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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you're just going to move the previous question? >> the thing i'd add is, it's not as though the filibuster rule or any other rules of the senate ought not ever be looked at or changed. maybe something works well, something else works differently or better. there's a good process to do this. you've got a rules committee with people -- attorneys who are good at figuring out how things would work. if you've got a solution that's going to work, irrespective of which party is in charge, there's a process to go through and do it. the end result of that is you have to get 67 senators to agree that this is good for everybody. i think that the natural way of doing it if you're going to do it, is to then make it in effect at some point in the future when you don't have a pretty good sense of who is going to be in challenge of the different political branches of government so you take the long view and not something focused on the immediate partisan gain or loss and say it's going to go in effect in 2016 or whatever the

year may be that would make sense in the context. there's a process to figure it out and everybody should make an agreement. what's happening now is is trying to put a gun to the head of the majority -- of the minority saying, we're going to force this thing through and you're going to live with it or else. i'm not terribly interested in any of the theoretical ideas for reform being put forward in the press or by operations that are set up with websites run by -- funded by staples of the democratic base, right now, that are just theorizing about what might make better sense. there's a process for this going forward. and the idea that 57 votes is insurmountable is not a lot, most legislation passes by unanimous consent and we've had changes before and we've had changes as recently as 2007.

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

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

him, all of which got majority support and still wasn't able to clear him, that's a whole different issue than senator reid saying i'm not going to schedule a judicial nominee far cloture vote. >> a hold is merely a senator saying, if you bring up this measure this nomination will filibuster. there's nothing inherently wrong with the hold. it's notifying leadership that you will go down to the senate floor and filibuster if they take out something. and much of the senate's business is done by unanimous consent. many times you have bills coming up without any hearings, without any debates, nominations for that matter coming up, they are passed with no vote. senator demint calls it secret consent because you have these things coming up and they pass if they become controversial, no member will take ownership over it because it's something that passed by unanimous consent, they didn't have a chance to study and understand it, they're not on the record 100-0 voting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>> we hope you'll join us at heritage again on a future occasion. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

-- i rick scott slum solemnly swear that i will support and defend the constitution and that i will well and faith fli will perform the duties of governor. the duties of governor on which i am now about to enter. >> of which i am now about to enter. so help me god. >> congratulations. >> god bless you. [cheering]

[fireworks] >> [cheering] [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen. former governor, charlie crist. >> he will present the great seal of florida to governor scott. ladies and gentlemen, governor richard lin scott.

>> at least we have nice weather. yesterday greta was complaining about the weather. i would not complain about this weather. first off, thank even for coming. i think first off, governor crist. governor crist could not have been more gracious during the transi go period. thank you so much. [applause] mr. president, mr. speaker. members of the cabinet. mr. chief justice and members of the supreme court, distinguished guests and my fellow floridians, first off, thank even for

coming. there's so many people that -- that have been a part of my life -- okay. so we gather -- distinguished guests and my fellow floridians, we gather today to talk about florida's future, since that's where we are to define where we want to go and to plan ow to get there. clear goals and hard work can achieve amazing things. the giant trees that surround us here are what they are because they had a plan. once we take the right step, i'm absolutely convinced that florida will become the most exciting place in the world to live and work. [applause] let's begin by facing squarely the challenge of our time, a stalled economy. this morning more than a million

floridians woke up out of work. they begged for interviews. they face rejection after rejection. many people who -- who once earned a good living on construction sites, when the economy stalled and the building stopped, they found themselves with skills but no degree and absolutely no job. some are young adults that got a degree and were eager to get started and they couldn't find a job and had to move back home. others are middle-aged adults who had been steadily employed for years and then lost their jobs almost overnight. unemployed parents struggle to make a brave face for their children but it is hard to find the fact that the wolf is at the door. for all of the unemployed, life without a paycheck is a desperate daily scramble to provide the basics. i have been a child in a home like that.

my father was often laid off. my mom in -- my mom took in ironing to have food on the table. i have a clear memory of their fear and uncertainty as they struggled to provide for five kids. for me job creation is an absolute mission. [applause] my personal memories fortified my commitment to this mission. there are millions of family as across florida that rely on us to create jobs. when an economy falters, it is -- as jobs disappear, that american promise seems hollow. left uncorrected high unemployment creates a spiral down into hopelessness. we will not let that happen in florida. [applause]

faced with a deep recession, some say the answer is to expand the role of government. that's the approach that the administration has taken in washington. that's absolutely the wrong approach. it requires magical thinking to expect government to create prosperity. government has no resources of its own. government can only give to us what is previously taken from us. mine is a huge cut for the government middle man. a lean and limited government has a role to play in providing a safety net. prosperity comes from the private sector. only from the private sector.

the only path to better days is paid -- the only path to better days is with new private seconder jobs. in my own life, my first jobs are low paying. they gave me a toe-hold on the future. they taught me self-discipline and gave me self-respect and they made me a productive citizen rather than dependent. that's important to the lives of young floridians. the entry level jobs are not enough. the availability of better jobs is the key to -- key to a long-term process speart. florida has to develop a broth broader based economy with a wider base of activities. our beautiful beaches have given us a competitive advantage in

agricultural and tourism. we have a long history as a critical national resource for the support and training of our military and the manufacture of defense related materials. those will always be the bedrock of our economy. we have to capture the full spectrum of business activities and opportunities. we feed to manufacture more things in florida. we need to capitalize on our geographic location as a natural connecter in distribution hub for the broy growing economies of central and south america. we need to become -- [applause] we need to become the premier location for can you get edge technology. the people of florida elected me to get this state back to work. i believe in this mission. we have hard working people who are desperately looking for

jobs. we have energetic entrepreneurs with plenty of ideas. we have persuadable investors with ready cash. all that is missing is a determination to create the most favorable business climate in the world. we will. modern businesses can locate anywhere. so the -- the conditions florida offers aren't the best, they'll locate somewhere else. what does it take to create a favorable business climate. florida has to offer people the biggest opportunity for financial success. not a guarantee -- not a guarantee, just a fair chance. taxation regulation and litigation help our -- reduce our chance for success. those three form the axis of unemployment.

let them check off and choke off productivity. florida has wisely refused to impose an income tax. under my plan we'll eliminate the business tax and reduce the property tax. the state of 0 florida raises enough revenue to meet its needs. it has to spen that smarter, setting better priorities and demanding more accountability. we'll also reexamine every regulation to make sure the benefits outweigh the costs. unless they're -- they're approved, regulations grow like weeds. some regulations essential for health and safety and others that are essential to the protection of our prices -- priceless environment. it is past time to demand that earn regulation be reevaluated.

[applause] we will do a top -- we will do a top to bottom review of all existing regulations. we have unnecessary regulation that is hinder job growth. today i'll sign an executive order creating a fiscal office of accountability reform to review all proposed and existing regulations, determine their impact on job creation. every floridian should have a right to access the courts and redress of harm. we will not allow excessive lawsuits to strangle job creation. we will not allow a small group of predatory lawyers in search of deep pockets.

in the absence of serious tort reform, floridians lose jobs. whatever they do in texas, we're going to do better. no special interests can be allowed to triumph over the goal of full employment. job creators need to know that the great state of florida, the government of the great state of florida, we're here to work with business people and job creators, not against them. it is very important to recruit companies from around the world. it is just as important it not more important to make sure we take care of the homegrown companies right here in the great state of florida. small businesses are incredibly effective weapons against

unemployment. small businesses are also the most vulnerable to poorly drawn regulations and endless delays in permitting. all i heard in the campaign is the amount of time it takes to get permits in our state. that doesn't make sense and it'll stop. interaction between business owners and their government, their government should not be confined as demand for fees and forums -- forms and pore permits. our main message to potential job creators is how can we, the great state of florida help you succeed. we will keep our spending within bounds. all of us who are lucky enough to have a job working for the state of florida have a duty to

watch over state spending like a hawk. we have to be vigilant. floridians haven't trusted us with their tax dollars. they worked very hard for those dollars. they're -- they badly need those dollars for their needs. we must treat those resources with -- with the respect they deserve and keep our demands to an absolute minimum. we will require accountability budgeting in state government so we will review every state agency and look how every state agency is spending every dollar. we'll get rid of the -- we'll get rid -- we'll get rid of the -- we'll get rid of the programs that don't work and expand the programs that do. that'll be if the paper. that wasn't part of the script. once we take the right steps,

florida will -- we will become the most exciting place to live and work. we will clearly do that. we're going to make florida the place for innovation. we're going to encourage the out of box thinkers. it is going to be the place, not -- we'll be the place where high quality education is translated into high quality jobs. you could tell my focus is on jobs. we're going to make it easy to grow and build a business in florida. the -- the enterprises will have to compete to find space in our great state. we're going to tell the world, if you could dream it, it is easy to make it happen in the great state of florida. why not? after all we been the destination for dreamers. the place where somebody with a

big new idea could get started. railroads into a wilderness. magic king dom. a trip to the moon. freedom from a foreign tyrant. better health, life without winter. they said it was not colder here than naples. it is not. large and small. dreams of the stuff that florida is made of. what we said about becoming the best place in the country to create jobs will look at education and health care. few things matter to us as much as our health care and education of each of our children. it is time to offer floridians more choices, more opportunity to select the sfs they want and they need. we're not going to cling to models create in the a prior century. we're not going to let others make our decisions. floridians dream for their

children, but every child is unique and every child can learn. we will have an education system that allows the maximum amount of choice. a system focused on what is best for individual student learning, not for special interests. we're going to create a work force for the future with -- we're not going to create a work force for the future, we're stuck in the education model with the past. they capture -- to capture the best jobs, we have to offer the best educated work force. we'll do it. i got to ask if i cared about health care. in -- in the health care sector, top down government programs treat patients like

interchangeable parts. that will stop. we're going to treat patients as individuals, choosing their own doctors and making their own decisions in consultation with the doctors. we're not going to allow bureaucrats and our federal government to trample all over our relationships with our physicians and our right to make our own decisions on health care. for most floridians, they have far too little say in how the children are educated and the health care services provided. none is written in stone and it will change. we -- we just have to have the courage to change. here's how we'll provide the service. first we'll refuse to allow increased government intrusion in the areas. and we'll put floridians back in

the driver's seat with increased use of free market. when government does the buying, government chooses what services are available, the truth is he who pays the piper calls the tune. we're going to call the tune, not the government. we're going to apply the same tools that business people use. we're going to measure everything. we'll implement changes. most importantly, we'll hold everyone accountable. i expect to be held accountable. everybody in government expect to be held accountable. just like the private sector is held accountable. i believe it and we will do it. in the next few months, special interest will try to stop what we're doing. what i ask for each of you, is stand up and not only hold us accountable but help defend what we're trying to do. write letters to editors.

call us and let us know. i want to make a real and lasting improvement in the lives of fellow floridians. i believe each of us is responsible to our maker for what we do. with the time -- what -- recognizing my maker is watching over my services as governor, i will be resolute in seeking bold, probably more bold than some people like but bold positive change. in the last few years, floridians have had a tough time. high unemployment and declines in the housing market have left a trail to destruction probably as bad as any hurricane. every generation of floridians have faced tough challenge. and every generation has been resilient. in the 1880's, yell hoe fever,

then family required relief funds. and in the 40's, a quarter of million floridians served in uniforms and their worried families were short of basic necessities. in every decade, we had to rebuild after more arrive fick hurricanes. after adversity florida has always come back stronger. our problems are solveable. our future is in our hands. we are resilient people. [applause] whether the national government takes the right steps or not, here in florida we have what we need to make the next four years the most exciting time to live or work in florida. we will make it happen. this is the right time to act. this is unbelievable opportunity for everybody in elected office

and everybody that lives in our great state. shakespeare put it this way. there's a tide in the affairs of men, which taken at the flood leads on to fortune. i believe this is high tide. this is the time we could do great things together. if we have the courage to act, our children and our grandchildren will someday thank us for it. play god bless the great state of florida. let's get to work. thank you so much.

>> ladies and gentlemen, please remain standing, pastor kirk anderson will deliver the benediction. >> we have but one cre re great, we're going to miss these people. we love them very much. we -- receive the benediction. let's work hard that all play work. let's pray fourth vently that

all may be humble. let's be thankful in the good times and patient in the hard times and worship at all times. to the glory of god in the name of the father and the son and the holy spirit, amen. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captions performed by the national captioning institute]

>> madam speaker, leader. my distinguished colleagues, welcome to you all. i particularly like to welcome our new colleagues. it is an honor and privilege to serve in this great institution. i like to thank you in advance for the sacrifices and contributions you'll make to this body during your time here. as colleagues we owe a huge debt to those that served before us. i would be remiss if i did not mention the enormous contributions of one of my predecessors, gerald ford. former president ford served in the house over 25 years.

including eight of those years as a republican leader from 1965 to 1973. he served his michigan constituents in the american people with great distinction. not just here in congress but as vice president and president of the united states. the thoughts and prayers of this house and of the grateful nation are with betty and the ford family. there is a historic day. in a few moments, i'll have the high privilege of handing the

gavel of the house of representatives to a woman for the first time in american history. for more than 200 years the leader of our -- the leaders of our government have been democratically elected. for the ranks, they always selected a mab for the responsibility and honor of serving as the speaker of the house, always until today. it is sometimes said that the founding fathers would not recognize the government's -- the government that exists in washington today. it has grown in size and scope, far beyond anything they could ever have imagined, much less

endorsed or advocated for our future. today marks an occasion that i think the founding fathers would view provingly. my fellow americans, whether you're a republican, or democratic or independent, today is a cause for celebration. today also of course marked the change in the house majority. 12 years ago, some of us stood proudly in the chamber as dick gephardt from missouri handed the gavel for the new republican speaker, newt gingrich from georgia. there were great achievements during the st -- 12 years. the man driving force behind many of those achievements will

continue to serve with us, the gentleman from illinois, deny halfer. [applause] there was great achievements during the 12 years that followed and profound disappointments. if there's one lesson that stands out from our party's time in the majority, it is this. a congressional majority is simply a means to an end. the value of a majority, not -- lies not this the chance to wield great power but in the chance to use limited power to achieve great things. we refer to the gavel i'm holding as the speaker's gavel. but like everything else in this chamber, it really belongs to the american people.

it is a -- on loan from the real owners. this is the people's house. this is -- this is the people's congress. most people in america don't care who controls it. what they want is a government that is limited, honest, accountable, and responsive for their needs. the moment -- the moment a majority forgets this lesson, it begins writing itself a ticket to minority status. the 10 -- 110th congress will write the next chapter but the american people will dictate it. the democratic party assumes the challenge and opportunity of majority power in the people's house. republicans will -- will hold the incoming majority accountable for its promises and its actions. but we also want to work with the incoming majority for the good of our nation that we were all elected to serve. [applause]

fundamentally, democracy is a battle offer ideas. the battle of ideas i believe is healthy and it is important for our nation. but it is also a battle that can take place respectfully. republicans and democrats can disagree without being disagreeable to each other. sometimes what people call partisanship is a disagreement over a means to a shared goal. we should welcome that conversation, encourage it, and enjoy it, and be nice about it.

now my privilege to present the gavel of the united states of house of represent efs to the first woman speaker in our list, the gentle lady from california, nancy pelosi. [applause]

>> thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you, my colleagues. thank you leader boehner and mr. speaker. mr. speaker. i accept this gavel in the spirit of partnership not partisanship. i look forward to working -- [applause] i look forward to working with you mr. boehner and the republicans in the congress for the good of the american people. after giving this gavel away in the first two -- the last two

congresses, i'm glad someone else has the honor today. in this house we made the different -- we may be different parties but one serve one country. and our oure united behind our women in uniform. they are working together to protect the american people. and in this congress we must work together to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.

in this hour we need and pray for the character, courage, and civility of a former member of this house, president ford. he healed the country when it needed healing. this is another time, another war, and another trial of american will. imagination and spirit. let us honor his memory, not just in eulogy, but in dialogue and trust across the aisle. i want to join leader boehner in expressing our condolences and our appreciation to mrs. ford and to the entire ford

family for their decades of leadership and service to our country. with today's convening of the 110th congress, we begin anu. i -- we begin anew. i congratulate all members of congress on your election. i especially want to congratulate our new members of congress. the genius of our founders. well, let's hear it for our new members of congress. the genius of our founders was that every two years new members would bring to this house their spirit of renewal and hope for the american people. this congress is reinvigorated, new members, by your optimism, idealism and commitment to our

country. let us acknowledge your families whose support have made your leadership possible today. to your families. each of us brings to this congress our shared values, our commitment to the constitution and our personal experience. my path to congress and to the speakership began in baltimore where my father was the mayor. i was raised in a large family that was devoutly catholic, deeply patriotic, very proud of our italian american heritage and staunchly democratic. my parents taught us that public service was a noble

calling and that we had a responsibility to help those in need. i viewed them as working on the side of the angels and now they are with them, but i am so happy that my brother, tommy delasandro, who was also the mayor of baltimore is here leading the delasandro family from baltimore today. he's sitting right up there with tony bennett. 43 years ago paul pelosi and i were married. we raised our five children in san francisco where paul was born and raised. i want to thank paul and our five children, nancy,

christine, jacquelin, paul jr. and alexandria and our magnificent grandchildren for their love, for their support, and the confidence they gave me to go from the kitchen to the congress. . >> and i thank my constituents in san francisco and the state of california for the privilege of representing them in congress. st. francis is our city's patron saint and his song of st. francis, lord, make me a channel of peace, where there is darkness, let me bring

light, where there is hatred, let me bring love and hope, that is what america is about. and it is in that spirit that i serve in the congress of the united states. and today, i thank my colleagues. by electing me speaker, you have brought us closer to the ideal of equality that is america's heritage and america's hope. this is a historic moment, and i thank the leader for acknowledging it. thank you, mr. boehner. it's a historic moment for the congress. it's a historic moment for the women of america.

>> it is a moment -- it is a moment for which we have waited over 200 years. never losing faith. we waited for the many years of struggle to achieve our rights. but women weren't just waiting. women were working. never losing faith. we worked to redeem the promise of america that all men and women are created equal. for our daughters and our

granddaughters, today we have broken the marble ceiling. for our daughters and our granddaughters now, the sky is the limit. anything is possible. the election of 2006 was a call to change, not merely to change the control of congress, but for a new direction for our country. no where were the american people more clear about the need for a new direction than in the war in iraq.

the american people rejected an open-ended obligation to a war without end. shortly, president bush will address the nation on the subject of iraq. it is the responsibility of the president to articulate a new plan for iraq that makes it clear to the iraqis that they must defend their own streets and their own security, a plan that promotes stability in the region and a plan that allows us to responsibly redeploy our troops. let us work together to be the congress that rebuilds our military to meet the national

security challenges of the 21st century. let us be the congress that strongly honors our response built to protect the american people from terrorism. 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. 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 envisoned 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 seal, the great seal of the united states, a new order for the centuries, centuries. they spoke of the centuries. they envisoned america as a just and good place, as a fair and efficient society, and a source of opportunity for all. this vision has sustained us for over 200 years. and it accounts for what is

best in our great nation, liberty, opportunity and justice. now it is our responsibility to carry forth that vision of a new america into the 21st century, a new america that seizes the future and forges 21st century solutions through discovery, creatist and innovation, sustaining our economic leadership and ensuring our national security. a new america with a vibrant and strengthened middle class where college is affordable, health care is accessible and retirement reliable.

a new america that declares our energy independence, promotes domestic sources of renewable energy and combats climate change. a new america that is strong, secure and a respected leader among the community of nations. and the american people hold us, they expect us to work together for fiscal responsibility, with the highest ethical standards and with civility and bipartisan.

after years of historic deficits, this 110th congress will commit itself to a higher standard, pay as you go, no new deficit spending. our new america will provide unlimited funt opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountain of debt. in order to achieve our new america for the 21st century, we must return this house to the american people. so our first order of business

is passing the toughest congressional ethics reform in history. this new congress doesn't 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. 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, the expectation of our people, and the great challenges that we face, we have an obligation to reach beyond partisanship to work for all america. 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. may god bless our work and may

god bless america. before we move forward, because there are so many children here and so many of them asked me if they could touch the gavel, i wanted to invite as many of them who wanted to come up here. let's here it for the children. we're here for the children.

children again. for all -- for these children, our children, and for all of america's children, the house will come to order.

i'm now ready to take the oath of office from the dean of the congress of the united states, mr. dingell. and i also want to acknowledge speaker foley who has been with us as well. . >> if the distinguished the gentlewoman from california will please raise her right happened. do you solemnly swear you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and that you take this obligation freely

without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that you will faithfully and well discharge the duties of the office upon which you are about to enter so help you god? ÷

. ?7?????

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> you can tell me if i'm right or wrong. i was not in the state legislature. i didn't work in the state legislature but i found that legislatures that come to washington to come to the house of representatives find a much different legislative body than the one they came from. and they have not a one-to-one translation of whatever they learned in state xyz legislature coming to the congress. wherever, the congress, i think is maybe better examined as a federation of legislatures.

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

a court that was going to look at that legislation. we worried about those things is. bob's right. florida where the final product was really put together but it was also a much more co-he's ya'll place. i thought i had an advantage coming from the state legislature. my experience was we would yell and scream and fight for principle and go to dinner with a guy you had been arguing with all afternoon on the house floor and these became your best friends. it was a better atmosphere. we didn't have to agree but we liked each other as people. if the other guy was talking about something, we listened to him. he probably had some pretty good ideas and maybe we could learn something. you get to congress and that is a little bit lost. congress passed t passed the le as the bureaucrats actually flushed it out. a lot happens between that point and the points where it actually

affects people. a lot of changes are made. much beyond whatever the congress probably had in mind and that is because they don't pay enough attention to the language. bob pointed out the way the committee system works, it does make experts out of members of congress in very narrow areas and those are the areas and committees on which they serve because they sit there through the hearings and listen to the testimony one side or the other and do the oversight within the committee itself. they really do become experts. then the question is how is that expertise shared among members? sometimes it is not shared at all and you're simply because you don't hear anybody else. when i was in the minority as a republican, we had a couple of organizations that were really designed to help share that. not everybody was a part of it. one was called cnn and it was started in the 1950's and the

other was called s.o.s., which i belonged to and no one knew what it meant. it was save our soul or society of statesmen, which it probably was. pretty much, that c.m. snmbings still operating. the s.o.s. is still operating by the wayside. they were so busy now as committee chairman and subcommittee chairman they didn't have that time. what we did and what i did and c.m.n. and s.o.s. would try to find guys in each class and invite them to join and i was fortunate enough to be selected to join s.o.s., myself and one other freshman member. and what we would do is meet every week on a tuesday afternoon in a member's office. the member would be responsible for laying out the booze and the cheese and the crackers and youth sit there and you'd sit

there and talk about what your committees were doing. you'd be there for an hour. you had to be there on time. if not you were fined. i don't know where the money went. >> the earmarks. >> but there would be people who were more senior people. i would be able to listen to barbara, the ranking member of the ways and means committee talk about issues before the ways and means committee and what was happening and all of this stuff and all of these other people, john anderson, gerry ford was a member of c.m.n. these people were the experts on their committees and every week they would report about what they are committees were doing and i would report about what education and labor was doing or the committee on aging and you got to hear all of this stuff. you got to know a little bit. if you went back to a town meeting and somebody asked you a question, you had enough knowledge that you picked up and

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

it was -- it was a classroom experience. it was wonderful. >> let's open up for questions. i think dollar lot of interesting topics that have been brought up here. i would like to hear what you think about them and maybe get some further explanation. >> yes, young lady on the aisle. >> hi. i wondered if you had any -- insight into any upcoming legislation or education specifically -- >> bilingual? >> i think all of us are for people learning another language. we have to recognize in the united states, we're behind the

curve of every other country in the world. people are learning whatever their language is and they are certainly learning how the speak english. we should be learning chinese and spanish. we have very strong feelings about the fact that we are an english-speaking country but i'm very much in favor of languages being taught and requirements that people take languages other than english. >> my question is basically about the -- constitution -- i wonder -- the congress -- act of 1954 and i wonder if only because it violated a congress

-- why does it have to -- >> members take an oath to support the constitution. and so i don't think it is beyond the realm of sensibility that they somehow be obliged to, at least, acknowledge the fact that whatever they are trying to do as a constitutional basis for it. otherwise, they really can't do it. if it is not part of the constitution, they really are not allowed to do it. they shouldn't be allowed to do it. a constitution is fairly broad in that sense. there are limitations as to what the federal government can do or not do. >> we get kind of sucked into the notion that only the supreme

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

that's it. that's constitutional judgment that i have made, etc. you can't argue with it. so the whole notion of a legislator saying that the legislation that they want to introduce or they are introducing is -- is -- has constitutional authority is not a hard standard to me. >> not at all. >> at all. >> but the constitution at of listening weather channel come up frequently? >> oh, yeah, it is used as a -- every time i heard it -- i tend to like constitutional law. that's the thing that got me into being a lawyer to begin was a constitutional law course i took as an undergrad and that

kind of directed me into law school and i kind of paid attention to supreme court decisions and things like that. those are all very interesting but occasional you'll get members of congress who are in the committee, it will be a markup and somebody will o somebody else's amendment on the basis that it is not constitutional. if i say it is constitutional and the committee agrees to it, it is constitutional. and it is constitutional law if the president signs it and it is constitutional unless and until the supreme court on some other day in some other decade says no. >> true. >> looking far microphone.

>> my name is hillary brown from san francisco state university. my question is -- commercialized health insurance unconstitutional. what about people who drive cars? >> i think there is a distinction, at least, the argument is being made there is a distinction. first of all, driving an automobile is not a right. it is a pri and there can be conditions on that privilege. you have to have a license, for example and do other things. the purpose is to protect other people. it isn't really to protect you. that is viewed as a little bit different than saying you must go out in the private marketplace and you must buy this particular product. and i think that goes beyond what they at least, the courts have already taken the commerce clause. in my own opinion.

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

[laughter] >> let me ask you a question. do you recall in your experiences in congress that you repealed legislation? >> no, that's the problem. you don't look back at it. there is oversight. there hasn't been as much oversight in recent years as their used to be. you just never seeming to back and say does this thing work? is it doing what we thought it was going to do? we always look to the past for great noble purposes but congress never takes the time to go back and then they have assists of their own and they have -- constituents of their own and they have a new half-life every other year. we're doing too much and i think we have to go back and look. but we don't do it. that's part of the problem. something gets past and it stays in existence forever. >> i think that is true. we need -- we used to have a

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

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

consequences from the health care legislation if it will pass and it will play out over time in the next year or so. that is a real ripe opportunity for the republican leadership to examine this law, posture itself as looking for the bad things to root out and then maybe something on the positive side to reinforce and they would look very thoughtful and they would have lots of publicity because this would roll. every night it would be on the news and then finally they could come to some kind of a big crescendo in time for the elections to make some kind of massive thing. on the other hand, the longer this thing goes, i think, it is like medicare.

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

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

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

congressional district lines and how that plays into the calculus h.o.v. how people vote, -- how people vote, particularly on the democratic side, in next week's repeal vote on health care, more than how they think voters are going to look at it two years from now. >> good point. >> yes. good, yes. >> hi. my question is more congressman sarasin. i'm from massachusetts. it is required that we have health care. my question is why people oppose to it when it is a benefit to them? why do you think people are opposed to having to buy health care? >> because of the cost, for one thing and because of all the requirements that go with it. part of the problem with health care is the -- and it has been a

progressive thing. the states have managed to screw it up to a large extent by creating mandates saying if you're going to sell health insurance in this state and these are state issues, you're going to have to provide benefits for this and this and this and this. it is like saying if you're only going drive one kind of a car, it is a complete cadillac, maybe somebody wants to drive a volkswagen because volkswagen is still better than walking. you can't do that because of all the costs built into the program. wouldn't it be nice if you could pick the kind of insurance you want and have yourself covered for it? we can't do that any longer and that is part of the problem. plus if you're told you to buy this insurance and the costs are already going up. there is no free lunch here. you can't tell the american public that you can keep your adult child on -- be covered until they are 26 years old

without impacting the cost of the product. you can't say that you cannot be -- that you're alloweded to buy insurance even though you a preexisting condition without impacting the cost of the product. maybe they are ways to do that but there are probably other ways to bring the costs down and allow products to be sold throughout the states instead of the way it is today, do something serious about tort reform, liability reform and i think there are ways to skin this cat, but not the way it has been done. >> yes, way back there. >> in the european union, they have the universal health care system. do you think the american public would be opposed to raising taxes to have a welfare system and a health care system as they do over in the e.u. or do you think it would affect the

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

logic behind constitutional interpretation. it is almost irrelevant. it seems like there are some very cut and dry bylines. i'm just wondering what your logic was specifically behind the constitutional interpretation that is open to what was said? >> well, the logic is that you're a constitutional officer. you have taken oath to uphold the constitution. you don't delegate in that process to someone else to say what the constitution is. you -- you -- you are a

constitutional officer but you're entitled to your own interpretation of what that constitution requires. and there will be as is sort of evident in our society, why differences on what things, what the constitution requires. there are very few things in the constitution that says -- that are not really subject to interpretation. one is that the president shall take the oath of office on the 20th of january. that one is a hard one to argue and interpret, unless maybe you're into some arrest logical different calendar thing -- astro logical different calendar thing but that leads to very little disagreement.

congress shall make no law -- that is a strange phraseology. congress shall make no law and no law is nothing. it should read congress shall not make a law abridging the right of freedom of speech. but we all know that, at least, the courts have said that certain free speech is not constitutionally protected. and the congress, through a variety of passages of laws like espionage acts and things, has said that congress can make some laws abridging freedom of speech. so, i as a legislature, can presumably say that people with crooked teeth shouldn't have the right to free speech.

it does get down to interpretation. so it is relative to the mind of the person who is offering the piece of legislation. now quite clearly, in a system which is hopefully rational, that person stands alone. and all other similar constitutional officers say -- back. we're not going to that. and when the congress, as a whole, speaks by its actions, that, then is presumptive of constitutionality. until a return by the supreme court or -- until overturned by the supreme court or vetoed by the president. >> yes, this young lady. >> naud --

[inaudible] you mentioned the health care bill won't be repealed. -- >> yeah, that, you know, to repeal a constitutional amendment requires a 2/3 majority. and then ratification by 3/4 of the state. that isn't likely to happen. >> i'm not sure the amendment has to be repealed. i really am not. i think a question of interpretation of the 14th amendment because of the language in the amendment that says that people who -- i can't remember it now. no wonder, anytime the wrong place here.

all persons born or naturalized in the united states are subject to the jurisdiction thereof and it is a question are aliens subject to the jurisdiction thereof and so i don't know. i think you could interpret that a little bit differently and say that you don't have -- babies who are born here, the subject -- whose parents are here illegally in violation of our laws are not necessarily -- yang of the name now they call for babies who are born here. >> anchor babies. >> are not necessarily anchor babies and shouldn't be a citizen. i don't think that is the way it is interpreted, necessarily but i don't think you need an amendment to say well, we really ought to look at this a different way. >> yes, this young woman.

>> i've been in this country not too long. each time i see a doctor -- i only pay the prescription. it is not believe this country, when we see the doctor, it is free of charge. in china, we don't pay anything? we see the doctor is free of charge and we only pay the prescription. is it possible in this country? health care reform like this? thank you. >> as i take the question, it would be do we -- do we have a, say european style health care system. and i would say the answer is no. i mean, if you're over 65, with

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

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

recall that there is some history behind the congress being forced to trays debt ceiling. that is required by not the constitution but by some statute that was passed -- raise the debt ceiling. that is required not by the constitution but by some is it a fact that was passed. republicans who were outraged at economics in the 1930's and the new deal were the ones that during a brief hold of power in the congress and the white house, passed legislation requiring -- passed a statute requiring the congress to raise the ceiling on the debt periodically. and if that is true, it is kind

of just desserts that the republicans are now in control. all of that i said is subject to check. don't put that down in a paper and tell your political science professor it is true. >> the great extension is what is referred to in congress as must-pass legislation. historically it has resulted in some rather interesting conditions. it has other legislation attacked to it. for example, the graham rudman hawley was passed because it was attached to the debt limit extension. obviously members are going to use any opportunity that there is, must pass legislation to try to get amendmented added to it. >> and sweent it. >> and sweent it, right.

. -- and sweeten it. >> >> will the addition of the constitutional meaning -- will it change the way they enact legislation or write legislation because you spoke about how many don't even read it or understand it fully and start to learn things the more they read into it fully even after it was made a law. >> i don't think it will change the way legislation is written. it is written or at least cleaned up by a staff of people who are supposed to be knowledgeable in all of that stuff. i don't think any of that is going to change. there will be an additional line in the bill somehow it will be worked in atlanta i don't know how they are mechanically how they are going to that but it will just give you some

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

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

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

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

so i don't think i would have supported it if i had the opportunity to vote on it. >> yes. right down front. >> hello. i live in nashville. my question -- in 1998 and 1999 we see microsoft being sued for being a monopoly. they own 90% of the market. the u.s. postal service is a monoply. -- monopoly. if the bill passes, will we see the government using the -- clause to form a monopoly on health care?

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

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

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

fellow against at&t to break up the monopoly. it wasn't the federal government that broke up at&t, the huge monopoly on telephones. it was a private individual and a judge by the name of green, a district judge that unraveled that whole thing. because democratic institutions couldn't do it. >> this is what congressman carr was talking about. about the fact that unlike so many other democrat countries in the world, we have two avenues to making policy. one is through legislature and the other is through court. somebody sued. linda brown's parents sued the school board of topeka, kansas. that's how it got to court. this this is one of the things that we have done.

>> yes. way, way back. >> congressman sarasin, you said earlier that you would like the opportunity to go back and change some of your votes after the fact because you were not satisfied with what happened. what are some examples exactly of that? >> i'm sorry, i'm not sure. it is referring to the tax code? >> just votes in general that you were not satisfied with that you wish you could go back. >> things you voted for. >> oh. again, most of them i think are -- i'm more than comfortable with. there was something not too long ago that i voted for. couldn't have been too important. i don't know. i honestly cannot think of -- not that there are not any but i

can't -- nothing jumps to my mind that i would change. although i'm sure there were many of them. >> can i kind of inject a political question in here? it is my impression that both of you represent very different congressional districts in terms of the degree of competitiveness. you, i know, congressman carr are in a highly competitive district and you, congressman sarasin are in a pretty sound district. >> no, not at all. very competitive. i defeated a democrat incumbent. i came to congress in 1972 just in time to get embroiled in watergate and then trying to run for re-election in a democratic district was not a fun time and i was running against speaker of the house who died this past

sunday. did you know that? we talked a moment ago about bipartisan. this was a very competitive district. we served together in the state legislature. he was a -- he was a speaker of the house. i thought he did a magnificent job. i was in the minority. he was in the majority obviously. we became great friends. in 1974, he ran against me for congress. we debated 28 times. nobody remembers my reference now. it is like "the bob and ratio". nobody remembers who bob and ray were. we became greater friends during the campaign, fortunately i won and he lost. he came back three years or two terms later when i was running for governor to run for the open seat and he won it and came here to washington and served here for six terms and remained my

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

sure you come from -- >> you actually exchanged -- with your republican challengers. >> yes, i was there for 18 years and i skipped a term when i was defeated and then came back and won my seat back. incidentally, it is pretty hard to do. you to gingerly tell voters they made a mistake. [laughter] it is a very, very tough job to run for your seat after you have been bounced. but my district was always -- always -- i had a republican tilt to it. i would say, this is an oversinchification. in michigan, --

oversimpification. in machine, we would a governor and my district was the state capital of lancing. it included it and included included other areas too. noong group were moderate republican women. -- among that group. so my margin of victories, i could always sort of lay to the moderate republican pro-choice women who would vote with me and -- and it was -- i had these very narrow victories. any time straight party voting reasserted itself, i was in trouble and that's -- that's -- i lost that one time when ronald reagan defeated jimmy carter.

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

the next congress because their districts will be redrawn with a more favorable tilt to the republicans. and again, as i said earlier, there are so many safe districts where they have actually been created x number for democrats and x number for republicans and then there are a few districts in each state or one that is maybe a contested district, things happen, of course. otherwise those seats are pretty safe. that will probably change at least for a while. i'm not sure the system is a good one for figuring all of this out. iowa changes their congressional districts with some kind of a nonpartisan committee that tries to create cohesive districts. if you look at congressional districts in the united states, you see the most bizarre looking shapes. talk about gerry mannedering.

gerrymandering. the boundary is one street which connects two pockets of people and many miles away. the more cohesive districts where they have an economic cohesiveness probably makes more sense. that's what iowa tends to do. they are putting people out on the basis for political gain. i would not have been in demong 1972 if it hasn't been for 1970 census, which didn't change the number of seats in my state of connecticut but required redistricting and better balance and they actually took some towns out of my congressional district and put them into a republican -- took some democrat towns out of my congressional district -- what later became my district, put them in the republican district next door

attempting to defeat the republican congressman who held that seat and instead, the democratic congressman lost. i would have lost the whole -- old district and i won the new district. it was only on the basis of reapportionment. because of what the democrats were trying to do, trying to defeat the republican next door. he won. i won. they lost an incumbent democrat. >> yeah. i want to come back to something i said earlier. that is that we're in period of time, a reapportionment time where there is going to be a distortion in whatever democracy we have in the house of representatives as member s of congress cast votes with an eye on what the reapportionment process is going to mean for them. they are really in a way serving two masters. redistrict machinery and their

constituents and so look for lots of distortions and voting behavior. the other thing is that, keep in mind, that a lovert states, for whatever reason, may deadlock. i think you'll see -- lot of states, for whatever reason, may deadlock. i think you'll sigh more litigation at this time than we have seen in the past. my district that i ran in were always drawn by a veteran judge. not by a state legislature. there was always a deadlock. i had to raise money and -- along can carl purcell, a republican, a friend of ours, carl and i intervened as parties in the -- in the case in michigan, reapportionment in 19 92. so we -- the federal district

judges frequently draw -- federal boundaries and of course those people are starting to look at well, who appointed those judges and how partisan are they going to be and it is all very interesting. >> can you talk about the -- [inaudible] >> actually, congress congressman sarasin is requesting a little bit of time to talk about the congress to campus program only because there are so many of you here. bob and i have both participated in this program. it is -- the former members of congress. we have an alumni association and we do a lot of good things within this group. one of them is the congress to campus program and we encourage you to go back to your schools and ask your professors to invite us out there. what it will do is bringing two members of congress, two former

members, a democrat and a republican out to speak to your classes. it usually works through the government section of your school, the political science section and they would set up a schedule for us. the school is responsible for housing us and feeding us for a couple of days. we go out usually for two days to take -- go on sun and and come back on a late tuesday and we would then go to classes. we do it together. it is a two-fold purpose. one to encourage people to get involved in public service and secondly, to show if by way of example, if no other way, that a democrat and republican might agree on more things than they would disagree about and they might even like each other, which comes as a surprise to an awful lot of