tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN January 4, 2011 10:00am-1:00pm EST
it is the southwest in florida where they have a lot of problems. bayville a lot of houses, and secondly,, everything connected with the housing industry is a big part of -- real estate and everything connected with the housing industry is a big part of their economy. that is one reason why the southwest is facing a lot of economic difficulty. they got hit with a double win a. host: david blitzer is the chair of the standard and poor's index committee. thank you for taking your calls and comments. guest: thank you. host: by the way, tomorrow, the new congress will be sworn in. we will have live coverage here on c-span and with the senate on c-span2. we will begin at 7:00 a.m. eastern time with the "washington journal" and at 4:00 a.m. for those of you on the
west coast. enjoy the rest of your day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the 112th congress cavils in tomorrow with republicans now in control of the house. we will hear from house democratic leadership today with speaker nancy pelosi who will remain speaker until john boehner is elected to that post. live coverage begins the 11:00 a.m. this morning.
later, to florida where rick scott will be sworn in. live coverage from tallahassee begins and at noon eastern here, on c-span. this afternoon, back to the subject of the 100th of congress and the use of the filibuster which democrats are aiming to weaken. lamar alexander is among the speakers. you can watch the 2:00 p.m. eastern this afternoon. >> the 112th congress gavels in when stay with the swearing in of members, the election of a new house speaker and a vote on new roles. watch live on "washington journal." it is right up until the house gavels in at noon. >> a look now at how the
incoming republican majority plans to use the u.s. constitution. you will hear from rutgers university political science director who was also a scholar in harry reid's office. this is an hour and 15 minutes. we begin with introductory remarks. >> good morning. welcome to the first session of inside washington. we are focusing on the new congress and the swearing in of the house and the senate. we are here in the linkedin auditorium of the new restaurant -- linkedin auditorium. this is our meeting space for today. each year at this time we bring together experts on politics in the media for two weeks so
college students can get a closer look at the issues that will impact the nation and the world in the months ahead. next year at this time we will be focusing on the presidential election of 2012. the eyes of washington are on the world -- the eyes of the world are on washington this week. the new congress will be sworn in on wednesday. we will be here to get a close look. you all have the chance to go up to the hill. to guide us in this endeavor is our faculty director for the week political scientist ross baker of rutgers university. he is an esteemed scholar and a highly recognized observer of congress. he spends sabbaticals working for members of congress, and has done so for both republicans and democrats. he is an author and is well known to readers of newspapers
like "usa today" and if you are a good listener also national public radio. he should be familiar to you. media outlets turn to dr. baker for his opinions and commentary. he knows congress well. his understanding of the institution is exceptional. i could not think anyone else i would rather have with us this week halted us to understand what is really going on on capitol hill today and what the future will hold with the national policy agenda and the obama administration as we move forward to read i am pleased to present to you -- forward. i am pleased to present dr. ross baker. [applause] >> thank you, jean. i was thinking this morning what
a wonderful thing it would have been to have the washington center when i was an undergraduate. it is such a great opportunity for you to be here, and to be here at a particularly interesting and maybe even a auspicious time. on thursday morning something unusual it will happen in the house of representatives. the full text of the united states constitution will be read. if you think that is not unusual, should it not be read all of the time and should congress not be familiar with all of the provisions, well, we actually have the tea party to thank for all of this. they have brought us into what might be called a period of a constitutional awareness. we will be. a lot about the constitution in the early days -- we will be
hearing a lot about the constitution in the early days of the 112 congress, perhaps the entire life of the 112 congress. much of this has been initiated by what congress did in the 111th congress, a most active congress which saw the enactment of the national insurance -- health insurance reform, regulatory reform of financial services, and a number of other important pieces of legislation. although they did enjoy enough support to be enacted, they generated a fair amount of political opposition which manifested itself in the 2010 congressional election, which the democrats suffered when president obama referred to as "a shellacking."
i think it caused many people to question whether or not these things -- health care reform, regulatory reform, other things -- were actually authorized by congress's power under article one of the constitution. article one by its very size and scope tells us a lot about what the framers of the constitution were thinking about. when you or i may cut all list of things to do or a grocery list, we usually list the things that are most important at the top of the buy list. this is what james madison and alexander hamilton and all of the other members of the founding generation did. they said congress is not only going to be the most important part of this new government, but perhaps the most dangerous.
they of, of course, had experience with a very weak legislative body under the articles of confederation. they did not want to repeat that. they wanted to make sure congress had sufficient powers, but they did not wanted to do too much. what they did was set forth the powers of congress in excruciating detail. while there are many powers that are given to congress, they are clearly specified in article 1. it is interesting to note that the scope of article one exceeds that of any other article in the constitution. if you do an actual word towns, the number of words in article one exceed by a factor of two- to-one the factors of both the president and the supreme court.
it is pretty of for that. they did certain things -- important. they did certain things that almost ensured there would be controversy. i do not think there is another provision that has generated more litigation over the years than the commerce clause particularly of article one, which is the heart of the constitution, article one, section eight. it recites in exquisite detail the powers given to congress. such things as the power to create post offices and post roads, the power to an attack -- patents, andntors' so on, and at the end of article one, section 8, there is an interesting passage that i would like to read to you.
it has generated an enormous amount of controversy. that is something called a necessary and proper clause. after this very detailed explanation of the powers of congress it says "congress shall also have the power to make all laws which will be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers -- for example, the power to coin money, regulate the value, and a fixed standard of weights and measures. it also says the count -- congress has the power to punish counterfeiting. it does not say the congress shall create the secret service, but under the necessary and proper clause it is a reasonable conclusion that of congress as the power to punish counterfeiting there needs to be an organization
that chases down counterfeiters. the constitutional authority for the secret service, which in addition to protecting presidents is also responsible for prosecuting counterfeiters is really a necessary and proper inference you could make. it says congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes. it does not said congress should create an internal revenue service'. it is reasonable to infer that an internal revenue service is constitutional. it says that congress should have the power to create post offices and post roads. it does not say that congress shall create the post office department, but it is reasonable to come to that conclusion. of course, what has created the debate and the challenge that
the obama administration faces, of course has to do with health insurance reform. that is really the red flag. that is the thing this seems to have generated the most intense constitutional debate. that is, did congress have the authority to create this national health insurance reform, and one vesicular aspect is particularly -- particular aspect is nettlesome -- the individual mandate, which is a requirement that everyone at a certain time buy health insurance, or pay a fine to be administrative through the tax system. now, the obama administration, defending the reform, maintains that under congress's power to
lay and collect taxes, they could do this, but critics say that if you searched the constitution you will not find a provision which requires an american citizen to purchase a commercial product. this is how the debate has been joined. it is interesting to reflect on the powers of congress that this particular time. certainly, over the last 70 years, congress has used the commerce clause to enact the most astonishing a ray of laws, most of which have been upheld by the supreme court. for example, the civil rights act of 1964 -- you would say to yourself what in the world does the civil rights have to do with the commerce clause? it seems like something we should have done.
that to deny all americans the rights to public accommodations is something which must be in the constitution somewhere else. there must be some high and resounding phrase the says you should not forbid people access to hotels and restaurants because of their race, yet there is nothing there that says that. what the constitution says is that congress should have the power to regulate commerce. that, believe it or not, is the source of constitutional authority for the most important piece of civil rights legislation ever enacted. the 1964 civil rights act was not just directed at the kinds of obstacles faced by african- americans, there was widespread discrimination based on the basis of religion. hotels restricted clientele to christians.
no one who was not a christian could register at and so on. it is a hard thing to enforce, but these laws and exclusionary practices did exist. what knocked them down was the commerce clause. if you think about it, it makes sense. if the greyhound bus company was forced to maintain a set of rest rooms for black men, black women, white men, and white women in memphis, tenn., or a railroad company was required to make passengers get up from one part of a train and go to another part of a train when it crossed a state airline, it interfered with inter-state commerce. it is a wonderful reflection of america as a commercial republic -- the fact that racial
discrimination interfered with inter-state commerce was something that congress could deal with. there was a constitutional challenge to the civil rights act of 1964 that came to the supreme court in something called the heart of the atlanta motel case and involved an african-american couple that was denied a room at a motel all traveling along the east coast. if the supreme court region while traveling on a long the east coast. the supreme court -- while traveling along the east coast. the supreme court said that denial was interfering with interstate commerce and as a consequence the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of the civil rights act of 1964. congress and the supreme court in general has been very lenient with congress --
commerce in the use of the commerce clause for the constitutional justification of what it does. in recent years, however, there have been significant efforts by the supreme court to cut back on that free-wheeling use of the commerce clause. one involves a piece of legislation called the gun-free schools act. what this did was create a zone around public schools in which a person could not have possession of a fire arm or be subjected to penalties. this was challenged in a case called the united states vs. lopez, and the supreme court came to the conclusion that restricting guns from the vicinity of school had nothing to do with commerce. you could not make a case that the possession of a firearm
within a particular zone somehow impede the flow of commerce across state lines. subsequently, the supreme court held constitutional provisions of the violence against women act, saying that in an of itself, of violence against women does not interfere with inter-state commerce. while there has been a general acceptance of acts of congress pass using the commerce clause as constitutional justification by the supreme court, there has been a narrowing in more recent years, and that is perhaps what the opponents of the national health insurance program are looking suit, hoping that somehow if the law is challenged, and it has been challenged already in four states with four different
results. all four. in the united states district court, -- occured in the united states district court. in two cases, the new act was upheld and in two it was found to be unconstitutional. what happens is the supreme court sees a conflict in the lower judiciary and says we are going to have to solve it. it seems to me that the question of the constitutionality of the national health insurance reform will get before the supreme court, and perhaps later on you can act -- as one of our panelists about the likelihood that that will get to the supreme court in the very near future. what is going to happen, in fact, is when the 112 congress
convenes, one of the first acts of the newly elected house of representatives, with its new republican majority, they will vote to repeal the national health insurance reform. it will be kind of interesting. in all likelihood, when the president goes before the american people, standing there in the chamber of the house of representatives, he will face a house of representatives that probably has just repealed the signature accomplishment of the obama administration. however, as you know, all of you that our political scientists -- all of you that our political scientists, it is pretty unlikely that the senate will follow suit, and also repeal the national health insurance
reform. even if that were the case and the senate went along with the house, it is a certainty that president obama would veto it because to allow the repeal to take effect would be to deny him his major accomplishment. that is something that we can look forward to. we are going to see other things happen this year, for example, that are going to have constitutional implications. for example, one of the interesting developments recently has been a challenge to the so-called birthright provision of the 14th amendment to the constitution. it is really interesting because the part that is under attack is actually the first sentence of
the 14th amendment of the constitution, which says all persons born or naturalized in the united states and subject to the jurisdiction there of our citizens of the united states and the state wherein they reside. the 14th amendment was one of three post-civil war amendments -- the 13th which abolished slavery, the 14th, which in the sense did something very important. it nullified the effect of the dried-scott decision. the supreme court said that black people could not be citizens of the united states. they had no rights that a white person was bound to obey. the 14th amendment reverse that. they conferred citizenship for the people that were held in
bondage. while board, at this particular point, this -- white would this, at this particular point, become so controversial that the international subcommittee on integration has called for the repeal of that first sentence of the 14th amendment. it is not an easy thing to enact a constitutional amendment or to repeal a constitutional amendment, but nonetheless representative king will try. what has caused this to become a big issue is the problem of people coming to the united states, and documented, and having children in the united states, who, of course, according to the first sentence of the 14th amendment would be its citizens of the united states, even though their
parents were not. the critics of the use of the birth rite privilege say that people come deliberately to the united states for the purpose of having children so that citizenship would be conferred upon them, and making it more on likely that their parents would be deported. this is what critics call the anchor baby problem. this has generated controversy. in some states, states will try by state action to nullify the birthright provision. the question is, can they do this? that brings up, of course, another interesting but often overlooked aspect of american government -- the relationship between the federal government and the states. the constitution is pretty clear that the federal government is
responsible for laws relating to naturalization. in fact, it has always been considered the exclusive province of the federal government. what are the states doing to get involved in this? well, it all began with arizona, eight border state which had been a place where an enormous amount of immigration has taken place. arizona has been under siege really. the state legislature plat -- passed a law which empowered police to make stops and detain people expected of been in the united states -- suspected of being in the united states illegally. this, again, becomes a constitutional question, and one of many that will be the subject of debate during the 112th congress. it really is an enormously
exciting time to be here, and particularly to focus on issues that have not been widely debated, including what is the proper scope of the federal government? we had a debate in 1787, 1788, about whether or not we should have a constitution. the people who favored the constitution won. they got a constitution in large measure because of the superior argumentative powers of people like james madison, alexander hamilton, john jay, and the collective offers of the federalist papers. the federalist papers are not like the constitution or the declaration of independence. they were basically an effort to sell the constitution.
the people who were selling it, the federalists, were successful, and the people who tried to block ratification of the constitution, the anti- federalists, where the losers. history is not kind to the losers. did they have reason to fear what many of them considered in this new constitution had a potential vehicle for? the schism, a dictatorship? were these people that believed that the state stood as a protector of this on known thing called the federal government. this a debate basically stopped in 1789 with the ratification of the constitution. it has been a continuous debate throughout american history. just what are the limits of what the federal government can do?
what is reserved to the states? are the states simply entities that issue colorful license plates? many americans do not really comprehend the fact that on a day-to-day basis much more of our lives are regulated by the actions of states. you and i cannot get a driver's license from the federal government. you and i who want to become a lawyer and practice in ohio could not be authorized to practice in ohio by the federal government. if you wanted to be a barber, a beautician, or any licensed profession, you would need, basically, the permission of your state. the federal government really is in many ways a much less direct influence on our daily lives.
yes, we have to pay federal income tax. yes, we have to abide by central laws and so on, but where do you draw the line? this 112 congress will have a lot of debate about precisely where that line will be drawn. one of the aspects of the debate has to do with what is proper and what is it improper in what the federal government does. what is so interesting about the debate is that the countries that are most like us in the world in terms of respect for individual rights, political rights, organizing political opposition, freedom of the press, and so on -- i'm talking largely about the countries of western europe. these countries really honor individual rights every bit as much as we do, but there is one
significant difference between us and the europeans. that is that the breadth of the national governmental power in europe is so much more comprehensive than ours in the united states. there is a wonderful little book by a fine political scientist called "america and the unusual ." we really are unusable in regard to things like social welfare benefits. i think an american would be pleased to be in a country like sweden which provides day care, reserves jobs for women who are on pregnancy leave, provides for not only maternal leave, but fraternal leave -- paternal leave. i think americans kind of like that, but if you turn around at -- and look what they pay in
taxes, i think americans would be horrified. if there is a significant difference in terms of the differences between us and the countries that are most like us in terms of what they regard as the proper scope of government. this debate over what is too much, what is adequate, what is excessive, and so on, has been going on since the ratification debate. if it comes up in different forms. it was one of the issues after all, that precipitated the civil war, in which the seceded states charged that the federal government was interfering with the domestic institutions of the state -- slavery -- and that the state had the ability to withdraw. we thought that issue was settled that the end of the
civil war when the confederacy was defeated and ultimately the southern states were reconstructed back into the union. but, very recently, governor where it. of texas has suggested that -- the governor of texas has suggested that they might succeed from the union. that is unlikely, but what it should suggest is that the debate continues. it is an interesting debate. another thing we are going to see, for example, in congress in addition to the reading of the constitution on thursday, under the new republican rules in the house, when a bill is introduced, the person introducing the bill will have
to provide the constitutional basis for that bill. it raises an interesting question about congress. does congress really debate the constitutionality of the bills that it passes? in conversations with members of congress, i have found that constitutionality does not figure very prominently in these debates. there is an assumption that what congress does is constitutional. the supreme court has a presumption that is constitutional, unless it finds otherwise. the supreme court is hesitant to find act of congress unconstitutional, but the constitutional debates which we think often take place rarely do for a fascinating reason that has to do with what we all know about congress and members of
congress. members of congress, once elected, like nothing better than to be reelected. the ingredients for getting reelected, frankly, are not that difficult. basically, what it amounts to is making sure that if you are a member of the house of representatives, roughly 700,000 people in your congressional district are satisfied with your performance. when you guys go up to the hill, you are not come in there as an uninvited guest. your presence there should not be, certainly, anything that the staff finds annoying or distressing. you are the boss. you belong there. members of congress like to have you there. they want you to know who they are. they want you to like them. one of the things that members of congress and do to make
themselves likable to their constituents is to be responsive to them. when people have a problem, something they are angry about and feel the government should do something about, they will send e-mails. they will visit. they will come down to washington and protest, and so on. congress, being composed of people who want to be reelected and wants to comply. what happens is that in their desire to be responsive in an understandable way will enact laws which they may suspect are not constitutional, but the feeling often is so what if it is? what is the practical effect? we do something that is unconstitutional. if it is popular, we have satisfied our constituents.
if it is unconstitutional, the supreme court will declared unconstitutional and no harm will be done. all have one, and all should have prizes. i mention this because i think it is a good thing that congress be required, at least the house of representatives be required, to state exactly what it is in this bill that has some concrete -- constitutional authority. where is it? what provision is in there? it is it something that could be inferred from the very specific delegation of powers to congress? i think that the idea of laws the coming constitutional we all wear is a very good thing -- of austin becoming constitutionally aware is a very good thing. one of the things they you
should do, and they're rarely ask people to emulate me in any way, is carry this around with you. take it out of your pocket when you get into an argument and say "you are wrong. i think all congressional offices have these. you can get your own copy of the constitution and win in arguments with your friends. it is a great thing to have. i personally look forward to this new era of constitutional awareness, and it will be attended with a great deal of acrimony given the high-level of political polarization which you have undoubtedly heard much of and will hear more this week. it will be fierce. as much as i approved of
bipartisanship and things that people should be a harmonious and love each other and so on, politics is about differences. there are very few things, actually, in which there is a complete consensus other than perhaps that the sun rises in the east every day. some of these differences can be harmonized and some of them are irreconcilable. i think in a well-oiled political system, we have the mechanism for solving these things. in the coming week we will be looking at what the likelihood is of this democratic president in the third year of his incumbency, this republican house of representatives, whose majority was acquired in the 2010 election, this democratic majority, albeit reduced in the
united states senate, to cope with some of these issues in a manner in which debate is free and open, bracing and exciting, sometimes a bit over the top, but all within the bounds of stability. partisanship is not a bad thing. polarization has created some problems, basically of the debate getting beyond the bounds of i think genuine human proprieties. when i talk to you on the following day why i am going to do is basically talk about what we have been talking about, recapitulating what some of the speakers and guests have said, and then try to put in context for you, the best i can. i think you will come away with this -- from this experience
with a much fuller understanding of what goes on here in town, and what the prospects are for this hundred 12th congress and beyond. having spoken at least 10 minutes beyond what i thought i would be speaking for, i would like to take your questions if you have any. [applause] >> if you have a question, raise your hand, and we will bring the microphones to you. >> everyone is a little inhibited the first day. we have a courageous soul. >> you talked a lot about how the constitution is good. do you think the constitution it
should be able to hold up those [unintelligible] >> i hope the constitution is not out-dated. there might be some procedures in congress which are outdated, and one of the things i think you will be hearing a lot about is the filibuster in the senate. senator tom udall of colorado has proposed that the filibuster in the senate be modified. now, the filibuster is an interesting creature that exists only in the united states senate. the filibuster is a peculiar animal that could only thrive in a small institution like the senate. a filibuster in the house of representatives would lead to utter chaos. you cannot have 435 people being
able to slow down or even stop the legislative process. that would not work in the house. if there are people that are you it does not work in the senate either. basically, the history of the filibuster is fascinating because when it really comes down to -- i think almost any of you who have been in an organization that uses robert's rules of order know about the previous question -- when something must come to a vote. from the early 19th century until around the time of the first world war, there was no way at all to stop debate in the united states senate and come to 8 vote unless it was by unanimous consent. interestingly enough, much of what the senate does today is by unanimous consent. if you think about how it is possible that 100 men and
women, democrats, all republicans, centrists, conservatives, liberals, could agree on anything, but they do and they do a fair amount of the time. what happened around the time of world war one that cost for the first time since the early 19th century the senate to terminate debate and to come to a vote was a proposal from the wilson administration to arm american merchant vessels who were been sunk by german submarines during a time of unrestricted warfare. this was a while the united states was still neutral in world war one that president wilson wanted our civilian merchant vessels to be armed to protect themselves. have a small group of senators from the midwest, who president
wilson referred to contemptuously as a small group of willful men, blocked the enactment of that armed ship and bill, and for the first time the senate allowed for the termination of debate. the filibuster was subsequently modified in 1975 and again. -- again. the threshold went from two thirds to 3/5, where it is now. the proposal now -- thank you. the proposal now is to make it even easier to cut off debate.
one of the things that the tom udall proposal is seeking is to require the senators who are blocking legislation to actually get up on the floor and speak against it. the filibuster, increasingly, has involved senators simply noting the absence of a quorum, and requiring a quorum call and repeated a quorum calls. the business of the senate is then held up not by debate or a reasoned argument against the bill, but rather simply by procedural exit -- manipulation. asked if that alone were changed, it would make a big difference. there have been ways to get around the filibuster. senator harry reid, for example, has threatened to run
the senate on a 24-hour basis, to basically wear down the people that are filibustering. there are ways around it. there is no question that is one of the things we will see a debate on in the 112 congress. yes. >> do you think that a constitution that might be updated [unintelligible] it is really having a global effect [unintelligible] do you think any updates will be made to the constitution as far as technology? >> there will be some updating going on with the espionage
act, which apparently in the opinion of most people, it is the only thing on the books we could use to prosecute julian assange. that was enacted during the first world war, shortly after woodrow wilson got the armed ship built, and that was to prosecute people that were propagandizing for germany in the united states and so on. the problem as i understand it is that there have not been successful prosecutions. you can prosecute, but you can not necessarily convict, and i think that is a problem. by the way, we will also be seen a continuing debate about bob -- and we will hear about this on friday when chakra rosenberg comes to talk to us -- chuck
rosenberg's comes to talk to us, the vitality of the courts created by the constitution -- the supreme court and the other courts created by congress. whether or not these courts will be adequate to deal with the problem of terror suspects. there was recently a case in new york involving a man who received a 20-year term for terrorist acts, but was acquitted on almost everything else. it raised the fear that some of the article 3 courts would not be up to the task of trying these terrorism suspects. they would have to be tried by the so-called military commissions. we will hear a lot about this debate, sooth. president obama has been thwarted in his efforts to close
down guantanamo bay and transfer people to the united states civilian courts. there are a lot of challenges that are emerging that may well cause us to wonder about the adequacy, when more, i think, of federal law than the constitution itself, but certainly the novelty of the challenge posed by julian assange is really quite remarkable because he claims to be a journalist. he refers to himself as the editor of wikileaks. of course, the broadest protection is offered by the first amendment to journalists, and if you style yourself a journalist, and are regarded as a journalist, it will be very difficult to curt's tell your right to publish -- curtail your right to publish, even though in
the first dump of documents wikileaks put out there there was material that jeopardized individuals. they backed off and have begun to add some of the materials they put out, and the newspapers like "the new york times" have imposed additional limits on what they feel can be published. there will be all kinds of novel challenges that will be emerging as a result of these technologies. things that we cannot even imagine now -- the question of whether or not, for example, the violent video games could be restricted. those are all things that i think are well within the capacity and flexibility of our judicial system to handle. yes. >> wait for the microphone.
>> my name is jessica. do you think that if obama decided to change something it would fuel the tea party movement? >> you are referring to the article i had last week in "usa today caracol i think there is nothing president obama could do ." "usa today car i do not think there is anything president obama can do to ingratiate himself with the tea party. the question is not so much what the president's relationship with the tea party as it is the republicans in congress and their relationship with the tea party. much of the passion generated on behalf of republican
candidates in the 2010 election came as a result of tea party activism. what i think is different about the tea party as opposed to other social movements in the past is that they not only seems to want to be involved in elections, but involved in legislative process as well. there is now a caucus. dick armey, who was ahead of one of the various tea party groups is in washington for the purpose of looking over the shoulder of congress. he says you were all elected to make changes that the tea party wanted, and if you do not do it, you will be accountable. i think better representative john boehner, the new speaker of the house, -- i think that
representative john boehner, the new speaker of the house, is very mindful of the tea party. on the other hand, members of the tigris have an understanding -- of the congress have an understanding of the gravity of what they need to do. there are certain things and need to be done. money needs to be provided to keep the government going, even the elements of the federal government you do not like. i think it is important that bills need to be paid. one of the things that we will be confronting, perhaps as early as march, is something called the extension of the debt limit. the current borrowing limit of the united states is $14.30 trillion. that will have to be raised. we are continuing to borrow money. some of the people that were elected with tea party support
have said they would not vote for an extension of the debt limit unless very radical changes were made in the way the federal government spends money. here is a daring challenge, but it is one that has potentially apocalyptic consequences. that is if the debt limit extension were in fact defeated, the united states and would go into default and would not be able to pay off bondholders. this is something that going back to 1787, 1788, the framers of the constitution knew the united states had to do. we had borrowed in a reckless way to win the revolutionary war against great britain and it was important that our credit be restored. one of the things in the constitution was that we would
assume the debts not only of the united states government prior to the adoption of the constitution, but the states as well. again, we are a commercial republic. we have to be credit-worthy. his we are credit -- if we are not credit-worthy, no one will lend us a dime. do you need to use the debt limit? are there other ways to do it? i would suggest there are. you could do it through the budget, the appropriations process, and so on. i think that playing with the debt limit as a weapon is a very dangerous thing. it is kids playing with matches. is something we have to be very careful about. >> i also go to wellesley college.
what do you think some of the challenges for the obama administration will be in the next two years now that the house of representatives is majority republican? >> i do not know where to start. one of the things that i think is really interesting has to do with the control of greenhouse gases. there was a case that came before the supreme court, the epa against massachusetts, in which the supreme court said the environmental protection agency could legally regulate the emission of greenhouse gases. that question had been tackled by congress early in the 111th congress with the so-called cap and trade bill, which was enormously popular among
environmentalists and hated like poison in kentucky, west virginia, and all of the places wherecoal is mined. if a huge amount of power is generated with coal. there was a concern about jobs and whether or not we could function as an economy without coal. cap and trade pass in the house of representatives and never got anywhere in the senate at all. having lost that battle, the obama administration now had the authority on the supreme court decision to go ahead and have the environmental protection agency begin to impose limits on power plants and how much greenhouse gas they could be met. this is something that the original opponents of cap and trade, and it is not just the
senators and representatives from the states with coal, it is other people concerned about the widespread regulations of the epa. they will do things like try to withhold money from the epa to enforce. government agencies can not run on a big sales. they require appropriations of money from congress. if congress wants to say we're not going to give one penny to the epa for enforcing greenhouse gas limits, they're not going to be able to do it. if there will undoubtedly be a large number of oversight hearings. when of the names you will hear a lot about this year is representative darrell issa, a california republican who will be the new chairman of the house government affairs and oversight
committee. he is going to have members of the administration up in front of that committee. when representative henry waxman brought up members of the tobacco industry and basically had them -- but flogged them publicly in front of the public so the oversight process of congress can be used -- considering how many subcommittees there are in congress, you could have the administration in mobilized by subpoenas to come and testify before congress. this would have a debilitating effect on the demonstration. the senate could refuse to confirm presidential nominations to agencies, for
example, that were responsible for policing environmental laws. so there are a lot of things that can be done to make it difficult for the obama administration. the question is what combination of things could this moderately liberal democratic president and his conservative republican halrepresentatives in this newly empowered minority in the senate, what can they agree on? that is going to be an interesting challenge. in one of the questions, i think, the members of this panel are going to talk about. there does not seem to be a lot. people talk about certain things about education and perhaps or foreign trade they might be able to agree on. but, certainly, in order to
accomplish anything during the second two years of the administration, the president is going to have to find some common ground with republicans. republicans do not want to be in a position of simply saying no all the time. they want to have legislative accomplishments as well. many republicans are very happy with the extension of the 2001 tax cuts. but they also felt both the obama administration got much too much, including an extension of unemployment benefits and other things as well. it is not impossible. i do not foresee the 112 congress nothing being accomplished. at this point, i am interested in finding what the sovereign remedy is to be able to come up
with something that the president and congress can agree on. it will be a very combative congress. you can't assume that republicans in the house of representatives are going to -- you can assume that republicans in the house of representatives -- it is going to be exciting. i think the debate can be kept within reasonable the civil grounds but will be an interesting spectacle. yes? >i saw a hand here. >> [inaudible] >> why the supremacy of the
constitution -- >> why is it such a good thing for them to have the constitutionality if the law has that at the center of -- >> i think congress really has to conform to the constitution. it may be that the reading of the constitution or constitutionality of must be stated for a loaw. i don't think it is an important change but i think it is a good thing, just to be aware of that what congress does is simply not the will of congress. there are a lot of things that are good to do that the constitution does not authorize. so i think it is good
intellectual discipline for the members of congress because they have to think about that. when i introduce a bill, it really does have to have some basis somewhere in the constitution. yes? >> [unintelligible] spur debate over time? >> i will give you an example. article 2 which expresses in the most excruciating detail the powers of congress -- you come
to article 2. what do you get? he shot take care to see the laws of the state's executed. again, completely vague. however, if you think about it, in terms of what the framers envisioned of the government in 1789, certainly the most change is the presidency. congress would really be recognized -- if james madison somehow came out of his crept and wandered into the chamber of the house of representatives, it would be larger than it was in 1789 but they were basically doing the same things. the presidency or shocked many people -- the presidency would
shock many people. some presidents have really push the constitution to the limit. in particular, the ability of presidents to assume much greater powers to the office during times of national emergency. that is been the real extension of the presidency. you look at those periods of american history in which president to power has expanded -- the civil war, the great depression, world war ii, the. in the 1970's with a lot of regulatory growth, the establishment of this safety and health administration, and then after 9/11. president bush very aggressively, along with the help -- >> we will leave this program at this point to go to capitol hill.
>> as you know, tomorrow, the 112 congress will be called to order. house democrats will keep our focus on the creation of jobs, putting the american people to work. we will measure every policy, from both parties as it comes forth, as to whether it creates jobs, whether it strengthens the middle class, and whether it reduces the deficit, instead of keeping mountains of debt. we pledge to work together with our republican colleagues to address challenges facing america's working families. we must solve their problems. when the suggestions put forth, and republicans will find democrats willing partners. some focus has been made to keep job creation front and center.
house democrats will continue to protect the gains we have made for the american people, both in terms of the health-care reform bill and the wall street reform bill, both of which gives us leverage to america's working families. the health reform law created for the first time a patient's bill of rights. we will work to ensure that children with pre-existing conditions can continue to get coverage. young people can stay on their parent plants until age 26 -- on until thents' plans age of 26. it is important to have comprehensive health care reform. a leading our efforts within our caucus, i am very pleased today to be here with our democratic
leader of the house, steny hoyer. chris van hollen, the ranking member now on the budget committee. rob andrews, who has given us the master class on many issues facing the congress including health care. and i am pleased to be announcing today expanded roles for two of our members. as you may recall, before we left for the break, i announced that two congressmen would be vice chairs of a new committee. debbie has been a leader in the congress on many fronts. she went on to the appropriations committee and was
a leader. she has been working very hard on behalf of america's working families. daddy will be leading the way in communicating with our members -- debbie will be leading the way in communicating with our members. henry has been a leader in terms of deficit reduction in congress. i am a very proud of his ongoing work in that regard. he will be working in that way as we go forward. one of the last bills to pass was his legislation for procurement. it was the greatest trick current reform since the early 1990's -- it was the greatest procurement reforms since the early 1990's. it has long been a priority for our caucus. so i salute him for that and
look forward to his expanded role in deficit reduction, procurement reform, ending waste, fraud, and abuse, and making hard decisions to go forward to create jobs, reduce the deficit, and protect the middle class. democrats will present a strong message to the american people, putting jobs first, and being a fiscally responsible as we do so. it is my pleasure to turn this meeting over to a real star in the house democratic caucus, a person who has the confidence of her colleagues and to respect of her constituents and the american people. the new vice chair of the committee with special responsibilities for communicating with each and every one of you, congresswoman it debbie schultze. >> thank you so much for giving me this important
responsibility. i look forward to making sure all of us can work together on an effectively communicating democratic priorities, within our colleagues and across the country. the number one priority for our country is creating jobs and turning this economy around. as the speaker mentioned, we will measure the republican effort by the falling. it does is create jobs? does it strengthen the middle- class? but does it -- doesn't reduce the deficit? unfortunately, what we have been hearing so far from our republican colleagues is different. instead of focusing on job creation, their top priority is to repeal the health care reform law. under the republican repeal
effort, insurance companies would once again be able to drop people if they get sick. children with pre-existing conditions will be denied coverage while insurance companies can impose caps. young people will not be able to stay on their parents' insurance until the age of 26. a pregnant women and breast cancer survivors can see an increase in their coverage. millions will be sent back to the doughnut hole. plain and simple, repealing health care reform would hurt millions of americans. in south florida where i am from, a 19-year-old teenager takes an expensive medication. she is currently on her mom's health insurance bought but whatever -- but without the health care reform law, she will unable to remain eligible
on her mother's insurance. because of health care assurance reform, she can remain on her mother's insurance plan until the age of 26. that will provide her a bridge until she is 26 years old. it is not just mean benefits for people with chronic illnesses. a woman came up to be in the grocery store and put her hand on my shoulder and said thank you for passing health care reform. you save me $3,000 last year when i was able to put my two adult daughters back on my health insurance plan. now, this year, thousands of my constituents on medicare are going to receive free wellness and visits and discounts on brand-name drugs. republicans' obsession for repeal and health care reform is going to hurt real people by
spending to less hours to repeal health care reform rather than focusing on jobs, the a economy, and deficit reduction. every minute wasted is one last minute the republicans will spend on job creation in turning this economy around. it is going to take hundreds of hours of time. we cannot take our eyes off the price of continuing our economic recovery. we are going to watch for every hypocrisy and call them on it when we see it. thank you very much. >> sank you very much, debbie, and thank you for the opportunity to serve as one of the vice chairs. i want to thank the leadership for all the work they have done. the well-being of our economy is a problem that many have
addressed. reducing the deficit and the national debt is not a partisan issue. it is a good idea. our caucus will support good ideas matter their origin, and we expect the new majority to do the same. we must build on the recent passage of the bipartisan government efficiency and effectiveness and performance act to shine a brighter light on government agencies. it is imperative that we aggressively examine all expenditures to increase transparency and accountability together. we now have a bill that will be signed by the president to make sure we do this in a way that measures not for political reasons but measuring results because this is what our taxpayers are asking us to do. if you recall the pay go, after
it expired, our government took a fiscal u-turn, going to deficit of over $11 trillion. will doubleld debt wa over the next 10 years if action is not taken. china holds $800 million of our debt. it makes it more expensive for families to borrow money in order to purchase a home, finance education, or start a small business. week reinstitution statutory paygo to rein in spending so we do not have to
rely on countries to pay for our priorities like education or transportation. the proven rules effectively brought budget surpluses as we had in the 1990's. let me talk about the bill that we just passed because i know the government oversight will be doing a lot to work on how we spend money. we have a bill that will be signed into statute to bring increased transparency and accountability. it is a results-oriented tool for agencies to measure the results as a small business does every day. agencies will be subject to cut provisions not on political reasons but on the performance of the results. the agencies that underperform can face budget cuts or even elimination. again, performance and not political reasons.
a word of caution. as we aim to reduce the deficit and the national debt, we must be start -- smart and still invest in the future of our country. thank you. at this time, i would like to ask steny hoyer to approach. >> good morning. this week, we are beginning a new congress. we have finished the election cycle. in that election cycle, it seemed to me there were two compelling messages. they are we need jobs and we need to grow the economy. the second message is we need to address the deficit and the debt. speaker nancy pelosi have asked two extraordinary members, one from florida on the
appropriations committee. she has traveled all over this country, has listened to people, listened to her constituents, whether in a grocery stores taking her by the shoulders or anyplace else in this country. she has heard their message. she understands why we need to be doing in terms of focusing on jobs and growing the economy. in fact, making it in america, succeeding in america and manufacturing it in america. she will be conveying that message not just to you, not just on the floor of the house of representatives, but the american people as well. we still confront the challenges that were present during the course of the election. we still are in the 9.5% plus
unemployment. we need to get people back to work by growing the economy and focusing on jobs. to the extent that our colleagues are doing just that, they will seek willing partners so the economy can continue, and i emphasize "continue," to grow. economists are saying the programs put in place during the last congress are in fact bearing fruit, not as quickly as we would like, but bearing fruit. the economy is growing. in november, voters sent a strong message. they want us to focus on those challenges and work together to solve them. that is exactly what democrats are committed to do. together, we can work to strengthen america's businesses, rebuild manufacturing and middle-class jobs, and make the
heart, fiscal choices that are necessary to save our crisis. i fear, however, that unfortunately, the rules package that republicans will be offering will make the deficit worse, not better, will explode deficits as has been the case in years past, and are attempting to change as they did it in the early 2000's the paygo premise, that you would pay for what you buy. we will work with them when we are accomplishing the job creation objectives and the deficit-reduction objectives. when we are doing things that we think undermined our economy and exposes the deficit. we are working every day to hold republicans accountable for the promises they made to the
american people. above all, we are proud to be the party of working people. in the 30 days, approximately, of the lame-duck session, we reached out to working people to make sure they could succeed. we reached out to those who are unemployed of no fault of their own and passed unemployment insurance. we made sure that middle class working people did not get a tax increase this month. and they did not. so we have continued our pledge to be the party of working people and of a bright future for our country. we are headed in a direction that is positive. we need to continue on that road, and i know under the leadership of did the and henry -- of debbie and henry, we will
be successful in that effort. again, i say to my republican colleagues, i congratulate mr. john boehner on his victory, mr. eric cantor on his taking a title that i would really like to have -- you can keep calling me that if you want. i will not object. elections have consequences. the fact that the matter is, the american public wants to see progress, not division. they want to see jobs, not just political rhetoric. they are not interested in just hearing about us reading the constitution as will be done on thursday. they are hopeful that we will accomplish what the constitution envisioned, and that was the betterment of the general welfare of all americans.
so i congratulate the speaker on the apartment of debbie and henry as a vice chairs of our policy committee and joining in george miller and rosa who cochairs the policy committee. thank you very much. >> and thank you very much, mr. leader. i congratulate them for their new responsibilities and thank them for their leadership. we all look forward to working with them. how proud we are of their leadership, debbie and henry. with that, we would be pleased to take some questions that you
may have. >> you have talked a lot about jobs and the dead. have you regret that you did not use the two years to focus more on jobs and especially debt? >> no. as a matter of fact, we have sent a very positive initiatives to the united states senate where they were held up by the republicans in the senate. it is hard to believe that they may want not to cooperate when it was a question of creating jobs, whether it was jobs related to new, green technologies. so, no, we have no regret. we have set legislation for job creation, which republicans in the senate held up. deficit reduction has been a
high priority for us. it is our mantra, pay as you go. unfortunately, that will be changed now. this administration inherited a near depression so the initiatives we took were positive for the american people, if not enough to say 9.5% to implement is tolerable. as long as we have that, we have to continue to fight for job creation. >> this is your last day as the speaker of the house. what does that mean for you? >> and that is a completely separate question. actually, i don't really look back. i look forward. we look forward to being a willing partner in solving the problems of the american people.
and when our republican colleagues have solutions for solving problems of the american people, they will find a willing partner. i congratulate steny hoyer and republicans for their majority. i wish them success and look forward to working with them. >> you mentioned it coverage of pre-existing conditions and a lot of other parts of health care reform. you did not mention the individual mandate. is it negotiable? >> if you are going to have a patient's bill of rights, you have to have comprehensive health care reform. others will say i support not having pre-existing condition being a reason for loss of coverage, but if you do not have comprehensive reform, you give
licenses to raise the rates to the roof. >> if you want to guarantee the american people and massive increase in their health insurance premiums, then it disrupt the basic reforms that we passed last year. the easy and on wise thing to do is to say you are for covering people with pre-existing conditions but then not have enough people to prevent maximum premium increases for the middle-class. if the new majority wants to raise premiums, no, we will not raise -- we will not join them in that. >> they also talk about making deficit reduction a priority yet the first thing out of the gate they want to do is repeal health care reform.
what we should be watching for and what we are going to be watching for is a republican hypocrisy, where they continue their meaningless rhetoric. when they get here and are in charge, they backed up with either the opposite of what they campaigned on or simple hypocritical politics. >> tomorrow, this is going to come up on the point just raised with respect to health care insurance. they are going to employ budget gimmicks to hide the cost of their actions. what they are going to do is engage in enron-type accounting, which is to say that when date repeal health care reform, the hit on the deficit will not matter. they are going to magically make
them go away. that plan is exactly what the american people came to expect less time the republicans were in charge. they told the american people they listened and learned but in the rules package we see tomorrow, it will be clear that it is back to the same. this provision in the rule says it is not going to count the cost of repaying health care reform. >> let me just mention, first of all, the first question about jobs -- keep in mind that december 2008, we are releasing 750,000 jobs a month. at this time, we are increasing jobs. the other thing is, i have a copy of the resolution that they will be looking at to instruct their committees to replace
health care. i will just mention a few of them. lower premiums through choice. we do that already. the ability to keep your health care if he or she already likes it. we have that already. protect doctor-patient relationship. we have that already. expanded incentives to encourage personal responsibility. we have that. eliminate duplicates of government programs of wasteful spending? we certainly have that already because we were working on that.
we just passed a tax reduction bill. again, this is something that we have already but i guess this is an exercise we will be doing. >> the fact is, this is nothing more, this repeal of health care but republicans sis a dance. i am quoting some journalists who mentioned this. i do not remember the name. it is not going to happen. it is very interesting, there's a choice of words. it is "repeal the." is nothing about replacement. what is going to replace all those items that have been laid out? even at these early stages, the public has come to appreciate when your child can stay on
until the age of 26, when you have a pre-existing condition and can now get insurance, when you are a small business and can get a tax credit. they are not going to repeal. it is disingenuous. it is nothing then political theater. we need to continue to point that out to the american public. i am going to make one comment more, which is in general. what is sorely lacking, given the repeal of health care, jobs and the economy, and what they have talked about will be ruinous to the economy. cutting education, cutting transportation. there will be more unemployment as a result of with want to go. deficit reduction -- if it was not so sad, it would be laughable given the rules they
have come up with in their package and what it will do to unmask the gross in the deficit. it is just more fakery. finally, what this nation needs at this moment, and what our leadership have talked about, is a national growth strategy how do we turn our economy around? how do we create jobs? how do we build a manufacturing? what do we do about research and innovation and education and infrastructure? all of those pieces, which they want to drastically cut, will create jobs, help lower the deficit. and that is the direction. that is the forward direction that we spoke about where we are going. thank you. >> on the health care reform bill, if everyone in america was
very pleased with his or her health insurance and had no complaints and had access to quality, affordable health care in our country, it still would have been necessary for us to pass the health care reform bill because we could not sustain the system. now, you know that it is not true, that people are satisfied with their health insurance, and that tens of millions of people are excluded from it or thrown off their policy if they become sick. you know the pre-existing conditions exclude. the sustainability of the cost of health care to individual families, to small businesses, corporate america, to our economy in terms of our competitiveness internationally and also to our federal budget
is unsustainable. that is why this comprehensive health care reform, one of the main reasons, it was necessary. over $100 billion in the first 10 years of over $1 trillion in the next 10 years following that. that is of the nonpartisan congressional budget office. it to say we are going to repeal it is to do very serious violence to the national debt and deficit. so for what it means for personal security, when it means for fiscal security for our country, you cannot just say i liked the palatable parts of this. i don't want the structural pain that is required. >> the rules that the republicans will adopt a more will allow for the extension of tax cuts or tax breaks without regard to the deficit or any
requirements of spending cuts. it will democrats oppose that based on the checklist of contributing to the deficit? >> absolutely. it is a continuation, not a change or an about face, of the policies that freckly have been in place under republican presidents since i have been in congress. ronald reagan adopted an economic program that created $1.40 trillion in deficit over the next eight years. george bush continue those policies and added another trillion dollars to the deficit. bill clinton came in in 1993 and we adopted a paygo process, which we pursued in 1990 in a bipartisan way and renewed in 1997 in a bipartisan way. that led us to a surplus for the first time in over a century
for eight years of a president's term under bill clinton. we then dumped and went back to the rules in doubt -- then i want to adopt tomorrow. we went back to those rules and we encouraged an additional $2.60 trillion in deficits, which means that under republican presidents since i have been in congress, 30 years, we have had some $5.50 trillion of operating deficits and surpluses under bill clinton. those rules they are providing now say if you caught revenues or if you eliminate health care or you do about 10 other things, you don't have to pay for it. somebody will pay for it. it will be our children and our grandchildren who will pay for it.
there is no free lunch. supply-side economics which is argued so fervently by so many simply means if you do less, you get more. nothing that i have done in my lifetime showed me that if i did last i got more. nothing. as a result, we will oppose these rules is that unfortunately return us to the fiscal responsibility that was practiced under president reagan, president bush, the second president bush, which put us deeply into a deficit. it not only grew the economy but give us the worst economy that we have seen it since herbert hoover. >> i just want to add one thing about the rules package and the budget. in addition, as you probably
saw, when you go through the budget reconciliation process, no longer do you have to have a deficit reduction. you can blow a hole in the reconciliation process. their package is chock full of stuff that leads to fiscal irresponsibility. that is one more example. >> i just want to say this, as a mother and grandmother, we don't have any intention of leaving any bills for our children. the issues you have been asking about that relates to the deficit are of the utmost seriousness because they address the strength of america. when we talk about what savings there may be an people cutting education, we know that is a bad choice. nothing you can name brings more
money to the treasury then investing in education of our children, of the american people. nothing. to cut there is a false economy. pay-as-you-go has been an initiative with us for 30 years. it camelot leader during the clinton administration -- it became a lot later during the clinton administration. now we have to fight this fight again. it is very important. that debate about revenue and investment has been essential long and will continue to be. again, we want to see initiatives that solve problems, create jobs, strengthen the middle class, and reduce the deficit without putting a burden of debt on our children and
grandchildren. thank you all very much. see you tomorrow. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the 112 congress gavels in on wednesday with the swearing in of members, the election of a new house speaker, and a new rules package. that is on c-span. >> coming a truly, we will go live to florida with a new governor will be sworn in. in his remarks, he will reportedly acknowledged the state's economic problems and promised tax cuts and less government spending. live coverage starts at noon eastern here on c-span. coming up this afternoon, the 112 congress and the use of the filibuster, which senate democrats are looking to weaken
this session. lamar alexander of tennessee is among the speakers at the event at the heritage foundation to date. watch it today at 2:00 p.m. eastern. newseum. "the l.a. times" has caught the ceremony -- a photogph of the ceremony yesterday. back in 1975 as jerry brown was sworn in as the youngest governor of california. now at the age of 72, the oldest governor, serving a third term. one of only two governors who served three terms in california. the other was earl warren who served almost three terms before he was appointed by president dwight eisenhower to serve as chief justice of the united states. "orange county register," brown sworn in.
the troubled california. "the miami herald" with republican rick scott taking the reins today in tallahassee. we will have live coverage of the ceremony at noon eastern time. he plans to low the pension cost and florida by $1.4 billion and slash state expenses as a way to offset potential budget deficit in florida. this from the front page of "the new york times." turning to laws to curb unions. pointing out that faced with growing budget deficits -- the elected officials from maine to alabama are pushing new laws is listen to limit the powers of labor unions.
here's more from the ceremony yesterday in sacramento as jerry brown elecd as the governo in one of the most -- in races in the midterm election. returning to the job be held. >> it is a tough budget for tough times. when dealing with a budget gap in the tens of billions, i must point out that there is far more an waste and inefficiency that we have to take out. yes, government wastes money. and i will be doing a lot about that starting this week. but government also pays for things that most people want. and that are approved only after elected representatives debate their merits and finally
will ban into law . they cover the spectrum -- from universities, parks, health care, prisons, income assistance, tax incentives, the environmental protection, fire fighting, and much else. but choices have to be made. and difficult decisions taken. host: by the way, governor brown's speech is available on our website, c-span.org. you can join the conversation by sending an e-mail at journal@c- span.org. a couple of editorials from "the nework post." another big state facing a looming debt. another editorial from "the wall street journal." blue men group, talking about
democratic governors. governor clinton and illinois proposing to raise $15 billion in new bond revenues -- gov. quinn in illinois. also saying the liberals that dominate the legislature in california are unrepentant and wh governor browno help them avoid serious cuts to close a $28 billion budget hole over the next 18 months. with that background, we want to hear from you. the state budgets. your solutions for cutting the debt. we begin with california. joe from the independent line in lancaster, california. good morning. caller: hello. we need to start enforcing laws we have already on the books. we don't need new laws.
we are wasting massive tax dollars on fraud in california. it needs to be cleaned up. welfare system is broken because we are not enforcing our laws. host: we will go to ann in new york city on the democrats' line. caller: new york, florida, california doing a lot of cuts and a lot of it is falling on the workers, the middle class workers. i resent so much that the republicans would not make the top 2 percent -- 2% or 3% richest people in the country make a sacrifice as well. i think it is time for class warfare in this country. host: from "e new york post, what this editorial cartoon for the radio audience -- outgoing governor paterson whiz andrew cuomo walking into a burning building, governor paterson
saying goodbye, and good luck. steve is joining us from princeton, west virginia. republican line. how the use of the state budget problems? caller: start drug testing every under age driver and anybody that takes any state assistance -- welfare, food stamps, things like that. that would help with policing the borders. that would be an excellent way of reducing the drug market. the headline inside "the washington times." brown said to govern and different california. now vernon, georgia. good morning, democrats' line. caller: talking about the state budg. in the two this.
business know-how and sacrifice. a lot of people talk about spending cuts. but it will also take the taxpayers willing to pay higher taxes -- not just for the rich, but everybody has to share in the sacrifice in order to cut the budget. it also takes smart politician to know how to do this and not afraid of the politics and not afraid to take on big unions and stuff like that. host: ok, thank you for the call. next is ken joining us from new york. independent line. caller: one suggestion would be for morstates to consider unicameral legislatures. it works in nebraska. host: thank you for the call. from "the new york daily news." gov. andrew cuomo trimming his salary, 5% cut. he will earn $170,000. asking the same from some of his senior advisers.
also the issue of taxes coming. in a ceremony that took place in albany, new york, over the weekend, here is more from andre cuomo who succeeds david paterson and follows on the footsteps of what -- of his father mario cuo. >> we have to pass a property- tax cap in the state of new york because working families can't afford to pay the ever- increasing tax burden. nothing is going up in their lives. their income is not blowing up, their bank accounts are not going up, their savings are not going up. they cannot afford never ending tax increases in the state of new york. and this state has no fure if it is going to be the tax capital of the nation. we have to send that signal this session by passing the property tax cap. host: the fred hot -- headlines from "the new post." let millionaire taxes die out.
he is saying, read my lips, no new taxes, an that includes levies on wealthy new yorkers, he is setting. he is against extending a temporary income tax surcharge on high income earners in 20 set to expire at the end of 2011. back to your calls. would stay to run the country facing budget deficits, what are some of the solutions? donna is joining us from michigan. you alshad a new governor, republican governor, in michigan and also the highest -- one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. caller: good morning. i am calling because we have a new governor. but if our legislature is going to continue to act in the same way it has in the past, he won't be able to do much to sol our problems. the legislature every year
spends a good deal of time arguing whether they are going to raise taxes -- republicans say, no, absolutely not. nothing ever really gets resolved. then at the last mine they finally, with some kind of arrangement that is not satisfactory and does not really solve the problem. one year they even shot the government down for a couple of hour host: sorry, did not mean to cut you off. caller: i did want to make another point because this is michigan. we are called the rust belt. i would like to start calling us the water bills. -- belt. because we have so many good natural resources and i would like to encourage lots of businesses to come here and see how wonderful michigan is. host: that is what we heard yesterday from the governor in his remarks.
donna, thanks for the call. >> we are going to leave "washington journal" and go to florida. >> raise your right hand and repeat after me. i solemnly swear -- that i will support, protect, and defend -- the constitution and the government -- of the united states and of the state of florida -- that i am duly qualified to hold office -- under the constitution of the state -- and is that i will faithfully perform -- the duties of gov. on which now i come about to enter so help me god. congratulations. [applause]
with a. first off, i thank everybody for coming. the governor could not have been more gracious during this transition. i thank him very much. [applause] clucks mr. president, mr. speaker, members of the cabinet, members of the supreme court, distinguished guests, and my fellow floridians, thank everyone for coming. there are some many people that would have been part of my life -- ok. we gather together today to talk about the future of florida, assess where we are, define where we want to go, and to find how to get there. clear goals and hard work and can achieve great things.
the trees that surround us for what they are because they have ground. once to take the right steps come i am convinced that florida will become will become the most exciting place to live and work. that is right. [applause] let us begin by facings for in the challenge of our time -- the economy. this morning, floridians face another day of unemployment. for months they have looked for work, fill that applications, bad for interviews, facing rejection after rejection. many people who once earned a good living on construction sites, building stopped, and they found themselves with no degree and no job. some are young adults who got a degree and were eager to start
their lives but they cannot find their jobs and have moved back,. others are middle-aged adults who have been steadily employed for years and lost their jobs almost overnight. unemployed parents struggle to put on a brave face for their children, but it is hard to find -- hide the fact. for all of the unemployed, life is that a paycheck is a desperate, daily scramble to provide basic needs. i was a child in a home like that. my father was often laid off. my mother took a fire earnings in could have food on the table. mother took up ironing. job creation, for me, is an absolute mission. [applause] my personal memories fortified
my commitment to this mission. there are millions of families across florida and his future depends on the steps -- to create jobs. america was built on a promise that anyone who can see him -- see who is willing to work hard. when an economy falters and jobs disappear, the american promise seems hollow. it spirals into hopelessness. we will not let that happen in florida. [applause] faced with a procession, and sometimes the answer seems to expand the role of government. that is the stance the administration is taking in washington. that is absolutely the wrong approach. [applause] it requires magical thinking to expand government to create prosperity. government has no resources of
the sun. -- of it's own. government can only give to us what is taken from us. [applause] a huge cut for the middle man, a lean and livid government has a role to provide as a -- a lean and limited government has a role to provide. prosperity comes from the private sector, on leave from the private sector. -- only from the private sector. [audience member screaming] the only path to brighter days is paved with private sector jobs. it taught me self discipline, and gave me self-respect.
it may be productive citizen rather than independent. the availability of those first jobs is a central to improvement in the lives of young floridians. this entry level jobs are not enough. the availability of better jobs is the key to long-term prosperity. florida needs to develop a broader based economy with a wider diversity of of phlegm and opportunities. our incredible natural resources, our climate, are beautiful beaches have given us a competitive advantage in the agriculture and tourism. we have a long history as a critical natural resources for the support and training of our military and the manufacturing of defense-related materials. those sectors will also -- all with the bedrock of our economy. we need to capture the full spectrum of business activities and opportunities. we need to manufacture more things in florida. we need to capitalize on our geographic location as a natural
connector, a distribution hub for central and south america. [applause] we need to become the premier location for cutting edge technology. the people of florida elected me to get this date back to work. i believe in this mission. -- to get this state back to work. [applause] we have hard-working people who are desperately looking for jobs. have energetic entrepreneurs with plenty of ideas and we have investors with the ready cash. all those missing is the termination -- the determination to create the business climate, and we will. modern businesses can locate anywhere. the conditions florida offers are not the best, then they will locate somewhere else. what does it take to create
favorable business climate? florida has to offer the biggest ever today for financial success, but not a guarantee just a fair chance. three forces of market lead to reduced the chance for success. taxation, regulation, and litigation. these three form the axis of unemployment. [applause] they choke off activity. florida has widely refused to impose an income tax. we will limit the business tax and reduce the property tax going forward. [applause] the state of florida raises enough revenues to meet its
needs. it has to focus on spending the revenues smarter, better priorities, and demanding more accountability. we will be examined every regulation to make sure the benefits outweigh the cost. unless they are approved, regulations grow like weeds. there are some regulations that are essential for health, safety, and the protection of our press this environment. it is past time to demand that every regulation be re- evaluated. [applause] we will give a top to bottom reveal a lot -- of all of the regulations and get rid of unnecessary regulations that hinder job growth. today, i will sign an executive order creating caa state order fiscal accountability determining all of the
regulations' impact on job creation. [applause] every floridians should have a right to access the court system for the rejust of harm. not allow this to her job creation. we will not allow a small group of predatory lawyers to ante up the business community's deep pockets. [applause] florida will lose opportunities for job growth without tort reform. as i explained to rick perry in taxes, whatever they do, we will do better. -- as i explained to rick perry in texas. nothing can trample over the goal over full employment. -- nothing can trumpe the goal
of full employment. we want to work with john creators and not against them. -- with job creators. it is in part to record companies f -- recruit companies from around the world, but we need to take care of florida companies. small business are the most vulnerable to endless delays in permitting. all i heard about was the unbelievable time it would take to get permits. it does make sense -- does not make sense and it will stop. the attraction between business owners and their government should not be confined to a
demand for fees and more permits. [applause] our main message to job creators is how can we, the state of florida, help you succeed? [applause] private sector job growth keeps their spending within bounds and so will we. all of those who are lucky enough to have a job, will have to look over state spending like a hawk. we have to be vigilant. they have entrusted us with our tax dollars. they work very hard for those dollars. they badly need those dollars for their needs. we must treat those resources with the respect they deserve it to keep demand to an absolute minimum. [applause]
we will require accountability in state government so we will review every state agency and the gatt have every agency is spending every dollar. we will get rid of the agency -- we will get rid of the programs that do not working and cut spending in the programs that work. that will gain the favor. [applause] that was not part of the script, you know? [laughter] once we take the right steps, fla. will become the most exciting place to live and work. we will clearly do that. [applause] we want to make florida a place for renovation. we want to encourage the out of box thinkers. we will become the place in the world, not just a place but the place, where high-quality educational translate into
quality jobs. [applause] you can tell my focus is on jobs, right? we will make it easy to grow and build businesses in florida we will tell the world that if you can agreement, it is easy to make it happen in the great state of florida. -- if you can dream it, it is easy in florida. we have always been the destination for dreamers, the place for someone with a big idea would get started. magic kingdom, a trip to the moon, freedom from a foreign tyrant, better calls, life without winter. they said it was not colder here than in naples. dreams are the stuff that florida is made of. we set about becoming the best place in the country for jobs and we will look at education
and health care. few things matter as much as health care and education of each of our children. it is time to offer floridians more choices, more opportunity to select the services they want and need. [applause] we will not allow bureaucracy to make our decision for us and them meridians differ in the dreams for their children, but every child is unique and every child can learn. [applause] we will have an education system that allows the maximum amount of choice. [applause] a system focused entirely on what is best for individual student learning not for special interests. [applause]
will create a work force -- we will not create a work force for the future if we are stuck in an education model of the past. to capture the world's best jobs, we have to offer businesses the best educated work force, and we will do it. [applause] i have to ask if i care about health care. in the health care, top-down programs treat patients like interchangeable parts. that will stop. [applause] we will treat patients like individuals, choosing their own doctors, and making their own decisions in consultation with those doctors. [applause] we will not allow bureaucrats in the federal government to trample all over our relationships with our positions and our right to make a run
decisions on health care. [applause] the very wealthy have plenty of options, but for most floridians they have far too little sa children arer educated. none of this is written in stone and it will change. here is how we will provide better service. we will refuse to allow increased government intrusion. we will put florida back in the driver's seat. we will encourage a free market. when government does the buying, they choose what services are available. you pay the piper, you call the tune. we will call the tune and not the government. we will apply the same tools that business people use. riegle measure everything. we will learn from those
measurements. we will hold everyone accountable. i expect to be held accountable. everyone in the government expects to be held accountable. i believe in and rebuild it. -- and we will do it. in the next the amounts, special interests will try to stop what we are doing. one thing i ask for a trivia is to stand up and hold us accountable but to help defend what we are doing -- one thing i ask from each of you is to stand up. write letters to the editors, stand up, let us know. i am determined to do everything i can and i know every elected official appearance to the same, but i want to make a real and lasting improvement on the lives of fellow floridians. i believe that each of us is responsible to our maker for what we did. with our time logged on this earth, recognizing that my maker will look over my time as governor, i will be resolute in
seeking bold, positive change. [applause] in the last few years, floridians have had a tough time with high unemployment and declines in the housing market which have left a trail of destruction. every generation of floridians have faced tough challenges. every generation has been resilience. in the 1880's yellow fever holiday entire communities. in the 1930's more than one in five required relief to survive. floridians havelion served in uniform. every decade, we build again after hurricanes. we always come back stronger. our current problems are absolutely solvable.
the future is in our hands. we are brazilian people. -- resilient people. [applause] whether the national government takes the rights from us or not, here in florida we have a need to make the next four years the most exciting time to everyone -- to live or work in florida. we will make it happen. this is the right time to act. this is an unbelievable opportunity for everyone in elected office and everyone in our great state. shakespeare said there is a tide in the affairs of men which taken at the flood leads on to fortune. i believe that this is the high tide. this is the time where we can do great things together. if we have the courage to act, our children and their grandchildren will benefit. may god bless the great state of florida. let's get to work.
>> ladies and gentlemen, please remain standing. pastor anderson will deliver the benediction. >> of the at the naples community church have but one regret. we will miss these people. we love them very much. receive the benediction. now let us work hard at that all my work. let us pray fervently that all may be humble. let us be thankful and in the good times, patient in the hard times, and worship at all times. to the glory of god, in the name of the father, the sun, and the holy spirit. a man. -- amen. [applause]
[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] ♪ >> coming up later this afternoon, senator lamar alexander of tennessee among the speakers at the event that the heritage foundation. this begins at 2:00 p.m. eastern and you can see it here right here on c-span. >> the 112th congress gavels in
late wednesday with the swearing in of members, a new house speaker, and voting on new rules. watch live starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on "washington journal." interviews and your calls right up to when the house gavels in on noon on c-span. >> i think news organizations have adapted. overall, news organizations are probably not doing, and the public responsibility here, too. the public affairs responsibility of keeping themselves informed. >> sunday, senior foreign affairs correspondent martha raddatz from abc looks at the borders on the political, strategic, and personal level. 8:00 p.m. on c-span's "q&a." >> in the immigration debate in germany. this is 25 minutes.
>> immigration in germany, topic of the year. his book, "germany does itself in close co and it led -- germany does itself in" and he sharply condemned politicians for what he calls "misguided integration" especially from muslim countries. after the initial problem, a debate ensued which continues today on the failure of integration in germany. your host this week is a crane. >> hello and welcome. it is a debate that kept the media business for a good part of the year.
we talk about immigration in germany in 2010. that is what we are talking about today. on the "quadriga" with a great group of the guests. >> yes seen musharbash covers the arab world for spiegel online. nd ulrike herrmann of the tageszeitung newspaper. >> he based his critique partly on what he saw here in berlin as he was a politician. he described it turks and ara bs willfully not wanting to emigrate. was he telling the truth or was he showing his resentment?
>> part of the answer is that the statistics he gave that we were discussing that we have been discussing over weeks and months were obviously correct, but some of the interpretations that he gave were questionable. they were even a little bit nasty because the germans have a certain reference to the historical debates. >> yes. yassin, he was dismissed from his job at the bundesbank. he was punished for breaking a taboo. was there really all that much new about what he had to say? >> i would argue that it was not exactly new, the debate was not new. to stay that we have a problem with the immigration is not new.
it was the combination close the language and the way that he basically was attacking people, entire groups of people. it was in a way that we have not seen in jerusalem in a long time. in the 11 people very angry. >> people or the muslims? >> more than just one group. he lashes out at people. in part he argues the poor are poor because they are not intelligent and it will stay that way. i can see why people were angry. some of the poor people like him for not liking muslims. >> ulrike, was this debate
useful or incendiary? >> they really have the feeling that they are judged unfairly. instead of a dialogue, he just separated society. i think it is something new for germany, that someone from the social democrats using such a language and such arguments. we have had this debate for a long time, but up until now, it was always people from bove far right -- people from the far right. the's 2010 saw the rise of far right parties in many different european countries. interestingly enough, not yet actually in germany. is there actually some much potential?
>> not yet be the right way to describe it. maybe we should think about our policies toward immigrants and integration. we should keep away from these movements which take place all over europe in sweden, denmark, the netherlands. the rise of the very suddenly and it is very difficult to get them out of the way. yes to do them one of the time. dermot me is -- well, some parts of the democratic rights are waiting for a movement like this and it will be one of the most important issues. she was astonished that it was one of the high-ranking members to made this discussion. on the other way around, welcome to the spd.
they joined the debate which has to be fought the hard way because doing it the soft way over 20, 30, 40 years did not bring results. we need to keep away from movements that have gotten in the netherlands, denmark, or sweden. >> what i think is an important point is that the movements that you were referring to, for example in the netherlands, i do not think it should classify this as a far-right movement. >> it is explicitly anti-muslim. >> it is lifting it to a new level to say we are against them which is what makes this so dangerous. if this were to happen in germany, we are not talking about a nazi movement here. we're talking about people who see themselves as liberals and a feeling that they have identified a major enemy, sort
of, a major office of force that they want to deal with. this is what makes it so dangerous, i think. >> what you think about the movement? >> 20% of the population would vote for such a party, but there is no party at the moment that looks to somehow these people. we do not have such a party because of two things. our history prevents such a party to rise and the other is we are a federal country and in order to have success in the whole of germany it takes a long time.
there is a problem in the member states of germany but they never get to the national level. is much easier in countries like denmark or the netherlands who are much more centrist to have it more popular as a centrist party. >> the book did quite well in germany. the political elite were castigating him for writing this book, but he was selling thousands of copies. clearly when he had to say was felled by a lot of people here. >> it is questionable how many actually read it or how many important people just wanted because it was a high ranking discussion. they read about it in the newspapers or watch the discussions on television so they wanted to have the book. it is a sort of opposition against the class because the first thing that chancellor
merkel said she did not read it. she said it was not necessary to read it. there is a necessary distinction between the political class and people in germany which is rising. you have had that in the united states. "the guys in washington" and the bad guys. and in germany, this is a rising sentiment of people against the political class in berlin. they say do not read it, so they bought it. this may be one of the notions for the success of the book. on the other hand, seriously, the book touches on problems that the everyday german has and seas. -- and sese. -- sees. he sees and he reads about criminal things for the problems with schooling, things like that.
>> it supports and it is strongest in the areas where [unintelligible] it is not reality that people try to find in these books. it is more about fears, but not about something they are experiencing. >> but policy needs to take this fear seriously. the strongest move in recent german history took place in east germany. maybe 1%-2% and the embassy was quite strong. you really could not find a foreigner. >> interestingly enough, he talks about his arguments in economic terms saying that of germany goes on as they is that the economy will flounder. let's listen to what he has to say.
>> as they arrive without education and are attracted with our system of benefits to bring a large family with them and reject our culture. as immigrants, they cost us long-term both socially and financially more than they contribute to society. >> yassin, he says immigrants are not doing enough to emigrate -- integrate themselves into german society. >> i do not think that germany does enough to help people integrate you want to integrate. the problem, as i see it, is that a lot of immigrants into greater very well but muslims do not. that is the problem. that is part of why this caused quite a stir in germany because he made stench -- such
distinctions. to come back to your original question, you need to talk about the people who are here are ready. -- already we have immigrants here and the have a problem and we need to address that for politics, for policies. >> what kind of politics? this debate actually began in 2009 with remarks that he made when he was still a politician in berlin. at that time, one politician called for sanctions against foreigners her refused to learn german and are thereby unemployable. it measures -- what measures like that beat deployable? >> when we start discussing the german language, there was an uprising on the left side in germany.
there were times when immigrants to the netherlands were called english and not holland because it was much more multi-cultural for future destiny than of learning the language of the netherlands. that is a discussion of the past and we had a star -- a short discussion about whether the immigrants should learn german are not. we changed it a tiny little bit. you had to learn 300 words of the german language to be able to emigrate from turkey to germany. we have to say that it is not enough. that is the very first step. integration tests the same thing. it is a formal test. you can pass it 100 times without having any disadvantages if you do not pass it. on the other side, some say we
should improve our welcoming culture. on the other hand, the sticks do not seem to be sharp enough. there are too many to immigrate without being willing or able to integrate. we need to deal with that. >> there are thousands of muslims right now at this moment to have applied for a german language class courses and cannot attend because there are not enough of them even though it is part of the government policy. i assume there are fewer people have the problem that you refer to and are actively looking for ways to learn german. it is not a culture of "we do not want to learn german" among immigrants. i believe there are cases like that and they are problematic. for me, it is unimaginable to go somewhere to live and not learn
a language. it is a problem. we need policies like compulsory kindergarten education. i would go along with that, i think. it is logical for everyone, not only just foreigners. that would be one example. >> ulrike, if you are making a wish list what it have a welcoming ministry? it has been proposed by some of the most active integration politicians. >> it is more important that you really invest the money. most of the immigrants really want to learn german, but there are not enough class's or courses. that is really stupid that we would invest in a society and our future. we do not put these billions in
these hands and look into better schooling for everyone. >> that is the course of the debate. everyone knows what the problems are. we even with the solutions would be, but we do not do anything because it either costs too much or you lose your constituency. those are one of the two big parties. >> peter, would affirmative- action programs for migrants help? one of the heads for the turkish community has called for more teachers from the immigrant community. would that make a difference? >> i am completely against affirmative-action by law. if you look to a certain part of the german society, you find an astonishing lack of immigrants with senate. if you look at the bonus --
bundespoleizi, if you look at how many immigrants, you find in the rows of these police formations, you would be hard- pressed to find any. every fourth policeman is of foreign descent. there are parts of german deciding -- society -- not have enough people of a foreign background. nearly 40% of the german society will be of migrant dissent within a couple of years. the anglo-saxon protestants in germany, the prussians, we will not have enough of them to fill the teaching posts that we have to offer.
>> many of the critics of the book says he was taking, in a sense from a cultural perspective and that immigration needs to be seen as an economic interest. that is a big difference between germany and the u.s.. let's take a look at this report. >> the united states chooses its immigrants based on the needs of business. typically, legal immigrants are highly qualified. in germany, things are different. most current immigrants are family members of previous ones and often they are unskilled and that is true among the four million muslim immigrants in germany. more than 40% of them live off of state support such as well for. if germany had the same immigration standards as the u.s., 90% of the muslim
beenrants werenouldn't have allowed. >> ulrike, the germany immigration but a different type of the immigration? >> in 2025, we will have a full employment because we will hardly have any young people come in and the old people will be leaving the labour market to retire. we will have a gap when it comes to the labour force. we do have a problem getting immigrants coming to germany. the other countries also have problems with the demographic curve. the people can choose between britain and the united states, then they would rather choose english speaking countries than to come to germany and learn a
complicated new language. it will be difficult to get immigrants. the germans will somehow discover that they have a lot of people living here for generations who are not really integrated. it would be much cheaper and easier to just integrate them instead of getting new immigrants. >> yassin, it has often seen that for trying immigration and integration issues as a matter of economic interest is somehow distasteful to many germans. >> we are not used to it. we should not get too used it. there should be two strains, one is the right to seek asylum. we must never leave that out. if we talk about those we would like to have here, i can understand when we talk about economics. and is not something i personally would favor. i believe in a diverse side --
a diverse society rather than an effective society. i believe that diversity is something good in and of itself. a homogeneous society is not preferable to a diverse one. in terms of german policies, we would do good if we had at least an integration policy that knows what it seeks. we must also not idealize the u.s. or other countries that have traditional immigration societies. i have hundreds of family members here from my arabic family. they are forgetting their error but can they have not learned english. the had the same problem. it is not like everything is better in the united states in terms of immigration are integration. >> peter, what would in effect
of immigration policy look like? -- an effective policy look like? >> we would need to differentiate between those who already here and those who are looking to come. this will give way to a new immigration debate which is completely different to the one that we have inside of germany. we have to distinguish between the ones we want to get and look for the criteria and how to welcome them on the one hand. on the other, we need to check into the problems of about 35%- 40% of the ones who are here, how to improve the situation. they want to live a life on their own. they want to live on the results of their own work. they want to make their children good in schools.
then need to find a mixture of welcoming them in kindergarten, in schools, and people from the age of 25-26 and just looking in -- working in the markets. this is what we need to cope with during the next 10-15 years because then it would be too late and we would have another generation of people who have never arrived in germany. he warned us not to idealize the u.s., but in terms of affirmative action, billerica -- ulrike, we have the positive example of barack obama became president. it is possible from a black man that had long been discriminated against to become the president. can you imagine in the future
perhaps thinking about your wish list such a thing happening in germany, an immigrant and take a high political office in becoming a powerful political model? >> we have a vietnamese does hide -- gesundheit minister. all of our goalies are other ethnicities. >> we will have a chancellor who is of a migrant by ground. we already have the ministers who have migrated backgrounds. it will take another 20 years or so before we have the same thing as barack obama. >> i and surprised how
optimistic you are about that. i have a chancellor from east germany. >> and a woman. [laughter] our health minister is about as vietnamese as i am. he is genetically vietnamese. >> he looks for in a. -- looks foreign. >> i hope you are right. i think we need to understand that if we have people who come here, we need to believe there tantamount to our society and not just job to them. we should see them as part of our political body. >> thank you very much. we have to leave it there. thank you for being with us today. thank you for tuning in. happy new year.
>> coming at a later this afternoon, the 112 congress and the use of the filibuster which senate democrats are aiming to meet again arguing they have constitutional authority. republican senator lamar alexander is among the speakers at this event that the heritage foundation. it begins at 2:00 p.m. eastern and you can see it right here on c-span. >> the 112th congress tamils in wednesday with the swearing in of members, the election of a new house speaker, and voting on new rules. watch live starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern with "washington journal." interviews and your calls right until the house gavels in at noon right here on c-span. >> yesterday, a panel of journalists discussed the relationship between the
incoming congress and president obama. you'll hear from correspondence from u.s. news and world report, the christian science monitor. this was hosted by the washington center for internships and academic seminars. >> welcome back from your well- deserved break. if any of you are feeling a bit cold, we will try to do something with the temperature. when we are going to do now is the part from someone being -- standing behind a lectern talking and have a more relaxed conversation with three very
remarkable journalists. i extended an invitation to them not only because they are unusually appropriate for this occasion, but because they are friends of mine and very nice people. gail is the senior congressional correspondent for "the christian science monitor." it is a rather small paper in terms of circulation. is not like "usa today." but for its size, it is enormously influential. when the big events in washington is the godfrey sperling breakfast which is sponsored by the monitor which every major political figure wants to be the speaker at. gail knows congress very, very
well and she and i have spoken about congress for a very long time together. tony morrow is the supreme court correspondent for "the national law journal." i have known him for more years than i care to know about since he was a journalist and an undergraduate at rutgers when i first came there. he was on the staff of the campus newspaper. he is someone, for a non-lawyer, is more knowledgeable about the supreme court than any lawyer i know. and finally another former rutgers journalist who is the white house correspondent for "the u.s. and world news report peak of the troubles are round in that small, stuffy place where correspondence? the stuff thes --
place where the correspondence ask the president's spokesperson questions that will hopefully reveals something about the president's plans. we will last them to sit down here and talk about what they think will be happening in the coming year. we are now really restricting this to the 112th congress. there will be a lot of business in terms of the supreme court. please welcome our best speakers. [applause] gail then tony. and me. >> i have this lengthy list of questions for you guys.
i will start out with a general question. over the past 20 years, we have seen a lot of comparisons being drawn to the year 1995, the great republican victory in the '94 election. do you see the same thing's happening this time that happened in 1994? or will this be a completely unique experience in congressional life? >> i think what is very interesting about this class is that they have the historical background of the last one. when republicans took over the house in 1995, it was the first time republicans have been in power in more than 40 years. there was not a republican in
the congress that had any knowledge about what it was like before to gavel or to set an agenda. the entire notion was that the only way to do anything good for your district was to just come to terms with the party in power which was the democrats. then came the long new gingrich and some insurgents who thought that they did not have to put up with it. there was a way to take down the majority. they went after them relentlessly using the media on issues like corruption. they were literally correct. a book deal, that is trivial compared to some of the things that happen in congress today. when this costume in they were 74-75 strong. there was a sense that the wind
was at their back and they were going to do dramatic things. their leader, newt gingrich, after the power of personality was on the front cover of newspapers, magazines, really pushing his own leadership style and identity. the difference today is that these republicans, greater in number, understand that is not permanent. the democrats swept back to power and then lost it very quickly. what is most on the minds of the , including i taklk to the freshmen, is that they do not see this as a historic shift. the figure they only have a few months to make a strong case that the way they are governing is going to be different than the way the others did. you have the speaker-elect, john boehner, no renaming of
streets, and now tony bennett singing songs come a very modest comestible inaugural with a theme of austerity. the major element will be his 11 siblings presence covers a range of experience and it is very different than politicians families. that modesty, that sense of austerity, that sense of almost a non-personality. i cannot promise that he will not cry. he does that a lot. i think what you will see from him is very much a sense of stepping back. there are voices in my caucus, i want them to be heard. changing the rules of the house so that people have a chance to maike -- make amendments.
you will not come here just to vote. you come here to be legislators and i will help you do that. i will help all the voices participate. it seems to me that is a huge change from the spirit of the new era which was, "i am the leader of this insurgency. i will decentralize power to the speaker's office peak of this freshman class would not put up with it and he knows it. >> one thing people are talking about is the visual that will happen during the presidential stated the union address in january when a republican house, which in all likelihood will have voted to repeal his health insurance reform, will be sitting in the audience when he delivers the state of the union address. does this signal the kind of hostility that will prevail? is there some basis for agreement? >> from the white house perspective, i was actually here