>> what would you like to see as your legacy on the court? >> i would just like people to think of me as a judge who did the best she could with what ever limited talent i have. to keep our country true to what makes it a great nation, and to make things a little better >> i would like to thank you for all the work you have done on behalf of women and to keep the courts a respected institution. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> former president bill clinton

and secretary of state hillary clinton were in arkansas to mark the anniversary of their 1992 campaign. >> another president is facing a similar challenge. i will say this -- i suppose i am pulling harder for him because he showed such good judgment in picking secretary of state, but i would be pulling for him regardless, because underlying those challenges is the same old debate about whether government is the problem or we need smart government and a changing economy working together to create the opportunities of tomorrow. >> watch the entire speech today at 6:30 today on c-span. >> this week, on "newsmakers," chris van hollen. welcome, thank you very much. we have two reporters here. gregory has the first question

for you. >> you are on the super committee. the minimum amount the super committee can cut is $1.20 trillion. the goal is 1.5. some people are saying that you should go big at $4 trillion. what is your number? >> i would like to go big. i am in the camp that says we should do our best to tackle some of the really big issues. that means going big, $4 trillion is roughly the number of people put on a big package. different people mean different things sometimes when they're talking about $4 trillion. it is another way of saying, i think we should try to tackle some of the really big issues. >> let's talk about what that number means. it has been pointed out that if you continue a number of policies, extending the bush tax cuts, the alternative minimum tax fix, the medicare reimbursement for doctors, you

are digging a hole faster than the super committee can fill it. >> that is the danger. i am not in favor of extending the bush tax cuts indefinitely. the president put forward a proposal to allow middle-class tax cuts to continue, but not for the wealthiest. there are things we can do and tax reform that can generate revenue by getting rid of a lot of the loopholes and some of the preferences. they muck up the tax code. i also hope the committee will address the issue of jobs and the economy. it makes it even harder in some ways to hit the higher deficit reduction target. the sooner we get people back to work and the economy going again, the sooner they will be able to provide for their families and the faster we will be able to reduce the deficit. >> does that job proposal

include what president obama outlined? >> i think that should be part of it. it is common sense to say that when you have 14% unemployment in the construction industry and people can look around and see that they have schools and bridges and roads that need to be renovated or built, we should not be cutting 30% from the transportation budget. we should be investing in that area. it makes sense to make sure that businesses have customers and that means putting a little bit more in people's pockets by extending the payroll tax. beefing it up a little bit so that people have a little bit more income to go out and buy things. the reasons businesses are not hiring is because they do not have customers. >> it takes two to tango to get to a deal. is there anything in your discussions that gives you any

confidence that you will come up with anything approaching a big deal? the people i talk to are not on the committee -- and some of the people are on the committee -- and there is not a whole lot of confidence that you guys will be able to generate something really big. maybe something closer to the 1.2 number. i have heard that you may even go below that. >> we are taking this one day at a time. i do not think anybody knows right now how this will end. we have until november 23, which is not a long period of time. time. what i can say is that i believe that the intentions of all 12 members are good. everybody tries to meet the target of $1.20 trillion in deficit reduction. i hope we would combine that with the jobs component and a jobs package. but again, whether they get to that number, some other number,

or whether we reach an agreement, only time will tell. i do know that members on that committee feel a lot of pressure to try to get something done. especially given the fact that people are looking at congress, they have seen the inability to get things done. get things done. >> your meetings, most of them have been secret. the first one was held before the cameras. do you have any intention of holding some more public meetings in front of the cameras so that the public can get an idea of the progress, or lack thereof, that you are making? >> absolutely. we have had a number of hearings on the overview of the budget from the director of the congressional budget office, one on tax reform, a number more that will be scheduled. there will be that opportunity

to take testimony and for people to give input. in this polarized environment, it makes sense that some of the back and forth between members of the committee -- but i also think there is an essential role for the public hearing process. >> there is another issue of transparency that some people are concerned about. by concentrating power in these 12 people, it will become a lobbying bonanza. what interest groups have you met with since you have been on the super committee? >> i have heard from a range of people. >> can you name some? >> i have heard from citizens who are worried about medicare and social security. i have heard from folks in maryland hospitals who are worried about the impact the cuts in medicare might have. i have heard from a range of people, a grass-roots organizations, doctors,

hospitals, others. in my view, the role of any member of congress, whether they're on this committee or not, is to get a whole range of ideas and views on any issue. to exercise our best judgment, exercise my best judgment on behalf of my constituents. that is what members of congress should be doing every day of the year. that is the standard i would apply to this committee. >> hospital association is asking that this week, they are having a rally on capitol hill to ask the members of congress, the super committee, instead of making cuts to hospital, raise the age of medicare from 65 to 67. is that a possibility? >> that is not my preferred approach. what that does is transfer the cost. it does not address the problem of rising costs within the overall health care system.

look, all ideas are on the table for discussion. people who argue that we should not continue to ratchet down payment rates for some of the health care providers have a point. there is a limit to what you can do. there is some room in some areas for further savings. we need to take a look at how we can save money in medicare by modernizing the system, improving coordination of care. some steps were taken in the affordable care act, there's a lot more that can be done. >> how much are you coordinating with the white house? it is a super committee, but the leadership has to get the votes for this thing. the white house has to sign it. is it harder for you to do your job with president obama saying he can veto? you have john boehner saying nothing with tax increases will

get through the house. it sounds to me that is a recipe for gridlock. recipe for gridlock. >> what the president has said is that he would like to see a balanced approach. he has not said that you have to have x, y, or z in this package or i will veto it. or i will veto it. we are a bipartisan committee. every other bipartisan group that has looked at this, they had taken a balanced approach. it is perfectly reasonable for the president to say, we should look at the model other bipartisan groups have taken. not adopt every particular recommendation, but the framework they take to this is one that says, let's close some of these special tax preferences as a way of generating revenue to help reduce the deficit.

>> if republicans stand firm and say, we will not go there, we will not raise taxes, can democrats find another carrot for democrats to get an overall deal? deal? is that a possible thing that you guys are thinking about other ways to get to the democratic side? >> the hard part of that approach is that it would require even deeper cuts. whether it is an education, infrastructure, we are certainly not going to adopt the republican approach to ending the medicare guarantee and forcing seniors into the private insurance market.

i would hope that people would consider not their pledges to any particular group, whether it be grover norquist or somebody else, but their pledge to uphold their responsibilities as members of congress. as members of congress. that means making tough compromises on both sides. you will not get this done through finding common ground alone. it will have to be a process of give-and-take. you'll have to see if everybody adopts that spirit as we move forward in the weeks ahead. >> it sounds like it has not happened yet. you have not had a conversation in those back rooms, you have not had a situation like this. not had a situation like this. >> the answer is that just as we have had public hearings that go over the big issues, we have

been grappling with just getting the facts straight. i think it is important that people agree on a common set of facts before they began to try to put together any particular compromise. this is an ongoing process. again, i think people are working through it in good faith. whether or not the effort to get an agreement is strong enough to overcome some of the political constraints, some of which you just mentioned, only time will tell. >> you talk about compromise as going beyond finding common ground. you are hoping republicans will compromise on some of their issues. what do you want them to compromise on entitlements? that is the biggest driver of this problem. >> we have put a number of ideas on this table with respect to modernizing the medicare. >> that is common ground, i am talking about compromise.

>> some things will involve some tough decisions. if you are talking about reforming parts of medicare, depending on how you do it, there are issues that have been tougher politically for some democrats than republicans. >> such as? >> when you get into the issue on providers, the republican model has been essentially to give everybody the voucher and put you out into the private insurance market. that is the house republican plan. we do not think that is the right approach, but are happy to explore ways to improve and modernize the medicare program. improved coordination of care is one area. as we get into this, there are going to be some tough decisions that will be made. there are other areas as well. we have to look at foreign

subsidies and foreign programs and that is another area where sometimes that is more geographically based. >> there are not many foreign state representatives on the super committee. >> you have senator baucus on the committee. he is a protector of those programs. he would argue strongly in favor of them. >> tax reform is the magic jellybean that could get you guys together. whether they say ok, lowering rates, makes everything more efficient or not. have you gotten any sense from them about how they will support it? is there a time to do it? i have talked to a lot of senators, a lot of analysts who said, ok, they only have a month to get this done. tax reform is not going to happen. because tax reform is not going

to happen, they will not really do much. is there time to get it done? >> yes, there is time to really begin to put in some building blocks for tax reform. there may be some areas where you could do a down payment on tax reform. the one area of common ground between the president's remarks and the remarks of the speaker of the house, both of them called upon the joint committee to tackle tax reform. how you do that is something that we are looking at. we have the hearing on tax reform. there is no doubt that we can generate revenue for deficit reduction by closing a lot of the special interest preferences. the question will be, for our republican colleagues, is whether they're willing to use some of that to reduce the deficit. after all, cutting a program and committing to deficit reduction is not different than cutting a tax expenditure and

applying that to deficit reduction. i hope the common effort will be to meet the goals of deficit reduction. in the larger context of trying to do something now for jobs in the economy. >> do you really think you have time to do a broad tax reform? i ever did lot of talk about the scenario where part of this bill is you'd tell the finance committee, the ways and means committee, you have to come up with this entitlement package and tax reform package by a later date. kicking the can a little bit farther down the road. are you guys already looking at that scenario, let's have a fallback position? >> let's put it this way, the scenario you outlined is certainly a possibility. the focus now is to see how much we think we can get done. it may well be that you would

try to do something now as a down payment. you could decide to ask the committees to look at it with certain principles. they have to apply certain principles. tax reform, you could give the committees a time line. you could even say if they are unable to reach the targets laid out in tax reform, you laid out in tax reform, you have revenue that would automatically kick in place. they're all sorts of scenarios. the focus now is to try to figure out what the big pieces are on the table. see how far we can get. if we are not able to go as far in terms of all the details, there may be ways to address the kind of mechanism that you talked about. >> we have a little bit more than five minutes. >> isn't the super committee

itself an admission by congress that the system is broken? the senate has not passed a budget -- every republican on capitol hill can tell you how many years it has been since the senate has passed a budget. what can you guys do? what can you do to get your act in order so that we do not need a super committee next year and the year after that? the year after that? >> there is no doubt that the budget process did not work as intended. i will say that the debt control act, the deficit control act that was passed in august create the framework for the next two years. i think that was an important outcome that should provide some stability, although, nothing is guaranteed -- nothing guarantees stability in congress. congress. i think that what you've had

with respect to the committee is an attempt to create a mechanism to break through the current logjam in the congress. current logjam in the congress. if the committee is unable to do that, there is a mechanism in place to make sure that you do have $1.20 trillion in deficit reduction. that does not kick in until january 2013. that is a fail-safe mechanism and a big incentive to try to get the committee to come to an agreement. >> democrats seem to have found their backbone on the disaster relief, on how you pay for. it was all over a billion dollars. it was a small fight. the democrats banded together the democrats banded together in the house and surprised

republican leadership. senate democrats held together. pretty much everybody i talked to in the senate, including senate democrats, expected the democrats to cave on that. what has changed? there has been a lot of democrat caving. what is this new back bone? is it a one or two-week blitz? are democrats going to be tougher in negotiating this time? >> that is largely a response to the overreach by the tea party republicans in the house. republicans in the house. the american people said to themselves, some of these guys

are willing to allow the united states government to default on its debt for the very first time in its history with terrible consequences to the economy. consequences to the economy. and so what you saw there was a reaction to a group of people who had been taken the position, if you do not give us everything we want, we will let the economy go down the tubes. the american people said, we will not just roll over to that kind of behavior. we are willing to compromise, but compromise is a two-way street. that is what you saw in this latest effort. our republican colleagues in the house wanted to change the rules of the game with respect to how you treat emergency assistance in cases of disaster. i think the response was no, we're not just going to roll over because you guys can shout loudest.

the american people's reaction to what happened in the house over the summer was a sign that they do not like the politics of one side demanding 100%. >> do you sense a political wind shifting? it is a pretty confusing environment out there. your president has been in charge for three years and the party in charge tends to get shellacked. >> who has an idea for addressing the situation with the economy and jobs? the president has put on the table a very clear plan.

invest in infrastructure, put people back to work. extend the payroll tax holiday. a number of other measures that most economists say will help provide a boost to the economy. if our republican colleagues do not want to do that, the burden is on them to say what they would do. in the senate, they're taking up legislation to crack down on chinese currency manipulation. will the house republicans take up that piece of legislation and pass it so that u.s. manufacturers are not put at a disadvantage? disadvantage? if they do not want to support the president's plan, which they have supported the elements of in the past, what is their alternative? other than what mitch mcconnell said was their goal, which was to simply defeat the president rather than get the economy going.

>> do you agree or disagree with the vice president when he said last week that the president owns the issue of the economy? >> i think the american people recognize that the president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, the chief policymaker, but they also recognize that he needs a partner. in order to pass a jobs bill, you need a partner in congress. the president does not have a vote in the house of representatives. he has proposed a plan. i think the american people, while they understand the president is the chief executive officer, they also understand that he does not have dictatorial powers. he needs a partner in congress. he has a tea party-controlled house. house. >> we are learning that florida

might move up its primary. what is your perspective? that impacts the republicans. what do you make of that? >> you are seeing the constant battle among the states to go first. iowa and new hampshire will always protect their place at the head of the line. i do not know how that will play out in terms of the republican primaries. i would like to see the state of maryland go first. >> could that have an impact one way or another on the primaries? are there lessons learned? >> clearly, if florida succeeded in moving its primary ahead of everybody else, that could have an impact because whoever wins the first primary, it provides some momentum.

it does not always mean that you win at the end of the day, but it provides momentum. the question will be whether or not they are successful. it could certainly have consequences. >> do you have a republican presidential candidate that you fear the most? fear the most? >> i am not happy with anybody. every time they say they want somebody to get in, they say, let's look for somebody else. i can understand why they keep looking. >> congressmen chris van hollen, thank you. >> we are back with our two reporters. what are the prospects of this deficit reduction committee? >> i think it has to work.

one of the interesting factors here recently is the president's jobs plan. and to what extent that can be incorporated into the super committee's work. there is no other vehicle for the president's jobs plan. i think there is a bipartisan consensus on the super committee that the jobs has to be a component. what that could mean is that a lot more spending and tax reductions in the short term and deficit reduction in the long term. we will see if congress has the discipline to make the painful cuts when they get to that. >> we talked about their having secret meetings. they did have a couple public hearings. how often are the meeting? >> they are not always announcing, "we are meeting." we do not know -- our understanding is that they talk all the time, the cochairs.

>> the two of them had not ever met before they were put on this deficit reduction committee. >> there is a lot of pressure on the two of them and on the staff. even if you come up with a deal, the staff has to write it, has to score it. there is so much pressure on them to do something that they probably will do something. there is an earnest effort by all these folks to do something. the problem is that everybody on the outside is going in opposite directions. the president has been moving left and the republican presidential candidates have been moving right. they have to somehow deal with those competing political pressures. pressures.