and on sunday, prime minister's questions. you can watch our programming at any time at c-span.org and all searchable.public service creaty america's cable companies. moments, a news conference from house democratic leaders. proposals to change the rules by sent -- for senate filibuster rules. after that, rick scott is sworn in as florida's 45th governor. the 112th congress cavils and wednesday with the swearing in of members, the election of a new house speaker, and a vote on new rules. watch live starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on "washington journal."

live when the house gavels in at noon on c-span. >> up next, house democratic leaders outlined their party's agenda for the next congress. led by outgoing speaker nancy pelosi, this news conference is little more than half hour. >> good morning. as you know, tomorrow the 112th congress will be called to order. house democrats will keep our focus on the creation of jobs. putting the american people to work. we will measure every policy from both parties as it comes forth as to whether it creates jobs, whether it's strengthens the middle class, and whether it

reduces the deficit instead of keeping me mountains of debt on our children and grandchildren. we pledge to work together with our republican colleagues to address the challenges facing america's working families. we must solve their problems. and when the suggestions put forth are problem solvers for the american people, republicans will find in the democrats willing partners. some focus has been made to keep job creation front and center. house to permit -- house democrats will continue to protect the gains we have made for the american people. but in terms of the health care reform bill, and the wall street reform bill, both of which is leverage for american working families. we have created a patient bill of rights, placing health care decisions in the hands of patients and their doctors, not insurance companies. we will work to ensure that

children with pre-existing conditions can continue to get coverage, young people can stay on their parents' plan until age 26, and pregnant women and other cancer patients cannot be thrown off the insurance rolls as some examples of what can happen. in order that have a patient's bill of rights, it is a board have comprehensive health care reform. leading our efforts within our caucus, i am very pleased today to give you are democratic leader of the house, steny hoyer, with some of the members of the leadership, chris van hollen, the ranking member on this -- rosa delauro, rob andrews who is given as the master class on many issues facing the congress, including

health care, and i am pleased to be announcing today an expanded role for two of our members. as you may recall, before we left for the break, i announced that congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz and congressman henry cuellar would be in the steering and policy committee. debbie wasserman schultz has been a leader in the congress for many terms. from day one, she went on to the appropriations committee and many of you know that means a leader on the committee. she has been working very hard on behalf of america's working families. debbie will be leading the way, communicating with our members and with the press honored democratic priorities, job creation, deficit reduction, and strengthening the middle class. henry cuellar has been a leader in terms of deficit reduction in the congress. i am proud of his ongoing work in that regard.

he will be working in that way as we develop our priorities and we go forward. one of the last bills we brought to the floor was mr. cuellar's legislation. it was the greatest procurement reform since the early 1990's. he was dogged and pursued a passing that legislation. it has long been a priority for our caucus. i salute him for that and look forward to his expanded role in deficit reduction, procurement reform, ending was, fraud, and abuse and making the right decisions as we go forward to create jobs, to increase that deficit, and protect the middle class. we will have a strong message to the american people, putting jobs first, answering a thriving middle class, and being responsible as we do so.

so now what is my pleasure to turn this meeting over to a real star in the house democratic caucus, a person who has the confidence of her colleagues and the respect of her constituents and the american people, the new vice chair of the steering policy committee with special responsibility for communicating with each and every one of you, congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz. >> thank you, madam speaker, and thank you for giving me this important responsibility. i look forward to making sure that all of us are able to work together on effectively communicating democratic priorities, both within and among our colleagues and across the country as we reach out to our constituents in our district. as the speaker said, the number one priority for our country is and continues to be creating jobs and turning this economy around. as the speaker mentioned, the democratic yardstick that we will measure the republican effort by if will be the falling

-- does it create jobs? does it strengthen america's middle class? does it reduce the deficit? when republicans put forward solutions that meet those three tests, then we will be standing ready to work with them. unfortunately what we have been hearing is something altogether different. instead of focusing on job creation, republicans have signaled that their top priority is to repeal the health reform law to protect americans from insurance company abuses and gives people more freedom. insurance companies would once again be able to draw people when they get sick, exactly when coverage is needed most. children with pre-existing conditions would be denied coverage. there would be able to impose devastating annual and lifetime caps. young people will not be of a stay on their pay -- parents' insurance until age 26. pregnant women and breast cancer survivors could be denied seniors. -- coverage.

millions will be thrown back into the doughnut hole. it would deny seniors a 50% cut in their brand-name prescription drugs, recreating the devastating coverage gap. plain and simple, repealing this reform would hurt millions of americans. for instance, in south florida where i am front, a 19-year-old teenager has lupus. she has expensive medications and frequent hollis is -- hospital stays. without the health care reform law, she would send become ineligible to remain on her mom's insurance and would be virtually uninsurable given her pre-existing condition. now she can remain under moms insurance plan through age 26 and after that, she will be of a purchase earned assurance in the exchange even though she has a pre-existing condition. that will provider bridge until she is 26 years old. recently i was in the grocery store and a woman came up to me and literally put her hand on my shoulder and said, debbie, thank you, thank you for passing

health care reform. you saved me $3,000 last year when i was able to put my two adult daughters back on my insurance plan. that's what health care reform means for people and that is what it would mean no longer if the republicans are successful in their efforts to repeal it. this year thousands of my constituents on medicare will receive three annual wellness visits and a 50% discount on brand-name drugs. this is -- the republican efforts could hurt real people. it could damage are fragile recovery by spending countless hours trying to repeal health care reform rather than focusing on jobs and andy recovered. every minute wasted is one less minute the republicans will spend on job creation and turning this economy around. it will take hundreds of hours of staff time, for time, and member time. we cannot take our eyes off the price of continuing the economic

recovery. we're going to watch for every bit of republican hypocrisy and call the moment. i turn this over to my colleague, henry cuellar. >> thank you very much, debbie. thank you very much for the opportunity to serve as one of the vice chairs and i want to thank the leadership. all the work that they have done, we have done a lot of alaska after years. the burden on our children and our grandchildren is a problem that most part -- both parties must address now. reducing that deficit and the national debt, it is not a partisan issue. it is a good idea. a good idea is a good idea. our caucus will support good ideas no matter their origin. we expect the republican majority to do the same. we must build on the recent passage of the bipartisan

government efficiency and effectiveness performance act to shine a broader light on government agencies and spending practices. it is imperative that we aggressively examine all expenditures and increased transparency and accountability together. we now have a statute or a bill that will be sent by the president to make sure we do this in no way that not for political reasons, but that this is what our taxpayers are asking us to do. let's talk about the deficit. if you recall, but pay go expired in the early 2000's, and our government took eight to school u-turn. going from a $5.6 billion surplus, to a deficit of over $11 trillion. it will double over the next 10 years if action is not taken.

holding over 50% of the foreign debt with china. it will make it more expensive for families to borrow money in order to purchase their homes, finance and education, or start a small business. , we reinstituted statutory pay go under the leadership of speaker pelosi. we do not have to rely on countries like china to pay for our priorities like education or transportation. the proven bipartisan takeover rules brought surpluses like we had in the 1990's. let me talk about the bill that we just had. there will be doing a lot of work on how we spend money and how we do this. but we have a bill that brings increased transparency and accountability.

it is the result-oriented tool to set goals and determine targets for agencies, makes her we do something a small business does every day. it will be made accountable for the performance, not for political reasons, but on the performance of the result. and this agencies under this new bill, that underperform or ineffective, thin face budget cuts or even elimination. but performance. a word of caution, as we were to reduce the deficit and the national debt, we must be smart and invest in the future of our country. education and transportation must be priorities for us. thank you. at this time, i like to have mr. holder approach. -- hoyer approach. >> well, i will approach it. good morning. this week we are beginning a new

congress. but then is the election cycle -- we have finished the election cycle. there were too compelling messages. we need jobs and we need to grow the economy, and the second message, we need to address the deficit and the debt. speaker pelosi has asked to extraordinary members of the congress of united states, one from florida, debbie wasserman schultz, who was the speaker indicated was cardinal when we were in the majority on the appropriations committee, but more than that, debbie wasserman schultz has traveled all over this country, has listened to people, listens to her constituents whether they be in grocery stores taking her by the shoulders, or anyplace else in this country. she has heard their message. she understands what we need to be doing in terms of focusing on jobs and growing the economy.

in fact, making it in america, succeeding it, manufacturing it in america -- she will be conveying that message not just to you, not just on the floor of the house of representatives, but to the american people as well. we still confront the challenges that were present during the course of the election. we still are in the 9.7% unemployment. we need to get people back to work by growing the economy and focusing on jobs. to the extent that our republican colleagues do just that, they will find is willing partners that seek common ground so that the economy can continue -- and i emphasize continue -- to grow. in fact, economists are saying that the programs put in place in the last congress are in fact

bearing fruit, not as quickly as we would have liked, but bearing fruit, and the economy is growing. if we need to bring that jobs unemployment numbers now. in november, voters sent a strong message. they want us to focus on those challenges and work together to solve them. that is exactly what democrats are do -- are committed to do. together we can work to strengthen american business, rebuild american manufacturing in its middle class jobs, and make the hard fiscal choices that are necessary to stave off . i. the rules package that the republican pack -- republicans will offer will make deficit's worse, not better. will explode deficits as has been the case in your past, and are attempting to change as they did in the early 2000's, the pay

go premise that you would pay for what you buy. we will work with them when we are accomplishing the job creation objectives and the deficit reduction objectives. however, they will find this all loyal but focus and tenacious opposition when we are doing things that undermines our economy and expose the deficit. we also work every day to hold republicans accountable for the promises they have made to the american people. above all, we're proud to be the party of working people. in the 30 days approximately of the lame-duck session, we reached out to working people to make sure that they could succeed. we reached out to those who were unemployed through no fault of their own to pass unemployment insurance. we made sure as we pledged we would do that middle class working people did not get a tax

increase this month. and they did not. so we have continued our pledge to be the party of working people and of a bright future for our country. we are headed in a direction that is positive. we need to continue on the road, and i know that under the leadership of debbie wasserman uellar, and henry clay a that we will be successful in that effort. i say to my republican colleagues, i congratulate mr. boehner of his victory, mr. kantor on his taking a title that i really like having. i understand that the lessons have consequences. -- elections have consequences. but the american public wants to

see progress, not division. they want to seek jobs, not simply political rhetoric. they are not interested in just hearing about us reading the constitution as will be done on thursday. they are hopeful that we will accomplish what the constitution envisioned, and that was the betterment of the general welfare of all americans. so i congratulate the speaker on the appointment of debbie wasserman schultz and henry cuellar as vice chairs of our policy committee. they're joining george miller and rosa delauro who chaired the policy committee to make sure that we keep the faith with the american people who want to see a better america. a growing economy, a confidence

in the future. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, mr. leader. i congratulate debbie wasserman schultz and henry cuellar for their new responsibilities. if we all look forward to working with them. how proud we are of their leadership, and debbie wasserman schultz of florida, henry cuellar of the great state of texas. with that, all the members here would be pleased to take some questions. >> un bel leader talked a lot about jobs and the debt. do you ever read that you did not use the two years you have democrat-controlled to focus more on jobs and especially the debt was a margin as a matter of fact, we in the house of representatives on any number of occasions so bent positive paid for jobs initiatives to the united states senate where they

were held up by the republicans in the senate. it is hard to believe that they might want not to cooperate when it was a question of creating jobs, whether jobs building infrastructure of america, related to new green technologies to keep america competitive in number one. no, we have no regrets. we over and over again sent to the senate legislation for job creation which the republicans in the senate held up. deficit reduction has been a high priority for us. it has been our mantra -- pay as you go. unfortunately that will be changed now. this administration and this congress inherited a near- depression. so the initiatives that we took were positive for the american people. it was not enough to save people from the recession. 9.5% unemployment is intolerable. as long as we have that, we have

to continue to fight for job creation. >> on a more personal note, this is your last day as speaker, an historic achievement. >> actually, i do not really look back. i look forward. we look forward to being willing partners and solving the problems of the american people. when our republican colleagues have positive solutions, and again they will have a willing partner in solving problems for the american people. i join mr. a lawyer in congratulating speaker-to-be boehner and the republicans for their majority. i look forward to working with them. but that is the key -- we look forward. >> congressman wasserman schultz

mentioned other parts of the health care reform. you did not mention the individual mandate. is a negotiable? >> no, but if you're going have a patient bill of rights, if you have to have comprehensive health care reform. some will say, i support not having pre-existing conditions and loss of coverage, but if you do not have comprehensive reform, otherwise you're giving a license to the insurance company, telling them to cover them and have them raise their rates through the roof. >> if you want to guarantee the american people a massive increase in their health insurance premiums, then disrupt the basic health care reform that we have passed in this president signed last year. the easy an unwise thing to do is to say that your 4 people --

for covering people's pre- existing conditions but and do not lay the foundation do have enough people in the insurance pools and have massive premium increases for the middle class. if the new majority wants to raise premiums on the middle class, no, we will not join them in that. >> they also talk about making deficit reduction a priority. if the first thing out of the date they are planning to do is to repeal healthcare reform, which is closing the deficit. we did $143 billion of deficit reduction in the first in years, and over $1 trillion in the second. we're watching for her republican hypocrisy where they continue their meaningless campaign rhetoric, which they are here and they are in charge now. they either do the opposite of what they campaigned on or they simply to hypocritical policies. >> if i could say, tomorrow

there will be a rule on the point that they be just raise with respect to health insurance. they will employ budget gimmicks to try to hide the cost of their actions. what they will do is engage in in run-type accounting to say that when they move to try to repeal healthcare, a week from tomorrow, the hit on the deficit will not matter. they will try to magically make that the way as part of a rule. that kind of flimflam is exactly what the american people came to expect the last time the republicans were in charge. they told the american people that they had listened and learned. but in the rules package we will see tomorrow, it will be very clear that it is back to the same old games. exhibit a is this provision in the rules that says, we're not going to count the costs to the american people and the deficit of appealing health care reform. we will somehow make it

magically disappear. >> let me just mention -- there's the first questions about the job. keep in mind that december 2008, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month. at this time we are actually increasing jobs. not everything that happened january 2009. i have a copy of the resolution they will be looking at to instruct their committee to replace for health care. sieges mentioned a few of them. lower health-care premiums to increase competition. we did that already. letting people keep their health care plans if he or she likes it. we have already. increase the number of insured

americans? we had that already. protect the doctor-patient relationship? we had that are ready. -- all ready. which is passed a tax reduction bill itself. again, this is something that we have already that as an exercise will be doing. this is political theater. it is a kabuki dance. and i am quoting from journalists this morning who mentioned this. i do not remember the names, but

the fact of the matter, we're not going to repeal health care. it is not going to happen. very interesting their choice of words -- is repealed. there is nothing about replacement. what is going to replace all of those items that have been laid out, that yes, even at these early stages for the public have come to appreciate, when your child can stay until age 26, when you have a pre-existing condition and you cannot get insurance, when you're a small business and you can get a tax credit -- they are not going to repeal it. it is disingenuous. it is nothing but political theater. and we need to continue to point that out to the american public. i will make one comment more. it is just in general. what is sorely lacking.

are what they have talked about, it will be ruinous to the economy and to the middle class. cutting education, cutting transportation, there will be more unemployment as a result of where they want to go. deficit reduction? if it were not so sad, it would be laughable, given the roles that they have come up with in their package. what they will do to mask the growth in the deficit, and it is just more fakery -- and finally what this nation needs at this moment and what our leadership has talked about is a national growth strategy. how do we turn that economy around? how do we create those jobs? how do we build a manufacturing

base? what do we do about research and innovation in education and infrastructure? all of those pieces which they want to drastically cut will create jobs, will help to lower the deficit. that is the direction, that is the forward direction that the speaker spoke about and where we are going. >> on the health care reform bill, everyone in america was very pleased with his or her health insurance. they had no complaints and had access to quality, all affordable health care in our country. it still would have been necessary for us to have passed health care reform bill because we could not sustain the system. you know that it is not true that people are completely satisfied with their health insurance and that tens of millions of people are excluded

from it and people are thrown off of their policies if they become sick or their policy is rescinded if pre-existing conditions exclude. you know that list of things covered by the patient's bill of rights. but the sustainability of the cost of healthcare to individual families, the small businesses, to corporate america, to our economy in terms of competitiveness internationally, and also to our federal budget, it was unsustainable. that is why it is a comprehensive health-care reform, one of the main reasons it was necessary. as congressman wasserman schultz said, those are hundreds of billions of dollars and over $1 trillion in the next 10 years following that. that is the -- that is out of the nonpartisan congressional budget office. to say that we are repealing it, it would do very serious

violence to the national debt and deficit. for what it means to personal security, what it pays for fiscal security to our country, you cannot just say i liked the palatable parts of this but i do not want the structural change that is required. yes, sir? >> the roles of republicans presumably will adopt will allow the extension of tax cuts and tax rates without regard to the effect on the deficit or any required to defend the cuts. will there be a checklist on the deficit? >> absolutely. we are opposed to it. it is continue nation, not a change, not an about face, a continuation of the policies that frankly had been in place under republican presidents since i have been and congress. ronald reagan came and under an economic program that created

$1.4 billion of it deficits. -- $1.4 trillion of deficits. bill clinton came in and we adopted a pay go process. we have pursued that in 1990 on a bipartisan way, and reviewed in 1997 in a bipartisan way. that statutory pay go process lead us to a surplus for the first time in over a century or eight years of the president's term under bill clinton. we then jumped and went back to the roles not -- that they now want to adopt a more. we went back to those rules and we encourage and in courage -- we encourage and additional $2.6 trillion in deficits. every republican president since

i've been in congress, we have had some $5.5 trillion in debt since except bill clinton. those rules say in the fact that if you cut revenues or if you eliminate health care or you do about 10 other things, if you do not have to pay for it. somebody will pay for it. it will be our children and our grandchildren who will pay for it. there is no free lunch. this economics so fervently argued for by so many, if you want to get more, nothing i have done in my lifetime showed me that if they did less, i got more. nothing. as a result, we will oppose these rules would return us to

the fiscal sponsor ability that was practiced -- fiscal irresponsibility practice under president reagan, president bush, and the second president bush which put us deeply, deeply into deficit, and contrary to their research and, not only did not grow the economy because the worst economy we have seen since herbert hoover. >> one more thing about the rules package in the budget. in addition to that provision, as you probably saw, they said that when you go the the budget reconciliation process, designed to help reduce the deficit, if you go through the budget reconciliation reconciliation process, no -- you have to have a deficit reduction. you can blow a hole in the deficit reduction process. it is chock full of stuff that least use fiscal irresponsibility. >> i just want to say this is a mother and a grandmother and

parents and grandparents here, we do not have any intention to leave any bills for our children, personal or otherwise, not physically in terms of our country. and the issues that we have been asked about our of the utmost seriousness. they address the strength of america. when we talk about savings there may be, and people on a cut education, we know that is a bad choice. nothing you can name raise more money to the treasury than investing in education of our children of the american people. nothing. so to cut there is a false economy. this deficit reduction, pay-as- you-go, it is an initiative that has been with us for 30 years. at passed the democratic party convention in 1984. it then became law later as mr. hoyer mentioned during the

clinton administration where it produced surpluses projected under president bush. now we have to fight this fight again. but it is importance that since , itbeginning of a republic has continued to be a central debate. we want to see initiatives to solve problems for the american people. creating jobs, strengthening the middle class, in reducing that deficit without putting the burden of debt on our children and our grandchildren. thank you all very much for your time. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the 112th congress convenes

tomorrow, both meeting at noon eastern. our coverage on c-span begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern as "washington journal" takes your calls. the house will formally elect the new speaker, ohio republican john boehn. republicans will then vote on house rules. on c-span2, the senate will swear in new members and organized for the new session. democratic senator from new mexico is hot -- expected offer of the filibuster change resolution. republicans say they will begin to repeal the health care law. a final vote is scheduled for the 12th. even though the repeal is expected to pass the house, senate democrats say they will not bring it up. in a few moments, all look at

proposals to change the new rules for senate filibusters, including remarks by republican senator lamar alexander of tennessee. in about an hour and half, rick scott is one as florida's 45th governor. after that, we will show you the first day of a couple of new sessions of congress, when control of the house change party. you will. nancy pelosi in 2007, and you cambridge from 1995. >> to 112th congress cavils and wednesday with the swearing in the members, the election of a new house maker, and a vote on new rules. watch live starting at 7:00 a.m. mr. not on "washington journal," interviews with reporters and your calls right up to when the house gavels in on noon on c- span. jim and the congressional black caucus held a ceremonial swearing-in ceremony tomorrow morning. you cannot see that live on our

companion network, c-span2, at 9:00 eastern. we will cover the other ceremonial says -- syrup -- the other ceremonies with senate at 1:00 p.m. eastern and the house at 2:30 p.m. eastern. one of the first items on the senate's agenda in the new session of congress will be a proposed change in the polls for filibusters. in about five pennants, republican senator lamar alexander talks at the jerez. foundation about why he supports filibusters. -- at the heritage foundation about why he supports filibusters. >> alexander bolton of the hill, it appears that the first legislative battle will be over rules on the use of the filibuster. what are senate democrats looking to do? >> senate democrats are looking to use a procedure known as the constitutional option.

it can only be used on the first legislative day of the session. what it entails is asking for a ruling from the chair to adopt a new set of rules for the 112th congress. 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. that is important because usually it takes 60 votes to pass any legislation in the senate because of the filibuster rule. and during the rest of the year, it takes 67 votes to change the legislative rules. they are looking for a rule from the chair to change the filibuster rules 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? >> what the proposal would do, and it has not been finalized, it has been worked on right now, but it would eliminate the filibuster on the motion to proceed. by now it takes 60 votes to even begin debate on legislation in the senate. that really slows things down. it would eliminate the use of secret colds. by now senators can block legislation anonymously by placing a hold with their leader. that third thing the democrats want to do is require the minority party for the party filibuster in 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 put the mud -- the burden more on the minority party. whether read as a power grab our not is up for debate. it would make it easier for the

majority get its agenda passed. >> who is leading the charge? >> tom udall, a democratic senator from new mexico, he has been the most tests but an honest. but there are several democrats working with him, including tom harkin, a democrat from iowa, just berkeley, a democrat from oregon, and a democrat from minnesota. >> any discussion on compromise? >> there is some talk of compromise. one thing republicans want is a concession from harry reid that he will stop the practice known as killing the tree. it is a procedural tactic that blocks republicans were members of the minority parliament and the majority party from offering amendments to legislation that read does not want to hold votes on. >> how will this be brought up in the senate gavels in? >> it was a long expected that this would happen tomorrow, the first day of the legislative

session. it appears that the senate democrats have some disagreements over what should be in the new rules package. it seems like what they will do is recess the senate at some point tomorrow and then reconvened after a two-week recess. technically it will still be the first legislative day. when they do that, tom udall most likely will make a motion for the senate to consider changes to the rules. that will be ruled on by the chair. illus like this hole showdown will be delayed by another two weeks, because this wrangling among senate democrats over what the changes should be, although even a postponement is not official yet. that is something being negotiated in discussed right now. >> alexander bolton of the hill, we thank you for being with us. >> thank you for having us.

joining us here at the heritage foundation. we welcome everyone here who joins us on our web site and internet viewers that questions can be submitted throughout our program, addressing us at speakerheritage.org. we will post it on our web site. the last courtesy check, make sure that cell phones have been turned off for those recording today. hosting our discussion as well as introducing our special guest, mr. frank. he serves as vice president for government relations.

mike. >> thank you and good afternoon everybody. my hon today to introduce our key note speaker, senator lamar alexander from tennessee. it occurred to me that we could have titled today's event, why can't the senate be more like the house, because that is what we are going to talk about, both senator alexander and the panel that will follow. there is a proposal that will come before the senate the next few days or weeks that could change one senate rule, fundamentally changehe nature of that body. in a way that was probably never intended by our founders. debate that goes to the essence of what the founders envisioned when they created a chamber designed to create the interests of the states, especially

smaller states that didn't have the proportional representation in the house. there is a lot at stake. may not be cow incidental. i counted 49 sners in the incoming senate who previously served in the house and especially the top three, democratic leadership, all of whom are former house members and yearn for the days being in the lower body. so they are trying to do things to the filibuster rule that would turn the senate into a body like the house. our speaker, senator lamar alexander of tennessee. he serves on committees overseeing education, clean air, highways, science, appropriations and not unimportantly for a senator from tennessee, tennessee valley authority. he was elected both governor and senator. he has been u.s. education secretary, president of the university of tennessee and

professor at harvard school of government. and he served on president reagan's commission on american outdoors. in private life, he helped find the largest provider of work site day care. he is a classical pianist and author of seven books. please welcome senator lamar alexander. [applause] >> thank you, mike. and ladi and gentlemen and to heritage foundation, thank you very much for sponsoring this forum and for inviting this distinguished group of panelists. i'm one of the former number of governors and i don't have the desire to turn the senate into the house but that is what we are talking about today. i saw the title and i changed it

a little bit. i borrowed a line, which you will see in a few minutes. i have a short video to show you what some prominent americans have said about the idea of changing the senate filibuster rule. but this is what a radio announcer during the world war inch i era had to say about the filibuster. he said it's democracy's finest show, the right to talyour head off. that's the subject of what i would like to talk about for a few minutes this afternoon. voters who turned out in november are going to be disappointed when they learn the first thing that some democrats want to do is to cut off the right of peoe they elected in november to make their voices heard on the floor of the united states senate. now, in the november election, voters showed that they very well remember the passage of the health care law on christmas eve

2009. the night sessions, voting in the midst of a snowstorm, backroom deals, little time to read, amend or debate the bill. it was how it was done as much as what was done that angered the american people. minority voices were silenced. those who didn't like it were told, we won thelection, we write the bill, we don't need your votes. the majority's attitude was just that and one person said youan read it after we pass it. of coue, the result was the law that the majory of americans now believe is a historic mistake and the passage of the bill launched the beginning of an instant effort to repeal and replace the bill. voters remembered all of this on november 6, but only six weeks later, some democratic senators seem to have completely forgotten it. on december 18, every returning democratic senator sent a letter

asking the majority leader to take republican abuses to our rules to -- democratic abuses to our rules to an end. some have threatened to change the rules so it would be easier to do with every piece of legislation. ram it through with a partisan vote with little debate, little amendment, little committee consideration and without listening to minority voices. the brazenness of this proposed action is that democrats are proposing to usehe very tactics that in the past almost every democratic leader has denounced, including president obama and vice president biden when they were senators, who said such thing would be a nuclear option, a naked power grab and destructive of the senate as a protector of minority rights. the democratic proposal would allow the senate to change its rules with only 51 veets ending

the historical practice of allowing any senator at any time to offer any amendment until 60 senators decided it's time to end the debate. asnvestors business daily wrote, quote, the senate majority lear has a plan to deal with the republican electoral success. when you lose the game, the newspaper sd, you simply change the rules. when you only have 53 votes, you lower the bar to 51. this is called election null fix, unquote. now there is no doubt that the senate has been reduced to a shadow of itsf as the world's greatest deliberate body. a place which, as senator arlen specter said in his fair well address, has been distinctive because of the ability of any senator to offer any amendment at any time, unquote. but the demyself of the senate is not because republicans seek

to filibuster. the real obstructionists have been the democtic mority, which for an unprecedented number of times used their majority advantage to limit debate, not to allow amendmes and to bypass normal committee consideration of legislation. to be specific. according to the congressional research service, number one, the majority leader has used his power to cut off all amendments and debate 44 times, more than the last six majority leaders combined. number two, the majority leader has moved to shut down debate the same day, measures are considered, nearly three times more on average than the last x majority leaders. and number three, the majority leader has set the record for bypassing the committee proce, bringing a measure dirtly to the floor by passing committees 43 times during the last two congresses. let's be clear what we mean when

we say the wordilibuster. let's say the majority leader brings up the health care bill, which is his right to do. i go down to the floor, senator from tennessee, to offer an amendment and to speak on the health care bill. the majority leaderays, no, senator alexander, and he cuts off my amendment. i object. majority leader calls what i tried to do a filibuster. that's what he defines as a filibuster. i call what he did, cutting off my right to speak and to amend, which is what i was elected to do. so the problem is not a record number of filibusters, the problem is a record number of attempts to cut off amendments and debate so the minority voices across america cannot be heard on the floor of the senate. so the real party of no is the majority party that's been saying no to debate, no to voting on amendments that minority members believe improve

legislation and express the voices of the people they reprent. in fact, the reason the majorit leader can aim there have been so many filibusters is because he is counting the number of times he has moved to cut off debate. instead of this power grab as the new congress arrives tomorrow, the goal should be to restore the senate to its historic role where the voices of the people can be heard rather than silenced, where ideas can be offered as amendments, rather than supressed and those amendments can be voted and debated upon rather than cut off. to accomplish this, the senate needs to change its behavior, not change its rules. the majority-minority leaders have been in discussion on steps that might help to accomplish this. i have been part of those discussions, some of them. i would like to discuss this afternoon why it is essential in my opinion to our country that

cooler heads prevail tomorrow when the senateonvenes. one good example the democrats might follow is the one established by republicans to gained control of both senate and house of representatives in 1995. that was the so-called gingrich revolution of 1994. on the first day of the new republican majority, democratic senato harkin of iowa, proposed a rule cnge diluting the filibuster. every sine republican senator voted against the change, even though supporting it clearly would have provided at least a temporary advantage for the republican agenda. here is why the republicans who were in the majority then and democrats who are in the majority today shouldeject a similar rules chae. first, the proposal diminishes the rights of the minority. in his classic book "democracy

in america," it was written that one of the two greatest fears for our democracy was the quote tyranny of the majority, unquote. e possibility tt a runaway majority might trample minority voices. diluting the right to debate and voting on amendments deprives the nation of a valuable forum for achieving consensus on difficult issues. the founders knew what they were doing when they created two very different houses of congress. senators have six-year terms. one-third of us arelected every two years. the senate operates largely by unanimous consent. there is an opportunity unparalleled in any other legislative body in the world to debate and amend until a consensus finly is reached. this procedure takes longer, but it usually produces a better result. and a result that the country is more likely to accept.

for example, aer the civil rights act of 1964 was enacted by a bipartisan majority over a filibuster led by senator richard russell of georgia, senator russell then went home to georgia and said tha although he had fought the legislation with everything he had, quote, as long as it is there, it must be obeyed, unquote. compare that to the instant repeal movement that has been the result of jamming the health care law through in a partisan vote. third, such a brazen power grab by democrats this year will surely guarantee a similar action by republicans in two years if we gain control of the senate, as many observers think is likely. we have seen this happen with senate consideration of judges. democrats begin the practice of filibustering president bush's judges even though the nominees were well qualified.

democrats ar unhappy because many republicans regard that as a precedent and have threatend to do the same to president obama's nominees. those who want to create a freight train running through the senate today as it does in the house might think about whether they will want that freight train running through the senate in two years when the freight train might be the tea party express. finally it's hard to see what partisan advantage democrats hope to gain from destroying the senate as a forum for consensus and protection of minority rights since any legislation they jam through this year or next year without bipartisan support will undoubtedly die in the republican controlled house during the next two years. the reform the senate needs is a change in behavior, not a change in rules. i have talked with many senators on both sides of the aisle and i believe most of us want the same

thing, a senate where most bills are considered by committee. come to the floor as a result of bipartisan cooperation, are debated and amended and then voted upon. not so long ago, this was the standard operating procedure. i have seen the senate off and on for more than 40 years, from the day in 1967 when i first came to washington as howard baker's legislative assistant. in those days, there was only one legislative assistant in each senate office. i came back for a while to help senator baker set up his leadership office in 1977, and i watched the way that senator baker and senator byrd led the senate from 1977 to 1985. when the democrats were in the majority for the first four years and the republicans were in the majority the second four years. th, most pieces of legislation that came to the floor started in committee. then, that legislation was open

for amendment. there might be 300 amendments filed. and after a while, the majority leader would ask for unanimous consent agreement to cut off the amendments. he always got it, because he let let anyone offer any amendments they wanted to offer. the voting would continue. the leaders would work to persuade senators to limit amendments so there wouldn't be 300-amendment votes. that didn't always work. so the leaders kept the senate in session, during the evening, kept in session during friday, sometimes even into the weekends. senators got their amendments considered and the legislation was fully vetted, debated and finally passed or voted down. now senator byrd knew the rules. i recall that when republicans won the majority in 1981, senator baker went to see senator byrd and said this, bob, i know that you know the rules

better than i do, so i'll make a deal with you. you don't surprise me and i won't surprise you. senator byrd said, let me think about it. and the next day senator byrd said yes, and the two of them managed the senate effectively together for eightears. what would it take to restore to today's senate to thera of senator baker and senator byrd? well, we have the answer from the master of the senate rules himself, senator bd, who in his last appearance before the senate rules committee on may 19, 2010 said, quote, forceful confrontation to a threat of a filibuster is undoubtedly the and ti dote to that malady. senate majority leader reid announced that the senate would stay in session around the clock an take all the procedural steps necessary to bng

financial reform legislation to the senate as preparations were made and a deal was struck within hours and the threat of fibuster was withdrawn. senator byrd said i also know that current senate rules provide the means to break a filibuster, unquote. in those remarks, his lastnes, as i said, senator byrd went on to argue strenuously that our founding fathers intended the senate to be a continuing body that allows for open and unlimited debate and the protection of minority rights. senators, senator byrd said, have understood this since the senate first cvened. then senator byrd went on, quote, in his notes to the constitutional convention on june 26, 1787, james madison recorded that the ends to be served by the senate were, first, to protect the people against their rulers. second, to protect the people against the transient

impressions into which they might be led. they themselves as well as the numerous body of representatives will err from fickleness and passion. a necessary fence against this danger would be to select a portion of enlightened citizens whose limit number and firmness might seasonably interpose against i apet youous counsel. that's the end of that quote. that fence, was the united states senate, the right to filibuster anchors the necessary fence but not a right intended to be abused and then senator byrd concluded, there are many suggestions about what we should do. i know what we must not do. we must never ever, ever, ever tear down the only wall, the necessary fence this nation has against the excess of the executive branch and the result

and haste and tirn any of the -- tyranny of the majority. that was senator byrd in his last appearance before the rules committee. atould it take to restore the years of byrd and baker so bills are first considered in committee and when more amendments were considered, debad and voted upon? first, we have to recognize there has to be bipartisan cooperation and consensus on important issues. the days of we won the election, we jammed the bill through are going to have to be over. senator baker would not bring a bill to the floor when republicans were in the majority unless it had the support ofhe ranking democratic committee member. number two, recognize that senators a going to hav t vote. to say that may sound ridiculous to an outder but every sene insider knows that a major reason why the majority cuts off amendments and debate is because

democratic members don't want to vote on controversial issues. that's like volunteering to be on the grand ole opry and claiming you don't want to sing. if you don't want to vote, don't run for the united states senate. and the third thing that would restore the period of the 1980's, according to senator byrd would be the end of three-day work week. the senate convenes on most mondays for a bed check vote at 5:30. the senate during 2010, did not vote on one single friday. let me repeat that. the united states senate, in the year 2010, did not vote on one single friday. it is not possible for the minority to have the opportunity to offer debate and vote on amendments or for the majority to forcefully confront a

filibuster if every senator knows the will never be a vote on friday. now, there are some other steps that can be taken to help the senate function better without impairing minority rights. one bipartisan suggestion has been tend the practice of secret holds. it seems reasonable to suggest or to expect a senator who intends to hold up a bill or nomination to allow his colleagues and the world to know who he or she is, so that the merits of the hold can be evaluated and debated. second, there is a crying need to make it easier for any president, republican or democrat, to staff his or her government with key officials within a reasonable period of time. one reason for the current delay is the president's own fault, taking a long time to vet his nominees. second reason is shared responsibility, the maze of conflicting forms and f.b.i.

investigations and audits and ethics requirements and financial disclosures required both by the senate and the white house. i spoke on the senate floor on this tying my speech "innocent until nominated. third obstacle and one we should do something about is the excessive number of executive branch appointments requiring senate confirmation. there have been bipartisan efforts to reduce these obstacles with the support of the majority and minority leaders and perhaps we might achieve some success. if all of these effts succeed, there will be delayed nominations, bills that are killed before they come to the floor and amendments that never see the light of day. this is nothing new. i can well remember when a senator from ohio put a secret hold on my nomination when president bush nominated me to be the secretary of education. he held up my nomination for

three months, never really saying why. i was very perplexed about this, so i went to see senator warren ruddman of new hampshire. i asked hm what to do about the hold and he said nothing and then he told me his story. president ford appointed warren ruddman to be a member of the federal communications commsion in the 1970's. the democratic senator from new hampshire filibustered ruddman's appointment until he asked the president to withdraw his name. is that the end of the story, i asked warren ruddman? he said no, i ran against the so and so and i beat him and that's how i got to be in the senate. during his time here, senator metzenbaum would hold up every

one. senator allen of alabama did the same. and in the 1960's, senator williams, whispering john, he was on the floor regularly objecting to federal spending. that is when i first came here more than 40 years ago. now, i haveone my best to make the argument that the senate and the country will be served best if cooler heads prevail and democrats don't make their power grab tomorrow and try to make the senate more like the house of representatives. to permit them to do with any legislation what they did with the health re law, i have said that to do so will destroy minority rights, destroy the essential forum for connsus that the senate now price for difficult issues and surely guarantee that republicansill try to do the same thing to

democrats in two years. more than that, it's hard to see how democrats can gain any partisan advantage from this destruction of the senate and invitation for retribution any bill they force through the senate in the next two years in a purely partisan way will surely be stopped by the republican-controlled house of representatives, but on this subject, i am not the most persuasive voice. i'm not the most persuasive voice against tomorrow's proposed action. other voices are. and i have collected some of those voices, mostly democratic leaders, who have wisely argued against changing the institution of the senate in a way that would deprive minority voices in america of their right to be heard rather than tell you about those voices, i would like to conclude my remarks this afternoon by showing you a short video about what some of them

have said. >> half of official of washington is here. here to talk your head off. >> we must never ever, ever, ever turn down the only wall the necessary fence that this nation has against excesses of the executive branch. >> the checks and balances which have been at the core of this republic are about to be evaporated. the checks and balances which say if you get 51% of the vote, you don't get your way 100% of

the time. >> you got majority rule and got the senate over here where people can float things down, where they can debate and have something called the filibuster, it seems like it's a little less than efficient. well, that's right, it is and deliberately designed tbe so. >> totally oppose to changing the filibuster rules that's foolish. >> that's why we have a senate, to amend and debate freely. >> the whole idea of the senate is not to have majority rule but to force consensus and force a group of senators on either side have to respect each other's votes a protect votes on important issues. >> i can understand the temptation to change the rules to make the senate so unique and at the same time so terribly frustrating, but whether such temptation is motivated by noble desire to speed up the legislative process or by pure polical ex pedensy, i believe some changes would be unwise.

>> the senate is the only place in government where the rights of a minority are so protected a minority can b right and minority views can certainly improve legislation >> american people know that it's not just the voices of the senator from kansas or senator from iowa that are supressed when the majority leader cuts off the right to debate and right to amend. it the voices we hr from across this country who want to be heard on the senate floor. >> you just can't have good governance unless you have good ideas brought forward. >> to my fellow senators who haven't served in the minority, i urge you to pause in your enthusiasm to change the senate rules. >> it's part of the fabric of this institution we call the senate for 200 years we have the right to extend the debate and not some procedural gimmick. some in this chamber want to throw out 214 years for the

quest of absolute power. they want to do away with mr. smith as depicted in that great movie being able to come to washington. they want to come do away with the filibuster. >> if the majority chooses tond the filibuster and choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse. [applause] >> thank you, senator. the senator will have to leave quickly so i will ask one quick question. you alluded to it in your remarks, but if this rule were to be adopted and the senate were to change, the only place

where there would be open debate is in committees. do you have any thoughts -- would the committee process in the senate change as well because that might be where the need to offer amendments and debate and vote would then default to? >> well, that's a very good insight, but the problem with that is, over the last two congresses, as i mentioned in my remarks, senator reid has set a record for bringing bills to the floor directly and not going through committee. i mean take the health care bill over a year ago. sure there were a lot of committee hearings, but when it got dn to writing the bill, what did they do? they went off in a room by themselves, they being the democrats. and this was in december, the snow was coming down and then they brought itut more than 2,000 pages. we were told you could find out

what's in it after we pass it. so the problem with relying on committees for this is that one of the problems of the last few years has not just been cutting off debate or amendments on the floor, it's been bringing bills directly to the floor without going through committee. you take the 9/11 bill that came up in the lame duck session. everybody wanted to help the 9/11 heroes but show up with a $7 billion proposal that hasn't been carefully considered to see where the money is going, is it going to people who really need help, that's what the committees are for. when i say we need to get back to the era of the 1980's of senator baker and senator byrd, i don't just mean allowing any senator to offer any amendment, but let the committees work a bill over. and i mentioned just in passing that senator baker, when he was the majority leader, had a

habit, i'm not sure he did this in every case, he would tell his republan committee chairmen, don't bring a bill to the floor unless you have the ranking member's support. you bring a bill to the floor and you could expect that you are likely to achieve some sort of consensus and you get better result and better september tans. think it's very importa to emphasize the ct that there are seral reasons for consensus, for cooperation, one is you get a better result. but the second is people accept it. people are more likely to accept it. in the 1960's, lyndon johnson had big majorities in the democratic congress, but where did he have the civil rights bill written? in the republican leader's office. and why did he do that? one reason was to be able to surmount a filibuster, but the

other reason was that president johnson knew that was a volatile piece of legislation. he did it piece by piece from the 1950's on. and he knew that if he had a bill that he and the republican leader passed, written in the republican leader's office that people across the country, many of whom didn't like the bill, would say well, if senator dirk sen is also for it, maybe it's ok and maybe i'll accept it and you have that image of senator russell who led the opposition to the bill instead of launching a movement to repeal it, went home to georgia said, it's the law of the land and we need to obey it. >> thank

>> i will introduce the speakers in order. steven is known for his service in the u.s. senate where he worked with john kyl of arizona and we will hear from the senior legislative advisor in affairs. he brings to the table itwo decades in the house and senate where he worked for bill frist and the white house.

he understands the senate. james wallener worked in the hoe side and has experience of working in both houses. he also is a scholar of these things and we know him well from that regard. and the director of governor relations. hhe has appeared on network news broadcasts and is a columnist for current events. brian has a law degree from the new england school.

we have a moderator. >> i meet with mike regularly and talk about issues. one of the things he complains of is discussions to devolve into senate rules. this is what is at stake in some of the cases this the policies impacted by the procedures and policies aof the senate. all of us will be talking about this and may be repetitive. the first thing is i am listening to this, we have not divided up the issue in its proper parts. there is the substantive and the majority is trying to force upon the senate. it weaker minority, fewer tools to debate and demand and be involved in the legislative process. the method is most commonly

referred to as the constitutional option. which is what senator tom udall refers to it as. these issues are separate and related. together, the amount to the same thing. that is an incredible, astonishing, but not unexpected power grab by the remaining majority in the senate right now. i cannot imagine that anyone thought the lessons of the last election was that the voters wanted a stronger democratic majority in the senate. but that is what this is. from a basic democracy, look at that and ask yourself, is that in any way what the voters were looking for? is this in keeping with what the voters wanted? the sad part is, is consistent with the way that this majority

has operated over the last year or two. you can go back and the most astonishing thing for us all was when senator scott brown was elected and we thought that now the state had elected him to the senate. thsis would put some brakes on health care reform and instead it encouraged democrats. i am sure will do a good job of discussing the particular data that shows the filling of the tree and the words that do not mean a thing to people would not follow the senate. filing cloture immediately, skipping the committee process and bring bills to the floor, shutting off debate, all of

these are about shutting out republicans and the minority from them be able to discuss issues, to debate and deliberate and it has been an ongoing process. we see this now even when as senator alexander emphasized, such questionable interest of the democrats to do this. they still would push forward and try to do this and it is amazing. i will say one thing without getting into the numbers. that will be dealt with. the numbers that you see throw around regularly, this number of filibusters, they are largely garbage. you have to get into what happened in each case. and whether there was an attempt to block the session, try to have more amendments to delay, every situation is different. the democrats know this. the members know this. most of the activists that are running the group's know this as

well. there are a lot of numbers around. it has gotten a lot of people in the press to adopt the numbers as though they are true. unfortunately, you cannot be statistical about understanding what each one of those events were without looking at what happened in each case. . there is a tremendous -- the most obvious point that has to be made clearly and senator alexander started with it, the pendulum swings. does the democratic leadership even want this? i understand they are being bulleyed and concerned about keeping their leadership positions and the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedingsmen are concerned about the people who are antsy to move forward but do they want to do this and the likelihood that republicans will be stronger in the senate if not in the majority in two years? i really question whether they do.

and there is division within the democrats that the press has done a lousy job of investigating and exploring because that's the real story of what is going and how the caucus is breaking apart on this issue and other issues related to that. related to that, i think important as senator alexander mentioned to focus on the fact that there's a point of principle here for republicans. republicans in the majority in 1995 opposed making themselves stronger in the majority. they unanimously opposed and there were two senators trying to gut it. they opposed it then. they oppose it now when there is another likelihood that republicans could benefit from it in a few years here and the house is the backstop right now. so there isn't a real concern. the house is a backstop. who cares, let it go through.

we have the ability to push it through. it's the wrong decision and they oppose it on principle e then and now. the thing about this is, if this were a serious effort to actually reform the senate and make the senate work a little differently, then you wouldn't come forward with this massive rules change other -- under another discussion. i'm happy to do some writing on it if someone wants to answer questions but crazy to push them through like this when the process is to go through the rules committee, sit down, debate, have actual text of amendments. has anyone seen text of an actual rules change, has that been discussed? have they sat down and figured out how it would work? no one has done that. this is a knee-jerk reaction to

a frustration, frustration from the voters. and now we see the idea of rules change without any text. anything we can work with. there is a process for this. to bring up briefly and i think it's better to deal with it later, the 2005 scenario with the constitutional option having to do with judges, there was a rules process and debate about the specific issues and specific kinds of remedies. although senator schumer had rules committee hearings, those hearings in the end were not about specific changes but merely about do we have a problem and those are the hearings that senator byrd testified and a lot of ambiguity of what the results were in the end. i don't want to -- one minute? ok. the last thing i'll say is and the senator touched on this pretty well, what it is that

minority rights guarantee and i use the word deliberation and i use it broadly. it's about amendment. the right to have amendments legitimately offered and debated. it's about making sure that bills are written openly and are able to be considered. it is a broad-based transparency approach and it's exactly contrary to what we have seen in the last couple of years in the way things have been run. i think one example and then i will be quiet that's important, think about what happened with the dream act in the last couple days of this last congress in the senate. that was a different dream act that had gone through committee. there were important changes that had been made to it. in order to cut a deal thinking they had bought off the last few votes, the sponsors came out and offered a different piece of legislation than it was before, with substantive changes that were different than before, but didn't offer any opportunity to

debate it in length nor an opportunity to amend that. when you do that, they are going to reject it. we can offer amendments that can change that. maybe we'll vote no in the end but we'll try to fix the thing that you are going to pass and get a majority together for that. that was a tremendous book end to the congress to have that be one of the last votes that came through in the end and to be something that was just ram, inc. something through. and here they want to ram something through in the next congress and it's very disappointing. >> the story goes when thomas jefferson who had been in france during the constitutional convention asked george washington why had they created a senate, washington reportedly said, we pour our legislation into the saucer to cool it. my graduate work in political

philosophy, so that's where i have been tacked to discuss with you, why does it matter, why should we have a senate and have one legislature like nebraska does, or have two house of representatives, counting the different structure for the states versus districts, but have the processes and structures for each chamber the same? well, i would argue the reason for a senate goes well beyond the question which is what most of us are taught in school, big states and small states and their interests had to be addressed. in fact, it goes to the discussion of will versus passion. majority rights versus minority rights. you see, we have a speedy process in house of representatives to pass legislation. but the framers were very concerned about putting brakes on the majority. it wasn't just the senate where they had brakes, you have the

independent judiciary, you have the supreme court, the constitution, you have representation rather than direct voting by citizens on individual matters. you have the veto and the higher threshold to override the veto, the electoral college. indirect election of senators, each one of these things was intended to be a brake on the passions of the majority. why was that? was not because the framers were just out of step and couldn't see clearly how to implement a more democratic form of government? clearly not. the framers said they were very worried about unadull ter rated democracy and you don't find the word democracy in the constitution. that would come as a surprise to many americans. the words they use is democratic republic and the distinction being, it wasn't about the majority passions at the moment, which they feared greatly, but

about approximating justice, philosophically speaking. there is a notion you might have heard in latin, the voice of the people is the voice of god. majority, 50-plus-one, the framers rejected this point of view and thought that was very dangerous. they believed that justice exists, justice is not made by a majority, justice is approximated by a well functioning government. they had no illusions about perfectly being able to embody justice in the founding of our nation, but they wanted to approximate it as closely as possible, which is precisely the reason why they had the brakes on the majority. they distrusted the majority. don't take my word for it. listen to them. when benjamin franklin emerged from the constitutional convention and the wife of the

mayor of philadelphia said what have you given us? a republic, madam, if you keep it. a republic, not a democracy. madison warned, democracy have been spectacles of tur but lens and contention. the author of the first amendment in the house of representatives said the known propensity of a democracy is the ambitious call and ignorant belief to be liberty. and then been gentleman men rush one of the signers of the declaration of independence, a simple democracy is the greatest of evils because they feared the tyranny of the majority. i remember being in high school and asked what is the difference between democracy and i remember the teacher being tongue tied because it is lost in this generation and go back a simple

generation in our nation, my father's generation understood there was a difference between the democracy and republic because they understood this notion whether or not justice exists and trying to approximate it or whether or not justice is defined by 50% plus one, which the framers rejected. so what's at stake here? the danger in making the senate more like the house is that we are taking our foot off the brakes. now i would argue this could well break down to the republicans' advantage perhaps in the short-term. i think the likelihood of the senate to flip from democratic to republican in the next election is pretty high. republicans could well recapture the white house. that might mean more judicial nominations through, might mean the repeal of health care reform. but regardless of which party benefits in the short-term or the long-term, the country will

be the worst for changing it more into a democracy, something we have been steadily doing over the history of our nation. we are not a democracy. we are a democratic republic. not an unimportant difference or subtle difference either. it was a short time ago as senator alexander made the point that democrats were arguing against reducing the filibuster. that was judicial nominations. one quick point on this and i'll conclude. you may remember in 2005 the strong effort by senator frist to stop the filibuster of judicial nominations and some would call us hypocritical for on the one hand, supporting the constitutional option in 2005 vis-a-vis judicial nominations and fighting for the legislature now. prior to 2003, there had never been a judicial nominee with clear majority support that had

been denied confirmation due to a filibuster, not one. what we were doing in 2003, 2004 and 2005 in trying to do the constitutional option was trying to restore senate tradition. what senator udall and senator reid and schumer are doing now are upending senate traditions, making the senate more like the house, which i said is dangerous. the filibuster is a vital expression of the founding's desire to thwart legislation. conservatives and all americans should defend it as an important institution that can make us slow down and think carefully before we act. it has proven frustrating to me and to both parties and no doubt the misuse along the way, but we must -- we risk much more than political setbacks if we weaken the filibuster.

>> good afternoon, my name is james wallner and as mike mentioned, i have worked in both the house and senate, albeit for a limited time in both chambers they are different positions and some people have their likes and dislikes and i happen to like the senate very much. it is an ancillary institution, anybody knows that it is a very confusing institution to follow. yet, this issue, the one we are talking about today, the constitutional option, nuclear option to end the filibuster for legislation, judicial nominations, has created a lot of interests both inside and outside the institution and inside and outside the beltway. and for that reason it's important to look at the data and the metrics that we used, because that's the problem we are talking about. if there was no obstruction or

no claims of obstruction, there wouldn't be any reason to change the way we do business. so it's important to have an understanding of what are the numbers that we refer to mean. on december 3, the majority leader referred to the inability to reach an agreement in the senate on what if any amendments would be allowed to be offered in the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. this was not the compromise later reached. he said they, being republicans, have had lots of opportunity to offer amendments. it is not the offering of amendments. they are not satisfied with that. they want the results. they are not willing to offer an amendment they may lose. they are only willing to offer amendments that they want to win. that is probably true. i wouldn't disagree with that. but i think what is left unsaid here, the majority of democrats were unwilling to allow the

minority to offer amendments that could win. unlike the house, minority amendments are not subject to majority approval in the senate. rather the ability to offer amendments to legislation on the floor is a long-standing feature of the institution's traditions and used and abused by both sides. the senate majority was using the senate's procedures to block the senate minority from offering amendments that could potentially pass and their concern being to undermine the message they were trying to advance or policies they would like to see passed. and as this example illustrates, obstruction in the senate is dependent upon a new perspective on what we use to measure obstruction. the conventional wisdom is used by the hill and in think tanks and by the media is that individual members in the minority party collectivelyville procedural rights to obstruct

the majority and that is correct in the senate. the wisdom goes on to say members of the minority obstruct the majority by utilizing their right to extend the debate and offering amendments or what they call poison pen amendments to obstruct the majority to advance their agenda and do this by policy and electoral gain. and the dramatic increase in the number of cloture motions filed in the last 25 years supports this argument. that is what is mentioned on tv shows and academic papers. this obstruction the argument goes leads to gridlock and nothing gets done. i think there are several problems with this. there is a narrow focus. many followers of the senate will view cloture motions and filibuster as synonomous. both the scope and frequency of them is thereby incorrectly interpreted as leading to a similar increase in the number of cloture motions.

these may be related but not a direct cause and effect of one another. when combined, the cloture rule allows the majority leader to effectively obstruct the ability of individual senators to participate in the legislative process. and block amendments and time for debate on the senate floor and allows the majority leader to exert control over the senate agenda. in instances in filing the motions, the majority leader's control increases as well. this is a logical thing. they want to pass legislation they support and will utilize if they have the ability to do some to set up procedures to accomplish that end. such agenda control or efforts to such agenda control isest dent when clot tur is filed early before any obstruction is said to be occurred.

. you would think if you have legislation on the floor for a while and a filibuster occurs, the majority could say, we need to exercise procedures to shut off debate an the filibuster. in the 111th congress only three timesed by the -- did the majority leader file cloture on the third day of consideration.

110th, two times. one more thing, the majority leader can use this process with the process of the amendment. when this is done in tandem, ending the minority's ability to debate and also precluding their ability to offer amendments on the floor, it's pretty dramatic. the majority leader filed cloture on the same day three times. in the 109th congress, 78% of the time they did. 110th congress, 56%. a lot less than the 109th congress. in the 111th congress, 14 of 15 measures the majority leader filed the amendment on, hed that a 97% rate.

that shows the majority leader uses this to control consideration of with the majority wants and reducing the ability of the minority to debate. why is this important? i think for the most part, that a new perspective allows us to get a better understanding of the ways in which the senate is broken. just because the numbers say one thing, doesn't necessarily mean the senate is the best institution, doesn't mean we should change or shouldn't, it just lets us have a better understanding. the numb of cloture motions filed, if you take out the same-day cloture motions, newspapers and others say, we have x numbers of clotures, in the 111th, 136 cloture motions were filed if you take out those

that were filed on the same day, it's 98. if you take out the second day, it drops to 80. if you take out the third day of cloture, the number drops to 77. it's a similar pattern for other congresses. that undercuts the key reason or key evidence that supports arguments that the senate is broken because we have too much minority obstruction. i think one other aspect or why this is important and what i would like to draw is that this draws our focus to the way the majority uses the procedure for their own advantage. this is true also for the cloture rule. the cloture rule was intended to give the cloture. you can use cloture to prevent

unwanted amendment receiving votes, without cloture, the majority has no ability to expedite floor consideration of legislation and establish a firmly agreed upon floor table for consideration. you can exert timing over floor procedures and you can use it for symbolic purposes. it is widely considered that the dream act would not receive the votes for cloture, but the majority wanted toest tably the fact that they were for it and the minority was against it. it is important to say with the cloture process, the majority leader would not have any of these, albeit limited, tools at his disposal and would be unaible to structure the process to his agenda. >> brian darling closing here, i hope i don't filibuster too

much. first things first, i wrote a paper called, the filibuster protects the rights of all senators and the american people, but i'd like to spend my time talking not about that but about some of the myths i see out there. i see four big myths in this debate that have been promoted. we'll hear over and over about the constitutional option that presumes the filibuster is unconstitutional. i would argue that the -- that arguing that the filibuster is unconstitutional is a myth. the filibuster is perfectly constitutional. it's within the senate's rights to make its own rules under the constitution. the constitution states that eachous ho may determine the rule of its proceedings, and the senate has done so. in 1917, the senate adopted a cloture rule. it's changed over the years. but to argue that this rule that's been in the senate since 1917 is unconstitutional, i don't think it passes the laugh test. if you look at the senate rules itself, senate rule 22 today

states invoking cloture in the proposal of senate rules requires 2/3 of the senators present and voting so senators decided they wanted to set a 2/3 vote standards to end debate when debating a rules change. that is part of the senate's rules, the senate is empowered by the constitution to do so. i would argue that you're going to hear that myth over and over again, that it justifies the attack and the filibuster, the fact that they will claim it's unconstitutional and that is false. another myth you'll hear and you'll hear it over and other again is that the filibuster was an accident of history. sara binder is somebody who has talked about this, i don't want to pick on her because others said it too, but when she testified before the rules committee on april 22 of last year, she said, quote, when we dig into the history of congress, it seems the filibuster is made by mistake.

that's not true. if you look at the john quincy adams diary, he wrote a history of the senate published in 1874, he wrote that in 1806, then vice president aaron burr advised the senate that moving the previous question which was at the time the meck my to shut off debate was unnecessary as part of the senate's rules. the senate listened to him, he made a 20-minute speech, after the speech they adopted his idea to get rid of this move the previous question. then the filibuster came to be as a result of that. now if you take that alone as one incident, maybe they are right, maybe it was an accident, but then you have to look further. if you actually, one of the greatest books ever written for nerds, people that follow the senate like people like me, robert c. byrd's "the senate: 1789 to 1999," that's a great boofpblg me wrote, henry clay in 1841 proposed the introduction of the previous question but abandoned the idea in the face of opposition.

so at that time, the senate rejected the idea of having a mechanism to shut down debate. byrd wrote also that when senator douglas proposed permits the the use of the previous question in 1850, the idea encountered substantial opposition and was dropped. they said it failed on a vote of 25-30 and byrd also cited other instances where the senate specifically rejected the idea of having the move the previous question to shut down debate. the cloture rule obviously came to be in the senate rules in 1917. there's a long history where the filibuster developed and so stay it was an accident is a myth. another myth is that the senate is not a continuing body. you'll hear that over and over again. you hear already the argument that the left is making now, somehow the senate's rules operate through the whole two years and then the senate ends

the year and in those moments before the senate starts out in the new congress, there are no rules. and the filibuster doesn't apply. therefore you can change the rules of the senate without having the application of the filibuster rule to rules changes which require a 2/3 vote. in this -- this came, the senate being a continuing body is memorialized in the senate's rules. if you look at the senate's rule, they sate, -- state, quote, the rules of the senate shall continue from one congress to the next congress unless changed as provided in these rules. that came to be as a result of negotiations back when senate majority leader lyndon baines johnson negotiabilitied a change in the cloture rule and there was a change in the cloture rule, they changed it to 2/3 of senators in consideration for having the memorialization of the idea that the senate is a continuing body.

but you have to also look at the fact that the senate, the way it's set up, it's obviously a continuing body. you have a body that elects new members, members serve a six-year term, only a third of the senate is up every two years, the senate can conduct business if senators weren't sworn in at the beginning of the new year. and the myth that the senate can change its rules magically by a simple majority on the first dive a new congress is a myth. one thing you'll see happen and a lot has been said, so let me talk specifically about what i expect will happen tomorrow. tomorrow, the senate is going to come into session and there's going to be an effort and maybe the process will start where one member will make an objection saying that the filibuster rule is unconstitutional, and ask for the ruling of the chair that will start a series of plo seedings that will probably last a few weeks, may not be resolved, may be resolved

through negotiation, may be resolved through votes. the funny thing is, their argument that the senate has no rules means that you basically have anarchy and chaos for those moments before the new senate gets sworn in, you have no rules, you have no means to conduct business in the senate according to their theory and the irony is, the first thing they'll do before this happens, before a senator gets up and makes a point of order is that they're going to swear in new members. so for the new senate will come in, they'll actually swear in new members before they start debating this question of whether the senate is a continuing body or not and when they do that, they're operating under senate rules two and three to swear in members, they have very specific process for swearing in new members. the senate will actually be operating under the rules of the senate to tware in new members before liberals in the senate try to claim that the senate is not a continuing body, it doesn't have any rules, therefore the filibuster rule

with regard to senate rules changes won't apply. why don't i stop there and we can take some questions. >> our panelists will be glad to answer questions. please wait for the microphone and if you would be so courteous as to express your name and affiliation, that would be appreciate nismed questions from the audience? we have one back in the back, then i'll let the panelists debate. right here, right in front. >> i saw that in the "new york times" vice president mondale, walter mondale, had an op-ed and in the argument he said, well, maybe we could change the rule to 55. he threw that out there as a possibility because with the 60, of course it used to be 67, the

60, it's hard to get things through and when you have, you know, the kind of world we live in, maybe we should make it just a little more toward getting things done, what about changing the rule from 60 to 55, what walter mondale recommended? who was in the senate for many years? what do you think about that? >> i don't like it but i'll tell you why. i think when you look at the recent news reports about the -- all the accomplishments of the obama administration, it's funny the news is pretty overwhelmingly reporting that this was a very successful year for congress in the end, pass a lot of legislation. the president can say, i went to congress and i got my obamacare, i got my wall street reform bill, got the new star treaty passed and ratified in the senate, there were a lot of accomplishments, what more did the left want that they didn't get? it's a solution without a problem, in my view, because you

have this solution, change the filibuster rules so we don't have so much debate, yet the senate conducted quite a bit of debate and passed quite a bit of legislation especially at the end of congress and it seems that in isn't a big problem. maybe there's a problem when people turn on c-span and they see nobody really debating, see them in quorum calls and multiple pieces of legislation being pending at once. i don't see it as a problem. -- as a problem in setting the number at 55 isn't a magic number. i mean, why have any number if you're just going to move the previous question? >> the thing i'd add is, it's not as though the filibuster rule or any other rules of the senate ought not ever be looked at or changed. maybe something works well, something else works differently or better. there's a good process to do this. you've got a rules committee with people -- attorneys who are good at figuring out how things

would work. if you've got a solution that's going to work, irrespective of which party is in charge, there's a process to go through and do it. the end result of that is you have to get 67 senators to agree that this is good for everybody. i think that the natural way of doing it if you're going to do it, is to then make it in effect at some point in the future when you don't have a pretty good sense of who is going to be in challenge of the different political branches of government so you take the long view and not something focused on the immediate partisan gain or loss and say it's going to go in effect in 2016 or whatever the year may be that would make sense in the context. there's a process to figure it out and everybody should make an agreement. what's happening now is is trying to put a gun to the head of the majority -- of the minority saying, we're going to force this thing through and you're going to live with it or else. i'm not terribly interested in any of the theoretical ideas for

reform being put forward in the press or by operations that are set up with websites run by -- funded by staples of the democratic base, right now, that are just theorizing about what might make better sense. there's a process for this going forward. and the idea that 57 votes is insurmountable is not a lot, most legislation passes by unanimous consent and we've had changes before and we've had changes as recently as 2007. they got the votes they needed to do it, senator alexander, i believe, is going to be the ranking member of the rule committees, senator alexander will be the one at the table with senator schumer and others, they can fig you are you are -- figure it out. i said there was a method issue and the result issue. the method is outrageous in this context because there's a process to go through and they could do that. >> another question from back in the back.

>> this morning, there was an article on the question of filibuster but the author, chris ackerman, raised the question about the capacity of individual senators to pass a -- place a nomination on hold which he said leads to an increase for the use of recent support, he licked it with the filibuster question. could somebody respond to that issue? >> essentially -- first of all, it's often said a single senator can prevent something happening. that's not the case. the majority leader has the option of filing cloture. if he had 60 votes, he can go ahead and do it. the thought that a single senator can actually prevent it, no. they can prevent time agreement from occurring, prevent someone from coming up by unanimous consent, but the majority leader can do it, so i think that's one thing in the whole judicial

nominations process, given how see sloe the white house has been in sending judicial nominations up and the time they've devoted to judicial nominations, i find it puzzling, the constant refrain the -- that the majority is stopping these things. in contrast in 2003, when we spent all of february of 2003 on a single nominee, miguel ochada, and had seven cloture votes on him, all of which got majority support and still wasn't able to clear him, that's a whole different issue than senator reid saying i'm not going to schedule a judicial nominee far cloture vote. >> a hold is merely a senator saying, if you bring up this measure this nomination will filibuster. there's nothing inherently wrong with the hold. it's notifying leadership that you will go down to the senate floor and filibuster if they take out something.

and much of the senate's business is done by unanimous consent. many times you have bills coming up without any hearings, without any debates, nominations for that matter coming up, they are passed with no vote. senator demint calls it secret consent because you have these things coming up and they pass if they become controversial, no member will take ownership over it because it's something that passed by unanimous consent, they didn't have a chance to study and understand it, they're not on the record 100-0 voting for this. the idea of a hold, a hold really isn't anything that scary, it's a member saying, if you bring up this measure, i want to exercise my rights to have some debate and have a roll call vote and whatever other rights i have. >> all the hold is, allow the bill to come up but i'm going to make sure i have the rights to the following amendments considered.

that happens very commonly and then with you find is no, absolutely not, we're not going to vote on those amendments. that's the joke senator and asker was making, the senators are afraid to vote. they're absolutely afraid to vote. house members are also afraid to vote. speaker -- speaker boehner, i'll just say it now, made the point of saying, we got elected, let's vote. the same problem over in the house where they're afraid to have any votes on amendments. that's what happens a lot of times with holds as well. that's another piece of the puzzle with understanding what's happening in each case, which is different than the other. >> on the notion of holds, obstruction and unanimous consent, the majority oftentimes will review -- refuse to schedule stuff on the floor, for whatever reason, good or bad, that they don't want to pass unanimous consent, then a senator who chooses not to give their consent is labeled as obstructing.

this is an important point. unanimous consent the same as voting for something. it is very interesting that one would be outraged that you would expect a senator of whatever political persuasion to vote for something that they don't want to vote for and then call that obstruction and be outraged by it. that is the nature of unanimous consent. >> do we have one last here in the middle? just a minute for the mike. >> i'm chairman of the community learning and information network. i wondered if you gentlemen would have any comments about, since i had several of my promotions held up by senate, if you would comment about the czars, 37 of them up there in the white house they bypass all this stuff and they certainly create an awful lot of papers for you young people to shuffle. do you have any comments about that? >> i don't like them.

i mean, that is a big separation of powers issue. you have many members of congress that believe that if these so-called czars, if they take over the responsibilities that cabinet secretaries or other officials, confirmable positions, should be doing, then you have an issue. then you have an issue where these individuals should go through a confirmation process and what is congress' means to restrain and have oversight over individuals that will refuse, probably, to come in and testify at hearings. this is a serious problem with the explosion of czars over the last few years. i do agree it's a problem. i guess congress, the only thing they can do, they can threat ton cut off pay for these czars if the czars don't come in and testify and at least give testimony to congress under oath to talk about what their activities are. there is a big separation of powers issue here, the white house has the authority and constitutional duty to have

confidential communications with their staff but we're now getting into a realm where it doesn't look like that's happening. we're having a lot of people sitting in the white house conducting activities that cable officials should be doing. >> permission to make one final point? >> sure. >> the senate is known as the world's greatest deliberative body. jean jacques resew talked about how russo talked about the -- -- rousseau talked about the quicker you came to a group with knew yu nan anymority, the more likely it was the right decision system of the question first asked is 55 the right number, is 60 the right number. i think there's a more fundamental question, is it a bad or good thing that the senate forces consensus to be

formed through the deliberation. the framers clearly believed that justice was more likely to be achieved through greater deliberation rather than less. >> good redemption using rousseau that way. i want to make one small point i can't resist, senator udall and the others think that the whole issue is that the senate is not a continuing body and they can just operate under no rules. brian got into this a little bit. there's a fundamental division within the democratic caucus right now, they're in a real mess internally on these questions. you can see it coming out in these little small ways. the senate website yesterday often had a special page about the senate's first day in which in the second paragraph it said, the senate is a continuing body. this is the senate website run by the secretary of the senate, apointed by senator reid. so he's letting this stuff go out, but they're not consciously

concerned about that. the most vivid example of this, think about this when you hear, the senate is not a continuing body, the rules don't carry over. when they come back into session tomorrow, they will be operating under an order, what is that order? it is a unanimous consent agreement entered into in the final moments of the last congress. it was proposed by senate bayh on behalf of senator reid and the order says they shall come in and they will swear in new members and enter a period of what is called morning business a -- which means a certain kind of discussion provided for by the rules. so they already baked in from one congress to the next that the last congress shall control the next congress. now this is interesting from a legal standpoint, if one actually buys all this conversation about the continuing body and how that works. i differ with brian hon the

legalities of this but the important point is, they're in disarray on this. they went out creating a fundamental problem for their back benchers who are going to come in and try to blow the place up tomorrow. it'll be fascinating to see how they work this through and see how they work out the results. i'm looking forward to seeing it. >> i reserve the balance of my time. >> thank you all for your kind attention. thank our panelists again for this presentation. [applause] >> we hope you'll join us at heritage again on a future >> the congress convenes tomorrow at noon occult -- at noon.

the house will formally elect a new speaker, john boehner. members will then vote on house rules. we will air the opening session wednesday evening at 8:00. the senate will swear in new members and organize for the new session. house republicans say that repealing the health care law will begin on friday. a final vote is scheduled for january 12. even though the repeal is expected to pass the house, senate democrats said they will not bring it up. a few moments, rick scott is sworn in as florida's governor. in about half an hour, we will show you the first day of a couple of new sessions of congress.

you will hear nancy pelosi in 2007 and newt gingrich in 1995. after that, in today's news conference with house democratic leaders on their agenda for the new congress. the 100 cult congress dabbles in a wednesday with the swearing in of -- the 112th congress gavels in wednesday. >> rick scott has been sworn in as florida's 45th governor. the former health care executive took the oath of office in tallahassee in front of 2000 invited guests. this is half an hour. [applause]

>> i, rick scott, do solemnly swear that i will support, protect, and defend the constitution and government of the united states and of the state of florida. i am qualified to hold office under the constitution of the state. i will faithfully perform the duties of governor. on which i am now about to enter, so help me god. congratulations. god bless you. [applause]

[applause] [applause]

[applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, charlie crist. [applause] the former governor will not present the great seal of the state of florida to gov. scott. [applause]

ladies and gentlemen, gov. richard scott. [applause] >> thank you. please sit down. at least we have a nice weather now, right? it is florida. that is right. yesterday morning, -- i would not complain about this weather. first off, i think everybody for coming.

gov. christie could not have been more gracious during this transition period it. thank you very much. [applause] mr. president, mr. speaker, members of the cabinet, mr. chief justice, distinguished guests, my fellow floridians, thank you for coming. we gather today to talk about our future, to define where we want to go, and to plan how to get there. clear goals and hard work tended chief amazing things. -- can do amazing things.

florida will become the most exciting place in the world to live and work. let's begin by -- [applause] let's begin by facing the challenge of our times. is stalled economy. this morning, more than a million floridians got out of bed and face to another day of unemployment. they fill out applications. they beg for interviews. they face rejection after rejection. many people who once earned a good living, they found themselves with the skills and no job. some are young adults and got a degree and eager to get started on their lives, but could not find a job. others are middle-aged adults who have been steadily employed

for years and lost their jobs overnight. unemployed parents struggle to put on a brave face for their children, but it is hard to hide the fact that work is out of the door. life without a paycheck -- i have been a child and a home like that. my father was often laid off. i have a clear memory of their fear and uncertainty as the struggle to provide for five kids. for me, and job creation is might cause -- is my absolute mission. [applause] my personal memories fortify my commitment to this mission. there are millions of families across florida who will count on us to create jobs.

america was built on a process that anyone can succeed do is willing to work hard. when an economy falters, and jobs disappear, that american promise seems hollow. we will not let that happen in florida. [applause] but faced with a deep recession -- that is the approach the illustration is taking in washington. that is absolutely the wrong approach. [applause] it requires magical thinking to expect government to create prosperity. government has no resources of its own. [applause] government can only give to us

what has been quickly taken from us. [applause] a lean and limited government has a role to play. prosperity it comes from the private sector. only from the private sector. [applause] the only path to better days is paid with new private-sector jobs. in my own life, my first jobs were low-paying. they taught me discipline, they gave me self-respect, they may be a productive citizen. the availability of the stress jobs is essential to state

improvement and allies of young floridians -- in the lives of young floridians. florida has to develop a broader based economy with a wider diversity of employment opportunities. our natural resources, are wonderful climate, are beautiful beaches have given us a competitive advantage in agriculture and tourism. we have a long history as a critical national resources. those sectors will always be the bedrock of our economy. we have to capture the full spectrum. we need to manufacture more things in florida. we need to capitalize on our geographic location. we need to be, -- [applause]

we need to become a premier location for cutting edge technology. the people of florida elected me to get this state back to work. i agree -- i believe in this mission. we have hard-working people who are looking for jobs. we have energetic entrepreneur lori. [applause] modern businesses cannot locate anywhere. the conditions -- if the conditions that florida offers are not the best, they will look somewhere else. florida has to offer business people the biggest opportunities for financial success.

not a guarantee, just a fair chance. taxation, regulation, litigation reduced the chances for success. [applause] those three form the axis of unemployment. [applause] florida has refused to impose an income tax. we will eliminate the business tax and reduce the property tax. the state of florida raises enough revenues to meet its needs. it has to focus on spending those revenues smarter. demanding more accountability.

we will reexamine every regulation to see is banned -- to make sure its benefits outweigh its costs. there are some regulations that are essential for health and safety and to the protection of our environment, it is past time to demand that every regulation be re-evaluated. [applause] we will do a top to bottom review overall the regulations. today, i will sign an executive order creating a state office of fiscal accountability to review all proposed and existing regulations and determine their impact on job creation. [applause] every floridians should have a

right to access the court system. we will not allow excessive lawsuits to strangle job creation. we will not allow a small group of predatory lawyers to stop the business community in search of cheap products -- a deep pockets. [applause] ford vote will lose opportunities for job growth -- -- florida will lose opportunities for job growth. we have to do tort reform. no special interest should be allowed to triumph over the goal of full employment. job creators need to know that the great state of florida, we are here to work with business people, not against them.

[applause] it is very important to recruit companies from around the world. it is just as important to make sure that we take care of the homegrown companies right here in the home -- right here in florida. small businesses are the most vulnerable. interaction between business owners and government should not be confined to the demand of fees and more permanent. -- permits. our main message to job creators

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

agency is spending every dollar. we will get red -- will get rid of the programs that do not work. that will be in the paper. [laughter] we will become the most exciting place to live and work. we will clearly do that. [applause] will make a florida the place for innovation. we will encourage the out of the box and thinkers. we will become the place where high-quality education will be translated into high quality jobs. [applause] can you tell my focus is on

jobs? it will make it easy to grow and build a business in florida. we will tell the world, if you can dream it, it is easy to make it happen in the great state of florida. [applause] we have always been the destination for dreamers. the magic kingdom, a trip to the moon, freedom from a foreign tyrant, a better health, life without winter. large and small, and dreams are the stuff that florida is made of. few things matter to us as much as our health care and the education of each of our children. it is time to offer floridians

more choices, more opportunities to select the services they want and need. we are not going to claim to models created in the prior century. we will law allowed bureaucracy to make our decisions for us. every child is unique and every child can learn. we will have an education system that allows the maximum amount of choice. a system focused entirely on what is best for individuals to the learning, not for special interest. we will create a work force for the future -- we will not create a work force for the future when

we are stuck with an education model from the past. in the health care sector, top- down government programs treat patients like interchangeable parts. that will stop. we will treat patients like individuals, choosing their own doctors and making their own decisions. [applause] we will not allow bureaucrats and federal government to trample all over our relationships with their physicians. [applause] the very wealthy has plenty of

options, but for most floridians, they have far too little to say in how their children are educated. none of that is written in stone and it will change. we have to have the courage to change. we will refuse to allow the government into these areas. we will put people back into the driver's seat. when government does the buying, -- we are going to call the tune, not government. [applause] we will apply the same tools that businesses use, we will measure everything. we will hold everyone accountable. i expect to be held accountable.

we will do it. in the next few months, special interest will try to stop what we are doing. stand-up and help defend what we are trying to do. write letters to editors. let us know that you believe in what we are doing. i am determined to do everything i can -- i want to make a real and lasting improvement in the lives of fellow floridians. i believe that each of us is responsible to our maker for what we do. my maker is watching over my citizens and government. i will be resolute in seeking bulled positive change. positive change.

comorians have had a tough time. high unemployment and declines in our housing market. every generation, floridians have faced tough challenges. in the 18 eighties, at delphi art -- yellow fever hollowed out entire communities. in the 1940's, over a quarter of a million floridians served in uniform. in every decade, we have had to rebuild after horrific correct chance. -- horrific hurricanes. our current problems are absolutely sellable -- solvable. our future is in our hands. we are resilient people. [applause]

whether the national government takes the right steps or not, here in florida, we have but we need to make the next four years the most exciting time to live and work in florida. we will make it happen. [applause] this is the right time to act. it is an unbelievable opportunity for everybody in elected office. there is a tide in the affairs of man. i believe this is high tide. this is the time were we can do great things together. if we have the courage to act, our children and grandchildren will thank us for us. may god bless the great state of florida. let's get to work. thank you very much. [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, please remain standing. >> we at naples community church have but one regrets. we are going to miss these people. what work hard that all may work. let's pray fervently that all may be humbled. times,e thankful in good patient and the hard times, and worship at all times. to the glory of god, in the name of the father, and the holy spirit. amen. [applause]

♪ >> the 112th congress convenes tomorrow at noon. our coverage begins at 7:00 as "washington journal" takes your calls. the house will formally elect a new speaker, the john boehner air. we will air the opening session wednesday evening at 8:00. on c-span2, the senate will swear in the new members. house republicans say it -- with action on the rules for debate.

even though the repeal is expected to pass the house, senate democrats said they will not bring it up. in a few moments, we will show you the first day of a couple of new sessions of congress when control of the house changed parties. you'll hear nancy pelosi in 2007 and newt gingrich from 1995. in an however, today's news conference with democratic house leaders. after that, a look at proposed changes to the rules that govern filibusters in the senate. the 112th congress gavels in wednesday. watch live starting at 7:00 on "washington journal." interviews with leaders, reporters, and your calls.

>> the congressional black caucus halted ceremony tomorrow morning. you can see that live on our companion network c-span2 at 9:00. the house ceremonial swearing-in could last into the early evening. as the new congress is about to come into session tomorrow, we will show you the transition when the house majority changed in 2007. the incoming speaker and then was nancy pelosi. this is half an hour. >> madam speaker, my distinguished colleagues, welcome to you all.

we owe a huge debt to those who have served before us. i would be remiss if i did not mention the enormous contributions of one of my predecessors, gerald ford. former president ford served in the house over 25 years, including a of those years as republican leader from 1965- 1973. he served his michigan constituents and the american people with great distinction, not just here in congress, but as vice-president and as president. the fog and prayers in this house and those of a grateful nation are with the ford family. [applause]

this is an historic day. in a few moments, i will have the privilege of handing the gavel of the house of representatives today woman for the first time in american history. [applause] for more than 200 years, the leader of our government has been democratically selected.

from the ranks, our leaders have always selected a man for their responsibility and honor of serving as speaker of the house. always, until today. the founding fathers would not recognize the government that exists here in washington today. it has grown in size and scope far beyond anything they could ever imagined. much less in door store advocated for future. today marks an occasion that i think the founding fathers would view approvingly. my fellow americans, whether you are republican or in an -- republican or democrat, today is a cause for celebration. [applause]

today marks a change in the house majority. 12 years ago, our former colleague dick gephardt handed the gavel to the new republican speaker, newt gingrich from georgia. there were some great achievements during those 12 years that followed. therefore to know that the man who was the driving force behind many of those achievements will continue to serve with us. the gentleman from illinois. [applause] there were some great achievements during those 12 years that followed, and there were something profound disappointment.

a congressional majority is simply a means to an end. the value of the majority relies not and the chance that we yield great power, but in the chance to use limited power to achieve great things. we refer to the gavel but i'm holding as the speaker's gavel. like everything else, this really belongs to the american people. it is on loan from the real owners. this is the people's house. this is the people's congress. most people in america do not come -- do not care who controls it. they want a government that is limited, accountable, and responsive to their needs. the moment a majority for gets this lesson, it begins writing itself to a ticket to minority status.

the american people will dictate it. the democrat party assumes the challenge and opportunity of majority power in the people's house. republicans will hold the incoming majority accountable for its promises and its actions. we also want to work with the incoming majority for the good of our nation. [applause] a democracy is a battle of ideas. the battle of ideas is healthy and it is important for our nation. it is also a battle that can take place respectively. republicans and democrats can

disagree without being disagreeable to each other. what people call partisanship is really a deep disagreements over a means to a shared goal. we should welcome that conversation, encourage it, enjoy it, and be nice about it. [applause] it is now my privilege to present the gavel of the united states house of representatives to the first woman speaker in our history, the gentle lady from california, nancy pelosi. [applause]

>> thank you. thank you. thank you, my colleagues.

thank you, mr. speaker. i accept this gavel in the spirit of partnership, not partisanship. [applause] i look forward to working with you for the good of the american people. after giving this gavel away in this -- in the last two congresses, i am glad that someone else has the honor today. and this house, we may be different parties, but we serve a one country. our pride and our prayers are united behind our men and women in uniform. [applause]

they are working together to protect the american people and and this congress, we must work together to build a future where the other sacrifice. -- worthy of their sacrifice. in this hour, we need and pray for the character, courage, and civility of the former member of this house, president ford. he healed the country when it needed healing. this is another time, another war, and another trial of american well. -- will. let us honor his memory, not just in eulogy, but in dialogue

and trust across the aisle. [applause] i want to join the john boehner and expressing our condolences and appreciation to mrs. ford and to the entire ford family for their decades of leadership and service to our country. [applause] with today's convening of the 110th congress, we began anew. i congratulate all members of congress on your election. i especially want to congratulate our new members of congress. the joint and home -- blood to reform our new members of congress.

-- let's hear it for our new members of congress. [applause] the genius of our founders was that every two years, and new members would bring to this house renewal and hope for the american people. at this congress -- this congress is reinvigorated our commitment to our country. let us acknowledge your families and his support has majeure leadership possible today. -- has made your leadership possible today. [applause] each of us brings to this congress are shared values, our commitment to the constitution,

and our personal experience. my path to congress and to the speakership began in baltimore where my father was the mayor. i was raised in a large family that was devoutly catholic, a deeply patriotic, very proud of our italian-american heritage, and staunchly democratic. my parents taught us that public service was a noble calling. we had a responsibility to help those in need. i viewed them as working on the side of the angels. now they are with them. i am so happy that my brother, who was also a mayor of baltimore, it is here. [applause]

he is sitting right up there with tony bennett. [laughter] 43 years ago, i was married. we raised her five children in san francisco. i want to thank paul and our five children and our magnificent grandchildren for their love, support, and the confidence they gave me to go from the kitchen to the congress. [applause]

i thank my constituents in san francisco and to the state of california for the privilege of representing them in congress. st. francis of assisi is our city's patron saint. lord, make me a channel of the eyepiece. were there is darkness, maybe bring light. where there is hatred, may we bring love. where there is despair, maybe bring hope. hope is what america is about. [applause] today, i thank my colleagues. by electing me speaker, you has brought us closer to the ideals of equality that is america's

heritage and america's hope. this is an historic moment and i think the leaders for acknowledging it. it is an historic moment for the congress, for the women of america. [applause] it is a momentous for -- is a moment for which we have waited over 200 years. never losing faith, we waited to the many years of struggle to achieve our rights. women were not just waiting,

women were working. never losing faith, we worked to redeem the promise of america, that all men and women are created equal. [applause] for our daughters and granddaughters, today we have broken the marble ceiling. for our daughters and granddaughters, the sky is the limit. anything is possible. the election of 2006 was a call to change, not merely to change the control of congress, but for

a new direction for our country. nowhere were the american people more clear about the need for a new direction is that in the war in iraq. [applause] the american people rejected an open ended obligation to a war without end. shortly, president bush will address the nation on the subject of iraq. it is the responsibility of the president to articulate a new plan for iraq that makes it clear that they must defend their own streets and their own security. a plan that promotes stability