brookings institute in douglas brinkley. at 8:30 we will be joined by mike pence. "washington journal" is live next. host: on this january 12, 2011, flags remain at half staff in washington. president obama will address a memorial service this evening for the victims of the shooting. the white house aides said the president will steer clear of politics. lawmakers will gather for a prayer service behind closed doors. the gathering will come as lawmakers consider a resolution on the house floor to honor the six people killed and injured,

as well as rep gabrielle giffords, who remains in critical condition. you will be able to watch a live stream honor facebook -- on our facebook page. meanwhile, lawmakers will receive a briefing today as lawmakers consider legislation and other means to beef up security. good morning, everyone. we will focus the conversation this morning on what, if anything, should change following the arizona shooting. the phone numbers are on your screen. the papers this morning are still talking about what happened over the weekend. here is the headline in "the washington post" this morning. "could this be a moment for the political middle?" it says --

"and lawmakers from both parties talking about the need to interact more but members on the opposite side of the aisle." it goes on to say -- "people would draw john adams with the face of a pig, one person said." on capitol hill, we talked about what the lawmakers are considering for security. "the washington post" notes that rep cowen says he is

replying for a state permit to carry a concealed weapon. he joins others who have also said they're considering carrying a gun. closer coordination was a practical for step after the arizona shooting. beyond that, talks centered on legislation that would make it a crime to carry a weapon within 1,000 feet of elected or high- ranking federal officials have publicly announced events. house speaker john boehner, democrat of ohio, as seems cool to the idea, saying "will rely on the recommendations of the sergeant at arms and the capitol police."

we want to hear from all of you about what you think should change. here is a new cbs news poll out in "of the baltimore sun" this morning. 57% of those polled said no. 32% said yes. if you break it down by party, republicans, 19% said yes. 69 percent said no. 42% of democrats believed that it did have something to do with the arizona shooting. 49% said no. independent, 33% did not believe it had anything to do with it. 33% said it did have something to do with it. washington, d.c., george is a democrat. he is our first caller this morning. what do you think, if anything, should change? caller: first of all, let me

just say, what a beautiful woman the congresswoman was. i've had a chance to go back and look at some of her statements. justen human being. my thoughts and prayers go out to her as well as the other victims. i had not been listening to talk radio for a while. really, i get tired of the vitriol. i've been listening to talk radio since reagan and buchanan. i go back a ways. i tune in after the shooting on monday, and also finding a difference. there were still talking about the same things. it is upsetting, but i think we should realize that this is nothing new. there were times in our country when our politicians actually had duals. the only difference is the speed in which these comments

reverberate. they reverberate at the speed of light. i'm an avid shooter. i have guns. i will always own guns. i go to a shooting range in virginia. i will tell you that i feel the safest when i'm at that shooting range. people are very civil to each other. i've never experienced any problems at all. i think there were plenty of warning signs with this young man. i think whenever the army rejects a 22-year-old man at wartime, that is the biggest flag that any of us need. host: george, it sounds like you laws should a gun be changed, but something more should be done with flagging people with mental issues? caller: i absolutely do not think the law should be changed. i have guns. i know lots of people who have guns. keep in mind, the people who are going to be affected by these

law changes are the law-abiding people. younger criminals and your deranged types, they do not care about laws. when you change these laws, you directly impact law-abiding citizens. no, i do not think we should change any laws at all. this guy should never have been allowed to have a weapon. he was clearly unstable. host: george, let me get your reaction to the bloomberg report that glock pistol sales jumped in the aftermath of arizona shootings of midband concerns -- amid ban concerns. handgun sales rose 38% illinois and 33% in new york. what do you think about that?

caller: i will tell you this. i wish someone was in the audience who had a gun and could have taken this guy out. again, i go back to my original statement. when i'm at my shooting range in virginia, i feel completely safe. you should see the high caliber pistols that are used there. if people go into these situations knowing that they could possibly encounter armed resistance, trust me, crazy or not, they are not going to do it, or they're going to think about it before they do it. host: george, a democrat in washington, d.c. joining us on the phone. the house leadership reporter, billy, walk us through what's going to happen on the floor as they consider a resolution. guest: things began on the house floor at 10:00 a.m.

even before that, they will meet behind closed doors at 9:00 a.m. to discuss concerns with security with the sergeant at arms and u.s. capitol police. lawmakers will be at the office building, probably signing condolence books that are set up there regarding the victims. speaker john boehner will formally introduce a resolution at 10:00 a.m., which will name the victims, including commemorating the wounding of rep gabrielle giffords of arizona and the death of six others and wounds to some 17 others. he will be followed by comments from other leaders. that will be an ongoing process for a few hours this morning as members express their emotions on the floor, breaking only for a prayer service around 11:00

a.m. at the capitol visitors' center. host: how long do you suspect they will be talking on the floor about this resolution? will they take a vote on this? what are you hearing about how many members are planning to return to washington this week? guest: as many members as want to i think will be allowed to speak on the floor. i think this will pretty much be an all-day event on the floor. they will show up in groups or a few at a time. there is some concern that a lot of the members will not be able to be here with a combination of the snow in their own emotions. many members want to be in arizona for the memorial events out there, where the president will be tonight. that is still uncertain. it is early. there's no actual vote on this resolution. at least that is the way majority leader cantor has designed this bid is expected to be unanimous consent.

host: let's talk about the weeks ahead. what happens with a legislative business? the house is under republican control now. it originally planned a repeal on the health care law. when you expect that? when do you expect they will return to normal business? guest: house republicans are not saying that they will not take it up next week. they have not said for certain one way or the other. there's a lot of other things they want to do. speaker john boehner also announced yesterday the state of the union for january 25, which would be the week after next. majority leader cantor has said that a lot of what the republicans want to do, will do, for instance, regulatory overhaul. we will wait to hear from the president and see what he has to say on these topics. host: billy house, national journal, thank you for your time. jonathan, a republican in l.a.,

what do you think should change? caller: when politicians have these get-togethers, i believe police should be provided to deter someone from trying to shoot people and things like that. i also think that a lot of people are saying this dude smoking pot made him kind of crazy. i do not think that pot makes people want to shoot people. host: jonathan, have you ever attended a political event? caller: no. host: do you plan to? caller: yeah. i am 19. i'm just getting into politics and stuff like that. host: the front page of "the new york times" has a story about members of congress with the headline "warnings rarely

perceived attacks, experts say." host: dayton, ohio, anna is a democrat. caller: most of us, our hearts go out to the family members who

have been injured and killed. i think we're all on the same page on that one. as i flip through the channels, there are some very important discussions going on in regard to -- and i know nothing about guns -- on ed schultz, and a number of clips, and if they're really necessary. and then the enforcement of existing gun laws. i've been hearing them discuss how far people should be able to get -- how close they should be able to get to congress people. again, the choices of words that some of our political leaders are using. not saying that sarah palin or glenn beck, or people laugh outrageous language -- it does insight and encourage others to use that type of language. it is very, very dangerous and needs to be looked at.

host: what does that mean for changes? do you think there should be laws on the books? caller: if i -- i call those of us out here peasants. if those of us went around using language like that out loud, i think we would be thrown in prison quite frankly. it does in sight -- incite a nger and hatred. i know sarah palin would feel that kind of anger. i think it is very dangerous. i do not know if someone should be thrown in prison for that. i know the freedom of speech peace. people need to be more responsible, including sarah palin. host: anna, a democrat in ohio. let's go to the herald, a republican in canton, ohio. took myi'm so glad you

call. someone called wishing that someone in the audience had a gun. a man was in the store next door and heard the shots and ran towards the gun man. he did have a gun in his pocket. he did help secure the man. he did take away the gun from the gentleman who was holding the gun up. my point is this. if he would have shot the man, in my book, he would have been a hero. i wonder what some of these other people -- would they put him in jail, or what would they do with that? my congressman, the freshman congressman, they had a meeting. they had four policemen inside and four policemen outside.

can they really afford that? they are laying off the sheriff's deputies. every city is going broke. third thing, if gabrielle should die -- do not think this bill will our way. i hope and pray she does not die. she would be such a wonderful person to donate her body parts. i know several people that go through dialysis. host: we will leave it there. we go to an independent in riverdale, georgia. good morning. caller: your question about the lobbying changes, in 2004, there was a law that says you cannot have so many bullets in the chamber. i think the court said you could have 10. host: the assault weapons ban, which was put in place in 1994,

but then expired in 2004. caller: exactly. i think he got off all 30 rounds. also, president nixon and martin luther king said [inaudible] just one bullet. these people going around with these guns, like the guy at virginia tech. i do not think we need stuff like that. we need laws that would restrict that. host: this is "the washington post" this morning. they break down what is on the books now. they place limitation on handgun sales. it came after the assassination of president kennedy. it prompted calls for gun control legislation, but it took

five years and the deaths of senator robert f. kennedy and martin luther king, jr. to make it happen. then we have the assault weapons ban and the caller just talked about. that was enacted in 1994. it was prompted, in part, by a 1989 schoolyard massacre in stockton, california. it expired in 2004. we also have the criminal background check improvement act, which was signed by president george w. bush after the virginia tech shooting. that is "the washington post."

kevin, democratic line, good morning. caller: thank you very much for taking my call. i am an avid listener. i have a couple of points. host: go-ahead. caller: i'm kind of confused. i'm very sorry for what happened to gabrielle giffords. no one should never harm a child for any reason. my heart goes out to all the victims. wasn't gabrielle giffords pro- gun? host: she was in favor of the second amendment. she was for some restrictions on guns. caller: ok, i understand that. she had a couple advertisements -- kind of running on the pro- gun attitude. to add more gun laws, you are

just adding more laws. laws help enable criminals to be more in bolden's to break the law. i think we need to have a comprehensive teaching of people about using a gun. there were people there who had guns who could have put this guy down and that would have stopped all of this. we need to teach people how to use a gun and how to respond correctly in a situation like this. please, god, let her live. i hope we learn from this. thank you. host: legislation that would ban guns within 1,000 feet yesterday. here's what he had to say. >> we will be introducing in the next several weeks legislation which would make it a federal crime to carry a weapon within 1,000 feet of any event which is

attended by the president, vice president, members of the senate, members of the house, cabinet officials, including the cia director, as well as federal judges. right now, you have situations such in tucson, where a person is allowed to carry a concealed weapon without a permit and authorities have no power to pass down the person or question them. to me, it is absolutely essential, not just to reject the members of congress, but the fact is they do not represent the people collect them. it is essential, if we're going to continue to have contact and continue to have a conversation between the elected officials, that the public can be assured of their own safety. host: yesterday, senator leahy was in washington. also talked about beef up security for members of congress.

here's what he had to say. >> the capitol itself is very, very secure. if i think about what it's like when i was in law school, it's a little bit different today. i do not feel any worry there. i would not want to see every member of congress walking around with security. we have it for the obvious ones in leadership, and a speaker, and i have no problem with that. i think it isolates you from the people you represent. it's not the kind of country we are. host: a republican in baltimore, maryland -- your thoughts. what should change, if anything? caller: good morning. first of all, i would like to express my condolences to anyone affected by the shooting in arizona. the caller from ohio -- the idea

that this shooter had any [inaudible] there's no evidence. there are no e-mails. nothing. that is not the problem. the issue is, late in the 1960's and into the early 1970's, this country went through de- institutionalizing people for mental issues. that's what needs to be reversed, not speech, not gun laws. host: that was a republican in baltimore on the issue of the mentally ill buying guns. here is "the wall street journal" this morning.

"first a court has to decide someone is unfit. and then a goes to the fbi database to help carry out background checks." host: maryland, richard, independent line, good morning. caller: good morning. going back to archaic times with my comment, when this constitutional amendment was put in force, they were loading one bullet at a time in their rifles.

these rifles and guns were manufactured one at a time. of course, it takes away from -- anywhere from two or three or four minutes. i think the source of blame in so far as weaponry lies in the hands of the people who instigate and create wars. to have a more efficient, a speedy way of killing people to be so blunt about that. i think that this is what has caused the eventual availability of such heinous weapons and their availability. the government, you know, promotes the idea of war.

these type of people know the availability of these things and they use them. i do not think there's any real solution. host: one caller previously mentioned how much it would cost to beef up security for members. "the washington times" reports that jesse jackson has called for taking funds for the budget and putting them towards more security, and said the total amount could potentially top $100 million in the upcoming budget. we continue with your phone calls, asking you what, if anything, should change in the wake of the arizona shooting spree at first, joining us on the phone is the senate sergeant at arms. what is your role? what is your job? guest: chief law-enforcement officer of the senate. in that capacity, along with the house sergeant of arms, we run

the police board. i'm the chairman this year. we hope that the police department and the policy tha. host: will you be part of these briefings today? guest: my office is the host of that meeting. chief morris will be there, who is doing a great job with the capitol police, along with the assistant director of the fbi and the assistant director of the secret service. host: what will you be telling members? guest: we will give a brief overview of the shooting in tuscon. we will talk about what can be done to enhance security of their offices and at events. i will talk about what to do if you find yourself in the middle of an active shrewder situation. we will have members assist in the program in order to deal with some of the aftermaths of something like this. host: what advice will you give

to members of congress, if they find themselves in that situation? guest: if you find yourself in that situation, there are basic things. first, you want to try to escape. this applies to anyone anywhere who find themselves in an act of shooting. escape is the number one priority. the second one is to try to evade the shooter. if push comes to shove, if you cannot escape, if you cannot evade, then you should attack. you should attack very loudly. host: you said that at the beginning you will talk to the -- members -- he will give them a briefing on what happened over the weekend. do you have any new information to share? guest: i think the media coverage of this has been very accurate. eventually has got the story very straight. we will not be disclosing any confidential information. the fbi will not. they do not want to compromise what they are doing. to set the scene and maybe

answer any questions people have about that. host: what will you say to members of congress about carrying their own weapons? guest: i do not release of for that. i have to make it clear that i do not write the law. if that is the law in a particular jurisdiction, i will defend somebody's right to do that. also, based on that experience, i do not think adding firearms is the first thing we should do in this situation. host: if you go to the senate website and punched up the office of the sergeant at arms, it comes up that your title is also the doorkeeper. what is the history and the role of the doorkeeper? guest: i am the 38 senate sergeant of arms. it goes all the way back to probably originated in england. the name almost speaks for itself. you control who gets onto the floor and who does not.

that's part of the process. we have a large office staff that regulates who gets onto the floor and under what circumstances and enforces the rules. host: it says that the doorkeeper, back in the time, was necessary to control access to the senate sessions, which were private for the first six years. that sounds like security. is there any effort going forward to limit the access for the public to the senate chamber? guest: absolutely not. in recent years, the senate has reopened the galleries even when the senate is not in session. the leadership and the members feel very strongly that when they are in session, the public needs to be there. we do ask the public -- makes the public jump through some security hoops. i think the vitality of this capital and what the members do is in being open. host: is the capital safe enough?

guest: yes, it is. i think the capitol police to an unbelievable wonderful job. they're supported by very good staff. the staff is very sensitive to emergency situations, suspicious people, and suspicious packages. in partnership with them and a law enforcement officers and the technology, this is a very safe environment. it is not foolproof. there's plenty of evidence of what has happened at the capitol and the fact that our enemies would like to do something. i think the men and women who work in those 454 state offices around the united states, very little bit more vulnerable. we do have a program out of my office to help strengthen the security in their own buildings, whether they're in a commercial building or a federal building. host: there's been talk of putting plexiglas around the house chamber. what do you think of that idea? guest: i think we should always explore things that have intelligent conversations. when i was chief, we looked at

that at the house and senate. as we send people to england, they were thinking about it and ultimately did that. i do not think it should happen. i do not believe one cannot get a bomb into the building -- i do not believe one can get a bomb into the building. i think there are other ways. host: thank you very much for joining us on the phone this morning. i know you are very busy. chantilly, virginia. harry is a republican. what should change? caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i do not know if anything should change. i'm sitting here with "the washington post" spread open. we are in day four of a harangue on the tone of our politics and how the discussion has to change and we have to be careful about our words -- blah, blah, blah. on page d-1 of the metro

section, there's a small headline that is not attached to any story. it says "a political pep rally before doing battle." that is "the washington post." i do not know if you put this in the category of stupidity or hypocrisy. it goes to show you the ending this of -- inaneous. i'm not willing to instantize my -- infantize my discussion or my rhetoric with the hopes of keeping some lowlife in his box. i'm not willing to give that up for the lowest common denominator. it's unlikely that there's a real connection in this particular case or in many cases. they want observation i have that has bugged me from the beginning is, here's a guy who

showed up at class. people were scared to death of him even in the class. he had run in is with the police -- he had run ins with the police for drug paraphernalia. he was reportedly making threats about other people. somehow, this guy was able to pass a check. it is a bit irresponsible of his own community. people wrote e-mails about how scary this guy was. for them to have something that looked like a criminal record, even if it was minor, and nobody put anything together to bring mental health professionals into this thing, which might of awarded him at the gun store -- thwarted him at the gun store.

rep king wants to ban weapons from 1,000 feet of a public servant. as if this guy was going -- there's a law against me bringing this clock within 1,000 feet of representative giffords and i better think twice about killing her. of the things that are going around are insane. host: an e-mail. "you cannot legislate loss to the criminally insane. they just will not listen. many state hospital for the mentally ill have been closed down for some time now with the families taking the burden." a viewer.e-mail from here's another one. "the gentleman from washington, d.c. who said that gun laws would not have made a difference is wrong."

host: north carolina, roy on the line for democrats. caller: hi. it was not rhetoric that ripped a hole in that little girl's chest. it was a weapon used for gangsters alone. there's no remotely good reason for anyone, not even the military, having it. it is a machine-gun pistol. the fact that this country cannot do the simplest, courageous thing and not prohibit the sale of this, like any other civilized country has done. we buy a 2/3 of glock murder machines. i think sarah palin and all of

them should be in jail. host: sarah palin, according to political this morning, released a video. she said in the video, "they begin and end with the criminals who commit them." mount vernon, texas, debbie, independent line, go ahead. caller: each time they want to do something, it takes more of our liberty away. howlittle girl's father, the travel got so bad after 9/11 because of security and everything. each time the law makers want to step in, they want to take something away from the people. that takes away our liberties. i do not like the fact that these people are public servants. no, i do not want them harm than any way. at the same time, why is there a

special -- are talking about special laws for senators. anyhat little girl's life different than the congress lady's? there should not be a special category for anyone. if you commit murder, you are a murderer. host: front page of usa today -- ""usa today." also this morning, stories about defense secretary gates visit to china. here's the headline in "the wall street journal" this morning. "china shows its growing might."

the papers note this morning that china's president seemed surprised and did not know about the exercise. also, this morning, the story notes that china's president will be visiting the u.s. next week. there will be a state dinner for him. here's the headline on china- u.s. relations. this is "the washington post" this morning, talking about that this will be one of the many issues that president obama and the chinese president will talk about next week. also this morning, here is "the washington times." "leadership showdown set for rnc gathering." they will vote on their new chairman on friday. back to your phone calls. georgia, and jim on the

republican line. what do you think should change? caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: during that press conference, i believe it was the mayor who kept getting in his political views about how right wing talk shows were causing the guy to shoot people. what if everyone that night, from the surgeon to the mayor, to the deputies to the bystanders -- what if we had to endure everyone's viewpoint on this matter? host: i think you are referring to the sheriff in tuscon? caller: yes. that was highly inappropriate and unprofessional in that context. they had zero rightly -- they had bill reilly last night. what of the whole army -- who is the scion who does he think he is? the new bill about staying 1,000 feet away from the

representatives -- who is going to enforce that? if they pat down people, the liberals might say you are checking only white people or your checking only that group of people. host: the vice-president's trip. here is the headline. trenton, new jersey, democratic line, good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question. [inaudible] peace and love. [inaudible] these words that are uttering out of our mouth -- and when we

think we're in peace and love, we are evil. why should we change now? i do not understand that. host: we have a couple minutes left to talk about what changes, if anything, before we finish this conversation. i want to show you -- back in january 2007, rep gabrielle giffords was on "washington journal." on the opening day of the 100th congress. she talked about why she got involved in politics. >> i first got involved in politics when i was frustrated when i read my newspaper every morning and my great state of arizona continue to be at the bottom. i like, you can either complain about something or you can try

to fix it. i decided to run for political office. i served in the arizona house and arizona senate and now i'm here in congress. i'm very excited. host: representative giffords back in 2007. if you want to watch more of that interview, go to our web site, c-span.org. you can watch the entire interview. batteries, louisiana. go ahead. caller: thank you. i want to give my condolences to the families. they say that handguns are so relevant to so many people. it's a problem in the black community with young kids shooting each other. it happened to martin luther king. it happened to the kennedy brothers. it keeps happening. i wish they would do something about this. host: we will go to news council -- we will go to new

castle, pa.. caller: thank you. when they realize that he had a problem -- he wanted to get into the service. one door after another kept closing on this. 22 years old. why didn't somebody take the initiative to pick up the initiative and either call his parents and say that he needs an evaluation, or if that is against his rights, why didn't someone call a government official, a law-enforcement official. before something happens, why doesn't somebody do something about this? now, after the fact, all these people have been hurt or killed.

now they want to blame everyone else. they cannot help. nobody did anything about it. host: gary on the line for independents. caller: i've been in the army 15 years. i probably would have pulled a gun out and shot him myself and save taxpayers a lot of money. host: that was very, an independent in new york. that does it for our discussion on this. we will be right back.

>> there's a new way for you to follow congress. it is washington, your way. >> it is time to upload your videos for c-span's student cam competition. this year's topic, washington, d.c. through my lens, for your chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. c-span's students cam documentary competition -- for complete details, go on line to

c-span.org. >> this c-span networks, we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, and nonfiction books, and american history. it's all available to you on television, on-line, and social media sites. find our content any time through c-span's video library. we take c-span on the road, bringing our resources to your community. it is washington your way. the c-span networks, now available in more than 100 million homes, created by cable, provided as a public service. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome to the table in washington thomas mann, a senior fellow at the brookings institution. joining us from austin, texas is doug brinkley. mr. brinkley, let me begin with you. first, let's begin with the role

of the president. what is it? guest: the president has to become healer in chief. the whole country, after an event like tucson, is hurting. there are not any easy answers. were not sure if there will be a big congressional debate over the gun selling policy. we are not sure if there will be increased security on congressional candidates or the people in state houses or governors' mansions. what we do know is that the behavior we witnessed, and we're all feeling a disdain for this young man who would shoot innocent people -- somebody has got to move us beyond this mourning area and frame it for us. president obama is going to arizona today, very much like bill clinton in 1995 and ronald reagan with the challenger

disaster in 1986, will have to say words to kill the family and soothe our national move, -- he al the family and sued our national -- sooth our national mood. at the end of the speech, has to give some hope. i recently reread bill clinton's oklahoma city speech. he talked about planting trees on the lawn of the white house. he also needs to make tuscon feel good. it's a wonderful state. the state is still in very ostracized and hurt. he needs to kind of bring that state back into the union, if you'd like, emotionally. host: "the arizona daily" has a

piece from the arizona -- a note from the obamas, "despite tragedy, this is a good town." thomas mann, according to the paper, he has to steer clear of politics. guest: i think that's very right. if there was any intimation that he is trying to garner political advantage from this, the opportunity for the country would be lost. i think doug is exactly right. it is particularly important, seeing the reaction of last couple of days. i'm not talking about tuscon. i'm talking about the broader, a political partisan debate that has ensued as to whose fault it is and rather than he did, ugly, violence prone rhetoric is coming from one side or the

other -- in some way, cost this. i think it is a reflection of our times. in some respects, the worst of our times. president obama needs to get us beyond that. i suspect that is what he is going to try to do. host: here is a headline in "the new york times." mr. mann, what is the role of the speaker of the house? guest: i think that is quite accurate. i think speaker boehner has risen to the occasion so far. the early maneuvering is in this congress suggested open partisan war over repealing the health care act and intense battles over domestic spending.

speaker boehner immediately sensed the new situation and cancel the -- cancelled the media business and is doing his utmost to tone down the rhetoric. frankly, that's what is needed right now. we need to tone it down. i think that the speaker is a constitutional officer of the united states, not simply the leader of the majority. he or she has a responsibility to speak on behalf of the entire congress and country. i think boehner understands that. host: here is "usa today" looking back at tragedies that have happened in our country and what past presidents had to say.

this is what president reagan had to say after the challenger accident. >> ladies and gentlemen, the events of earlier today led me to change the plans. today is a day for mourning and remembering. we are pained to the court over the tragedy of the shuttle challenger. this is truly a national loss. 19 years ago, almost to the day, we lost three astronauts in a terrible accident on the ground. we never lost an astronaut in flight. we've never had a tragedy like this. perhaps we have forgotten the courage it took of the crew. challenger -- they were aware of the challenges, overcame them, and did their jobs bravely. we mourn seven heroes. host: doug brinkley, what did

you hear and what was the reaction? guest: it was a peggy noonan speech. ronald reagan did an excellent job of paying homage to the people who died in challenger. the difference in a speech like that, however, is when you go into a space program, the risks are so high. anytime you go into space, you know it could be your last time ally that any moment. as part of the risks of joining the space program. in this time in tuscon, is a congresswoman doing a meet and greet at a local store. it creates a different kind of morning. -- mourning. there's a lot of political warfare and partisan bickering over what happened in tuscon. that was not the case in the challenger. our country was unified. obama has a tougher task, in a way. he has got to not stoke hate

rhetoric against him or against his opposition. he has to keep an even killed -- keel tone. bill clinton at oklahoma city is the analogous speech. when you're looking at tuscon and looking at other assassinations or assassination attempts, is almost eerily similar to what happened to the assassination of george wallace in maryland, where you had a real misanthropic cook who was keeping diaries and just wanted to be noticed and fumbled the job and could not even kill the person he was after. i see real similarities to that. also in the sense of wallace and congresswoman giffords, not everyone was interested in gabby giffords or george wallace's

movement. it was a periphery event. something like oklahoma city had a tragic consequence that made us rethink terrorism. oklahoma city broke a climate of partisan warfare down a notch. most americans are not in the mood right now for a partisan food fight this week about what went wrong in tuscon. people would like to have a proper mourning. host: the memorial service with president obama gets under way this evening at 8:00 p.m. eastern time. "usa today" notes that past presidents'messages have customarily invoked national pride and resolve. mr. thomas mann, is that also the role of congress? when you think of pictures after 9/11 and members coming together.

guest: absolutely. it's part of a way of showing national unity in the face of crisis or trauma or a horrific outbreak of violence. frankly, members of congress do not come together very often. they are separated in the party caucuses. the level of debate is heated. these occasions call for something very different. it is not that the rhetoric of politics caused this mentally unbalanced person to commit violence. it is that sad occasion provides an opportunity to try to tone down the intensity of partisan debate. that is what you will see

unfolding over the next several days. host: let's get to your phone calls. the topic this morning is -- the u.s. aftermath of tragedies in the united states. north carolina, and jim on the republican line. go ahead. good morning. you are on the air. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: we can. please go ahead. caller: in my opinion, we overdo this national mourning stuff. we are a big country. we have stuff like this happen every day in this country. you just do not hear about them. it's a good thing we do not have the current crop of americans when we were crossing the great plains on wagon trains and people will lose their lives. they would bury them and say a prayer and go about their business. that's what we need to do. we need to bury our dead. we need to attend to the

wounded. we need to comfort -- let the families mourn in private. host: doug brinkley, is this overdone? guest: i disagree completely with the caller. we are not a country that is not used to pulling out a block and a blasting congress people in the face. i find the cholera living in some fantasy wild west division of america -- caller living in some fantasy wild kamala and has been a part of american history, certainly, but even curtailing violence is what he is talking about. we have a situation of a psychotic killer in a city like to son and is bringing a fear to people. i am a father. i cannot like the idea of my family being gunned down at a shopping center because somebody is cleared for a semi-automatic

weapon who has records of being mentally unstable. this is something we have to pay attention to and not just bury our dead. to listen not havwant to a fuel tonight, nobody is forcing him to. go take a walk. host: next phone call. caller: i just want to say, united we stand, divided we fall. in this critical time, we are divided like never before. look at bush before 9/11. nobody liked him. the word on the street was that he stole the election, but after 9/11, everyone loved him. mr. brinkley, the president has had no power since president

kennedy was killed. the shadow government controls everything. host: mr. brinkley, if you could address his comments to you. guest: that is a well-known conspiracy-type thing. presidents have enormous power, they can declare war when they want to, the ability to use rhetoric -- you mentioned ronald reagan, i talked about bill clinton -- and they are able to move the country through their words. we talk about the gettysburg address a lot because lincoln struck the right tone at the right time. i do not think that we are in a time of declining power for the president. guest: it is hard to

underestimate the extent to which obama has come out of nowhere and be elected president of the ad states, nor can one underestimate the markey has put on his administration in the first two years in office. he is not a tool of some other powerful force pulling the strings. of course, he operates in a democratic, constitutional system, and he relies on others for advice, but that sounds much to like a conspiracy to me. host: you talked about the tone and the timing of what the president said. how important, for both of you,

is it that a president responds quickly? while the president may want to stay clear of politics, there is a political cost to not striking the right tone and timing. guest: i do not know if it is as much a matter of the quickness, but he has to be apropos. we had the national moment of silence, and now appropriately, going to tucson. there will be a lot of the motion there. you are dealing with a traumatized community. i am sure the president will rise to the occasion and give a fitting memorial speech, a healing speech. he is good at this. what he did not want to do is what happened during the bp oil spill where he had a sense of callousness, did not get down

there quick enough, started the drumbeat of don't you care? this time, in tucson, he is doing all the right things and has taken precisely the right tone. host: this view were e-mails -- viewer e-mails in -- "the new york times" writes about this upcoming state of the union address -- excuse me, it is "of washington post." getting past the pep rally. what they suggest is republicans and democrats do not fit on

their separate sides and you do not have that symbolic picture of one side jumping up to applaud and the other side sitting there. guest: it would be an interesting experiment. you may have some republicans and democrats get to know one another. this is common in decades past. often times, members would get together, members with sharp differences -- say, bob dole and george mcgovern redo could fight it out on the floor and then walk out -- could fight it out on the floor and then walked out together. i do not want to diminish the importance of philosophical differences that are meant to be fought out, but the other side is not the enemy.

they are simply americans with a different take. that is the sentiment we need to see coming out of congress and reaching the public. host: bridgeport, ohio. tom, you are on the air. caller: i resent the way that this assailant has been described as being politically motivated to commit these crimes. it is pretty dastardly than one political party could use this as motivation, criticizing republican propaganda. i think the democrats are wrong about that. guest: i do not think that is the argument being made. virtually all the commentary has

acknowledged this young man seems to be seriously concerned -- disturbed mentally, and his ramblings were absolutely incoherent. there was no explicit evidence of taking signals from sarah palin or glenn beck. liberals are not saying that and it is a mistake for the caller to fall into that same partisan trap -- all those bad democrats are saying this. what we are saying is, let's tone it down. the tone was not the cause of the disaster, but it brings to mind for many americans -- i know members of congress feel this way -- it is a little bit scary when a representational process, like a meeting, creates

the possibility of a vulnerability of the lives of ordinary americans. there is so much hate in the air. host: this is an e-mail from a viewer talking about the mental health treatment system in arizona, calling it the poorest in the country -- linda is a republican in orlando, florida. go ahead. caller: you all are historians, so i want you to put this in light of history. there was a story in the paper yesterday talking about past violence with politicians. in the past 111 years, there

have been 10 incidences of shooting, -- i am sorry, eight incidences and 10 people killed. that is over 111 years. i am not try to make light of that at all but for people to think that this happens frequently, i do not think it does. host: douglas brinkley? guest: keep in mind, this is somebody actualizing an event in tucson. congress people constantly get death threats. here at c-span, you probably get some incredibly crazy people that call in or right in. they are out there. there is a percentage of the country that is not stable. we have to figure out a way to address that.

one question, it was mentioned in an e-mail, how do all states better deal with mental health? that is something that we need to look at. semi-d we be giving semioti automatic weapons to someone just because they are 21 and have a driver's license? the gun lobby is very strong in the united states. here in texas, we have a land commissioner that is pushing for people to carry guns on city buses. recently, he said, i should have shot my opponent when i had the chance. there is a kind of gun culture to texas and the southwest, and

it is fine if you are doing it as feeder, but when you have young people actualizing it, it becomes a problem. these states need to stop making guns into a fetish. host: arcadia, florida. richard, you are next. go ahead. caller: i hate to say this, but one of the problems we have is in the white house. our president is a divider, not a united, and he is definitely a radical. the progressive left are going to use this event from this deranged lunatic, and politics did not play any role in this,

but they are going to use this for their agenda. we have to look at president obama's action when he first came into the white house. brinkley?est douglas guest: his description of the president is part of the problem. his actions, endorsements would put him it very much in the mainstream of american politics. there is this belief that there is a radical in the white house who does not deserve to be there. that kind of demonization fuels' an anger and rhetoric that is really quite destructive of our politics.

i would say to the caller, cool it, tone it down, talk to someone who sees things differently than you and see if we cannot get back to some point of reasonable deliberation and compromise. host: did you see a similar pattern when george bush was in office and rhetoric coming from the left? guest: yes, there was. people on the left would say that george bush was like hitler, our new stolid. -- stallin. it went overboard and over the line. it seems to have grown. i did not know where it began. it may have been some years back with the clarence thomas supreme court appointment, it may have started with the woodward and

bernstein when the press became a powerful, at the same time with nixon. we are in a period right now where we have to call our jets -- calm our jets. we are turning people off on politics. what people are engaging in is finger-pointing over every incident. even this incident in tucson, people are pointing fingers. i am not sure talk radio had played in this man's life. as a writer, i write books, but there is tv, violence everywhere. we cannot go blame everything on

oliver stone. this movie caused the crime in columbine. it is a dangerous game. we need to look how we look at mental illness issues. there was a trail. how do we get help for the people when they are young? we need to take a real look at a country that is just drenched in guns and making sure that the right people are getting a license. these people are getting these weapons to kill. host: a tweet from cspanjunkie -- an e-mail from a viewer --

let's go to floyd. butler, tennessee. republican line. caller: i am an old man, a republican, and i have been around. i have seen a whole lot of stuff. i tell you, in the last 30 years, the republicans that made me a republican when i was young would roll over in their graves if they saw what was happening today. host: thomas mann? guest: i spent quite a bit of time speaking to former republican elected office holders who are distressed with

the developments in their own party and in our politics. it is really such that it becomes a crime to think about compromising with the enemy, yet our entire system is predicated on people with diverse views coming together and trying to understand what is behind other arguments, interests. but that has been taken out of our politics, no compromise, stand on principle, reclaim american for real americans. i am not sure if it is connected to the tucson event. as doug said, the real roots of this are in the personal problems of the individual involved. but it calls for a larger problem in the country that we

need to deal with. host: gregory in manhattan. you are on the air. caller: good morning. hopefully, i will be able to express what i have to say. short. keep it sor america has a history of violence. when the indians were here, we came over and they were destroyed. there were lynchings in america. most people are not born prejudice, but they are led to become presidentprejudice. the guy who called earlier wondering who president obama actually is, greta, you came back with a balanced response

and mentioned president bush. the supreme court annointed him president. he took us to a war where we were not really supposed to. that is a responsibility that bush has to take personally. lastly, but not least lee, fox news. nobody with a college degree can stand there and actually believe that the intention behind fox news is to be fair and balanced. host: i think we have addressed this. more of a common than a question. let's move onto trevor. independent line. caller: there is a tendency of the government to react to tragedy called tragedy reaction solution. it is part of a dialect that the government has practiced for years to divide and promote a

certain agenda. you two men are educated and i am sure you are aware of the hegelian dialectic. a couple of examples of this would be the christmas day bomber, which i might add, the story was broken by the detroit press when the state department helped that man get on the plane. then right after that, what did we get? scanners. what did begin after 9/11? the patriot act. now after this shooting incident, what do we get? we are getting, tone down the rhetoric, as things get worse in the country, as employment rises, as food prices rise. as people become more

discontent, obviously, that anger will be targeted toward the so-called public servants we have. host: douglas brinkley? guest: clearly, there is a lot of pressure put on politicians, especially in a recession. we talk about the new deal, but you talk about some of the things that were said about fdr in the 1930's. many people used to slur him as rosenfeld, making an anti- semitic connection to fdr. even when he was being attacked as being a socialist, with anger during the great depression, there seemed to be rules of engagement. photographers did not take photographs of him in a

wheelchair. there are only a couple that exist of him in his braces because of his polio. this was done out of respect. unfriendly newspapers did not want to disrespect office of the presidency. we do not see that anymore. anything is fair game. we are in a new era and i do not know if the past is helpful in this new information age. we are still trying to figure out how we can use technology solely to our advantage because there are a lot of disadvantages to becoming wired. while it can be egalitarian, the internet as a mob quality to it sometimes. host: i want to show you the video that was put out by sarah palin this morning, reacting to the criticism that has been put

toward her and the shooting over the weekend. >> there are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently a political criminal. they claim political debate has become more heated recently. when was that less heated? back in the old days when political figures literally settle their differences with pistols? our founding fathers knew they were not designing a system for perfect men and women. if men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. our founders genius was to design a system to settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our passions in civil ways. we must condemn violence if our republic is to endure. host: thomas mann, your

reaction? guest: sarah palin is under a taylor deal of pressure right now. she is very effective in coming up with colorful rhetoric. -- fair deal of pressure right anow. i think she feels unfairly attacked. what she is saying is it has always been this way. we have had heated rhetoric in our history, get over it. we just have to live with it. i really think that is the comment of a political player and not of a national leader. if our president said that tonight, i think the country would feel let down. we need an appeal to our better angels.

yes, it is tough, there are disagreements, differences, intensity, but we do not need major political figures, especially in our two major political parties, to further fuel that animosity. we need someone to bring us together. host: doug brinkley, there has been a lot made about sarah palin not saying anything in reaction until this morning. what do you make of her timing this morning with this video? guest: i think she was feel compelled to do something. instead of going on a morning show and being drilled by a reporter, she put out a statement. it seemed a little bit defiant. she is feeling defensive. she is having to defend the tea party movement, to whom she has

been a leader of. i think she felt like she needed to step up. it is not a speech that you would hear from a states person or someone active in politics. it is someone leading a movement in which guns are a big part of the movement. it goes back to her talking about those in american history. well, we used to also shoot native americans on the spot. part of the great thing about america is a change. i think her argument that violence has always been there, so chin up everybody, we settle our disputes that way -- i do not find her comments helpful. it may help her maintain her leadership in the tea party movement. host: douglas brinkley joining us from austin, texas.

thank you. you are also coming out with a new book. thank you very much. host: and thomas mann of the brookings institution, thank you. always appreciate you speaking to our viewers. we now take the to the campus of the washington center for the second half of "washington journal." host: the washington center is located in a few blocks from the u.s. capitol. in this auditorium, a brand new facility, 130 students representing 20 colleges and universities, many of whom are here for two weeks to learn about the government, media, and politics. we are pleased to welcome mike pence. guest: thank you. it is wonderful to be here at the washington center among

these future leaders. host: your first visit to washington was when? guest: i think about their age. i came with my parents and washington was on the road trip. having been in washington for 10 years, having seen a lot of young people come through the office, it is an enormously rich experience and i congratulate these people for taking a bad pitch of that. host: the numbers are on the bottom of the screen. let me take you back to last saturday and ask you to take us through where you were, how, as the news unfolded, what you were thinking. you have dealt with the anthrax scare in 2001. guest: it is hard to compare the two things but our office tested

positive for anthrax a couple of weeks after september 11. we went through a couple of incidents is with our staff where antibiotics were administered. it was kind of scary, but i do not know if it can be compared to saturday. my wife and i had gone to the mall to catch a matinee of "the king's speech." a wonderful motion picture. after, i opened up my blackberrys and was immediately taken aback by the news. one of my kids had sent a text message and said, have you heard about this? of course, having lived through september 11, my first thought was the possibility of this being a larger, coordinated

attack on the government. we were quickly assured that there was evidence of that. so obviously, at the same moment, our thoughts immediately went to our colleague, congresswoman giffords, her staff, and those involved in this horrific event. to say that gabi difference is well-liked is an understatement. -- giffords is well liked is an understatement. i do not think i have ever seen her without a smile on her face. as my colleague trent franks said this weekend, despite their philosophical differences, never had a curse word passed between them. truly a dear person. our family has been praying for

her, for the recovery of all those that are injured, praying for the families who are grieving a loss. it is time to mourn today with those who mourn, greek with those who crave, to take prudent measures to make sure the public is protected from these things in the future. i also think it is a time to cherish our freedoms. it is time to recognize the freedom of assembly, the freedom of speech, are at the center of american life. despite the alarm that we all feel from these event, it is the right time for us to cling to the freedoms we enjoy. you know me. i have always sought to manifest civility in the public debate.

it is always important that we not engage in personal attacks against people in the public square just because we differ with them on issues, but we also have to resist the temptation to blame to people for actions which they are not responsible simply because we differ on particular issues. so far, the investigation shows there was only one person responsible for what happened in tucson. in the interest of protecting our freedom, insuring that we will continued to enjoy an open society, free debate, we need to stick to that principle. host: your colleague, burden, istive bir

suggesting that plexiglas be installed in the house chambers. what do you think? guest: that is something that my colleague has spoken about in the past. history records, i think it was porter rican nationalists, more than a century ago, came into the visitors' gallery in the house and opened fire on members of congress. so there has been some talk of that. on all of these matters, what i would suggest -- speaker john boehner has ordered a full review of the capitol police, sergeant at arms. it would be helpful if we allow the security professionals to make a recommendation they deemed prudent. but that is the people's house. one of the great abilities to be

american is to be able to walk through the capital, walk through the chamber of the house of representatives, and in a relatively unimpeded way, have the ability to observe the deliberations of national government. we need to do everything in our power, in ways that are consistent with public safety, and in the interest of staff, we need to ensure that openness in our government. i think it is at the very core of what the house of representatives is all about. host: so do you like the idea of plexiglas? guest: i think we ought to wait and see what security recommends. we will obviously recommend any appropriate and prudent change to make sure the public is protected and that the government is able to go forward. i would not want to prejudge any suggestions by members of congress.

what i will heed to is how we in sure how we make sure the people's house remains open and accessible to the american people. it is not a hockey game on the floor. sometimes it gets plowed but we do not throw things. there is no danger to the public from the floor up, but making sure we have protections to make sure that nothing happens -- we will make those recommendations. host: let's go to our first question from our students. caller: my question is, what do the american institutions and political parties tell the world through cameras when we have a difference between democracy and the free market? part of the free market is you allow businesses and corporations to rise and free

folly. when you have government intervention, i am just wondered about his perspective as a republican. guest: i am glad you are in washington. i hope we see more of you. some people suggest that i was opposing the wall street bailout. i was certain that the first to speak against it. it was largely because what is at the center of your question. the freedom to succeed has to include the freedom to fail. of ourndation's prosperity, other than the character of our people, essentially, personal responsibility and the ability to risk capital and experience the reward and risk of risking that capital. what bothered me most about the wall street bailout is, at its core, we took $700 billion of

bad decisions on wall street and transferred it to main street. that interrupted the fundamental process. i was not in the category of doing nothing. there was a crisis in the financial system that was unparalleled since the great depression. what many conservatives thought should have been done was a backstop, not a handout. what we could have done was something like the fdic did in the 1980's, institution by institution work out. i think it is also time to bring about some changes in our federal bankruptcy laws, so that our bankruptcy courts can have a broader band with in dealing with complex and large institutions. bankruptcy does not mean that a company necessarily goes away

forever. sometimes it does mean liquidation, but more often than not, it simply means going through a process of reorganizing its debt and coming back out on the other and more whole. the sticking to those practices, modernizing the banco, moving away from the idea that we ought to bail out every bad decision in the marketplace, it is a pathway back to more sustainable prosperity. host: roy is with us from richmond, virginia. caller: good morning, everyone. congressman pence, is in it it folly to ask why a mad man is that? why is the left so quick to play the blame game? is that not just another form of tyrannical leadership in government going amok? guest: i said it a couple of

times in indiana, the last couple of days, what i said at beginning here. nobody, liberal or conservative, was responsible for the action that took place in tucson. it was the responsibility of one individual. now, whether he has a mental disability or was simply an evil person will come out through the investigations. i believe in both. i believe people can be mentally incapacitated, clinically, and i have spoken to experts in indiana -- when you look at his biography, there are some suggestions of a classic case of schizophrenia -- but i also believe in evil.

i believe people can be consumed by evil. not to explain how oats and violent acts on the basis of mental instability. in terms of civility, i really believe is important, in the wake of tragic events like this, that we resist the temptation to blame someone or something other than the individual who is to blame. george will wrote a powerful column yesterday, which i would recommend to everyone. it is important that we focus on personal responsibility here. it is also important we understand that a vigorous and open public debate in america is, number one, essential to

our form of government. and number two, had nothing to do with the acts of last saturday. host: bill is on the phone. democrat line. marietta, georgia. caller: the last person talked about folly, you talk about public debate, but where were you in the summer where god for walking around with semi- automatic weapons at debates? you had no problem with that. was that because it was directed at the president? it is a shame, representative difference, a second amendment supporter, -- giffords, a second amendment supporter, was shot. and how come his father did not do anything sooner? guest: i do remember some press reports of fire are being

brought to a rally. i personally never witnessed that. i really believe we are entering a slippery slope if we buy into the attempt to assign blame for last saturday's unspeakable violence anywhere but on the individual who was to blame. whether it was at town hall meetings, rallies, national gatherings, my experience over the heated debates over the war in iraq. people gathered on the national mall, held up placards that spoke about strong opposition to the bush administration. i walked out to the foreign policy hearings and it upsets were thrown at me because of

what we were doing in iraq. all of that is what freedom is all about. the right to peaceably assemble is not simply limited to the right to assemble in quiet and thoughtful ways. americans have a constitutional right, paid for in the sacrifices of past generations, to stand up and tell all those in power and tell them exactly what they think, and to do it with passion. we do not have the right to engage in violence or incite violence. the famous adage that one does not have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, but americans have a right to yell. when we are debating issues that bear upon the relationship of the government to our people, the size and scope of government, passions can become inflamed.

i just want to suggest -- i do believe it is deeply wrong to associate a vigorous american debate on the left or the rights with the acts of violence of one individual. we need to show restraint in these moments of national tragedy to avoid doing such. guest: we are coming to you from the washington center on capitol hill where we have about 130 students representing nearly two dozen universities and colleges from around the country who are here to learn about government. many have internships with various news organizations. guest: i am wondering --caller: i am wondering how your role in congress has changed that you have shifted into the majority party?

guest: that is a good question. there are different responsibilities in the majority then there are in the minority. the job description is really the same. we vote for a living around here. that is what we do. i am not going to be doing anything different than i did before, going to the floor, turning in my voting card, casting my vote according to my conscience and common sense. but in the majority, one has the opportunity to not only pass legislation but enact legislation. i believe now republicans who have been trying to suggest solutions for the economy, fiscal responsibility, energy, now have the ability to bring forward legislation and passed

legislation that will put our nation back on a pathway to jobs, fiscal solvency again. i think you are seeing republicans step up and do that. after today's important commemoration on the floor, republicans will be gathering at our annual retreat to talk about that agenda. the priority for us will be economic growth, fiscal responsibility. so in that sense, the job description will change. the purpose of the minority party, as winston churchill said famously, is to oppose. and the responsibility of the majority party is to propose that and act in such a way that is in the best interest of the nation. i think you will see house

republicans, under the leadership of john boehner, lead with that in mind. host: just over a year ago, the president spoke at your conference. was it a defining moment for the republican caucus, president obama? guest: we invited him to come. if you remember, i shared the stage with him that day. i thought it was a good conversation. it is interesting how the pundits were talking about it as a tennis match. who won, who lost -- i thought the american people 1. i expect -- won. i expect you will see a lot of differences between democrats and republicans, but i think you will also see a good faith effort to find, where there is genuine common ground -- and let me say, common ground does not

mean compromise. if we both share the same opinion on an issue and we can arrive there together, that is common ground. i think you will see a strong difference of opinion. house republicans will still make every effort to repeal obamacare lock, stock, and barrel. focus on lowering the cost of health care without growing the size of government. republicans will take on the runaway spending that has been taking place. but there is also going to be a good faith effort to look at those areas where there is genuine common purpose. i thought that dialogue in particular was evidence of this new majority having the ability to engage in that kind of dialogue. host: fred is on the republican line. ocean city, maryland. caller: i have noticed in the past few years, the president

has been taking the country to the left. i wonder if you have any confidence the president will move more toward the center and bring us americans together instead of paying the rich against the poor? post of our students are taught by liberal teachers with only one viewpoint. can this president bring us there? how do you see this working out? guest: let me say, whether or not we are able to find that common ground we talked about, whether or not the president, in a sense, some say move toward the middle, away from more

government, more spending, tax agendas of the past two years -- that is really above my pay grade. he won a national election and he has the right to decide what is in the best interest of the country. what i can promise you is house republicans believe that americans voted the way they did to change direction. they want to see us put our fiscal house in order, but the nation on a path of fiscal solvency in the near term and long term. they want us to pursue policies that will create economic growth and opportunity for every american. what you will see is house republicans will steer the congress back in that direction decisively. to me, it is common-sense conservative direction. whether or not the president can

find aspects of that to return to commonsense conservatism -- that is his call. host: you did a radio talk show for how many years? guest: full-time for about six years, on and off for 10 years. it was easy to get the job. it was called the mike pence show. it was across the state of indiana. probably my greatest education in public life was not talking on the radio, but listening to callers three hours a day. i became convinced after talking to the folks that call me from their 18-wheel trucks, some people calling driving a, in a field, homemakers, small businessmen. that has really been the

foundation for the leadership i have tried to pursue in the last 10 years. my fundamental belief in not only the goodness but the wisdom of everyday americans to know what the good thing is to do. host: a question here at the washington center. caller: i really appreciate your history of fiscal conservatism. a lot of republicans say they are fiscal conservatives but you really are. there are a lot of rumors he might be running for president in 2012. are you any closer to an official decision, could you make your decision here? [laughter] host: the form is yours.

do you care to make an announcement? guest: thank you for the compliment. when i arrived in 2001, i told people i am a conservative but i am not a bad mood about it. or ought not our government was too big and spends -- i thought our government was too big and spent too much. i knew that the strength of this country came from the character and resources and ingenuity of the american people, not the size of the treasury. when i arrived on capitol hill, it was literally 12 years after i had tried to be elected to congress. i was like a frozen man. when i ran for congress, it was like before the republican revolution had happened in the 1990's. i felt like i had been elected after it was over. they sent me to washington and there i was brimming over with

enthusiasm for the reagan republican revolution, and the first bill they hand me is no child left behind. i opposed it, along with a handful of others. my second congress, the first bill they handed us was the medicare prescription bill, which was massive, a new entitlement that put hundreds of billions of dollars of burdens on medicare and multiples of that on future generations. the last thing i thought when i was elected was that my toughest battle would be from leaders of my own party, a president of my own party. my first six years in congress i warned my colleagues, i felt like that republican movement that began in the 1980's, a movement toward limited

government, fiscal personal responsibility and reform, i felt like the republican party was a ship that had steered off course steadily into the dangers of the waters of republicanism. a friend of mine said if we keep on spending like big liberals, the americans will eventually go with professionals. i do not think we lost our majority in 2006. we lost our way. americans look at republicans in washington and said, you tell us you are the conservatives but you have doubled the national debt, grown the government. so we are going to move you out. i am pleased to see republicans in the last four years, in the last election, be given a second chance at a first impression. it is the result of both the

american people's anxiety about the massive expansion of government under the democrat congress and this administration, but i also believe in the last several years people have seen republican return to our roots of limited government, fiscal responsibility, getting back to those basic principles. thank you for the compliment. i have had a number of freshmen come up to may and say, you have been out there for 10 years, you have stayed in this fight and i am humbled by that. they say, what is your secret? i always say, there are two ways to do your job. you can come to the floor and vote in a way were ring about what this person, that group is going to think, or you can do what i do. a vote ride and then go to dinner.

go to the floor and do what you told people back home with you would do if you got here. for me, that meant limited government, personal responsibility, strong national defense, and let the rest take care of itself. i tell people sometimes i have to read the notmorning paper to keep up with my intentions. we have been humbled to be encouraged to seek higher office. what i can tell you is my family and i are nearing the end of the process. we have been seeking counsel for people that we respect. we believe in prayer, deliberation. sometime before the end of the month we are going to make a decision about where we think we can make the most difference for the values that have taken as to public life. host: did he answer your question?

caller: yes. host: we are going to tom in raleigh, north carolina. caller: my question is a follow up to a question that a young man in the audience asked, referring to the stock-market collapse. what i would like to know is this, what are we doing to prevent a future collapse such as this, which resulted from the non regulation of the derivatives market which led to rapid fraud and shady mortgage lending practices which lead to the housing bubble? the second part of the question is this -- host: i think we lost tom. guest: let me take the second part of the question first.

i think it is the right question. what are we doing to prevent it from happening again? i am concerned the answer to that would be the wrong things. we are doing the wrong things. the dog frank -- dodd-frank bill that was signed into law which brings new financial regulations makes permanent the power within the federal government without ever having to come to the congress in the future, future administrations will have the ability to save firms that they determined to be too big to fail. to me, that is a permanent bailout authority, and it takes us in the opposite direction of personal responsibility. i have been a strong critic of the federal reserve's recent

second round of quantitative easing, qe2. i believe we cannot borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing america, and we also cannot print money as a means of growing jobs in this country. we have been advocating, and my colleague paul ryan has done this for many years, to refocus the federal reserve exclusively on price protection, on preventing inflation, rather than practicing what you all can look up later, what is called their dual mandate. i think we have got to get the federal reserve back to being focused on protecting the dollar, and then we have to look washington, d.c., right in the eye and say it is your job to grow this economy. it is your job to pursue the kind of reform and the kind of regulatory reform, the kind of

expansion of american trade overseas, all the things that will create economic growth and jobs. that is washington's job. that is the president's job, congress' job, and i think we need to focus back there. lastly, i do believe, as i said to the first question, i think, we have got to get back to the notion that the freedom to succeed has got to include the freedom to fail. and that repealing dodd-frank, or least repealing the aspects that make permanent the policy of too big to fail, i think will be essential toward insuring that that principle is back at the center of the american marketplace. host: another question from one of the students. caller: i am from the university of san diego. in light of your beliefs about accessibility and accountability of the market place, will you

support a poet -- the elimination of subsidies like corn, ethanol, cotton, and sugar? host: and you represent an agricultural district. guest: yes, i do. a lot of corn and soybeans are way, and we're proud of it. i have supported -- if we are going to have a mandate for fuel additives, i have supported ethanol as the way of meeting that rather than the previous chemical solution. but let me be very clear, as house republicans gather this week to work on our agenda and prepared to move forward, everything is on the the table. there are no sacred cows. i am confident even that there are places that weekend save in the contracting process of our military budgets -- that we can

save in the contracting process of our military budgets. i think we can find efficiencies in every aspect of the american government. it means domestic spending, but iso, the really hard leift entitlements spending. the truth of the matter is that the freight train of debt that is headed straight in your generation is coming in the form of medicare, medicaid come and social security. and the higher taxes and the lower standard of living that your generation will face if we do not make decisions today to fundamentally transform those programs in a way that ensures fiscal solvency and leaves room for american economic growth is very significant. so everything is on the table. those subsidies are all of the table, and we are going to look

for savings in domestic, but we're also going to look -- and i think you are going to see republicans stepped forward with some visionary and responsible reform of entitlements going forward. caller: the "washington journal" coming to you from the washington center a couple blocks from the u.s. capitol. we have students representing more than 20 colleges and universities here in attendance. our next call is anthony in long island. caller: is it ok if i comment on the shooting in arizona? host: please go ahead. caller: we seem to look at our problems from the inside-out rather than the outside-in. i mean it no insensitivity that do not approve of violence on either side but it seems to me as though this gentleman, this night job, had inflicted what we can turn shot and all -- we can term shock and awe on these

people at this rally. the only difference between what happened in iraq with george bush is this kid did his own dirty work in george bush was able to rise to power to manipulate our military to do what they did to that contributed but it is similar in that he disagreed with the policies of saddam hussein, so you got as in this crazy notion that we could go in and start killing people. i mean, we have killed thousands in iraq and we're not analyzing that with such scrutiny common stock -- nor is it getting the coverage as this lack job. another important point is represented of keene is saying he does not want people to come their congressmen and senators with guns now. but what about the rest of us? violence is violence. we are all as worthy as a congressman or senator. why is homeland security, which was supposed to intercede in these instances, it failed?

another layer of bureaucracy that has failed us. host: do you think it is a fair analogy between what happens saturday in the war in iraq? caller: i am not smart enough to analyze it to the degree that maybe you gentlemen can. but i do believe that iraq did not do much to us. they complied with the 12 years of sanctions. we disarmed them. then we went in with guns blazing. i believe the military was manipulated. george bush rose to power from a civilian, let's say. now this 22-year-old man got into politics and if he became president, could he have manipulated our military to go after people he did not like? host: a lot of different levels there, but you can take it any direction you like. guest: well, the decision to go to war in iraq was the result of years of said on hussain

rejecting the efforts by the -- of saddam hussein's rejecting efforts by the international community to ensure he was not in the process of obtaining chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons of mass destruction. it would be, i believe, in and around the late 1990's that saddam hussein's ejected u.n. weapons inspectors entirely. i was in congress at the time. he was warned again and again and again. the final un resolution, he rejected. warned expressly from the un security council that there would be serious consequences if he failed in a post-9/11 world to open up his weapons programs to full inspection. the president of the united states of america made a decision that the possibility of said on hussain -- said of the st. possessing weapons either

directly or through third parties was a clear and present danger to the united states of america. i supported that decision and make no apology for it. i would say that to compare the decision of the united states of america to act on behalf of our citizens and our allies, to compare the actions of american soldiers to the despicable acts of last saturday is wrong. host: next question here at the washington center. caller: good morning, university of san diego. congressman, i actually overheard you in the bathroom this morning make a comment about the fairness doctrine. did you discuss possibly what you're talking about with your age and if you see a role with the fairness doctrine coming up this week with politics and the media? [laughter] guest: i will stop for just a

moment. former speaker, democratic leader nancy pelosi, is that the capital signing a book expressing condolences and lost -- for those who lost their lives in tucson and expressing well-wishes for represented the of giffords. we will stop for just a moment.

host: the house democratic leader at the u.s. capitol. nancy pelosi yesterday visited the office of gabrielle giffords to express her support to the staff here in washington, d.c. she is signing this book, her get well wishes to the tucson area representative remains in emergency care in tucson, arizona.

host: democratic leader nancy pelosi in the u.s. capitol, expressing her get well wishes for u.s. representative gabrielle giffords. yesterday she visited the office of the congresswomen. she will travel with the president as we have live coverage tonight from the university of arizona and memorial service for the six who lost their lives and those still injured, including the tucson

congress woman remains in intensive care at the university medical center in tucson, arizona. we're back live at the washington center here on capitol hill and our conversation on the "washington journal" continues with representative mike pence. first, to this moment. guest: obviously, one of the rays of sunshine that comes through this dark moment is the discussions that we had on sunday, and i think every single member of congress about the sympathy and prayers on behalf of gabby, the family, and all those affected. seeing a moment like that is moving to me, not as a public official, but just as a colleague of congresswoman giffords. this is a time, as house speaker

john boehner said, where an attack on one is attack on all, and he says that while we see the worst in humanity in this moment, this is an opportunity for the american people to see the best of congress. and i saw that in other moments. in the immediate aftermath of september 11, there were no republicans on capitol hill. there were no democrats on capitol hill. there were just americans. there are these moments where we are reminded that despite our real and a vigorous differences on philosophy and on the course and direction of government, that we are all americans. we're all sons and daughters. many of us have the privilege of the moms and dads, grandmothers and grandfathers, and the human element of this tragedy reaches us all.

it reaches us all equally and reminds the american people that we're all in this together. host: we only have a minute or two left. we could go back to one of the questions. guest: a great question. i am glad i mentioned it in the bathroom. [laughter] with going to be working congressman greg walden to introduce legislation that came from a similar time of blaming the debate. the efforts that amnesty had faltered in the senate, and it was actually members of both political parties who were saying that while we would have been able to pass this -- this was in the press, but-for talk radio or but-for the debate, and i heard one prominent member of the senate say we have got to do some about the debate. that is when i authored the broadcaster freedom act, which would take power away from the federal communications commission for ever to impose the censorship known as the fairness doctrine. that was the law for decades in

america. believe in or not, from the outset of the radio business all the way to the ronald reagan years, radio stations lived under -- broadcast radio stations lived under content regulation. eventually it was litigated, went to the supreme court in the famous red line in case. speech restrictions were upheld. but eventually they were done away with, and the explosion of the debate on the airwaves of america, left, right, and center, has been a great benefit to this country. and already this morning, i saw that there are some prominent members of congress saying we, in the wake of this tragedy, it tragedy the responsibility for which falls squarely on one individual who engaged in these unspeakable acts, but somehow the debate itself now needs more regulation. i leave you with a thought thomas jefferson said to me, it is emblematic of what c-span is all about.

this great network, founded by brian lamb of indiana, is about giving the american people access, free and open access to our government in all of its various ways to practices. thomas jefferson said something, i will paraphrase it -- he said, given the choice between a nation that had a free press but no government obverses a government but no free press, i would choose the former. that free and independent press is essential to our way of life, and in that the very nature of the public debate, as rough and tumble as it can become, is it, i believe, the very nucleus of our national greatness. america has the ability to express their cells freely, support candidates they choose to support, is the essence of self-government, and we have to preserve it. we will be introducing the

broadcaster freedom act in the very near term, and we will be prepared to fight in every way to ensure that our freedom of speech is not one more casualty of the tragic events in tucson. host: what questions are you asking yourself to determine whether you want to run for governor of indiana are possibly for president? personally, what are you asking yourself? >> obviously, the highest office i serve in is husband and father. i am the father of three kids, all teenagers, so i know how much trouble you people are. [laughter] been married 25 years. i do not ask these questions in light of what is right for me. i ask the person in the context of what is right for our family. secondly, for us, we want to ask the question always, where do we

need it most? and where is our god-given talents, our background, our experience, our belief in a strong defense, limited government, traditional moral values, where is our brand of leadership needed the most? to me, that is what certain leadership is all about. it is not about what do i want to do, but it is about where am i needed most? that is what i would challenge everyone in this room. all of you are aspiring leaders. i can see it in your eyes. i am courage about the future of the country looking in this room. challengers of to the about four it -- servant leadership. the about the question, where am i needed most? if you do that in a way that puts your faith in your family first, america will be better for it. >> congressman mike pence in the student said the washington center, thank you for being with us here on c-span's "washington

journal." >> thank you. [applause] host: radio talk-show host and television commentator to have this smiley is joining us in a couple minutes. but first, a news update from the nci and c-span radio. >> it is 20 past the hour. president obama and first lady fly to tucson, arizona today to honor the victims of saturday's mass shooting. the president is expected to speak of the victims in personal terms and tell the community that the entire nation is with them. joining the president on air force one will be supreme court justice anthony kennedy, eric holder, janet napolitano, who is the former governor of arizona, and the former speaker of the house, nancy pelosi. live coverage of that memorial service airs tonight on c-span television and c-span radio at

8:00 p.m. eastern. the president returns to the capital tonight, late, as the white house prepares for next week's visit by chinese president hu jintao. in remarks earlier today, the treasury secretary commented on the economic relations between the u.s. and china, saying beijing is moving too slowly to reform its currency practices. he says the undervalued yuan is increasing the risk of inflation. you can hear the secretary's remarks later on c-span radio. meanwhile, on wall street, stocks are headed higher. a report on the domestic economy said to be released later by the federal reserve. analysts expect it to show signs of recovery. at the opening bell, dow jones futures were up 56 points at the top of the hour. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. high school students, it is time to upload your videos for our student documentary competition. the topic is washington, d.c.,

through violence. the deadline is a january 20. a chance for a grand prize of $5,000. the student cam dr. gehring competition is open to students grades 6 to 12. go online for complete details. >> there is a new way for you to follow congress, with a c-span oppose a congressional chronicle. track the daily for timelines, read transcripts, and i find it full video archive of each member. congressional chronicle, part of the c-span video library. it is washington your way. on television, on radio, and online, c-span, bringing public affairs to you, created by cable. it is washington, your way. host: and the "washington journal" continues from the washington center on capitol hill. we have students from more than 20 colleges and universities,

130 students here in total. there's been the first two weeks of january learning about our nation's capital, government, and the media. and we're pleased to welcome tavis smiley. this is the indian ocean. you're from indianapolis. >> i am. pleasure to see. i thought it must be in the and a day. brian lamb, he is a hero, an icon in indiana. mike pence might be the next governor of indiana. i am bringing up the rear, but i am proud to represent the hoosier state. host: you're organizing a panel, america's next chapter, which we worked -- will carry live on c-span tomorrow evening. for this generation, what is the next chapter for them? guest: it is a great question. there's a multi-cultural symposium tomorrow night, multi- cultural, multi-ethnic, multi is the logical, republicans, democrats, and won the fourth gathering of opinion makers in

this country to talk about the country's next chapter and specifically whether or not there is a brighter future for this, for the next generation. there is the rasmussen reports that came out some days ago that finds that nearly half, get this, nearly half of all americans think that our best days as a country are behind us as you consider all that the president and the congress is up against now trying to get our country back on the right track, and then you the factor in this nation filling that our best days are behind us, this country is in serious disarray. so tomorrow night, this is really about what we think could be done to put the country back on the right track. can america return to those days that many people thought were the greatest days of america, are we doomed to perdition at this point? host: let me ask the students some questions.

how many here are first-time visitors to washington, d.c.? by another show of hands, to go to tavis smiley's question, how many feel that our best days are behind us? guest: that is encouraging [laughter] what is funny about this is not a single hand goes up, yet the numbers relative to this generation, do not bear that out. let me ask a question. how many of you know someone who has gone to college, graduated, and cannot find a job? ah-hah. hands down. how many of you know someone who went to college but is back, living with their mother now? ah-hah. how many know somebody serving in war right now, in the military? when you start asking those kinds of questions, you start to get a different take on the unease i of this country and to delete from this generation about their future. many of your parents and grandparents are worried because they do not think, and so many

of the numbers do not seem to indicate that you would do better than they would have done. for any grandparent, their spirit and soul is unsettled, when they consider the possibility that you might not do as well as they have done. i think that is not the case for most of you in this room. you would not be in a great program like this after you work hard to realize the possibility that exists in your persona. but for so many americans of your generation, people are concerned economically, politically, socially, and culturally, about their future. host: less said the dialogue. you have the first question. caller: good morning. my question is a guy goes off of what you just said. do you think that it is possible, the problem in this country, may be that the leaders are trying mightily to represent their interests but are also not getting along with each other?

the basic lesson we have learned throughout this seminar are that congressmen are no longer debating on the floor and still maintaining positive relationships outside the floor. they're sticking with their party centrists and sticking with their party in all aspects of life. guest: yes. that is a great university, quantity at. i have spoken there before. but to enter the question, it is yes. i was boat -- talking to a friend of mine the other day. we were talking about the difference between personal interests and public good, sometimes what might be in your best personal interest is not necessarily the same as what is best for the public. and we have a generation of people now, often time leaders, who are concerned about themselves, concerned about getting reelected, so that every decision they make is poll- tested the market-driven.

if i say this, is the tea party going to come after me? so nobody has the courage, conviction, and commitment that it takes to be the kinds of leaders that we knew -- that we need. i do not mean to suggest nobody. but i think that public service is still the most noble of all professions. i have been teaching right up there, too. but public service is a noble notion went down the right way. but there are so many persons in this city and in state capitals all across the country who oftentimes the their own personal interests above the public good. i am concerned about your question about the next couple years, certainly under this divided government. i do not see any evidence whatsoever that we're going to get much done over the next couple of years given what we have seen over the last two years, given that republicans -- i am just saying is not hopeful about what we're going to get as a nation, as people with this

kind of divided government, given the way people are already taking sides and lining up in this town. >> the constitution was read on the house floor last thursday. do you believe if our founding fathers were here today that they would see the system working as they intended it? >> george washington himself said the most evil part of this country that could exist is a faction, and if our public officials are only representing their interests and not the common good of the country, clearly, they're representing a faction. i personally believe he would not be pleased with what is going on. we should always represent our constituents but also the common good of this country, as mr. smiley said. i do not think there would be too pleased. i did they would be shot and see that we have strayed in where we're headed. guest: i have no argument with that at all. what is tragic is these are serious times. we're dealing with serious issues that require a serious

discourse and some serious solutions. one of the thing that troubles me, i appreciate the fact and celebrate the fact that in moments like these, that is to say post-arizona, in moments like these, the country can come together. we can coalesce. republicans and democrats can be on the same page. after 9/11, there were not republicans and democrats in congress. the richest americans in congress. but there is a problem with that formulation. the problem is that it takes airplanes into towers to create the kind of unity. it takes persons killing federal judges and wounding congresspersons -- fighting for her life as we speak today -- it takes that to bring us together? that formulation does not work long term. there has to be a way for us to come together to talk about what is best for this country, absent

some major catastrophe, absent some major tragedy. there is concern about civility. this is an old issue here. i have been saying for the last couple of days that there's enough blame to go around here. our politicians are not the kind of examples of civility that we need. i mean on the left and on the right. when dick cheney was vice president, we all know famously they knowcussed senator patrick leahy from vermont, and he said to him on the floor to go after yourself. it is on public record. president obama is doing an interview not long ago, weeks ago, on one of the morning shows. and he says he wants to know who's paid to go kick around a particular issue. when the president's talking about kicking people's aid inside the white house and

former vice presidents are talking about go after yourself, our leaders are not setting the kind of moral compass for us that we should be following. the media is not doing its job by having several exchange. you have one that network spanning you one way -- known as my right hand. one network spinning it this way, the other that way, and one in the middle trying to figure it all out. the media is not doing much better. the things these two networks on the ins say it about each other, the language they use, that is not civility in the media. and most importantly, the american people. when we get in moments like these, we the american people want to point our fingers at the leaders in the media. we never put the mirror to our faces. you know where he is spreading fast as in this country? on the internet. i love the internet, and we all use it. we're using it right now to be a part of this program. but hate is spreading fast as in this country on the internet.

you can say anything. you can do it cowardly, that is to say, do it anonymously. there are no civility police on the internet. they're not fact-checkers on the internet. this is the medium of communication that your generation has chosen this is your medium of communication. tell me why i shall not be concerned. we're having problems with civility to val, that we're not going to sink into the abyss. if the internet is our medium of communication and these are the rules or lack thereof that we're going to be governed by, then i am not sure civility will get any better in this country in the short run. there's enough blame to go around on the civility issue or lack thereof. host: we're talking to tavis smiley. he is on his eighth season on tv now. we have a phone call from maryland. caller: how're you doing? you stole my thunder, manteca i am is sitting here, and i

listened -- because i am is sitting here and listen to people, and it is truly about interests where people -- no, money is about everything. if you can give me this certain amount of money, then i will say whatever is necessary. i sit and watch people, man, and like you said, we only come together when something bad happens. we're not a nation of one. i sit and watch c-span, watch the floor, and i hear people use phrases. for instance, there's no such thing as an obamacare. it is not true. but you hear our congressmen say it on a constant basis. when my thing is is that what we should do is, you know, we can debate, but let's debate on what is best for us, not what is best for the nra, not what is best for fannie mae. because the left is to is as responsible for this as the

republicans are, man. and i am a democrat. i do not have a problem with voting for republicans to the above my problem is, you know, where are the grown-ups that? where are they? host: we will get a response. thank you. guest: he ask for the grownups are. it is a very good question. it should be asked more in this town. there's enough blame to go around. he makes it clear that the right and the love for both to blame. let me talk about a solution, i think, to this. while we have this moment, and i believe these moments come around every now and again. these moments that are pregnant with possibility do not happen every day. respectfully, i think that our president, barack obama, missed a moment a year or so ago to an advance the conversation of civility in this country. speaking of republicans and democrats, when mr. wilson stood up on the floor of the house, as you recall what the president was speaking, and said "

" to the president. the president, within hours, had kind of forgiven him and moved past that. and i i am a christian, and i believe in forgiveness. but i also believe in maximizing the moment. the president moved so quickly to accept his apology and just get right on past it. what he did not do is take that moment to assure this country into a conversation about civility. he could have talked right here in this town about how this is the absolute wrong way to go about our discourse. he could have talked to the nation, because everybody happened to see it. you could not avoid that on youtube, on television, everywhere. i think that was a teachable moment that the president should have taken advantage of, to talk about the lack of civility in washington and beyond. then, he chose whatever reasons not to do that. now as we sit here at the moment with the president on his way to arizona, or in arizona as a part

to date to be a part of this memorial. i am glad he is there. our president should be their grieving with the nation. and we're told that in his remarks today, he will say something about unity. i hope he does. i hope it does not miss another moment not just talk about unity but to talk about civility to the problem with this notion of unity is that it suggests we should all be on the same page about everything. i think debate is good. i think tension is good. friction is good. we do not all have to agree on everything. we're not walking necessarily in lock-step on every same issue. yeah, this notion of civility, something that all of us, i think, are duty-bound to honor. so he missed the mark a year or so ago when we should talk about civility. i hope he will not miss that moment from the white house on down now. host: we will have live coverage of the memorials -- more service, as good or for 8:00 eastern time. the president's remarks are scheduled for about 9:00 eastern

time. he is part of and our role program being organized by the university of arizona. another question from one of the students here at the washington center. >> hello. i am from minnesota. in the previous comments about the media holding president obama accountable. do you believe the media was appropriatly critical to president obama prior to the election and what about now? guest: two very good questions. i think that the obama campaign would even tell you that, if they're being honest, that they were not grilled the way other candidates had been thrilled when they ran for the white house. i do not believe in this notion of a liberal media bias, but i do believe that after the last administration, there was so much banks, so much turmoil. the numbers are pretty clear. former president bush left the white house with one of the lowest, if not the lowest, approval ratings in history for presidents.

i think the country was feeling a certain way and wanted an opportunity for something different. i think the media sort of bought into that. in the the president was not grilled as other candidates have been when they ran. but as it is in the president was running. there is a phrase we hear all the time, that we use all the time in our discourse, and it goes like this. the media first to build you up, and then they what? say it again. the bill be up, and then they -- ok, i think that is slightly off. it is not that the medium build you up and tears you down. the media build you up to tear you down. that has got to be right. the conjunction is not and, it is too. that is how they make money. they make money off telling a story that will sail, and then the make more money by telling another story that will sail. it is not just building of entering you down, it is

building europe to tear you down. i knew that the moment was going to come or the president would be grown much more significantly in the administration, campaigning is one thing, governing is another. i think the media has gone more on the ball. they have gone more on the job since he has been in the white house than there were prior to. i hope that answers your question. host: the washington center is in the northeast washington, d.c., just a few blocks from the u.s. capitol. >> i am from clark university and western massachusetts. during the course of this similar, we have been talking about to the gatekeepers of information are. if the media dictates what we hear in with a cover or if the public dictates that. we have heard of opinions, but i would like to know what your thoughts are on the gatekeepers are. guest: i think the media clearly dictates what we read and what we hear. the way these networks work is in the morning, there is a team of people, especially cable networks, there is a team that comes together to talk about what story like to think are

important for that network to cover on that particular day. there is a reason why you turn on fox, msnbc, or cnn, you can see pretty much what the meeting was about that morning when you turn it on. that story line is on the show's all day, all night, all day, all night. these are the story lines in the 24-hour cycle that we're going to cover. the media clearly decides what stories the want to cover, with the want us to focus on. that is that he will have a chance to speak about those issues. when congressman pence was on, he was asked a wonderful question about the fairness doctrine. and i am ambivalent about the conversation that is going to kick up again in this new republican-controlled congress about the fairness doctrine. because that, to me, is a secondary issue. the primary issue is, to your brolin question, who was making decisions in those rooms about what gets covered? who is making decisions about who gets a chance to share those

stories with us? we live in the most multicultural, multiracial, multiethnic america ever, and we still do not seen the people of color in front of us reporting the news. there are not enough of them in their rooms were decisions are being made about what is going to get covered. the media clearly drives that. we have to do better in this country, in this multiracial, multicultural, multi-ethnic america about having all of included in the process about deciding what gets covered, how it gets covered, and none of us get left out. the fairness doctrine is a serious issue to me, but it is secondary to that particular issue. there's no doubt that the media, far more than the public, drives the conversation. one quick addendum, with the burgeoning growth, the outside expansion of the internet, that is starting to change. a lot of folks are now getting the chance to have their say. on this symposium tomorrow night and return on c-span

called "americas next chapter, to one of our guest is are in the huffington. they get a chance to dry the conversation. the internet is stepping up in that regard. it is not feel like media as it used to be. host: other participants will include a member of cbnc, a member of princeton university, a former speech writer george w. bush, a member of "washington post," and david brody of cnn. 6:00 tomorrow night on c-span. it all on the republican line. caller: good morning. i am from hancock county, and i am a farmer. i was listening to what your guest just had to say about how the media drives our stuff. and freedom is not the ability to do whatever you want to do. freedom is the ability to do what you ought to do. and when we used to have standards back in the 1950's and 1940's, family was first.

we do not have an abortion. we do not have rappers. we respected women. today, we do not respect women. men do not respect women. that is what is wrong with our culture. and i see the democrats that have supported these liberals being able to do whatever they want to do. abortion is a fabric -- the guy that shot the people down there, i will bet, and what i have seen on the news, that he listened to heavy metal music and all that stuff. that is not being addressed in our society. that includes people as much as the media. the rappers and all the best of that goes on. until we get standards again, things are not going to change. host: thank you. guest: i would have loved to have asked him if he thinks these standards ld apply to the white house as well as the

is rappers? i do not know how rappers who have no power at all -- the best they can do is sell a record. and they're not true that these days. the pops sales are down. lil wayne is in jail. t.i. is in jail. [laughter] hip hp sales are down at the moment. i do not know how this does not apply to the white house. it was a president who got us into two wars. it was a president who never found a wmd's. i can do this on the left and the right. do not think i am beating up on president bush. there was a president named clinton who signed a racist crime bill. you have to be caught with 100 times more powder cocaine than crack cocaine to get the same sentence. bill clinton said in his hands and did not go to rwanda fast enough when the genocides were going on. what does rap have to do with that?

is all for standards, but they should apply to presidents as well as rappersz, members of congress, media tie-ins, etc. host: next question. >> goes live from miami dade honors college. having interviewed so many great leaders in their respective fields, i would like you to reflect on your most memorable interview. guest: very good question. the two persons i have talked to that have enamored me the most, for two different reasons, there's only one in nelson mandela. sitting down to talk to nelson mandela in a private conversation is the end all, be all. that is about as good as it gets. but i also spent one night, about six hours, talking to fidel castro in cuba. funny story, because i had gone down there for about seven days, doing research and some work. i had a request in to interview president castro, and every day

went by and no call. second day, no call. third day, no call. fourth day, no copy of the last night i am there at 1:00 in the morning, the phone rings, and it said simply el presidente will see you now, so i jumped up and ran down to the lobby. for six hours all night long, i sat talking to fidel castro. clearly, we had issues with castro. we have issues with human- rights. we have issues with democracy. but he, without question, is one of the most intriguing iconic leaders of the 20th century, and now the 21st century. now a chance to sit with him for six hours one night, to go back and forth with him about all kinds of issues, the to the conversations i will never forget. host: what makes a good interview? guest: that is a very good question. let me flip it if i can. what makes a good interview starts with a good interviewer. i think what makes a good

interviewer, and steve is one of them, more than anything else is a person who listens generously. the best talk-show host, the best interviewers in the business, if you ever want to get in this business, and learn how to be a generous listener. the better you listen, the better the conversation will be. if you are a good interview work, you're not really leading the conversation. what you're doing is paying attention to what the guest is saying, paying attention to what the energy and the room is all about, paying attention to what the students are concerned about. if you are a generous listener, your attendance to the jittery and -- to the energy and direction of the conversation. there will always tell you where to go next. there will always tell you the next question is to ask it of the following question is, if you listen generously come and when he will not listen, interviews are train wrecks. i never sit and have a blue card with 12 questions that i will ask in order and in the order their listed. that is an interview, not a conversation. what you want to have is not an

interview but a really good conversation. when you talk to each other as everyday people. when you're at dinner or lunch are in this room, where every you are, you're not interviewing each other. you are conversing with each other. u-turn on the tv or radio, that is what you want to see, a really good conversation. what makes conversations greater two people were interested in each other is the subject matter or are curious in each other are the subject matter and listen curiously. host: i have five follow-ups. just kidding. caller: i am representing teaching fellows from north carolina. in talking about our nation's future, what role do you see education reform playing, and whatever to being made today that you see will positively affect our future? guest: malcolm x once said that our education is the passport to the future. tomorrow belongs to those to prepare for it today. there is no issue in this

country for me more important than the issue of education. sadly, it is the one issue in which we are failing and failing miserably. to my right, if you look over there, one of the grid is educators in this country, dr. cornell west from princeton, one of the greatest educators in this country. it talks about this issue all the time. if we do not get a handle on this, then our country, i think is -- i do not know how we get back on the right track if we do not start talking about the importance of education. the obama administration has a program called race to the top. dr. west and i had a conversation on my radio show the other day, and he made a brilliant point that education is not a race. education ought to be a right. it is not about racing to the top. it is not a race. it is a right. you cannot get in the race anyway, much less compete and win if you do not have the resources.

we have to get serious conversation going in this country about education. every president in my lifetime has said that he or she that was running for office wants to be the education president. yet, what ever we have been doing, pardon my english, ain't working. we have to figure out some of that works. this is not it. how many saw the movie "waiting for superman"? the worse things that i agreed with ending the disagreed with, but it brought up the things about education reform. the short answer is that education reform has got to be a central issue in this country. every state that is trying to balance this country, what did the cut first? education bill that does not add up to me. we cannot balance the budget in bankrupt our country educationally at the same time. i could do a whole speech about that.

education reform to me is more important in this country. caller: thank you very much. host: public radio international. is it west and smiley or smiley and west? >> it is called smiley and west, but it really should be called west and smiley. it is on public radio international every week, and somebody asked me the other day when it was like working with him. and i said to him that it is a fascinating thing when you're hero becomes your friend. when you're hero becomes your friend did you have an opportunity to do a radio show with him or her in the to the opportunity to do that, it is one of the greatest hours of my week. every week, i look forward to it. it is a great show. host: we have a couple minutes left. phone call from north carolina. thanks for waiting. caller: good morning to everyone. you have gone through so much

stuff. it is very hard to meet to pin something done. but i am going to say something, and i know it is going to make a lot of people angry. the republican party is the reason why this nation is split, and they've done it for the simple reason of getting elected. now democrats did not demonize the republican party. the republican party has demonized the democrats. everybody knows that the republican party -- in the shade that we're in, they put us there. but they refused to say it. we listen to show hosts, and we listen to commentators all the time, but they do not say anything about the republican party. republican party is a racist

party. it is just like the tea party. host: we will stop you there and get a response. guest: march response is simply this. i have issues with any number of policies or lack thereof of their above and party. i have issues with the democratic party. in this conversation today, a critique president obama about things i think he has done wrong. i do not believe in a blanket reprisals. i do not believe that you can do as a party and everybody in it. republican or democrat. the bottom line is that we have a divided government in this town now, and they're going to have to find a way to move this country forward. that is precisely what we have republicans and democrats, a multicultural, multiracial to talk about those very issues. host: two years into his administration with regard to the black agenda, what grade would give the president? guest: incomplete. black unemployment is unacceptable. it is still far too high.

quite simply, i do not know, maybe a handful of us, given that some of us black faolk are in a higher tax bracket and will benefit, believe it or not, from this bush tax said deal. i personally benefit from this deal. but i do not know black folks in any significant number that are better off now than two years ago. what i said when the president ran is a great presidents are not born. they are made. you have to push presidents into their greenest the there is no lbj without mlk. there is no abraham lincoln without frederick douglass. there's no fdr without randolph. every great president we have ever had had to be pushed into his greatness. left to their own devices and the people around them, they did not measure up. as dr. west says, the end of being garden variety politicians in a statement. so you have to push presidents of you want them to become great. whether you are talking like issues are progress of issues or anything else, if barack obama

is going to be a great president, he is going to have to be pushed. how do you do that? you do that by holding them accountable. it cannot just be for black folk about symbolism. it must also be about substance. otherwise you look up and you have a rah rah moment because you got somebody black in the white house but your economic conditions did not improve. your social condition did not approve. so the president has work to do, but i am also hopeful that with two more years ago he can get something done. >> i am from the university of san diego. i know john boehner and the republican party mention that there would try to make congress more transparent to the american people. i was wondering if you think this transparency would affect the relationships between congressmen and the policies they choose to pursue? guest: i hope so. you can never ever have enough transparency in government, especially in democracy, and especially the way our government works.

so much that happens in washington is unknown by the american people. i heard speaker boehner say that. it is a good idea for government to be more transparent for us, but i laugh at the number of people in washington who vote for legislation that they have not read. they do not know the details in the legislation their passing. it is not just transparency for us. it is transparency for them and those voting on this legislation. but as part in the ever to make our government more transparent to everyday people. host: we have about three minutes caller: left good morning, hopefully this is a good ending point. i come from the honors college and miami dade college. today, you have been speaking about the loss of civility and you brought of several valid point did you also mentioned about how the decline of some much of the media and how you said that the media builds as up to tear as down. we're sitting here in a room with aspiring leaders, more specifically aspiring journalists like myself. what is the best advice that you

could give us to help improve and release ourselves from this situation guest: that is a beautiful question. somebody called earlier and gave their definition of freedom. my definition is this. freedom is truth. freedom is truth. and what we need more of it today are people who are willing to tell the truth. there are repercussions that come with that. there consequences that come with that. but you need people who are dedicated to telling the truth. i learned from my friend dr. west that the telling the truth allows suffering to speak. when you come from a community like yours, a community like mine, where there's so much suffering, the only way the suffering ever gets hurt is if someone like you tells the truth about that suffering and forces the nation to recognize it, to acknowledge it, and to deal with it. so if you're going to be in this business, commit yourself to being a truth-teller. if you do that, i think that is all that god requires of you. host: what advice would you give

guest: them well, from my limited -- >> well, from my limited experience over the past three years, i appreciate so much would be set up a conversation. one of my best interviews that binges personal conversations with people you get lost in the conversation and then realize that the camera is recording this and we're just talking and what is being said is so much more important than any other question i could have written. guest: the reason that is is that in those moments to me have connected to the humanity in the prison. you tell the crew in the search for their humanity, it will be a great conversation. >> thank you so much. host: tavis smiley, thank you very much for being with us today. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] host: we're now going to take you to the floor of the u.s. house of representatives, where the house will take up a resolution paying tribute to those who lost their lives and those who lost their lives and