the pace of the drawdown. will we be a sustained presence through 2014, which is the nato deadline for a physical half -- handing over of afghanistan to the government and troops. and what does that look like? will it be a drawdown to the 30,000-troop level like we once

had? all of that will be debated enron will certainly be part of the view the summer with the obama administration. unfortunately, we live in a world that necessitates the security. even in non-conflict zones, for example, the oil platforms in nigeria a better subject to attack, you have the will companies employing private security there. and elsewhere, to him -- to secure infrastructure. but we have to be cautious about the overuse of them and we have to make sure that they are applying to certain standards so they are not acting as mercenaries and not acting outside of the boundaries of the law, either u.s. law or foreign law. host: and finally, in the years the u.s. buys george w. bush, he is now out with his new book, "decision points." what struck you the most in your

conversations with h about counter-terrorism this country? guest: i think what was foremost on his mind and that he conveyed to me and senior staff as that we are not gwenn to let another attack on our soil. -- not going to let another attack happened on our soil. we saw some shift in our strategy. we started to look at more of the ideological battles, the undercurrent with regard to al qaeda. we started to look at the metastasizing movement. that worried the president most. specifically, he worried about avoiding nuclear material getting into the hands of a terrorist group that is willing to deploy it without any caution. i think that kept the president and the president kept us up late many a night. hehe was worried

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the 112th congress starts on wednesday and vote on new rules. watch live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. interviews with members, leadership, reporters and your calls right up until the house gavels in at noon on c-span. >> be sure to watch tomorrow night when we'll reair the day's proceedings at 8:00 earn here on c-span and looking ahead. the health care repeal debate will be brought up by the house republican leadership. watch that this friday with a vote expected next wednesday. the repeal isn't likely to get passed the senate as the democrats are still the majority. >> i think news organizations have adapted.

is it great that overall news organizations aren't doing more domestic news but the public bears some responsibility here. the public bears responsibility of keeping themselves informed. >> sunday martha radda stnch z looks at the wars in iraq and afghanistan at 8:00 on c-span. >> every weekend on c-span3, experience american history tv starting saturday at 8:00 a.m. eastern, 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. hear historic speeches by national leaders and eyewitness accounts of events that shaped our nation. visit museums, historical sites and college campuses as preffesors and historians delve into america's past. every weekend on c-span3.

>> iraq and afghanistan were discussed today at the state department briefing. this is 35 minutes. >> now i know i'm in trouble. good afternoon and welcome to the department of state. just a couple of things to mention before taking your questions. this morning, there was a communication issued by the african union regarding the situation. we are evaluating this, including its highlighting the president's promise to lift the blockade surrounding the gulf hotel and president-elect willingness to ensure a an exit for the president if he accepts the victory and we continue obviously to support the efforts of the a.u. and it is important

to democracy, peace and security in west africa that the president peacefully yield power. any resolution to the current standoff must begin with the internationally endorsed acknowledgement that there is a new president. today, the present president has refused to acknowledge that victory and no resolution should include a power-sharing arrangement between the former president and new president. >> why should no resolution not have a power-sharing agreement? >> well, that would overturn -- >> well, one of the people that was there on behalf of the a.u. who happened to be involved in his own election on the other

side of the in the event which ended in a power-sharing agreement after much violence, less violence than in the ivory coast. >> quite simply the results of the election were clear. to quote a former president -- president elections have consequences. no one dispute the results of the election besides the president and we believe that for the future of democracy in the country and west africa, that he should step down. that is why we continue to support diplomatic efforts to resolve that with the peaceful transfer of power to the new president. >> why is the power-sharing deal ok in kenya or zimbabwe and it's not here? >> because you had a clear

election result and we believe, you know, for the future of this country this is the best result. >> was it -- was it the french who asked the united states to consider giving the president asylum? >> i'm not suggest inthat such an offer exists. another aspect of consequences is the ongoing situation on the ground which resulted since the election in the deaths of a great number of people and, you know, much of this violence has been perpetrated at the behest of the former president. he has many options for departing and as the communication makes clear, there

is still the opportunity for dignified exit. but there should be consequences for what has occurred in country and the violence that has resulted from the failure to recognize the results of the election. but nothing is preventing the president from leaving country. and as we have said, we are -- we don't know where he might go. but we believe at this point, it's important for him to leave soon and the opportunity for him to leave with a dignified exit is an opportunity that is -- that window is closing fast. >> i may have misread but there is a "new york times" article

from friday quoting you saying there is an offer for him to come to the united states. did i misread or could you clarify what is the offer or what is being discussed? >> maybe i misunderstood the question you are asking. we have signaled to him if he wanted to come to the united states, we were prepared to discuss that possibility. a number of countries have made similar gestures to the former president. but that said, in the intervening time since we made our position known, he has -- he is responsible for what has occurred over the past few weeks and anything that might be

contemplated would have to take into account what has happened in country since the election. >> earlier comment makes it sound as though, if there are charges to be brought or prosecution or anything on the human rights' side, it should follow him to wherever he may end up. >> leaders are responsible for the security of their country and the safety of their people. where there have been violations of human rights, of course, leaders should be held accountable in whatever country that might occur. >> any exit that might be contemplated would be potentially an exit for him into a courtroom. >> let me it rate, we want to see a peaceful transition of leadership to president -- the -president elect.

we continue to see the former president leave country. if he is interested in coming to the united states and quite honestly there is no indication that he is, we would entertain that as a means of resolving the current situation. but any consideration of travel to the united states would have to take into account what has happened on the round in the past few weeks. >> it's important for him to leave and as soon as possible, soon. what is the urgency here where you have a situation in zimbabwe where the president has wreaked far more havoc on his country. why don't you call for him to leave? >> we have many times said zimbabwe is entitled to a more

responsible leader than president mugabi. i think i would avoid -- look, we in the united states support democratic elections and peaceful transfers of power. we acknowledge that in various parts of the world. there are despotic leaders who are clinging to power through the manipulation of the existing system and president mugabi is certainly guilty of that. we want to see the expansion of political opportunity in zimbabwe, just as we do in many other countries. at some point, you have to start somewhere and we have an election in this country, the international community from the united states has recognized the results. the leaders in the region demonstrated by the delegation that was there yesterday representing the a.u. is making

it clear that in west africa, they are standing for a democracy and we support that effort. >> is that communication you just referred to -- sorry i don't know this -- include power sharing? is that what they're saying? >> it does not mention power sharing. >> is anyone proposing -- >> i believe the country is on the record that we do not favor a power-sharing arrangement in that country. i want to mention a couple of things. acting special representative for afghanistan and pakistan frank rugeirro will travel to those countries, a trip that ambassador holbrooke was to make after the new year. he will focus on preparations for the upcoming tri-lateral

meeting scheduled to take place in washington next month. he will reaffirm the united states' commitment to the people of pakistan and continue to support pakistan's efforts to ensure greater peace, security and stability in the region now and in the future and reiterate in afghanistan, the president's commitment to transsituation need for security that will begin this year and continue to 2014. he will leave later this week and will be participating in the meeting that the secretary has this afternoon with pakistani ambassador h a/k/a ni. they will -- talk about the potential visit to the united states by the president. i'm sure the secretary, when she meets with the ambassador will

express our condolences at the assassination today of the governor of the province. from our standpoint, his death was a great loss. he was committed to helping the government and people of pakistan persevere in their campaign to bring peace and stalt to their country. >> will she be congratlatting the situation going on in their country which has left you unconcerned about what that government might do? >> the meeting hasn't happened yet but i wouldn't be surprised if the ambassador updates the secretary on the political situation in pakistan. >> is that something that is happening next week at

ambassador holbrooke's memorial. >> it is january 14 at the contendy center. there are a number of world leaders who will be coming to the memorial and i would expect that there would be some meetings around that, not only in -- from south asia, but from other parts of the world as well. >> tri-lateral meeting, is it the foreign ministers' level or president's level? >> i'll take that question? who is coming from there? >> a number of leaders have indicated they are coming. but only in the context of ambassador holbrooke's work in afghanistan and pakistan and also from his previous work in europe. >> can we go to iran first.

how upset you that you didn't get the invitation for the luxury tour of iranian nuclear facilities? >> we are just crushed. [laughter] >> going to be sitting by the phone waiting? >> just to re-affirm, we keep checking our in-box and no invitation has materialized. these are antics that we have seen from iran in the past where they try to kind of flash a shiney object and say don't look over there, look here. this magical mystery tour if you want to describe it as that is not a substitute for what iran has to do, which is to cooperate fully and transparently with the iaea. if i understand the invitation is to visit facilities.

there is no need for a special tour to those facilities. the iaea, which inspectors who know what they are looking for, visit these facilities periodically. but we should be reminded that the iaea has said and made clear that iran has not yet been able to fully answer the questions that have been raised about its nuclear programs and so, this tour, whatever iran has planned is not a substitute for sustained, credible and transparent interaction with the iaea. >> is the u.s. encouraging those who may have received invitations to turn them down? >> i'm not aware necessarily the

e-3 have received invitations. >> how about members of the five? >> we would not see -- if we're asked for our view, we're not attending, but we do not see any reason for others to attend either. >> are you actively discouraging it. is it a bad idea? >> i don't think it will include -- it's a pretty clear public relations stunt by iran. so we don't think that anyone who might take this tour is going to learn anything substantive on such a visit. >> final one. hungarians conveyed to you they are turning the invitation down? >> hungary did receive an invitation because they hold the

position as the u.n. -- e.u. presidency -- i'm still double-checking as to whether they formally reapplied. >> on another subject, there have been numerous attacks on christians throughout the middle east and other areas. the pope is now saying that christians are the most persecuted religious minority in the world. are you tracking with some of this? do you agree with that character isation? >> we are a-- aware of attacks on christians from iraq to nigeria. and number one, we are concerned about this and we condemn all violence that is based on religion or ethnicity or any similar political violence. it is something that we do routinely track in the context of our monitoring of human

rights around the world. report on this every year as part of our human rights report and obviously, we are deeply concerned about what seems to be an increasing trend. >> who do you think is doing this? >> i'd be very wary about making any sweeping statements about whether what's happened in iraq has a bearing of what is happening in other countries jutch as egypt or nigeria. these are all being investigated. clearly, there are pressures on minority groups in these countries and we would hope and expect in those respective governments we'll fully investigate these attacks and bring those responsible to justice. that's what the people of egypt are rightly demanding a thorough investigation and those responsible brought to justice. >> tunesia, continuing unrest

there. >> i didn't get updated on that country. >> last time you did get updated on tunesia. >> the ambassador is back in washington and there is some suggestion he might not go back. >> the ambassador is here for consultations. this does happen. we bring our ambassadors back routinely for consultations. and we will be evaluating in these discussions where we are in terms of u.s.-libyan relations and one of the issues to be discussed will be when he goes back. >> in sudan --

>> -- president bashir went down to juba and while announcing he was in favor of keeping the country together, he said he would accept a negative decision if there was a division and would not lead to civil war. do you see this as a positive sign coming from the sudanese government? >> certainly it is important for president bashir to be vocal and as he has been in the saying that he and others should respect the decision of the people of south sudan. we're getting very close within five days of the beginning of actual voting within country. whatever happens, this is a decision for the people of south sudan and comes as part of the

implementation of the comprehensive peace agreement. the north and south are going to have some kind of relationship going forward, whether it's one part of one country or two countries and the president has made clear he will respect whatever decision the people of south sudan make. that's an important statement to make. >> in light of what is happening in egypt and nigeria, are you going to give another talk on what is happening in pakistan and india on the christians? >> if you have a specific question -- >> on christians. >> i'll take the question. >> on mr. netanyahu today has told parliament he has written to president obama seeking jonathan pollard's release. no longer a hypothetical.

>> we have received a letter from the government of israel and we will review it. >> and ruin clind to -- are you inclined to look favorably on mr. netanyahu's request? >> we received a scanned version of the formal letter, which hasn't been delivered yet. we will review it. >> have you ever talked to the governor about [unintelligible] >> come again. >> richard's trip to north korea. >> then governor richardson had a conversation with deputy secretary steinberg. >> you never had -- did you talk with him? >> no. >> did you ever get -- i presume -- go ahead.

>> >> deputy secretary steinberg was listening but it was governor richardson who provided his perspective on his recent trip. >> what details on what he said? >> we aren't going to provide a readout. if governor richardson wants to give further details on what the north koreans told him, that's up to him. >> anything on nuclear sites in north korea? >> i'm not going to characterize what the governor told the deputy secretary. >> did you get an answer about the protests in tel aviv? >> a small number of people came to the residence. they tossed one tear gas cannister. we did not see this as an attack

on the ambassador's residence. >> in that letter from netanyahu, should we interpret that as the timing of that as connected to the issue of settle ments? >> that's a question for the israeli government. we are reviewing the letter. this is an issue that has come up from time to time in our discussions with israeli leaders, this one and others and we'll review the letter. >> the e.a.u., the terms in particular on visa bans. i know there are economic sanctions in place. anything more that the u.s. might do to make it displeasure known? >> there are things we will re-evaluate in light of what has happened here as we have made

clear. i think you will see a statement by secretary clinton and the high representative but we think this is regrettable. we thought the mission was playing an important role in terms of helping bella ruse develop democratic governance and every single person who ran against the president is now in custody. this violates all international norms and so we are very concerned about what is happening in country and we have a variety of options available to us as we evaluate the implications of this. >> have you talked to the russians about belarus? >> russia is a full participant and obvious interest in the relationship.

i can't say we have had discussions. wouldn't surprise me if we have. >> what kind of options do you have? >> whoa. whoa. whoa. belarus. variety of options? do you have an ambassador there? >> we have options arranging from -- do we have an ambassador in belarus? look -- [laughter] >> right. >> i'll take that question. >> why is it important for the president to step down with no power sharing? any way, what are the options here that you have? >> andy was saying in our relationship with any country, we have a range of options available to us. but i'm not going to prejudge anything but obviously we have

options regarding travel. we have options regarding our economic relationship. options regarding assistance that we do provide countries. >> there are already options against the president and his inner circle. >> like i said, there are -- has about four people in it that -- >> no. no. no. >> you can't yank the ambassador because you don't have one. that would be symbolic. and there are already -- >> we are reviewing bheas happening in belarus -- what's happening in belarus and we'll evaluate what steps are appropriate. >> isn't there nuclear material that the secretary struck in

country. is there any fear they might pull back from that if you go too far? >> we would hope belarus wouldn't do that. that is in their interests as well as the region on global interests. >> have they given you any indication? >> no. >> i was asking you about russia, because they signed a deal last year and now they are cementing it. if you are putting sanctions and they are forming an economic zone together. how are your sanctions going to work? have you spoken to the russians about that? >> we have a wide range of discussions with russia on regional issues. we don't believe that we need to be competitors in that region.

but obviously, what has happened in belarus is a violation of international norms and concern to us and we think it should be a concern to russia as well. >> can you say anything about the ambassador's trip to south korea and he will be going to japan and beijing and according to news reports, he will be preparing for the visit of the president. what role does he play in terms -- >> whoa. whoa. whoa. foreign minister young is here in the united states and will meet with secretary clinton and that discussion is very much about the upcoming visit by the president jintao. consulting with china, korea and japan as we have regularly with regard to north korea.

i do expect that both during the secretary's discussion with foreign minister young tomorrow as well as the president's later this month it will be a topic of discussion. but what steve bossworth is doing is working through an assessment of where we are on the korean peninsula and a way forward. >> mr. bosworth said he is looking for serious negotiations with north korea at an earlier time. >> that's not exactly what he said. as he said, which is our policy, that we believe that serious negotiations must be at the heart of a strategy for dealing with north korea. we have made clear that we are open to dialogue with north korea, but as we have said many times, you know, we have to be assured that that dialogue will

be constructive and we just don't want to have talk for talk's sake. we do want to see specific things from north korea, including a reduction of tension between north and south, an end to prove occasions and a seriousness of purpose with respect to its 2005 obligations under the joint statement. >> it's kind of like what you have already touched upon yesterday, but has anything changed from this year and last year. >> north korea was a challenge last year and it's a challenge today. >> to make mr. bosworth travel to these countries again. i'm trying to characterize the specific travel of his what meaning it has.

>> it follows up on the discussions that you know that deputy secretary steinberg and jeff bader had late last year. this is continually changing situation. we did have a spike intention towards the end of the year. we have noted that that tension has eased somewhat, but the underlying issues are still there. we are at the start of the year and we are consulting closely with our partners in the six-party process and trying to gain a foundation for where we go from here. >> p.j., are there any specific actions north korea needs to take before restarting negotiations? >> i go back to -- there are some things we want to see, but

as the ambassador said in seoul today, he hasn't arrived with a specific list in his pocket. >> is there a consensus made between the six-party countries that would lead to resumption of the six-party talks? >> we have always been involved in dialogue. >> the reason i ask, it seems that officials believe bilateral meeting between north and south korea should go ahead and then they can deliver the special conditions on north korea to resume the talks. >> these are not mutually exclusive. if you have a six-party process inside the six-party process, five bilateral relationships, so i wouldn't seize upon on this too much. obviously japan has its

interests in pursuing constructive relations with north korea, so does china, so does russia, so does south korea and the united states. and we are open to the multi lateral and bilateral dialogue, but right now, the responsibility rests on north korea to show that such dialogue in a bilateral setting will be constructive. >> there are only five bilateral relations within the six-party talks? >> in the context -- there could be more, but in the context of north korea there are five bilateral relationships relating to north korea. >> did you have any chance to speak to the secretary about the exchange in brazil with president chavez? did she mention something to you? >> i gave it my all yesterday. >> you aren't aware of what

specifically they talked? are you more aware at this moment? >> no. >> there were talks that they want to have negotiations with north korea. >> again, i'm starring at the transcript of his brief media encounter and look, we want to have -- we are prepared to have dialogue with north korea, but we have to be assured that such dialogue will be constructive and that really is up to north korea. >> one more. >> have you joined north korea council after a gap of 19 years, what role do you see in this new security council? >> india is an emerging global power in its own right and it is increasingly involved and

engaged in global challenges from regional security to the environment. so we value the role that india is playing on the world stage and look forward to working with india on the security council. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs, every morning it's "washington journal," call-in program about the news of the day, with policy makers and elected leaders. and every week night, congressional hearings and policy forums and supreme court oral arguments, on the weekends see our signature interview programs. on saturday "the