c-span: .. 19... >> guest: '91. c-span: .. 90. >> guest: '91. c-span: he died in '91? >> guest: excuse me, 1990. you're correct. c-span: yeah, 1990. why did you feel it necessary to tell the whole personal side of this? >> guest: it's actually the personal side of lee's life that interests me. that is -- that's the human drama. i think that the political story, which is told as well, is impossible to separate from the personal story because his personality was such a part of his career. what he was is large -- in large measure a reflection of who he was. and it seems that the way that he conducted his life, the way that he used people is very -- very much a part of who lee atwater ultimately is. i felt that that was my responsibility: to stay with the story, for better and for worse. c-span: you -- you write on page 282, 'there was great tenderness and intimacy in their relationship,' talking about brooke. >> guest: yeah. c-span: 'brooke bathed lee, cared for him like a loving spouse, but no one could determine whether they were, in fact, lovers. an aide came into the b

. >> host: this is c span's -- c-span's communicators program. this is tim sparapani, policy directer for facebook, cecilia kang is "the washington post"'s technology reporter. mr. sparapani served as senior legislative counsel at the american civil liberties union prior to joining facebook. now, is your old organization happy with your work at facebook? >> guest: well, i don't know. i hope so. it seems like the mission i had at the aclu was not terribly different from the one i have now. the goal was to maximize privacy and free speech. primarily for folks here in the united states. now that we have at facebook 70% of our 900 million -- 400 million users outside of the united states, i feel like i get to do the same things in realtime with a communications tool, but i get to do it on a much bigger stage. it's not just the domestic populace, it's a worldwide populace. so if anything, i think these two visions for the aclu and facebook remarkably complement each other. >> host: just to go back to the australian example, what's the impetus of the a

c-span c-span 2. but at the end i thought i'm really glad that we are so rare on the ground. we're readers that we care about books and were so happy in los angeles with a great writer like you comes out, judy. and i was e-mailing friends about this event and everybody says you know her? .. >> i'll also want to say if this is a wonderful event. it makes me feel important and i am glad to be here with caitlin who i have admired for so long. she is the kind of writer you read qn"ájjrv botherño i will never be that good. as far as your writing for years i have a terrible admission. in my household we watch those shows. i usually walk out at that point. it isn't a subject for a calling. thank you for coming. it is a real treat for me. >> tell me about the writer's block you experienced in your writing. >> it was too easy. it was sold based on conversations with an editor. i had gone to new york to meet with my editor for my last book and i had some ideas for a magazine story. i thought she had some good contacts to pitch ideas to and one of the ideas was this world i saw around me in washington looked so strange to me. these were young kids. who had never heard of these? kids who were getting diagnosed with pathologies' i had never heard about. older kids were taking vacations. and being completely immersed in the world of anxious parents king and parents who were pushing their kids to be perfect. and i just thought this was an offshoot of the same phenomenon. i heard a conversation about this. went home and that was it. it was too good to be true. it wasn't a good idea. it took awhile to find that out. i tried to report the first idea and find members and doctors to back the idea up. i started with doctors who i thought shared the same ideas i did. when i actually reached them i found they didn't actually believe these things. they said there was some medication and some disorders but overall kids were not being overdiagnosed. >> this is a real dinner party. because people will really say kids are just being turned into lab rats and their parents, just a terrible perfection and what you found out was people were really paying to get their children medication. >> it was a long process. it was a few years. i didn't know what i was talking about. i have to start over completely and the place to start over is by talking to parents and getting a sense of what they are going through. the main part of it was talking with parents and when i talked to parents i heard stories that were so completely different from the stories i had in my mind and found in the media all the time to throw medication that the kids. this was never the case. >> not that any of us have ever sold a book and if they didn't want to write a different look how did that go over when i said i no longer believe that kids are being overmedicated? [talking over each other] >> a complete turnover at the publishing house. i think they felt whatever. just get it in and they had three years to wait. >> we have got issues. i was a teacher for three years before i became a writer and when i started teaching in 87 we talked about learning disabilities and issues. what do you mean issues? why is it so stigmatized cote -- to call something what is? >> it is used so ironically. it has become a euphemism for mental health issues. a broad way to find and generally you don't referred to some of these specifics. it is more the lower intensity mental health problems but also this little bit of doubt attached to the word, little bit of doubt of what you are talking about. it is interesting that the title we got issues survived from the book's first incarnation. at that time we as a society have issues and our kids are getting sick. now we have a society of issues and we are holding a mirror up to ourselves to see how it is that our prejudices are in the way of allowing us to constructively and realistically interact with children's mental health. >> there was a narrative that kids are being overmedicated and a terrible world and we are struggling and that is not really true and there are a lot of narratives are around this and one thing we always say when you address this is we get really a angry that little boys need to run and play and fit into this narrow constructs which i took part and could have handled it differently, just being a boy. and you think maybe it is true and it could be true that within that population there was pain over these issues. >> there are lot of valid observations about the problems in family life today in school and pressures put on children. and really important things to say and all of these conditions which are a natural for kids creates stress for them and some of optimal conditions and that is entirely different, a whole different matter than health issues. all kids today are subject to a certain level of stress or pressure. it is a different stress or pressure but not all kids come down these issues. it is a very naive idea that society causes problems for adults. the truth is more complicated than that. sometimes i find i am so busy and my kids are so pressured because of my husband's busyness do you think i ever leave anyone to say the reason my child isn't succeeding is they are caught up in this double career life the parents are leading? i get questions like that all the time and a lot of people probably don't know -- they are just caught up in it. some children thrive in this environment. they are -- pediatricians will tell you you can't make these blanket statements. [talking over each other] that is the problem when you get invested in it one way or the other. i made the mistake of overscheduling. is really bad for me because i hate driving around going places. it is torture. it has to be bad for children's mental health. and the overscheduling problem, it is kind of interesting. the real problem is there are a lot of kids who don't do extracurriculars at all and these other kids we are focusing on and he didn't have children beach -- he was right. i did -- >> when we get three things you talk about depression which i told you earlier. as a former teacher nothing got my attention more than sadness in a child. they couldn't do the work. sadness always caught my attention and when you are in a teacher's meeting, tell us about depression in children because nothing hurts parents more than to know there's nothing that hurts more than when their child is sad and parents quickly and too often, sadness or depression, i must be doing something wrong but there's a quiet -- clinical diagnosis of depression. >> it is one of the most painful diagnoses for a parent to witness because it is all but impossible not to take that sadness onto yourself. even if you look at your life and don't see doctors tell you there's nothing causing this, is just about impossible. until the 1970s it was believed children couldn't suffer depression. their egos were not well enough developed. and then you had children who were depressed or suffering depression and all of a sudden you have anti-depressant for kids with medications on the market that could be given to kids. there weren't any. clearly children are being helped. it has been shown to really help children. there are treatment options that are possible but there was skepticism about this that didn't help and the role that this is asian of depression you see with children. you read big romanticizes asian of depression in adults all the time and it simply is impossible if you have ever been depressed to take part in that kind of romantic as asian of a disorder that is crippling. >> you write about what we love to claim, we all say our careers are built on a dd and impulses and all that. talks unless about that because that is the one. people don't get very judgmental about depression but the notion that kids aren't marching along in line at their school in the proper way and medication bring them down to keep them in a row. that has gotten people angry with the subject of the book which is why it is opening up this valuable conversation. >> that is the flashpoint for so long. it is perceived not to be a real mental health disorder and i didn't believe that it was. it sounds so much like a response to crazy times when the symptoms described as put forward in the media. part of it is it has consistently been described as a disorder of boys who can't sit still or don't behave well and we all know children that behave well because their parents don't know how to discipline them and too permissive and don't say no. just by defining it as a boy who can't sit still is so incorrect that it is so much more wide reaching. there are children who aren't hyperactive at all who are primarily inattentive. a lot of children suffer enormously. they suffer socially and academically and you don't see this at all. that is the common perception of what it is. if it is presented as trivial people believe it is trivial and it is presented that way. >> how does a parent go about making a good decision for their children? if a teacher notices something or another parent does, there is a big piece on the cover of time magazine, child who has autism and the most frustrating thing was she got the diagnosis and said tell me what to do. whatever it is i will do it. but we don't know what to do. what is the right path? >> the right path is finding a doctor you can trust who is going to -- [talking over each other] >> aren't these from the ritalin company? >> i was thinking of the pediatricians. a pediatrician who has been able to get to know the child over a long time. you have to rule out physical problems. could there be something else going on? you want to rule that out. a false sense of what the child's life is but how do you get a recommendation to the right person or mental health specialists? you need someone to act in a medical home and give you good recommendations and help to coordinate care if you are going to be involved in different therapies whether it is medication or not or some form of therapy or surgeon disorders, a lot of things are at play. [talking over each other] >> part of your book that was fascinating was this issue of children psychiatrists or any who are being paid by drug companies. how does that work? what do they get? for each prescription or what? >> they can't take money for prescribing certain drugs directly but what they can do is give lectures, participate in continuing medical education, in the pay of the drugmakers. they can put their names on papers that are ghostwritten by people working for drug companies and have their research underwritten by drug companies. >> you had the amazing statistic i had never heard that 96% of all harvard med school students been paid by drug company -- [talking over each other] >> they get used to this relationship that has been put in place that starts in medical school with pizza. >> enjoy your pizza. >> some research into giftgiving. decisionmaking -- when you get the prozac and no one cares about that anymore. [talking over each other] they have shown all of this gift-giving plays a role and certainly consulting on the advisory board and there are many ways these relationships happen and have happened over the years and terrible damage has been done. this was a profession that already wasn't highly esteemed in america. psychiatrist generally and probably child psychiatry even more. has had a terrible image for long time. that there has been a terrible blow to the public trust for good reason. [talking over each other] >> my favorite part of the book, you took this big-time new york times reported to plunge to ask him some questions and really got into it. i can't imagine you have a fight with anybody. >> i can't identify the new york times reporter. he was with a large -- [talking over each other] >> he had no idea what i was talking about. a paper by the drug company. >> he was someone who covers the industry, who has written extensively on this topic, who has been helpful to me and we went to lunch to talk about this and i knew we'd disagree from the 10 or of his story. but we literally went to lunch and we sort of ended up yelling at each other. [talking over each other] >> you are wrong. >> i wouldn't yell back necessarily. i will be honest. i respond very badly to what i perceive as male bullying. there's a certain way men can have of presenting their ideas as if they're not opinions but facts. i don't respond well to that. i may have taken some literary license to say we were yelling at each other but we were raising our voices but i was not going to back down. what was very useful about this lunch because it was relatively early on. it was early 2008 when i had my change of heart in 2007 and from this conversation i knew what direction i was going because i had done that at that point but i still knew there were holes in getting the research and the numbers. i wanted to be able to have statistics to back up the opinions and information i had gone and from that point on i spent a few months digging in the library to find the statistics i could to look at the pictures that would be created on guidance and medication. >> we are familiar with the tom cruise/matt lauer incident. if you missed it. tom cruise went on the today show and went off on a tangent to a personal any kind of medicating -- why is that part of scientology? >> i don't know. i am not up on scientology except they have a museum here called psychiatry, the science of death. that tells you everything. this strong feeling but have you been on the receiving end of some of this? >> not yet. >> i am glad about that because they can be very threatening. that is what i have heard. [talking over each other] >> any scientology is in the room? we are good. >> i have been disappointed. i have been waiting for years for the book to come out -- it wasn't getting done. i was going to write a column about how high wish i was in the pay of the drug companies because i have all kinds of work that went down in my house and i would like to have the pfizer pavilion -- [talking over each other] >> but i haven't had that opportunity. >> you used this in relation to children and therapy and i had to remember everyone knows about that caribbean. you say there is this idea that kids are being sent to therapy. it is a -- upper middle-class driving thing. >> i borrowed a phrase from a washington post piece in 2004 coldwell this therapy and it was a description, was not an unsympathetic peace because it was written by a woman whose daughter had gone through a lot of these therapies and it described the frantic efforts parents make, it was very expensive, to find solutions and often going outside of mainstream medical opinion to try out various medical therapies that are not necessarily recommended by doctors but a lot of parents think will do their kids some good. i don't know if this would put occupational therapy in that category or not. it depends on what it is for. it is somewhat debated. but things like auditory retraining therapy or a physician therapy or nutritional work or energy work, things like that, biofeedback can help people but it is extensive and considered experimental by insurance companies and what you see in upper middle class communities is these kids get therapy after therapy. a lot of times they take away the medication which is a lot of the goal. there is often a lot of time lost and it is the kind of atmosphere that sent me in the direction of the first book. it looks from the outside like they are running in circles trying to perfect children not accepting them for who they are. what you understand when you are more compassionate is they are scared and they don't know what to do and they are not being given answers and they are trying to find the best way to help their child. >> shocking moment in the book. [talking over each other] >> the author of that piece brought up the scenario of a mother giving her child something, take your vitamins and i was shocked by that. that is the conversation doctors say -- what do you think of that? >> i haven't heard that. the mother in question was very uncomfortable about giving her child the medication in the first place and this was the way she handled it and what she wanted to do. it may have seemed simpler to do it that way but that mother has the most wonderful quote. her son told her it was as though he had chameleon eyes. his eyes went in two different directions and his eyes turned straight. she really didn't want to get medication and a long-term he doesn't take it but at the time she said how do you argue with your child and tell him to turn his eyes straight and keeps his eyes straight? >> i am sure you have people who look in all these directions. are we going to lose something if we don't have this variety of inspection? >> the mother of a daughter who had this vision is debilitating. if your eyes go in two different directions it is debilitating. >> it sounds kind of romantic. we want people to think outside the box and we want people to finish those thoughts and reach their potential and do what you might be able to do. if your eyes are going two different ways -- >> what about as a former high-school teacher these drugs in high school or adolescence? i learned about a kid taking these drugs when he or she was a child and they no longer needed it and what was that about? >> the same population. the kids described for them are selling them to other kids but we have to make the distinction through medication to justify medication and what we are talking about and all these stories we're seeing about college students in order to stay up all night to study more, it should be treated as such. >> it is the same as other stimulants medication. >> they don't affect them the way they affect the people who are calm down by them and those who are not meant to take them are not taken seriously. >> you started writing about this and the way people reacted and get -- you realize you were on to something. they really split -- there were parents that had chosen a mental health issue who were so happy to have someone saying you are not a bunch of lazy pill pushers and you care about your children. they were the doctors who work with these kids and parents who were glad to have that too and the people who feel very strongly that kids are being stuffed full of drug than this is a terrible thing and we're living in a natural time that we are not willing to look at the pathologies of our society or people in the mental-health field is professional orientation is hospital medication and they continue to be very vocal saying this is a long way to go whether it is the few that you hear from. i am not sure why these have to be opposing ways of dealing with children and certainly no children who -- you want professional turf battles. >> when i was a little girl you would be in your classroom and there would be a variety of kids like the bully. is such a big thing to talk about all the time. is that part of a mental health issue? >> i wouldn't know how to address that. the area of interest as opposed to being the lead with psychologists suggesting the kids who boule have problems of their own but whether they have problems, that is the question you have to ask. everybody has up problem. that doesn't mean you have a mental health disorder. in the golden age of classrooms, the golden age was over but i remember the bad they started, there were always kids in the hall. kids spent most of their early school career sitting in the hallway because they didn't behave well so they didn't learn anything. it was the classroom management technique. where they being well served or the kid you hated because he was always in your face so he was always getting yelled at and being told how awful he was. what happened to him long term? >> this is a subject that a lot of people have questions about. we have a microphone set up down there. i wonder if anyone wants to join this conversation. >> right here. >> this is not in the form of a question but i would like to comment on how grateful i am that you pointed this out but to balance the situation more clearly, i had a child who was hyperactive end his father was a surgeon and psychiatrist and every possible treatment before we found ritalin and it changed his life. and licensed read that the counterbalance to children who are overmedicated is true, but from my own experience and his experience it made it possible for him to concentrate the study, he is an attorney who is successful but neither do i how that without that -- i am curious what it was like for you to give that medication 40 years ago. how did other people react? it was -- >> he is -- he felt was appropriate. it is fine with me and i saw the change in behavior, questioning at that time. >> i am a physician who treats a lot of kids and adults and i worked in an integrated health facility and most of my practice in inro feedback or brain wave biofeedback and if any drug had studies that had already been done using that feedback it would be widely licensed and everybody would know about it. quite a few studies have been done. mental health is doing that as well and come out this summer. it really is something many more people should know about. i treat very successfully 70% of the time both adults and kids with a dd very successfully. they are able to get off the ritalin or reduce it significantly. i treat kids was autism also. >> it is fantastic because if they are able to come out with positive results from a body that has that kind of wait and power it might change the situation with insurance companies because the difficulty for families is it is a very expensive and not reimbursed. >> i have to give my plug for natural feedback but it will be more mainstream because it treats anxiety extremely well and post-traumatic stress disorder. >> where is that available? >> i am in santa monica. my name is dr. do good. >> thank you. >> that is great to hear. >> can you hear me? two things i want to address. when you asked the question before about what other parents fought when you had your child medicated that is a really good point. that is the stigma. we have to educate people so parents don't think it is a stigma so they will take those actions. advocates are work with like families and in my family, you could write a book on genetic disorders. we have everything and i am very open about it but many parents aren't. the learning disability and everything. i thank you for that and we feel it is -- there's nothing wrong with them. it is like they have an illness and need medication. the other point was about the creativity and medication. my son has hit on top of dyslexia, ocd 11 and anxiety we were going to medicate him and the psychiatrist put it very well. my son is an extremely creative -- you couldn't give him medication enough to get him in a box. there's not enough medication. he is into science. the doctor said that obsessiveness will be really good in the lab. use those strengths or whatever you can get in that area but you don't need it in the other areas. >> i am glad you raised the issue of stigma because it is so important and something we need to talk about. not only because it is hurtful and cool but keeps children from getting help because parents don't want to confront these issues because of the fear of what other people will say because they feel bad themselves to think their children have problems and the real tragedy is kids don't get help. >> the story of the one parent who did something that really worked. made an intervention with the scheduler and other parents said maybe i am not a good parent because i didn't come up with that strategy but the two children have different diagnoses. >> i come not as a writer. i am a terrible rider but i do have a child who has autism. and another has a ph.d. -- adhd. one of them has been miraculously healed through medication and intervention. we don't necessarily have a road map as to how to proceed. my question is you have a gentleman who comes to speak about biofeedback and as parents with special needs children we have all the we grasp at. my husband and i are one of the lucky ones. our child has done amazing and it has not been easy. what is being done in the way of the special needs community to offer a holistic approaches? your approach which is truly very important to parents like ourselves who struggle to put them on medication, is this going to be detrimental to our child, how are we going to be judged? in the case of our daughter it has been miraculously that she has been on medication. it has given her a new lease on life. we are not a panel to get together with people who have ballistic approaches and appealing to the special needs community to which i am. and they want a road map. >> getting a roadmap with the various choices and one road map people can turn to. [talking over each other] >> it is -- there is no road map for each child. every child is individual and every child has that unique cocktail of problems and it is not as a writer but if you truly believe in this medication to help these children, why is there not a panel of good people going to the special needs community offering different options? >> one of the things you are saying is people have an idea that it is too much and it is not enough offered. is that what you are saying with medication? >> i am saying there is no road map for these children. they are all unique. they're all different. medication works for some. natural feedback works for other. cognitive behavior therapy works for another. parents are out there struggling trying to grasp anything that can help their children. we are one of the lucky ones that medication was helpful but this effort has to be joined together with all of these different disciplines to offer parents a way to pick and choose what is going to work for their children. >> in response to that a lot of these different disciplines are mutually exclusive or at least current and battling and different orientations at work here. and one set of answers. people who have more alternative orientation and another -- and the web site where the proven form of care. the evidence is there hair stand on head. because that is -- my science is my son and this is a really sort of philosophical orientation. i am finishing an article on vision therapy and i see this split around the area of vision of therapy. so i hear what you are saying and it is difficult because you end up with a panel of people who vehemently and passionately disagree with each other and for individual parents it comes down to finding somebody who can guide you. we are not doctors. we are not trained in these different areas. we have to put our face on somebody who is trained to make informed decisions and it gets back to the tragedy of what happened with pharmaceutical research and the information is so corrupted that it is difficult to trust what the decisions can be. [talking over each other] >> i love to work on -- we can't cure you. we can heal you and it is great. >> i have a different view. my son was diagnosed when he was 6 and we tried medication and nothing worked and it makes no difference. he's skinny as a rail and is wearing off and you have to figure it out. he is a slow processor. to this day a psychiatrist -- it doesn't work. this is what it is. just because he is similar to what i am like it is a processing issue. you need to pay attention. he tried the neural feedback and that was a $5,000 bust. [talking over each other] >> i wish they were. i shouldn't be light-hearted. congratulations. where is he going to go? i am from northern california. from kids outgrow their symptoms. 40% outgrow their symptoms. when their brain finished maturing it came out at the end of 2008 and showed they have a delay in maturation of three to five years. >> let me ask you. young adulthood. >> i am not a doctor. 40% of them do. >> i haven't read your book and at the risk of offering opinions, i will -- i am curious -- what confuses me in what has come forward, 90% of those with pharmaceutical industry influence -- [talking over each other] >> it seems the treatment protocol that exists in this culture are solely based around pharmaceutical prescriptions and the reason is this is an easily cut defied treatment protocol and these are not easily -- they are more easily codify than i thought. there is something -- which is not to question the relative effectiveness of the treatment, but if you're going for a biofeedback you can't get picked up by your insurance policy if you have insurance. that is the other side of this. the other side of the story. let's hope you have insurance to even address these issues with your children because a good portion of us may not from one month to the next. the fact is the culture is so completely corrupt than it is amazing to toss these ideas around in this manner. parents aren't given options particularly and there may be other options. when you talk about biofeedback, that is a westernized description of medication. at least in my experience to some degree, these are orientations' simply are not allowed. >> it will be easy to put the drug in the bottle. when people do have insurance it doesn't cover the mental health coverage and such large numbers of professionals don't participate in insurance so you may find somebody who takes it on the waiting list but just goes on indefinitely when there's such a shortage in the first place. the whole access issue is a huge one. we can have all kinds of critiques of our culture and everything. the problem is where i started out too, the abstractions are maybe perfectly valid and important and interesting but when it gets down to it and you are talking about real children and their lives, you have to deal with what is in front of you. what i learned as a teacher is the mother and father really know something and it can be very argumentative outside the family. when that mom came up and said this is bull cit, parents have a strong sense and i learned not to question them if they knew something. >> i wanted to make some statements about using different therapies of medicine or therapy in conjunction with each other. this came up a few times in the course of the talk tonight and pediatrics specifically. i don't have children but i have done my practice for ten years clippers delay large portion of my caseload and something that i found, the opportunity to do conventional therapy, might help the occupational therapy, and the pharma logical approach to sustain attention long enough, to perceptual issues thatitie and to not take it as let's medicaid our kids or give them therapy, and out those approaches can support families. so i see both sides that struggle to medicate them. my job is to go in and say sometimes you need both. keeping an open mind that way. you have this book to say they shouldn't be a stigma for medicine. it is another tool to help children but not to take that too far in the other direction that other approaches whether they are reimbursed or not are not as effective if we bring them together. >> that is an important point and it is interesting because the big thing about looking at our culture and talking about children with mental health issues and the way to talk about it, you should medicate your child or not medicate your child, we naturally end up falling into camps once the conversation is launched, this works or that works or opposing this or that, that is what is so interesting because there is a larger investment in a lot of these positions that we have to think about because i find myself back in the corner sometimes. i am a journalist, not a doctor. i am just trying to look at the big picture and this happens so easily and so naturally. the thing that is obsessing me this week, we have these camps and the camps say a lot about our orientation generally towards medicine, toward mainstream opinion, where your power seems to be coming from. we want to thank you so much. i love this book and i am telling everybody to read it and it is an outstanding -- the strength of your boat is when these parents share these -- i really found that it is not a bunch of peopleçound a dinn table. it is parents who love their kids. anybody who wants to meet you, the book is available in the back. [talking over each other] [applause] >> judith warner is author of perfect madness and hillary clinton:the inside story. she is the inside correspondent for newsweek in paris. for more information visit judithwarneronline.com. >> we are here with christina, author of the new book sisters in war:a story of love and survival in the new iraq. who is via? >> they are two iraqi sisters who are 18 and 21 years old at the start of the war. they're filled with hope for what the americans will do for iraq because they have suffered horribly ended the iraqi regime. the older sister goes to work for the americans and falls in love with an american contractor and the other sister is struggling to get her degree at the university which becomes harder and harder as the americans lose control of the country and radical islam gains control. >> where did you meet them? >> early 2003 a

c-span video library. with over 160,000 hours of video and 115,000 people every c-span program since 1987. the c. >> president obama sign the health care bill into law today. he goes on the road later this week to promote the new law. on thursday he will visit iowa city, iowa, where as a presidential candidate he announced his health care plan in may 2007. just minutes after the law was signed, attorneys general from 13 states sued the federal government saying the constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to require americans to buy health insurance. all are republicans except james caldwell of louisiana who is a democrat. some states are also looking at other ways to avoid participating in the overhaul. virginia and idaho have passed legislation aimed at blocking the bills insurance requirement from taking effect. and the republican-led legislature in florida is trying to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to ask voters to exempt the state from the federal laws requirements. the u.s. senate meets at 2:15 p.m. eastern today to begin work on companion legislation to the hea

c-span2. >> the new c-span video library is a digital archive of c-span's programming from barack obama to ronald reagan and everyone in between. over 157,000 hours of c-span video now available to you. it's fast and free. try it out at c-span video.org. >> in washington last week, israeli defense minister ehud barak called for u.n. sanctions against iran to compel that nation to stop its nuclear program. he talked about this and other security threats to israel during a speech to the washington institute for near east policy. this event is a little over an hour. [applause] >> the leadership of the washington institute, distinguished guests, it is great honor for me as minister of defense of israel to address you at this conference in memory of zev who in his life proved that he was worthy of the title journalist, commentator and security person. the years since he was taken have only deepened the professional vacuum that his passing created in israel probably beyond and the absence of one who was a guiding light to his colleagues. time shows us how much we need people like him h the world of mil

c-span. c-span is very fair. i watch c-span in the morning. nd other media, always questioning and throwing light some sort of -- where the american public has doubt. all of this doubt out here in the media. i think with the american public, and it just makes fear. host: used the word undermining. the media may be undermining the present but they are creating this fear? caller: i really feel that. i'm young. i have to tell you, i voted for mr. obama. never really been a major politics, never really been into politics but the best president has really started a lot of young people into really motivating a lot of young people into politics. is he doing to much? all of these lies. trans. administration -- everything is on line. you could see everything. he constantly tells us that. live is and lies, all of this doubt. host: we appreciate your view this morning. larry from oak grove, illinois with a republican view. caller: the more i listen to c- span lately the market disappointed i am in the callers calling in. this reduction of nuclear weapons

eastern on c-span 3, c-span radio, and on the web site at c- span.org. the budget meeting as part of an effort to put the matter to a vote by march 18. "congressional quarterly" says that rules committee will be meeting on wednesday to work out the structure for the debate. nancy pelosi says that she hopes to start the debate on thursday with votes possible later in the week. stay tuned to c-span for the latest, and visit the health care of. visit the legislation, see what the president and members of congress are saying, joined in the conversation yourself on twitter. you can find cost estimates and hundreds of hours of video from the floor debate, committee hearings, markups and other events. c-span.org/healthcare. >> senator bob corker says that the health-care debate has forced chris dodd to push forward with financial regulation legislation. he expressed disappointment with the decision, citing a number of unresolved issues with the legislation. he speaks with reporters at the capital for about 35 minutes. >> thanks for coming out. yesterday was a bi

c-span. c-span were funded by contractors -- if c-span were funded by pentagon contractors, would be concernedt i know it or not. i would like to ask a guest if your organization is funded by those entities. guest: we have offenders for essentially three sources -- individuals, corporations -- we have funders from essentially three sources -- individuals, corporations, and you can go online to see the companies that have funded the organizations. defense to corporations and lots of others that don't have anything to do with defense. all that is transparent on the web site. host: you are on with richard fontaine on afghanistan. caller: two questions, please. if richard to get his paper route, he could write these down. after the defeat of the iraqi army in 2000 for, i think it was, or 2003, paul bremer fired the entire army, creating 100,000 terrorists, unemployed people. the second question, richard, is you are educated at oxford? how could you possibly recommend sarah palin as the running mate for john mccain? host: you can take one or both of those points. guest: let's see. i spent a year at

this happens to be the 30th anniversary of c-span. c-span has covered many forms.they usually cover the ones that we do together. we have five of them. issues are important -- we discussed the issues that are important to congress. we have a forum on the filibuster. to put this in context, if is a problem. i think it is a problem. there are efforts by senator udall to change the rule. rule 22 on the cloture vote. let's put it into the context of the perception of the american people on the institution of congress and many problems facing the institution. this is one problem facing the institution. we have holds that clogged the legislative work and confirming legislative branch officials couldn't do we have a lack of true deliberation and debate in the senate. there is a breakdown frequently. there is an excessive use of earmarks. there is a debate as to whether they are excessive or not. sometimes these become a crutch to act on significant policy issues that cannot be acted by the of the risers. sometimes the tendency to have government by continuing resolution.

c-span. c-span is very fair. i watch c-span in the morning. a, always questioning and throwing light some sort of -- where the american public has doubt. all of this doubt out here in the media. i think with the american public, and it just makes fear. host: used the word undermining. the media may be undermining the present but they are creating this fear? caller: i really feel that. i'm young. i have to tell you, i voted for mr. obama. never really been a major politics, never really been into politics but the best president has really started a lot of young people into really motivating a lot of young people into politics. is he doing to much? all of these lies. trans. administration -- everything is on line. you could see everything. he constantly tells us that. live is and lies, all of this doubt. host: we appreciate your view this morning. larry from oak grove, illinois with a republican view. caller: the more i listen to c- span lately the market disappointed i am in the callers calling in. this reduction of nuclear weapons is almost irr

c-span2. >> over 1000 middle and high school students entered this year's c-span studentcam documentary competition. we will announce the 75 winners on march 10 and show you their winning videos at studentcam.org. >> the new c-span is now available to you. it is fast and free. try it out. >> an update on the status of u.s. banks from this morning's washington journal. a moment. we are joined on the phone by kevin hall who writes for the mcclatchy newspapers as their economics correspondent. thank you very much for joining us. you wrote extensively last week about the news of bank failures in the u.s. what can you tell us about that? guest: federer about insurance (-uá outç its 2009 final year report -- the federal deposit insurance corporation. certainly the biggest contraction in lending since 1942, the first year the united states fully engaged in world war ii. a dramatic drop in lending. 7.4% retractions. oddly enough, two factors. the banks are impaired and are having trouble landing, needing to those balance sheets, and consumers, 10% unemployment, but uncertainty about the economy, people are not looking for loans -- the banks are not giving them and people are not looking. host: you wrote 700 u.s. banks

c-span. c-span, our public affairs content is available on television, radio and on line. you can connect with us on twitter, facebook and youtube. signup for our schedule of lord e-mails at -- alert emails at c- span.org. >> the president's meeting with health care executives was one of the main topics at this -- at today's press briefing. this is 55 minutes. >> usually after the third answer is when i get a reaction like that. the jersey update was not delivered to my house yesterday. i drank it all yesterday. sorry. >> last week the president opened up the health care to cameras and to members across the aisle. today he is meeting behind closed doors with democrats. how do you square those two positions? >> he is meeting as he does throughout the day, different meetings here in the white house on various subjects. i assume healthcare will come of it. other topics will be discussed. the president has had extensive conversations with the american people on health care. and, uh, we are going to make one final push to get this done. the president stopped by a meeting this morning that secretary sebelius had called with the nation's largest health insurance companies, asking them to justify the

c-span cameras in, c-span cameras in and find out who is on the side of the american people and who is on the side. pharmaceutical companies. we know who is on whose side. it is the sleazey back room deas that the american people don't want and they want repeal and replace, repeal and replace, repeal and replace. we republicans, my friends, we in the opposition, we independents, we all americans are going to say yes, wement tort reform. why don't we have tort reform in why is it that doctors have to practice defensive medicine? it is because of trial lawyers controlling the process in washington, my friends. this year we could save $100 billion in tort reform so doctors wouldn't practice defensive medicine so that the trial lawyers wouldn't make billions of dollars and we could still protect the patients. they are doing that in the state of texas by the way. a texan, good. we could have, my friends, americans be able to go across state lines and have the health insurance policy of their choice. we could reward wellness and fitness. we could treat those with preexisting conditions by getting pools together so insurance companies can bid on caring for them. we can expand the ability of small businesses, the generators of jobs in america, to move together and negotiate with the insurance companies. we can do all of these things. that is why we have to repeal and replace, repeal and replace. like sarah said, they are saying we are the party of no, they are saying we are the party of no. my friends, on this healthcare bill we are not the party of no, like sarah said, we are the party of hell no, hell no, hell no. >> hell no, hell no, hell no, hell no. >> so, let me say again, this is all part of what is going on, out of control spending, taxpayer dollars being spent, $1.4 trillion debt this year, $1.5 trillion debt next year, they are spending money like a drunk be sailor and the bar is still open and it is going to stop and we are going to stop it with the earmarking. let's have a little straight talk. we republicans lost control and lost elections because we let spending get out of control. we got mixed up in the earmarking and abramoff scandals and people went to jail. we can't do that again. we have to say to the american people we will stop this earmarking and top this pork barrel spending because we have committed generational theft. the greatness of america, the greatness of america is about the fact that every generation of americans has handed off to the next generation a better nation than the one that we inherited. i cannot tell you, my friends, that that is the case with the"% way we are doing business in washington, d.c. today. so, what do we need to do? we need to begin the fight.çconstitutional to force every american citizen to buy any product. and i'mç proud of our legislate and our governor that said we can7tç afford this. we can't afford to have our patients on access thrown off. we can't afford the increased cost in a distressed economic situation. and we are going to then, after we challenge this in the courts as that moves, then we are going to register people to vote and get them out and continue the tea parties and demonstration and message to obama and harry reid and nancy pelosi is replace and repeal and raeplace and repeal and replace. stop the pork barrel spending. let me just say, my friends, two things. one, i'm so proud of the men and women who are serving in the military. [cheers and applause] >> i'm so proud of the members of the arizona guard and reserve that time after time have gone to iraq and afghanistan and served with courage and bravery and now, my friends, in the last three months not a single american service member has been killed

c-span. take us wherever you go online c-span's health care hub to see what house and senate members are saying via twitter. get the latest with the cdiophone app. >> up next, your calls and comments on "washington journal." then the u.s. house of representatives begins the saturday session with general speeches. >> 31 years ago america's cable coverage created c-span as a matter of public service. today we expanded your access to public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history through multiple platforms, television, radio, and online and cable television's latest gift, a free video archive, c-span's video library. >> this morning we will take a look at the health care bill in congress from various perspectives. phil

c-span library. every c-span program since 1987. the cpan video library, cable's biggest gift to america. >> richard kemp talks about relations with israel the middle east conflict, having spoken yesterday at aipac. it is half an hour. >> he has served in northern ireland, iraq, bosnia, and most recently in afghanistan as the commander of british forces there. his service earned him the military title and honor of commander of the order of the british empire, an honor reserved for a select few, and received from her majesty queen elizabeth. his service in off led him to cut-author a book. it describes what it is like to fight an enemy under a harsh battlefield condition. -- his service there led him to co-of arabic. with his 30 years of service has come a unique understanding of critical decisions that military leaders must make during times of war. the citizens of life and death. decisions about conducting a war where enemies hide among civilians. the assistance of extraordinary ethical significance. these experiences have profoundly inf

span as a public service back in 1979. in 1986, they launched c-span 2 for the united states senate. shortly after that in december of 1987, c-span began a facility in a partnership with purdue university. about a decade later, we took total control of a facility that began to archive and record every single minute of c-span programming. the house and senate proceedings, the hearings, the speeches, everything you've come to know from c-span. over that time, it's developed into quite a large archive. we initially sold videotapes and then d.v.d.'s. as the internet grew and expanded, we began streaming a lot of that video. there's a team out in indiana led by dr. robert browning and 10 archivist who over the last few months have been digitizing these archives. content starting from the early days in 1987. today we're announce hag the entire archive is available for streaming. it's fully searchable. it's a resource for a lot of people to use in a lot of different ways. we look forward to inviting our audience to browse through the arkifes, take advantage of the library and use it in a myriad of ways that they'll find it available. ho

clip it, share it and more online at the new c-span video library with over 160,000 hours of video and 115,000 people, every c-span program since 1976. the c-span video library, cable's latest gift to america. . of the new benefits available. and this story from "the salt lake tribune." helped push average refunds from 2009 tax year up almost 10%, or $266 per household. how have they affected you? clyde on the independent line resolved, that the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1205. resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 4899, making emergency supplemental promingses for disaster relief and summer jobs for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010 and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising clause 9 osh 10 of rule 21. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except one, intervening motio

coverage of the legislation as it makes its way through the process on capitol hill on the c-span network, c-span radio in c-span.org. we are going to go back to the beginning of this markup from today. chairman john spratt outlining the process. >> the budget act designs the role of packaging the reconciliation bills and transmitting them to the house "without substantive change". the rules committee is to make subsidy changes in reconciliation rules as amended to the floor. i will briefly describe her purpose and make an opening statement limited to 10 minutes followed by an opening statement limited to 10 minutes by the ranking member mr. ryan. without objection other members wishing to make a statement may have been included in the record at this point. after opening statements the committee will take up a motion to report to the house the recommendations sent to us by the authorizing committees and written response to the reconciliation instructions i have just cited. after its passage we will move to consideration of a maximum of 10 motions on each side all nonbinding, subject to our mandate which is

c-span. >> obama and his socialistic ideas. this is a life lesson improv fish right now for conservatives. >> michelle easting, founder and president of the boothe luce policy institute. sunday night on c-span. >> an update on the situation in somalia. we will hear from the assistant secretary of state for african affairs. they discuss u.s. policy for the country including the assistance being offered to those being displaced by the fighting between government back troops and rebel forces. this is about 35 minutes. >> good morning. we are here for a special breeding by johnny carson and ambassador to the world through program -- food program in a row. they will speak to as of u.s. policy in somalia. >> thank you. thank you all for coming today. i want to take this opportunity to address a number of press reports over the past week characterizing our policy in somalia. specifically regarding our assistance to the government. these reports have not accurately reflect it or portrayed our policy position and what we are doing in that country. today i will take a few moments to set the record straight and to place our policy in proper context. u.s. policy in somalia is guided by our support for the djibouti peace process. the djibouti peace process is an african led initiative which enjoys the support of the enter governmental authority on development, egad. it a also enjoys the support of the african union and the keepsake in the region. the to do the peace process has also been supported by the united nations, the european community's common the arab league, and the organization of islamic conference. the to the peace process -- to bit puts together a somali government. it shows the importance of the history and this of plan relations that have driven the conflict in somalia for the past 20 years the traditional federal government builds on in the progress made during the establishment of the djibouti peace process. extremist elements such as al- sabah of the have chosen to reject the peace process and have waged a violent campaign against the pfg and the people of somalia in order to impose their own position for the -- vision for the future. the united states and the international community and, un, and our european allies have chosen to stand with those people. we have provided limited military support to the transitional federal government. we do so in the firm belief that they seek to end the violence in somalia that is caused by owlish above and other extremist organizations. the united states does the cl nn the military operations. we will not be providing direct support for any potential military offensive. we cannot providing the military advisers for the pfg. there is no desire to americanize the conflict in somalia. we are aware of the recording of the somali monitoring group with concerns about the diversion of food and assistance in somalia. the state department has received the reports. we are reviewing it carefully. i will not comment on that. we have a representative from our bureau who can answer those questions. we are concerned about the allegations that are contained in that document. the somali people have suffered tremendously throughout more than 20 years of conflict. somalias turmoil destabilizes that only that country but the region and some aspects of the international community. the u.s. recognizes that any long-term solutions. they will participate in the hard work of stabilizing the country for the benefit of somalias population. i would now like to recognize and ask ambassador cousin who is in rome whether she would like to add your comments. thank you. >> thank you very much. i would also like to thank the members of the press for your interest in covering these important issues related to somalia as johnny carson city, they have suffered tremendously during the 20 years of conflict. the monitoring group, more commonly known as the sng, c and it did their report to the u.n. sanctions committee. -- submitted their report to the u.n. sanctions committee. the report directly to the security council on implementation of the somalia sanctions regime. we take the work of the somali munching a group of very serious. -- monitoring group very seriously. . . consensus was reached by the board to ensure that all practices of the wfp in -- wfp team in somalia are in line with the organization's policies and procedures. we will continue to work to ensure that the generous contributions of the american people to support the work of the world food program are managed in an accountable and transparent manner. we express our gratitude to the wfp staff for their commitment to meet humanitarian needs in the most difficult of circumstances. the united states remains strongly committed to meeting the humanitarian needs of the people of somalia. we continue to seek ways to ensure that the somalian people receive the assistance they require.

c-span podcast. >> met sunday, a different view education with michelle easton. she founded and remains president of the policy institute. michelle easton, on q&a, sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span. >> coming up next on c-span, deputy leader harriet harman. after that, prime minister brown testifies on the iraq war. and then another chance to see "q&a" with patricia mcguire president of trinity washington university. >> tomorrow, on "washington journal," williams galston, christine todd whitman discusses the role of nuclear energy plays in obama as policy -- in about's

c-span 3. on c-span radio as well and on our c-span.org. . e budget meeting as part of an effort to put the matter to a vote by march 18. today they say democrats want to have the bill approved under expedited regulation approvals. venables committee will meet on wednesday to work out the structure for the debate. house speaker nancy pelosi hopes to start debate on thursday with both possible later in the week. stay tuned to c-span for the latest on the health-care debate and visit our health care hub. you can read the legislation but the president and members of congress are saying, and joined in the conversation yourself, on twitter. you can also find cost estimates for the bill, and hundreds of hours of video from the house and senate debates, committee hearings markups and other events.

yesterday, you can search it and watch it on line at the new c- span video library, with over 160,000 hours of video. every c-span program since 1987 -- the c-span video library. cables latest gift to america. >> john mccain kicks of a series of the events in his home state of arizona as he begins his reelection campaign. the presidential nominee is running for a fifth term and faces a primary challenge from a former congressman. he spoke at a rally in arizona and was reunited with his prior running mate, sarah palin. this event is about 40 minutes. itute] ♪ [applause] [applause] >> hello. it is such a pleasure to be here this morning. thank you for this wonderful turnout. thank you. i know you all had something to do with his wonderful weather so that we can also offer up this wonderful whether to our alaskan visitors as we always do. [applause] >> before i do my introductions, i would like to ask if there are any blue-star mothers in the audience? raise your hands. [applause] >> i am a blue-star mom, as well. i like to get a special thank you to you. i am with you all the way. god bless all of you. [applause] >> i had the opportunity, alo

c-span is uploading 23 years of video on the internet. or if you want to get the sensation of watching 23 years of c-span just watch 2 minutes of c-span. [ ght laughter ] this is pretty interesting -- a new study found that dancing comes naturally to babies. their favorite place to get their freak on? all up in their crib. [ laughter ] [ cheers and applause ] that's where they do it. [ laughter ] and finally, spencer pratt is leaving "the hills" -- [ audience aws ] [ cheers ] -- to study software engineering at usc. [ laughter ] producers of "the hills" call it, "a huge blow." while the president of usc called it, "a huge blow." [ laughter ] ladies and gentlemen, we have a great show! give it up for the roots! ♪ [ cheers and applause ] >> jimmy: hey, you guys. hey, everybody. i have a huge announcement. may 10th through may 14th is going to be rolling stones week here on "late night with jimmy fallon." it's all in honor of the rerelease of "exile on main st.," one of the greatest albums in rock 'n' roll history. every night that week, we're going to have a different artist cover one of the songs from "exile." and they're awesome songs, li

c-span as a public service back in 1979. in 1986, they launched c-span 2 for the united states senate. shortly after that in december of 1987, can began a facility in a partnership with purdue university. about a decade later, we took total control of a facility that began to archive and record every single minute of c-span programming. the house and senate proceedings, the hearings, the speeches, everything you've come to know from c-span. over that time, it's developed into quite a large archive. we initially sold videotapes and then d.v.d.'s. as the internet grew and expanded, we began streaming a lot of that video. there's a team out in indiana led by dr. robert browning and 10 archivist who over the last few months have been digitizing these archives. content starting from the early days in 1987. today we're announce hag the entire archive is available for streaming. it's fully searchable. it's a resource for a lot of people to use in a lot of different ways. we look forward to inviting our audience to browse through the arkifes, take advantage of the library and use it in a myriad of ways that they'll find it available.

ç$'ternational çdevelopment talk about interagency coordination and a proposed new government oversight agency to reduce waste and fraud. that is live at 9:30 eastern on c-spançç 2. >> the new c-spancommittee. this is two hours. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> hello, the meeting will come to order, and i am pleased to be joined by the senator. i want to start on time because the votes areç projectedqxdç r ?;çdç10:30, and i will have e for that. çi first would like to thank m. jarrett end the doctor for their willingness to return to testify. at our last meeting, it snowed out, and the weather continues to cause problems. roger altman, a former deputy treasury secretary was going to testify, and he has been snowed out and is not able toçth?k]mo i ask unanimous consent to put his testimony on record as. today continues our in-depth series on job creation. today we will be examining the prospects of a market recovery from the great recession, which is true -- which is fueled by housing problems and financial problems. a recent op-ed based on the testimony he was supposed to give before this co

eastern on c-span 3, c-span radio, and that c-span.org. the budget meeting is part of an effort to put the matter to a vote by march 18. democrats want to have the budget committee approved a bill under expedited reconciliation procedures. then the rules committee will meet on wednesday to work out the structure for the debate. house speaker nancy pelosi says that she hopes to start debate on thursday with a vote possible later in the week. stay tuned to c-span for the latest on the health-care debate and visit our health care hub. you could lead -- you can read the legislation. see what president and members of congress are saying. you could also find cost estimates for the bill and hundreds of hours of video from the house and senate floor debates, committee hearings, markups, and other events. c-span pose a health care hub, c-span.org/healthcare. sunday, live coverage of "newsmakers" with oklahoma senator james inhofe. he will talk about climate change issues, health care, and federal spending. c "newsmakers" live at 6:00 p.m. on c-span.

c-span's history. i'll take you back just for a second with how this is going to be developing. the cable industry created c-span as a public service back in 1979. in 1986, they launched c-span 2 for the united states senate. shortly after that in december of 1987, c-span began a facility in a partnership with purdue university. about a decade later, we took total control of a facility that began to archive and record every single minute of c-span programming. the house and senate proceedings, the hearings, the speeches, everything you've come to know from c-span. over that time, it's developed into quite a large archive. we initially sold videotapes and then d.v.d.'s. as the internet grew and expanded, we began streaming a lot of that video. there's a team out in indiana led by dr. robert browning and 10 archivist who over the last few months have been digitizing these archives. content starting from the early days in 1987. today we're announce hag the entire archive is available for streaming. it's fully searchable. it's a resource for a lot of people to use in a lot of different ways. we look forward to inviting our audience to browse through the arkifes, take advant

can search it, watch it, and shared at the new c-span video library with over 160,000 hours of video and 115,000 people. every c-span program since 1987. the can library, cables latest gift to america. >> in their -- to minnesota governor was in new hampshire. this is about 45 minutes. >> i will make this as brief as i can because everybody has heard enough for me this evening. i was asked to introduce our guest speaker, governor temp pawlenty and i was honored. i was with him and his wife a few months ago. we probably spent 45 minutes together. you can tell that the political season has officially started because we have a governor from another state coming to new hampshire at least twice. i he has heard the rumor and unless people me to three times, they have not decided about year so he has made two quick trips and i applaud him for that. the governor very quickly puts people at ease when you meet him. you can get into a regular conversation, nothing heavy, and he makes you feel very comfortable. it is not the very tough, difficult, straitjacket conversation that you sometimes have apologist -- with politicians. he makes no secret about i

c-span. guest: that is right. we did look at the work that c- span had done on this project. knowing that c-span was an interested party, we did not consult with c-span. we went on our own to try to validate some of the work that had already been done. we did ask a different series of questions. we constructed the series on our own. i will have to say that we ride largely at the same results. the first thing we asked people -- i will say that we arrived largely of the same results. we asked how much they watched any proceedings on tv, mainly on c-span. we went back and ask, if it were televised, how regularly do you think you might watch those proceedings? in between, we phrased the question about the court and cameras intruding in the court a couple different ways. by the leg, we asked them -- by the way, we asked that question as it impinges on public opinion. one of the concerns would be the question of whether it would be too much democracy. that is to say, when you have tv cameras in the accord, if people in the living room are watching the justices at work, would it make the justice i

c-span 2. >> coming up on c-span, "washington journal washington journalij1" is live next three members of congressorial -- a memorial service for john murtha in the capital. in about 45

c-span. guest: that is right. we did look at the work that c- span had done on this project. knowing that c-span was an interested party, we did not consult with c-span. we went on our own to try to validate some of the work that had already been done. we did ask a different series of questions. we constructed the series on our own. i will have to say that we ride largely at the same results. the first thing we asked people -- i will say that we arrived largely of the same results. we asked how much they watched any proceedings on tv, mainly on c-span. we went back and ask, if it were televised, how regularly do you think you might watch those proceedings? in between, we phrased the question about the court and cameras intruding in the court a couple different ways. by the leg, we asked them -- by the way, we asked that question as it impinges on public opinion. one of the concerns would be the question of whether it would be too much democracy. that is to say, when you have tv cameras in the accord, if people in the living room are watching the justices at work, would it make the justice i

c-span, which is a channel i obviously always watch. the sensationalism and demagoguery of pbs and qvc. [applause] if i can still fall asleep after watching c-span, there is c-span2 and c-span3. [applause] thank you very much. so i became a u.s. citizen in 2008, which i am really happy about. thank you very much. [applause] america is number one. that is true. because we won the world series every year. [laughter] after becoming a u.s. citizen, i immediately registered to vote for obama and biden. you are welcome. [laughter] you had me at guess we can. [laughter] that was their slogan. so, after getting obama and biden elected, i felt this power trip. and i started to think, maybe i should run for president myself. i have to take a step back and explain a little bit, because i had always been a pessimistic guy. i felt that life is kind of like being into the snow on a dark winter night. you probably made a difference but it is really hard to tell. [laughter] now we have a president who is half black, half white. it just gives me a lot of hope because i am half not lack in half not white. [laughter] two negatives make a positive. you may be saying hey, what

c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> the new c-span video library is a digital archive of c-span programming. from barack obama to ronald reagan and everywhere in between. this is now available to you. it is fast and free. try it out. >> over 1000 middle and high school students injured in the student competition. we will announce the winning entries. >> now, dennis blair, the director of national intelligence. he spoke at kansas state university. this is an hour. >> thank you for that kind introduction. it is a great pleasure to have such a distinguished graduate as a former colleague. i had done little intelligence on this occasion and i was told that bomb threats were primarily exam week phenomenon. i thought i was safe, but obviously, that was not very accurate either. thank you for your flexibility in changing venues. i will be signing class excuses to miss the rest of the afternoon after the for marks. --i will be signing class excuses to miss the rest of the afternoon right after these remarks. before, general miers knows the pressure i am feeling right now, having to follow in the dist

c- span. up next on c-span, "q&a" with michelle easton. after that, prime minister gordon brown at the house of commons, and then another chance to see the speech by prime minister brown on the global economy. . >> michelle easton, you say in a little note on your web site that when you founded the clare boothe luce policy institute in 1993, you received permission from mrs. luce's family to use her name. who's her family? >> well, i went and spoke with her stepson, henry luce, the son of the famous henry luce who did time magazine. and i did it because our corporate attorney, bill olson, said, "you don't have to ask the family for permission, but it's a good idea." so i went up and met with him. he was in the luce foundation offices in manhattan. and he was a nice fellow, quite gruff, and he heard me out. and he said, "well, i don't agree with what you're doing, but she'd like it." so, i could use the name. >> why didn't he agree with what you were doing? >> because he was something of a rino, to put it kindly. >> and that is - what's that mean? >> a republican in name only. he really was not conservative on most issues. he didn't really get this notion that, you know, women's groups - the so-called women's groups - don't represent most women in america. they certainly don't represent the kind of women that we work with at the clare boothe luce policy institute. but he had enough of a sense of what mrs. luce would have thought to say, you may use her name, even though i don't agree with a lot of your policy positions. >> who was she? >> she was a remarkable woman who was way, way, way ahead of her time. died in 1987 after a long, long life. she was a congresswoman. she was a writer. she wrote a play, "the women," which is still being produced today. she was the editor of vanity fair back when that was really an important magazine. she was a devoted mother, a devoted wife. she had deep faith. and when it came time to form this organization and find someone to name it after, there was really no contest. there was no other woman in modern times who had an incredible professional life, who had an incredible family life, who had the deep faith and who was truly a role model that modern young women could look to for inspiration. >> all right. here's some video. >> ok. >> this goes back between 1951 and 1955. people my age - i won't even include you in that - will remember the longines-wittnauer watch - they called it the longines chronoscope. anyway, let's watch this to show what she looked like and what she sounded like. >> ok. >> diplomacy has been a male preserve for the most part of the time. and a lot of women are looking in at you tonight. do you think there is a career in diplomacy for most women? or for -- >> oh, i think there's a career in diplomacy for all able people who want to try to become diplomats, become foreign service officers. it isn't a question of whether they're men or women. it's a question of they're willing to work and if they're able. >> well, you actually don't feel that there is a question of whether they're men or women. in other words, you feel that a woman can negotiate, can maneuver with european politicians, as well as a man can? >> well, you want to know whether a woman can negotiate and maneuver? [laughter] >> do ask mrs. lesueur about that. >> that's wonderful. and you know, she was the first woman ever named to a major ambassadorial post. president eisenhower, i think probably shortly after this, named her ambassador to italy. and there were all kinds of skeptics, but she did a fabulous job. and mr. luce came over to be with her most of the time. and the first thing she had to do as an ambassador was, she said, to hire a wife, because the ambassador's wife is such a critical part of the operation. she hired letitia baldridge, who many people know, who was a young woman just out of college. and that's a whole other story. letitia's written a lot about mrs. luce, as well. >> and she went on to work for john kennedy. >> yes, she did. she did both sides. a wonderful, gracious lady here in washington, i don't keep in touch with as much as i should. >> did you ever meet mrs. luce? >> yes, i did. i did at a conservative function in the '80s. and a lovely, gracious lady. i've actually gotten quite close to a granddaughter of hers, who is out in san francisco, clare luce, and then her married name was abbey. and i've learned a lot about mrs. luce from her granddaughter. in her older years when mr. luce had passed away, she would have young people travel with her. and clare was one of her favorite travel companions and got to know her very, very well. and clare has been a great friend and shared so many good stories with us about her grandmother, who she loved so dearly and was named after. >> you came out of working for 12 years in politics for both ronald reagan and -- >> the first president bush, yes. >> the first president bush. but in 1993, when you founded this institute, that was the first year of bill clinton's presidency. >> it was. it was. >> why did you do this? and what did you want to accomplish? >> well, you know, i'd been here in washington almost 20 years. i came straight out of college in '73. and what do you do after working for president reagan and president bush? and i'd finished my law school in '80. i went through at night. well, you could go and practice law and probably make a lot of money, or you could go work for another organization. but as i looked around the conservative movement, which is my heart and soul, it seemed to me there were two areas that i really cared the most about. one was the issue of school choice, and i still do, but there were a lot of groups working on that. the other area where it seemed to me there was a need was with women. let's face it, the left figured out long ago how important women are to advancing their agenda. in fact, they misuse women. they call things "women's issues," when they're not at all. they're just left-wing liberal advocacy. but as conservatives, we were a little weak, not that we didn't have the women leaders, but in recognizing them and promoting them and acknowledging and celebrating them - and focusing on that next generation of women leaders. so, that was what we decided was needed - start an organization. and it's an entrepreneur. you know, there are so many organizations here in washington. seventeen years ago there were a few less. but the first thing i did was i wrote a letter, and i poured my heart out. and i put some pictures of me with important people, like you have to do. and i said who i was and what i wanted to do. and a very different - my husband gave me this in-kind gift of, i don't know, maybe 5,000 of his supporters. and i paid somebody, and they put the letter together and sent it out - and it raised $30,000. and two of those were $5,000 gifts from prominent people who said to me, thank you so much for what you're doing. so, that was the sign that this was meant to be. people wanted to support an organization that was going to promote our conservative women leaders and work with the next generation of women conservative leaders, to give them the confidence and courage they needed. >> there's a name on your board that connects with a name on your husband's board -- >> yes. >> secretary-treasurer of both organizations -- >> yes. >> frank donatelli. >> yes. when i -- >> explain that connection. >> oh, he's a wonderful friend. he and his wife becky, we've been friends for a long, long time. when i came to washington, i knew two people. i knew frank donatelli, and i knew my husband. i married ron. and frank has just been a dear, close friend ever since. now, he's the only man on the board. he's not a token. he's very well qualified for that position. and he loves being on the board with a lot of women leaders. he does a great job. he has a really good knowledge, not only of policy, but of the mechanics of non-profit governance, which in this day and age with all the government agencies squeezing down on non- profits, he's a wonderful, wonderful person to have on our board - and as i said, my oldest friend here in washington, d.c., longest friend. >> go back to the beginning, though. i noticed that you met ron robinson, your husband, after - well, at the time you were young americans for freedom. >> yes. >> and your husband now runs american - young america's -- >> foundation. >> foundation. >> right. >> explain all that. what was this - where did you meet? where did you meet ron robinson? >> he was going to fordham grad school. i was in my last year of college. and we both were members of young americans for freedom, which sort of morphed into young america's foundation, because of changes in the law, and all that. there is still some young americans for freedom chapters, but it's not the national organization that it once was. and so, it was '72, and young conservatives had kind of had it with nixon. it was too much big government, you know, selling out to the commie chinese. so, we had an organization, at yaf, called youth against mcgovern. you have to do something in the election. and i went down there one saturday, and we were stuffing and mailing. and there was this cute-looking fellow there from buffalo going to school at fordham, and we got to know each other. he didn't ask me out for almost three months, which puzzled me until i learned that he had no money. and he came into some around christmas time. he had some extra money, and then he took me out. and we just clicked. and almost 36 years later, we're doing well. >> but frank donatelli ran yaf at the time. >> he was in law school. he came to washington to become the executive director. ron worked for him, and i worked for him. and then, when ron and i married, i left, because ron had just gotten the top job, and it doesn't work well for me to work for my husband. >> now, where did you get your strong conservative views? >> i think it's genetic for me. for my husband, you know, he evolved. his whole family was democrat - although by the time of reagan, they were all voting for reagan. but my family was just conservative. my father was hard-working. he always complained about the taxes. there were four children. and government was way too big, way back in the '50s and '60s. and i just heard it all those years and just soaked it in. in 1964 i was 14 when goldwater ran for president. that was the first time i got involved. and there were some liberal kids, and they would mouth off at me all the time at school, and they would rip my goldwater bumper sticker off my notebook. and that was my introduction, really, as an activist, in high school. and senior year i was voted the girl - class politician, just because i was willing to speak about policy and political things, and a lot of others weren't. >> where was this? >> port chester high school, a good, government-run public school in new york, a suburb of new york city, where you could get a good education. but it was right before so much of the disintegration in government schools, because it was a school where there were a lot of traditions. most of the parents shared similar values, and the school was responsive to the parents. a lot of that has changed now, and it's one of the reasons why i'm such a big advocate of school choice, where you can select a school that shares your values, that meets your child's needs. but back in the '50s and '60s, when i was in - i went through all government schools - i was well educated. and we had a new york regents exam back then. and if you got an a on a regents exam in high school - i remember i got a 90 in my english exam, and they put it up on the board, all of those 90 and above scores. i was so proud, because that was really something. that meant you really knew - it was 11th grade - you really knew your english. so, there was rigor. there was academics. there were shared values. schools were a safe place. sure, there were hoods. they were called the hoods, the ones that wear the leather jackets. but even they were civil and courteous. you didn't hear the vulgarity and the attacks on teachers, and things like that. so, i got a good education in government schools. >> what makes you the maddest about liberal? >> well, i'm thinking of president obama at that health care center - summit - that they just had. and he sat up there, and everything on his face and his body language said to me, he's thinking, "i am really smarter than most of you people here. and i really know what's best for you and the american people. and even though 75 percent of americans don't want this health care proposal, i really know what's best." to me, perhaps that's what it is, brian. it's that arrogance. it's that "we really know what's best for you, american people," instead of trusting in the faith and the good common sense that the american people have. i mean, here they elected this fellow. a lot of people wanted to give him a chance. they wanted to show that in america anybody can become president. and that certainly has turned around now. >> i want to read you back something you said in october of 2008, and get you to expand on it. you said, "katie couric is a master sneerer. she's never done a fair interview with a conservative woman ever. it's hard to imagine why campaign strategists waste palin's time preparing for and sitting through couric's brand of liberal 'gotcha' journalism." >> absolutely. still true. she never has done a fair interview with a conservative woman. she comes from a different area of policy. you know, she's a leftist. she does sneer. she sneers at ann coulter. she sneers at sarah palin. i don't know if she knows that she sneers, but she does. she's incredibly condescending. and if i were a national leader, i just wouldn't have her interview me. but i certainly wouldn't allow her to do what sarah did, which was edit the tape. you can interview me, katie, but we're going to go live, because they edit it to be most disadvantageous to sarah palin. >> well, but just for a moment, doesn't ann coulter sneer at everybody? >> she sneers back. >> but, i mean, her demeanor, that's part of her thing. >> she has a thing, it's true. ann does. ann has a sense of humor that a lot of times liberals don't get. i wouldn't call it sneering, though. i would call it pointing out the inconsistencies in a humorous way. >> you said in this same article, "couric's half-lidded eyes and unbearable condescension toward a woman whose achievements, personal and professional, are so superior to her own were excruciating to watch. but we could have predicted couric's disparaging questions and snide looks before the interview aired." but you go on to say, "palin should stop wasting time on main-line media interviews." this is back before the election. >> that's right. >> do you think that's still the case? >> i think that now she's gone main-line, and she seems to be more comfortable with it. but, yes, i think during the election, if she had spent the time with broadcast outlets that were fair and balanced - and i don't mean just fox, i mean, there are ones all over the country - she would have been better off. i mean, i think they were gunning for her. they were disparaging her. they were so brutally personal, even attacking her children. i think her time spent with katie couric and some of the others was not time well spent. >> just another item. "if press interviews are granted, the criterion should be, has the interviewer ever done a fair interview with a conservative woman?" do you track that kind of stuff? >> i do it personally. >> who does? >> i don't know. i don't know. but i've just seen so many hatchet jobs by liberal people in the media on conservative women, that i don't talk to people who i don't think can be fair. >> do you feel better - it's almost a leading question - today about what media is doing than you did, say, when you got into this business back in the '70s? >> well, what's different is that we have more outlets. the hard-cores - or the "drive- bys," as rush calls them - are just as liberal and left-wing. i think they're worse in some cases, so incredibly biased. you know, you pick up the "washington post" every morning, and can this be? no wonder nobody's reading this. but the difference is, now, we have more talk radio. we have a major cable network that's fair and balanced. we have internet. you know, the kids don't even read the paper. even my own three sons, who are well educated, they'll look at the sports, maybe look at the front page. they go to the internet. they go to drudge. they get their news from the internet. so, it's as bad as it was, but we have all this alternative media, which is one reason why the left's trying to shut some of that down. >> we have some before-and-after video. actually, we have a still shot of after. but here are your sons in 1997 on c-span. at that - can you remember at that time how old they were -- >> i'd say maybe -- >> 13 years ago? >> yes, you know, probably nine, 12 and 14, something like that. r.j., the oldest, was at gonzaga. daniel was at a middle school, and tommy was in elementary school. and it was take your daughters to work day, and we used to do - it's now take your sons and daughters. but we used to do a little press on that every year and say, well, what about the sons, you know? boys need encouragement as much as girls. and we would have a press conference, and bay buchanan would bring her three sons, and i would bring my three sons, and we had a lot of fun with it. and c-span asked us to come on. tommy here, who was so little, when we all reviewed it, we decided he did the best, because he was young enough not to be nervous about what his friends would think. >> by the way, why is their name robinson, and yours is easton? >> b. you think of yourself as a conservative? how will their you? >> 11. y

c-span when members cattle back in. -- gavel back again. >> coming up next on c-span, supreme court chief justice john roberts speaks at the university of alabama law school. and then the u.s. house debate on the war in afghanistan. and the defense department briefing on iraq. on tomorrow's "washington journal," we will talk with representatives jason altmire about health care, david savage discusses john roberts, robert johnson will talk about financial relationships, and we will talk about the future of nato. "washington journal" is live 7:00 a.m. eastern time here on c-span. >> obama and his socialistic ideas to deciding salaries, that is what is in progress right now. >> sunday, michelle easton on her work to promote conservative women in leadership roles, sunday night on c-span "q&a prat." >> chief justice john roberts spoke at university of alabama law school on thursday -- on wednesday. he made comments about president obama as stated the union speech. today in 2010, when our nation has faced a stream of critical moments, lawyers maintain our faith in the resilience of our constitutional system. our society, our very way of life are protected by constitutional architecture that has survived and six every threat. our courts are often the branch of last resort, guardians of our constitutionalism with all attorneys bowling to serve the branch which alexander hamilton said will always be the least danger to the political rights of the constitution. in the united states, when there are disputes over election results, the scope of individual rights, o

c-span because barack obama was on to spend -- it was his idea to be on c-span. i wish and pray that some day you will be unneutered and be able to do your job. you should be an entity that is almost like a judge, lawyers, and put these things on c-span, on tv somewhere, so that we can understand what the people need to know. who are you going after, what are you going after them? all this secrecy is the problem. guest: i agree, there is too much secrecy surrounding ethics issues. the reason behind it is the ethics committee believes that if they are clearing members of congress, members should not be tarred by your allegations. the problem is, if we know so little of what is going on, we suspect that they are white washing everything. then when you see the reports, which are quite pathetic, when you look at the work on the pma investigation, pete starck investigation, and they had cleared everyone except for charlie rangel, it is hard to understand. their behavior defies logic. host: said that, new york. paul. good morning. caller: the question i have for ms. sloan is how does she feel about the recent supreme court decision on campaign finance? it is she able to shed any light on the current eric massa situation? our people ve

c-span. >> tomorrow, house majority leader steady haulier talks about theçó president's recently created commission. you can watch his remarks live at 1:00 p.m. eastern here on c- span. >> monday, on the communicators, senator patrick leahy kicks off the congressional internet caucus which highlights internet technologies. >> the new crchive of the c- span programming over 157 hours of video is now available to you with baathist -- is fast and free. intelligence gathering. this took place at kansas state university. the event had to be moved to another building because of an incident that is referred to here. we pick it up after introductory remarks from general richard miers. [applause] >> thank you for that kind introduction. it is a great pleasure to have such a distinguished graduate as a former colleague and such a good friend. i have done little intelligence on this occasion, and i was told that bomb threats were primarily exam week phenomenon, so i thought i was that, but apparently that was not very accurate either. thanks very much to all of you for your flexibility in changing being used and for sticking with it. i will be signing class excuses to miss the rest of the afternoon right after these remarks. as someone who has spoken year before, general miers knows the pressure i am feeling right now, having

watch live coverage beginning at 5:00 on c-span3 and tear on c- span. -- and here on c-span. >> vice president biden encouraged americans to take advantage of tax credits. this runs about 20 minutes. >> it is an honor to be here today with vice president biden. he has taken a lead to make sure the american people receive the full benefit of the recovery act. secretary geithner is here. he has worked with the vice president and others to make sure the american economy is strong in brazilian. as you know, it is tax filing season for the american people. about 75% of the american people get refunds. that means the taxpayers are getting a lot of money from the irs these days. this year, the are getting a record amount. we are announcing today that the average -- they are getting a record amount. we are announcing today that the average tax refund is up 10% this year. the average refund was $3,036, to leonard's $66 more than it -- $266 more than it was last year. this will be the biggest check many taxpayers see this year. we have sent $175 billion in refunds out since march 12. what is te

c-span video library. every c-span program since 1987. >> now from london prime minister's question time and live from the british house of commons. every wednesday while parliament is in session prime minister gordon brown takes questions from members of the house of commons. prior to question time thatbusi. this is live coverage on c-span2. [inaudible conversations] >> a pre process to proceed and all others will be grateful for their success. >> given that almost 300 million pounds have been spent with no definitive outcome does the secretary of state not agree with me that now is the time to call an end to further wasteful and inquiries and deal with victims zones for the future? >> mr. speaker, the honourable gentlemen certainly need take no lesson for me that several thousand people lost their lives. the honourable gentleman shares that view. we will learn from the inquiry. mr. speaker, we do need a process to enable northern ireland's to reconcile itself from its past. >> questions. >> mr. speaker, i'm sure the whole house will join me in remembering the life and achievements of sergeant steven campbell from the third battalion he died in afghanistan earlier this week. we pay tribute to his energetic, brave, and dedicated service. his infectious enthusiasm and sincere patriotism will be sorely missed. the tho

c-span's history. i'll take you back just for a second with how this is going to be developing. the cable industry created c-span as a public service back in 1979. in 1986, they launched c-span 2 for the united states senate. shortly after that in december of 1987, c-span began a facility in a partnership with purdue university. about a decade later, we took total control of a facility that began to archive and record every single minute of c-span programming. the house and senate proceedings, the hearings, the speeches, everything you've come to know from c-span. over that time, it's developed into quite a large archive. we initially sold videotapes and then d.v.d.'s. as the internet grew and expanded, we began streaming a lot of that video. there's a team out in indiana led by dr. robert browning and 10 archivist who over the last few months have been digitizing these archives. content starting from the early days in 1987. today we're announce hag the entire archive is available for streaming. it's fully searchable. it's a resource for a lot of people to use in a lot of different ways. we look forward to inviting our audience to browse through the arkifes, take advant

c-span, our public affairs content is available on television, radio and online and you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook and youtube. and sign up for our schedule alert emails at c-span dworling -- c-span.org. >> tonight on c-span, senator chris d.o.d. and representative barney frank discuss proposed financial industry regulations. secretary of state hillary clinton meets with pakistan's foreign minister and a federal commission holds a hearings on china's regulation of the china's regulation of the internet.

you can search it, clip it, share it and more online at the new c-span video library. 115,000 people. every c-span program since 1987. the cable's latest gift to america. >> president obama tuesday signed into law the health care bill passed by the house on sunday. the move was necessary in order for the senate to take up a packet of changes to the bill also passed by the house. after the signing, the president and vice president biden spoke with the interior department. together, both of the events are more than an hour. >> the president of the united states and vice president of the united states. [applause] >> thank you all. [applause] >> thank you all. [applause] >> mr. president, i think we've got a happy room here. it seems ridiculous to say thank you all for being here. [laughter] ladies and gentlemen, to state the obvious, this is a historic day. [applause] in our business, we use that phrase a lot but i can't think of a day in the 37 years i've been a united states senator and the short time i've been vice president that it is more appropriately stated this is a historic day and history, history is not merely what

eastern, on c-span2, c-span radio and live online at c-span.org. on c-span freak, a coverage of a couple of hearings. treasury secretary timothy geithner testifying on the future of mortgages and housing markets. live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. sec chairman julius genachowski testified about the national broadband plan before the senate commerce committee. and this weekend, a campaign rally but senator john mccain. he will be joined by his former running mate sarah palin in a rally in a maze that, ever done. he is running against former house member hayworth in the republican primary. a live coverage, saturday at noon, here on c-span. >> " washington journal" continues. host: our guest is ed berkowitz, history professor at george washington university. glad you can be here. it talk to us about how this legislation compares to other bills in the past. the big topic that we will talk about the next 25 minutes or so. but give us historical perspective of how major it is. guest: certainly one of the three big ones. my personal list for the big o

c-span. i do not see any kind of c-span conference rooms, or y'alls boards of discussions -- there is no ombudsmen that you can contact on c-span as "the new york times" has. i have checked your website in totality and there's nothing there. i did not see y'all as being an egalitarian at all. host: i guess we think with the phone line to give a lot of feedback. we also have of your services department. from time to time we actually have televised our editorial sessions. it would be pointless to televise what directors because it is written in the bylaws that they can have no say in the editorial policy. i understand your point, but that particular example does not take you there. thanks for the criticism. next phone call is from brandon, minn., chad on the republican line. we're talking about earmarks. caller: yes, good morning. i think people forget what the founders had for the scope of government. government was supposed to be for three things. national defense, laws, and the infrastructure. so, if we need to spend earmarks of national defence, i agree about that, but think we need to cut them back and everything else.

clip it, share it and more online at the new c-span video library with over 160,000 hours of video and 115,000 people, every c-span program since 1987. the c-span video library, cable's latest gift to america. >> which president was buried wrapped in an american flag and a copy of the constitution under his head? andrew johnson. find these and other presidential facts in c-span's newly updated book, "who's buried in grant's tomb." >> it's a guidebook, a travel log, if you will, but it's also a mini history work of biography of each of these presidents and let's face it you can tell a lot about people from the end of their lives. >> insights about their lives. "who's buried in grant's tomb" now available at your favorite bookseller or. publicaffairsbooks.com. >> next, from the american-israel public affairs committee annual policy conference this week in washington, senators lindsey graham and charles schumer. then in about 50 minutes benjamin netanyahu and a reminder live just afternoon today, president obama speaking on healthcare. ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome aipac national board member barry mannis. ♪ >> good evening. welco

c-span at an o'clock. they live hearing at 2:30 key -- to acquire 30 from the postal service on c-span 3. >> lawmakers are making the final push, you can makwhat alle action here on cpan. take us where we go with our online hub and follow the links. iphone users have the latest with the c-span radio application. >> congressional quarterly rise this morning that the target date for house for action has been pushed back. "making fixes to the senate measure, without accompanying congressional budget cost estimates, the next stage in the process, once that happens, is possible help for action later in the week." this weekend on "book tv" and drew lewis talks about the civil rights groups of the student nonviolent coalition committee. steve forbes disagrees that americans are questioning capitalism. the former assistant education secretary talks about why too much testing is causing the death of the american school system. find the entire schedule at bo oktv.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest this morning is pete sessions, thank you so much for joining us. we expect to hear from the congressional budget office this morning, what do you think we will

span's networks. we'll bring you two events on the american-israel public policy. 8:30, live on c-span 2 tv. our guests are the ranking member. all live monday on the c-spantelevision networks you can join on line. from the outlook session, writing by design, they are slow to change course. look for pat eshes and lessons in so doing have explored grit successes and failures. why the nation that rescued war-attorney europe could not rescue wilson keeping back. joining us again. guest: thank you for having me. host: i guess the word is that the democrats have the vote. is that what you are hearing? guest: it was said on this week this morning, i think their 216 votes will pass the bill at some point today. figuring out 216 names may be a little more difficult. host: let me ask you about some of the names we keep hearing we have her in that column before we count her as a real definitive yes. host: the two left democrats, are they a confirmed, no? guest: it's not clear. this were talking about some sort of executive order president obama may sign or some other maneuver that might be possible to win over his vote at the moment, he appears to still be a no. if

c-span video library. olive every c-span program sinc0 -- it is. >> as president obama prepares to sign the health-care bill into baltimore, there been efforts to block insurance requirements in the legislation. timothy jost was on this morning's "washington journal" to talk about that. we will watch this until the house returns. charlottesville, virginia, timothy jost. he is a professor at the washington and lee university. he is here to talk about the challenges to health care. good morning. guest: good morning, thank you. host: what do you think needs to be challenged constitutionally regarding health care and the bills passed last night? guest: i do not think anything need to be challenged. i do not think there are any real doubt that constitutional challenges to this legislation. congress is acting within its constitutional powers, granted by article 1 of the constitution in enacting this legislation. i think your listeners, the worst know there are a number of states -- 36 -- that are now considering legislation that would challenge the constitutionality of a single part of this legislation. two of the states, idaho and virginia, have enacted such legislations. the arizona amendment is a little bit different. under the constitution as it has been interpreted by the supreme court -- and that is really our constitution. everyone has their own interpretation. but constitutional law is made by the supreme court. over the last 80 years, i do not see any serious problem with this legislation, and congress did not either. host: what are they trying to do in virginia? guest: if you will give a moment to explain the way in which this legislation works -- as everyone has heard, and get rid of the underwriting based on stun a spirited and get rid of pre- existing conditions. you cannot refuse someone insurance because they are healthy or not healthy. here you have 5% of the population consume a 50% of health-care. they are responsible for one perhaps -- one% of health care expenses. the way that insurance pools work right now is you need help the people in there with the and healthy people. what they do now is they keep me really on healthy people out or charge them higher premiums. what this does is says they cannot do that anymore, so they will be dependent on having loss of helping people in the market. the one thing that the legislation does is says if you can afford insurance, you can buy it. i refer to this as the slackers position. everyone is responsible for themselves. if there are some slackers' that refuse, this law tells them that you have to buy it or you'll have to pay an extra tax. in is not a terribly onerous tax once fully phased in. about 2.5% of your income. it does not apply to anyone who is under the filing limit, which i think is $12,000 for individuals, does not apply for people with religious objections. there is no criminal penalty for not paying the tax, but it is saying, be irresponsible citizen can get insurance. -- be a responsible citizen and get insurance. the virginia law says nobody can make our citizens by insurance. -- buy insurance. they can say that if they want to, but under to promise a cause, a state cannot tell the government what to do. host:, does the commerce clause bit -- play in to these challenges? guest: that says congress has the authority to regulate commerce across the state. since the 1930's, but power has been interpreted very broadly. there was a case where a fellow was planting wheat for his own consumption and congress passed a law regulating agricultural production and the supreme court said, you can play it for your own use, but you might sell some of it and you will not be buying as much. cummers sort of flows together and that is part -- commerce sort of close together and not as part of doing business. there was a man arrested for throwing medical marijuana plants on his windowsill and the supreme court said under the control substances act, that was illegal. once again, even more now than ever, commerce is the pivotal peace. who knows where that marijuana will end up? most recently, the partial birth abortion case in which the supreme court said that congress, under its commerce power can regulate medical practice. it can tell doctors what to do inside surgery. basically, the law now is if there is any kind of economic activity involved, congress has the power to regulate it. there are lots of laws regulating economic activity. the decision to buy insurance -- to buy in now when i am healthy or when i am in not ambulance on the way to the hospital? once congress has the power to do something under the supremacy clause, its walls are supreme to the loss of the state. -- laws are supreme to the laws of the state. host: i am a 20-year-old full-time student. at the end of the day, i still find their way to make money and get insurance. last night was a market in history where we are no closer than ever -- this health-care bill is not something new. it has been pushed by the democratic party for 50 years. for me, health care is not a right, a result of making good investments in the country. it is not a right of happiness, it is a privilege. i feel like the government has robbed us once again. host: professor jost? guest: first of all, the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is not in the constitution but in the declaration. the constitution does protect fundamental interest, but it does also said where economic activity is involved, congress needs will need to show that its laws have a role at -- russian relationship to the intergovernmental. a lot of people do not know anything about this other than what they have heard on fox news. this is a law that is based on basic republican principles. it is based on ideas that have been out there for four years primarily pushed by republicans. historically, democrats have called for a public health insurance system. that is not with this creates. this provides subsidies so people can go into the private health insurance system, organizes private markets through managed competition, and provides tax credits for people so that they can go into the market and purchase private health insurance. it is basically a private insurance-based system. there is nothing in the insurance provisions that changes the delivery system. it is simply a system to better regulate and make it more accessible to people. i think if republicans would really read this bill instead of listening to all the roois representation -- misrepresentation, they would vote for the bill. host: next phone call. caller: as a law professor, looking for the best argument against the bill, particularly with the rehnquist bringing back the idea of restricting what the government can do to the states, in that light, what would be the best or most likely way that this could be found unconstitutional? guest: i think the one part of the bill that would be subject to challenge that is absolutely not frivolous is the individual mandate, that people be required to buy insurance. the argument made there is congress has never before required someone to buy a product in the private market. you are right, we have an activist court right now. we have a court that has shown itself willing to overturn a long time precedence to reach goals that it find attractive. of course, that makes one a bit nervous. on the other hand, you are also right that justice rehnquist and to a lesser extent justice o'connor, emphasized states' rights in a way that the court had not in a long time. neither are on the court any more. there were a couple of cases, one in the 1990's, one in 2000, where the court said congress's power is not limited when it gets beyond the economic activity. those were 5-4 decisions, decisions written by justice rehnquist to is no longer on the court. i have not seen the same kind of interest in protecting the state's rights with this current court. even then, some people who are supporting states' rights in this area point to a handful of decisions in recent years where the court has made noises about being more deferential to the state. each of those cases, what was involved was interpretation of the statute or court decision. not on whether federal statutes themselves orlov the land. -- are the law of the land. host: next up, lorain, ohio. democrats line. hello? caller: i am calling in regards -- host: turn down your television. it will work a lot better. are you still with us? caller: yes, i am. i'm calling in regards to the fact -- first of all, i want to commend the democrats for getting this passed. it was needed. do you think there will be anything unconstitutional regarding this law? guest: the senate bill has now passed the house. once the president signs it -- of course he will -- it will become law. the only thing that remains to be done is to pass reconciliation, which is a fairly short bill that makes some changes in the outlays and revenues under the bill, makes subsidies more generous, makes the individual mandate mass -- less onerous, raise revenue, and a few other things. as to whether it will be challenged or not, on an almost certain it will be. there are some conservative legal organizations gearing up to challenge it. some states may try to challenge it. under established law, states themselves do not have the right to challenge the constitutionality of federal law. that is quite clear. individuals who are adversely affected by the law can bring an action challenging it. if someone decides that i would rather let someone else pay for my health care, i am not going to buy insurance, and they are assessed a penalty by the irs, they do not pay it, they can go to george -- court to assess the constitutionality of those issues. however, the individual mandate does not go into effect until 2014, so until that point, no one will be adversely affected by the that law. so many challenges will be at least four years from now. i expect any challenges brought before them will be dismissed because they are now ripe yet and the people who are attempting to bring them will not have any standing. but yes, i expect to see signs challenges. massachusetts has an individual mandate where it challenged the appellate court earlier. the court said basically that it was frivolous. host: professor jost, in this item on cnn.com, they might not the florida attorney general -- write that the florida attorney general sent a letter to 40 other lawmakers asking them to join him on a legal challenge against whatever emerges immediately on one. so you have the florida attorney gene guest: anybody can file lawsuits. if you are state attorney general, you can have the state file law soon. -- a lawsuit. and as your caller said, we have a supreme court that is open and to reversing earlier precedent that it does not like. but the state does not have standing to do this. under article iii, you have to be able to show actual injury to bring a lawsuit. says the was not in effect yet, and it does not affect the states, i cannot see how they would have standing. i am sure that this is a political act, but it is not something that is going anywhere legally. and i think all of these walls are political statements, and i would remind people that during the 1950's and 1960's here in virginia, we had a campaign of massive resistance about some school disapprobation, and the state of virginia passed all kinds of laws to prevent va from being the segregated, which were eventually struck down by the federal courts. i think that they they are embarrassed that they did that. the states are trying to say, we don't like the federal law and we're not going to comply with federal law. i should say in fairness that in another campaign, the medical marijuana campaign, we're a number of states have legalized medical marijuana despite the federal laws making it illegal, and there is some evidence that they are making headway, says the federal government is not arresting and prosecuting davis cases as they used to be. -- those cases as they used to be. but i think in this case, because the individual mandate is so integral to making the private insurance markets work, i do not think the federal government will back down on this. host: new jersey on a line for republicans here on the "washington journal." caller: good morning, rob. good morning, mr. jost. my first point is, i do not understand what all these people across the country who across the country who obvi >> "washington journal" airs every morning at 78 is compared the house is coming back into debate -- to vote on bills debated earlier in the day. live on cn resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 4899, making emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster relief and summer jobs for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes. report to accompany house resolution 1205, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 4849, to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, to provide tax incentives for small business job creation, extend the build america bonds program, provide other infrastructure job creation tax incentives and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mccotter: mr. speaker, i rise today to commemorate the reti

c-span. >> tonight on c-span, president obama talks about health care. that is followed by a response from mitch mcconnell. we have an analysis of the congressional election at the n.a.b.e. . >> i am kind of fired up. [cheers and applause] i am kind of fired up. [cheers and applause] this is an extraordinary credit. -- extraordinary crowd. i love you back. there are some people i want to point out who are here and have been doing great work first of all, get leslie a round of applause for her lovely introduction. [applause] somebody who has been working tirelessly on your behalf and doing a great job, the secretary of health and human services, kathleen sebelius is in the house. [applause] one of the finest governor is in the country, ed rendell is in the house. [applause] everybody noticed how good it is looking, by the way? he has been on the training program. [laughter] eating a whites and keeping his cholesterol down. [laughter] [applause] your senior senator who has been doing outstanding work in the senate, harlan specter is in the house. [cheers and applause] one of my great friend, somebody who supported me when no one could pronounce my name, bob casey. [cheers and applause] your congressman, the person who gave me confidence that i could when even though nobody could pronounce my name is in the house. [cheers and applause] i figured if they could elect a shotguchaka, they could elect a barack. allison schwartz is in the house. [cheers and applause] someone new rendered outstanding service to our nation before he was in the congress is in the house. [is and applause] technically not his state, but he is right next door at the new jersey. we got some jersey folks here. rob andrews is in the house. [applause] and the the great mayor of philadelphia -- [cheers and applause] i am a little warm here, so -- [cheers and applause] all right. it is a little hot up here. and the two arcadia university -- and too murky university -- and to arcadia university -- [cheers and applause] i thought the white house was pretty nice, but that campus -- [cheers and applause] it is great to be back here in the keystone state. it is even better to be out of washington, d.c. [laughter] first of all, the people of b.c. are wonderful. they are nice people. they are good people. i love the city, the monuments, and everything. but when you are in washington, folks responded to every issue, every decision, every debate, no matter how important it is, with the same question -- what does this mean for the next election? [laughter] what does it mean for your poll numbers? is this good for the democrats or for the republicans? who won the news cycle? that is how washington is. they cannot help it. they are assessed with the sport of politics. -- they are obsessed with the sport and politics. that is the environment in which elected officials are functioning in a point you have seen the pundits and the cable networks. that is what they do. but out here and all across america, folks are worried about bigger things. they are worried about how to make payroll, how to make ends meet, what the future will hold for their families and for our country. they are not worried about the next election. we just had an election. [cheers and applause] they're worried about the next paycheck for the next tuition payment that is due. [cheers] they are thinking about retirement. [laughter] you want people in washington to spend a little less time worrying about our jobs and little more time worrying about your jobs. [cheers and applause] despite all the challenges we face, two wars, the aftermath of a terrible recession, i want to tell everybody here today that i am absolutely confident that america will prevail, that we will shape our destiny as past generations have done. [applause] that is who we are. we do not give up. we do not quit. sometimes we take our lumps, but we can keep on going. that is who we are. but that only happens when we are meeting our challenges squarely and honestly. i have to tell you, that is why we are fighting so hard to deal with the health care crisis in this country. health care costs are growing every single day. i want to spend some time talking about this. the price of health care is one of the most punishing costs for families and for businesses and for our government. [cheers and applause] it is forcing people to cut back or go without health insurance. it forces small businesses to choose between hiring or health care. it is plunging the federal government deeper and deeper and deeper into debt. the people who are here, some of you guys still have health care while you're in school. some of you may still be on your parents plans. some of the horizon insurance rates are among young people and it is getting harder to find a judge that will provide you with health care. right now, a lot of you feel like your invisible so you do not worry about it. but let me tell you, when you hit 48 -- [laughter] you start to realize that things started breaking down a little bit. [laughter] and the insurance companies continue to ration health care based on who is sick and who is healthy. on who can pay and who cannot pay. that is the status quo in america and it is a status quo that is unsustainable for this country. we cannot have a system that works better for the insurance companies than it does for the american people. [cheers and applause] we need to get families and businesses more control over their health insurance. that is why we need to pass health care reform, not next year, not five years from now, not 10 years from now, but now. [cheers and applause] since we took on this issue a year ago, there have been plenty of folks in washington who said that the politics was too hard. they warned us that we may not win. they argue that this is not the time for reform. it is going to hurt your poll numbers. how will it affect democrats in november? do not do it now. my question to them is when is the right time? if not now, when? [cheers and applause] if not us, who? think about it. we have been talking about health care for nearly a century. i am reading a biography of teddy roosevelt right now. he was talking about it. teddy roosevelt. we have failed to meet this challenge during times of prosperity and also during times of declined. some people say don't do it right now because the economy is weak. when the economy was strong, we did not do it. we talk about it through democratic administrations and republican administrations. i have all of my republican colleagues out there saying that we want to focus on things like costs. you had it 10 years. what happened? [cheers and applause] what were you doing? [cheers and applause] every year, the problem gets worse. every year, insurance companies to deny more people coverage because they have pre-existing conditions. every year, they'd drop more people coverage when they get sick, right when they need it most. every year, they raise premiums higher and higher and higher. just last month, anthem bluecross and california try to jack up rates by nearly 40%. 40%. has anybody paycheck gone up 40%? [laughter] why is it that we think this is normal? in my home state of illinois, rates are going up by as much as 60%. you just heard leslie who met with more than a 100% increase. one letter from her insurance company and her premium doubled. just like that. because so many of these markets are concentrated, it is not like you can go shopping. you have a choice, either no health insurance, where you take a chance that somebody in your family, if they get sick, you will go bankrupt and lose everything you have or you keep ponying up money that he cannot afford. these insurance companies have made a calculation. listen to this. the other day, there is a conference call organized by goldman sachs. you know goldman sachs. they're organized a conference call in which an insurance broker was telling wall street investors how he expected things to be playing out over the next several years. this broker said that insurance companies know they will lose customers if they keep raising premiums. but because there's so little competition in the insurance industry, they are ok with people being priced out of the insurance market because a lot of people will be stuck. even if some people will drop out, there will still raise premiums on the customers that they keep. and they will keep on doing this for as long as they can get away with it. there is no secret. they are telling their investors, we are in the money. we will keep making big profits even though a lot of folks will be put under hardship. some -- so how much higher do premiums have to rise before we do something about it? how many more americans have to lose their health insurance? how many more businesses have to drop coverage? all those young people out here, after you graduate, you will be looking for a job. think about the environment that will be out there when a whole bunch of potential employers tell you, you know what? we cannot afford to point where we will take thousands of dollars of your paycheck because the insurance companies to just jack up our rates. how many more years can the federal budget handle the crushing cost of medicare and medicaid? that is the debt you have to pay, young people. when is the right time? is it a year from now or two years from now or five years from now or 10 years from now? i think it is right now. that is why you're here today. [cheers and applause] leslie is a single mom, just like my mom was a single mom. she is trying to put her daughter through college. she knows that the time for reform is now. a self-employed cancer survivor from ohio wrote us a letter and said that her insurance chargers $6,000 with the premiums, paid $9,000 worth of care, and now they want to raise rates for next year. she wants to drop her insurance because it may coster the house that her parents built. she knows that it is time for health care reform. a friend that i meant when i was campaigning in wisconsin is a young mother with two kids. she thought she had beaten her breast cancer, but then found out that it spread to her bones. she and her husband had medical insurance. but her bill landed her with 10 thousands of -- tens of thousands of dollars worth of debt. all she wants to do is spend time with her children. i spoke with her this last weekend. she knows that the time for reform is right now. so what should i tell the americans? that washington is not sure how it will play in november? that we should walk away from this fight? or do something like someone the other side of the aisle has suggested, take baby steps? they want me to pretend to do something that does not really help these folks. we have debated health care in washington for more than a year. every proposal has been put on the table. every argument has been made. i know well lot of people view this as a partisan issue. but both parties have found areas where we agree. what we have ended up with is a proposal that is somewhere in the middle. it is one that incorporates the best from the democrats and the republicans, the best ideas. think about it along the spectrum of how to approach of care. there were those in the beginning of the process that wanted to scrap the system of private insurance and replace it with a government-run health care system like in other countries. [cheers] it works in places like canada, but i did not think it would be practical or realistic to do it here. on the other side of the spectrum, we have those who believe that the issue is just to loosen regulations on the health care companies appeared but if we had fewer regulations on insurance companies -- health care companies. but if we had fewer regulations on insurance companies, somehow, market forces will make things better. we have tried that. i am concerned that that would only give insurance companies more leeway to raise premiums and denied care. [applause] the bottom line is that i do not believe we should give government or insurance companies more control over health care in america. i think it is time to give you, the american people, more control over your health insurance. [is and applause] that is why my proposal is on the current system, where most americans get their insurance from their employers. if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. as a father of two young girls, but i do not want a plan that interferes with the relationship between a family and their doctor. we want to preserve that. the proposal would change three things about the current health care system. first, it would end the worst practices of insurance companies. within the first year of signing health care reform, thousands of uninsured americans with pre- existing conditions would suddenly be able to purchase health insurance for the very first time in their lives. [applause] or for the first time in a long time. [cheers and applause] this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. [cheers and applause] this year, they will be banned from dropping your coverage when you get sick. [cheers and applause] and they will no longer be able to arbitrarily and massively hike your premiums, just like they did to leslie and antoma and too many other americans. those practices will end. [cheers and applause] if this reform becomes law, all insurance plans would be required to offer free preventive care to all of their customers starting this year, free checkups, so that they can catch disease quickly. [applause] starting this year, there will be no more lifetime or restrictive annual limits on the amount of care you can receive from your insurance companies. there's a lot of fine print in there that can cost you people hundreds of thousands of dollars because they have a limit. if you are a young adult, which many of you are, you will be able to stay on your it -- on your parents' insurance policy until your 26 years old. [] cheers and [ -and -- [cheers and applause] and there will be a new independent appeals process for anyone who feels they were unfairly denied a claim by their insurance company. you will have recourse if you are being taken advantage of. that is the first thing that would change and it would change fast. insurance companies would finally be held accountable to the american people. that is number one. no. 2, the second thing that would change about the system is this. for the first time in their lives, uninsured individuals and small-business owners will have the same kind of choice of private health insurance and that members of congress get for themselves. [end applause] -- [cheers and applause] if it is good enough for congress, it should be good enough for the people who is paying the congress salaries, which is you. [cheers and applause] the idea is very simple. [[unintelligible] -- >> [unintelligible] >> let me explain how this works. my proposal says that, if you're not part of a big group, if you do not work for a big company, you can be part of a pool which gives you bargaining power over insurance companies. it is very straightforward. suddenly, just like millions of federal employees, you, as an individual or small an business owner, you can have more negotiating power for a lower rate and a better deal. [applause] if you still cannot afford the insurance that is offered, even if it is a better deal than you can get on your own, we will give you a tax credit to do so. these tax credits add up to the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history. [cheers and applause] the wealthiest among us, they can already afford to buy the best insurance there is. the least well-off are already covered through medicaid. it is the middle-class that gets squeezed. that is who we need to help with these tax credits. that is what we intend to do. [cheers and applause] i am going to be honest. let's be clear. this will cost some money. it will cost about $100 billion per year. most of this comes from the nearly $2.50 trillion per year that america already spends on health care. right now, and a lot of that money is being wasted or spent badly. with this plan, we will make sure that the dollars we spend will go to making insurance more affordable and more secure. i will give you an example. we will eliminate wasteful tax subsidies that go to insurance and pharmaceutical companies. they're getting billions of dollars a year from the government, from taxpayers, when they are making a big profit. i would rather see that money going to people who need it. [applause] we will set a new fee on insurance companies that stand [unintelligible] they will have 30 million new customers. there is nothing wrong with them paying a little bit of the freight. [applause] the bottom line is this. our proposal is paid for. all the new money generated in this plan goes back to small business owners and individuals in the middle class who are having trouble getting insurance right now. it would lower prescription drug prices for seniors. it would help train new doctors and nurses to provide care for american families and physicians assistants and fare best. there are great programs right here in arcadia. [cheers and applause] i was hearing about the terrific programs you have here in the health care field. we are going to need more health care professionals of the sort that are being trained here. we want to help you get that training. that is in this bill. [applause] i mentioned two things. insurance reform and making sure that people who do not have health insurance are able to get it. finally, my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millions, families, businesses, and the federal government. [applause] as i said, you keep bond hearing from the critics and some of the republicans on the sunday shows saying that they want to do something about costs. we have now inc. almost every single serious idea from across the political spectrum about how to contain the rising cost of health care, ideas that go after waste and abuse in our system, including in programs like medicare. but we do this while protecting medicare benefits and we extend the financial benefits of the program by nearly a decade our cost-cutting efforts -- nearly a decade. our cost-cutting efforts reduce most people's premiums because we're spending our health care dollars more wisely. [cheers and applause] those are the savings determined by the congressional budget office, which is the non- partisan, independent referee of congress for what things cost. so that is our proposal. insurance reform, making sure a that you can have choices in the marketplace for health insurance and making it affordable for people, and reducing cost. [cheers and applause] how many people would like a proposal that holds insurance companies more accountable? [cheers and applause] how many people would like to give americans the same insurance choices and that members of congress get? [cheers and applause] and how many would like a proposal that brings down costs for everyone? [cheers and applause] a that is our proposal and it is paid for and it is a proposal whose time has come. [applause] the united states congress owes the american people a final up or down vote on health care. [cheers and applause] it is time to make a decision. the time for talk is over. we need to see where people stand. and we need all of you to help us win that vote. i need you to knock on doors, talk to your neighbors, pick up the phone, when you hear an argument by the water cooler and somebody says this is bad guys, said, hold on the second. we need you to make your voices heard all the way in washington, d.c. [cheers and applause] they need to hear your voices. right now, the washington echo chamber is in full throttle. it is as deafening as it has ever been. as we come to that final vote, the echo chambers telling members of congress to think about the politics instead of thinking about doing the right thing. that is what mitch mcconnell said this weekend. his main argument was that this will be really bad for democrats politically. first of all, i generally would not take advice about what is good for democrats. [laughter] [applause] but setting aside that, that is not the issue here. the issue here is not the politics of it. but that is what members of congress are hearing right now on the cable shows and the gossip columns in washington. it is telling congress that comprehensive reform has failed before. remember what happened to clinton. it may be too politically hard. yes, it is hard. it is hard. that is because health care is complicated. healthcare is a hard issue. it is easily misrepresented. it is easily misunderstood. so it is hard for some members of congress to make this vote. there is no heart -- there's no doubt about that. but you know what else is hard to? what leslie and her family is going through, that is hard. [shoes and a plus] -- [cheers and applause] the fact that natomas may lose her house, that is hard. [applause] my friend in green bay having to worry about her cancer and her debt at the same time, trying to explain that to our kids, that is hard. [applause] what his heart is with millions of families and small businesses are going through because we allow the insurance industry to run wild in this country. [applause] so let me remind everybody. those of us in public office were not sent to washington to do what is easy. [applause] we were not sent there because of the big fancy title. we were not sent there because of the big fancy office. we were not sent they're just so everybody can say how -- sent there just started can say how wonderful we are. we were sent there to do what is hard. [applause] we were sent there to take on the tough issues. [applause] we were sent there to solve the tough challenges. [applause] that is why we are there. [cheers and applause] in this moment, we are being called upon to fulfill our duty to the citizens of this nation and to future generations. so i will be honest with you. i do not know how passing health care will play politically. but i do know that it is the right thing to do. [cheers and applause] it is right for our families, for our businesses, for the united states of america, and if you believe that, i want you to stand up with me and fight with me. the opportunity is here. let's seized what is within our grasp. thank you. [cheers and applause] ♪ ♪ >> soon after this speech, senators responded to his remarks on health care. we will hear first from senate minority leader mitch mcconnell, followed by mike johanns, and arlen specter. >> the democrats in washington have been focused, some with faye fixated, on making dramatic changes to the american health care system as we know it. the best interests of the public at a time of record unemployment and a need to address jobs and the economy. but what's not open to debate i what is not open to debate is that the plan they came up with is fundamentally flawed. problem with our health care system, which is cost. this is why americans have been telling democrats in washington to scrap their plan and start over, and this is why so many americans are so frustrated with government right now. the administration says we need to pass its health spending bill to show americans that government still works. americans are saying just the opposite. they're saying that the first thing washington can do to show it's working is to listen to what the public is saying: to scrap this bill and to start over. unfortunately, democrat leaders in congress aren't interested. they're still clinging to the same old bill and the same old process americans rejected last year. they're more determined than ever to jam their bill through congress by any means necessary. so over the next few weeks, we're going to see a replay of the same kind of arm twisting and deal making we saw in the run-up to christmas. i say we're going to see it, but in reality we won't see any of it. we'll have to read about the deals and the arm twisting only after the final bill hits the floor, because all of the arm twisting and deal making is going on behind closed doors, and it's already started. somehow the administration seems to think all this arm twisting and deal making will prove to the american people that government works. i should think that americans will draw the opposite conclusion. americans don't like this bill any more today than they did three months ago. they don't like the frantic, backroom deal making any more now than they did then. in the midst of all this, it's understandable that a lot of democrats are on the fence about whether to vote for this bill, about whether to vote for this process, as well. but the reasons they're giving for being on the fence really don't square with they are not going to fly with the public. some say they like the current bill because they say it reduces cost. it does not. the administration's own experts say that it increases by $22 billion more than if we took no action at all. in other words, the bill would ban the the cost curve up, not down. others say they like the current bill because it reduces the deficit. but the one bill that the senate will be voting on tomorrow would wipe away every dime of those projected savings with one stroke of the president's plan. if you believe that the health bill will save $100 billion, you have to also acknowledged that the bill that the senate will pass this week increases it by $100 billion. so far from moving in a fiscally responsible direction, the spending bill that the white house wants congress to pass before easter would move us into a less fiscally responsible direction. this undercuts the entire point of reform. the administration recognizes that the weakness of its argument. that is why it is trying to create a sense of inevitability about this bill. once again, it is imposing an artificial deadline on members. it is talking about how we are in the final chapter of this debate. the administration wants members to believe they're characters in a screenplay and that the ending of the play is already written. this is an illusion. house members aren't buying these arguments any more. in fact, many of them are already walking off the set and my guess is that a lot more are about to. they know that we may be nearing the final act for this bill and the legislative process but that it's just beginning for those who support it. americans do not want this bill. they're telling us to start over. and the only people who don't seem to be getting the message are democratic leaders in washington. but they can be sure of this -- absolutely sure of this -- if they cut their deal, if they somehow convince enough members to come onboard, then they'll get the message. the public will let them know how they feel about this bill.n. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. johanns: mr. president, i rise today to speak for about ten minutes to talk about the health care debate that continues to be in front of us. for much of our country, the health care debate has been a long and confusing trail. as details have emerged over the last weeks and months, constituents ask me what's going to happen to my health care? will i be able to continue to see the doctor that i have always seen? they've heard both sides argue the merits and the detriments of various pieces of legislation. citizens are understandably skeptical and perplexed by the debate that has transpired. one of the things i would suggest, mr. president, that is very clear, one situation that is clear as a matter of policy and conscience is this, and that is that americans are against the federal funding of abortion, whether they support or oppose the bill. unfortunately, the senate-passed health care bill allows taxpayer funds to fund abortion. the current senate language does this: it says people who receive a new government subsidy could enroll in an insurance plan that covers abortion. stphog would stop them from -- nothing would stop them from doing that. some say, well, yes, but states could opt out. what i point out is that those states that opt out, in those states the taxpayers would still see their tax dollars funding elective abortions in other states. additionally, the office of personnel management can provide access to two multistate plans in each state, and only one of them would exclude abortions. o.p.m.'s current health care program, the federal employee health benefits program, now prohibits any plans -- any plans -- that cover elective abortion. so for the first time a federally funded and managed health care plan will cover elective abortions. those who have looked at this language have said very clearly that it's woefully inadequate. i say that. it does not apply a decades-old policy and agreement really that was reached many, many years ago that was embodied in the hyde amendment. the hyde language bars federal funding for abortion except in the cases of rape and insist or where the life of the mother is at stake. the public has clearly rejected advancing the abortion agenda under the guise of health care reform. yet, as we have seen, the language of the senate bill proceeded, seems very, very clear that my colleagues are refusing to listen to that. they seem bent on forcing this very unpopular bill upon us via a rather arcane process called reconciliation. the important point to be made today is this: reconciliation will not allow us to fix the egregious abortion language. mr. president, this is not the first time that i have come to the floor to speak about this issue. last november, i came here to urge pro-life senators to vote "no" on cloture if they wanted any chance to address the federal funding of abortion in the senate bill. i said then that if the language wasn't fixed before the debate began, there would be no way to fix it. we would not have any leverage to fix it. mr. president, i wish i were here on the floor today to say this, to say that i was wrong about that. unfortunately, though, i was not wrong. unfortunately, when an amendment was offered to match the stupak language in the house bill with the senate bill, only 45 senators supported it. the sad reality is this, this senate as a matter of the majority is not a pro-life majority. there are not 60 senators who are willing to vote for that. back in november, some of my colleagues disagreed with my assessment. there was a big debate. they said wait a second here. we can fix this provision via an amendment, they said, but they were wrong. when the dust settled, we were left with a senate bill that allows federal fund of abortion. the house is now being asked to vote on the senate bill. you see, that is going to be the pathway. vote on the senate bill so any fix on other provisions can come through a reconciliation side war. now, korgs national right to life committee, the senate bill is -- and i'm quoting their language -- the most pro-abortion single piece of legislation that has ever come to the house floor for a vote since roe v. wade. unquote. they go on to warn -- and i'm quoting -- "any house member who votes for the senate bill is casting a career-defining pro-abortion vote." unquote. there is talk that democrat leaders might try to appease pro-life house members by promising to change the senate bill through a separate bill or the reconciliation sidecar that i mentioned. i urge pro-life supporters and pro-life house members to think through this very, very carefully. don't be food. don't be lulled into thinking that there are 60 votes in the is that senate that will somehow rescue the situation. there are not. you don't have to take my word for it. it's in black and white in the "congressional record." it's the same situation we faced in november. the senate specific economy rejected the amendment that would have blocked federal funding for abortion. nothing -- nothing -- has changed to suggest the senate would have anywhere near 60 votes to support it now. it was recently reported that some in the pro-life community support adding pro-life language in the reconciliation sidecar or maybe in a separate bill, with the hope and the promise that somehow the senate will swoop in and waive the rules and keep that language there. let me be abundantly clear, as much as i might want that to happen, it won't happen here, as demonstrated by november's vote. so if the senate rejects it again, the language in the senate bill would become law. current law would be reversed and taxpayer dollars would in fact fund abortions. it was recently a column in "the washington post." it issued warning to pro-life democrats to be wary of this strategy. and i'm quoting again: "the only way they can ensure that the abortion language and other provisions they oppose are eliminated is to reject reconciliation entirely and demand that the house and the senate start over with clean legislation." so, mr. president, i come to the senate floor again to encourage my pro-life colleagues in the house to recognize the reality here in the senate. i tell them what they know already, and that many innocent lives are depending upon their courage. this issue should not be an issue of political gamesmanship, especially when the game is so rigged against pro-lifers. this is an issue of conscience. on this one, you are pro-life or you are not. agreeing to a strategy that is guaranteed to fail, one that has failed already in this health care debate in november, in my judgment, is not leadership at all. it's surrendering your values. i leave the floor today, mr. president, and i pray that my house colleagues will have the wisdom to understand this in their decision making. thank record. the stage is now set where we have gridlock on the issue of comprehensive health care reform. and in this situation we have had the bills pass by both the house and senate. and we're now looking to use reconciliation, a procedure which has been employed some 22 times in analogous circumstances, ill husband triive of the analogous circumstances is the medicare advantage, the passage of koab, a the passage of schip, the passage of the welfare reform bill in 1996. in a learned article in the -- in th the "new england journal f medicine," dr. henry aron, an expert on budgetary matters had this to say -- "cloture can be used to implement instructions contained in the budget resolution relating to taxes or expenditures. congress created reconciliation procedures to deal with precisely this sort of situation, referring to what we have with the senate passed bill and the house passed bill. the 2009 budget resolution instructed both houses of congress to enact health care reform. the house and the senate have passed similar, but not identical bills. since both houses have acted, but some work remains to be done to align the two bills, using reconciliation to implement the instructions in the budget resolution follows established congressage procedure." i ask consent, mr. president, that the full text of this article be included in the record following my statement. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: so what we have here, essentially, is gridlock we have gridlock treated by the composition of the two houses of congress. we have a situation where not one member of the other side of the aisle voted in favor of the health care bill. only one out of 177 in the house -- a more precise definition of gridlock is what appears here. it would be my hope that we would be able to resolve the issue without resorting to reconciliation. if there's any doubt about the procedure, our institutional integrity would be enhanced without going in that direction. . five years ago in 2005, the senate faced a somewhat similar situation when the rules were reversed. when it was the democrats filibustering the judicial nominees of president bush. and we find that so often that it depends on whose ox is being gored as to who takes the position. some of the objections on reconciliation on comprehensive health care reform have filled the congressional record with statements in favor of using reconciliation in analogous circumstances that would help their cause. in the year 2000, it was the democrats stymieing republican judicial nominees. during the clinton administration, it was exactly reversed. it was the republicans stymieing the clinton nominees. it was the republicans stymieing the clinton nominees. in 2005 we were able to work o the controversy. we were able to confirm some of the judges. some of the judges were withdrawn and we did not move what was called the nuclear option which would have confirmed judges by 51 votes. and the procedural integrity of the senate is really important. without going into great detail, it was the senate which saved the independence of the federal judiciary when the senate acquitted the supreme court justice chase in 1805. it was the senate which preserved the power of the presidency on the impeachment proceeding of andrew johnson in 1868. congress sought to have limited president's power to discharge a cabinet officer in absence of approval of the senate. well, the senate has to confirm, but the senate doesn't have standing to stop the president from terminating the services of the cabinet officer. and there the senate saved it through the courageous vote of a single senator, a kansasan, i'd like to mention, being one originally myself. so it would be fine if we could find some way to solve the problem. but absent that, this senate reconciliation procedure is entirely appropriate. we have gotten much more deeply involved in the research and analysis as this issue has come to the floor on comprehensive health insurance. comprehensive health coverage. the gridlock that faces the senate and country today has profound implications beyond the -- the legislation itself. it's hard to find something more important than ensure -- insuring the millions of americans now not covered. hard to find something more important than stopping the escalating cost of health insurance, driving many people to be uninsured and raising the prices for small business where it cannot be afforded. but the fact is that this gridlock is threatening the capacity in this country to govern. really threatening the capacity to govern. secretary of state hillary clinton was before the appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations, and i asked her about this issue. i asked her about the president -- quote -- -- not being able to project the kind of stature and power of a year ago because he is really hamstrung by congress, and it has an impact on foreign policy which we really ought to do everything we can not to have partisan influence. secretary of state clinton replied as follows." senator, i think there is certainly a perception that i encounter in representing our country around the world that supports your characterization. people don't understand the way our system operates, and they just don't get it. their view does color whether the united states is in a position, not just as president, but our country is in a position going forward to demonstrate the kind of unity and strength and effectiveness that i think we have to in this very complex and dangerous world. "she continued a little later --" we have to be attuned to how the rest of the world sees the functioning of our government because it is an asset. it may be an intangible asset, but it is an asset of great importance, and as we sell democracy, and we're the lead democracy in the world, i want people to know that we have checks and balances, but we also have the capacity to move, too." so that what we really find here is a diminution of the authority and stature of the president, a diminution of the authority and stature of the presidency, and ultimately a diminution and reduction in the stature of our country and able to deal with these problems. so it would be my hope that we could yet resolve this issue with a little bipartisanship. it wouldn't take a whole lot, but at the moment there is none. with 40 senators voting no, all of those on the other side of the aisle, 176 out of 177 republicans in the house voting no. that simply is no way to govern. i thank >> coming up, an analysis of this year's congressional elections. then, the prime minister of greece talks about his country's debt crisis and relationships with the u.s. and europe. later, economists discuss the u.s. health-care system. >> this weekend, but television is heading west with live coverage from the tucson festival of books. starting saturday, hear from authors on their experiences living on the mexican border. sunday, panels on writing about history, the war in afghanistan, wwii and other topics. this weekend on "book tv." >> a look at how the economy might affect this year's midterm elections. panelists include the editor and publisher of the "cook political observer." this was hosted by the national association of business economics. >> i have often been criticized for wearing my heart on my sleeve. when i was asked to moderate this system on the political environment in washington today, i decided to wear what i see and feel. that is red. i get very angry about the political process during election years because it seems to be that they have a way of taking our debate down to the lowest common denominator and it was not exactly high to begin with. when i hear things like ron paul asking the fed about the role played in watergate and the iran contra scandal, i wonder about the intelligence of people elected to congress. i know there are some intelligent people out there but they're getting few and far between. and i also wonder when senator bunning compares ben bernanke to hitler. these are clearly a bias on protecting fed independence on my part but today, i think we have an extraordinary panel and an extraordinary opportunity to try to understand what is next. a lot has happened in a very short period of time. we went from gridlock to talk about major reforms in health care and financial reform being brought to vote. i think that is something that is extraordinary. i am going to turn over the podium. we have a full hour so we will do 50 minutes -- 15 minutes with charlie cook. i think this environment must keep you pretty busy. and greg who was known for a long time, welcome back to washington. we missed you. both charlie and greg have incredible breath of information and knowledge on what is going on. i do not know how it does not make him drink quite heavily to watch what is open on. if you are enduring, i remember when she appeared give that speech, all of us were consuming heavily. the one thing i have been tracking consumption of is out halt. in good times, we popped champagne corks, in bad times we drink generic beer. our consumption has gone up in volume which is the quality trade-off. in other countries drop consumption on the run out of money. we just buy cheaper stuff here. without further ado, i would like to welcome charlie up to the podium. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. thank you for having me. this is a great panel and i am looking forward to this. first of all, i think the whole country owes all of you a debt of gratitude, particularly in these times, policy makers, business leaders, everybody is looking to you for guidance in terms of what is going to happen. i hope you are really smart. you have your pencils sharpened because we are looking to you. change was the watchword in 2006, 2008. it looks like it is the watchword now, as well. a dominant term in american politics. in 2006, we had the war in iraq at its lowest point. you had a serious of congressional scandals under the republican control of congress. president bush paused numbers were in the toilet. everything that could possibly go wrong for republicans did in fact go wrong in that. leading into the 2006 election. sure enough, they lose their majority in the house and senate. they had one that just 12 years earlier and that 1994 newt gingrich election sweep. and 2008, when iraq got better but as you well know, the economy got a lot worse. president bush' numbers were still in the toilet. while republicans were swept out of the house and senate, voters were angry at republicans and wanted to sweep them out of the white house, as well. you had the second factor of all of these new voters who were so excited about barack obama. young voters, minority voters coming in and took democratic majorities to a higher level. and both of these elections, which sought democrats being motivated while republicans were lethargic. the second thing was independent voters swing heavily in 2006, in 18% margin for democrats in the house of representatives. they gave barack obama and eight. win. democrats have to defend the majority that was created in those optimal conditions in 2006 and 2008. change is the watchword again now in the sense that to me, the circumstances would have to change to change the trajectory of this election. right now, you hear health care experts talked about bending the cost curve to keep it at a sustainable level. looking back at the last month of what has happened with the heat has been turned higher and higher, something will need to bend that curve or if it continues at the current trajectory, it will go over 40 seats. but something would have to change. in terms of the senate, but things do not change, you will see democrats losing in excess of five senate seats but in all probability, the odds are public 95% that the democrats will retain their majority but you are likely to see one that is significantly diminished. i am not saying it is there now but what i am saying is that we are on a course that appears likely to go over that point between now and november. just to talk briefly about the house and senate pictures, and the house, there is a 46 majority for democrats. to put that into context, democrats have 53 seats right now that were held by republicans just four years ago. in varying degrees of enemy territory, to look at it differently, 48 house democrats are sitting in seats that john mccain just one back in november of two dozen aid. 47 democrats are sitting in seats that went for john mccain and also went for george w. bush and the 2004 elections. when we go through and start with the first district of alabama and go through all 435 districts and end up in wyoming, looking at it district by district and using the zero tip o'neill added, it was actually his follow -- his father that said all politics are local, when we do that right now, about one week ago at a -- we had a democratic loss of 28 seats. it is probably closer to 30. let's call at 34 just the sake of argument. when you have these with the elections, and we have had an abundance of indicators that this is not in normal election, that race by race approache, it always underestimates what happens when you have a way election. that urn that painfully in 1994 when republicans won control of congress. we could count up very large republican gains but we could not quite get that number up to the 40 seats that republicans coincidently needed to get control of the house. not only did they get 40, they got 52. in 2006, the next wave election we saw come along, we figured out that you have to do a hybrid approach of the micro and overlay a macro on top of that. we hit that one right on the head. when you take that microanalysis that fits you to 28 or 29 seats, you start to apply that macro. democrats right now have 59% of the seats in the house of representatives. the relationship between the percentage of seats that a party has and a percentage of the major party, the two-party vote were you throughout the wacko vote, -- where youths throw out the wacko vote, when you factor that out, there is generally a good linkage between the popular two-party vote and the percentage of seats. in that last election, democrats got 56% of the popular vote for the house. they carried the popular vote by a 12 point edge. if you took a poll nationally, when they ask people if the election were held today who you would vote for, it was dead even. absolutely dead even. other averages are basically even on that, too. when you then look at the polls that are looking for likely voters, and one pulled for example, they ask people on a scale from 1 to 10 how interested you are in the upcoming election. they take the nines in the 10's. when you look at the most likely people to vote, the parity between the parties turns into a republican advantage. up into double digits almost with that intensity that democrats had in 2006, those voters have become lethargic. republican voters that were lethargic in the last two elections are suddenly very motivated. looking at that gallup poll, where democrats when they won their majority in the house, they had an 18 point lead among independent voters. they have swung in their voting for republicans by 17 point margin now. we are seeing the old "lost in space" television show, danger. we have been seeing this since last summer and it has been building and building. i talked about the curve. what could bend that curve? first thing, when you talk to democrats, they admit there is no question whatsoever that this is looking eagerly ugly for democrats. the only question is how bad is it? some of my friends in the political science world, they do not quite see the apocalypse the democrats that i do. my biggest competitor and good friend is sort of somewhere between me and where tom is. and we are at varying degrees of how bad things are. these are gradations of how bad it will be for democrats. i am the out wire a little bit. when you ask democrats, what could change things? what could save the majority? you usually hear two things. unemployment getting better. i am not going to stand in front of a room poles sional economiu is the direction getting better? to me, you have to give it about a point down or so before you can hang out a mission accomplished banner in the front yard. i frankly did not see that happening. you know more about this than i do but i think the answer is democrats getting a lifeline on the unemployment line, and job creation, it is unemployment for political purposes. that is the key one. the second thing is health care. if the democrats get a bill through, that could be the shot in the arm they needed. maybe but the way i look at it, democrats have three options. i am trying to look at this from a non-partisan and non it logical -- non-theological view, they have three options but they could quit. that means we wasted the first year we were in office. that is not a good option. they could fail. see the first explanation. that is not much better. or they could jim something through that people at least today say that they did not like and do not want, jam it through and hope that their minds changed at a later date. that is clearly what they are pushing to do and may do. the vote in the house could be very close. the thing about it is since democrats have lost the messaging battle on health care for the last year, but it is objective probability. i do not know what democrats will suddenly start when that -- winning that battle than a lot of opinions have formed on this. people may look back on this proposal and think it is great and even if they did, giving democrats every benefit of the doubt, i am not sure it will be between now and november 2. that is not likely the lifeline they're going to get. a friend of mine on wall street used to ask me, if you were wrong, what are you wrong? this was about something else. if i had to pick apart my own argument, it got some the republicans are not to win to get a majority in the house and not going to win six or more senate seats, i think what i would say is i do not think unemployment is the explanation. i did not think health care becoming popular is the answer. i think it is more likely that what you saw happen was either in a lot of republican primaries around the country, i think this t party is vastly overblown but i think it is representative of something larger, a very angry group of people who are not necessarily a part of the process in the past storming the primary election polls and nominating people that are way out there where there would be in the establishment republican candidate and then there would be another republican candidate that is a wax job -- whack job, suddenly, if you see that happening, republican gains may not be what we're talking about or the second variation is if you see establishment candidates winning some of these republican primaries but the tea party movements or their ilk start fielding candidates independent in the general election that would be siphoning out of republican column votes. to me, if i am leaving myself and out, that is the one thing that i think could undercut might broader case. this is going to be a tough one for democrats, the question is how tough. do not assume anything about this midterm election in terms of projecting forward to 2012. midterm elections are notoriously bad about predicting the following presidential election. all you have to think back is to 1982 when republicans have that tough loss during the 1982 recession. they lost 28 seats in the house of representatives. they did not lose the majority. under president reagan, tough losses and what happened to years later in 1984? he won a 49 state suite. every state except minnesota. look at bill clinton in 1994. democrats were almost wiped out. they lost the majority for the first time in 40 years in the house. they lost the majority in the senate. terrific election. what happens to years later? he wins comfortably over bob dole. this is the funny fact, look over the last 100 years. elected presidents who have taken over from the other party, only one of them has lost reelection in the last century. that was jimmy carter in 1980. that was losing to ronald reagan. there are a lot of really fine republicans looking at running for president in 2012. or some of them, anyway. i did not see ronald reagan out there. i am not predicting that obama gets reelected, it cannot get a wrong. there are huge things. unemployment still being perhaps on -- 8%. do not make any assumptions based on this midterm election. if the final thing is this, i mentioned the democrats controlled the house for 40 years. goodyear's or bad years, 20 straight elections, democrats held the house. they lost it in 1994. 12 years republicans have the house on their side. they got thrown out in 2006. here we are, four years later, one of two things is to win to happen to either democrats hold on to the majority by their fingernails or they lose it. the circle is getting tighter and tighter and moving faster and faster. i think that that tells us is the volatility out there among voters and their patientce is getting less and less and given the disfunction we see in washington, it shows that are not so dumb after all. they are seeing it and reading it. they have a hair trigger on reacting. that is something we need to pay attention to very closely. thank you very much and i look forward to the question period. [applause] >> we are going to take up a collection and a few minutes for a rottweiler and a bulletproof vest. great to be here. i want to pick up where he left off. what does this mean for the agenda? the investment issues that we all follow. at the outset, i say that since neither of us are encumbered by an affiliation with a political party, we are free to speak very candidly. i would start out by saying that for most of us who had been doing this for a while, the concept of bipartisanship is a crock. i roll my eyes when i hear that. i hear people on television saying how we have to be bipartisan, it just does not work. this administration came in with a lot of knife that tate and some hubris, as well. they thought they could have a bipartisan deal and wasted one year trying to get a bipartisan deal that does not exist. i think it is fair to say that the lack of bipartisanship is bipartisan. it is equal. we got a deal on a jobs bill about one month ago and at the last minute, harry reid torpedoed it. i thought that was a rare side -- rare sign of parties working together. most of these issues are theological more than anything else. it is going to be very difficult to see much. before i talk about the agenda, i would just say there is a very depressing sight in this administration. that is -- that is the finger- pointing. whose fault is it? everybody is spending. that is a sign things are not doing well. this incestuous world inside the beltway, the speculation is who goes after the gulf region after the election? who pays the price for the failures? my own personal take and i am sure all of us have opinions, mine is that the white house abdicated largely to the house for the first year or so on so many key issues. the idea that you would abdicate to the old dinosaurs in the house, rangel, waxman, all of these old-timers who came up with the stimulus bill that was loaded with pork that gave all the talk show hosts plenty of ammunition, and then they abdicated on health care reform in the first bill had a very tough surtax on wealthy individuals. and scared about the people. the public option was not well explained. by advocating to the house, the administration set itself up for where they are. let's talk about the agenda, where it stands right now. if the vote were held today, i think health reform would fill in the house. we do not think that nancy pelosi has a 217 votes that are necessary. my colleague at the potomac research group thinks she is probably at 211 or 212. there will not be a vote until she has the to -- the 217. it would be an apparent victory because the political push back could be quite strong against the party. we have this bizarre experience if we get a bill through the house of then going back and doing reconciliation and making changes. we have the spectacle of a month or longer were the most important player in washington will not be ben bernanke or barack obama, it will be the senate parliamentarian who will judge every day whether certain issues are germane and if they involve budget or tax cuts. it could be somewhat analogous seeing this parliament terry really parliament terr -- parliamenty rulings. even if we do get a bill, there is a chance that the political ridicule would be great over the next month or so. as far as other issues, you have to sit card check is dead. the big issue for organized labor is not going anywhere now. i think tap and trade is pretty much dead. pat think anything that involves a carbon tax or any kind of tax is absolutely radioactive right now. no politician wants to be identified with a big tax. there might be an effort to impose upon utilities different energy efficiency standards but any sort of robust capt. trade bill is pretty much dead. -- cap and a trade bill is pretty much dead. i think chris dodd is at a point where he will sign off on anything for a legacy, a bill that will have his name on it. he keeps maneuvering on a consumer protection agency and they are convinced he is willing to do anything to get a bill done. i still think that whatever bill emerges will be won the industry will gladly live with. i do not think it will be a financial services bill that the industry would have a problem with. we see on so many of these issues, i did the agenda being watered down or in gridlock, that brings me to the main thing i want to talk about. this mantra that a good -- that gridlock is good. for years and years, gridlock is good. i am no longer convinced that it is necessarily good if we start looking like greece. i want to spend a few minutes talking to you about how utterly hopeless it appears to me that we get anything dramatic done that even if the democrats take a good beating, it might make it more difficult to get anything done on budget deficits. the one thing i always point out to people when i talked is i know i will get questions with people saying why to they'd just not cut spending? you could take the entire discretionary part of the budget, you could take all of the discretionary budget and kill it. i did not mean freeze it, kill it. the fda, the fbi, flat out to let and you still have the deficit of about $1 trillion per year. that part of the budget is only about 17%. we would be lucky to even have a partial freeze on that part of the budget. when i hear people saying cutting spending, that is not enough. i would think that there are only three options that we can look at to get us out of this mess. one would be to grow your way out of it. you are not going to grow your way out of the deficit this big. the obama gdp forecast is slightly pessimistic that you will not grow your way out of it. a second approach would be to look at the other 83% of the budget that is apparently untouchable. that consists about half entitlements, social security, medicare, medicaid. i cannot see any meaningful reform of the entitlements before this election. frankly, i did not see any meaningful reform until after the next presidential election. while alan greenspan and others said some smart people could get together in a room and within a few hours come up with this solution on social security, that is not coming anytime soon. you look at what is left with the budget. close to 20%. defense, wars, va hospitals, even this administration which is castigated for being too far to the left has advocated increase in spending in this area by 2.5% in the upcoming fiscal year. i did not see any big cuts coming. the rest of the budget is just interest on the national debt which is about 14%, a high number. i do not see deep spending cuts being a fruitful area where we are going to whittle down this deficit of $1 trillion or more for the next couple of years. then we come to the most controversial option of all. that is what about a new source of revenue? i would be interested in our next speaker. i would have told you if of your one year ago that i thought maybe there will be new revenue. maybe there is a way to deal with a deficit that way. i think charlie would agree that after what happened to john courson and massachusetts, tax hikes are totally toxic to any politician. you can forget all the balloons about a vat tax fund every couple of years, you can set your watch on a bunch of leads that they are going for a vat tax. nobody will go after something that would be demagogue. that would be a huge source of revenues that won't happen. another area would be u.s. multinationals. there was a big push and it is still and the obama budget to change the way we tax the deferral of foreign income. that is not going to happen. corporate lobbyists have made a persuasive case that it would make our companies less competitive. i did not sense anybody wanting to go after that. some say that if you do, our companies will lose to singapore or hong kong. i did not see any big source of revenue there. and even on a fairly innocuous tax change, the prospects are bad. hedge funds can pay 15% capital gains rate rather than the top rate of 35%. that seems to have stalled, as well. when i look at other tax increase issues, a surtax on the bridge, no way. any kind of tax on people making below $200,000, i am sure larry summers and the economic advisors in private look at this group. the people who make 100 to thousand dollars or $160,000, that is the mother lode. does he want to break a campaign promise that he would not go below 200,000 on individuals? if he breaks that promise, he could separate the same fate as president bush who broke attacks promised and served only one term. not only to why not see new taxes to deal with the deficit, as we come to the end of this year, do we extend the bush tax cuts for everybody? i would have said one year ago it was not deny% that it would expire -- i would say it was 99% that it would expire. it is probably still 70%/30%. capital gains going from 50 to 20. dividends from 15 to around 20. that is the likeliest, i think. there is a growing movement on the hill to perhaps wait a year. maybe to not raise any taxes with the economy is still fragile up. that will cost another $300 billion but at this point, who is counting? just add it in? i certainly agree with the forecast. i think gridlock will become more apparent. for everybody that rejoices over this gridlock, i would have to say that i agreed for now. a 10 year bond yield is not a problem. that is not a bad treasury 10- year bond yield. at some point, the bond market is going to have to realize that there is a lack of seriousness on the deficit and this lack of bipartisan compromise is going to have a significant impact on yields as we go into 2011, 2012, 2013. on that cheerful note, i will stop. [applause] >> thank you. this is not a partisan comment, by the way. i wanted to start up the questioning and you have to line up to ask the questions. i will start the questioning to launch it. you commented about the volatility. you see that as a bit of a good thing. has that contributed to our ability to pass legislation? does it contribute to gridlock issues? on the third one, when we talk about deficit reduction, is there any sense of washington getting back to the five-year paygo rules so we get compromise over a longer period of time rather than everything crunched into one year of painful paying? we got some movement on both sides of the aisle on that. >> i will lead the substance to greg. i think the level of partisanship we are seeing today in washington, it is a long time in coming and it has a lot of causes. some of it is these members do not know which other or trust each other. and there are no relationships. you could take it back to intangible things like more and more members are just here tuesday to thursday. they leave their families back in their home states and districts. the idea of the socialization and going to see a member from the other side's kid soccer game or playing golf together. that whole socialization process where people of different ideologies and partisan stripes could meet off campus and get to know each other and trust each other and build relationships. i think the decline in international travel, the junkets, the old adage about not know when somebody until you travel with them, that is true. relationships going downhill. i think it is a product of the advertising we see in campaigns but it is much meaner and tougher than 30 or 40 years ago. even if you did not run an ad against me, somebody on your team did that was unfair and was distorted. i am going to hold it against you and everybody on your side. also, the temperament that members of congress on both sides, they are picking leaders almost because their leaders to not work well with the other side, not because they have any capacity track record or inclination to work with members of the other side. of the nine top leaders in both parties in congress, i can actually only think of two of them, one on each side, that would have the slightest inclination to work with people on the other side. all of that together, and probably a few more factors, came together to create a totally dysfunctional situation and one that our country has been through a lot, the revolution, civil war, reconstruction, somehow we will figure out how to get through this. i cannot say that i see the path right now. >> i would just add a couple of points to what charlie said. you did not find anybody like people who used to be viewed as moderates. the level of hypocrisy going back to the budget deficit is worth spending a minute on. i had that extra cup of coffee so the rent for 30 seconds about this. you hear kent conrad, one of the most passionate advocate of reducing the deficit, for years he has squawked about the deficit. he is one of congress's biggest spenders. talk about welfare. if you look at the amount of agricultural subsidies, they need to be addressed. to hear him rant against deficits, to me, is hypocritical. on the other side, d.c. richard shelby who held up something like seven obama appointments because he was not getting enough pork in alabama. he has ranted against budget deficits. these guys and gals say one thing and do another thing. the hypocrisy is blatant. the other point is transparency point it is a good thing but it has led to more gridlock. things like cn. the fact that the nebraska deal that was cut for ben nelson was instantly recognizable and out there on the internet. the average american is far more aware of this closed door meetings and it has made it more difficult to get things done. >> thank you. >> we started to talk about something out in the hall. maybe you could comment. we are going to appoint governors. the of vetting them inside. the board delayed because of ben bernanke in the financial reform bill. could this become an issue? the scrutiny of what to say about bond vigilantes' and deficit being what they are? >> i think that is a real loss because you are now down to only one macro economist on the fed board, ben bernanke. they have to get another one or two macro economists. i did not know if they could bring them back or not. there is a need for macro economists but beyond that, the bigger issue is could obama get a fed that this somehow compliant or easy or soft on inflation? i doubt that. and bernanke's power is q

c-span has launched its video library website. c-span's vice president peter keisler talked about the new on-line service on this morning's washington journal. >> host: c-span vice president. you are here to announce the video library. tell us about. >> thanks, libby to read it is a historical and exciting day of seesaw and histories i will take you back for a few period to the experience of how this is accretive to developing to read the cable industry created c-span as a public service in 1979. 1986 they launched c-span2 the united states senate. shortly after that in the summer of 1987, c-span began in a facility of initially in a partnership with purdue university in west lafayette in began about a decade later we took the total control of the facility that began to archive and record every single minute of c-span programming. the house and senate proceedings, the speeches, everything you come to know from c-span. over that time it's due to look into quite a large archive. we initially sold video tapes and vv is as the internet grew and expanded we began streaming a lot of that video. there is a team and indiana led by dr. robert browning and ten a