merry christmas and thank you for listening. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> although the department has taken steps, it is an unfortunate reality that we will continue to feel the effects of this operation for years to come. crime scenes on both sides of the border. >> it is time to >> it is time to rewrite the clean water act. those are foundational loss of water. they were great and important, and they are out of date. they need to be rewritten, and it is this body that needs to do it. >> many transactions have occurred in those last chaotic days. i'm not aware of all of those, nor do i have the information to look at those transactions. >> with hundreds of hours of new public affairs programming

available each week, the c-span video library is your online resourced to find what you want, when you want. it is washington your way. >> next, a hearing on cameras in the supreme court. the senate judiciary subcommittee in the courts discussed legislation mandating the court televise its discussed proceedings. the bill comes as the supreme court prepares to hear oral argument next year on the new health care law. witnesses included former senator arlen specter, a longtime advocate of cameras in the court, supreme court attorney thomas gold steam, and third circuit court of appeals chief judge anthony circa pirie the supreme court currently releases are the all in all of its cases on the friday following oral argument. the idea and decisions are available on the supreme court website. this is two hours. -- the audio and decisions are available on the supreme court

website. >> good morning. i'm pleased to call this hearing on the senate judiciary subcommittee on administrative oversight in the courts to order. we have an extremely distinguished panel of witnesses today. we want to welcome back senator specter to this committee where he has spent many hours. i will introduce the panel after the members make their opening

statements. today, we will be discussing the proceedings of the united states supreme court and the bipartisan bill that will televise the proceedings. there have been hearings and proposals in the past on televising all levels of federal courts, and although i have supported those proposals, i do recognize as a former prosecutor, that there are more complicated factors when you're dealing with trials in lower courts and there should be discretion in those matters. our focus today will be on the supreme court, and i would like to begin with a quotation from the court itself. justice william brennan observed, "availability of a trial transcript is no substitute for a public presence at the trial itself. as any experienced appellate judge can attest, the cold

record is a very imperfect reproduction of events that transpired in the courtroom." i could not agree more. while justice brennan was talking about actual attendance, i think his argument is just as persuasive with respect to allowing cameras. although the supreme court is open to all americans in theory, the reality is that public access is significantly restricted. there are only a few hundred seats available, some of which are reserved for specific individuals. that means visitors often get just three minutes of observation time before they have to give up their seats to the next person in line. those friends of mine that have attended when their spouses or colleagues were arguing before the supreme court said it is an amazing experience and we do not in any way want to lessen that experience. we just want to expand it to other people. over nine in 10% of americans do not live in washington, d.c., and their opportunity to visit

is limited, not only by the number of shares in the room, but by geography. it should not be a once-in-a- lifetime experience to be able to see the court in action. the impact of a court's ruling has significant and often immediate consequences for real people. for proof, we do not need to look much further like -- then when mark cases like brown versus the board of education -- then landmark cases like brown versus the board of education. chief justice roberts and acted in a policymaking and audio recordings available on the court website, though not usually on the same day, but before coming to the senate, you should know in my time as the county attorney, and i speak from personal experience, i see the transcripts and audio recordings are not actually the same as watching judge's question lawyers live, seeing the exchange of ideas and the expressions of the participants.

that is why i find there to be a compelling need for regular televised coverage of the supreme court oral arguments and decisions. public has a right to see how the court functions and reaches its rulings. it is the same argument for televising speeches on the senate floor, press conferences by the president, or for that matter, hearings like this one. democracy must be open. members of the public, especially those who do not have the time or means to travel to washington, d.c., should be able to hear debate and analysis on the great legal issues of the day or on any issues that come before the united states supreme court. of course, even if you live across the street from the court, it is not a reasonable proposition to attend on a regular basis. in reality, public access to the court is very limited and i believe greater access would

help demonstrate the judge's integrity and impartiality in engaging with lawyers from both sides. i have always felt that it was a shame that the overwhelming majority of americans only get to see the justices during their confirmation hearings in the senate. i recognize there are legitimate and deeply held concerns about televising court proceedings or making them available on the internet, and i would note that in reality, those two mechanisms are becoming intertwined and indistinguishable. we thought it was important to have witnesses here today that would take the opposite side on this. it is why we're glad we have such a distinguished panel of people on differing viewpoints -- of differing viewpoints. as i mentioned earlier, i think the more difficult concerns to address our at the trial court level. those issues are not present in the united states supreme court. as we will hear from one of our witnesses, the supreme court in iowa has successfully adopted cameras in the courtroom.

through the experiences of the state courts, two federal circuit courts, and a pilot program running in 14 district courts around the country, we have had a chance to examine in real life the questions that opponents of cameras have raised, such as potential issues of due process. we have seen that in some cases, the concerns have not materialized as beard, and in other cases, there have been ways to address the concerns. it is important to note that the senate legislation championed by senators durbin and grassley -- the legislation provides that if a majority of justices believe that the due process rights of any party would be violated, the case would not be filmed. i think that is important. for all the reasons i have stated, i believe the courts should no longer remain isolated from the americans whose real

world lives are affected by the consequences of their decisions. i believe that the presence of cameras will not interfere with the fair and orderly administration of justice, but rather, it will make it stronger. with that, i will turn to ranking member sessions for his opening remarks. >> thank you. i thank the chair. you always do such a good job at these hearings and to allow a fair and open discussion. i look forward to today's hearing. it is good to see senator specter back. he is teaching a course. he is writing a fourth book and practicing some law and still active in the great arguments of our time. this is what i'm thinking about the matter and do not claim to have it all correct.

the power of the court, its role, its legitimacy, its moral authority are rises from the fact that it is removed from the hustle and bustle of everyday life. passions, its ideologies, it's politics. it is a place justice is done under the constitution and laws of the united states. the court's six to discover the legal issues in the case. it then endeavors to decide that legal issue based on objective and -- established rules of interpretation and adjudication. complicated process at times. it is most certainly not a form of policy debate, and that is why judges wear robes, to make clear their object to become a their neutrality. the moral authority of a court, i believe, rises from the production of an objective

judgment. the only thing that is important is the judgment, the order. that decision speaks. it is what is important. it speaks for itself. it speaks for those who have rendered it, and their business, there personality or lack of it is not what a court is about. a court is about its decisions. they say they want to see the process in action, but i'm not sure how you see a judgment being formed. to the extent that cameras in the courtroom undermine the sense of objectivity, the -- they cause the courts to be perceived more as a policy or political entity, the court's moral authority has perhaps, slightly, been reduced. to the extent that our justices worry about that, i think we

should give them deference. whether or not congress can constitutionally direct a court to have cameras or not -- it seems to me that we should take very seriously their views about it and respect it. it is their domain. they do not tell us how to run our offices here. i think there are real concerns about the issues that are before us. i know that senator grassley and you, madame chairwoman, and senator specter, have strong views and have advocated this for years. i remember when i became united states attorney, judge thomas gave me some advice about the good offices i was about to enter. he said, "if it ain't broke, do

not fix it." i'm pretty pleased with the effectiveness of the great court in america and i think we should be cautious about making significant changes. thank you. >> thank you very much. senator grassley. >> thank you, madam chairman, for holding this very important hearing. before i speak, i wanted to announce to my colleagues and the witnesses that i will have to at 10:45 go over to the floor for a nominee that is up. over 10 years ago, senator schumer and i introduced in the sunshine in the courtroom back to grant federal judges the authority to allow cameras. since that time, this bill has been brought before the committee many times and each time, it has been scrutinized, improved upon, and reported out of committee with broad, bipartisan support. today's hearing focuses on a companion issue, whether or not the supreme court should permit cameras. just yesterday, senator dorgan

and i introduced what we call the cameras in the courtroom act of 2011, a bill which would require the supreme court to broadcast and televise. like the sunshine in the courtroom act, this bill has also been brought before the committee on several occasions. it, too, was reported out favorably with bipartisan support and was championed by one of our witnesses today, my friend, senator arlen specter, who, as i told him privately, i'm glad to see back in action again. my interest in expanding the people's access to the supreme court 11 years ago increased 11 years ago when the senate decided to hear arguments in the recount case in the 2000 presidential election. we urged the supreme court to open the arguments to live broadcast theory the supreme court took the then unprecedented step of releasing an audio recording of their arguments shortly after they

occurred. it was a sign of progress that gave the entire country the opportunity to experience what so few get to, and that is the supreme court at work. last year, the supreme court began releasing audio recordings of its proceedings at the end of each week. this is another step in the right direction, and i applied the court -- i applaud the court. but it is not enough. i believe the court and the fundamental principles upon which it is built, require even more. abraham lincoln said ours is government by the people, for the people, the people. the best way that we can ensure the federal government is accountable to the people is to create transparency, openness, and access. the vast majority of people do not believe that they have adequate access to the supreme court. we had a poll released last

year. 62% of americans believe that they hear too little about the workings of the supreme court. 2/3 of the americans want to know more. what could be better source of the workings of the supreme court than the supreme court itself? in 1947, the supreme court stated, "what transpires in the courtroom is public property." if it is public property, then it belongs to the whole public, not just the 200 people who can fit inside the gallery. with today's technology, there's no reason why arguments cannot be broadcast in an easy, unobtrusive, and respectful manner that would preserve the dignity of the supreme court's work and grant access to millions of americans wishing to no more. my state of iowa knows something about this. for over 30 years, it has permitted the broadcast of trial and appellate reports. i'm pleased to welcome our supreme court chief justice, mark cady, today.

he has come to share his unique perspective of presiding over record that broadcast this proceedings. he is a strong proponent of broadcast transparency. before we begin, i would ask for three things to be included in the record here first, a letter i wrote to chief justice roberts, asking for the health care law in case to be televised. i would like to put that in the record. the second and third thing to put in the record with the editorial opinions, one written by the second largest newspaper in iowa, an editorial board stating its support of legislation, and the other, the editorial board of the "washington post," both expressing the belief that the supreme court should permit

proceedings to be broadcast. it is not often that america's heartland and washington establishment agree on too much, so i feel that brings a unique perspective to this. >> thank you. those will be included. i know senator durbin is going to join us at some point and has a few words to say about this legislation, but i think we will start with our witnesses first. we will ask that you stand so you can take the oath. do you a firm that the testimony you are about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? thank you very much. i'm going to mention and go through and introduce each of them, and we will have you each give your remarks for 5 minutes. it has been well of knowledge senator specter is here with us. he served in this chamber for 30 years, the longest-serving

senator in his state's history. as chairman of the judiciary committee, he was a tireless advocate for televising supreme court proceedings. he did not have to come back at this point. he has a lot going on, as senator sessions pointed out, but we were honored that he would join us today and make your first, i think, official return to the senate. we will also hear from tom goldstein, a founding partner of goldstein and russell, an appellate firm specializing in supreme court litigation. he has argued before the supreme court 24 times, but who is counting? he also teaches supreme court litigation at harvard and stanford law schools and is the publisher of a popular blog. next, we have chief justice mark cady of the iowa state supreme court. judge cady served as an

assistant county attorney, district court judge and chief judge of i/o court of appeals before his appointment to the state supreme court in 1998. next is judge anthony scirica of the third circuit court of appeals, who previously served as chief judge of the circuit and district court judge. prior to his appointment to the federal bench, he served as an assistant district attorney and state representative in pennsylvania. finally, maureen maohoney -- mahoney. from 1991 to 1993, she served as a united states deputy solicitor general. we thank you all for joining us, and we will begin our testimony with senator specter.

>> scheduling the hearings on this very important subject. i am pleased to be back in this room where i have spent many interesting hours on the other side of the dallas -- of the dais. i think it is vital that the public really understand what the supreme court does. in our electronic age, the information comes from television. the supreme court decided in 1980 that the public had a right to know what goes on in court. it applied not only to the print media, but to the electronic media. the supreme court decides all of the important, cutting issues of the day. the court decided who would be

president in bush versus gore by one vote. the court decides who lives through the abortion rights, who dies of the death penalty, and every subject in between. not only does the court affect the daily lives of all americans, it has a tremendous impact on the separation of powers. i believe that congressional authority has been very seriously eroded by with the court has done on the decisions which they have decided and on the cases which they have not decided. the authority of the congress under the commerce clause was unchallenged for 60 years. then, chief justice rehnquist said in morrison that the

legislation was unconstitutional because of the congressional "method of reasoning." i often wonder what transformation occurs when the nominee is leave this room, walked across the green, and are sworn in to the supreme court. the court is very ideologically driven at the moment, and i think the public needs to understand that. the case of the affordable terror act is coming up for supreme court review, and that is a case which touches every american. that ought to be accessible to the public. the chamber holds only 250 people, and when the american people were polled on this subject, 63% said they thought the supreme court ought to be televised.

when the other 37% found out that people could stay only for three minutes and the chamber was limited, the number rose to 80%. the highest court of great britain is televised. the highest court of canada is televised. most of the state supreme courts are televised. when the nominees appear before the committee on confirmation, they speak about a favorable opinion of television or at least an open mind. somehow, that position as well as many others gets a 180 degree reversal when they get to the court. the issues which are coming up in the affordable care act really ought to be subject to

really close public scrutiny. i believe that the legitimacy of the court itself is at stake for the people to understand what the court does. there have been no good reasons advanced why not to televise the supreme court. an article which appeared in the "national law journal," the author attributes the defiant stance of the supreme court is their view that they are entitled to be characterized as under exceptional is some. justice kennedy said, "we operate on a different timeline, a different chronology. we speak a different grammar." and that is not true in a democracy. i think senator sessions has it right when he says they consider

it their demand. it is not. it is the public's demand and ought to be accessible to the public. -- it is the public domain. >> thank you. it is quite an honor to be here with four panelists, all of whom have been mitchen seriously as a potential nominee to the supreme court. that is not a problem i'm ever going to have. my perspective is as someone who does argue regularly before the court and also, as you mentioned, operates a website that will have roughly 10 million visits this year relating to the court where people come to find information about the court. i appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to hold this hearing on an issue that everyone agrees is fantastically important. just to follow-up on senator specter's argument, one can only imagine that the oral arguments in that case and eventual decision were televised, at

least 50 million people would watch that in this country. it is so important that the contentious decision to pass the legislation in this body, the obvious serious questions about the constitutionality of the statute, but only 100 or 200 people will be able to be in the room for those arguments, and we are a visual culture. people watch television. it is how they get a lot of their news. it would make a big difference. you have my testimony and i will not repeat it, so i will make the courts -- -- i will make three points. televising the decisions will be good for the court. i think you can pass a law requiring judges to do this, but i would not. i think televising would be good for the supreme court because experience shows that sunshine increases public confidence. the justices are tremendously serious people doing the

public's work. the oral arguments are not scintillating and are sometimes not very interesting. as someone who argues in front of the court, i can say that. but they are incredibly important. the power to strike down a law passed by the people's representatives is the most serious power that exists under the constitution in my opinion. for the public to understand what is going on and see the serious questions and serious answers i think would make the public believe in the justices and the good work they are doing even more than it does now. we are at a time when there is a flagging confidence in our democracy and doing things to increase that confidence would be a good thing. second -- can you force them to do it? nobody knows. there has never been a case like this. it is always quite a challenge to pass a law that would require the supreme court to do something and then invite the supreme court to decide whether you can do it.

the justices would end up deciding that case in all likelihood. in my opinion, the answer is probably yes. these are public proceedings. the justices have already decided to let the public in. there is a significant first amendment interest in the public being able to see what is going on. it is an important part of our governmental structure. the very fact that it is part of the deliberations suggests to me that there is a significant interest in having the proceedings be seen. i would, however, if you were going to do it, attached findings to the legislation that explain why it is that you have found that it does not disrupt the court's proceedings, would not present a security risk, and the like. the legislation standing alone invites the court to -- and a district course that would hear the first case to your judgment about that. in hearings like this, you would need to find facts to support

the legislation. but, third, i just would not do this. i happen to agree with senator sessions. we should begin by recognizing that it is really easy to criticize the court. it does not have a pr operation and does not respond. the justices deserve praise. they are practically the only people in washington trying not to get on television. they are just trying to do their jobs. they have taken significant strides. they do not just say they care about public access. they are doing things. the publish bonds -- they publish their opinions, they created a web site available in real time. they publish the audio in the same week, and they are headed in this direction on their own. -- they created a web site available in real time -- a website. this has always been done pretty much by the judiciary voluntarily, rather than the legislature telling them to do it. the trajectory is that it is

inevitable that television will be in the supreme court, and i would not provoke a constitutional controversy of requiring them to do it. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. judge cady. mark cady -- >> madam chair person, members of the committee, it is my pleasure and honor to be with you this morning to tell you about iowa's experience with video court proceedings. the iowa judicial branch has been a leader in video and audio media coverage for courts for more than 30 years. i know courts have allowed audio, photographic, and video coverage of our court proceedings. in 1979, following a thorough study, the iowa supreme court adopted rules to allow for expanded media coverage of court proceedings in both trial and

appellate courts. these rules are carefully designed to prevent disruption of the court hearings, to safeguard the rights of litigants to a fair, impartial trial and appeal, and in summary, iowa rules provide for the media to file first a request to cover a media court coverage trial. after the request is filed, litigates are given the right to object to the coverage. the media must cool its equipment, and the rules prohibit coverage of certain sensitive subjects and segments of the hearing. our rules have worked very well. they limit the number of cameras in the courtroom, require the cameras to be stationary, so as not to distract from the proceedings, and they ensure that the judge always has control of the process.

our judges rarely have problems with this expanded media coverage, and journalists who cover our course respect the rules and rights of litigants. the process has worked so well it has become expected. expanded media coverage of trials, especially high-profile trials, is a matter of routine. expanded media coverage of appellate hearings is less common. i estimate we might have expanded media coverage in perhaps one or two arguments a year. in addition to our procedure for expanded media coverage of courts, the iowa supreme court streams all of its oral argument on line. we also then archive the videos for later viewing. our court began recording its oral arguments and making them online in 2006.

we have continued that practice today. as you know, the strength of our democracy -- indeed any democracy -- requires a well- informed citizen. this principle holds true for each branch of government. the strength and effectiveness of our court system depends on the confidence in the courts. as former supreme court justice thurgood marshall said, we can never forget that the only real source of power that judges can tap is the respect of the people. that respect it depends on how well they do their job in administering justice, but it also depends on the public's understanding of their job and the information the public has about how they are doing their job. our experience in iowa has shown that media coverage of our courts tend to boil down at times to just a few seconds of a high video profile trial with

a report of the proceedings filtered by a reporter. so what the public gets is simply a snippet of the process. although we would like to allow more coverage of our court arguments, we believe the media in iowa provides a great service. their efforts increase the visibility for our courts and our core procedures. at the same time, it becomes easier for courts to direct them to our proceedings through the modern information technology. and with our online video court proceedings, more people watch our courts, and our experience bears this out. i think i want to leave you with simply one anecdote, perhaps best described. there has been a strong interest in our online arguments in our

court proceedings, and this has been a tremendous surprise, and it has revealed an opportunity -- and opportunity for greater public understanding. my observation and conclusion is this -- cameras expose courts to what they do and what they are -- a proud institution of justice. the more the public sees our courts operate, the more they will like and respect our court system. this was vividly shown to me a few months ago when the iowa supreme court heard arguments in a community outside our seat of government. the case involved a criminal violation of an ordinance preventing local mennonite farmers from driving their steel wheel tractors on hard surface roads. the issue in the case was whether the ordinance violated the first amendment. our arguments in this community

drew about 350 people from the area. afterwards, at a reception, the father of the young mennonite boy who was the subject of the prosecution patiently waited to shake my hand. when he did, he looked me in the eye, and he said this -- "having seen your court work, it seems like a pretty honest thing." our courts are honest thing, and cameras can help show it to the public. i would now like to briefly paws show we can watch a short excerpt -- i would now like to briefly pause so we can watch a short excerpt from one of our hearings. >> since this is about cameras in the courtroom, we will allow the showing of that. thank you. >> [inaudible]

>> articulate for me how you think orlando rodriguez aided and abetted vehicular homicide. give me a summary of how you think he did that. >> [inaudible]

>> thank you. >> we want to know what happened in the case, but we will ask you later. next, judge scirica. >> chairman, ranking member, distinguished members of this committee, good morning, and thank you for inviting me here to discuss these proposals for televising the oral arguments of the supreme court. i do not speak for the court, but i am pleased to offer my own perspective, which is shaped by my service in the judiciary. at issue is whether televising oral argument will affect the

integrity of the judicial process. in ways we may not fully comprehend or cannot always anticipate, communication through different media can affect how an institution functions. you will hear a broad range of views with thoughtful arguments on both sides. reasonable people disagree about the best course, but let me make three general points i believe merit consideration -- transparency, accessibility, and respect among the branches that allows each to govern its own deliberations. first, transparency. the most important work of the supreme court -- the citing the difficult cases it hears -- is transparent. -- deciding the difficult cases it hears. traditionally, this was done through the printed word. now it is done through the electronic word as well.

as you know, only the court's opinions are binding precedent on questions of federal law. the process of reason deliberation confers legitimacy and permits litigants' and the public to evaluate for themselves the soundness of the court's judgment. second, over time, the supreme court has become more accessible. it has embraced the internet to enhance access to its work. lawyers briefs, court's opinions, transcripts of oral argument, audio recordings of oral arguments are all available on the court's website free of charge. its opinions are online as soon as the decision is announced. third, each of our three branches of government is responsible for its own deliberations and self-

governance. the separation of powers underscores the considerable latitude that should be afforded each branch in determining its own internal procedures. deciding whether to televise oral arguments at the supreme court goes to the heart of how the court deliberates and conducts its proceedings. those of us outside the court all have individual and institutional interests in the decision, but we do not have the responsibility to decide these difficult cases of national importance. the justices do. they are the ones most familiar with the operation of the court. they understand the dynamics and nuances of supreme court oral argument and how that exchanged affects their deliberations. they can best evaluate whether the introduction of cameras might affect the quality and

integrity of the dialogue with the attorneys and, just as important, the dialogue among the justices. there is a common bond between members of the supreme court and members of congress. each serves as a trustee of the long-term interests of an essential institution in our country. the court has proceeded cautiously in evaluating whether to televise oral argument. this should give pause when seeking to impose a decision on a coordinate branch of government. the congressional mandate that the supreme court televise its proceedings is likely to raise a significant constitutional issue. lawyers and members of commerce have expressed this possibility -- lawyers and members of congress have expressed this possibility. there is a compelling reason for

caution. apart from avoiding a possible constitutional question. the coequal branches of the federal government have long respected each branch's authority and responsibility to govern its own internal affairs and deliberations. this history is deeply rooted in the american political and constitutional tradition. congress has honored this legacy by guarding judicial independence and self governance. these longstanding principles of mutual respect for each branch's essential functions counseled moderation and deference. it is not unreasonable to defer to the court on how it conducts its deliberations and speaks to the american people. the court should be afforded its

own governance to decide for itself whether, when, and how cameras should be present during its oral arguments. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. ms. mahoney. >> good morning. i want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today in opposition to the legislation that has now been proposed. i come to this committee having served 30 years as a supreme court advocate. i have argued 21 cases before the court and had the privilege of working with the court and the judicial conference on the roll-making process. i have come to know them and respect them. a few years ago, justice kennedy testified before congress, and he expressed the hope that congress would accept the court's judgment on the issue of televised arguments. i would like to highlight the for your reasons why congress

should respect that request. the first is that there is a serious reason to believe that legislation overturning the supreme court's policy on this issue would be unconstitutional. i agree with tom gold seen that the issue is debatable. it certainly has not been settled. i think the text of the constitution, the doctrine of separation of powers and congress' historical practices all point to the direction that the legislation would be unconstitutional. it would be an effort to strip the core of its historic authority to control proceedings in its own chamber. when you look at the text, article 3 vests the judicial power the supreme court, not in congress. congress did not create the supreme court. the constitution did. from the earliest days of the republic, the supreme court has made clear that the judicial power does include the authority to adopt rules necessary to

conduct proceedings and to protect the integrity of its decision-making processes. although congress surely has some power to adopt laws that affect the court, it cannot, as the court says, impermissibly intrude on the province of the judiciary or disregard a postulate of article 3 that is deeply rooted in the law. those concerns are directly implicated here. it would be difficult to describe a statue that strips the court of its deeply rooted power as a mere administrative regulation, especially when it is done in the context of a disagreement with the court about how it has come down on this issue. history also lends support to this conclusion from 1789 to the present. congress has always left the supreme court free to adopt its own rules governing its proceedings without any oversight or legislative approval. second, any benefit to televise proceedings is not great enough

to warrant the confrontation. i would say on the benefits side, this is not a one-sided debate. as justice stevens has but it, this is a difficult issue. those are his words. it is easy to posit some educational benefits, but what are the incremental benefits once the public already has full access to the idea and the transcripts? and justice o'connor, who has been very devoted to public education on the judicial branch and the supreme court, said that in her view, televising supreme court proceedings, "would not enhance the knowledge of the public that much due to the availability of other information," and she notes that arguments are technical and complicated. third, i think television opposes genuine risks to the processes, and we just need to look at what a few of the

justices have said and told congress. first, let's look at what justice souter said. in 1996, he said the case against cameras was so strong that, "the day you see a camera coming into our court room, it is going to roll over my dead body." it bears emphasis that he based this of you on his own personal experience when he was sitting at -- as a justice of the new hampshire supreme court. he said his experience was it definitely affected his behavior, the lawyers were acting up for the camera by being more dramatic, and that he was sincere in his own questions. similar concerns have been shared by a large number of federal appellate judges who have participated in a pilot project of televising oral arguments a number of years ago. let me run through what the other justices have said about how it would affect their decision-making process because i think it is essential that the committee be aware of this. chief justice roberts has said

that grandstanding may be expected to increase. justice kennedy said that television will not alter the way in which they hear cases, the way in which they talk to counsel, the way in which they talk to each other and use that precious hour. justice thomas says television would have an effect on the way cases are argued and undermines the manner in which they consider cases. just as the leader -- "television would change the nature of arguments because the behavior of participants is changed when behavior's are televised. justice briar sees good reasons for television, the council's caution because there are also good reasons against it. and justice stevens recognizes potential benefits but said he ultimately came down against it because it might negatively affect the arguments and behavior of the justices and lawyers. finally, i would like to say that i would like to echo the sentiment that the court is in the best position to assess the impact of electronic media on its proceedings, and it can be

trusted to continue to give the issues careful consideration. as justice kennedy has explained, it is the justices, not progress, who have intimate knowledge of the dynamics and the needs of the court. when the shoe is on the other foot, the supreme court refused to second-guess the senate procedures for conducting impeachment trials. a federal judge who was being impeached came to the court and challenged those procedures, and the supreme court said that the senate had authority to determine for itself what procedures would govern, and the same should be true here. the matter has not been finally decided. the court, as one of the witnesses explained, has actually alter its policies in cases of high public interest, and it now has requests pending before it. the -- there is ample time to consider those. i would urge the said committee to stay its hand. justice kennedy informed

congress that we feel strongly that the matter should be left to the courts, and that view is entitled to respect under our constitutional system of governance. thank you. >> thank you very much. i did want to also quote our newest and youngest member of the court, justice kagan, who was asked if she gave a televised proceedings, and she said she did, but she recently said in august if everybody could see this, it would make people feel so good about the branch of government and how it is operating. i got that out of an article recently in the "new york times ." written by a former solicitor general. i'm going to put that in the record as well. i want to also add i spoke with justice satyr about his views -- with justice souter, and i think he expressed his views well.

i'm going to turn it over to two of my republican colleagues who have time commitments. i did want to know two things from the editorial in the "new york times" where he talks about the people who would like to be able to see this, whether they understand every procedural question or not, i'm not sure is relevant because i think they understand a lot of what is going on. he points out older americans affected by health care decisions would like to see an argument. he talks about women or other groups affected by important class action cases like the walmart discrimination case last term. i think we have to remember that while they may not understand every single detail, they understand the bulk of what this is about. i turn this over to my co- chaired, senator sessions, and then over to senator lee, who i know has a time commitment -- to my co-chaire, senator sessions. member perhaps senator specter

was part of the committee that went to the chief justice during the impeachment proceedings to ask how the senate should proceed, and i definitely remember he said, "you are the senate. you decide how to proceed." he would not give any advice. the idea was to get advice about how the senate should conduct its business. he said that. judge scirica, oral arguments in the court of appeals is optional. to what extent is it traditionally optional in the supreme court? with changing the rules also the amount of oral argument that occurs? >> in most of the courts of appeals throughout the country, the oral argument is not held in all of the cases. in the cases where it is held,

eight out of the circuits will put their proceedings of oral argument on the audio, usually within the same day. five do not, but some of those are presently considering doing that. if the supreme court were to change its view on that, obviously it is something that the courts of appeals would take into account, but it is worth noting that since the experiment with -- in 1990 to 1994 in the lower federal courts, only two of the federal courts of appeals have allowed the video in -- videoing the oral argument. the ninth circuit does it on all bank cases and on a case by case appear the second circuit does it quite infrequently. they have only done it four times in four years between 2006

and 2010. >> one of the things that bothers me a little bit -- i do not know that it is a defining thing, but in the letter that was written, there was a quotation about older people might want to be watching this. you have, of course, a complete record of what happens. it is audio transcribed, and it is typed and produced, but i guess my thought is that we do not want to be in a position in which courts feel they are pressured by one group or another group to render a decision. senator specter, justice kennedy testified a few years ago in 2007, "the majority on my court

feel very strongly, however, that televising our proceedings would change our collegiate dynamic, and we hope that respect that separation of powers on checks and balances implies would persuade you to accept our judgment in this regard. we are judged by what we write. we think it would change our dynamic. we feel it would be unhelpful to us. we have come to the conclusion it would alter the way in which we hear our cases, the way in which we talk to each other." i thought that put forth a pretty good statement of the feeling of the court. i think it is a legitimate feeling, produced with integrity. how do you feel the senate should consider overturning that and imposing our view of how the

court room and judicial branch should be conducted? >> i think the public's right to know and the benefits of an informed citizenry vastly outweigh what justice kennedy is talking about, collegial dynamics. justice white boiled it down in the article i referred to, which i would like to have made part of the record, saying that the court's view of not televising its view is "very selfish." i believe if a court would televise, there would be an understanding and an accountability. it is hard to get into sufficient detail in the brief time allowed. the court came down with a monumental decision in citizens

united, which allows unlimited anonymous corporate expenditures. yeah, a book -- yet, a book recently published calls -- called "republic lost," he goes to a critical part of justice kennedy's fifth vote, which decided the case, and points out that when the justice kennedy made a conclusion that unlimited anonymous corporate expenditures would not affect the participation of citizens in the electoral process, that he had absolutely no factual foundation. the congress under separation of powers has the authority to find the facts, and then, there is a rational relationship between what congress wants factually and the legislation, which congress enacts.

the court and citizens united disregarded as justice stevens pointed out a 1000-page record and yanked the rug out from under congress where congress had relied on the case in enacting mccain-fine gold. no one really understands what is happening in these cases. and it is hard to have it conveyed even if there is television but at least that is an enormous start. i would consider the collegial dynamics that justice kennedy refers to, but i believe it is outweighed by the public interest in transparency. sunlight is the best disinfectant. >> i would just say that you express your policy view well,

and at times, the court has a different policy du. >> senator sessions, i have been battling this issue for decades. three times this bill has been reported out. the sad part about leaving the senate is not able to carry it forward, but now senator durbin chairs the panel. he promised to carry on the battle. i am precluded from under the ethics rules from asking senator durbin what he has done. >> before the camera, -- >> you bet. madam chairman, i have a

commitment to make the 12:00 so i have to excuse myself before it is all over. >> thank you very much. >> we will make sure senator durbin has the opportunity so you can ask him questions. we are going to go over to senator lee first. >> i appreciate you accommodating my time constraints. i, at this issue with a certain internal conflict that i hope you can help me resolve today. the conflict stems from the fact that i am an unapologetic, open law geek. i started watching supreme court arguments at the age of 10. i have listened to sound recordings as background music when i am going about my work. on one level, there is absolutely nothing that i would love more than to watch supreme

court arguments on television. and on the other hand, at the same time, i feel that as a coordinate branch of government, the supreme court is entitled to a very significant degree to determine how it operates. this leads us to some conflict. i appreciate the testimony that has been given today and the insight you have provided for us. we have here assembled a very distinguished panel. i have seen maureen mahoney argued before the supreme court. i have not seen senator specter argued before the supreme court but i am sure it has happened. it is great to have each of you here. i would like to direct my first question to ms. mahoney.

i would imagine that in the following scenario, some heartburn would be felt. imagine that at some teacher point, congress decided that although to date most of our proceedings are televised including most of our committee proceedings, at some future point, if congress decided that some committee hearings would not be open to television cameras which is sometimes the case today. those are rare. it may be the case that they would no longer be televised. in that circumstance, suppose further that the court got involved and we ended up with a decision from the supreme court of the united states saying that we have examined the constitution and we found the number is flowing out of

freestanding provisions and concluded from those emanations we can conclude that it is unconstitutional for the senate not to allow all of its proceedings to be televised. how would that be distinguishable from us telling the supreme court that it must open up its oral arguments to television? >> it is well settled under the constitution that it is the supreme court's response to the debate to say what the law is. whenever a particular statute counter beans the constitution, it would be the duty of the tribunals to disregard the former. the supreme court get the last word which is one of the reasons why i think it would be a mistake for congress to go down this path because it would create the potential for a

constitutional confrontation between the branches. why is it different as a matter of first amendment? for one thing, you are doing an elected responsibility. you are elected by the people. the constitution was designed to set the judiciary apart and independent. day are not elected. in fact, to insulate them from popular opinion. that is not true with the way the legislative branch is structured. going back to the nixon case, the proceedings were public but nonetheless the court said it was up to congress to decide what procedures it would use for its proceedings and the court

would not second-guess the. they would all be second-guess it if the constitution required a different conclusion. >> regardless of what we can do, there is a question of what we should do. >> that is certainly the case. i think there is a serious question about whether you can do it. >> senator specter, how do you respond to this point about telling a branch of government how to operate? >> the congress has the authority to handle administrative matters legislatively. for example, congress decides what a quorum is. congress decides how many justices there will be on the court. the congress has the authority to tell the court when it begins its arguments, on the first monday of october.

congress has the authority to tell the court what cases it should hear. i believe the congress has the authority to tell them what cases that they ought to be televised. if it is true that the court has the last word -- it is true that the court has the last word and i believe that is the way it should be. the independence of the judiciary is it vital. that is the backbone of the rule of law in our republic. the court can come back and say it is a violation in the separation of powers but i do not think they would because you have very strong public opinion in favor of having their court televised. the court does listen to the public. for example, in the 1980 decision that i referred to, there is not equal protection of

the law. newspaper. -- newspaper people could come in and the court complained about news clips out of context. you may have been victimized by that some time in the past. that is a free press. i believe that it would really benefit this country to have that kind of accountability. and that kind of understanding. finally, one additional thought. the court has been expanding its authority in a variety of ways it. the rational basis for legislation was the test. in 1997, they came up with a new test of what is congruent and portion of. no one knows what that means. for the americans with disabilities act, two cases were

decided differently. 1 involvement implement and another on accessibility. the justice said that was a flat and test to enable the court to engage in policy decisions. i think the court does engage in policy decisions. i think the ideological tilt of the court. i think the public needs to know, and i think it is a restraining influence. we note the court reflects the changing values in society. the public has to know what the court is doing in order to express those values. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, senator lee. i am going to ask one quick follow-up question.

ms. mahoney made the argument that it is not constitutional, this bill to require the supreme court for due process to televise. while you are not a fan of having congress do this, you would rather have the court do it themselves. how long have you been working on this? how many years? >> 25. >> give or take 5. you can see why hoping this will just happen to get someone frustrated. can you give the argument of why it would be constitutional? >> it is my pleasure. thank you for the opportunity. article 3 of the constitution, the judicial power in the supreme court. as seantor specter points out,

things as simple as budgeting to more detailed. like what is a quorum with the scope of jurisdiction and the like that this body has a lot to say about under the constitution. there is no clear line here. i believe one thing on the other side would be congress could not pass a law that says justices are having their private deliberations but we are going to put a camera in there because we think sunshine is the best disinfectant. to me, the critical point is these are public proceedings. its seems to me once the justices and make the decision that these are going to be open to the public, some compelling reason to believe they would be distorted of how oral argument works, that is not -- what would

end up being characterized is an undue interference in the operation of the court. given with extraordinary difference of the justices about their view about how this would affect the proceedings given the experience of other courts, it seems to me hard to conclude that this would undermine how the court is operating. i would not go there. i do not think it is a step that is necessary. to give them a sense of the great public interest in televised proceedings. but with no promises, i think the legislation would be upheld. >> so what you are saying is if suddenly the legislation was ordered that the private proceedings would be made public, that would be a

different matter. what you are really trying to do is to expand the room. very good. thank you. senator blumenthal. >> [inaudible] >> very good. senator durbin. >> senator specter, it is great to see you again. it is unprecedented. it is the first time a witness has asked a senator a question. i believe you are entitled to that. what are we doing to pass the bill that we both like so much? we are holding a hearing and you came. i think you for being here. ms. mahoney, one of the things that troubles me is part of your testimony that suggests that the public cannot understand the complexity of the arguments, the technical aspects that are often brought before the court.

because we cannot solve the problem of educating young people, we should not complicate their lives by exposing them to these arguments. i do not believe that conclusion is in the spirit of what we call democracy. in the spirit of democracy, educating the people and giving them exposure to the most technical arguments is considered appropriate. when we leave in monarchies, you get down to a level where people chosen for public office are held to some standard of accountability. if we allow the public to sit in the supreme court and listen without any proof that they have college degrees or law degrees, and we allow the press to cover the proceedings without any guarantee that the supreme court justice may make certain that the question that is posed would

look good in tamara's newspaper, what is the difference? >> i did not say there was no benefit to the public. this is a more difficult issue. what of the incremental benefit? justice o'connor said its arguments would not enhance the knowledge of the public that much. i was quoting justice o'connor. i think we all know she cares deeply about these educational issues. what is the incremental benefit against the cost? if there was no risk to the delivered a process, i would agree with you. hardly anyone would probably watch, but so what? the audio is available. >> as released by the court.

live in the till different life than you do. as i travel all around illinois, i am amused by the number of people who watched c-span night and day. i do not know if these are insomniacs, but whatever their motive may be, they not only know who we are and what we are saying and what we just argued, but i will have friends at home -- i have one in particular, joe kelly, who says bernie sanders looked pretty said this week. is something wrong? they will watch closely and carefully and draw their own conclusions. i think it is a healthy thing. >> it can be. they can play the audio and -- >> why isn't it healthy that we take this to the next logical

step? why are we drawing these boundaries? >> because we have to ask what is the impact on the delivered a process in the supreme court. the people who know the answer to that best of the justices who ask the questions and listen to the answers and decide how it influences their own decision making process. if they believe that these benefits are substantial and the risks to their process is not significant, they will allow television in the courtroom. >> senator specter, as you listen to this, why are we including into the proceedings of the court and their own decorum in establishing a standard that there will be

television cameras? >> because it is so important for the public to know how its government functions. because the supreme court affects the lives of americans in such great detail. you cannot have a more important decisions and health care. the citizens united case, when exposed to some light, and does not make any sense is based upon an assumption without any facts to back it up. it is illustrated by a professor and justice stevens descent. the supreme court does reflect the changing values of a society. >> i believe you served in the united states senate before the proceedings on the senate floor

were televised. how would you react now to critics who say that we are now more theatrical in our performances on the floor than before? >> i would cite a tremendous number of quorum calls. a senator can get the camera at any time they want to come up but the people do not wando it. there are no theatrics there. to the extent that there might be some theatrics, that is vastly outweighed by the benefit of public understanding and having the public see how it government functions. the supreme court is the most powerful part. when they refused to decide a case like the terrorist surveillance program or wiretaps, contrasted with the

intelligence surveillance act, they take tremendous power away from the congress and give it to the executive branch. people ought to know that. when they decide that congress cannot legislate to protect women against violence because as chief justice rehnquist said it is our method of reasoning, it really does not -- it is insulting. i do not think we are being too assertive if we say to the supreme court "televised." if you want to declare a violation, we acknowledge your authority. >> i ask that my opening statement will be placed in the record. >> i want to reiterate what senator durbin just said.

i was in a small town in southern minnesota a few years ago and four older women called me aside and they said we tune in every day to see you preside at 4:00 over the senate. we notice you are not doing it anymore. are you in some kind of trouble in the senate? it just struck me how regular citizens are to remain in and while i know right now the recommendation to congress issues for good reason that does not mean we shut them out and i see it as part of the democracy that people are able to watch this and come to their own conclusions. i now turn it over to senator blumenthal. >> i tune in every time you preside as well. you have a lot of fans out there. i have not argued as many cases as you have. i recognize the dangers that the

justices of the supreme court seat and the possibility of grandstanding and theatrics. i have to tell you there is no more intimidating and challenging experience to argue before the united states supreme court. bar none, i think there are constraints built into the forum and the pace and difficulty of questioning that would really preclude -- i have been there and i have had in mind lines that i might use, but it is impossible given that forum to responsibly do it. i would suggest that the great fear in the back of every advocate's mind is the possibility of a rebuke from the court which is very close to happening to any lawyer,

especially one in the position of trying to use it as a public grandstand, so to speak. any one of the nine justices can offer that rebuke. i think the fear of that happening is greatly overstated in the minds of justice's perhaps because they have not recently been an advocate of the court if they have been at all. i come down on the side of permitting televised proceedings. obviously depending on how it is done. the example that we saw here, akin to what is done in many state courts, i think would be a plausible and prudent way of doing it. obviously, the state courts have

gone through this debate. we did eight in connecticut with the potential of grandstanding is -- we did in connecticut with the potential of grandstanding a real possibility. all of that said, i want to come to the constitutional question which i agree peoplesoft. -- i thinksusceptible d it is in the nature of the rule of procedure or a rule of infrastructure, so to speak. with that in mind, let me ask all of you but beginning with miss mahoning, couldn't the congress if it wished move the supreme court into a building

five times the size of the present one, admitting an audience many times larger than what we have now? maybe even the civic center? i do not know what the civic center in washington, d.c., is called. we have one in connecticut. couldn't they expand the size of the physical audience? isn't that very much in the same nature as if this rule? >> i would suspect the supreme court cannot build its own building although maybe it could. certainly, the congress has the power of the purse and for that reason has control over some things like where the supreme court will sit. yes, i assume that congress could build a new building with

a bigger chamber. that means theyhat meanthink could put it in a coliseum. that is what we are talking about. how do these injustices assess the impact of television on the process? if i could speak to this issue of the nature of the power that congress has, they have some appropriations as one and the power to determine the number of justices. while the constitution creates the accord, the court is its self supporting that power of appointment given to the president with the consent of the senate so it makes sense they can come up with the numbers but when the president tried to enlarge the number of supreme court justices back when president roosevelt did that

what this said it did is it refused to go along, defeating the legislation and this committee issued a report that said it was essential that the judiciary be independent of both executive and legislative branches. id as to use it in a way that does not interfere with dependents and it is never saw to use exercise responsibility from 1789 the court has had that authority on its own. i think the textual case for congress's authority in this area, it is not really there. i am not saying this is unconstitutional but this is a very serious question. >> i disagree. if the court can be moved to a forum much, much larger, if the congress can control, in effect,

the kind of record that is made, can't it also open the proceedings to the public in a different form? >> it is doing that in a manner that impacts directly the court's ability to control its own proceedings, there is a very serious question. >> if the congress passed a law that said in the course of these proceedings, every justice has to be televised individually close up and the litigant or the lawyer for the vatican should be given permission to move around the court room and show whatever physical evidence was presented at trial, that would change the nature of the proceeding. simply to leave the proceedings

the way it is now but open its two larger viewership does not change -- >> who is supposed to decide whether it changes the nature of the proceeding? so far, the justices of the supreme court have concluded they think it would. they are not being arbitrary. they have a different assessment did you do, senator. >> but supreme court justices also believe the judiciary is underfunded. i think that is a much more fundamental -- >> a very fundamental issue -- >> then whether or not we put cameras in the courtroom. for the judiciary to be underfunded seems to be much more profound peacoat it is one that i think congress should address. >> why is that not a

constitutional issue? >> congress has delegated authority to establish the budget and fund appropriations. its authority is textual. what is its textual authority to impose rules -- >> i apologize for taking up so much time. why could the congress as a matter of its appropriations power fund cameras in the united states supreme court with the mandate that they be installed? >> they could have a provision to fund them but the decision intrude into the judicial power of the courts to decide how to conduct its own proceedings. it is all about line drawing. is very difficult to know where to draw the lines. >> thank you very much. >> very good. thank you very much, senator blumenthal. i want to go to the heartland

cady. winow with chief justice we do know some good things come out of the state of iowa, and one is the experience and knowledge that you bring today. what concerns did you hear before cameras were introduced in the courtroom? what year with a introduced? >> 1979. >> do you know what the concerns were back then? >> i do. i think there is a tendency to want to brush the issue aside by addressing on a constitutional framework, but they're really think that this distracts from the real conversation because this issue does involve public policy. and it seems to be based upon certain assumptions.

you think that it is going to cause some bad reaction and others think that cameras in the courtroom is a healthy response. but our experience in iowa has been that it has dispelled the fears that we had when we addressed this issue. we talked about the very same things that we have talked about in this chamber this morning. we talked about the same fears and concerns about how cameras would change the fundamental nature of the decision making. but what we have found out is that we do not even see the cameras. we do not even remember they are in the courtroom. we go about doing our business as we have always done our business. any fear of any problems have

always been minimized or eliminated by the facts that the judge or the justices still maintain control of the court room. allowing cameras into the courtroom does not give up control over the proceedings. >> how about the relationship with colleagues? has that affected if at all? >> it has not. we have had cameras in our supreme court proceedings since 2006. i served on the court threw out that time. i can cite no instance, no example, where in any way the decision making of the court has been altered by the presence of cameras during an oral argument. there may be times when i have

thought twice about asking a question in a sensitive case, a case followed closely by the public, but there were times before when there were cameras in the courtroom and i thought twice -- >> because it would have been reported in some way -- >> you know that the work you are doing is being more examined by more people. >> it is just one step away and get it would make it so much more accessible for so many people. how about some restrictions? do you have some limitations? like a majority of the justices could decide that it would not be filmed? >> we do have restrictions and we were very concerned about those restrictions when we first implemented cameras in our court room.

but it is as if the restrictions are no longer there because we do not run into any problems anymore. >> or other instances that you did not come something because of some reason? >> no. the only time in our supreme court proceedings when we have not found something is because we had to shut down our cameras for a period of time because of budget cuts. at no time have we ever thought this was a case that was appropriate.

>> projects started last summer and would go for three years. there have already been 10 trials that have been televised, transmitted, and we will have some good experience in a three- year period in to how they are functioning. going back to the earlier trials in 1990, there was a very significant number of federal appellate judges, on ethird, who thought television of the oral arguments actually affected the cases. very high publicity cases of. they did not engage in the kind of vigor they normally would have if the cameras were not

present. in the trial courts, there were a lot more problems with assessing the impact on witnesses and jurors. for that reason, adopting a principle that allowed the trial courts to be televised was declined. i think there is an important point that has not been mentioned yet. with respect to the state courts that have adopted putting on audio of their proceedings, practically all of these have been done through court rule. they have not been imposed by the state legislatures. most of them have been done by the courts themselves. there are 22 state courts that televise the proceedings and another 15 that do audio.

that is what we are saying here. this is something that is so essential to the court's function, particularly the supreme court. it is in a different arena than state supreme courts and federal courts of appeals. bay are much more visible. the possible uses to which video clips could be used, we do not know. but it is something that i think the congress ought to consider before deciding whether or not to mandate this kind of coverage. >> given that we are talking about cameras in the supreme court, the acknowledged that district courts and judges have the ability to decide whether or not things should be found and the effect it would have on witnesses, but are there any part of the products going on

with a r filming appellate courts which would be the best example for the supreme court? >> there are none right now. it is only in the district court's. >> this notion that it will somehow change what people do. i keep coming back to the fact udio these things are adui taped anyway so people will be able to broadcasting's and the way. by filming them, it would make them more available to more people. what would cause a lifetime appointed judge to not want to ask the question? i suppose you could make the argument of a judge with a term limits, but i am trying to get to this mentality of someone who has a lifetime appointment unless they do not want to have

protesters but they already have protesters. can you discuss that, that motivation from your perspective? the others have made the point that they think it has an impact. justice cady. >> the perceived impact of any change certainly must be considered but so too must the benefits that are available from change. as i said earlier, we have gone through this transformation. what we have found out is that all that's left in the end is the benefits to the public. we do not encounter problems. as i said, we do not even remember that our cameras are in operation. they are set up in our core room in a way that is on the troops

of, barely noticeable -- they are set up in our court room in a way that is an unobtrusive, barely noticeable. the example illustrated what our courts are really about which is bidding to the bottom of the issue and getting a decision that we call justice. what the cameras do is expose that to the public and is critical in this day and age that the public be exposed to the way our courts truly operates. is not how they are perceived to operate. >> thank you very much. senator sessions. >> it is been excellent panel. justice cady, our court decided to have the cameras.

is that correct? >> correct. that oralt true arguments -- if someone only saw the oral arguments and did not study the record, they would get a missed impression of the nature of the case because the justice may be focusing on a small part of it? have you been surprised with the tact that arguments have taken when you prepared diligently for the issues you thought to be the most important? >> no question that for the members of the public admitted as well as anyone who listens to the audio tape, you can get dropped down into the middle of a very complicated story. id may not be the easiest thing to copperhead. just like this hearing. -- it may not be the easiest

thing to comprehend. just like this hearing. >> especially if you just listened to a short video clip, you might get a very long impression about what was transpiring there. wasjustice's opposition based on the fact that he thought television could run a short clip of him that could maybe make it seem that he was not impartial because questioning can be aggressive and because of the nature of the tv news, they can only pick out a very small excerpt. justice scalia has said it would contribute to the this education of the public. >> it seems to me there is a lot of truth in that. if you are on television and you

are used to bring a lawyer here, you ask them about a 40- year old complex case that they know precisely what the question is about, wouldn't the judge to obligated to maybe have a prolonged part of the preamble to explain so the people out there could understand what he was saying when the lawyers would know immediately what the judge was asking? >> quite possible. i think the other thing that i find troubling, senator, is the possible uses to film clips might be put in subsequent cases. that is after the entire oral argument is shown on c-span, there may be exurbs that may be used for other purposes. i do not know how we could anticipate whether that would happen or not or what form it

would take. i think it is something that the supreme court has bought about. has thought about. we heard from mr. mahoney some of their statements and i think they are quite concerned with the way they asked questions. a death penalty case, for example, where there are serious constitutional issues and the family of the victim happens to be in the room, judges will think carefully about how they probe those difficult constitutional issues. i think it is not quite right to say that there would be no impact on the conduct of the argument before the supreme court. >> when i first heard a prosecuting cases, when the jury

returned a verdict, they were told not to discuss their verdict. in the supreme court, free- speech. you cannot tell them not to discuss their verdict. well, to me, some majesty of the authority of that decision is a little bit eroded when one juror skunk withk it's a not enough proof. to some extent, you should judge -- not to some extent but virtually total judge a court on the merit of the opinion -- isn't that what we should judge a court on? on teh power and authority as the opinion as rendered?

the oral arguments often give very little insight into how that opinion would come out? sometimes, judges changed their mind. >> course. each of us who have served on an appellate court has had an oral argument affect the way we think. once we get into the meat of the case and start writing the opinion, you may come out the other way. the real work is done in preparing for the oral argument, studying the law. oral argument is helpful. it is a slice. sometimes you play devil's advocate, sometimes you ask provocative questions. it is the written opinion that counts. the public will judge the court, particularly the supreme court, on the soundness of its opinions

whether it is persuasive. that is fully transparent. >> maybe that principle may be less so if they like the vision of one judge and not that of the other or the personality of one judge and not the other. in an ideal world, the court seeks to determine the law based on the facts to the extent to which it becomes even a little more political, if the logical, or religious-based whatever comes up in the course of these arguments on other motions that are out there in the world around them courthouse when it makes its decision to the extent in any way moved from that ideal i think is not helping so it

seems to me the accord is a little uneasy -- more than a little uneasy that this would move them away from law to that extent i would be prepared to show deference to that conclusion. i would note that the legislation would mandate operating the cameras in the courtroom unless every case is devoted to the contrary. thank you for an excellent hearing and an excellent panel. >> it is not quite over. senator blumenthal has a question. i do not think it is going to change her demeanor if she is on tv. i will turn it over to senator blumenthal for a few more questions. >> thank you, madam chairman, and thank you for having this

hearing which i agree has been excellent due to the excellent witnesses that we have. i have a couple of questions. i guess for mr. goldstein and ms. mahoney and anyone else. i am wondering in light of the increased openness that we have in the court, to its credit -- i was a lw clerk in 1875 and there were no recordings or tapes available -- 1975 and there were no records or tapes available. we had to physically at and the argument if we wanted to hear what the advocacy was. i wonder whether the accessibility which as you said, ms. mahoney, for anyone who

really wants to hear what is going on, whether that has changed the nature of argument. you have been doing it more than i have. changed't think it's the way i argue cases but i cannot speak to halt the justices might think. >> i have never heard them articulate the idea that because it is taped the oral arguments happen differently. television is a different kettle of fish for all the reasons that it invites more people to witness the proceedings. i do not see it happening for the reasons you gave as someone who has considerable oral argument experience. nobody wants to lose their case

or embarrass themselves. to the extent that it changes how the justices comport themselves, they are comporting themselves in front of the american public. that, i think, is an acceptable cost. i would make one other point. we talk about this as if it is just about oral arguments. the court has other public proceedings. 8 announce his decisions. nobody would say that there is an interaction between lawyers that would change it but it is not televised. there are proceedings where a justice will be invested into the court and those are not televised either. yet it is a part of the democratic process that would be affected by the legislation as well. >> in your view, could the court

decide that it felt that the intrusive nature of the writing press, given that the transmission of those writings is virtually instantaneous that it would bar all reporting? >> the answer to that question is clearly no. the court owns decisions about public access make farily clear that form of accesss. there is a different historical tradition that is involved there. i will say that the court does have certain restrictions even with respect to the press, who can be a member of the press, and how it is that the press

functions inside the building, trying, i think, as with the website and the release of the audio tapes to get as much access as they can. that is an example where there would be a first amendment prohibition of what they are doing. >> because it is in the nature of a time, place, and manner. >> because of its greater relative obtrusion on the proceedings. it is a line-drawing difficulty and the fact there are other avenues receiving the information to the written press that satisfies the first amendment. the question of whether you have the legislative power to nonetheless enact such a law and -- not everything has to be a

federal case or a constitutional violation, but it is really good for the american people to see how the government operates. that motivates us to pass legislation like this. >> thank you. thank you, madam chairman. >> could panel. i enjoyed this. this is an important issue. it is a tough issue to know precisely what the right thing is. we thank you for participating. >> i think you saw from all the senators that attended today, senator durbin, senator blumenthal, senator grassley, senator durbin, senator lee and myself we have pointed out that the supreme court would make the decision themselves. hopefully they hear these arguments instead of having it

done legislatively but one of the reasons we are focused on the legislation is it has been 25 years and waiting. the idea here is my colleague, senator sessions, talked about the importance of the dignity of the court and the majesty of the court which i think we can all understand. on the other hand, we want other people to be able to see that besides the 250 people that are crammed into a room to watch. so the people in home states should be able to tune in and watch this and watch important issues of the day. i believe we have a lot of things going on, and it thought of those things and up in the supreme court one way or another. i think that is what this is about, understanding that we want to respect the decision making process and not given to the private decision making process with the debate going

back and forth and how horrible that would be. the decisions as well. i wanted to thank all of you. this has been a highly interesting hearing. i hope we will be able to have people watching as it is recorded. they will be able to see the argument. i want to thank senator specter as well as mr. goldstein. thank you especially chief justice cady and judge scirica to be willing to talk about your own personal experience and to get beyond the comfort level where you get to -- where we get to ask the questions. thank you, ms. mahoney, for the vast experience that you bring to this. so thank you, everyone. we will keep the record open. >> -- opposition to the

legislation. >> i will also offered the .tatement of chairman we will keep the record open for one week for people to submit further statement. thank you very much, and we look forward to debating this issue in the months to come. been hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> i especially thought that the iowa chief judge, no longer chief justice -- the iowa judges -- justice's view on this was most interesting to me, because they had the most recent experience. they're in a state where, just like minnesota, people tend to be very focused on democracy. they're very focused on how things work and what's going on. so i think that was interesting, as well as just

the constitutional debate about the actual legislation. but i think it would be a mistake just to focus on that. the general hearing was about should we have the cameras or not, and from that standpoint i think it came out pretty positive. i don't know where the house is on it, but it's surprising sometimes how things can happen. one idea was the resolution as well. that would not mandate it. but it would send a clear indication to the court that congress was serious about it and could be a step away from doing something more mandatory. >> would there be a resolution? >> i think it's something we'd consider, but our focus is on getting the actual bill through. i would guess we can get it through the committee. i don't know the historic

votes, but it's subject to the floor and anything can happen. >> c-span's letter and some of the statements that a number of the senators put out specific to the health care have asked the court to make a one-time sort of exception for that. is that something you think is realistic? >> that would be great as an experiment, but i think we're very much interested in doing this for the long haul and not just for one case. >> you know, it's come up in the committee so many times that -- >> i'd have to go back and check. i don't know that answer. see if craig knows. did it ever come up for a floor vote, do you know? >> i'm asking you to go back to 25 years. anyway, we'll get all your names and we'll let you know. >> thanks. >> what if the arguments are not televised? what do you think? which is the way this might turn out. >> well, then obviously there will be great use made of the

audiotape and they'll do one of those things and hopefully we can get it sooner than three days later. but they'll have their picture and they'll put the audiotape under it. it just seems very contrived to me, when you could actually videotape it. and people on both sides of this issue would like to see it. >> do you think people will feel that the decision has less legitimacy? >> i don't really want to get into that. i don't necessarily think that's true. but what i do think is true is that people have a right to see when major decisions in public forums are being made, how it affects us. we've come a long way since this country was set up in terms of our ability to access public meetings in public forums, and that's why i believe the court needs to be transformed as well. we are not talking about going into the private negotiations, where you want the justices to have the right to go back and forth and form consensus and make people change their opinions after they learn something new.

you don't want the constraint on that. it's something that we've already decided in public, but we're only going to allow 250 people who will tend to be able to have the resources and the ability to get themselves into that room and to travel from somewhere and have the money to do it, whereas the rest of the public just has to wait three days to see an audiotape. that just doesn't seem right. all right? thank you. >> why could the congress, as a matter of its appropriations power, fund cameras in the united states supreme court, with the mandate that they could be installed? >> they could have a provision to fund them, but the decision about whether they mandate they be used intrudes into the judicial power of the court to decide how to conduct its own proceedings. that's the difference. it's all about line-drawing. senator, i agree, it's very difficult to know where to draw

the lines. that's why we need to let the court draw its own lines. >> tuesday a subcommittee met to discuss televising the supreme court. find that hearing online at the c-span video library. you can learn more about the issue with our special web page devoted to cameras in the court. see articles and editorials from across the country, public opinion polls and what the justices have said. you'll also find a link to c-span's youtube play list with members of congress talking about cameras in the court. >> texas governor rick perry met with the "des moines register" editorial board at their offices in iowa on friday. the "register" has invited all of the major presidential candidates to meet with their editorial board and writers covering the race. the newspaper plans to make an endorsement in the republican presidential race on december 18, two weeks before the iowa caucuses on january 3. this is a little over an hour. >> so where did you grow up?

>> new york. >> i don't hear that a lot in iowa. >> no, not too often. >> hi, governor, john carlson. >> hi, john, how are you? >> this is chris. >> chris, nice to meet you. >> this is the man who's going to do all the work. >> it's a pleasure having you here, sir. >> thank you. where did you grow up? >> wisconsin. >> yeah? >> iowa. >> iowa. >> iowa. >> iowa, iowa. >> india. >> the great state of ohio. >> so american pretty much all the way. >> carol's wisconsin and i'm

kansas. >> thanks to one of our business writers. he's done 30 years writing for the houston paper, star telegraph. covered aviation and energy. >> this is a little off the subject, but really not. medical technology and what's happened in texas in the last decade in particular has been just really fascinating. when you talk about our state's economy, back in the 1980's -- 1984, right before we kind of dropped off a cliff and went into rather substantial and relatively lengthy recession, oil and gas in texas was about 14.7% of our gross state product and today it's less than 7%. it's about 6.5% of the gross state product. it's grown, but it just gives you an idea about the total

diversification of the texas economy over the course of the last 25 years and the last decade in particular. we announced a new applied cancer science institute at m.d. anderson a week ago last monday, and it was basically a pickup and move out of harvard to m.d. anderson. we're seeing some great work in stem cells. one of our goals is to make texas the adult stem cell center of the country and maybe even in the world, because there are fascinating things that are going on. i actually had -- when i had my surgery done july 1, they used

-- harvested my adult stem cells, fat cells, and re-used them back, and i healed up very quickly. and we're seeing similar results with multiple sclerosis, muscle dystrophy, fascinating things. i know that's not why we came here, but whoever on your staff doesn't do science, it's all of the above. there's really some fascinating things going on. >> why don't we get started. i'm rick green, editor and vcht the news with the "des moines register." we thank you for being here. we have texas governor rick perry, pursuing the republican nomination for the 2012 presidential election. it's an honor to have you here. you got a chance to meet our publisher, editorial board and columnists. it's an honor to have you here.

we'd like to give you the floor for two or three minutes and offer opening comments about things that are important to you in your campaign. >> let me introduce mark minor to you. he may not have gotten any marketing with our communications director. mark is sitting over there and gives good advice. those are a couple of individuals with me. a local iowan. >> how's the campaign going so far from your perspective, sir? >> it's a most interesting process. having run statewide in texas, i think six times, you think you're ready for a national campaign until you actually -- people always say, man, running statewide in texas, that's a big state. and that's very true. but it's not as big as america. so just managing a national campaign is really an interesting process.

the other side of that is 11 years of chief executive experience and particularly governoring experience has really, i think, paid great dividends, as we talk about why i want to be president and what i bring to the table from the standpoint of the experience standpoint. the argument can be made because the current president, his lack of chief executive experiences, on-the-job training, if you will, has been a drawback to him, which i happen to agree with. running the 13th largest economy in the world p, if texas were a stand-alone entity, has a great number of challenges, and we have to deal with particularly bordering a

foreign country with our number-one trading partner and a country that we've had this long and most interesting and generally very positive relationship with. but the challenges of the border and securing the border, etc., which a lot of other governors don't have to deal with, with those types of issues. so the 11 years that i've been the governor of texas i think has prepared me to deal with a host of very complex issues, whether it's on the economic side or whether it's on the foreign policy side of dealing with various and sunnedry countries. -- sun dri countries. we had a group in the office this last monday, as they are looking to texas to put an office there.

obviously they're very oil and gas and talking about building a pipeline from turkey across europe, to give europe another supply of energy, rather than having to rely just solely upon the russian gas. so, you know, the whole foreign affairs side of being a texas governor is kind of an interesting aspect of what i deal with, whether it's traveling to other countries and almost exclusively economic development-wise. obviously, we're not -- i did, through the years, sign some memorandums of understandings with other countries and texas. israel is an example of it back in the 1990's, when i was the agricultural commissioner. so just a little taste of the life experiences of dealing with the foreign affairs. it's a bit different than what

a number of other governors would deal with, and certainly different than most of those that are on the stage with me, who are also asking for the people to consider them for the nomination. i want to touch on three aspects of the policy that i've laid out, and then we'll open it up and you all can fire it up. we got in the race august 13, which is considered to be relatively light for us injecting ourselves into this process. so it was, what, mark, six weeks later that we laid out our first policy, and it was on energy and jobs. and i know we'll talk about ethanol. i'm in iowa, so i know we'll touch on that. and i'm not going to use this time for that. but i am an all-of-the-above

energy individual from the standpoint of we need to have a very broad portfolio. but what i focused on in that first policy paper was opening up our federal lands and waters for exploration. i think only 8% of our proven reserves and our federal lands and waters are being used today. so there's a substantial amount of energy. there's over 300 years worth of energy in this country that we could use. we're the saudi arabia of coal. and using that coal and having the innovation to be able to use clean-burning coal. i am still a fan of nuclear energy, obviously, and being able to process that fuel rods, after the use of the rod.

but, again, our technology in america has allowed us to find resources that we had no idea were there. i mean, 10 years ago the idea that all of the shell gas -- so i would suggest to you that there are probably still substantial amounts of energy that technology and innovation will allow us to be able to discover, produce and use as a domestic source of energy. so that i talked about in the policy, a million-plus jobs right off the bat. pulling back those regulations over the last five years, since 2008, that have stifled job creation. and then rebuilding e.p.a. into an agency that is actually pro jobs and pushing back a number of these environmental

decision-making processes, regulations, to the states. i trust the people of iowa, your governor, your legislature, to make decisions. one size fits all, even on -- the clean air act -- and i know somebody will ask this question. you're saying you're not for the clean air act that was passed back in the 1970's. yes, it's done its work. but what we have now is an agency that is creating so many regulations, and the cost of those regulations, and frankly, the benefit that we're seeing is very miniscule, at best. the second thing i laid out was tax policies and how to deal with the budget, how to deal with the economy. the 20% flat tax, again, mortgage deductions, charitable deductions, local tax deductions, do away with cap gains, take 20% of that, put it on postcards.

i always carry the postcard with me. so that's it. 20% of that. did i knock it off? sorry about that. make your job better. excuse me. and then on the spending side, obviously, i've had 25-plus years of dealing with the saks state budget, either as an appropriator, as state agency head, lieutenant governor and now the governor of the state of texas. we have a balanced budget amendment in texas. i think it's important that we work towards a balanced budget amendment for the united states constitution as well. i think it's the most serious way to deal with long-term budgetary concerns that people have. the reduction of spending. and i laid out some concepts.

but i'm the only individual who has laid out a budget that will be balanced by 2020. 18% of the gross domestic product is where we're headed to. then on the corporate side, it's just a straight 20% corporate rate. gets us down to -- that's about the -- or excuse me, the global average in other countries is approximately 20%. so we chose that, so that we would be competitive. ours is either the highest or the second highest corporate rate in the world right now, so there's a lot of disincentive for companies to be growing, expanding in the state of texas. and all of that's on the website. i'm not going to sit here again and use up -- i want to end up with the third policy that we laid out, and that is the overhauling washington side. there is some ideas in there that are, some would say,

provocative. when i talk about a part-time congress, i think it rolls some people back on their heels. the idea of, what do you mean, a part-time congress? it worked. it will work. and it will work for cause. today washington has become so self-centered, so self-important from my perspective. people basically make a living being united states congressmen. their salaries are at, i think, three times the average of the american family. make it part-time, go act and live with their citizens and take care of the business that needs to be taken care of, and i will suggest to you there are a lot of models for it working across the country. they're called state governments. 13th largest economy in the world, in texas.

we meet for 140 days every other year. we balance our budget. we take care of our issues, and then those members of the legislature that are only paid $600 a month go home. they do their lawyer work or their veterinary work or they're physicians or retired teachers or whatever we have that make up that microcosm of our state and it works. we balance our budget. they go home and live under the laws that they passed. a part-time congress, i think, would go a long way towards not only making it less contentious in washington, d.c., but also give the american people confidence that the members of congress, in this case, are really more in tune with what's going on. so substantially reducing the size and the scope of

washington and those agencies, even some that i didn't remember the name of. but that's -- again, i want to open it up and allow you all to ask questions. but that's the policy side of the most important issue that faces this country is getting our economy back, getting people to work, getting the confidence back and the entrepreneurs where they feel they can risk their capital and have a chance to get a return on their investment. that's how you get the 13-plus million people who are out of work an opportunity to have a job and the dignity to take care of their family. it's the way that america can again be a force to deal with, whether it's on foreign policy or militarily. because if we do not first get our economy back on track and growing, then that's other

issues become even more problematic for us, because we lose our role in the world as being the strongest economy, being the strongest military, being the influence all on foreign policy and events around the world. so with that -- >> well, it's interesting you want to talk a little bit about overhauling washington, the economy, creating jobs, protecting the things that so many iowans care about. you recently did a $1.2 million ad in this state, and we've all seen it. half of that focuses in on showcasing your faith and what you kind of described as the president's war on religion. i guess we want to better explanation of what message are you trying to send there? what's the backdrop? we appreciate your personal faith and spirituality and the like, but does in really zero in on the issues that are most important to americans in iowa? >> i'm introducing myself to iowans for 25 years and

particularly 20 years as the agricultural commissioner and then the lieutenant governor and the governor. i've had 20 years to introduce myself to the people of the state of texas. obviously, having five months to introduce yourself to the people in new hampshire and iowa and south carolina and florida, which are the four -- there's obviously a taxable reason for zeroing in on iowa, and we know what that is. but it's introducing yourself to those people. who is this individual? what makes that individual tick, if you will? and my faith -- and this is nothing new. i mean, the idea that i have issues that have resonated with me personally in my faith is part of who i am. prior to that, obviously, we laid out our economic side of

things as well. so i think americans do want a president who is not afraid to say here's what i believe in, here's where i am. i am consistent, whether it's consistency on economic issues or whether it's consistencies on issues of my personal faith and values. and that's the message that i'm intending to relay to the people of iowa, is here's what i believe in. and by and large my christian faith does characterize me. whether it's making decisions about economics, for instance. i think the dignity of being able to have a job, to take care of your family, from my perspective is part of my faith and belief, that relying upon government to make decisions that are best made by you

and/or your family, i mean, those are values that i hold very dear and that i think serve not just the people of iowa, but people all across this country well, is that i do disagree with this administration, that it's the private-sector individual who would be better served, whether it's economically, whether it's issues of social concern, that they make those decisions. and then there are clear issues of what i believe in that are in conflict with the administration. >> do you really believe he's waging the war on religion? i guess that's what several of us around the state were hearing. explain that more to us. >> i do, when you see his appointment of two -- from my

perspective inarguably -- activist judges, whether it was -- not -- >> sonia sotomayor? >> sotomayor and kagan were both activist judges. i would suggest to you that that is an example of my concern about -- i believe the supreme court should not be making legislative decisions and telling americans how to live, whether it's about prayer in school, whether it's -- you can celebrate christmas. those are decisions that should be left to the state or to the individuals to be making.

his justice department, who is defending this ministerial exception. i think that is a direct attack on our people of faith and churches and basically saying that you cannot discriminate, if you will, someone who doesn't believe what you believe and hiring and firing of ministers and/or other staff. it's like boy scouts. i wrote a book on scouts four or five years ago, and it gets into the issue of whether or not scouting should be able to restrict an openly gay scout master. very private-sector organization. that should be their call. and you have them spending

substantial amounts of money defending lawsuits that have said, no, you have to -- and those are my beliefs. and i am consistent about them. i don't try to meander through and make both sides happy. but i do think that this president is conducting what i consider to be an attack on traditional religious organizations and/or traditional religious values by those two examples. >> governor -- >> i'd like to take this just one step further. >> sure. >> you said in the iowa family leader forum, thanksgiving forum, ammed this is not quite an exact quote, but very close, but deep in the soul of every person there's a hole that can only be filled by jesus christ.

>> that's correct. >> i am not a christian american, but i am an american and i vote, and i find that to be rather an exclusive notion. i don't have a hole that can only be filled by jesus christ. so you're not speaking for me or to me, and i just wonder if you don't think that you're excluding certain people who are not christian when you say that. >> listen, i'll tell you what is in my faith, and one of the great things our founding fathers did in that first amendment was to say that you had freedom of religion. and i defend that with my life if required. as a matter of fact, i have sworn to uphold the constitution both as a veteran of the united states air force and as the governor of the state of texas. your faith belief is your business. i'm telling you from my perspective the people who

choose christian tee as their faith, i believe that there is a very defined place in your heart that can only be filled. last night i was speaking to a group and i said, if i can just marry this person, if we can just have these children, if i can just get this job or if i can just win this next election, that's what will make me happy, when the fact is i personally believe that what will ultimately make you happy is when that hole is filled by jesus christ. that's my belief. you choose another route. you choose another religion. we have very diverse religious groups and different individuals in the state of

texas. i respect them as citizens and human beings, and that decision they make about their personal faith is their decision. i can't -- way above me to judge you or to judge anyone else. i'm talking about my faith and those who have chosen the christian pathway. >> but as president, you have to represent all americans. and by saying that this president has declared war on religion, some people in this country who are of those other diverse faiths might read that as you would declare war on their religion, not your own. >> well, they would be wrong is how i would say that straight up. >> and you talked about states' rights in terms of defending the constitution.

you don't see a role for the federal courts to uniformly interpret the first amendment to defend religious rights in all 50 states? >> no. here's what i see happening with the first amendment. and this goes back to 1962 and that case where you can't have an organized prayer to an all mighty god, i believe is the way -- i'm not a lawyer, so i haven't studied these cases in-depth. but the idea that the court is telling us whether or not we can have prayer in school is really a bit offensive to me. that should be a decision that's made at the local level. it's one of the reasons that i've called for doing away with the department of education. i have no idea why the federal

government is engaged in telling the states how to educate their children. i think that is a waste of money and i think it is a waste of effort for washington to be one size fits all, or worse yet, picking winners and losers in various states, when in fact that is a state responsibility, to educate the children in their states. and there will be people who come up with very different innovative ways and governors and legislators who are thoughtful and want to have that competitive workforce and be a place where businesses move because there is a skilled workforce. they'll go pick and choose which of those programs will work best for their states. but, again, i go back to i don't think it is the -- our founding fathers said freedom

of religion, not freedom from religion. >> governor, one more question. i think about how do you get around excluding folks, but as governor of texas, you call for a day of prayer. >> right. >> during an economic crisis. for some that don't share your faith or your religion, that was -- well, governor of texas is calling for a day of prayer. would you call for a day of prayer in a crisis for the country, for example? >> sure. my faith is one that the -- look back at our history and what george washington or thomas jefferson or abraham lincoln, which are three rather powerful members of our founding -- either founding fathers or a president who had great impact on this country, and they all made statements about how could you do this job

without not having a strong faith in an almighty creator. so the idea that i wouldn't, would be counter to who i am. i mean, if americans want to elect a president who basically says, look, i'm not going to -- i'm not going to let my faith intervene in anything that i do , would be a bit, from my perspective, it would be a bit scary. i want a president who it faithful and that believes that there is a greater being hoop has an impact every day in this world and is engaged in the activity. my faith teaches me that this is an all-powerful creator,

that when a bird falls from the sky, he knows it. and i believe that. and that is part of who i am. and i'm not going to change that. and if people decide that, listen, your religious faith is -- scares me off, my religious faith hasn't gotten in the way in texas from the standpoint of making us the most economically powerful state in the nation. as a matter of fact, i think it brings some comfort to folks that i believe that your economic condition in life is a biblical effort to give people the opportunity to take care of themselves, to not have to rely upon government to give the

individuals a dignity to have a job and take care of their family. >> just to clarify on this point. when you permit prayer in school or dedicate a day of prayer, are you talking specifically about chrisian prayer or nondenominational prayer? >> what i'm saying is it's not the business of government to tell folks that at a state level. obviously if a school is a jewish school in zals, texas, they should be -- i mean, that private school should be able to do that. >> but they can as a private school. the issue here has to do with public schools. >> then the independent school boards that oversee those should make those decisions, not government. again, i mean, the idea that we have to be so politically correct, that there's one family that says, listen, i don't want my child -- then that child ought to have the freedom to sit over there and

play tic-tac-toe or what have you. but the issue is that for washington to tell a local school district that you cannot have a prayer and a time of prayer in that school i think is offensive to most americans. i trust the people of the states to make those decisions. i trust those independent school districts to make those decisions better than eight unelected and frankly unaccountable judges. and that's one of the reasons that i've called for the end of lifetime appointments to federal judgeships. >> can you talk about your ideas on health care and why texas ranks number one in the country for uninsured? >> yeah. that's a decision that the people of the state of texas have made over the years, and there's a real difference

between -- i know folks like to pitch out you're number one in uninsured, but people have access to health care in texas, some of the best health care in the world, as a matter of fact. when you look at m.d. anderson and what we talked about as we started this process here. people have access to health care. the people of the state of texas have said this is how we want to deliver that health care. now, there are some restrictions in texas of how we would make more insurance available because we have been not allowed to have waivers that we've asked for from the federal government, which goes to a real key difference from myself and the current administration when it comes to the program of medicaid. i would grant that back to the states and let the states come up with the innovative ways to deliver health care and insurance programs to different

menus, if you will, of insurance. medicare is -- and i'll give you three examples of how we change medicare. i do think what paul ryan and some of his colleagues have offered up for medicare transformation are some pretty wise moves, different types of insurance, again, menus that people could pick, co-pays. i think it's important for everyone to have some skin in the game, if you will, so that there's -- obviously it can be a scale that moves up and down. and speaking of indexing obviously for medicare, we should index individuals. but there are a number of ways

of which we can make health care insurance more available. but in the state of texas, no one is -- no one is not covered -- covered is the wrong word. no one does not have access to the best health care in the world. the state and its legislature, through the election by the citizens, have put into place programs that do not require insurance or make it available in some cases. that kind of is the natural segue over to this whole individual mandate. >> so in texas you don't need health insurance? you're saying there's enough infrastructure that 25% of your people don't have health insurance. you don't need health

insurance? >> i think that we would have more health insurance if we didn't have the strings attached. i think that having health insurance for those that want it is good public policy. but health insurance with the strings attached that we have seen from washington, d.c. is too expensive, and the people of the state of texas, through their legislature, have said we're not going to spend those amounts of dollars. and whether it's going to federally qualified health clinics, whether it's going to emergency rooms, people have the access to health care. the insurance issue is another issue. would we have more people insured in texas if we block granted? i would suggest to you, yes, and substantially more so. but you've got to have the freedom to implement that program, and we don't have that today.

>> on your postcard there, if you fill out that postcard you pay 20% of your income, is that what you're saying? that's it? >> i'm saying you deduct your mortgage insurance, you deduct your charitable contributions, you deduct your local taxes, capital gains, tax goes away. obviously important to iowans and any state that has substantial agricultural interests. the death tax would go away. and i don't know if i said dividends tax would go away as well. then you take 20% of that number, and that would be your personal income tax that would go in. >> what about a family that does not own a home and does not have all those no capital gains liability? do they pay 20% of their -- all

of their income, then? >> yes. >> but somebody like you, who owns a home and has investments -- >> i don't own a home. i'm in public housing, sir. [laughter] >> they take good care of your housing there? >> yeah, they're rebuilding. i don't know. the mansion -- there was an active arson against it back in 2005 -- 2007, in 2007. so we haven't been living in there for -- it will be, well, four years. it will be five years next june when we move back in. i did own a home in college station for a while for my daughter. i have had home ownership. >> somebody who has a home and investments and all of that income level, to have all of that gets those deductions, but a family that doesn't then still pays 20% on their total income. and i'm describing a low-income family. >> right.

>> is that the system that you would put in place? >> that is correct, that is correct. >> and that does not seem unfair to you? >> no. what seems unfair to me is the system that we have today, where 500 -- between four and $500 billion gets spent a tax collections that could be being re-invested in this country to create jobs and better-paying jobs than what those individuals are having today. i think this is all tied together with creating the confidence in this country where entrepreneurs know that they can risk their capital and have a good chance to have a return on their investment, and to keep more of what they work for. and that is my goal, is to create an environment in this country where more people are at work and more people get to keep more of what they work for.

so, you know, no one is going to make the perfect tax structure. that's impossible. but what i think i have laid out is the simplicity of a tax plan that will give tax reductions almost -- well, it is across every sector. but i do believe that in the fairness -- inherent fairness of what i've laid out here, because the goal of that tax system is to create an environment in this state where people have the confidence that they can create, or that they can risk their capital and have a return on their investment. more americans will be at work at that particular point in time, and that is my goal. i think that singularly, from an economic standpoint, is how we pay off the debt. it's how we grow economically. on the corporate side, one

other thing i didn't mention. i'll pitch it out there. this money that's offshore today. approximately $1.7 trillion. allowing a year period of time where that can come back in at 5.25%. and let me just say from a low income, i leave the old system in place for some period of time. having a conversation with a columnist the other day about what is that period of time. and i admit, i don't know. let's talk about what that period of time is. so if you are a low-income family and you wanted to stay in the old system with the earned income tax credit, you could. you could choose that. and that's the choice that we leave. most -- and i would suggest a

vast number of people -- will choose to go to a simple 20% flat tax. >> talk about the difference in where people's income comes from, the person who works, punches the time clock, they would pay the 20%. the person who has the big nest egg from dad or grandpa, whose income derives from capital gains or dividends would pay nothing. >> i have a hard time with nothing. i mean, i'm sure you could go find an individual or some small number of individuals that meet that characteristic. but, again, i don't think

anybody's going to be able to create a tax system that does not have somewhere an inequity. my goal is to find what is the simplest, most straightforward, that can save the most money and allow people to keep more of what they work for and get more americans to work, and that's the reason i laid that plan out. >> wouldn't the most simple approach to be to take your 20% and apply it to everybody, regardless of the source of the income? i mean, wouldn't that be the simplest structure? >> you could make the argument that that would be simpler. i chose this particular -- and we looked at a lot of different -- i looked at the fair tax. i visited with steve king about the fair tax at length. this was what i found to be the most salable, because the fact

is i've been in this business long enough to know i've got to pass it and that perfection, i hope, will not get in the way of good. >> we spent an awful lot of time with this editorial board, with our newspaper, kind of echoing what we hear from iowans in general saying that washington is broken. never before have we seen such a huge divide between the left and the right, rpts and democrats. the partisanship is at an all-time high. talk a little bit about if you're elected, how can you bridge that, and what have you done in your career that you can point to as success in terms of bipartisan support? >> well, for 11 years i have been a lieutenant governor -- excuse me, for two years i was lieutenant governor and for 11 years i was the governor dealing with bodies that were, in some cases, almost equitably

divided between democrat and republican. in 2006, i believe, 2007, we had substantial numbers of democrats in the texas house. in 2003, there's a good specific example. we passed the most sweeping tort reform in the nation in 2003. that was the first time that there was a republican -- house republican, senate republican, lieutenant governor rrp and rrp governor. yet, as we passed that piece of legislation, i wanted to put it in a constitutional amendment, the tort reform. so that it wouldn't be litigated for 10 years to clearly say, this is what the people of the state of texas want to and it was dealing with

capping non-economic damages at $250,000 per doctor event, hospital, nursing home, so that you wouldn't have these huge judgments. and we wanted to put that in the constitution. we had to gather either 25 or 30 democrats to vote for that. i think that's a good example of how i've dealt with both democrats and rps d-republicans. texas is probably 55-45 percent state when you look at the numbers, so i grew up a democrat. i spent -- i never met a republican till i was probably 25.

but we're really not about these and ours in texas as we are philosophically conservatives and liberals. washington is broken. and it's broken -- i don't think washington is broken because of r's and d's. i think washington's broken because it has lost touch with what's going on in america and that we've allowed the special interests -- i mean, when i open up the newspaper and i read where $7.7 trillion secretly have gone to wall street financiers to bail them out, even unknown to congress, that gives me greater consternation about what is going on in this country than whether or not democrats and republicans are trying to one-up each other on some issue.

and that's the reason i think it takes an outsider to come into that environment who is really willing to pull out the veto pen and veto a piece of legislation that has earmarks, that if there is a bill that spends money that we don't have, to veto it. i'm not going to washington, d.c. to try to -- i understand historically in my life why we work with both the local parties. i get that. i've been doing it for 25, 26 years of my life. but that's not the biggest concern to me. the biggest concern to me that is we have a system in washington, d.c. that is broken. i mean, what the republicans

did with tarp and bailing out wall streeters was just as corrupt from my standpoint as what timothy geithner and fanny mae and freddy -- what we're finding out about what's going on in washington over the last 20 years, there's some great books out there that have gone back and reconstructed reckless endangerment. i think morgenson, gretchen morgenson. there's another book, "jimmy stewart is dead" and a congressman by the name of kutlekov. incredibly corrupt. and i would suggest to you

fraudulent activities that are going on in washington, d.c. that are of great more concern to me on the economic side than whether or not i can get, you know, nancy pelosi and paul ryan to sit down and agree on a particular piece of legislation. that, i think, we can do. but the bigger issue for me is someone who will walk into washington, d.c. and i'm the only outsider on that stage. i'm the only person who is either not a part of the establishment or who has been in congress or that is in congress and basically stand up and declare that we are going to deconstruct washington, d.c., because they have put this country in great peril economically. >> governor, excuse me. governor bush sat here 121 years ago and said example -- 11 years ago and said exactly the same thing, right before the caucuses, that he was a

uniter, not a divider. he didn't use those words, but that he could get both sides to work together, that he did get both sides to work together. and texas, as you've described, he called himself an outsider and promised -- very sincerely, i'm sure -- that he could solve the same kinds of problems that you're talking about solving. how do you go in there and do that under these circumstances? a cynic would say it's hopeless. >> i'm not a cynic. i don't think it's hopeless. i think george w. was looking at a different time in history. we have a balanced budget. we were in good times economically. the american people were not particularly concerned -- i do

not recall the unemployment rate in 2000, but i know it was not what it is today. the american people are substantially more attuned and more supportive of someone who truly will walk into washington and overhaul its. i do not recall then-governor bush talking about overhauling washington. he was talking about getting democrats and republicans to work together. i will leave that for wall -- what it is. i am not interested in going to washington and getting people to sing together. i am interested in going in and the constructing what has happened over many years. it will be a difficult fight.

i do not try to be a pollyanna at all. it will be a difficult fight. it will require a president using whatever political capital they can. together to pass the balanced budget amendment to the constitution and one that calls for a part-time congress. at that time, i think you do change washington forever. >> you cannot do it alone. >> i understand that. i have had conversations with congressmen and women. some have said to put a cork in it about a part-time legislature. others have said is right. it is not them am concerned about. it is their constituents. i do know what their

constituents think. when they really think about a part-time legislature, i do not think there will be as big of a push back. members of congress are not any different from the rest of the country. they go to washington and get absorbed by the culture and the special interests. let them have a job back home. they may have worked they can do to make more money than what they are doing in the united states congress. it is a natural term- limiting effect on congress as well. i do not know what the average tenure is in iowa or taxes is --

texas is. probably seven or eight years. they go back and someone else comes in. i am not too concerned about whether congress loves me or not. i am concerned about whether we get this country back on track. i think i have a plan that does that. the american people can look and see who has been consistent when it comes to these issues. i think i fit that bill. >> you bolted to the top of the polls pushing michele bachmann's out of her space after the straw poll win. why have you lost ground? >> we had four people leading

the parade. there may be one or two changes before we get to january 3. i readily admit our campaign did not go as smoothly and positively as ivy would have liked -- as i would have liked. the errors i made on the debate or what have you, i have asked americans to give me a second look. really take a look at my policies. those were not laid out until mid-september. at that point in time, we were falling in the polls. i think americans are starting to take another look.

they are finding out about me. i was the newest kid on the block in august. one of the reasons i got in the race was because i did not see anyone that the republican voters were really excited about. i became the person they were excited about for a while. >> i am curious about how you hpve the decision on the ph vaccine and what that says about your leadership style. >> we have been in a continuing discussion about what texas' state government role should be

in the feeding cancer -- defeating cancer. in 2003, we passed a constitutional amendment that gives $300 million a year to cancer research. we are home to in the anderson. -- we are home to in the -- m.d. anderson. i have been very injury with and supportive of those things. -- i have been very intrigued by and supportive of those things over the years. hpv was one of those.

it is an effective tool. i made a political error in how i took it forward. i still believe parents and young people should have access to that. when i put in place with an executive order, it had an opt out. i felt comfortable that the opt out did speak to the issue of parental rights. i subsequently found out that it did not speak to it in a strong enough fashion. their team of things i would do differently. i still would go forward with every tool we have to defeat these cancers. i would have gone through the legislative process. >> i have to be very sensitive to the governor's time. we need to wrap this up. we have another debate tomorrow

night and another one on the 50. -- another one on the 15th. why should you get our endorsement and why should i love -- iowa voters support you? >> i hope you are looking for a consistent individual, not someone who would be questionable about where you are going to be on decisions. i have been in public life long enough -- this is a good story and a bad story. people know what i believe. people know how i am going to respond on almost any issue. they know my record on job creation. i will use the word of an " unsurpassed" from the standpoint of other candidates on the

stage. this is not about me. this is about understanding the private sector being where a job creation region where jobs are created. that is the key issue for this country. who is it that has the executive governing experience that can go in on day one and put into place policies that will get americans working? i have done that with my energy and jobs plan. i have done that with having to deal with congress on taxes and spending. a great amount of impact can be with the administrators and staff they bring in to

government. i feel confident that as iowa and this board makes its decision that that track record inconsistency is what -- that track record and consistency is what you are looking for. >> governor, it is a pleasure to have you here. >> thank you. >> have a good day. >> good luck to you. >> ya'll have a great city to run in. we went down to the baseball park. we then take off to the lake.

that is where i will be in the morning, lord willing. >> we appreciate you. thank you for coming by. >> mitt romney also met with the des moines register"editorial board. they plan to make a decision on december 18, two weeks before the iowa caucuses on january 3. this is just over one hour. >> hi, chris. it is nice to meet you. you have had to listen to some many republicans it must be getting tiring. hi, jennifer. how are you? it is good to see you. >> we have some coffee and

water. >> no, thank you. >> you are very fit and thin looking. >> i have weighed about the same thing since high school. it is a strange thing. is perception. that is a good thing. i hope it is reality. you know how it is as we get older. i am doing my best to keep the weight off and keep healthy. i have done some business in the last five years. i got the chance to write a book. that is something i had wanted to do. you become frustrated that the

positions you have are not necessarily fully fleshed out. one-minute answers do not lead to being able to describe your views about the country. i got the chance to write a book. it was a good experience. i hired a ghostwriter. we did in her views. he drafted the first chapter and i said it would not work. i said i would write it myself. that turned out to be a great experience. it is nice to meet you. thank you. hi, tony. how are you? >> andrea saul is next to david. she is my press secretary. >> welcome to ireland. -- welcome to iowa. >> it is kind of a nice day.

>> folks, are we ready to go? let's get started. i am the editor and vice president. we welcome you to our live editorial board meeting today with mitt romney who is seeking the republican nomination for the 2012 republican -- presidential election. we will give you two or three minutes to talk about your campaign and frame why you are seeking the nomination for president. >> i thought having lost last time that i would not be running again. i wrote a book early on in the president's term describing what i thought the country needed to do. in the ensuing months, it was my wife said i had to do it again.

i was not so sure. she continued relentlessly to say i had to run again because the president does not get america. he does not understand what it takes to make america and make our economic engine the kind that will put americans back to work and provide a future for our kids and grandkids. she and i both believe that having spent my life in the private sector and taking that experience into the olympics and into government gave me the kind of leadership experience the country needs. i got into it again. i think the choice americans face is whether we're going to continue with what the president called a fundamental transformation of america, which in my view makes us more like europe, or whether we're born to say it is time for us to restore the principles that made

america the economic powerhouse of the world and make america more like america, a merit-based society where individuals for education, hard work, risk- taking are able to build a better future for themselves and their families. at the same time, they are able to lift the entire nation. i think there is a clear choice for the american people. the we continue to move towards europe, transform america? or do we turn around america? i spent my life on turnarounds. i had the chance to run two different businesses. i helped to run the olympics. i helped to guide the state as governor. that experience is what america needs when we are headed in an unfortunate direction. that is weakening us. the president's direction has slowed down the recovery and made the downturn deeper.

he has not put forward a plan to reinvigorate our economy. it hurts us in the near term. i believe it has made it more difficult for america to remain the economic leader of the world over the coming century. the consequence of america falling behind economically in the global race is that the defense of freedom itself could be in jeopardy. i am concerned short term and long term. i do not think the president understands how this country works. i mean that the individual level, the private sector level, and the governmental sector. i do not think he has the experience or leadership capacity to lead in a time of difficulty. he continues to complain and get -- about partisan congress. we need a new leader to get us back on track, put americans

back to work, and strengthen the foundations of our economy. with that introduction, i will answer a couple of questions. >> you have been running for five years. you know what the numbers look like in iowa. why do you seem to be stopped? -- ideas seem to be stuck -- why do you seem to be stuck? >> i have been close to number one most of the last year. consider that to be good news. i have been close to number one, number one or number two. i was number three they are a point, two points. i have watched surges of

various people over time. my experience is that people take a look at someone. the project on them the sense that they are conforming to their own views. as they dig deeper and watch them more carefully, they decide they also have elements they do not agree with or background issues that are not consistent with their own views. my guess is that over time, speaker gingrich will follow a trajectory that will come down and by the time we're finished, i will get the nomination. if i did not think that, i would not be battling the way i am. i have faced tough competition. i am pleased with the fact i am at or near the top of the polls in most states over a long period of time. that is a good thing. there are a lot of competitors. it has been a long time since

someone got 50% and held on to that. last time, we had john mccain, myself, fred thompson, rudy giuliani, mike huckabee. we were all bouncing around at 10% or 25%. i consider the last year to be pretty good news. i have to get 35% of the delegates in the first few states and in 45% in the next one and then a 55% in the nomination. the number of days for canada. some are focusing entirely on iowa. person by person, we're pretty competitive. newt gingrich and santorum have had more days in iowa than i

have. i am also campaigning in new hampshire and south carolina and florida and nevada. i want to do well in the early primary states. i also want to get the delegates to win the nomination. for me, this is not trying to surprise people by doing better than expected in one or to give states. i want to do well in all of them. this is about getting the nomination. i want to spend time in the various states. we have spent a lot of time raising money. that backing allowed advertising to get my message to people. that is something other candidates have not done. we want to make sure we have the resources to go through the process and get the nomination.

i recognize i have an uphill climb to get the nod in iowa. i would like to get that spot. if i do not get that, i will be happy if i do well. i add up delegates. a lot of the early states are going to award them on a proportional basis. i want to get my fair share of that proportion from the beginning and then take a larger share as time goes on. >> has it changed forever the way we do the process in this country? >> it seems to change every cycle. i do not know if i can tell you what the next cycle will be like.

this cycle for me, i met people throughout iowa. last time, i had no one. i had to spend a lot of time getting to meet people and then signing them up to be part of my team and hoping they would be with me in the straw poll and caucuses. this time, i start with a bit of a base that i did not have lost time. it has allowed me to spend time in other states as well. then i can be here enough to rekindle old support and get support from folks who do not really know who i am. i do think one of the things that has changed in this cycle is the importance of the debates. the audience for the debates is much larger than the last time around. i do not know why that is.

with rudy giuliani and fred thompson, you would have thought -- tv personality. he was famous. john mccain, they were famous. i was 2% in the polls starting out. i had to go out and get known. this time, i am better known for good or evil. that has allowed me to make sure that i can hopefully to be successful here getting support and also get support in other states down the road. >> you talk about your base. tell us why you decided not to participate in the debate. >> we have requests for aid or attend debates. we had to decide how to work our schedule for campaigning. we could do two debates in december and keep up with fund- raising and campaigning. we picked two.

after we announced those, they came to us and said they would like to host one. we had already settled our calendar. i respect donald trump and news max. i have nothing against their debate or the others that were proposed, but we can only do so many. i joked that a time is coming soon when people will call their tv stations and say, please return to regularly scheduled programming. we have had 14 some of debates and forums. i think we have already had more debates and forums than we had last time through the whole process. there does come a point where people feel like they have seen enough. there is also a concern that if you have that many debates, the

questioners begin to ask more arcane questions that are not really front and center in people's minds. that may not help the process. two in december made sense, years been one of them. reading yours being one of them. in january, maybe two or three. >> some of the candidates for the republican nomination have this sense that the way to deal with the problems is to take a wrecking ball into washington and history. to destroy -- in to washington and destroy the federal courts and other things. what is your take on that approach? what is your philosophy of governing at the federal level?

>> heated rhetoric generates a lot of support on a temporary basis. we have to face the country. there is no question but there are needs for reorganization with much of what government does. i will eliminate some programs. i may combine certain agencies. when i was governor, a combined 50 different agencies inside our health and human services department. that does not mean i eliminated all the things they did. i found a way to streamline the way they worked together. congress has been a difficult body to get to act on key measures. in my view, that is because of lack of leadership in the white house. we have had the same structure in government for a long time. it has worked in the past. we're in a crisis economically. with the right leadership, i think we can make it work. do we need to change washington

and the nature of the discourse? absolutely. i think that flows from the leadership of the person in the white house. despite the rhetoric, this president has been missing in action. it is almost like a bystander president. the stimulus came along in his first weeks in office. that was delegated to nancy pelosi and harry reid. they put together the stimulus package that he signed. the obamacare health care plan was ultimately something devised and worked out without as much direction from him as i might have expected. three years and, we know he has said that medicare and social security and both fiscally unsustainable. but he has made no proposals to make unsustainable. i find it a very unusual presidency with a white house that has not reached across the

aisle, worked with republican leaders, battled it out in private, refrained from attackin. >> what would you do differently? what would you do specifically? >> with the stimulus, he said he wanted to work with republicans and their imput. i was called to testify in front of congress to lay out our views on what we should do for the economy. meg whitman was also there. the testified together. on the day we were there testifying, nancy pelosi introduced the democrats' plan. we were trying to formulate our plans and it was clear they had no interest whatsoever. obamacare came along.

in every way possible, the american people said we do not want obamacare. a republican in the most -- among the most liberal states in the nation did not want obamacare. they did not want input from republicans. they put together a bipartisan plan. it was pushed aside. this white house has stood aside and let nancy pelosi and harry reid run the show. i would do it differently. i was lucky enough to be in a state where my legislature was 85% democrat. i figured out from the one i would get nothing done if i talk to them on a personal basis. the speaker of the house and the senate president had respect for me. i met with them in their office. we established the practice of meeting every monday in one of our offices. we rotated.

we fed each other. we got to know each other. we talked about the challenges going on in the state every week. none of that ever leaked. we let our hair down. one of the leaders said to me that the bill was one he was not wide about but he needed cover so he could push back against his own constituents. we had that kind of open discourse with one another. i never attacked them. we talked about differences on issues, but there was no attack. the result was that we have enough respect for one another that we get a lot of things that were successful. we balanced the budget every year for four years. we did not raise taxes. we built a rainy day fund of over $2 billion by the time i left despite a $3 billion budget

shortfall in my first year. we held bowline on education. some people said do not implement the requirement that you cannot graduate from high school unless you pass a graduation exam. i said i was going to hold firm to that. they stood by me on that. on issue after issue, we were able to work together. >> could you have the same relationship? they are. the independent -- they are pretty independent. >> i can assure you the leaders in the massachusetts house and senate are independent people. there are places we disagree. there were places i was unsuccessful. we have enough respect for each other and i worked it hard enough on a personal basis that we were able to make progress on very important measures, including our health care plan. this was done against long odds

that we could accomplish something of that nature. no other state in america have been able to do what we did. our education system is number one in the nation. this is republicans and democrats working together. i cannot guarantee everything i want to do in washington will get done. i can guarantee i will focus on getting that job done rather than getting reelected or pursuing a partisan agenda. i am not a lifelong political figure. i have run for office and lost. my career was in the private sector. i am in this race to fix the country and get it on track again. i am very concerned that if we stay on the track we are on, we will be italy or greece. in fiber six years, we will face the same problems they are

facing. -- in five or six years, we will face the same problems they are facing. the consequence of america in the stress is impossible to calculate. no one to bail us out. -- the consequence of america in distress is impossible to calculate. no one could bail us out. i am concerned about the catastrophe that would exist if we fell into the elite, europe, ireland -- italy, europe, ireland distress. >> talk about programs you would eliminate and how close you would reduce the federal deficit. -- how else you would reduce the federal deficit. >> there are two parts of the federal government we have to address. the income statement or in will budget is where we have to cut spending.

there are three parts to that. one is to eliminate programs. the easiest way is to get rid of things they do not like. that would be obamacare. there are other programs like the national endowment for the arts, amtrak, public broadcasting. there is a long list of programming that people like, some of them i like myself. but the test is whether the program is so critical that it is worth far and money from china to pay for it. right now, a lot of things we're doing we're funding by borrowing money from other people who will demand interest and pay back at some point. for me, this is very important. is this program critical? i will eliminate a lot of programs that i like because of that test. there are programs we need to keep in place but they could be

run far more efficiently if they were returned to the states rather than run at the federal level. one of those is medicaid. i would take medicaid dollars plus 1% and say to iowa, you craft your own program. you structure it in the way you think is best. you have to give the states time to organize a program of that nature. making that change in medicaid understate direction saves $100 billion per year for years out. there are 47 different workforce training programs that have been put in place in the federal government. they report to eight different federal agencies. the gao did an evaluation of the programs. they did not find any of them to be affected. these are billions of dollars of

training programs. i would take all that money, bundle it, send it back to the states. i was a craft your own programs for the jobs that exist in your state -- i would say kraft your own programs for the jobs that exist in your state. we could look for other candidates that could be returned to states. that may be housing vouchers, food stamps, other programs that we can return to the state. it is different being poor in iowa than michigan or mississippi. we could let the states in the home for those programs instead of the federal government. i have a model to let the states craft their own program. let the states craft programs that work for their own states. i will will have the resources

to care for its own -- iowa will have the resources to care for its own. we will learn from each other. the laboratories of democracy will provide models to help people become insured. there are things that can be done at the federal level. i will replace obamacare at the federal level with a couple of things. i will allow individuals to purchase health insurance on their own on the same tax advantage basis that exists now for corporations. we discriminate against individuals who want to buy their own health insurance. are a sole

proprietor, you have to pay for health insurance. i want to level the playing field to make it easier for people to own their own insurance. you may decide to buy your own and have -- than have the register by it for you. i also want to make sure that we provide for people. people who have been continuously and shared should not have to worry they will lose insurance if they change jobs or become ill or get laid off. i would insist on those things at the federal level. let me go on. the other side is the balance sheet. $62 trillion unfunded. that is medicare and medicaid -- medicare and social security and other entitlements.

social security is relatively easy analytically to make balanced. medicare is the tougher one. with regards to social security, for the next generation, i would slowly increase the retirement age. i would lower the growth rate for higher income social security recipients. for middle and lower income recipients, it would be associated with the index and stay the same. i would use the cpi for higher income recipients. >> what about private accounts? >> in my tax plan, and eliminate for anyone making $200,000 a year or less, and eliminate any

tax on interest dividends or capital gains. i am letting people create a sizan account of any size. we have had a program for some time called medicare advantage where people have a choice of traditional fee-for-service medicare or private insurance. that is a choice they have. that exists already. when it was being discussed, people said it was privatization of medical care. people have a choice. they can keep traditional medicare. my plan says we're going to provide that for the next generation. we're going to give people a premium subsidies. they can purchase whatever product they want with the private plan or traditional fee- for-service plan.

that takes advantage of the concept of medicare advantage that exists right now. by virtue of congress adopted a plan to grow as those premium support payments over time at a controlled rate, we are able to make medicare cost effective and not break the bank. we can make sure it is sustained long term. you asked a simple question. i am giving a long answer. getting america's fiscal house in order is not a quick sound bite answer. there are several things to do to get our income statement in line to finally balance the budget. there are several things we have to do to get our balance sheet, long-term obligations in line. the plan i have laid out those that. >> what about military spending? >> there are a number of inefficiencies in government that will have to be addressed. those exist in the military as well as in other agencies.

i will go after those. there are defense programs that are insisted upon by various congress people who have their favorite projects in their home districts. some of those should be eliminated. i anticipate that money will not go to paying down the budget deficit. that money will be used to update our navy, air force, bring in additional active duty personnel, and provide the benefits to our veterans that they deserve. i anticipate no net cost to the defense department. we are 3.8% gdp on the military. i think we ought to keep it approximately 4% of gdp for the near term. let me give you the overall numbers. federal spending is about 25% of gdp. the base defense department

budget is about 3.8% of that 25. there are also were term costs. i should clearly communicate that as our conflicts in afghanistan and iraq wind down, there will be savings in those areas. >> are you ok with the way we're winding down, the timetable? >> the final day in afghanistan is the appropriate date in my view to set as the target. that is 2014. the 2012 pull them of the surge troops. it pulled out of the surge troops -- the 2012 pull down of the surge troops has been moved up for political reasons. i was talking about afghanistan.

the surge troops should come out in december of 2012 and not september of 2012. i think september is a political day. it puts our troops in withdrawal mode during fighting season. that is dangerous. with iraq, we are following the bush timeline with one exception. president bush and others anticipated we would have an ongoing force to help in the transition. president obama's secretary of defense suggested that would be the case. they were unable to negotiate to allow troops to remain. i think that was a failure on the part of the administration. is the wind down appropriate? yes. the funding from afghanistan and iraq, that money i did not keep in to the military.

>> what is the basis of your opposition to same-sex marriage? what would you do about it as president? >> the basis of opposition is the view that the ideal setting to raise a child is where a male and female are involved. a marriage relationship is between a man and woman. i support that concept. the action i take as president depends upon the state of play in washington, the people that are there, the options that exist. i would defend the defense of marriage act that the president has refused to defend. i believe the defense of marriage act was well- constructed and should be maintained. i would like to see a national commitment to finding marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. that was tried three or four years ago. i do not think that is likely to receive the necessary support in the near term.

>> how do you feel about gays serving openly in the military? >> that has occurred. i do not plan on reversing that. i was not comfortable making the change during a conflict by virtue of the complicating features of a new program in the middle of teeterboards going on. those wars are winding down. it's no longer presents the problem. >> what are the differences between you and newt gingrich? the speakers numbers are surging. there are a lot of undecided voters in iowa. what are the primary differences between the two of you? >> what is it you look for when you are choosing a president? you have to think about that every four years as you think about someone to endorse.

you look to see their ideas and views on issues. that is an important part. i like my ideas better. on some issues, he and i disagree. i like my position better than his. that is one measure. the other measure is the person's capacity to lead. has the person been a leader before? how do they lead? what kind of job do they do? think about the enterprise they lead and how it did under their leadership. i have a four occasions to be a leader. i grew up in a home with a data was a leader. i learned by watching him. i was asked to run a company that got into distress. i was able to help turn it around. i started my own company and made it one of the most successful of its kind in the world. i was asked to go out and run the olympics in salt lake city when it got into trouble. that became a success.

you do not do these things by yourself. a leader brings and other people to make it successful. i came to massachusetts at time of difficulty in the state. we were able to turn the state around and make it more successful. i have had those leadership experiences. i hope they will look at whether he has led, how the lead, and whether he was successful in that role. i look back at our presidents and think about what made them great presidents. i loved the white eisenhower. he does not getting credit. think of teddy roosevelt, john adams, lincoln, washington. it was not necessarily that they have the best answers -- had the best answers on issues, but they were leaders. they confront the challenges america faced with sobriety,

wisdom, and judgment. they were men of character and vision. they were trusted by others. they had the capacity to lead. i believe that is an area where you will be able to look at the various candidates and say who has been a leader and who will be the best leader in the time of challenge. there are other differences. i have had the leadership experience. i have spent my life in the private sector. speaker gingrich has spent his life in washington. there is nothing wrong with it. it is just different. i think having spent time in the private sector and understanding how jobs come and go and why businesses grow or shrink and how to compete globally, i think that experience is it essential at a time when the battles we are facing around the world are not military so much as they are economic. i hope our military is so superior that no one even thinks of testing it again.

our battles will be economic. i understand how the economy works of the level of job creators. i think that is a distinct a factor that is important. then there are the issues and policy positions. with regards to medicare, i agree with the wall street journal that the romney plan is better than the gingrich position. i disagree with the speaker thinking we should eliminate some parts of the child labor laws so that the kids can clean schools. i do not think that is a great idea. the speaker had a measure i read about to put a permanent colony on the moon to mine rare materials from the moon. i think we have other priorities for spending before that. he talked about a series of mirrors in space to light a highways at night. i have better ideas for our resources. we have different ideas on the issues. we are very different people.

my background and his have followed very different paths. at a time like this, someone who spent their careers in the private sector and has lead time and time again has the best chance of defeating the president and fixing the country at a critical time. i said this at the outset. i am really concerned. the president believes there is something wrong with the way america works and we have to transform and change it to turn it into what i call an entitlement society. i am afraid that is the wrong way to go. we have to be a merit society. if there are places of unfairness, let's fix those. there are other differences. i am trying to think if there's

anyone else who has adopted the idea of no tax on interest and dividend gains. if that were the case, i would pay no taxes for the last 10 years. all of my income is from interest and capital gains. the same thing with bill gates and warren buffett. the place we need tax relief is for middle income americans. my capital gains, interest, and dividend's tax reduction is for middle income americans. that is where the help is needed most. >> i have been accused of being a conservative. my friends do not dislike you, but they look to record and do not trust you to be a reliable conservative. how do you convince them?

but they will not get a chance to read my book. they should remember i ran four years ago as the conservative alternative to john mccain. mike huckabee and i were battling it out as conservative folks. my opponents tried to characterize me in ways that work to their advantage and i do the same with them. i will not cry about the nature of politics. four years ago, i was seen as the conservative canada. nothing has changed in my position. i am just as conservative today, maybe more so. it is issue by issue. newt gingrich said paul ryan's plan was right wing social engineering. i said was a big step forward and was on the same page. newt gingrich's ad on global warming and climate change, he

supported cap-and-trade. i opposed it. on immigration, he and i have different views. my view is more conservative than his. so far, we have had a big field. i would have been contrasting myself with herman cain, rick perry, michele bachmann. now is newt gingrich. we will finally talk about contrast there. hopefully people will say newt -- mitt romney has been out there fighting for conservative ideals for some time. >> the questioning of your positions comes maybe from how your positions have changed or evolved over time. how do we know the mitt romney we have today is the one that will be in the white house? will that change again? >> the issue i am normally confronted with is abortion. sometimes people add other

issues i have not changed on. i continuously have people say i have changed my position on gay- rights. i did not. i have had the same position since the beginning of my political career. i am for providing for them. i am opposed to discrimination based on sexual orientation. i have said from the beginning that i oppose same-sex marriage and civil union if it is virtually identical. that has been my position. i get told all the time i changed my position. i did not. that is the nature of politics. i did change my view on abortion. it changed the first time as governor. a piece of legislation crossed my desk that raised the issue. i thought i could leave things the way they were. i said i would not change anything related to abortion. then a piece of legislation came to my desk saying we will redefine when life begins. as opposed to being at conception, we will define and

as leader. we will allow the creation of embryos for experimentation and destruction of the embryos. i could not pass a piece of legislation like that. that was not leading things the way they were. i b to those and wrote an article in the "-- ivy tend -- i vetoed those and wrote an article in the "boston globe." i said i am adamantly pro-live. as governor, i came down clearly on the side of life. i was awarded by the massachusetts citizens for life their award. i have a record. this is not something that happened just before the election. i have a record. >> is there any abortion you would accept? >> yes, in the case of rape,

incest, or risk to the life of the mother. i believe in those circumstances abortion should be legal. >> that is the only thing you have changed your mind on? >> i cannot imagine that over 20 years with thousands of issues there is not something i did not learn that i was wrong on and change my view on. in the business world if you do not admit you are wrong when you find out you are, you would be silly. >> you are saying you have changed your mind when you have learned things. >> on abortion, i thought i have the right position until it confronted me. now that i saw it in the light of creating new life to destroy it, i could not go along with that. that led me to a change of position. i am sure there are other places where by virtue of experience i concluded i was wrong. >> if you had it to do over

again, would you do the health care plan exactly the same way in massachusetts? >> it never was exactly the way i wanted it. i vetoed imeasures that were overturned by the legislature. the way it was implemented is different from the way i would have implemented it. that is the consequence of elections. massachusetts plan without raising taxes, yes. it was the right step forward. things i wish i could do differently. the things i wish the legislature would do differently there. the plan there is favored 3-1 by the people in the state. it cost the state 1.5% of the state's budget. it was supposed to cost no additional money at all under the plan by proposed. the added features that make it more expensive. i would not have done that. if i could go back there and beat governor, i would pull it out.

i am not going back. elections have consequences. there will be able to choose people that will do the right thing. >> de you support the concept of an individual mandate? >> i support the concept of states' being able to craft plans that work for states rather than having the federal government impose a one size fits all plan that takes away the state's rights. what we did in massachusetts was something we thought would work well for our state. it dealt with the 8% of our people that were not insured. for 92% of our residents, nothing changed. their health-care options -- nothing changed for them. only 8%. with obamacare, health care changes for 100% of the people. not only that, but you have taxes of half of a trillion dollars tickets at it. medicare gets cut by 500

million. this is something the president will hear about your the only person i know of to ever cut medicare is president obama by $500 billion to fund obamacare. republicans are talking about how to preserve medicare and make sure it is an option for people down the road and it is fiscally sustainable. i do not know anyone, republicans talking about cutting it. the only people cutting medicare is president obama. this is an issue i am looking forward to debating with the president. by the way, if he does not like my plan and giving people -- you are going to have a choice. you can choose a profit plan or individual medicare. you get your choice of whatever you want. i will broaden that. you will have that choice. under that plan, we are able to keep medicare financially sustainable. what is your plan, mr.

president? to have been in office for three years now. what do you plan on doing to make sure that medicare survives at this fiscally solvent? i find it amazing that we have a president with an issue that big say what is happening with nations around the world getting into distress not solving problems with medicare, medicaid, and the overall economy. >> the medicare vantage plans and other studies cost more than traditional medicare. how does that save money to encourage people to get private medicare? >> premium support payments would be set by congress. there are a number of ways to do that. you can have the mineral body% percentage rate. it could have competition between the various entities and choose a rate based on what you are seeing in competition. as the brookings institution and

heritage foundation, liberals and conservatives came together and said we have to have congress set a budget on how much to spend on medicare. the same thing with other entitlement programs. that will allow us to have a premium support amount. higher support -- they can choose what works best for them. >> should religion or faith or spirituality play a role at all in this process? we had governor rick perry and recently a little bit ago. he was talking about the president wanting a war on religion. obviously, we have had a lot of conversations about spiritual issues. does religious spirituality played a role in the process for you? "i think people want to have a president who they believe has a conviction that there is a creator and looks to providence for guidance. that may change someday, but i think that generally is a sport

-- perspective of many people in this country. i feel that myself. i do not think the particular fate of the individual should become an issue in a campaign. it is up to the people to decide what they want to do on their own. i think campaigns would be unwise to make a particular faith in issue in a campaign. i believe by and large we are the people that believe in a creator. we would like to have a president who would be of a similar view. that is not to say that people who do not believe that the creator do not make contributions to the country. i think it is likely the next president will be a person of religious grounding. >> in your most recent campaign ad, you make something of the fact you have been married to the same person for --

>> 42 years. >> is that a direct shot at newt gingrich who had three marriages? >> know, that was actually an answer to question in a debate. it is consistent with what i have done them prior campaigns. and i have begun campaigns, i run an ad that shows my family and my wife and kids and me so people get to know us on a personal basis. sometimes in a campaign is all they see is a person debating. you get the impression that are to stay -- a technocrat or a debater. i want people to know i am a dad and a husband. i have been this because i care about my kid to the next generation. >> should people consider the fact that he has been married three times? >> i am not making that an issue in this ad. that is not something i have raised in the debates. i do not try to give people councils to what they consider an races. i hope they look like in this

race is our i d is for the country and our capacity to lead it. where we have come from with the sectors that have been date stamped yuri >> in your book, you write a lot about dangers posed by islamic jihad. what would you do as differently than you do not think the current president is doing to protect national security? >> a long list. probably the single greatest threat is a nuclear iran. i feel that it will find its way into the hands of hezbollah, hamas, or other server gets. in that case if it were used it would be catastrophic. i think the president's management of iran has been woefully inadequate.

he has taken way too long to impose tough sanctions. i would have imposed crippling sanctions long ago. one of the areas that was most disappointing is what the president decided to give russia their number one foreign policy objective, removal of our missile defense sites at poll. he did not -- in exchange a willingness on the part of russia to join into your crippling sanctions against iran. i do not think the chinese want to be the only nation in the world blocking sanctions against iran. he felt to put in place crippling sanctions. when dissidents took to the street and went he stole the election, he had nothing to say. he said i do not want to interfere with iranian politics. finally, we should have gone after iranian diplomats and some

of their signor leaders including and turning them into the pariahs they are on the global stage. i think he should have been indicted under the agenda. we should put pressure on them like we put on south africa during apartheid. this president should have been front and center -- center hammering day and night. i would have hoped we would have created a perception and a reality that we have developed military options. i do not think there is anyone who thinks america has prepared military options that the president would be willing to take to prevent iran from becoming the and nuclear power nation. i think we should have options available. i cannot describe precisely what it would be because i have not had those discussions with our military leadership at this point. for iran to be persuaded from

nuclear folly requires sanctions, pain from around the world as their people to travel. a recognition that the united states may well take military action to stop their nuclear plants. nigeria will go after a certain part of the country and begin to expand. i will have what i call special partnership forces will we take small leadership with intelligence officers and personnel and provide them to a nation like nigeria and say we are going to have your own troops and your own military rout out these radical violent to hottest and help you beat -- copy from becoming over run with them.

this happen in the philippines. we just put a few hundred of the special intelligence at forces personnel into the philippine working with their military and really rotted the two hottest efforts there. it does have an impact. let me say this. a decision to employ kinetic military power is a decision would make with great trepidation. putting america's men and women in hard work -- in harm's way is a very weighty matter. taking action to try to prevent death situation where we have to act of that nature is a high priority. helping nations on their own -- i look at the record. i spoke with former secretary shultz. he said in the reagan

administration, was sent advisers and help other nations deal with their own issues and a battle these problems before they became conflicts that required the world's involvement. that is something i try to do with the special partnership forces which is to be able to provide some help or the president for instance, something i agree with. he sent men and women into central africa to help battle the lord resistance army. that is not exactly the same as ceviche autism. -- t autism. -- jihadism. i support >> given the power of in this country, why have americans never chosen somebody whose main

qualification was executive experience? what do you think is different this time? >> if we had a broader definition of executive experience, then people -- people like eisenhower would fall under the category. we have chosen people whose primary experience has been in the private sector. that may not have been the feature that was being communicated at the time of their campaign, by ronald reagan's experience was in the private sector longer pending government and the same has been true for others. i think right now there is a recognition that what we face is a world that has been changed by a globalization of our economies. america's economies will have to become competitive to continue to lead the world. after the second world war, we were so far ahead of the rest of

the world. germany had been decimated. japan had been decimated. we were at the center of the world and had been for a long time. now we're seeing, we are in a playing field with other tough competitors. leading this country to a position where we are highly productive and the most competitive. where we are adding jobs as opposed to seeing jobs leave, that can happen. i think the american people recognize we need somebody who understands the economy. when we are going through right now is the most severe economic distress since the great depression. having somebody who understands the economy, both for the short- term stress and for the long- term need to compete in a world where the global integration of our economies is under way, is i think in the mind of the american voter a more relevant qualifications and it has been in the past. i think most people feel -- i

hope it went up to the fact that a lifetime in washington does not necessarily the right answer to get our economy going are get america strong again. i think the president is a nice guy. i think he is over his head. i do not think he understands how the economy works. i do not think he understands how america's economy has outperformed many other in the world. i think he thinks the phoenix and more like you're up it will make us stronger. it will make us weaker we do not want to become europe. i think somebody who has the kind of background i do is actually what america needs right now. or else i would not be doing this. >> we are looking at the calendar and you have about 3.5 more weeks before the head to the polls on that january night. closing statement, tell us why

you should turn our endorsement and why should caucus goers show you their support on january 13? >> i would like your endorsement. makes a difference. i think my background and experience qualifies me as a person of judgment and care and caution and analytical mind. propose solutions that have been well thought through. the can actually make america strong. i also believe that my experience as a leader -- it is a combination of things that is hard to define in some respects. is trust, loyalty, character, integrity, vision, and come past -- capacity. i believe that that road is essential and our president.

sometimes we do not agree with somebody based upon their issues. i looked at some of our past presidents and i disagreed with on issues, but i see them as leaders. rarely are the issue is that we talk about in the campaign the issues that really does it -- defied the presidency. we are talking about president -- they end up getting swept aside by something completely unexpected. what you want is somebody who has demonstrated the capacity to deal with difficult circumstances, to lead in those circumstances, and has been able to create success or failure was a realistic option. i believe that i have demonstrated that. had i lead and failed, i could not be doing this. that would not be asking a for your support. i have not succeeded at everything i have done. i lost twice in campaigns. you learn from failure as well. not every business i invested

in -- there were some businesses i interested in and they did not succeed. the businesses of that myself and run myself have all -- all businesses and enterprises, they have all been successful and part of the experiences i have had. i would appreciate greatly your endorsement and your help. i cannot guarantee i will win in iowa, but i am pretty sure i will win the entire battle. there will be enough time for my message to get through. for distinguishing features of my background in those other people to be understood by the american people. i cannot promise you that you can take that to the bank, but i sure am. >> it has been a pleasure pier >> thank you. >> i did not know you're going

to be here. it is good to be here with the publisher. >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> hear what the candidates are saying at the newly designed a campaign website for 2012. >> their philosophy is simple. everybody is left to play for their own rules. i am here to say that they are wrong. >> we want to move back toward up -- obama the budget, or do you want to borrow trillions of dollars. >> washington is a mess and we need to send mitt romney to washington to fix the mess out there. >> greeted the latest comments from candidates and political reporters and links to c-span some media partners in the early caucus states at c-span.org/ capaign2012. >> in his address, president

obama criticizes republicans pick in their nomination. he also renewed a call to extend the payroll tax cuts for middle- class americans. john boehner delivers the republican a dress. he talks about the keystone pipeline energy project as part of a jobs bill that members will take up next week. but today america faces a make or break moment for the middle class. some still want a return to the same policies that got us into this mess. the same policies that have stacked the deck against working americans for way too long. part of a philosophy that says we are better off when everyone is left to fend for themselves that. by their own rules. i believe that we are gridder together that we are on our own. i believe this country succeeds when everybody gets a fair shot and does their fair share and

everyone engages in fair play. to ensure fair play, last time we passed the toughest financial reforms and generations. for too long the rules were not the same on wall street as they were on main street. risky bets are made with other people's money. this irresponsible behavior on the part of some contributed to the worst financial crisis since the great depression. this financial reform refocuses the financial sector on what is really important, getting capital to offer new were to want to grow their business. getting capital to millions of families who want to send their kids to families. -- kids to college. tens of millions of americans to use these services, protecting them from unscrupulous practices

is an important job. that is why i nominated richard quarter to serve at the top of this agency. the former attorney general of ohio, he helped recover billions of dollars on behalf of retirees had set up against honest lending practices. he has the support of most attorney-general across the country. members of congress from both parties said he is more than qualified for the job. yet on thursday, republicans block his nomination. they refused to even allow it to come up as a vote. that does not make any sense. the republicans in congress that are financial problems were caused by too much oversight by deck collectors? of course not. every day americans have to wait for a new consumer american watchdog is another day that is honest businesses can take advantage of students, service members. i refuse to take no for an

answer. financial institutions have plenty of high-powered lawyers and lobbyists looking out for them. it is time consumers have something on their side. while there are at it, republicans in congress should extend the payroll tax cut for working americans. if they do not, nearly 160 million americans will see their taxes go up at the end of this month. congress cannot and it the year by taking money out of the pockets of working americans. now is not the time for playing politics. now is the time to do what is right for the american people. nobody should go home for the holidays until we get this done. tell your members of congress, did not be aigrettes. do the right thing for you and our economy. thank you. >> there is no more urgent task in getting our economy back on creating jobs. unemployment is still well above 8%. millions of americans are looking for work or have simply

stopped looking altogether. that is unacceptable, plain and simple. republicans at focused all year to remove government made barriers to job creation. in all bipartisan house jobs bills are waiting for a vote on the democratic run senate. one of those initiatives is an act passed a few days ago. it would require congress to review any new regulation that has a major impact on the economy. nearly three years ago president obama promised a stimulus plan that it would keep unemployment below 8%. it did not work. because of policies that are not working, the president has asked congress to extend unemployment benefits. last week the house was going to do just that. it will act on a jobs bill that extends payroll tax relief,

extends and reform's unemployment benefits, and cuts benefits spent -- government spending. this bill will also include several bipartisan jobs initiatives including a provision to continue at a tax incentive that and look -- allows employers to invest now in new machinery and equipment, grow businesses, and create jobs. another bipartisan provision is the keystone energy project. it would create tens of thousands of american jobs and reduce our dependence on oil in the middle east. it has bipartisan support in the house and the senate. is backed by a broad paced coalition. you have heard president of, say the american people cannot wait to take action on jobs. well, keystone energy project is the very definition of an idea that the eight american people

cannot wait for washington to take action on. stephen harper, the prime minister of canada, has warned that if the united states is not approve the of the project, they will have to move forward with other customers, potentially china. we cannot stand by and allow that to happen. those jobs are too important. the president wants to put off a decision until after next year's election. not only that, he says he will reject the house is jobs bill if it included support for this project. this was no time to the disabled highway or the -- my way or the highway theatrics. we cannot let those disagreements prevent us from acting when we do agree. there is bipartisan support for extending the payroll tax relief and unemployment benefits. there is bipartisan support for tax incentives to allow employers to invest and expand.

there is bipartisan support for the keystone energy project. we should get these things done. at the president has set the american people cannot we fraction of jobs. at a time when there are still asking the question, where are the jobs, the keystone energy project is a bipartisan supporter -- the house will try to do the right thing to for economic growth. we remain ready to work with the president and find common ground which is what the american people expect and deserve. merry christmas and thank you for listening. >> mark kirk talks about what congress has accomplished and 2011. he will talk about his amendment for sanctions against institutions doing business with iran central bank. "newsmakers" at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on c-span.

>> more video with 11 video which was is making it easy for you to watch the day's events live and recorded. more features. it has a 3 layer network sycophants growth to all the programs on the c-span network and receive an e-mail alert when your program is scheduled to air. more access for access"washington journal," "book tv," and american history," . for some gift-giving ideas, click on c-span products. for dvd is and books, mugs and more at the all new c-span not work. -- c-span.org. >> michael powell on key issues affecting the telecom industries. >> it has