tv U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business CSPAN December 5, 2016 12:00pm-2:01pm EST
senate, lawmakers come in at 3:00 and try to finish a medical research bill theh includes funding for cancer moonshot. joe biden preside over the senate session. ms, washington, d.c. december 5, 2016. i hereby appoint the honorable jeff denham to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 5, 2016, the chair will recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 1:50 p.m.
the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota, mr. emmer, for five minutes. i rise : mr. speaker, today to celebrate one of minnesota's most promising student athletes, st. john's linebacker, carter hanson. carter has been chosen as one of the semifinalists for the prestigious ga lardy trophy this trophy is named after the former st. john's university hall of fame renowned football coach, john galardi and given to the best division three football player of the year. he's started every season for four years. was a preseason all american, and this year led his team in tackles. carter doesn't just excel on the football field, but in the classroom and the community as well. he has maintained a 4.0 grade point average for four years and this year he has been selected as the only dwillings 3 finalist -- division iii finalist for the national football foundation as campbell
protrow if i, given to the best student athlete in football. carter is a globe business leadership major. he's already put his degree to good work by volunteering in haiti and for organizations like kids against hunger and st. jude's children's research hospital. i'm proud that a young man like carter hails from the great state of minnesota and i'm positive we're going to see great contributions and accomplishments from him in the future. the winner of the galardi trophy will be announced shortly. while there is great competition, i am convinced there is no one more deserving than carter hanson. mr. speaker, i rise today to celebrate mike goalman of w. goalman construction for being named builder of the year by the builders association of minnesota. his construction was established in 1950 by mike's grandfather, willard goalman, out of his shed. like many of minnesota's small businesses, this company has evolved and grown.
today mike is the third generation to own and run this incredible company and he continually works to uphold the integrity that his father and his grandfather started. to mike, it's never been just about the success of his company, but about the building industry as a whole. he has been an active member of the builders association of minnesota, and the central minnesota builders association, working to represent his and other companies throughout the st. cloud community and our state. mike always goes above and beyond by hosting job site tours, advocating for the building industry at the state capital, as well as educating elected officials on the issues and concerns in his field. he even recently represented his company and industry at a round table we hosted to explain their concerns about our nation's failing health care system. mike is a true asset to our community and the building industry. he is well deserving of being named builder of the year.
congratulations, mike. mr. speaker, the consequences of the great recession have been all too real. homes and jobs lost, retirement plans ruined, and fewer opportunities for americans from all walks of life. unfortunately, dodd-frank has further entrenched the too big to fail bailout mentality and little to reduce the likelihood of another severe recession and hindered economic growth. thankfully the systemic risk designation improvement act amends the one-size-fits-all approach to regulation taken by dodd-frank for large banks. providing a more tailored assessment of these financial institutions when determining their level of risk. this law will require regulators to exam a range of indicators not just the size of the bank to understand whether or not a bank could threaten the financial integrity of the united states and whether it should be designated as systemically important. this reform will provide a more
pragmatic approach to regulation which will make the american economy stronger. i want to thank mr. luetkemeyer and chairman hensarling for their leadership on this issue and those that supported it when it passed the house last week. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to sclause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the an initiative spearheaded by n who esident joe bide will attend and preside over
the designate. join us for the later jump coming trump presidency with a look at how the media will cover the new administration. you can watch that at 1:00 eastern time on c-span3 and at 8:00, martha raddatz and chris wallace will be talking about their experiences with the co-chair that sets up the debate. frank and mike. that's tonight at 8:00 eastern, also on c-span3. >> paul ohm on how prosecutors,
lawyers and judges lack understanding of technology and his work to help resolve that problem. he's interviewed by dustin from reuters. >> a lot of compute erskine tists love the love and love policy and probably think they're better at it than they really are. i wonder if that's something we can use to appeal to the people to do their duty and spend two years in d.c. and help the government out. >> watch "the communicators" tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider.
library eek on "q&a" fellow ronald c. white discusses his book "american ulysses: the life of ulysses s. grant." brian: ronald c. white, author of "american ulysses: a life of ulysses s. grant," what is the story you open your book to? ronald: may i read it? brian yes. ronald: aride at the crowded baltimore and ohio railroad station in washington on a cold, crisp morning.
brian: the war started in 1861. ronald: yes. brian: did i read it in your book that does the first time that grant had ever met lincoln? ronald: this was the first time he had ever met him. grant was out in the west. so he had never met grant before. they met that evening. brian: and that particular date would have been where in the civil war history? ronald: well, that date the troops were in their winter quarters but he brought grant east for what was expecting the great spring campaign. that was started in may. the overland campaign where grant would marchremembering that four times into virginia before federal armies had marched into virginia and four times before, they had retreated humiliating retreats. brian: how did you put that particular story together? ronald: this is a story that is remembered by son fred and i
just think it says so much bout who grant is, the lack of pom posit, the self-efacens that was who he was. he he wore a privatethe only designation would be uniform. the stars on hisby contrast, i think today's shoulder. leaders, it says so much about who this man is and why america did not simply admire him. they really loved him. brian: when did you decide after your three books about lincoln to do the grant book? ronald: toward the end of the lincoln book, my editor said it's time to consider a presidential commemoration. we knew that the commemoration of the civil war was coming so it seemed appropriate. i have to confess to myself after about a year and a half of working on this that even though grant was obviously an important figure in my lincoln biography, i never really knew
the man. i only knew what he did. i did not know who he was. part of my purpose when i write who a person not is but his character. and i think that is what the american people want to know. brian: he was born in 1822. ronald: that is correct, point pleasant, ohio. brian: why were his parents there? ronald: they had migrated west. ry argued at the he beginning of the book that although grant is lifted up as this individual hero, he saw himself as part of a family story. he looked back through the prism of the eight generation of grants. who had come in the 1630's to new england and gradually migrated west so his father came west into ohio as a boy and then settled finally in georgetown and was a tanner. brian: if he were here in the studio what would he look like?
ronald: not tall, about five foot seven inches. ry do love the cover of the book and i give great credit to random house. this is an 1864 photograph that they have colorized so you see his blue eyes and you're almost looking i think through his eyes into his soul. but when he walked into the white house that evening after this encounter at willard's hotel nobody knew who he was and i tell the story of a tall abraham lincoln looking over the crowd and saying, general grant, what a pleasure to meet you and he just short of grabs grant's hands. they were in many ways a marriage of opposites. grant was not a good public speaker, was frightened by public speaking. although we know that lincoln was a tremendous public speaker. brian: where did he grow up?
ronald: he grew up 55 miles east of cincinnati. his father, told him that he wanted him to go to west point. it says something about the relationship of parents and children. he did not really want to go. but he said to his father, if you think i should, i will. his father saw west point as a free education and one of only two or three engineering schools. many want to west point and did not serve afterwards. they ended up being engineers for railroads andlucrative jobs. much more so he entered west point at 17, 5'1". he barely made the cut and was there until hein 1843. graduated brian: went from there to where? ronald: he then went to jefferson barracks. people were headingprotect the settlers. west to there he met his roommates sister. julia dent, about nine months after he arrived and they formed a marvelous marriage. brian: after that, what year
did he get married, how old was he? ronald: they didn't get married right away because her father want her he didn't marry some vagabond soldier. he would have rather did a businessperson. so grant participated in the world of mexico and did well but he was a young man. he was assigned the quartermaster. duties of which he really didn't want. he was on some occasions. he came back to marry julia in 1848. brian: what was it that drew the two of them together? ronald: he was taken by, not her beauty. she was afflicted what people called a cross-eyed situation. but she was a woman of spirit and just kind of -- he was drawn to her. she was much more vocal than he was. she was four years younger. they both loved horses and wood ride together at white haven, her family's country home and they found this
incredible match. interesting story, if i may. a person approached me about four years ago. a friend of mine, a hollywood and writer. director he said, let's talk about doing a television miniseries. what you tell me that is most remarkable about grant? i said, let me start telling you about julia and their wonderful marriage. he shook his said and said, that will never do for television. mini seriesa wonderful marriage. you ian: how did that make feel? ronald: he said there has to be internal tension. when i thought about it, there is internal tension. his family was totally anti-slavery republican. brian: meaning grant? ronald: her family was strongly proslavery. her father owned 30 slaves. his family refused to come to the wedding. her father gave her four slaves which he called servants. i think these young people really did not understand the dynamic of the family's they
were marrying into. brian: how many children do they have? ronald: they have four children, three boys and nelly, a single girl. brian: and what happened to those four children? ronald: they were all quite successful. nelly, on a trip abroad, they met a young englishman was not a good apple. after trying to make the marriage work she divorcedcame back to the united states, him, she had been living in england and then lived with her family and then her mother after her father died. brian: what about the boys? did they fight? ronald: yes, the youngest boy fred became quite a remarkable person. served as a cabinet officer. became a west point graduate. buck, the youngest one, it ulysses jr. served as a cabinet officer. the two younger was moved to san diego and established the u. s. grant hotel. brian: where else did they live other than st. louis and ohio? ronald: thank you for asking that. i think it is so important to
when doing a biography visit the places where a person lives. he came -- he was posted after the war with mexico in both michigan and new york. then, in 1852, he was sent to the pacific coast. he couldn't take julia because she was pregnant so he was oasted first in oregon near rtland and then fort humble, california, near eureka. missing julia, terribly missing her, he fell into despair and probably drinking and was threatened with court martial and literally the day he received the letter appointing him to be captain he wrote a letter back to the secretary of war who was jefferson davis and offered his resignation and returned to julia. and their place beside his father-in-law, her father, in st. louis and the next seven years were very, very difficult for him. not always his fault. i don't want to say he
failed. but the circumstances that surrounded him, the market, the weather, did not go well for them. they moved to galina in northwest illinois. they moved there and it was a humiliating situation. his father said that you can have a place. you will serve underneath your younger brother. but when he arrived without fully understanding it, he was the only west pointthe town, he arrived in the graduate in spring of 1860. brian: who did he go to west point that fought eventually on the confederate side? ronald: what's fascinating is the three men who stood up for him at his wedding all ought on the confederate side. the most famous was james longstreet. he was his dear friend.
william at the comesy sherman at the curvesy sherman -- tecumpseh sherman. his name was higher than ulysses. he said, unless you are a u.s. grant, you will be the wrong one. so he became u.s. grant and he was known as sam, uncle sam, and he was known as sam grant at west point. brian: what happened during the civil war when he had these close friends who were on the other side? ronald: he respected them. longstreet told lee, i don't understand you know who you are against when he fought ulysses s. grant. this was a very difficult time.
these men all fought on the same side with the war with mexico. brian: i want to show you some video. we covered a lot of grant over the years and as you know there have been a lot of books written. ronald: yes, yes. brian this is a brief excerpt from a bunch that we found in our archive. many books written on u.s. grant. >> we found hundreds of biographies. >> grant, son of a tanner. personified the ue gal tarian values of a democratic society. >> now grant and there's no victory in the civil war for the union. >> and i do contend that grant saved the union during reconstruction as well. >> his stature and rep tared towered above all others with his name forever linked with a martyred lincoln and the sacred union cause. >> in his lifetime and for decades after his death, he was regarded as the greatest
american here ovet 19th century. brian: anything you disagree with? ronald: no. there are great sound bites but there is much more to tell. brian: why do you think you could write a better book? ronald: the reason that grant said that he does not read biographies is because they do not tell the story of the boy who becomes the man. and publishers today are marketing books called biographies. my ear friend joan law, colleague at ucla, would say that her book is not a biography. it is a wonderful book on how we understand grant in memory. i decided to spend more time on the young grant. i spent a week at west point. trying to understand how this man could finish 21st out of 39 at west point and therefore sometimes viewed by these byographers as an historical
intellectual lightweight. and yet, he said himself that i must apologize, i spent all my time reading novels. also, i'm the first person that has had the privilege of looking at all 33 volumes of the grant papers. the last volume will not be published until 2017. so i don't think we've had the complete story because we never had the complete record of grant. brian: why were you able to read the 33 volumes? ronald: well, it's time of chronolgy. in other words, they have been in the works since 1962 and will not be finished until 2017. but i also believe this. without any comment about these particular historians that we have a modern phenomenon sometimes of believing we can now write about historical figures by sitting in our office and doing it online. i really believe that we have to go to these places where grant lived. the battlefields where he fought. even the grant papers which were at southern illinois university and now at
mississippi state university, that's quite a story. there's so much more at mississippi state university than is in those 33 volumes. so i made many, many trips to the grant papers to try to understand in a deeper way who is this man. brian: we have some video of a man who was very helpful to us when we were covering the original ones. 2008 john simon who was at southern illinois university and you tipped your hat to him in your book. did you know him? ronald: i never had the privilege of knowing him but i say this to his widow harriette, i think i meet him every single day. this is one of the finest i had torial jobs of an american leader, his an takes in the grant papers -- annotatoins in the grant papers, i pay great tribute to him. a look a few ke
years ago. >> i attended a meeting of the civil war centennial commission. newman and other friend from a stock four days asked if i would like to edit the papers of ulysses s. grant. it seemed like a good idea at he time. [laughter] >> especially because i did not know that the directors had borrowed money from the bank to fund that enterprise. it was the springfield marine bank. no other bank would have been so foolish. [laughter] >> thus casually began a commitment lasting the remainder of my adult life. i then had little idea of extent of grant's correspondence, especially since the entry in the authoritative dictionary of american biography proclaimed that grant wrote as little as possible leaving no considerable collection of his manuscripts.
brian: having known the man, i feel i should say that he was very funny. and to some of the things he was saying there was his kind of humor. what is your reaction? ronald: i have never seen that take before but in the 1920's and 1930's, there was an american president series produced and william hesseltein who was a dwrished professor at the university of wisconsin wrote the biography of grant and said that. there was no collection of grant papers. grant was not a good writer. he wrote that obviously before the beginning of the collection of the grant papers and so he has no understanding whatsoever, so the question, why did grant fall? he began to fall earlier, but even in the middle or the first third of the 20th century, no one had any idea of grant the tremendous -- what i argue from west point is no -- i apologize because i read novels. grant didn't just write his
memoirs at the end of his life. he had a literary imagination that we have overlooked throughout his whole life. brian: you talk about in the book how tremendously popular he was in the 19th century and you also say the triad would be abraham lincoln, george washington and grant. what would happen if you took a survey of the american people today? ronald: let me pause for a moment if i may. i make that assertion because in the year 1900, the first year of the 20th century, theodore roosevelt said of the mighty dead loomed three great american figures -- george washington, abraham lincoln and ulysses s. grant. roosevelt went on to say of second rank are benjamin franklin, thomas jefferson, alexander hamilton and andrew jackson. so this is the way he understood it. now, then grant fill and to fill in the story there he fell
first because of what we compall a lost cause, the idea of first propagated by confederate generals that the better side lost and they lost -- they were the better side, they were the christian side, values. us -- they were the better side, the christian side, the chivalrous side. all of these values. and they only lost because they were overwhelmed by greater numerical numbers and a greater industrial mind. and that butcher ulysses s. grant who was willing to sacrifice his men. but history has shown us the casualties under grant were actually less than those under lee. so this comes forward and a gentleman reminded me last evening and i haven't thought about this completely but by the time we get to the 1890's and really the institution of the jim crow laws, the story that i want to tell, that ulysses s. grant defended the right of african-americans, and surely he did, that wasn't a story anybody wanted to hear. the surprise is that win we get to the civil rights era of
the 1960's and the whole abolitionist story is recast in a positive way, grant doesn't seem to be part of the story. he deserves to be. to answer your question, he fell all the way down to 32 or something like that. i think in recent years he's begun to rise. he has probably risen 10 or 12 places. i think he deserves a much higher ranking in terms of american leaders. brian: how much total time did he spend in the military? ronald: he was there from raduation 1843-1854. he re-entered in 1861. he continued to be general-in-chief quite remarkably during reconstruction. even while he was running for president. he was both general and chief and the candidate of the republican party. so he retired from the military when he became president. his inauguration was march of 1869. brian: what did he do to between -- to continue to be in
the public spotlight between lincoln's assassination and he wasn't elected until, what was it, 1868, and during the andy johnson years? ronald: he was general in chief. he was very deferential to civilian leadership. he wanted and tried to work with andy johnson. but pretty quickly, he discovered he could not. andy johnson quickly discovered that grant was very probably going to be the candidate of the republican party to replace him in 1868. and so grant, who was nonpolitical by definition -- actually in 1864 when lincoln string of unpop laird, he said that he supports lincoln. he could become much more conversan with congress. for a time, when johnson served as secretary of war, he was in johnson's cabinet.
so he continued an active life during those three years of reconstruction. brian: what was the up close and personal relationship between andrew johnson, president, and u.s. grant in those years? ronald: more and more fraught with difficulty. hnson tried to figure out a way to displace grant but he also understood the popularity of grant. he tried to order him to mexico. he said, you have a love affair with mexico. i want you to be my special envoy. no i won't do that. but grant was rarely red sent to criticize -- reticent to criticize public leaders, but he broke with johnson. he could not speak anymore. he would attend cabinet meetings. he would give his report to the war department but then he would excuse himself after that. he was at would not participate in the rest of it. brian: what were their big
differences? ronald: well, the fact that the congress, led by republicans, were putting in place the 14th amendment, 15th amendment, all of these reconstruction acts and johnson did not recognize this and wanted to reseat all of the former confederate states and often the delegates would have been confederate generals. and grant saw that this was a way of destroying everything that had been fought for for four years, the whole meaning of the union. brian: why did andrew johnson want to do that and did he have his eyes on a second term? ronald: he probably did have his eyes on the second term. although he was the only kind of southern senator who stayed within the union, the truth came out that he really wasn't this kind of union person, that he was a southerner and so he led from that point of view. and felt that the south had been unfairly maligned and he wanted to bring them back in the story and there is
underlying racism that was part of his policies. he was not for what the friedman's bureau was doing, for example. he was not for the voting rights for fearns. -- african-americans. brian: what was the friedman's bureau? ronald: it was established at the end of the war to help the freed men help them with rights, help them with land and grant began receiving reports from his generals of the way african-americans were being treated, not just simply civilians but what i discovered very surprisingly, all of the soldiers who enlisted in the civil war at the beginning of 1861 their terms were running out. remember, african-americans were enlisting at the end of the civil war so when the army was downsized by 1866, 36% of the union army was african-american. 36%. well, these african-american soldiers, 90% of whom were in the south, they were now patrolling the streets of nashville and new orleans and
atlanta and the conflict there was just inevitable. brian: they talk in history about the drinking of both andrew johnson and u.s. grant. how much impact did the drinking have on either one? ronald: i'm not so much an expert on johnson. i know the humorous story that when abraham lincoln was inaugurated for a second time, andrew johnson had been ill. he came up from nashville and sort of steadied himself, he had a glass of whisky. as he got walking over to the capitol he had a second glass of whisky and then he had a third grass of whiskey. and in those -- glass of whiskey. in those times, the vice president also gave an inaugural address. people leaned over and said, don't let andy jackson speak over the port could he. -- portico.
i think the story of grant is much more complicated. we have people who swore that he had done a lot of drinking. people who swear that he did not. he probably drank when he was away from julia. like on the pacific coast when he was falling into depression. i don't believe he was a drunkard. i don't believe he was an alcoholic. i think the drinking disappeared when he became president. this is part of a younger person's life. but drinking was an issue he had to deal with. brian: going back to the 33 volumes of the grant papers, how much of those did you read? ronald: i think i read every page. brian: did you read it from the print or online? ronald: i read it in print. i had to highlight them. i have to have them in my hand. the most remarkable part, things do they are by microfilm. jewel yarks what he called my dear jewel yarks she saved every one of his letters. and in those letters, we discover a grant who was willing and able to express his
feelings in a personal relationship with her in a way that he probably almost never did in public. i found at through those letters an insight into the inner ulysses s. grant that you don't find in the public correspondence or certainly the public speeches. brian: what did you learn from those letters that you considered what motivated him during those years? ronald: this sense of self- efacement. again, he was not after some position. he was almost surprised at his own ability. in the public letters, he always gave credit to his troops. he did not take credit for himself. he had a great love not simply for julia but for his family. what surprised me again given his west point record was he really was for the education of his children. he really wanted to move to princeton. he could not find the right house there. he wanted his children to study german.
he wanted his children to study french. he really was pursuant of their education. the three boys all went to find -- fine schools. sometimes nelly was put down as someone who wasn't as educated. she had tutors and also was a well educated person and julia was quite educated for her time. brian: ronald s. white resides where in the world? ronald: we reside near pasadena in california. i have an office at the marvelous huntington library in san marino which has the third greatest lincoln collection, a wonderful civil war collection. my teacher and friend jim mcpherson has spent four years of his life at the huntington library. you may not think southern california would have all of these resources but mr. huntington, along with j.p. morgan was one of two great collectors in the early 20th century. and so there were five great
lincoln collectors. into 1914, huntington bought one of the big five. in 1922 he bought a second of the big five. that is where the huntington's were such a marvelous place to do what i am doing. brian: how did you end up at the huntington library? ronald: in my own family journey and intellectual journey i worked there and one day in 1993 they put on the largest lincoln exhibit ever put on at that time. i was not a lincoln scholar. i came in and sat in the back row. nobody invited me. i was teaching at ucla. i had a choice of offering a seminar. i will bring my students 35 minutes to the huntington. find someone, notgive them a lecture on lincoln. me, to we all started reading lincoln together in this anthology of speeches and letters and i came across the second inaugural. i said my goodness. i know something about the gettysburg address but this is
a document i don't know about. i tried to find a book about it in the second class session. there were none. so, i thought i will write the book. brian: northwestern university you attended, graduate of ucla, ph.d. from princeton. ronald: princeton university. brian: one of the words i see a lot in your background is theological. explain that. ronald: i am also a graduate of the princeton theological seminary. my belief in writing biography is that there is a presence of an absence in these stories and that's the absence of the faith story which is so important. it certainly is for lincoln. i mean, the second inaugural address, 701 words, he mentioned god 14 times, quotes the bible four times. invokes prayer three times. he some biographers says, uses a lot of religious language. he said there is something for a more profound going on there than that. here in washington, the new york avenue presbyterian
church, the pastor became i think his kind of spiritual mentor. he preached the sermon at the death of willie in february of 1862 and lincoln asked for a copy of that sermon. just so in the grant story. there's almost been no mention of a faith story. hen grant did move to galena, a young 27-year-old pastor arrived at the same time. his name was john vincent. he would become 30 years later this famous -- founder of the famous chautauqua that we know in new york state. he became i think a spiritual mentor again. -- mentor to grant. he visited him at city point. he spoke for him at galena. they corresponded. so there is a methodist story here. grant's parents were methodist. julias a grandfather was a methodist preacher. the first national church in washington was not the national cathedral. they methodists were the
largest protestant denomination by 1850. they built the first national church and they dedicated it four days before grant was inaugurated as president. and grant was a trustee. so that's ar stowy that hasn't been told. -- with a story that hasn't been told. brian: with a theological degree, does that make you a minister? ronald: i'm a presbyterian minister, yes. i have been a pastor. brian: when i was at southern illinois university a couple of years ago, we were at the lincoln-douglas debates. i was up in what was a very unromantic looking area. where i was doing the editing of the grant papers and i asked him there -- we don't unfortunately have this on the record. i said, is there anything but u.s. grant that you didn't like? and he walked over to the papers and i don't remember which volume and he opened it up and he said, there, and it .as his anti-semitism
i want you to put it in context. i went to run -- i have some video of a gentleman and jonathan sarna talking about this. i will get you to put this in context. [video clip] >> grant pause order was the most notorious of official act of anti-semitism in american history. it was the only time that jews as a class had been expelled from anywhere in the united states. brian: can you explain? ronald: yes, well, jonathan sarna wrote this wonderful book called "when grant expelled the jews." what was taking place was that grant was very excited and angry about the fact that washington, secretary of the treasury, was allowing trading to go, taking place, in the very same area that the union forces were trying to shut down the confederacy. and, this trading, grant
believed, was really aiding the confederacy because it was giving them supplies. he was trying to interdict. he along with many others believed the jews were the leading traders. so he offered what julia later called that obnoxious order, order number 11 in december of 1862 which was an order expelling jews from his lines. when this order came forward and abraham lincoln saw this order, it was immediately rescinded. now, there's another two stories behind this. grant was also very upset that his father was now in the employ of a firm in cincinnati and had come south to participate in this kind of trading. he was very angry with his father for doing this also. but what jonathan sarna tells, if you read the rest of his book, is the fact that grant learned from this.
grant became incredibly repented for what he did. and sarna tells the story that grant appointed jews to significant positions in his administration. he attended the installation of the first jewish synagogue in washington. he reached out and jews became very appreciative of grant's efforts on their behalf as president of the united states. so, yes, what he did was terrible. he learned from it and it changed his future dealings with jews. brian: you know, your book is over 800 pages. 100 pages of notes. it's big and covers everything from the beginning until the end going from the civil war to the presidency. his is page 426. i just want you to embellish this. grant's personal finances changed in february. his chief of staff at chattanooga and now a new york businessman --
ronald: now, putting that into context, was he a general in the army after this happened? ronald: this was after the civil war. this was during reconstruction. brian: why would he take money like this in a position from and outsider? ronald: this was not unusual. people stepped forward to give homes tothey did this for sherman. people. i think grant, in faulting grant, he should have been far more aware there is no free lunch and once he begins to take money were these people, is he therefore in any sense -- we know this issue today -- beholden to them? but grant received a home in philadelphia. he received money to buy a home in washington. he received a home in galena and this is part of what he did and so did grant, therefore, i think maybe behind the reading is, kind of hanker after something that had never been part of his life before?
somehow money that would support himself and perhaps the style he could never quite imagine. he became cozy with business leaders. brian: another story, i am jumping around. on page 483. brian: what's the story there? ronald: the story there is part of the gold panic. there is an effort to corner the market on wall street. grant's sister has married a person who is sort of a part of this effort and so, without him fully realizing it, they are trying to draw him into this web. they are trying to learn from him what is going to be the
government policy towards money and so suddenly, these things show up and grant is immediately suspicious, boxes them all up and sends them back. brian: where did they come from? ronald: they came from one of these perpetrators who were trying to ingratiate themselves to grant. brian: why would they put them up on the white house walls? ronald: the staff put them all up on the assumption that they were ordered maybe by julia. brian: chapter 31 starts off this way. ronald: yes, mark twain wrote is book "the guilded age" and it is associated with speculation and money and the scandals of his second administration are often a part of the story that i think we know today forever perhaps when
people come to washington, sometimes power can corrupt. and grant brought people into his administration who had been loyal, able people in the civil war and could not quite believe or understand how power began to corrupt them. and so when other people begin to make charges against them, often grant would be defending them when they should not have been defended. they became part of this gilded age, part of this rush to earn money. brian: but if he was taking money from outsiders at the time, wouldn't he have been damaged in some way as far as his clear view of how money can corrupt? ronald: he was never implicated in any of the scandals. you're drawing a connection there. he probably shouldn't have taken that money, but he was never on the take. and so nobody ever accused him. what they accuse him of is not , not wake and aware being astute enough to know this was happening around him. and then failing to recognize
when this took place and say, ok. i can no longer support you. brian: what happened between mark twain and ulysses grant before it was all over? ronald: what happened was grant retired from the presidency. rutherford b. hayes came to a net. he set off on what would be a private tour. he lolved loved traveling to new places. travel was education to him. he arrived in liverpool, england, and to his great surprise, he was treated as an american hero. set off on what he thought would only be england, scotland and europe and then money was provided through a good investment from his son and then he spent 28 months traveling the entire world. he came back, did a variety of business ventures. his son ulysses buck jr. went into a business venture on wall street. not knowing that ferdinand was
a crook. he put all his money into this wall street firm then everything collapsed. he walked home to julia and they had $130. at that point, the century magazine had approached him to write his memoirs. remember under dwight eisenhower in eight years there was one memoir written. we probably can't count how many mum roys were under george bush and barack obama. grant did not like memoirs because they were lifting oneself up. now he needed money. so he agreed to write his memoirs. the century magazine wanted him to write them and offered him $10,000. he was about to sign the dotted line when mark twain heard this. mark twain rushed over to grant's home. he was very approving and appreciative of grant. in his own typical language, he said $10,000, that is what you pay a comanche indian to write his memoir. he said, i'll write your memoir. he persuaded grant, it was very
difficult to step away from the contract -- he was a loyal person. mark twain said, i will sell 300,000 copies of your memoirs. almost at that moment, he was diagnosed with throat cancer. so what i call the final campaign is his race against death as he writes these memoirs to earn money for julia. there was no presidential pension until the years of harry s. truman. he completes the memoirs three days before he dies. it is an amazing story. twain publishes them. he offers grant 70% of the proceeds. not the standard 10% royalties. the memoirs, never out-of-print ould earn julia $450,000 for 19th century money. and they are the classic american memoir. just remarkable. brian: why is it that so many people praise that as the best memoir ever of a public official? ronald: well, first of all, i often say lincoln disappeared in his second inaugural in the
gettysburg address. there is no egocentrism in this memoir. there is a wonderful power of writing. immediacy. grant pushes this right into the story. maybe he would win. maybe lee can win. the idea of writing. he eschews adjectives. and john russell young, who was traveling with him as a correspondent with a new york newspaper, elicit fathers grant all kinds of personal reminiscences from grant. lincoln, robert e. lee, these become part of the memoir, grant gave his own thumbnail sketches of why abraham lincoln, in his own words, is the greatest figure of this era. so it's just memorable to read this. it's very clear, spare english language. lincoln said he likes the saxon language. sturdy one-syllable words. grant rights in the same way. brian: from the time he started
writing until the end, how long did it take him? ronald: it took him probably about 13, 14 months. brian: how sick was he during that period? ronald: at one moment the word was out that he was dead, would die before the morning came. journal writes in his in hartford, connecticut, he said the whole nation waits to hear whether grant is alive or dead. and if grant were to die, in every community across this nation, there will be bells that will be rung every 30 seconds. 63 bells. hat is the stature of grant that was held by the entire country. he soldiered on. he went to mount mcgregor. near saratoga springs in the summer to try to gain -- get away from the heat and humidity of new york and he was able to finish this memoir. it is an amazing story. the doctors believedonly lived as long as he did because knew he had to complete
that he the memoirs. brian: you say in the book that -- i mean over the years, people talk about the civil wars and the casualties. there were 620,000 to 650,000. you say it's a new number, 750,000. is that dead? ronald: yes, that is dead. what happened was a demographer about seven years ago now began amining the census data of 1860 to 1870 to discover these young men who were no longer alive in 1870. so now civil war historians accept the number. the figure is more like 750,000 instead of the traditional 620,000. that we had not calculated the casualties correctly. this is dead. brian: south and north, what was the breakdown? for the north and for the south. ronald: the south is much more difficult to calibrate because the records are not nearly as clear. i am probably going to misstate it if i say it so i don't want
to make the calculation. brian: you know the number of soldiers. wasn't there a real unbalance. ronald: almost twice as many as the north, the south. and about 180,000 african-americans. who fought in the war. brian: why did general grant succeed in the war? i know with very little time, could you put your finger on it? people want to read more, obviously will hear more in your book? ronald: if you think about it, no one had ever led an army of more than 14,000. which winfield scott led to in the war with mexico. so, you might have graduated first in your quest at west point but that did not mean you could manage an army of 150,000 or 250,000 men. grant had the ability what incoln called pertinacity to keep fighting. what lee did was he shifted his interior lines. when he had a force attacking him, he would move over to
fight that force. a force came over here, he moved over to write that force. usually the fighting would cease and desist after two or three days. people would rest and refit and redo the battle. there was no resting and refitting for grant. he kept the forces going. also, he discovered that the forces had not fought in coordination. at the eastern theater, he had five different armies. he said these armies must attack in a coordinated way. if we attack here, there is no oordination, that gives the less troops the ability to withstand our attacks. so his masterful ability to fight in a coordinated way. however, he gave his chief generals the ability to manage their own theaters of operation. he was not a micromanager. he trusted them and this gave them the confidence to move forward. the difficult relationship with george meade who would been the commander at gettysburg, the potomac, he was sure that grant would remove him. when he came east. grant said, i am not moving you. i'm placing my confidence in you. that allowed meade the freedom
in the final months of the campaign for planning. brian: when in your life to do decide to become a writer? ronald: i was a high school journalist. i always enjoyed writing. my early years of various vocations i never had the time to write i guess full time so i didn't see myself having this possibility. brian: why a theological degree, when that start for you the idea? ronald: pretty early. i went directly from ucla to princeton theological seminary. i always weighed the difference between being a teacher and a pastor. brian: where had you grown up? ronald: i grew up in california, born in minneapolis and moved to california at age 4. brian: were there any other ministers in your family? ronald: no. none. brian: and over the years, have you changed your mind at all about religion? and what you believe and what you not believe? ronald: i want to be the kind of person who is grateful for my past, what i've experienced.
i'm not there necessarily in the past. i have broughtened it, experience opens doors that you never imagine when you're young. in one sense i have a basic, central belief in terms of the christian faith. and yet the world around us has changed rapidly and we need to be willing and able to change with it and to see new possibilities, new challenges. probably the whole component of social justice was not part of my life growing up as a young person but i think the whole civil rights era, the whole martin luther king story challenged me to think about this in fresh ways. so i spent a lot of time writing about what is called the social gospel. and then how did the social gospel or social christianity confront the issue of race? not just in the era of martin luther king but historically, in the decades before it. so that's certainly behind even this book. how did ulysses s. grant confront the issue of racial injustice? and that's why in one way i find him such a compelling figure.
brian: what mark would you give him? ronald: i would give him an -- a high mark. in his presidency he convened a meeting one day of african-american leaders in the white house. he said to them, i look forward to the day when you can ride on a railroad car, when you can eat in a restaurant, when you can do so along with every other person regardless of race. that day must come. it took 90 years for that day to come. grant was the last american it took 90 years for that day to come. grant was the last american president to hold those kinds of view. we think of barack obama as the first president elected with a nonwhite majority. ulysses s. grant was the first person elected with a nonwhite majority. he only won the popular vote in 1868 because 400,000 african-americans voted for him. by 1890, a few thousand were still able to vote in the south. this is the story of ulysses s. grant that needs to be told. that has not really been told. of a person who stood up against voter suppression of
his day, that was the goal of the ku klux klan, to suppress the vote. the irony was they new the african-americans would all vote for republicans. now he wanted to stop that and give these african-americans, freed people, the right to vote. brian: please tell people where you went. how many different places did you go to study grant? ronald: probably 20 or 25 places. brian: how long did that take you? ronald: a long time. i live in southern california. and so i am indebted to many ational park historians. many cure rators at various libraries. there are a lot of different documents in different places. they don't always align with geography. the papers are deposited with a particular individual. john hale vincent paz papers, the spiritual mentor, his papers are in dallas, texas. i don't think he had ever written a day in dallas texas.
they were offered to southern methodist university and they said, we will take them. brian: how many of the 33 volumes are digitized? online for people to read them? ronald: all of them are digitized. the 33rd volume will be published by harvard university press. brian: why? ronald: well, this is to be a special volume. it is going to be a really annotated volume. i don't fully know the onversation. the hope is that this will become a really first-class volume. i have seen it but not in the final stages. brian: that's being done with john -- robert:my wonderful executive editor at ulysses s. grant mississippi state was helpful. brian: i wanted to ask you about this in the acknowledgment. in my desire to appreciate grant's remarkable horsemanship, i benefited from many informative conversations with the wranglers where i ride. what is that about?
rond: i grew up in salinas, california, which is the california rodeo. i didn't realize until later that our p.e. classes were horseback riding. by monty roberts, the famous horse whisperer. so i had ridden at the ranch in wyoming. i had ridden at the lazy q near south of tucson. and i ask these people about grant and horseback riding because that is not our culture. when people of the 19th century understood grant is a horse whisperer, one who gentles horse, this connoted an aprooshation to him as a person. swub who could gentle horses is a gentle person. i wanted to lift up his story as a horseman because that says a lot about his character. brian: of the places you went,
columbia river, vicksburg, shiloh, all of these places. people who are grant followers and don't travel much, give them one place to go? ronald: one of the most fascinating places was vicksburg. the topography is great. one thing i wish they had not done is they allow these trees to grow up. there were no trees at that time. they cut them down so they could have these free fire zones. this was the most complicated battle. it took the longest to win. it was very important because of the freedom of access. i think with lots of difficulties, this was a masterstroke. if i may say, you asked earlier on about lincoln and grant. when did lincoln meet grant? well, lincoln had not met grant yet. he wrote grant a letter after he won the battle of gettysburg. -- vicksburg. he said, i said that when you decide to do this, i could not gree last. -- i could not agree less. i dew point understand that. he end his letter by saying,
general grant, i merely wish to say i was wrong and you were right. brian: the book is called "american ulysses: a life of ulysses s. grant" and our guest has been ronald c. white. based at the huntington library in pasadena. thank you very much. ronald: thank you brian. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> for free france scripts or give us your comments about this program, visit us at "q&a."org. "q&a" programs also aveable as c-span podcasts.
>> on capitol hill today, the house gavels back in in about an hour at 2:00 eastern time for speeches and will recess until 4:30, at way point they'll start legislative work. six bills on the calendar today. including one dealing with injured veterans and tax issues. votes at 6:30. in the senate, lawmakers come in at 3:00 and try to finish work on a medical research bill. that measure includes funding for the so-called cancer moon shot, which is an initiative spearheaded by vice president joe biden, who will attend and preside over today's senate session. and then tonight, a look back at some of the presidential debates. a live discussion with two of the presidential debate moderators, martha rad ditz and chris wallace. they'll talk about their experiences with the co-chairs of the commission that sets up the debate. frank and mike. live tonight at 8:00 eastern, also on c-span3. also today a tweet from the news and observer reporter
calling kabul saying north carolina governor pat mccrorry has conceded the election in a video message saying he'll support the transition. at the last count mr. cooper led the governor by more than 10,000 votes. >> tonight on the communicate years >> again, it's a great measure how fast things change that the law just figuring out those two examples, cell phones and email, maybe figuring that out just about the time those two are not going to be as important in our daily lives. and so there's this built in delay that the law suffers from an it's hard to keep up. >> georgetown university law center professor, paul ohem, on how prosecutors, lawyers, and judges lack understanding of technology and has worked to help resolve that profpblet he's interviewed by dustin volt, sign earn certificate vail lens policy reporter at reuters. >> a lot of scientists just
love the law and policy. probably think they are better at it than they are. i wonder if that is something we can use to appeal to the people to do their duty and spend a few years in d.c. and help the government out. >> watch the communicators tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> abigail fill more as the first first lady to work outside the home. teaching in a private school. maimy eisenhower's hairstyle and love the pink created fashion sensations. maimy pink was marketed as a color and stores sold clip on bangs to women. jaclyn kennedy was the responsible for the creation of the white house historical association. and nancy reagan as a young ack interests saw her name mistakenly on the blacklies of communist simpathidsthiesers in the late 1940's. she appealed to ronald reagan for help. she later became his wife. these stories and more are featured in c-span's book,
first ladies. presidential historians on the lives of 45 iconic american women. the book makes a great gift for the holidays. giving readers a look into the personal lives of every first lady in american history. stories of fascinating women and how their legacies resonate today. share the stories of america's first ladies for the holidays. first ladies, in paperback. published by public affairs is now available at your favorite book seller and also as an -book. before the house gavels back in at 2:00, here's a look at the future of the house, democratic caucus, after congressman tim ryan's unsuccessful challenge to house minority leader nancy pelosi. and changes to how leadership is elected. >> washington journal continues. joining us, mike lillis, a senior reporter for the hill that covers congress extensively. what does it mean to be a house democratic these days?
guest: it means you are in a position that you do not think you would be in a month ago. there has been some turmoil. they have been in disarray since the election. they came in. they thought that was going to be a bone to them down ballot. they thought they were going to pick up a significant number of seats. they thought they were going to take the senate. none of those things happened. they are in this position of "what went wrong?" they are going to do an autopsy. set of the commission and say what went wrong and how did we miss these voters? how can we energize our base? we did not do it this time around. to be a democrat is to be questioning the future of the party. host: there is a lot of talk of unity. is that the case? guest: we saw a lot of this
unity in the wake of this election. there was enormous call for the leadership to be overthrown. nancy pelosi has been there for 14 years. there is a younger crop of people who are frustrated that they have not been able to move up the ladder. frustrated that this is the fourth election cycle that they have not been able to take the majority saying we have to go back to square one. we have got to go back to winning. anti-pelosi raises a lot of money and yes she has experience. -- nancy pelosi raises a lot of money and yes, she has experience. after fourying cycles where to do something to win. tim ryan came in and challenged her. he lost. pelosi will be there. her authority is unquestioned. going forward, there is this movement that is growing as the years go by, these people are getting younger and younger.
you are seeing this happen in real time. host: he talked about tim ryan and his loss. talk about how many votes he got. is that significant that he got the number he did? asked.depends on who he if you ask nancy pelosi, she got two thirds of the vote. it was 134 to 63. she is saying yes, i still command this enormous amount of the very liberal leading caucus. question.is not in tim ryan comes in and says wait a minute, the last time you were challenged, that was after they got wiped out. they lost 63 seats and they have not rebounded since. heath shuler was a blue dog democrat from north carolina, not very senior. he challenged her.
it was more of a symbolic challenge. it is a secret ballot. he got 43 votes. it was a little more than people thought he was going to get. there was that since that with the secret ballot, i can cast this protest vote and say, because we get wiped out, we snap with the same person in. it was that kind of message. he got 43 and line comes in and gets 63. again, you see this growing. the wave is growing. younger people coming in. host: the role of the house democrats postelection. if you want to ask him questions about that, what it means for policymaking -- you can post on twitter and our
facebook page. let's hear from nancy pelosi just after her reelection, how she talks about going forward and mike lillis will get you to comment. , workinggo forward very closely together as the opposition which is a different role. our unity is very important. will be strategic, unifying and unwavering in our support. that is what joins us together. everything else is part of who we are. what unifies us is our values and those values -- said mike lillis, she america's working families twice. what goes on from here? unity.she is calling for they have been unified all along.
they are scratching their head this month. pushing,s they're been economics did not pull very well. they support gun reform. all of these polled in the 80% to 90% percentiles. figure out why they whenosing based on this -- she is saying unity, she is stressing that they are on the same page. tim ryan believes in all of those issues. when she says unity, she is talking about issues and the need to figure out how to convince voters they are on the same page. i think what you are going to see them do long into the future is hone that message, helped
convince people that we are for them and how do we translate wage,olls -- minimum social security -- how do we translate that into sibling which they can go on a bumper sticker? here tim ryan will be wednesday to share his thoughts on the democratic party and its future. mike lillis, our current guest to talk about these things. you can go to the hill.com to see his writing. nicholas from pikesville, maryland. republican line. go ahead caller:. just go ahead. caller: i have a question in a comment. the implication was with schuyler, there was a secret ballot but with a, there wasn't? -- guest: the secret
ballot was for both of those elections. because of the secret ballot, someone can vote in or against policy without suffering any political repercussions. inosi has done very good uniting the party. she can keep -- she can kick people off committees. she can demote them. she raises tons of money. she cannot give that to certain campaigns. she has ways of keeping democrats in line. the secret ballot just allows somebody, maybe a freshman member, to go in there and vote for the other candidate without nancy pelosi ever knowing. it gives you anonymity and there is no repercussions. i am sorry for the confusion. wisconsin, independent line. pedro. yes, great show,
i was going to say, the reason i am independent is because i think the republicans and democrats, neither one of them follow the constitution. the democrats have basically been the same for the last 45 -- 44 years. the mcgovern i took over the party. media covering them now not exposing their radical agenda. the public is catching on, pretty much so in the midwest where i live. -- i see theo say media keeps on beating up on trump. i was not a big trump fan at all. i was wondering, do you think the democrats in the future here are going to bring more people in, like heath shuler or tim
ryan. or do you think it is good to stay like a coastal party? host: great question. that is the composition they're having. at the top, it is going to stay a coastal party. they try to topple policy. -- try to topple pelosi. california after that. what they have done is to carve out new leadership positions that are not going to go to does that are going to go to more junior members -- that are going to go to more junior members. this was tim ryan's argument all along. out -- he is the youngstown, ohio, blue-collar manufacturing district. trump won the district. he says i am the guy who can go to fish fries.
i can talk to these voters. we can get these voters back to the democratic fold. pelosi recognizing this and realizing she has to do something, which she did not do in 2010. the challenge was not strong enough. this year is very different. she has carved out a number of new leadership posts. if you ask the critics, they say they are cosmetic things to cover her -- for her to save face. if you ask of those who are being placed in those positions, they are appreciative that they are going to have a spot at the table. they will be in those weekly leadership meetings as they steer message and policy. that is the type of thing you are going to see pete we had some elections on friday. we are going to have some elections this afternoon when congress returns.
those names will be unrolled. host: what happens this afternoon? guest: they are going to vote on the campaign arm. pelosi used to appoint the head of the test the head of the democratic -- he was appointed two years ago. people have said that is getting too much power to one person. part of this conversation in revolt postelection is need to spread that power around. now that role is going to be elected. here was a thought that would be challenged. sean patrick maloney suggested that he might challenge him. not going to happen. lujan will run unchallenged. he will be the chair for the next two years. there is a committee called the democratic policy and taken into effect aas
couple of years ago. nancy pelosi carved a position out. it was appointed, but now it will be elected. it will be divided among three different vice-chairman. so, they are trying to spread power and make it more to microsoft -- democracized. so, spreading the power around regionally and generationally. allowing these people to vote. host: a democrat from springfield, virginia, erica, you are on. caller: good morning. what i see on the democratic side of the party -- it seems that they have walked away from the grassroots. vocation, but we do not need charity. we want a $15 minimum wage raise.
debt reduction to be much more aggressive, so students can go back and invest in the economy. we do not need little things. we need to walk away from corporations. that is very, very important. say, some people respect nancy pelosi, and i understand. the new generation means new democratic leaders coming along. progressive, and it really want to make change. they want to move away from corporate influence. that is what we need to fight against. host: erica, we will let our
guest response. you have put a lot out there. guest: a great comment. part of the discussion they are having right now is how are we going to defend president obama's legacy from donald trump and congressional majorities in both chambers. there is a lot of disagreement on what to do on that front. a lot of people agree with you that the reason the democrats lost was that the message did not resonate. that they did not get there liberal base out because they went to soft. they did not fight hard enough for court, liberal values. values.liberal i should mention, they have strong checking in congress in bernie sanders and senator elizabeth moran. nancy pelosi is in a different spot because she is a leader, and she has to negotiate with the other republican leaders. think shef policy, i is 100% on the same page as
bernie sanders and elizabeth warren. policy wise, you have that sector. it is a very liberal heavy democratic caucus. so a lot of people agree with exec or what you have said. shifting gears, there is also recognition that they will have to compromise if they want to get anything done. when obamanell -- was elected, mitch mcconnell was the senate minority leader at the time. he said that his primary goal was not going to be to allow obama to do anything at all. he wanted him to be a one term president, so they blocked everything. he was criticized soundly for that. eight years later, politically, it seemed to have worked out for republicans. so, some democrats are saying we need to make donald trump a one term president. that was set in no uncertain terms last week. so, there's kind of a mixed
message on whether or not we should work with donald trump. democrats have always been a party that wants to govern and believe in government. they are at this crossroads where they do not -- they cannot burn the house down just to defeat donald trump and block everything he wants to do. there is a sense they have to work with him. a the same time, there is group of liberals that feel they need to fight for their values and block everything that would undo them. host: from pennsylvania for our llis, this isi john. go ahead. caller: pelosi is 76 years old. democrats are in the upper 70's. they are part of the new -- the neoliberal switch that can be
attached to the clintons. clinton in 1996 when neoliberal which is a corporate stance. that has not worked. it split the democratic party between the black caucus in the neoliberal's. -- and the neoliberal's. bernie sanders was popular because he was a democrat. he was not taken in by all the money. the neoliberal's work. liberals were.eo that is one of the problems. they need to learn from republicans. they are really the organization that runs the republican party. guest: i think this goes back to the previous question. as the democrats try to locate a
strategy to get them back on the winning track, do they stick with their liberal values or compromise? you mentioned alex, but the -- alec, but the democrats have id of support, t -- plenty of support, too. with the demise of labor unions over the years, a lot of their support base has eroded. so, the trick is to appeal to a lot of those workers left behind by the great recession. everything is economics these days. that is what this election said. that is almost what all of these elections said. 2010 was a little different, because obamacare made a difference.
however, economics is the way. democrats need to find a weird appeal in this way, otherwise it will not work. have a twitter message sent in. going into 2018 and 2020, what do democrats face as far as elections? aret: midterm elections always difficult for the incumbent party. nancy pelosi's argument was that she has done this before, and she knows what it takes. in 2004, we wiped out the republicans in the midterm elections. her or is it right now is she experienced and she can do it again. that's her argument. 2018 will be a very different cycle for republicans. a lot of people that were thought to be wiped out this year were not, but they will be
very vulnerable in two years. historically, it is a tough cycle for the incumbent party. so, nancy pelosi is saying that with all of those actors combined we could make enormous -- those factors combined, we can make an enormous difference. give me a chance, and i will make it happen. that is her message. nancy pelosi thinks she can do it, and we will not know until two years from now. that is her argument. host: sun city, california. on the democrats line should write, go ahead -- on the democrats line, roy, go ahead. caller: can you hear me? guest: -- host: yes, you are on. caller: first, i wish the democrats would be more obstructionist like the
republicans were. we as democrats always want to govern and look out for the people. we need to be ruthless just like republicans. i want to make one quick statement about your last issue. i wonder how many of the people would accept the pipeline running under arlington national cemetery or the pearl harbor memorial. host: thank you, roy. guest: there are a lot of people that agree with you. a lot the democrats and they should be ruthless. mcconnell was ruthless. he did not want obama to do anything. he filibustered everything, even things that republicans were going to support. that was just as a delay tactic to keep other things off the floor. there are a lot of delay tactic -- there are a lot of things lot of there are a democrats that think nancy pelosi should do the same thing.
for years, democrats have said they are the party of government. they believe in government, and they believe in governing to help people in their everyday lives. if they block everything and we have shut down threats and all the things we have seen over the past couple of years, if democrats are being blamed for those things, then they are not the party of good government anymore. it would be very sharp political tactic on their part. they would have to somehow walk the tightrope by saying we are knocking down government in order to save it. i do not know how successful they would be descending -- would be sending that message. that is what is happening right now -- the disagreement in the party about how they should proceed. host: taking a look at potential leaders that could have risen up to replace what is currently in place, they highlighted how the bacerra. -- javier
would you view as the shining thes -- who do you view as shining stars? figuresou mentioned the just the latest one. have to start looking deeper into the bench. they have to start rubbing -- rooting for these younger guys to come up. we do not know who these figures will be. you mentioned one man in texas that is a rising star. another one in massachusetts. i think people believe he will jump back to the state. if he remains in the house, he
is certainly a rising star. if you look at the nominees that nancy pelosi just made for some ,f the new leadership positions we have a hawaii democrat that will now be in leadership. they are going to have to elect someone five terms or less today. there will be so when a house at the table, and we do not yet know who that will be. certainly, there are three choices who have made her name this month by opposing nancy pelosi. they came out very publicly at the end to endorse tim ryan which is a political risk for them in the near term. they have only been here -- they are all sophomores just elected into their second term. they are playing a long day. those are some rising stars you will see. there are a couple of other names to mention. she is a relatively young
illinois democrat. in queens alsos nominated someone for the position. right from pennsylvania -- matt cartwright from pennsylvania also a choice. these are the types of people that want to move up, and maybe moving up. we will wait to see how successful they are. lillis of "the hill" joining us. we are talking about how house democrats will play following the recent election. next caller, go ahead. caller: three points. number one, democrats, no matter what, they have to be caught to get out the vote. -- taught to get out the vote. it is not a matter of how many people you can register, or how much money you can raise.
the main point is that come election day you have to vote. they are not inspired. republicans are very organized. democrats are a mess. it is tragic. the other thing is that you have to get rid of the old guard. nancy pelosi the other old-timers have to go. a changing of the guard has to come about. when democrats do get in, they always promise to the unions. however, they do nothing for the unions. when obama got in, it was the same old stuff. houses. all three these people were talking about minimum wage. thank you, caller. guest: you are exactly right. it is back to the original point of how you get voters to the polls.
i think everybody is talking about how to energize the vote. about why thisly cycle was such a dismal turnout for the democrats. people are looking back to the past two cycles when you had obama at the top of the ticket. in 2012 alone, i think there were many democratic voters that came out for obama. this time, for hillary clinton, it was much less. it was not like there was this huge groundswell of support for donald trump, who did not get any more voters out then mitt romney. it was more hillary clinton not energizing the base. you are right that the democrats failed to do so, and they need to improve on that if they want to win elections and congressional seats. to say they are not talking about it, i do not think that is right. i think that is probably their key focus. this autopsy they are going to do will examine why the money advantage they had on capitol
hill and all of these different things did not exactly work. i will say, if you ask nancy pelosi in her supporters, they will say that i think she brought in $141 million in this cycle. that is enormous. no one else comes close on the hill. she would say, maybe it did not get us into the majority, but it would have been much worse if we do not have it. so, part of the argument we are having is the effectiveness of money. how important is it? how can we make it go forward to be more effective? host: what talk is there now about the democratic response to the changing of the affordable care act? what about this idea of an preceptor -- infrastructure spending?
what role will democrats play in those two, big topics? guest: two very important topics. --st, the other repealing the repealing of obamacare -- that is something to do not want. that is part of the obama legacy they want to keep in place. republicans are going to vote 100% for repeal. they have done that over and over again in the house. so, democrats are the firewall. humor can filibuster everything he wants. he knows very well that he is the last line of defense. all eyes will be on chuck schumer in the obamacare repeal fight. infrastructure, that will be fascinating. that is a very different than it. dynamic. everyone's to build roads and bring money back to the district. the question is how to pay for
it. democrats is making a lot of promises. democrats and republicans -- donald trump is making a lot of promises. democrats and republicans have been agreeing with him, but when it comes to paying for it -- he is not said where or when or how he wants to spend it. they have to come up with $1 trillion that you cannot find that on capitol hill. -- you cannot find that on capitol hill. these are the budget fights we see every year. so, certainly that is an area where they can come together and agree on a bipartisan basis. we talk about how it is going to be funded, that is going to get messy. host: congress is about to go out on their break. what needs to be done as far as budget issues? two things, one they could get it done this week.
spending for the government expires this friday on the ninth. they have to pass something by then. the question is if they will push it next week to get something longer-term, or can they pass a continuing resolution short-term -- a longer short-term budget bill by the end of the week. the thought is maybe they can do that. but the house introduces the bill, they could vote on it by wednesday, and everything could be done by friday. we still have not seen the bill. initially, there was talk they could find the government through march. now that donald trump is humming cinubg -- is -- is in, and he needs to a point his cabinet -- it allows the republicans to have more say in the spending fight. inack obama will be gone january. they want donald trump to make
more of these decisions when they have a republican in office. passes a defense authorization bill last week, and have to pass this week. obama has not yet said what he is going to do with it. defense bills tend to be rather bipartisan. that is expect it to move. the final piece is a water resources and development bill. water the deal with the crisis in flint, michigan. democrats have been pushing for hundreds of millions of dollars to help with that. it has been pushed for years since the crisis started. speaker ryan said that he would do it in december on this water bill. so, this is expected to pass. , and a very short calendar then they are gone. we do not expect any kind of major fight. host: up next, mark on the independent line from naube --
maine. caller: good morning. i am listening to the show this man, the "the hill" writer. it reminded me of what president johnson said back in the 60's. he said democrats legislate and republicans investigate. you cannot win on the issues, then the only thing you can do is character assassination. i think we have more of that going on today than we did back then. a lot of colors that have spoken about democrats -- i think they have been too soft with their team plan. they need to get tougher. that is my only quote. it is a great quote. i will shoot one back at you. there is another quote that says, "democracy ensures that we
get no better than we deserve." i think a lot of democrats are wondering what will happen with this donald trump administration. that quote from george bernard shaw. we have had a stalemate on capitol hill for at least the past six years since republicans came in on that tea party wave as a response to obamacare and some of the things that are the obama did when he first arrived. -- that president obama did you first arrived. it was also a response to the democrats controlling all three houses. one party has control like that, there tends to be a pendulum swing in the other way. on that tea party wave, the democrats lost 63 seats, and they have not fully rebounded yet. a lot of those tea party guys came in come a they go back to their districts -- come in, and cheered at their
districts. did -- exactly what they that block president obama and his agenda. it is all criticism, but when they go back home to their districts they hear nothing but praise. so, this is how democracy is. it is messy, and there is a lot of different reasons for. the gerrymandering that made all of these liberal districts every liberal and all these conservative districts very conservative. the number of purple districts is very minimal at this point. that is why it is difficult for democrats to get back in power in the house. for all of these reasons, democracy is messy. that is we see every day on the hill. a caller on the democrat
line from new jersey. go ahead. caller: go ahead. morning.rning -- good he just mentioned gerrymandering. first of all, we are talking politics and conflating it with policy. the cheering that these representatives are getting when they go back to their districts are because they got to select who voted for them based on gerrymandering. pelosi andout nancy the democratic leadership in the house -- when you have gerrymandering, 90% of your district is white, older whatever -- why would you possibly want to compromise? why would you possibly want to govern? it is safe.
there is all this false equivalency. democrats did it, too. if democrats were in total control of california, the whole government from the governor on down some and date gerrymandered what -- on down, if they gerrymandered what do they have? not.did guest: i think both parties are guilty of gerrymandering. there is no question of that. what happened in 2010 was that republicans controlled more statehouses, and they were very in-depth at taking advantage of that to carve out more conservative's tricks then liberal districts. thannservative districts liberal districts. we are living the latest example of it.
that is what it is such an issue right now. you say voters do not go out and vote their own members, i think that is inaccurate. it is those voters that are empowered. on the state level, every 10 years after the census, they will redraw the map. if they do not like the map, the voters can go to the state elections and vote in someone who will drop a different map. that is how democracy works on that level. anddistrict maps are drawn, we get the results of that through the house election. is therenot think it to say that republicans are the only ones that gerrymandered. there are plenty of liberal districts that are perfectly safe. the same member has been in their for decades as a result. host: there is a story this morning on harry reid who will
get a sendoff before he leaves congress could talk of the about his legacy -- before he leaves congress. talk a little bit about his legacy before he leaves. guest: he is one of those powerbrokers. --is a very innate manic enigmatic guy. he's very soft-spoken, but he was so good at what he did. there are numerous stories of him twisting arms to get what he wants. he is so good behind the scenes. you put him in front of a microphone, and you wonder how he is able to do it. both in his home state in nevada and on capitol hill, i think obamacare will be one of his major legacy items. at least, in most recent years. just his ability to unite the party -- there is a lot of moderate conservative leaning senators, and he has to come
into the room to take -- to convince them to take a tough vote on something like obamacare. he was able to do something like that through very good legislation -- legislative maneuvering. tweaking the line which to get a little carve out for you and you. also, just convincing them politically it was the right thing to do for the party and the country. democrats will miss that ability to do that sort of thing. host: do we now know what kind of work or career he will pursue? guest: i do not have an answer to that. he is in his late 70's. i think he will be happy just to go back to nevada. i don't have the answer to that. .ost: one last caller tom on the line for republicans. go ahead. caller: thank you. nonpartisan, and i do not
vote in the primaries. i am one of the people that ran away from the democratic party. you mentioned obama's legacy. left a legacy because he knew how to tweak. if you want to get people back into the democrat party, you have to care about the middle class. the working people are getting clobbered by obamacare. you have a lieutenant governor on c-span talk it week ago, and she presented sides of it. million get benefits and 20 people -- georgia million get clobbered. million people are getting clobbered. middle-class people cannot cover it. it is coercion. obama was told it was unconstitutional.
it is a money grab. working-class people work hard, and they should be rewarded for saving a few dollars. you are depleting their bank accounts. $1800 is a mortgage for some people they could not afford to pay. the government is putting a gun to their heads saying that you need to pay it or we will keep decreasing the tax penalties. obama care that obamacare is his legacy, but it is also one of the most controversial items i have seen on capitol hill. it has divided an awful lot of people. it has divided those that have either benefited from it, or had seen their premiums rise. if you do not have insurance before, but have it now because of this law you are likely happy with it. if you had coverage, and now you
are seen premiums rise higher than you expected, then you are not happy. that is just part of the split. it is congress's job to recognize these deficiencies and fix them. we will see what they do with it. republicans want to repeal the whole thing. the question is what do they do with these people that now have insurance. do you drop their insurance coverage? --the you try something else do you try something else? donald trump made this a central issue of his campaign, and republicans have been wanting to repeal it for years. they want to do it quickly once donald trump its into office. they can leave the tough decisions for later. they can say they were killed it, the repeal will not go into , but -- they repealed it
the repeal will not go into place for two years so it gives them time to find a replacement. it will be interesting to see what they came up with -- come up with. host: with all the changes being made with house democrats and leadership, when do democrats get a sense that it is working or not? guest: immediately, you will know if it is working if the insurgents -- those that were unhappy after the election -- if they were satisfied with it. that is the near-term effect. even that is unclear. once nancy pelosi one, it sounded like they are ok with it. they had their shot to make a protest vote. longer term, it will be in 2018. it will depend on how many people came out to vote and how
many seat democrats one. host: mike lillis >> the house will be gaveling back in shortly. then resesting until 4:30. working on six bills today, including one keeling with injured veterans and tax issues. any votes will take place after 6:30 eastern time. here's a look at one of our c-span interviews with one of the incoming lawmakers ahead of the start of the 115th congress. >> it's a county district. host: a district if president trump builds the wall will be impacted by those efforts. can you talk about the border issues in the 15th district and
what the state of the barrier between the united states and mexico is right now? guest: well, a wall won't work, ill tar heel you that. if it did i would be for it. it doesn't. we have done a very good job securing our borders, particularly in texas. the state's done a very good job. we have state troopers throughout our border region. security is much more controlled than people imagine. obviously we need to continue to improve it and make it better. obviously a border wall sounds good. campaign rhetoric. but in terms of reality i would invite donald trump to come down and see things for himself. i think he might have a different point of view. host: as a democrat, what advice are you giving to the democratic leadership in congress, specifically on the immigration and border security issue, especially now that democrats are in the minority in both chambers? guest: we need to find common ground with the other side. i'm here to work to try to make american better and move our region board. we have an immigration policy
that doesn't work. the policy that's in place now has divided families. we have parents and children living in different countries. husbands and wives. it's broken families. it's not who we're as a country or a region. so that's something we need to continue to work on. host: what did you do before running before congress? guest: i have been practicing law for two decades in texas. aim new to politics. host: any immigration cases you have worked on? any of your legal issues touch on those? guest: my cases ended up having immigration issues because a lot of the people who i represented had immigration issues, even though i was representing them on civil cases. it was always a time that we couldn't get a hold of one of the family members or relatives or families were broken because of the immigration policy that was in place. many times i would have to travel across the border to get documents signed because folks who had legal actions, beneficiaries of something in the united states could come across and sign a simple document. these are folks who weren't
interested in moving here. these were folks who needed to take care of boys. host: what is that process like traveling across the border for you in your hometown. describe that for those who don't live on the border. guest: traveling across the border has been a tradition for hundreds of years in texas. we do a lot of commerce. they are a very important party -- part of our community t has become more dangerous and we need to work on that. we need to engage the government of mexico and the state across our border to make it safer than it ever has been before. seven years ago and prior it was a lot safer than it is today. i'll concede that. in terms of security in south texas, we're one of the safest communities in the state. i feel comfortable there. i think people who come down and visit will tell you the same thing. host: have you thought much about your committee assignments in congress? guest: i have. we're trying to -- we start at the top. we know we're asking for appropriations. my predecessor was on financial
services, which he'll leave a void after he's gone. transportation is a big issue. i'm very interested in trying to implement a fast rail from san antonio to the valley, border area, even all the way into monterey, mexico. it's a plan. those are important things. agriculture is huge. so these are all committee asoonments i'm asking for and hopefully -- host: thank you so much for your time. guest: hang thank you. >> the house about to gavel back in. they'll recess again until 4:30 we'll when they'll work on six bills today, including one dealing with injured veterans and tax issues. any votes will take place after 6:30 eastern time. over in the stat today lawmakers will come in at 3:00 and try to finish work on a medical research bill that. measure includes find pfunding for the so-called cancer moon shot. an initiative spearheaded by vice president joe biden who will preside over today's
senate session which you can watch on c-span2. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order the prayer wll be offed by our chaplain, fatr conr. chaplain nroy: let us pray. loving and graious god, we give yo thanks for giving us another day. we ask today that you bless the members othe people's house to be the besand st faiul seants of the people they rve. y they be filled with gratitude at the oortunity ey hav sve in this place. we thank you for thebilities they ve bee given to do their work to contribute to the common good. as thisecond seson of the