allows us to responsibly beat -- redeploy our troops. [applause] >> let us work together to beat the congress that's let's our military meet the national security challenges of the 21st century. [applause] let us be the congress that strongly onerous our responsibility to protect the american people -- strongly honors our responsibility to protect the american people from terrorism. [applause]

let us be the congress that never forgets our commitment to our veterans and our first responders, always honoring them as the heroes that they are. [applause] >> the american people also spoke clearly for a new direction here at home. they desire a new vision, a new america built on the values that have made our country great. our founders envisioned a new america driven by optimism, opportunity and strength. so confident were they in the america that they were advancing that they put on the great seal of the united states novos ordo

secorum, a new order for the century. they spoke of the century. they envisioned america as a just place, a fair and efficient society and a source of opportunity for all. this division has sustained us for over 200 years. it accounts for what is best in our great nation, liberty, opportunity and justice. [applause] know it is our responsibility to carry forth this vision of a new america into the 21st century. a new america that seizes the future and for just 21st century solutions through discovery, create teddy and innovation.

sustaining our economic leadership and insuring our national security. a new america with a vibrant and strength and middle-class for hunte college is affordable, health care is accessible and help -- retirement reliable. [applause] and >> a new america that declas our energy independence, promotes domestic sources of renewable energy and combats climate change. [applause] a new america that is strong, secure and a respected leader

among the communities of nations. [applause] and the american people told us they expected us to work together. for fiscal responsibility, with the highest ethical -- highest ethical standards and bipartisanship. [applause] >> after years of historic deficits, this 110th congress will commit itself to a higher standard. pay as you go, no new deficit spending. [applause]

our new america will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt. [applause] in order to achieve our new america for the 21st century we must return this house to the american people. our first order of business is passing the toughest congressional ethics reform in history. [applause] this new congress does not have two years or 200 days. let us join together in the first 100 hours to make this the

congress the most honest and open congress in history. 100 hours. [applause] >> this openness requires respect for every voice in the congress. as thomas jefferson said, every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. my colleagues elected me to be speaker of the house, the entire house. respectful of the vision of our founders, expectation of our people and the great challenges that we face. we have an obligation to reach beyond partisanship to work for all americans. [applause]

let us stand together to move our country forward, seeking common ground for the common good. we have made history. now let us make progress for the american people. [applause] may god bless our work in may god bless america. [applause] [applause]

before we move forward, because there are so many children so many asked me if they could touch the gavel. i wanted to invite as many of them to come join me up here. i know my own grandchildren will. let's hear it for the children. we are here for the children. [applause] [laughter] [applause] >> applaud these children again.

[applause] for these children, our children and all of america's children, the house will come to order. [applause] i am now ready to take the oath of office from the dean of the congress of the united states. i also want to acknowledge speaker folly who has been with us as well. [applause]

i am going to raise my hand. >> if the distinguished gentlewoman from california will raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, for an and domestic, that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. and you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of each patient. and that you will faithfully and well discharge the duty of the office upon which you are about to enter so help you god. >> i do. [applause] >> for these children, our

children and for all of america's children, house will come to order. >> with the start of the new congress this wed., look back at the opening of past sessions online at the c-span video library with every program since 1987. more than 160 hours. it is washington your way. when the new congress convenes tomorrow, control of the house changes from the democrats to republicans. that also happened in 1995. the incoming speaker then was newt gingrich. this is 45 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen of the house, i first want to thank my democratic colleagues for their support and confidence. i noted we were a little short.

but i appreciate your friendship and your support. this is not a moment that i had been waiting for. [laughter] when you carry the mantle of progress, there is precious little glory in defeat. but sometimes we spend so much time lionizing the winners that we lose sight of the victory we all share in this crown jewel of democracy. mr. speaker, this is a day to celebrate a power that belongs not to any political power -- political party but to the people, no matter the majority. all across the world from bosnia to south africa, people laid down their lives for the kind of voice we take for granted.

too often the transfer of power is an act of carnage, not one as we see today of peace and decency. but here in the house of representatives, for 219 years, long redan any democracy in the world we need the people's voice with peace and stability -- peace and civility and respect on this very floor. we echoed the hopes and dreams of these people, their hopes and their failures, their belief in a better america. we may not all agree with today's changing of the guard. we may not all like it. but we enact the people's will with dignity and honor and pride. in that endeavored there can be

no losers and there can be no defeat. in the 104th congress there will be conflict and compromise. agreements will not always be easy. agreements sometimes not always possible, but while we may not agree on batters of party or principal, we all applied with the will of the people. -- we all abide with the sill of -- will of the people. i speak from the bottom of my heart and i say that i wish you the best in these coming two years. when this gavel passes into your hands so do the futures of millions of americans. to

improve real people's lives, you both have to rise above partisanship. we have to work together where we can and where we must. it is a profound responsibility, one which knows no bounds of party or politics. it is the responsibility not for those who voted for you, not for those who cast their fate on your side of the aisle, but also for those who did not. these are the responsibilities i pass along with the gavel on hold. but there are some burdens that the democratic party will never cease to bear. the democrats we came to congress to fight for the middle income families. the family is often working for a longer hours and less pay in

jobs they are not sure they can keep. we must retain their faith that if they work hard and play by the roles they can build a better life for their children. mr. speaker, i want this entire house to speak for those families. the democratic party will, that mantle we will never laid to rest. [applause] so with partnership but with purpose, i pass this great gavel of our government. with resignation but with the results i hereby end 40 years of democratic rule of this house. [applause]

>> with faith and with french ship, -- friendship, with the deepest respect you are now my speaker, and let the great debate begin. i have the distinct privilege to present to the house of representatives our new speaker, the gentleman from georgia, newt gingrich. [applause] [applause]

[applause] >> let me say first all that i am deeply grateful to my good friend dick gephardt. i could not helped on my side maybe i overreacted to your statement ending 40 years of democratic rule.

i could not help to look over at knows everything dicks said was true. this is painful to lose. on my side of the aisle we have for 20 elections been on the losing side. yet there is something so wonderful about the process by which a free people decides things. that in my own case i lost two elections and with the help of my friend came close to losing two others. [laughter] i am sorry it did not quite work out. [laughter] yet i can tell you every time when the polls closed and i waited for the votes i felt good because we had been part of this process. in a little while i will ask the dean of the house to swear me in. to insist on the bipartisan

nature in the way we work in this house. john was one of the great stalwarts of the new deal, the man who created modern america. i think john is representing a tradition we all have to respect and recognize the america we will try to lead grew from that tradition. i also want to take a moment to thank speaker foley, who was a generous in everything that he and mrs. foley did to help me and my staff make the transition. he worked very hard to reestablish the dignity of the house. we can all be proud of the reputation he takes and of the spirit with which he led the speakership. our best wishes go to speaker and mrs. foley. [applause]

i also want to thank the various house officers who have been extraordinary. i want to say for the public record that faced with a result none of them wanted in a situation none of them expected, that within 48 hours every officer reacted as a patriot who bent over backwards and helped us. i am very grateful, can this house owes a debt of gratitude to every officer the democrats elected. [applause] this is an historic moment. i was asked how did it feel? the only words that comes close to adequate is overwhelming. i feel overwhelmed by all the

georgians who came out, overwhelmed by my extended family here, overwhelmed by the historic moment i stood on the balcony looking down the mall this morning. i was overwhelmed by the deal -- overwhelmed by the view. this sense of being part of america and this great tradition. i have two gavels. this is a georgia gavel i got this morning. it was signed by someone who decided the gavels he saw on tv were not strong enough. he cut down a tree and made a gavel and set it up here. this is the first georgia speaker in over 100 years. the last one had a weird accent, too. he was born in britain and his parents were actors. and secondly, this is a gamble

speaker martin used. -- the gavel speaker martin used. i want to comment on two men who served as my leader and for whom i learned so much. when i arrived as a freshman deeply dispirited by watergate and the loss of the presidency, banded together and worked with the leader who helped pave the way for our great victory of 1980. a man who did a marvelous job. i cannot speak too highly about what i learned about integrity from serving with him. he is here with us today. i hope all of you will recognize congressman john rhodes of arizona. [applause]

let me say also that at our request he was not sure he would be here at all. i insist that he come down front. virtually every democrat will say this is a man who loves the house and represents the best spirit of the house. a man who i hope i can always rely on for advice and i hope i can emulate in his commitment to this institution and his willingness to reach beyond his personal interests i want you to join me in thanking him for his years of service congressman bob michael. [applause]

i am very fortunate that i have my mom and my dad here. i am so delighted that they are both able to be here. sometimes when you get to my age you cannot have everyone near you you would like to. i cannot say how much i learned from my dad in his years of serving in the u.s. army, and my mom who is my most and is est cheerleader. my daughters are up. -- most enthusiastic cheerleader. and the person who is my closest friend and who i listened to 20% more, my wife mary ann. [applause]

i have not a very large extended family. they are virtually all in town. we have done our part for tourist season. when i first came on the floor earlier i saw a number of the young people here on the floor. the young adults who are close to 12 years of age. [laughter] i cannot help but think sitting in the back we all know the center of the house -- one of my nephews who is 5 and susan brown who is 6. they are all back there.

they are my nieces and my nephew. i could not help but think as a way i wanted to talk with every member that these young people you see around you are what this is all about, much more than the negative advertising can the interest groups and the things that make politics cynical and miserable. what makes politics worthwhile is that the choice as dick gephardt said as what we see tragically on the evening news and the way we try to do it is to work hard to make this system of free government work. the only reason for doing that is these children and the country they will inherit. we are starting the 104th congress.

for 208 years we gather together, the most diverse country in the world and sent all sorts of people. we could find at least one member we thought was -- it would be different for every one of them. because we do allow the right of a free people to send a diversity of people here. brien from c-span read timmie in a phrase -- read to me a phrase that was so central to the house. henry clay always preferred the house. he preferred the house to the senate. he said the house is more dynamic and comment. he wrote, "often there is not a distinguished man in the whole

member. its members are almost obscure individuals whose names bring no associations to mind. they are mostly village lawyers or persons belonging to the lower classes of society. if you put women-with men -- women in with men i don't know if we change much. this had a meaning the world would do well to study. it was an aristocrat. he lived in a world of kings and princes. the folks to come here, by the single act that their citizens chose them. i don't care whether you are younger or older. i don't care whether you were born in america or are a naturalized citizen, everyone of

these people had equal standing because their citizens freely sent them. they should have a right to participate. it is the most marvelous act of a giant country trying to argue and have a great debate to reach great decisions. not by bombing one of our regional capitals or killing people, by having it snipers. let me say i condemn all acts of violence against the law by all people for all reasons. this is a society of law. [applause] here we are as commoners together.

americans all. steed gave me a copy of the portable abraham lincoln and suggested for me to learn about our party. but it does not have a copy -- her to have a copy of fdr. this is a great people. if there is any one factor that strikes me as i stand up here as the first republican in 40 years, i first became whip in 1989 russia was beginning to change. into my office came eight russians and a lithuanian. members of the communist party, newspaper editors and they asked me what does a whip do? in russia we have never had a free parliament since 1917.

what do you do? i tried to explain. it is a little strange if you are from a dictatorship. if you pressure these people they will not reelect you. you have to somehow find -- democracy is hard. we came in the chamber and the lithuanians was in his late 60s's. i allowed him to come up here and be speaker. that is something many of us have done with constituents. he came out of the chair and he was physically trembling. he said ever since world war ii i remembered what the americans did. i never believed the propaganda, but i did not think in my life i would be able to sit at the center of freedom. it is one of the most

overwhelming times of my life. i could not help to think of when i was here with president mandela and thought of the great work ron had done. and that sense of emotion when you see something totally different. while presidents are important, they are elected. this and the other body across the way our where freedom has to be fought out. that is the tradition i hope we will take with us as we go to work. today at a bipartisan for -- prayer service frank wolf said we have to recognize many of our most painful problems or moral problems dealing with ourselves and life. character is the key to leadership. he preached a little bit about a

spirit of reconciliation. he talked about caring about our spouses and our families. if we are not prepared to model that, then by what arrogance do we think we will transcend our behavior to care about others? that is why we have established a bipartisan task force. we have established the principle that we will set schedules so families can count on times to be together so that families can get to know each other not just on c-span. [applause] that means one of the strongest recommendations of the bipartisan committee -- i don't want this to be seen as newt

gingrich acting as a speaker on his own. we have 17 minutes to vote. if you take the time we had last congress. at one point we had a 45 minute vote. you can get people home if we can be stripped and firm. firm. leave at the first bell and not the second bell. [applause] this may seem particularly appropriate to say on the first day because this will be the busiest day of congressional history. i want to read a part of the contract not as a partisan act, but to remind all of us what we are about to go through. those to us ended up in the

majority who signed a contract -- here is part of what it says. on the first day of the congress the new majority will pass the following major reforms at restoring the trust of the american people. will acquire all laws that apply to the rest of the country equally to congress. select a major independent auditing firm for waste and it is. cut the number of house committees by one-third. limit the terms of all committee chairs. ban the casting of proxy votes. require committee meetings to be open to the public. require a 3/5 majority vote to pass a tax increase. i told dick last night if i had to do it over again we would have pledged within three days

we would do this. we got ourselves in a box. i carry the tv guide version of the contract with me at all times. we said within the first 100 days we shall bring the following bills. each to be given a fair folk and immediately available for inspection. we looked at 10 items. stop violent criminals and the sizing and effective death penalty. protecting our kids. that was tax cuts for families. sixth was a stronger national defense. eighth was rolling back government regulations. ninth was common sense urrego reform. 10th was congressional term limits. we have this absolute obligation to work towards this.

that will inconvenience people, but we were hired to do a job. i would say to our friends in the democratic party that we are going to work with villa and are laying out its schedule to make sure that we can set a date certain to go home. if we are running short, we will have long recessions. we will try to work this out in a bipartisan basis. it will mean the busiest early months since 1933. i think there are two giant challenges. i know i am a partisan figure but i hope i can speak to my friends in the democratic party about these challenges i hope we can have a dialogue. one is to achieve a balanced

budget by 2002. [applause] i think democratic and republican governors will tell you it is doable but it is hard. adon't think it is doable in year. this is a complicated job. we have to find a way to truly replace the welfare state with an opportunity society. first on the balanced budget. i think we can get it done. the baby boomers are old enough that we can have a dialogue about resources and what works. i have already told vice president gore we will invite him to address the republican conference. i believe there are grounds for us to work together to have

hearings together. if we set priorities, apply the principles and build on the vice president's governmental effort, focus on transforming and not just cutting. are there ways to do it better? can we learn from the private sector? i think on a bipartisan basis we this government in order and pay our way. 2002 is a reasonable time frame. i would hope we could open a dialogue with the american people. social security ought to be off- limits for the first five years because it will destroy us. let me say about everything else, weather it is medicare or defense.

the greatest democratic president of the '20s -- twentieth century said it right in 1933 when he stood with a time-a man who had polio. he was president of the united states and stood in front of this capital and said we have nothing to fear but fear itself. if everyone of us will reach on a bipartisan basis. i hope we can arrange by late spring to share districts where you will have a republican who may not know a thing about your district agreed to go for a long weekend and we begin and openness that is totally different than people are used to seeing. if we do that we can create a

dialogue that can lead to a balanced budget. no republican here should kid themselves about it. the greatest leaders in fighting for an integrated america were in the democratic party. the fact is it was the liberals that ended segregation. it was franklin delano roosevelt who gave hope to a nation in despair. the fact is every republican has much to learn from studying what the democrats did right. but i would say to my friends the democratic party there was much do what ronald reagan was trying to get done. there is much to be done by what republicans are doing today. as much we can share with each

other. we must replace the welfare state. the balanced budget is the right thing to do but it does not give moral urgency of coming to grips with what is happening to the poorest americans. he goes back for 300 years and look at what has worked with america. how we have reached out to save people. he has the right sense of where we need to go as americans. i don't believe there is a single american who can see a news report of a 4-year-old thrown off a public housing project by other children and not feel -- i think of my nephew in the back.

our children? how can any american read about and 11-year-old. with his teddy bear because he killed someone in another one killed him. and not have a sense of where has this country gone? this is a crisis equal to segregation. how can we not insist every day we take steps to do something? [applause] i have seldom been more shaken than i was after the election when i had members of -- breakfast with members of the black caucus. someone said cannula imagine what it is like to visit a first grade class and realize every

fifth young boy may be dead or in jail within 15 years? and you are helpless to change it? maybe because i visit a lot of schools. that got through. that made it real. then i tried to explain part of my thoughts by talking about the need for alternatives to the bureaucracy. we got it into a cheap debate about orphanages. my father who is here today was a foster child adopted as a teenager. i am adopted. we have relatives who are adopted. we are not talking about some impersonal middle-class intellectual model. we have lived the alternatives.

i believe when we are told the children are so lost in bureaucracy is that there are children in dumpsters. there are children doomed to go to schools where 70% will not graduate. we're told housing projects are so dangerous that any private sector ran then they would be put in jail. we will study it and get around to it. my point is we can find ways to immediately to do things better and break through the bureaucracy and give every american child a better chance. [applause]

let me suggest to you the new book -- it is fascinating. it is saying the 21st century may have to create our own safety net. he draws a distinction between caring and caretaking. caretaking is when you bother me a little bit where i do a little and feel better. but he may be an alcoholic and i gave you the money to buy the bottle that kills you. caring is actually stopping and dealing with a human being and trying to understand enough about them to make sure you improve your life even if you have to start with a conversation like, if you quit drinking i will help you get a job. i want to commend every member

to look carefully. to those who believe in privatisation you cannot explain that as long as business is making money we can walk by a fellow american who is hurt and not do something. you cannot look at some of the results we have and not want to reach out to the humans. if we could build that attitude on both sides , we would be a different place and the country would begin to be a different place. we have to create a partnership. we are going to do a lot of important things. we are going to give thanks to the congress. we are going to be on-line for the whole country. we are working with c-span and others and congressman gephardt has agreed to make this more accessible to the american

people. we have talk radio hosts here. i hope to have an effort to make this place accessible for all backgrounds. the office will be much more aggressively run on a bipartisan basis to reach out to others to teach what this struggle is about. over time we will rethink campaign reform and review all aspects and rethink what our role should be. but that is not enough. our challenge should not be too balance the budget. we are supposed to be leaders i think our challenge will be our goal. this ought to be the goal that we tell people we believe in. that there will be a monday

morning when it not a single child is killed anywhere in america. a monday morning when every child in the country went to a school they thought prepared them as citizens and monday morning when it was easy to find a job and your government did not punish you if you tried. [applause] we should not be happy just where the language of politicians. we should insist that our success for america is found in the neighborhoods and felt by real people living real lives. we can say we are safer, better educated, america succeeds.

this morning's prayer service was the battle hymn of the republic. it is hard to look to the lincoln memorial. i realize how difficult that battle was. let us live to make men free. if you cannot afford to leave the public housing project you are not free. if you don't know how to find a job you are not free. if you cannot find a place to educate, you are not free. if you're afraid to walk to the store because you could -- you could get killed, you are free. i want us to dedicate ourselves to reach out in a non-partisan

way to be honest with each other. without regard to party, my door will be open. i will listen to each of you. i will try to work with each of you. i will guarantee i will listen to you first. you have been patient with me today and gave me a chance to set the stage. but i want to close by reminding all of us how much bigger this is than us. beyond working together, we can only be successful if we start with our limits. i was struck by something this morning with a quote from benjamin franklin. when the constitutional convention was deadlocked and there was a possibility it was going to break up. franklin had been relatively

quiet suddenly stood up and was angry. he said i have lived a long time. the longer i live, the more convincing proofs i see of this truth that god governs in the affairs of men. is it probable and empire can rise without his aid? the constitutional convention stopped, took a day off for prayer and having stopped and come together, they solved the great question and wrote the great united some -- wrote the constitution. all i can do is pledge you if each of us will reach out to try to understand the other, that we will recognize in this building we symbolize america, that we have an obligation to talk with

each other. then i think one year from now we can look at the 104th congress as an amazing institution without regard to party. we can say here america comes to work and here we are preparing for those children. thank you, good luck, and god bless you. let me now call on mr. dingle. [applause] [applause]

[applause] >> i am now ready to take the oath of office. i ask the hon. john dingell of michigan to administer the oath of office. >> will the gentleman of georgia please raise his right hand? do you solemnly swear you will support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. that you will bear true faith and allegiance? that you take this obligation freely without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion. that you will faithfully discharge the duties of the office about which you are about to enter. >> i do. >> congratulations. [applause]

[applause] [applause] >> according to the president, the chair will swear in all members. the members of the state of alabama will also be sworn in brit if the members will rise, the chair will administer the oath of office. please all of you raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the

constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic. that you will bear true faith and allegiance. that you take this obligation freely without many -- any mental reservation. and you will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of which you are about to enter so, help you god. congratulations. the gentlemen and gentle women are now members of the 104th congress. [applause] >> for these children and all of america's children, the house will come to order.

>> with the start of the new congress this wed., look back at the opening of past sessions on line at the video library. with every c-span program since 1987. more than 160 hours. it is washington your way. >> in a few moments on the house agenda for republican and democratic leaders. in 45 minutes, a look at the proposal to change the rules for a senate filibuster is, including remarks from lamar alexander of tennessee. then rick scott is sworn in as florida posh 51st governor. >> the 112th congress gavels in wednesday. watch live starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on "washington journal."

right up to when the house gavels in at noon, on c-span. >> more about the republican agenda for the new session of congress. this briefing was on capitol hill after meeting with gop members. >> how are you going? and evening. we're very happy that we have been able report out an unprecedented rules package we will be considering on the house floor tomorrow afternoon of all hands what we talked about during the transition, dramatically enhancing transparency, and closer --

disclosure, and accountability. we had a debate in the republican conk france on this and we are together on these issues -- conference on this and we're together on this issues. in working with greg on a trance -- transition committee, not only have we had the highest level of member involvement, we have actually consulted with democrats through this. to my knowledge that has never been done before and i do not say that an expectation that they will be in support of the package. but as you talk to the democrats who were designated, they are two individuals who follow the process and i do not want to speak for them, but we are encouraged by some of the things that we're working on. i think we have a wonderful opportunity tomorrow afternoon to bring back the kind of accountability and transparency that the american people desperately want and have the

rules package focused on job creation and economic growth, but top priorities of this 112th congress. >> thank you, david. i also want to thank his staff. this is an unprecedented rules package. it will transform this house back to the people's house. it is the people's business, the taxpayers' money, and they have the right not only to observe what goes on in our committees but participate more fully in the process. having legislation available on- line for of least three days, further opening up the committee process what better scheduling, i think it will lead to better policy and that is what we should be about -- how to get a better policy with a lot of creative minds, but sides of the aisle. the nation faces huge challenges. this is weekend -- we can fix the process is to address these challenges. this rules package puts in charge the taxpayer when it comes to trying to reduce the

cost of government. there is no more autopilot on spending. there is the opportunity to reduce the deficit. i think that is unprecedented. it will be controversial but it is long overdue. we had at the discussion as david mentioned. we let it go forward with the rules package in going to the floor with the proposal that i have been asked to be put forward to reduce the spending in congress by 5%. appropriation -- appropriators will take a 9% cut in the appropriations committee. we have to lead. the american people are making sacrifices and facing tough times. it is time for leaders in government to do the same. we will leave with that and we will draft the spending problems that we have. we will be glad to take? two. >> while the their -- while

there be a closed rule on the health care committee? today we're going to in fact repeal the health care measure. that was the message that the american people sent on november 2. what we have argued is that we need to have a transparent and more open process when it comes to the replacement which is what we're going to be doing. on thursday at rules committee, we will let cameras in the room, an opportunity for members to oppose -- propose amendments. my recommendation will be that when the process begins at the committee level, that is when these ideas need to be heard and then at the end of the day when we have the measure that would in fact replace come for, we would have a transparent and more open process on the house floor. when this measure was committed -- considered, there was not this kind of open. sadly we have just completed the 111th congress which has at the most closed record in the

history of this country. the message we said was a clear one. we are going to be a spending time in the rules committee on this, but at the end of the day, if there is one sentence which repeals the bill which is the pledge that we made, that is what we're going to proceed with. >> [inaudible] >> our goal is to pass it out of the house. we said we would do this. the measure would repeal the job-killing health care bill that president obama put forward. what we want to do -- it is not an asterisk. we're saying that this is one sentence. our goal is to make sure that the democrats and republicans who are denied an opportunity to participate in the process as it moved forward will through the

committee structure that we will have for the replace mechanism which will be -- they will be able to get this update. -- that will be able to participate. >> care is a lot more power given to the chairman of the budget committee to in some ways write the budget himself. what is your reaction to that. >> yes. first of all they had a full year to actually promulgate a budget, put it before the house, and pass it. if passed the appropriation bills, ascended to the president. they controlled the house the senate and the white us and they failed to put forward a budget. they left us with a continuing resolution that runs out in march. we have to move rapidly. this is not unprecedented when it comes to the budget committee. we intend to get this in process and begin a full budget process. if we will go for it for the next fiscal year. they could have acted. they should have acted.

they abdicated their responsibility and let us in this large. we are going to move toward and finish up this year and start on the next fiscal year. i think it is fully appropriate and we need to get going to cut back on spending, to get a budget in place. >> the of budget committee and the appropriations committee are focused on reducing the size and scope and reach of government, and encouraging economic growth. and it is clear that the authority needs to be there to do that. it is as transparent as can become a that is what the goal is. the chairman of the appropriations committee describes this committee as that this appropriations committee. i have heard him say that -- as the disappropriations committee. we have had the cuts in non discretionary spending. what the chairman of the appropriations committee and chairman of the budget committee are committed to is to reversing that. i am convinced that this rules

package, which again is unprecedented, and it is not focused on creating a climate to increase spending, but rather to create climbing double be focused on reducing the size and scope and reach of the federal government, and by virtue of that we will be on the same page. >> keep in mind, this is the first time the rules package has been out there this bar bands and online just as our role conference rules were put out on line. i assume they will be at some point. we are trying to move this forward. this is a big institution. >> it is a great. vein. on december 22, the head the transition committee took and put this out for everyone to say. again, having gone through this myself, for eight years as the chairman of the role committee in the past, this is something that we put together but we never did it with this kind of openness. that is why i am very impressed in the way that we're doing it this way, not only much better than it was done by if the majority moving out now, but

those of us did when we were in the majority in the past. >> [inaudible] what changes will be in the roles? >> we are just going through right now. they were a couple of amendments that were accepted and we are in the process of putting that those together right now. we obviously want to do everything we can to ensure that we reduce spending. and transparency was our guide. when it came to this issue, ensuring that with the spending reduction account, which will now be in the house rules when it passed as the mark, we will have that dollar amount set aside before it goes into the senate. we cannot control what the senate does. but we know this -- we cannot

control what they do but it is obvious that we can make the parents what has happened in the house of representatives. there is going to be a greater accountability and that is why we have a provision that we have they will be the proper one to provide what it is that we need. >> we will have a tough budget number to begin with, a very conservative budget number to begin with. what we are talking about is reductions to the current and below that number. >> [inaudible] >> and we're going to be focused on bringing about those cuts in the house. but again, the very important part of the talent that we have, we want to work in a bipartisan way and we can put together on a joint committee, the house and the senate, for us to look at reform in the 1974 budget and impoundment act, something i hope to put into place so that

we can work in a bicameral as well as a bipartisan way. but at this juncture, the rule that we have is one that is focused on bringing about the spending cuts and in making it fully transparent when the issue is addressed. you did at the end of the day, we still have to get an appropriation bill down to the president for any changes in spending to take effect. >> you talk a lot about this. democrats accused republicans of using enron-type gimmickry how to address -- gimmickry. how do you address the criticisms? >> on the tax cuts, but we have a philosophical difference. sorry, we do not believe it is the government's money to start with.

we believe it is the individuals' money. so we have a philosophical difference when it comes to tax cuts. in terms of spending, you can make the argument that obamacare took 10 years of expenditures in six years our revenues and said it brought it down. they knew or did we will move with the replacement to the general order. -- we will move with the replacement through the general order. we are going to be very transparent about it, we'll have our committees organized and they have to do that work in you will see to it and you would get to observe it in an unprecedented manner in this building. thank you. >> thank you all very much. happy new year.

>> up next, house democratic leaders outlined their party's agenda for the next congress. led by outgoing speaker nancy pelosi, this news conference is at a little more than a half- hour. >> we will measure every policy from both parties as it comes forth as to whether it creates jobs, whether it strengthens the middle class, or reduces the deficit instead of keeping mountains of -- keeping mountains of debt onto our children and our grandchildren. we pledge to work together with our republican colleagues to address the challenges addressing america's working families. we must solve their problems.

and when the suggestions put forth are problem solvers for the american people, the republicans will find in the democrats willing partners. some focus has been made as we note how's your press will continue to protect the gains that we have made on behalf of health and economic security for the american people, both in terms of the health care reform bill and the wall street reform bill, giving leverage to america's working families. a health reform bill created a patient's bill of a lot -- patients' bill of rights, placing decisions and 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, then people can stay on their parents' plan until age 26, and pregnant and breast cancer and prostate cancer patients can no longer be thrown

off the insurance rolls as some examples of what can happen. in order to have a patient's bill of rights, it is important have comprehensive health care reform. leading our efforts within our caucus, i am very pleased today to give you our majority leader -- democratic leader of the house, steny hoyer. some of the members who are here, chris van hollen, the ranking member on the budget committee, rosa delauro who worked with congressman george miller as co-chair of that committee, bob andrews who gave as the master class on many issues facing the congress, including health care. and i am pleased to be announcing today expanded roles 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 biased chairs of the steering and policy committee. -- would be nice chairs --vice chairs of the steering and policy committee. many of you know that she is a leader on the appropriations committee and 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 on our democratic priorities of job creation, deficit reduction, in strengthening the middle class. henry cuellar is a leader in terms of deficit reduction in the congress. i am very 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 passed before -- steny hoyer brought to the floor was cuellar's legislation for procurement.

it was the greatest procurement reform and since the 1990's. he was in pursuit of passing that ledges which has long been a priority for our caucus and former democratic caucus. i salute him for that and i looked forward to six expanded role in deficit-reduction, procurement reform, ending was, fraud, and abuse, and making the right balance decisions as we go forward to create jobs, reduce the deficit, and protect the middle class. with their leadership, the democrats will present a strong message to the american people, jobs first, insuring a thriving middle-class, and be responsible as we do so. until now -- now it is my pleasure to turn things 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, if the new vice chair of the steering and policy committee, with special responsibility for communicating with each and every one of you, congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz. >> thank you so much. they do, madam speaker, for giving me this important responsibility. i look forward to making for that all this can work together on 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 such, as the speaker mentioned, that democratic caucuses that will measure the republican effort -- the democratic guard ship will be does it create jobs, does it strengthen the middle class, and does it reduce the deficit? when the republicans put forward solutions that meet those three tests, we will be standing ready to work with them.

but what will we have a hearing -- heard so far 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 a company abuses and gives people more individual freedom. under the republican repeal efforts come interest companies would once again be of a truck people when they get sick, exactly when coverage is needed most -- be able to draw people when they get sick. all insurance companies would be able to impose devastating annual and lifetime caps. young people would not be of a stay on their parents' insurance until they are age 26. pregnant people and breast cancer survivors would be denied coverage for seniors would face cent increase in their prescription drug costs. millions would be thrown back into the doughnut hole. it would deny seen as a 50% cut in their brand-name prescription drugs we created -- recreating the devastating coverage gap. it would hurt millions of americans.

in south florida where i'm from, and 19-year-old teenager in miami has lupus. she has expensive medication has had frequent hospital stays. she is on her mom's insurance but without the health care reform law, she would soon become ineligible to stay on that insurance and would have been virtually uninsurable given her conditions. now she can remain on her mom's insurance plan through age 26 and after that she will be of a purchase insurance in the exchange even though she has a pre-existing condition. that will provide for a bridge until she is 26 years old. it does not mean just benefits for people with chronic illnesses. i was in the grocery store recently and a woman came up to me and literally put her hands on my shoulders and said, and debbie, thank you. thank you for passing health care reform produce $83,000 last year when i was able to put my two adult daughters back on my insurance plan. -- i was able to save $3,000 last year when i was able to put

my two adult daughters back to my insurance plan. this year thousands of my constituents on medicare will receive free annual well as bids as an receive that 50% discount on brand-name prescription. this obsession to repeal health care reform is good to her real people. it could damage our fragile economic recovery if by spending several -- countless hours focusing on this rather than on jobs, the economy, and deficit reduction. every minute wasted is one less minute the republicans will spend on job creation and turning this economy around. fruitlessly trying to knit health care to debt will take a set number time and staff time. we cannot take our eyes off the process of renewing our economic recovery. we will watch for every republican hypocrisy and call them on it when we see it. it is not my privilege to turn the podium over to my colleague and ally, henley -- henry cuellar. >> thank you for the opportunity

to serve and i want to thank the leadership. for all the work they have done. we did a lot in alaska after years. the one thing about the economy and the burden on our children and grandchildren, reducing the deficit and the national debt, the deficit and the national debt, 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 new majority to do the same. the good ideas that we've established like a go and other ideas we've established over the last quarter years. what we want this to sign a brighter light and government agencies. it is imperative that we aggressively examine all expenditures increasing

transparency and accountability to get there. we now have a bill they will be signed by the president in a way that we may not for political reason, but we may serve because this is what our taxpayers are asking us to do. let's talk about the debt. if you recall, the paygo that expired in early 2000, after it expired, our government at this school u-turn. going from a 5.6 -- $5.6 trillion surplus, to $11 trillion deficit. debt accounts for almost 50% of u.s. debt with china as an example, holding over $800 billion. government bonds can lead to higher interest rate, making it more expensive for families to borrow money to finance an

impact at home or in education or small business. paygo with the advocacy of efforts like the blue dogs, we reinstituted statutory paygo 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 paygo brought budget surpluses like we had in the 1990's. amid talk about this bill that we just passed. we will be doing a lot of work on how we spend money and how we do this. but we have a statute or built the will be signed that brings increased transparency and accountability. it is as a result-oriented tool and says performance targets for agencies. agencies will now be subject to provisions and made accountable for their performance.

not for political reasons, but on their performance and their results. this agencies under this new bill that underperform or are ineffective can face budget cuts or even elimination. performance and not for political reason. but as we aim to reduce the deficit and the national debt, we must be smart and still invest in the future of our country. education and transportation must to be priorities for us. thank you. at this time, however like to ask mr. hoyer to approach. >> well i will approach. good morning. this week we are beginning a new congress. what then is the election cycle -- we have finished the election cycle. it seemed to me they were too compelling messages. those messages are, we need to grow the jobs in the economy,

and the second is we need to address the deficit and debt. speaker pelosi has asked to extraordinary members of the congress of the united states, one from florida, debbie wasserman schultz, who is 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 their constituents whether they be in grocery stores taking her by the shoulders or anyplace else in this country. she has heard their message and 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 in america and making 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 and the 9.5% unemployment and we need to get people back to work by focusing on jobs. to the extent that our republican colleagues do just that, they will find us willing partners to 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. the economy is growing. we now need to bring that jobs unemployment number down. in november, the 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 committed to do. together we can work to strengthen american business, rebuild the american manufacturing and middle-class jobs, and make the hard fiscal choices that are necessary to stay -- stave off crisis. hi. unfortunately that the rules package that the republicans are going to offer will make the deficit were, not better. it will explode deficits as has been the case in years past. attempting to change as they did in the early 2000's, the paygo premise that you 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 us up

focused and tenacious opposition when we're doing -- when they are doing things we think undermines the economy and explodes the deficit. we will work every day to hold a republican accountable for the promises they have made to the american people. above all, we are proud to be the party of working people. and the 30 days, approximately, of a lame duck session, we reached out to working people to make sure that they could succeed. we reached out to those who through no fault of their own or unemployed and passed unemployment insurance. we pledged the 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 the bright future for our country.

we are headed in a direction that is positive. we need to continue on that road and i note that under the leadership of debbie wasserman schultz and henry cuellar of texas who has been a strong proponent of fiscal responsibility, that we will be successful in that effort, and again i say to my republican colleagues, i congratulate mr. boehner on his victory, mr. cantor on his taking a title that i really like to have. you can keep calling me that if you want. i will not object. but i understand that elections have consequences. the fact of the matter is that the american public want to see progress, not division. they want to seek jobs, not simply political rhetoric. they're 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 of vice chairs of our policy committee, joining george miller and rosa delauro, making sure that we keep the faith with the american people who want to see a better america. a growing economy. and the confidence in the future. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, mr. leader. i congratulate ms. wasserman schultz and mr. cuellar for the

tournament responsibility. we look forward to working with them, how proud we are of their leadership, debbie wasserman schultz of florida and henry cuellar of the great state of texas. with that, all the members here would be pleased to take any questions you may have. >> you have talked a lot about jobs and the debt. do you ever press that you did not use the two years you that total demand the -- total democratic control of government to focus more on jobs and the deficit? >> know, as a matter that, we in the house of representatives on any number of occasions sent very 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, or

delivering new breed technologies to keep america competitive and number one. no, we have no regrets. this house over and over again since senate -- set the senate legislation switched the republicans held up. it has been a high priority for us. it has been our mantra, pay as you go. unfortunately they will be changed now. this administration and this congress inherited and near depression, and so the initiative that we took was positive for the american people. it was not enough to save people from 9.5% unemployment. it 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. it was an historic achievement. looking back?

>> actually i do not really look back. i look forward. we look forward to being a willing partner in solving the problem of the american people. when our republican colleagues have a positive solutions, they will have a willing partner in solving problems for the american people. how would join mr. hoyer in congratulating speaker-to-be boehner and republicans for their majority. we look forward to working with them but that is the key -- we look forward. >> congressman washerman cells mentioned other parts of the health-care part. you did not mention the individual mandate. is it negotiable? >> no, but i said that if you're going to have a patient's bill of rights, you have to have

comprehensive health care reform. so the others will say, i support not having pre-existing conditions being a reason for loss of coverage, but if you do not have comprehensive reform, otherwise you're giving insurance companies the ability to raise the rates through the roof. it all goes together. >> 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've passed in the hat -- and the president signed last year. the ec and on wise thing to do is to save that you're for covering people with pre- existing conditions, but not have enough people in the insurance pools to prevent mass some premium increase for the middle class. if the new majority was to raise premiums on the middle class, no, we will not join them in

that. >> thank you. they also talk about being -- making deficit reduction a priority. if the first thing out of the gate they are planning is to repeal health care reform, which explodes the deficit. we get $143 billion in deficit reduction in the first 10 years and $1 trillion in the second 10 years. what we're going to be watching for is the republican hypocrisy. where they continued their meaningless, in a campaign rhetoric, which when they get there and a year -- they are in charge now, they will either do the opposite of what they campaigned on or simply hypocritical policies. >> on that. maine, if i could say -- on that. bank, it added to say, they will employed budget gimmicks, to try to hide the cost of their options. they will engage in enron-type

accounting to say that when they move to try to repeal health care a week from tomorrow, that the hit on the deficit will not matter. that would try to magically make that go away as part of a role. 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 the mark, it will be very clear that it is back to the same old games. exhibit a is this provision and the rules that says we're not going to count the cost to the american people and the deficit of appealing health care reform. we're going to make it somehow magically disappear. >> let me just mention -- first of all, the first question about the jobs. keep in mind that in december of 2009, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month.

at this time we're actually increase in jobs. not everything happen january 2009 that actually -- it started before that. i have a copy of the resolution that they are -- they will be looking at to instruct their committees to replace some of the health care. i would just mention a few of them. lower health-care premiums to increase contributions. we do that already. allow people to keep health care plans. we have that already in the health care bill. provide people with pre-existing conditions access to health care. we did that already. increase the number of insured americans. we have that. provide state assistance for medicaid programs. we have that already. prohibit taxpayers funding of

abortions and provide for health care. we have that already. eliminate duplicated government programs and wasteful government spending. we surely have the already because we were working on that. do not increase the tax burdens of americans. we just passed attached reduction bill. this is something we have already but this is an exercise we will be doing some very >> one comment since everyone has spoken about this. the fact is that this is nothing more -- this repeal of healthcare is political theater. it is a kabuki dance. i am quoting some journalist this morning to mention this. i do not remember the name, but the fact of the matter is that we're not going to repeal healthcare. it is not going to happen. it's very interesting their choice of words. it's "repeal." there is nothing about

replacement. what is going to replace all those items that have been laid out, that yes, even at these early stages, the public have come to appreciate? when you're child can stay until age 26. when you have a pre-existing condition in you cannot get insurance. when you are 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 am going to make one, more, which is in general. it is sorely lacking in faith that the republicans have made in 24 hours, given the repeal of health care. jobs and the economy, and what they have talked about will be ruinous to the economy and to

the middle class. cutting education, cutting transportation -- there will be more unemployment as a result of what they want -- of where they want to go. deficit reduction? if it were not so sad, it would be laughable, given the rules that they have come up with in their party. what they will do to mask the growth in the deficit, 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 in manufacturing? what 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're going. thank you. >> in say on the health reform bill, if everyone in america was very pleased with his or her health insurance, and had no complaints, and had access to quality affordable health care in our country, it still would have been necessary for us to pass the 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 billions of people are excluded from it and people are thrown off their policy if they become sick or their policy is rescinded if they -- we know the pre-existing conditions exclude. we know that list covered by the patient bill of rights. that would be reason alone to

do it. but the sustainability of the cost of healthcare to individual families, to small businesses, to corporate america, to our economy in terms of our competitiveness internationally, and also to our federal budget, it is unsustainable. that is why this comprehensive health-care reform, one of the main reasons it was necessary. as congressman wasserman schultz said, all hundred billion dollars in the first tenures, up over $1 trillion over than 10 years following that. that is out of the nonpartisan congressional budget office. to say we're going to repeal it has just been said by my colleague, is to do very serious violence to the national debt and deficit. for what it means to personal security, what it means for physical security for our country, we cannot just say -- fiscal security for our country,

we cannot say i liked the palpable parts of this but i cannot take the structural change. >> the rules from the republicans will allow the extension of tax cuts and tax breaks without regard to its effect on the deficit or a new requirements of spending cuts. will democrats oppose that? >> absolutely. we will oppose it and it is a continuation, not a change, not an about face, a continuation of the policies that frankly have been in place under republican presidents since i have been in congress. ronald reagan came in and adopted economic program that created $1.4 trillion in deficits. george bush continued those policies and added another $1 trillion, that is $2.4 trillion dollars to the deficit. bill clinton came in in 1993 and

we adopted a paygo process which we pursued in 1990 of what -- as well and a bipartisan way, and reviewed in 1997 in a bipartisan way. that led us to a surplus for the first time in over a century for eight years of a president's term or under -- and then we don't and went back to go rules that they would now want to adopt a more, we went back to those rules and we concurred an additional $2.6 trillion in deficits, which means that under republican presidents since i have been in congress for 30 years, we have had some $5.5 trillion in operational deficits except under bill clinton. the roles they are providing now say in that that, if you cut

revenues or if you eliminate health care or you do about 10 other things, 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 argued so fervently for by so many means that if you do less, you get more. nothing that i have done in my lifetime showed me that if they did less, i got more. nothing. and as a result, we will oppose these rules that unfortunately would turn us -- return us to the fiscal irresponsibility practiced under president reagan, president bush, and the second president bush, which put us deeply, deeply into deficit,

and contrary to their assertion, did not grow the economy. dave is the worst economy we've seen since herbert hoover. -- not only did not grow the economy but gave us the worst economy we've seen since herbert hoover. >> in addition to the budget provision, as you probably saw, when you go to the budget reconciliation process, designed to help reduce the deficits, if you go to the budget reconciliation process, no longer do you have to have but deficit reduction sit but you can blowhole in the deficit through the budget reconciliation process. this is just chock full of things that lead stood fiscal irresponsibility. one more example. >> i wanted to say as a mother and grandmother and as parents and grandparents, we do not have any intention of leaving any bills for our children, personal or otherwise. if certain that this bill in terms of our country. the issues that you have been asking about the relate to the deficit are of the utmost

seriousness. they address the strength of america. when we talk about the savings there may be and people wanting to cut education, we know that that is a bad choice. nothing you can name gives my money to the treasury then investing in the education of our children of the american people. nothing. to cut there is a false economy. deficit reduction in pay as you go is an initiative that has been with us with 30 years. it passed us in 1984 in our convention. and then it became law later as mr. hoyer mentioned during the clinton administration, where reduced budgets, and it was rejected under president bush. now we have to fight this fight again. but it is very important. this is the beginning of our recovery. the debate about revenue and the

deficit has been a central one and it will continue to be. but we want to see initiatives that solve problems for the american people, creating jobs, strengthening the middle class, and reducing the deficits 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 with both the house and senate 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 elected the new speaker, ohio congressman john boehner, and then vote on house rules. on c-span2, the senate will declare -- swear in new members and organized for the new session. tom udall of new mexico is expected to offer up filibuster change resolution. as the house republicans stage debate on repeal of the health- care law on friday, with a final vote 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 looked at the proposed change for filibusters', including remarks from lamar alexander of tennessee. in about an hour and half, rick

scott is one n s 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 hear nancy pelosi in 2007 and newt gingrich from 1995. >> to 112th congress dabbles in wednesday with the swearing in of members, the election of the new house speaker, and a vote on new rules. watch live starting at 7:00 a.m. mr. and on "washington journal," interviews with leaders and your calls right up to win the house cavils in on it -- at noon on c- span. in the congressional black caucus holds its ceremonial swearing-in ceremony tomorrow morning. you can see that live on our companion network, c-span2, at 9:00 eastern. we will cover the other swearing in ceremonies on c-span3 with senators taking their coats at 1:00 p.m. eastern and house members beginning at 2:30 p.m.

eastern. the house ceremonial swearing-in on could last into their early evening. one of the first items on the senate's agenda is in the new session of congress will be a proposed change in the rules for filibusters. in about five minutes, republican senator lamar alexander talks at the heritage foundation about why he supports filibusters'. before that, we speak with the reporter who is covering the issue. >> alexander bolton of the hill, it appears 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 you 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 votes in the senate. that is important because usually it takes 60 votes to pass any legislation in the senate because of the filibuster rule, and it takes during the rest of the year 67 votes to change the legislative rules, or rather the procedural rules in the upper changer -- chamber. barrow looking to change the filibuster rule to make it tougher as for republicans to obstruct legislation on the floor. >> republicans leaders are characterizing this as a power grab by democrats. >> what the proposal would do, and it has not been finalized, but it would eliminate the

filibuster on the motion to proceed. right now it takes 60 votes to even begin debate on legislation in the senate. they're really slows things down. the other thing it would do is eliminate the use of secret holds. by now senators can block legislation and amanitas -- and nominees just by placing a hold what they later. the third thing democrats want to do is require the minority party or 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 for the senate. this would put the burden more on the minority party. whether it as a power grab or not is up for debate. it will make it easier for the majority to get its agenda passed. who is leading the charge on filibuster reform? >> tom udall, democratic senator from new mexico, he is the

leader. he has been the most outspoken. there are several democrats working with him, including tom harkin, democrat from iowa, jeff merkeley, democrat from -- did and there is talk of compromise. one thing the republicans want in this session for majority leader harry reid that will stop the practice known as filling the tree. it blocks republicans were members of a minority party and the majority party from offering amendments to legislation that reid does not want to hold votes on. >> how will this be brought up when the senate gavel's then? >> it was long expected that this would happen tomorrow. it appears though that the senate democrats have some disagreements over what should be in the new rules package. so it seems like what they will do is recess the senate at some

point tomorrow and then reconvene after a two-week recess. it was still technically be the first legislative day. tom udall will then most likely make a motion to change the rules. they will be ruled on by the chair. it was like this hole showdown will be delayed by another two weeks because of some wrangling among senate democrats on exactly what the changes should be. although even the postponement is not official yet. it is something being negotiated in discuss right now. >> alexander bolton of the hill, we thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me. good afternoon everybody. my honor today to introduce our key note speaker, senator lamar alexander from tennessee. it occurred to me that we could have titled today's event, why can't the senate be more like

the house, because that is what we are going to talk about, both senator alexander and the panel that will follow. there is a pposal that will come before the senate the next few days or weeks that could change one senate rule, fundamentally change the nature of that body. in a way that was probably never intended by our fouers. debate that goes to the essence of what the founders envisiod 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 sene 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 alexder of tennessee. he serves on committees overseeing education, clean air, highways, science, appropriations and not unimportantly for a senator from tennessee, tennessee valley authority. he was elected both governor and senator. he has been u.s. education secretary, president of the university of tennessee and professor at harvard school of government. and he served on president reagan's commission on american outdoors. in private life, he helped find the largest provider of work site day care. he is a classical pianist and author of seven books.

please welcome senator lamar alexander. [applause] >> thank you, mike. and ladies and gentlemen and to heritage foundation, thank you very much for sponsoring this forum and for inviting this distinguished group of panelists. i'm one of the former number of governors and i don't have the desire to turn the senate into the house but that is what we are talking about today. i saw the title and i changed it a little bit. i rrowed a line, which you will see in a few minutes. i have a short video to show you what some prominent americans have said about the idea of changing the senate filibuster rule. but this is what a radio

announcer during the world war inch i era had to say about the filibuster. he said it's democracy's finest show, the right to talk your head off. that's the subject of what i would like to talk about for a few minutes this afternoon. voters who turned out in november are going to be disappointed when they learn the first thing that some democrats want to do is to c off the right of people they elected in november to make their voices heard on the floor of the united states senate. now, in the november election, voters showed that they very well remember the passage of the heal care law on christmas eve 2009. the night sessions, voting in the midst of a snotorm, backroom deals, little time to read, amend or debate the bill. it was how it was done as much as what was done that angered the american people. minority voices were silenced. those who didn't like it were

told, we won the election, we write the bill, we don't need your votes. the majority's attitude was just that and one person said you can read it after we pass it. of course, the result was the law that the majority of americans now believe is a historic mistake and the passage of the bill launched the beginning of an instant effort to repeal and replace the bill. voters remembered all of this on november 6, but only six weeks later, some democratic senators seem to have completely forgotte it. on december 18, every returning democratic senator sent a letter asking the majority leader to take republican abuses to our rules to -- democratic abuses to our rules to an end. some have threatened to change the rules so it would be easier to do with every piece of legislation. ram it through with a partisan

vote with little debate, little amendment, little committee consideration and without listening to minority voices. the brazenness of this proposed action is that democrats are proposing to use the very tactics that in the past almost every democratic leader has denounced, including president obama and vice president biden when they were senators, who said such a thing would be a nuclear option, a naked power grab and destructive of the senate as a protector of minority rights. the democratic proposal would allow the senate to change its rules with only 51 veets ending the historical practice of allowing any senator at any time to oer any amendment until 60 senators decided it's time to end the debate. as investors business daily wrote, quote, the senate majority leader has a plan to deal with the republican electoral success. when you lose the game, the newspaper said, you simply change the rules.

when you only have 53 votes, you lower the bar to 51. this is caed election null fix, unquote. now there is no doubt that the senate has been reduced to a shadow of itself as the world's greatest deliberative body. a place which, as senator arlen specter said in his fair well adess, 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 theemocratic majority, which for an unprecedented number of times used their majority advantage to limit debate, not to allow amendments and to bypass normal committee consideration 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 las six majority leaders. and number three, the majority leader has set the record for bypassing the committee process, bringing a measure directly to the floor by passing committees 43 times during the last two congresses. let's be clear what we mean when we say the word filibuster. let's say the majority leader brings up the health care bill, which is his right to do. i go down to the floor, senator from tennessee, to offer an amendment and to speak on the health care bill. the majority leader says, no, senator alexander, and he cuts off my amendment. i object.

majority leader calls what i tried to do a filibuster. that's what he defes 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 b 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 legislatn and express the voices of the people they represent. in fact, the reason the majority leader can claim there have been so many filibusters is because he is counting the number of times he has moved to cut off debate. instead othis power grab as the new congress aives tomorrow, the goal should be to

restore the senate to its historic role where the voices of the people can be heard rather than silenced, where ideas can be offered as amendments, rather than supressed and those amendments can be voted and debated upon rather than cut off. to accomplish this, the senate needs to change its behavior, not change its rules. the majority-minority leaders have been in discussion on steps that might help to accomplish this. i have been part of those discussions, some of them. i would like to discuss this afternoon why it is essential in my opinion to our country that cooler heads prevail tomorrow when the senate convenes. one good example the democrats might follow is the one established by republicans to gained control of both senate and house of representatives in 1995. that was the so-called gingrich revolution of 1994. on the first day of the new

republican majority, democratic senator harkin of iowa, proposed a rule change diluting the filibuster. every single republican senator voted against the change, even though supporting it clearly would have provided at least a temporary advantage for the republican agenda. here is why the republicans who were in the majority then and democrats who are in the majority today should reject a similar rules change. first, the proposal diminishes the rights of the minority. in his classic book "democracy in america," it was written that one of the two greatest fears for our democracy was the quote tyranny of the majority, unquote. the possibility that a runaway majority might trample minority voices. diluting the right to debate and voting on amendments deprives e 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-thd of us are elected every two years. the senate operates largely by unanimous consent. there is an opportunity unparalleled in any other legislative body in the world to debate and amend until a consensus finally is reached. this procedure takes longer, but it usually produces a better result. and a result that the country is ore likely to accept. for example, after the civil rights act of 1964 was enacted by a bipartisan majority over a filibuster led by senator richar russell of georgia, senator russell then went home to georgia and said that although he had fought the legislation with everything he had, quote, as long as it is there, it must be obeyed,

unquote. compare that to the instant repeal movement that has been the result of jamming the health care law through in a partisan vote. third, such a brazen power grab by democrats this year will surely guarantee a similar action by republicans in two years if we gain control of the senate, as many observers think is likely. we have seen this happen with senate consideration of judges. democrats begin the practice of filibustering president bush's judges even though the nominees were well qualified. democrats are unhappy because many republicans regard that as a precedent and have threatend to do the same to president obama's nominees. those who want to create a freight train running through the senate today as it does in the house might think about whether they will want that freight train running through the senate in two years when the

freight train might be the t party express. finally it's hd to see what partisan advantage democrats hope to gain from destroying the senate as a forum for consensus and protection of minority rights since any legislation they jam through this year or next year without bipartisan support will undoubtedly die in the republican controlled house during the next two years. the reform the senate needs is a change in behavior, not a change in rules. i have talked with many senators on both sides of the aisle and i believe most of us want the same thing, a senate where most bills are considered by committee. come to the floor as a result of bipartisan cooperation, are debated and amended and then voted upon. not so long ago, this was the standard operating procedure. i have seen the senate off and on for more than 40 years, from the days in 1967 when i first

came to washington as howard baker's legislative assistant. in those days, there wasnly one legislative assistant in eachenate office. i came back for a while to help senator baker set up his leadership office in 1977, and i watched the way that senator baker and senator byrd led the senate from 1977 to 1985. when the democrats were in the majority for the first four years and the republicans were in the majority the second four years. then, most pieces of legislation that came to the floor started in committee. then, that legislation was open for amendment. there might be 300 amendments filed. and after a while, the majority leader would ask for unanimous consent agreement to cut off the amendments. he always got it, because he let let anyone offer any amendments they wanted to offer. the voting would continue. the leaders would work to

persuade senators to limit endments so there wouldn't be 300-amendment votes. that didn't always wk. 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 wen 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 sene effectively together for eight years. what would it take to restore to

today's senate to the era of senator baker and senator byrd? well, we have the answer from the master of the senate rules himself, senator byrd, who in his last appearance before the senate rules committee on may 19, 2010 said, quote, forceful confrontation to a threat a filibuster is undoubtedly the and ti dote to that malady. senate majority leader reid announced that the senate would stay in session around the clock and take all the procedural steps necessary to bring financial reform legislation to the senate as preparations were made and a deal was struck within hours and the threat of filibuster was withdrawn. senator byrd said i also know that current senate rules provide the means to break a filibuster, unquote. in those remarks, his last ones, as i said, senator byrd went on

to argue strenuously that our founding fathers intended the senate to be a continuing body that allows for open and unlimited debate and the protection of minority rights. senators, senator byrd said, have understood this since the senate first convened. then senator byrd went on, quote, in his notes to the constitutional convention on june 26, 1787, james madison recorded that the ends to be served by the senate were, first, to protect the people against their rulers. second, to protect the people against the transient impressionsnto which they might be led. they themselves as well as the numerous body of representatives will err from fickleness and passion. a necessary fenc against this danger would be to select a portion of enlightened citizens whose limited number and

firmness might seasonably interpose against i am pet youous counsel. that's the end of that quote. that fence, was the united states senate, the right to filibuster anchors the necessary fence but not a right intended to be abused and then senator byrd concluded, there are many suggestions about what we should do. i know what we must not do. we must never ever, ever, ever tear down the only wall, the necessary fence this nation has against the excess of the executive branch and the result and haste and tirn any of the -- tyranny of the majority. that was senator byrd in his last appearance before the rules committee. what would it take to restore the years of byrd and baker so bills are first considered in committee and when more amendments were considered, debated and voted upon?

first, we have to recognize there has to be bipartisan cooperation and consensus on important issues. the days of we won the election, we jammed the bill through are going to have to be over. senator baker would not bring a bill to the floor when republicans were in the majority unless it had the support of the ranking democratic committee member. number two, recognize that senators are going to have to vote. to say that may sound ridiculous to an outsider but every senate insider knows that a major reason why the majority cuts off amendments and debate is because democratic members don't want to vote on controversial issues. that's like volunteering to be on the grand ole opry and claiming you don't want to sing. if you don't want to vote, don't run for the united states senate. and the third thing that would restore the period of the

1980's, according to senator byrd would be the end of three-day work week. the senate convenes on most mondays for a bed check vote at 5:30. the senate during 2010, did not vote on one single friday. let me repeat that. the united states senate, in the year 2010, did not vote on one single friday. it is not possible for the minority to have the opportunity to oer debate and vote on amendments or for the majority to forcefully confront a filibuster if every senator knows there will never be a vote on friday. now, there are some other steps that can be taken to help the senate function better without impairing minority rights. one bipartisan suggestion has been to end the practice of secret holds. it seems reasonable to suggest or to expect a senator who

intends to hold up a bill or nomination to allow his colleagues and the world to know who he or she is, so that the merits of the hold can be evaluated and debated. second, there is a crying need to make it easier for any president, republican or decrat, 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. seco 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 thehite house. i spoke on the senate floor on this tying my speech "innocent until nominated. third obstacle and one we should doomething about is the

excessive number of exetive branch appointments requiring senate confirmation. there have been bipartisan efforts to reduce these obstacles with the support of the majority and minority leaders and perhaps we might achieve some success. if all of these efforts succeed, there will be delayed nominations, bills that a kill 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 present bush nominated me to be the secretary of education. he held up my nomination for three months, never really saying why. i was very perplexed about this, so i went to see senator warren ruddman of new hampshire. i asked hm what to do about the hold and he said nothing and then he told me his story. president ford appointed warren

ruddman to be a member of the federal communications commission in the 1970's. the democratic senator from new hampshire filibustered rudan'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 feral spending. that is when i first cam here more than 40 years ago. now, i have done my best to make

the argument that the senate and the country will be served best if cooler heads prevail and democrats don't make their power grab tomorrow and try to make the senate more like the house of representatives. to permit them to do with any legislation what they did with the health care law, i have said that to do so will destroy minority rights, destroy the essential forum for consensus that the senate n price for difficult issues and surely guarantee that republicans will try to do the same thing to democrats in two years. more than that, it's hard to see how democrats can gain any partisan advantage from th destruction of the senate and invitation for retbution 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 aion. 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 theote, you don't get your way 100% of the time. >> you got majority rule and got the senate over here where peop can float things down, where they can debate and have something called the filibuster, it seems like it's a little less than efficient. well, that's right, it is and deliberately designed to be so. >> totally oppose to changing the filibuster rules.

that's foolish. >> that's why we have a senate, to amend a debate freely. >> the whole idea of the senate is not to have majority rule but to force consensus and force a group of senators on either side have to respect each other's votes and protect votes on important issues. >> i can understand the temptation to change the rules to make the senate so unique and at the same time so terribly frustrating, but whether such temptation is motivated by noble desire to speed up the legislative process or by pure political ex pedensy, i believe some changes would be unwise. >> the senate is the only place in government where the rights of a minority are so protected a minority can be right and minority views can certainly improve legislation. >> american people know that it's not just the voices of the senator from kansas or senator from iowa that are supressed when the mority leader cuts

off the right to debate and right to amend. it's the voices we hear from across this country who want to be heard on the senate floor. >> you just can't have good governance unless you have good ideas brought forward. >> to my fellow senators who haven't served in the minority, i urge you to pause in your enthusiasm to change the senate rules. >> it's part of the fabric of this institution we call the senate for 200 years we have the right to extend the debate and not some procedural gimmick. some in this chamber want to throw out 214 years for the quest of absolute power. they want to do away with mr. smh as depicted in that gat 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 chae, 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, tt's a very good insight, but the problem with

that is, over the last two congress, 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 i got down to writing the bill, what did they do? they went off in a room by themselves, they being the democrats. and this was in december, the snow was coming down and then they brought it out more than 2,000 pages. we wereold 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 directlyo the floor without going through comttee 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 gng, is it going to people who really need help, that's what the committees are for. when i say we need to get back to the era of the 1980's of senator baker and senator byrd, i don't just mean allowing any senator to offer any amendment, but let the committees work a bill over. and i mentioned just in passing that senator baker, when he was the majority leader, had a habit, i'm not sure he did this in every case, he would tell his republican committee chairmen, don't bring a bill to the floor unless you have the ranking member's support. you bring a bill to the floor and you could expect that you are likely to achieve some sort of consensus and you get better result and better september

tans. i think it's very important to emphasize the fact that there are several reasons for consensus, for cooperation, one is you get a better result. but the second is people accept it. people are more likely to accept it. in the 1960's, lyndon johnson had big majorities in the democratic congress, but where did he have the civil rights bill written? in the republican leader's office. and why did he do that? one reason was to be able to surmount a filibuster, but the other reason was that president johnson knew that was a volatile piece of legislation. he did it piece by piece from the 1950's on. and he knew that if he had a bill that he and the repubcan 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 first i'm going to introduce steven duffield and is policy director to crossroads dedicated to educating the public to advance free enterprise, limited government and individual liberty. steven is known to us for his service for at least five years

or so in the u.s. senate where he worked for senator kyl of arizona and senate republican conference. then bill wichterman. he is senior legislative advisor in government affairs at a local law firm. what he brings to the table today is two decades of experience in the house and senate where he worked for former senate majority leader bill frist and at the white house. he understands the senate as well as anybody that i know. james wallner who is currently legislative director to senator jeff sessions of alabama also worked on the house side. has the experience of working in both houses. i won't ask him if he likes the house than the senate. i know how i feel about that, but he is a scholar of these things and we know james. and brian darling, who is director of government relations

and has many years of senate experience and brian focuses on educating senators and their staff about the heritage research product and has appeared regularly on network news broadcasts and columnists for human events and he keeps tense of thousands of readers rivetted on his commentary on what is going on in the senate. graduate from new england school of law. steven, you go first. >> i meet with mike to talk about different issues and one of the things he complains about is every discussion we have on policy did he involves on discussion of senate rules and to that i say, this is why, because this is exactly what is at stake and the policies that is being impacted by the procedures that the senate has set up. senator alexander covered a lot

of things. we will skip over some things or be repetitive. first thing i want to say in listening to all of this, we haven't divided the issue in two parts yet. one there is the substantive and the majority is trying to force upon the senate right now, weaker minority, fewer tools to debate, amend and be involved in the legislative process. there is also the method and the method is referred to as the constitutional option, which is what senator udall refers to it as and common use of the term now. these two issues are separate and related, but together, they amount to the same thing and that is an incredible, but not entirely unexpected power grab by the remaining majority in the senate right now. i can't imagine that anybody thought that the lesson of the last election was that the voters wanted a stronger

democratic majority in the senate, but that is exactly what this is. and from a basic, very basic democracy, republican governance governance standpoint, you have to look at that and ask yourself is that in any way what the voters were looking for and is this in keeping what the voters wanted. it's very consistent with the way this majority has operated over the last year or two. you could go back, and the most astonishing thing for us all is when senator brown was elected and we thought that perhaps the most liberal state in the nation, no offense to vermont, had elected mr. brown to the senate. when that happened, that this would put some kind of brake on the health care reform, but instead encouraged democrats and

the majority to push it through. mr. wallner will discuss all of the particularly -- data and words that don't mean anything that don't follow the senate but are important. filling the tree, filing cloture, skipping the committee process and shutting off debate as soon as a bill even comes up. all of these processes are all about shutting out republicans, shutting out the minority from being able to discuss issues to amend, to debate, to deliberate. and it's been an ongoing process that has gone on for some time. and we see this now even when senator alexander emphasized some questionable interest of the democrats to do this, they are still pushing forward to do this. i will say without getting into the numbers, the numbers that

you see thrown around on a regular basis, this number of filibusters, respectfully they are largely garbage and that is because you have to get into what happened in each case and whether there was an attempt to block the decision, try to have more amendments, to delay, every situation is different. the democrats know this. the members know this. i think most of the activists that are running the groups, they know this as well, but they throw numbers around and they have adopted the same numbers as though they are true. they are not. and you can't be very statistical about understanding what each one of those events were without looking what happened in each case. there is a tremendous -- the most obvious point that has to be made clearly and senator alexander started with it, the pendulum swings. does the democratic leadership even want this? i understand they are being

bulleyed and concerned about keeping their leadership positions and the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedingsmen are concerned about the people who are antsy to move forward but do they want to do this and the likelihood that republicans will be stronger in the senate if not in the majority in two years? i really question whether they do. and there is division within the democrats that the press has done a lousy job of investigating and exploring because that's the real story of what is going and how the caucus is breaking apart on this issue and other issues related to that. related to that, i think it's important as senator alexander mentioned to focus on the fact that there's a point of principle here for republicans. republicans in the majority in 1995 opposed making themselves stronger in the majority.

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

questions but crazy to push them through like this when the process is to go through the rules committee, sit down, debate, have actual text of amendments. has anyone seen text of an actual rules change, has that been discussed? have they sat down and figured out how it would work? no one has done that. this is a knee-jerk reaction to a frustration, frustration from the voters. and now we see the idea of rules change without any text. anything we can work with. there is a process for this. to bring up briefly and i think it's better to deal with it later, the 2005 scenario with the constitutional option having to do with judges, there was a rules process and debate about the specific issues and specific kinds of remedies. although senator schumer had rules committee hearings, those

hearings in the end were not about specific changes but merely about do we have a problem and those are the hearings that senator byrd testified and a lot of ambiguity of what the results were in the end. i don't want to -- one minute? ok. the last thing i'll say is and the senator touched on this pretty well, what it is that minority rights guarantee and i use the word deliberation and i use it broadly. it's about amendment. the right to have amendments legitimately offered and debated. it's about making sure that bills are written openly and are able to be considered. it is a broad-based transparency approach and it's exactly contrary to what we have seen in the last couple of years in the way things have been run. i think one example and then i will be quiet that's important,

think about what happened with the dream act in the last couple days of this last congress in the senate. that was a different dream act that had gone through committee. there were important changes that had been made to it. in order to cut a deal thinking they had bought off the last few votes, the sponsors came out and offered a different piece of legislation than it was before, with substantive changes that were different than before, but didn't offer any opportunity to debate it in length nor an opportunity to amend that. when you do that, they are going to reject it. we can offer amendments that can change that. maybe we'll vote no in the end but we'll try to fix the thing that you are going to pass and get a majority together for that. that was a tremendous book end to the congress to have that be one of the last votes that came through in the end and to be something that was just ram, inc. something through. and here they want to ram

something through in the next congress and it's very disappointing. >> the story goes when thomas jefferson who had been in france during the constitutional convention asked george washington why had they created a senate, washington reportedly said, we pour our legislation into the saucer to cool it. my graduate work in political philosophy, so that's where i have been tacked to discuss with you, why does it matter, why should we have a senate and have one legislature like nebraska does, or have two house of representatives, counting the different structure for the states versus districts, but have the processes and structures for each chamber the same? well, i would argue the reason for a senate goes well beyond the question which is what most of us are taught in school, big

states and small states and their interests had to be addressed. in fact, it goes to the discussion of will versus passion. majority rights versus minority rights. you see, we have a speedy process in house of representatives to pass legislation. but the framers were very concerned about putting brakes on the majority. it wasn't just the senate where they had brakes, you have the independent judiciary, you have the supreme court, the constitution, you have representation rather than direct voting by citizens on individual matters. you have the veto and the higher threshold to override the veto, the electoral college. indirect election of senators, each one of these things was intended to be a brake on the passions of the majority. why was that? was not because the framers were just out of step and couldn't see clearly how to implement a

more democratic form of government? clearly not. the framers said they were very worried about unadull ter rated democracy and you don't find the word democracy in the constitution. that would come as a surprise to many americans. the words they use is democratic republic and the distinction being, it wasn't about the majority passions at the moment, which they feared greatly, but about approximating justice, philosophically speaking. there is a notion you might have heard in latin, the voice of the people is the voice of god. majority, 50-plus-one, the 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. . 38 times, the majority leader filed clue to the same day the measure came to the floor, the very same day. in the 110 congress, 44 times.

in the 109, 11. in the 108, 15. you would think if you have legislation on the floor for a while and a filibuster occurs, the majority could say, we need to exercise procedures to shut off debate an the filibuster. in the 111th congress only three timesed by the -- did the majority leader file cloture on the third day of consideration. 110th, two times. one more thing, the majority leader can use this process with the process of the amendment. when this is done in tandem, ending the minority's ability to debate and also precluding their ability to offer amendments on the floor, it's pretty dramatic. the majority leader filed cloture on the same day three times.

in the 109th congress, 78% of the time they did. 110th congress, 56%. a lot less than the 109th congress. in the 111th congress, 14 of 15 measures the majority leader filed the amendment on, hed that a 97% rate. that shows the majority leader uses this to control consideration of with the majority wants and reducing the ability of the minority to debate. why is this important? i think for the most part, that a new perspective allows us to get a better understanding of the ways in which the senate is broken. just because the numbers say one thing, doesn't necessarily mean

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

is that this draws our focus to the way the majority uses the procedure for their own advantage. this is true also for the cloture rule. the cloture rule was intended to give the cloture. you can use cloture to prevent unwanted amendment receiving votes, without cloture, the majority has no ability to expedite floor consideration of legislation and establish a firmly agreed upon floor table for consideration. you can exert timing over floor procedures and you can use it for symbolic purposes. it is widely considered that the dream act would not receive the votes for cloture, but the

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

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