politics earlier, and we'll be able to get to that, and there will be a lot of that follow up, but right now we want to turn specifically to some of the top issues that the next congress will find itself facing. i want to introduce our panel. directly to my right. >> especially coming health care debate, he had a front seat table as a blue dog and member of energy and commerce. and he's also retiring at the end of this congress. voluntarily. [laughter] next is senator norm coleman. he's the chief executive officer of the american action network, the american action forum. his time as a republican senator ran from 2002 to 2008 as well as

being mayor of st. paul. when he was in the senate, he was chairman helping to lead investigations on the senate subcommittee on investigations including the oil for food program. we're going to talk about some of the investigations that the next congress might conduct. next is representative jim nussle. he is a former eight-term republican from iowa. he's chief executive of officer of the nussle group currently. he was also chairman of the budget committee and after that he was president george w. bush's omb directer. as you can tell from the resumé, he's a guy that we'll direct a lot of questions on the budget, deficit commission and tax cuts. and can finally, representative brian baird, six-term democrat from washington. he chairs science and technology committees energy and environment subcommittee. he spent the better part of his job focusing on the environment but also foreign policy and taxes. he's won re-election in a district that voted for

president bush twice, so he's familiar with sort of tough environments. he's also retiring voluntaryily, and small note, he's a psychologist which must have come in very handy during your public service. ..

>> with this sort of backdrop and with a democratic senate and a president who considers this his signature domestic policy, what are we in line for next year and in the 112th congress for health care? >> first of all i was drowsy and i look out your socks and that helps wake me up. [laughter] ready to go. obviously health care is there a very personal issue. everyone thinks we're in it because they look out their own view. i think what you will see as early on ability of vote to repeal, to sort of carry out that promise. i would suspect it would carry in the house. but then it will get, you know, get by the senate. somehow by the filibuster you see the president vetoed. in the next sort of cut at it would be i think as you'll see them come at popular bits that

would undermine it. in other words, things like doing away with the managed requirement cadillac tax, though sort of things. which again i think you will probably see that would pass although they will have a takeover problem there. but i suspect they have a pot of money somewhere they will use over and over for that. once again i think you'll see that get stopped in the senate. where it really gets dicey to me later on, when you will probably see an effort to cut off funding for hhs or some agency for implementing some of the rules. so i think it will give the republicans a good for him to do what they say in terms of the votes but you really won't see much, you know, action on the other end of it. some extent could protect them also from not having just the dire consequences there. >> senator coleman, as a memo the senate, you were in both majority and minority. you had a moderate path as a

senator and were on some of the, in middle of some of those big filibuster fights over very dicey issues. where do you see this playing out innocent? >> first, i have to make an observation about politics. can be to her this morning and not in a parochial sense kind of waiting intensity, in only about half an last letter jim oberstar is defeated in the eighth congressional district in minnesota. it's called the iron range of minnesota. the heart of democratic territory. i don't think yet a debate in four years until this year. i don't think he ever had -- he never had to campaign. minnesota house and senate republicans, minnesota -- i was in the same position. look at that map, it is already. in my 36 years in minnesota, came in 76, minnesota has never

controlled both houses. they do today. to control both houses, both of the senate. huge, huge victory. that was last night. kind of setting the stage. just a general observation about the politics of health care before answer the question. if you look at the polling beforehand and obviously we have and those who are not elected have. health care played a big part of this election. the intensity of those who were strongly opposed to health care was about 44% of likely voters as opposed to 24% who supported it. so among those most likely, those who showed up last night who were angry in many cases, you saw the huge sweep in the house, health care was a driving force. so if your speaker to be john boehner, i think of to do what he's dead, we heard, listened and we're going to repeal obamacare. so practically an ascent that's not -- the senate, the shape of that is forming.

icy mitch mcconnell, reminds me of been her, he's holding onto these horses, his cherry-pick and he's got a guy next to him with wheels trying to cut out his wheels. so i think there's symbolic statements and have to take place in the house that can take place in house because of the nature of the institution. i think the action in the senate is not going to be as clear and not going to be as divisive because of the nature of the senate. but clearly if you look to the next cycle when you are 23 democrats up, they have to be looking at what happened last night. and i would think even though democrats still control the senate, there's going to be a lot of, there will be a number of folks, a number of folks in montana, virginia and other places that will have to have a

greater conversation, more conversations than they have before. those conversations, when i was there, they went on to a certain degree. i think less and even in the last two years. got health care through without any republican support. you get financial reform through that any republican support. i think you'll see more conversations going on now. because of the political reality of what happened last night as folks looking to the future in 2012. >> congressman nussle, we discuss, touched upon the budget and appropriations process might be one area that health care could be sort of attack, or the health care law could be defunded or so forth. as an expert in this realm, if things bogged down in the senate on just a straight repeal kind of take it, is that a viable option for republicans, and democrats who would support repeal? >> yeah, i suppose that's one scenario. i see this, first of all i think bart is right. if you grew up with schoolhouse rock and i'm just a bill, i'm

only a bill, a bill becomes a law. are some facts are about repeating the health care that haven't come into play if you're six years old or if you're in congress for the first time, number one. ic-3 seasons, and i see three kind of overriding issues. first, the three issues. fiscal everything is going to be based on money. money, money, money. we don't have in washington. we're running deficits. debt. money is going to be an undergirding, overriding backdrop to all this. second is an antiestablishment, anti-washington politics. that is bigger than right now, is bigger than republicans and democrats. because of what it did in driving independent voters. and the third overriding issue is going to be the start of the presidential race which will start earlier this time, trust me, i am from tragedy, i can name you all 17 of them. that will start earlier this cycle than ever before.

because if you member the last opportunity here was in president clinton's situation, bob dole at that point was the presumptive, not presumptive but had a pretty good lead, a pretty good reception under -- is not out there now. wide open. and after last night, i think if you're thinking about running for president, you know, you have just put the afterburners on. three seasons, one, you've got a lame-duck session where everything needs to still be accomplished. there's no budget. there's no taxes from all nine, let alone the extenders from 2010 or the expiring provisions from all one and ugly. i mean, and you've got 24 legislative days to figure this out. so that's number one. second season is the first, i don't know, hundred and some days, which is the budget cycle again where fiscal issues, the state of the union, how they're

beginning to work together is going to be paramount. and then you've got the debt vote. that debt vote is going to lay the predicate for the rest of this session and the year. now, when that debt though comes up again, if you listen to treasure, it's one thing. if you listen to only be or cbo it's another. .com about spring, maybe summer, you have a debt vote where everything will culminate. you've got a situation where you have republicans who aren't going to want to vote for a debt in one of the first votes that gets to the president's desk, and you get democrats you could argue basin with yassin are not willing to help. and upwardly so. so how you manage that is going to be very interesting. so those are the three seasons and i think those are the three issues. and everything is going to die kind of bounce off of those three things in my judgment. >> i want to do a quick fall on the. the debt limit vote is sort of looming out there, and for as much attention as we have paid to, extension of the tax cuts,

there is a little bit of wiggle room although people don't want to hear that in terms of getting like signing an extension before people have to file their tax returns for the 2011th year. the debt limit, if we don't extend, if we don't raise the debt limit, we start defaulting on treasury bonds. and potentially. the results could be catastrophic. is there the potential that this could become like a huge, like soul-searching moment for a newly emboldened republic? >> i don't think there's any question. in 1995 the vote was a continuing resolution which shut down the government. that was in october. it was after lobbying debate, discussion, negotiation, imagination all sorts of things. this vote is going to be precipitated on the ceiling itself, and it will be a very technical ceiling. we are out of money. we need to borrow it. and you've got republicans coming in, not wanting one of their first votes in the first

session to be extending the debt limit. and your democrats who, like republicans this year, aren't necessarily going to be willing to help unless they get their seat at the table. so you have a very difficult negotiation that is coming up at that point in time. and it very well may be one of the most important junctures of the next two years. like i say, i see it coming probably after the lame-duck and after the first 100 days of lots of chest beating and smoke and maybe a little bit of fire as a result going to be a very difficult testing period for both parties and for washington. >> i want to return to health care real quickly and we will go, we will return to some of the deficit. congressman baird, as i mentioned earlier, you won reelection in the district that voted for president george w. bush twice. if you were returning to your district and health care was

coming up as an issue, how would you be explaining this? how would you be maneuvering as a number of the new minority, as a member of a more liberal minority that by all intents and purposes will be a liberal minority. how do you take that, have those conversations with your district? >> i think we made a lot of mistakes in health care approach that i think our intentions were good. intentions were tried to the people had no insurance get insurance, stop discrimination against existing conditions, to try to the cost of health care. the thing we haven't mentioned on this panel that i think would be the biggest challenge, entitlements. you know, you'd all these people running for congress saying, i'm going to cut waste, fraud, and abuse and that will balance the budget. baloney. the deficit exceeds all discretionary spending combined. if you shut down the military, close the national parks and open the presents, open the border, stop research, you're

still in deficit that you've got to do with entitlements. that problem gets worse and it will be mighty interesting to see some of these folks who came in with promises did with medicare and medicaid when the present light of our debt, of our long-term deficit, is $52 trillion which exceeds the net worth of all the american people combined. how do you resolve that? it's simple in my judgment it not simple, but you got to grow the economy, cut spending, including entitlement, and you're going to have to increase revenue. on the one hand, they would not want to cut entitlements because then people get angry with them, and they're pledging not to increase revenue. i think he'll be in a box and it will be tough to do with. >> that's a nice segue into some questions of deficit. we have a presidential commission on addressing the deficit and the debt, whose recommendations are due december 1. democratic leaders pledged earlier in the year to take up any recommendations that were forwarded. take 14 out of 18 of the members

to sign off on what these recommendations are. just a quick prediction, d.c., one, any of those, these his recommendations being forwarded? and easy any kind of action taking place to? one of the most disturbing things about the whole campaign season was people on the left and right before the commission even reviewed its port pledging to block it. on the left before saying we won't touch entitlements. on the right people were saying when i going to raise revenue. the whole point of the independent commission was to try to come up with some new ideas. people on both sides say we can't get there without doing both, and people on both sides who ran for office have said we're going to block one or the other. if they do that they will miss a real opportunity. if they show some real courage on both sides, we might actually get the entitlement spending and the long-term debt problem under control. if we don't we will be passing more debt onto our kids. >> i was hopeful that we would have this whole wind of sanity

in a lame-duck to build to do something like that, particularly with social security social security is a recipe. everybody knows what you have to do. to put it together. but i'm afraid as brian said there was too much hard talked during the campaign. i was also hoping that as these tax, so-called bush tax cuts came about, that the compromise reached their goods in flow over into social security and maybe some other area. but i just don't think, i think you will see again too many previous hard statements made. i think that probably the republican leadership would like to see some of these things get done. but they're going to have some of the troops that won't come and i think some of the democrats and not a responsible way will say it's yours, you take care of the. i'm not optimistic we'll be up to get anything done. >> the comment about the

long-term issues, there's no question that that kind of underlies that. but i would hate to get caught up in that almost, unsolvable perhaps right now, but not unsolvable if you start moving in the right direction. i think last night was about, was about in one instance kind of stopping the bleeding as many saudi. they saw, $886 billion dana's package that didn't do what was promised to do and keep unemployment under 8%. so that it was wasteful. it will be less appetite for more stimulus to growth economy. so you see that. if you look at health care, and there are pieces of it. i'm hopeful you can see some bipartisan action, and this is symbolic to solve the problem 1099 issue. small businesses being hit with cost if you -- everybody knows that's absurd. and so i actually think that you can find some ways to get some

bipartisan action that will move us in the direction of stopping the bleeding, slowing the spending. i mean, one of the frustrations from republican perspective, if you look at the issue of what happens, very quickly, student loan probe them. i had two kids in college, so it's important to me. they print money something at 3%. i'm borrowing it at 7%. there's a form% spread summer. that money is not going to deficit reduction that they went to health care. there's a philosophical concern about we generate new revenues, it goes to new programs. so if we can start doing some things to ashley cut spending, and when we do so, that those savings go into cutting deficit, not something else, then i think we're moving in the right direction. clearly long-term problems out there, but for many of us last night was stopping the movement, with an opportunity to be moving

in a more positive direction. but clearly we have a long way to go. >> just for the sake of historical, the t.a.r.p. happen under george bush's watch in response to the crisis that occurred under george bush's watch. i would not done the t.a.r.p. we would've seen global economic collapse. the t.a.r.p. could've been better, but virtually every economist in this country will take that had not been for the part that, catastrophic collapse. people out there, including republicans like bob bennett, t.a.r.p. now have a sinister i agreed the stimulus wasn't crafted well. but in part because a vast portion of it went to tax cuts that did not generate jobs or infrastructure. many others advocated for more infrastructure. but how we not been the stimulus, the unemployed level would've been much higher. a lot of people got penalized last night for doing at least something, perhaps not perfect, but to delay the deficit. and the other thing is it's still not going to solve the entitlement problem.

it's entertaining, and a playful politically, but you still got that entitlement problem. with seniors demanding more and demanding everybody to many less tax. i don't think you get there. >> i think t.a.r.p. and the stimulus demonstrate that people don't appreciate what you stop them from not having to do. that was the problem there. so we could talk about it all -- >> i voted for t.a.r.p. and i've got to say, he voted for t.a.r.p. tom coburn voted for top but. -- part back. he said he probably lost 100,000 votes voting for t.a.r.p. i don't know what impact my race, but it was significant. the difference between t.a.r.p. and stay mr. bayh the way, no one is going to blame the deficit on the stimulus. the difference between the two was t.a.r.p. was clear he bipartisan. we sat there both sides,

presidential candidates. mccain and obama both said we have to do this. the economist came in. bernanke canyon. we have to do this. stimulus was different. it was different. it was partisan. from the very beginning you had some folks saying we don't think this is going to work together side says it is, trust of. so you've got to distinguish i think between t.a.r.p. and stimulus. by the way, the voters -- trust me. for us here saying hey, that's an example where we put out a lot government money. it didn't do what was promised. promise of keeping unemployment at a bridge -- 8%. there's no doubt come in any of our minds you will not see big stimulus programs coming out of this congress. >> is there a lesson there given that this team is that over $200 billion in tax cuts? if you're going to say this team is were, did great jobs as promised, yet it had $200 billion in tax cuts, is

this a solution for the tax cuts? >> the stimulus, two things by the way. if you pour a lot of money into something you have to have something back. so i'm not saying all waste. but you pour a lot of money in things that didn't have impact. shovel-ready jobs and also they don't exist. listen, there's benefits cutting taxes. there's benefits for standards but is a cost-benefit analysis. >> what are we supposed to talk about next year instead of this year? [laughter] >> i think there's some instructive lessons. >> just listening, personal i agree with brian quite a bit on this whole issue of entitlement and the long-term. and i also believe that the window on the deficit commission unfortunately will be, will probably not even be open. usually in the past having, and brian knows, i've tried to past partisan budget reform. i've tried bipartisan budget reform stand alone. i've tried just my own little personal budget.

it does not work very well. it's not a very sexy issue that everybody sees their committee jurisdiction involved in this. it's we get us. usually when we reform the budget process that happen and 74, happened in 90, happened in 98. it usually happens quietly. usually happens behind the scene. usually happens after very complicated negotiation over 10,000 other things. they kind of say let's take this advantage now and let's reform the budget problem. i think that's what it's going to happen. it could come on the debt bill as an example. that could be one of the ways the parties come together that it could be part of a bigger omnibus appropriations bill. the point i'm getting at is, i don't think you will see budget reform come into the wide open because we don't see people getting into it. but if you listen to both republicans and democrats, they are providing room to negotiate. even though you don't hear it, for instance, bride just said it

and he said it beautifully, we have to raise revenue. okay, that doesn't necessarily mean have to raise taxes. i will explain. tax reforms, loophole closings, growth in the economy. you go the economy it's an amazing x. factor for bringing in revenue. so there's wiggle possibly, wiggle room there. the same is true on entitlements. he said, you didn't say exactly like this, but it's difficult to change the entitlements for a democrat. except if you don't make it effective today. if you say you know what, we're going to make that change, i don't know, 10, 15 years from now, if we see progress on both the deficit issue from a revenue increase standpoint, from growth in the economy, and we see entitlement progress because eventually you are facing and possibly a new system that everybody understands and it doesn't seem to be unfair to the current folks who depend on it,

you may have some wiggle room there for the parties to come together in a bipartisan way. so i'm hopeful that this is still possible but i don't think you're going to see it out in the bright lights of the floor of the house and senate because it typically doesn't happen there when it happens effectively, at least if you look at historically. >> i strongly favor in time and. i think john boehner, john boehner has an very interesting ideas about reforming the process of how congress makes decisions that i actually think politically and from a policy perspective its speaker to be boehner moves forward some of those returns, reforms, it might create conditions where we could bring some of his into control, and it would be a political win and he deserves it. >> biscuits at one of these are the underlying tensions that john boehner might face, which is he's an institutional us. he's been around for 20 years.

is a committee chairman that he knows how to work in sort of in front of the camera and behind the closed door, if you will. and he has the respect for the process by which legislation becomes a law. however, one of the primary factors, one of the big enthusiasm gather as for balkans this year is the tea party, all, a lot of tea party backed candidates are very enthusiastic about having an extremely open process like several people have said, only up or down votes on one single issue on a bill. is there sort of a recipe for a little bit of stagnation there is on one hand dana knows that when he does get to the go is behind closed doors and 210,000 things, maybe an unpalatable vote with the debt ceiling, with a fairly sizable chunk of a new, you know, must your gop majority that says we want everything on c-span. we want every negotiation taking

place in the open. how does he resolve those two differences? >> i would suggest that story that most, that will not be written later on is this intramural fight within the republican party. i think a lot of the tea party fight will come here. they will be -- they'll understand responsibility goes with a. i think you have others that will take the scenario that you just before. but john boehner -- he solved the mistakes, he saw the mistakes the democrats made after 2006. he had as you put out many committee chair which is, gives you a unique perspective. he's always said he wants to go back to a more regular order, process which i think is the right thing to do. i think what that will do is, it will do two things. one, it allows you to venture

legislation there. it also gives people a chance to vent that they'll be an opportunity for some of the people that you've mentioned we get it off their chest and to have some votes. i think that you will see again john going to regular order, and he will do it well, to be the secret weapon that puts the pieces together. and what you also find is that no matter what he puts out, we will have a variety of democrats that one by a very narrow margin whose pants are still wet right now that are going to come in, though for most anything that comes up, try to protect himself of the next time around. not saying it will be easy, but john will be able to put the pieces together and i think, from his standpoint, will make it work. >> i would agree. this is key. the difference between now and 95 when we took control, 95, in 95 whether contract of america. so the first 100 days all those folks that came out that were, let's stick it to the man, let's

take a to washington, let's come out and the antiestablishment. at a list of 10 things to do. they did did did did did did in 100 days that they went home, took credit, beat their chest at this time around they don't have that specific list. so he's got to figure out how to let the steam out. you are exactly right we are, during a second season before they get into this business of the debt ceiling and the budget and everything else, where they got to be able to let some steam off so they can go home and say hey, i proved i was antiestablishment. >> and the votes to repeal health care. >> that's an example spirit they have said they'll have a vote each week on some type of doing away with, unfortunate ota was done way last time. spent we will do it again. we will just keep taking, right? >> but there will be places they can do each week. responsible areas that you can make reductions in their we be democratic votes, too.

the tough issues can be put in the committee which again allow some steam to come off their and a slower more orderly process. >> there are two big pictures. >> there are two big picture political dynamics that will impact the path of leader has to follow. one, independents i think the band of the democratic party last night, no question about that. you will see that will be the big difference. and in part, there was a sense that obama came in and folks want to change. they didn't want to change america. where is the transparency? where is this post-partisan politics? it didn't happen. i think there'll be -- i don't think about is the transparency. i think that one is the bipartisan action. they want to see people put aside their differences and work together. that's number one pick your that dynamic. the second dynamic is among the republican coalition that was demonstrated last night, you

know, a new process. tea party folks, libertarians, economic conservatives, social conservatives, across the board, this kind of grand coalition. whether it will stay together is unknown. that's not clear as we sit here a day after. and so boehner i think has is dynamic with any bidders who have the decided in this election and i think you want transparency and put folks to work to get things done. at this coalition, by the way, folks don't want any compromise. and so i do think there is a challenge out there, those dynamics, he is an institution. which is a good thing. because in the internet to work within the institution to fix the problem. so i think he is the right guy at the right time, but with some very significant challenges. >> i want to move onto another topic which was or maybe issue in the 111th congress, and in follow a lot of candidates around, and that is energy and climate change.

in the summer of 2009 the house took their, voted and passed legislation to address climate change primarily to the institution of a program that would cap carbon commissions and allow trading in open markets. and then it just kind of stopped, and cap-and-trade became a euphemism for washington overreached. i remember i was in, near my hometown in arizona, at an event where and kirkpatrick who just lost last night was taking. and people who i had known for 30, 40 years who i didn't really think would be in on terms like cap-and-trade and so forth, were asking her about that. and it was just an albatross those home around a lot of, particularly democrats next. it went nowhere in the senator even to the point where there was nothing that could even be done about an oil spill fund right after the largest oil spill in american history. so that just really died, you

know, a death in 111th congress. and yet there does seem to be a certain area of agreement on common in some absent of energy policy. this is a topic for which have a lot of interests, congressman. what you think the next congress has opportunities? >> i think we made a number of mistakes on cap-and-trade. the focus should have been energy independence, economic growth, and leading the world in new energy technology. it should and, frankly, the evidence is absolutely compelling. we're going to have another hearing on this anyway. i think evidence is an indication. and lack of change, the physics and chemistry are softened. we should've focused around those things and not passing cap-and-trade. we mixed up the objective with the goal, and to put forward a very complex financial instruments at the time that the economy of the world as class

because of complex financial instruments was not the smartest idea in the world. we would have been better to go with a straight and simple carbon tax, roller backend to make it revenue neutral. bobby leading climate change. it would be a tragedy for our security and for our economic interests in the long term, and for the environment if the incoming congress focuses all its attention on attacking climate change versus trying to solve our energy independence and keeping us in the lead because if not, we'll fall behind the chinese, even further in the global energy. and i think the economic damages from the environmental consequences will be great over the long run. so have a chance to come together but if we start knitting and saying let's have a lot of oversight on climate change, that is wasted energy. spent if you want to know where we're going to go, is that there'll be an effort to overrule epa, epa as we all know, spring court ruling said

that they had authority on clean air act to act in terms of some of the carbon gases. there will be an effort to repeal epa's efforts to do that. again, i would not be surprised it won't pass the house. again, it won't get to the senate or vetoed. i think would again be some areas of agreement, right at the end of the session out of our committee, an unbridled subcommittee, we got a very research bill. i think he was the an effort to look at the next generation nuclear energy. but you're going to see an effort to reduce the deficit, things like that, you will see a lot of tax credits that were provided for alternative energy, which means that to a great extent those industries will go away. and as brian says, you will see greater chinese movement in that

area. so we will move away from talking about climate change, talk about energy independence, that any short-term, more traditional carbon type of, as well as nuclear energy in those areas. >> is there, do you think there is any way, you know, that people can arrive at some sort of program where they tie in and say a renewable energy standard? i don't think too many people are opposed to having more solar energy or more wind power, that is tied into something very unpopular, like for the construction of nuclear plants or offshore drilling, is that something that is a possibility for the next congress? >> close, but i don't think it will get there. although there is a partisan effort to bring something up, you know, in the lame duck. but it will be very difficult. >> in washington, the messages it matters that there will not

be, and i think how it was framed, if we talk about energy dependence, that's positive. we need something done. so i think within the realm of energy and/or dashing independence, we certainly had some things going on that we would ask leaders on both sides did want to do. return to the 2008 cycle. but there were 14 or 15 of us that sat around and try to work together. so i think there is an appetite, bipartisan on less independence on foreign oil. but i don't think you have a lot of discussion about cap-and-trade. and i do think that there is a deep concern, and is going to be a lot of action in this area on the activities of agencies, administrative agencies, regulating outside congress, congress leaning in one direction. i think this administration will push the agencies to move, and that's where you'll see the investment power. that's what the real consequences.

>> the supreme court, they were the ones that required -- >> what you will see is, i believe, on the outside, not happen on the senate, they will come with a cpa, whether health uses come we didn't discuss that issue on health care bill. why are we moving forward to the final rule without an opportunity for input, et cetera that i think they'll be a lot -- that's what a great clash will become all of these administered before congress, and the epa is seen as one of his agencies that will be beyond, beyond what congress has mandated. >> if i could suggest, because none of us have a vote anymore on all this, so what are we looking for next year? i was just what you might see similar to what president clinton did with speaker gingrich is he looked for an opportunity, it was not be too fine, it will not be easy to find this time, but what is at issue after similar to welfare reform in 1985-1996? i think energy may be the key,

and for the very reason that we are discussing just now, you see a lot of common ground, you hear a lot common ground on an interesting reason for this common ground, not only bipartisan but cross regional and it's also a cross philosophical but you will hear liberals and conservatives concerned about the fact that we are sending $300 billion overseas for foreign oil a year. that's a concern on a national security standpoint that levels and conservatives and everybody will very easily agree on. so i think the key here will become in the white house today, and in days to come, as they are looking at the next year and they say no, we've got a fight on this. we will have to fight on this. is going to be disagreement here. >> we've got to stand on ground here. the same will be true in the republican caucus. they will kind of sat there stake. this is one that i think both parties may say, except for energy. energy is one that i think we've

got a lot of common ground, let's stake out places where we can negotiate and work together, and i think if they do that, it could very well be the welfare reform example of 1995-1996, but it will be hard to get there the way it was difficult to get there for clinton and gingrich. >> i would agree with the premise that there will be the issue. i think it is more likely for deficit reduction. i think in terms of energy, as important as it is, it will be hard to do anything in renewables without even the price of carbon going up or some kind of a subsidy. and it's just going to be hard to provide that, because i think many people in the new majority are going to say don't pick winners and losers. nuclear energy is one area that they can be some common ground, but to get you to next generation of energy, there still some years out. i hope we can do something there, but if you limit yourself to traditional carbon sources, it will be very difficult.

>> i believe it's important find the issue. i think it's important to find the issue, that the washington device it is an inability get something done is somehow being transmitted it's good for the investigation, good for congress. i just wrote to other areas on the table, they're not as powerful press as a energy deficit reduction, but certainly education, where there's a lot of support and the president is trying to do, i think the secretary has a lot of support on the republicans i. and also traded. there's a very difficult issue that it's a difficult issue with some of our new members. >> but this common ground. >> i would throw education and trade in the mix. and amongst these folks, and some others i think folks will be looking for a way to say, you know something, we really can work together that i don't how long it will last, but it surely needs to be done spent i will say where we come together is on the deficit. what will happen is the leadership of both the democrats

and republicans will know that it has to be done. and the democrats will say to republicans, you've got to put an x.% of your votes, and then we'll put up pics percent of ours. as a good fit negotiation, then i think there could be that effort as jim pointed out where you do a few other things have and where you can look for some areas that will go along with that. spent i would like to open up a little bit to our audience because i know that again, part of the appeal of this sort of event is that we're able to talk about very serious policy issues. it's good here like some of the non-on these issues that are very important to people. so i know that we have a microphone out, so let's do, start with questions. >> in the very middle, the very first bottom where you are. -- furthest spot from where you are.

>> i want to talk about science policy. president bush started with the aci and the next congress avenue president obama continue to focus on investing in r&d investment we make the nih, national side foundatiofoundation, department of energy, energy research to grow the economy, to create jobs, to remain competitive with other countries. but in the last year at this issue has gotten much more partisan. and so my question, particularly for chairman gordon and mr. baird is, is there a chance we'll see anything about american can peace between now and the end of this congress? what does this offer in terms of future, the basic we will grow the economy, one of the basic ways we will grow the economy is to continue to invest in technology and in the people, the scientist who will create the jobs for the future speak with you raise a good question. if we can do with america competes and the lame duck it really shows that we are all off the track.

a quick premise is that lamar alexander, jeff bingaman, the national academies in 2005, they came back and said we're going in the wrong direction. we need to invest both in r&d as well as in our education, our human capital. which we will down to education as well as again increasing our investment, doubling it really in a national science foundation. we laid this out, it passed by 397 votes in the house. lamarr got unanimous in the senate. i told him the other day if he could do that again, i'm going to nominate him for special envoy to the mideast. we again, something that we all agreed upon, we brought back up this year. i had thirtysomething hearings on it so we could make it really tried to do the right way.

bipartisan basis. we get to the house floor, and this, minority to not wanting anything to pass, and basically it got caught up. lamar alexander, to his full credit, says he has 12 republican votes in the senate. and that we should just sort of back off now, wait and go into the lame duck session. so i'm hoping there will be again that moment of sanity where we can at least get the american teeth act reauthorized. then the question goes to are you going to get funding? you know, i think it's very important for the country for many reasons, we can talk about but i think we should talk about reducing the deficit, and you start talking about doubling the national science foundation, sort, it's going to be difficult to do. so i'm hoping that we could do that. but more likely i think if we

can just keep up with inflation, i'm afraid that's going to be about the best we can do. >> the only thing i would add to that is i think with the best things to come out of the congress was our portion of america competes which chairman gordon wrote. if we're going to really turn the country around on energy and on an economic basis, sort of geewhiz quantum leap kind of development that comes out of our be and the department of energy labs, and if we cut that we were really eating it. >> is where it will be -- >> on the virtue of the stimulus, and so continuing resolution would mean it has no conditional funding. so that's a very tough issue. are but the, we took the darpa model and put it into the department of energy. for really looking for transformational bombs and not just incremental changes. and if ever there was a way, if we want to come to agreement on

energy, there's no better place than that. >> i reference people to the article in businessweek about two and half months ago where if we're in a trade war, we need to fight that way. these assumptions were we are fighting against a mercantilist approach, other countries that pick winners and losers have a choice of dollars behind their fix, we are just laissez-faire. we may face some real challeng challenges. >> sees blacks are with national transportation safety board. i would like to ask another question that has been like after a judge for the last couple of years, that is the surface transportation reauthorization bill. which so far nobody seems to want to pick up and partner because no one seems to know how to pay for it. is that going to happen in the next two years? >> my belief is it was one of the greatest mistakes of the administration, one of the number one priorities should

have been jobs, jobs, jobs. were the first things he did was, as they will not have a transportation bill. that would've been people to work, it proved or infrastructure. people would've seen whether tax dollars were going. they have noticed public we set but if you say, you'll probably have to raise tax -- gas taxes. that would have put people to work. it was ready to go. it probably would have required a gas tax increase but you could've seen where your money went. >> it was also a moment in town when the transportation and asked for a gas tax. >> throughout this country roads have been resurfaced. bridges have been repaired. we should have done. i don't understand why they didn't, but trying to do it next time round with no new tax pledge will be mighty tough and let's remember a named ronald reagan. >> losing somebody like chairman oberstar, who led my guys in the. but i kind of leadership and

that kind of issue makes it only more challenging. makes it all the more challenging. >> this is one area where, because i them both sides, both been on the site asking for projects and being on the white house i going where in the world did that project come from. this is a very challenging issue for the administration for congress to maneuver because of this whole year marking issue. like it or don't like it and however you want to say, this one of the reasons why it didn't go through because there was no way to put a lasso around it try to control. bush had the same problem and president obama would've had and will have the same problem as well. >> the problem, and president obama in this regard, his pledge of not raising taxes on folks making less than $250,000 really stopped if they could come together and.net them. the only way i think you can have a half we robust program is for some type of hd, levy, whatever on oil coming in from

overseas. you're going to have to link it in some way like that. i think you can fuzz it up enough, but you have to do it in that kind of way, and made at a later date you can index your gas tax. >> my name is ronald johnson. one issue around which argument can be made that something must be done is immigration reform. and i would be interested in the views of the panelists on the prospects for comprehensive immigration reforms in the next congress. >> let me just preface that a little bit. this was one of the topics because we have a great debate that it wanted to address. a little over three years ago, democrats and republicans were about that close to an immigration deal that would've created a path of citizenship for and as a 12 million illegal

immigrants. fast-forward three years now, and the final state because, arizona becomes this battleground in which an incredibly unpopular governor sees her popularity ratings soar because she signed a very border enforcement first type legislation. this is possibly one of the sticky is issues, and i would be very interested to see what the views of the panel are here because you would think that if they're going to look for any kind of sense of agreement, that they would avoid this with a 25-foot pole start it's a red-hot issue with the electorate. i take a non-politically correct and nondemocratic position on this. the numbers are telling. 130 million people by 2050, additional people in a country. with what to do with that population. that's u.s. census data. 130 million more people. some of the races our youth have been made, those are unacceptable but we do have a

real problem with the numbers, and my own belief is that we ought to have a national id number and it was not to make some other reforms along that line that ought to be bipartisan because it takes it off the book. the problem in our congress has been that there are those who really want much more liberal immigration, leading more people in, more citizenship, with a numbers issue. and then there are others who think we need to crack down on, voters surely think we need to crack down that a partial compromise might be being more selective on illegal immigration side doing things like stapling green cards to ph.d's in engineering, et cetera. and maybe some kind of an id structure that reduces the incentives for people to comment that get jobs without citizenship. >> let me suggest a particular approach that there are really two aspects to immigration. you've got what you might call height immigration where we are educating half of the indians that we educate in this country are from overseas and we send

them back. that's crazy. the human capital aspect of bringing the best, the price from around the world here and helping us become more innovative. the business community understands that. i think this community also understands some of the lower end and the needs there. one hostage to the other are going to come together. the science committee over the last four years, we were somewhat of an anomaly within the congress in that we had, we passed through the house 150 bills and resolutions. everyone was bipartisan. and the way, one of the ways were able to do that, beside engagement public and making part of it, was third party verified. we went to the business community on most everything that we did, and we would have been, forward and talk about why it was me. america competes, our first heating -- meeting come with

donahue to talk about how important it was to reauthorize. i think we'll have to have business community really step up in terms of immigration, combining the high end and the low in. and that is, will have to push the republican party to move forward, and hopefully there's enough democrats who want to do it for the right reasons that can also come together. >> agriculture has to be there. spent first of all, i think that's an issue in which there's some very practical things that most people really think need to be done. you're not going to be able to move forward -- let me also agree in terms of the higher and, the stapling of the green card to science, and gene, advanced degrees. i think people can agree on that, but the bottom line, practical, political reality is we're going to be any of this done if people still think we don't control our borders. and so he really -- this is both a message, more the message,

where is this administration going on that? are they committed to that? there was a question about whether the bush administration was committed to that. but if, if you could actually have addressed that issue, and convince the american public that we are sincere and we are capable and we're committed to securing our borders, i think you can didn't get to the discussion about what to do with the folks, and it may not be a path to citizenship but it may the ability to work and to earn a living, which is in the interest of this economy. anytime we're in an economic downturn, a lot of stuff in the field that is not going to be picked that people in the income impact jobs. the first and foremost is we have to somehow do a better job of convincing the american public we are committed and capable of controlling our borders. and if you do that, i actually think there are practical things that can be done that both parties can agree on.

>> hi. i enjoy packard. i represent several educational organizations. question about discretionary spending. none of the 12 appropriations bills pass, no agreement on the topline number. the republican pledged calls for rolling back spending to fy08 levels which is about $100 billion cut which was result in pretty significant cuts in education and science and health and other things. is that realistic? what you think will happen in the lame-duck session on appropriations? what's the longer-term outlook for the whole sort of discretionary side of the spending part of the budget? >> not good. [laughter] >> this is why i describe it, and everything will key off of it. because i just said, a laser target for everything else. there's no easy answer and the scenarios are pretty obvious.

negotiation scenario where everybody comes back in the next couple of weeks and they negotiate something else. and the other is a train wreck scenario, where it either doesn't get done or some type of longer-term cr is done. i think those are, those are maybe too simplistic but i think they're kind of the obvious scenarios. but as far as your question to next you, i don't think there's any question that at least at this point in time having listened to what appears to be the incoming budget chairman in the house, as well as leadership, that your scenario, 2008 at a level, appears to be very possible, very likely. and it's within the context. and brian said that every dollar, think about it, it's never happen. every dollar that congress will vote to spend money on, or every dollar they will vote to spend, from the day they take office next year, is borrowed.

although the money that came in in tax revenue has gone already to entitlements and interest on the debt. period. just think of it. in that context, and every dollar will be scrutinized within the background of having, very difficult as i don't have a good answer but i think you are setting the predicate. and that's what i suggested lame duck and a decision about whether a cr or whether some kind of negotiated level going forward will probably pre-determined the answer to that second question about where that level is up -- ins up. . .

>> that might be taking shape is that there is, you know, we have a limited amount of time with the lame duck starting out this november 15th and also continuing the week after thanksgiving. >> it could go in -- >> right. >> yeah. >> there may just be, you know, a desire to sort of punt it into next year and, you know, just depending on how, you know, how many feelings are hurt, so forth, and also just the practicality of how much time they have to do a short-term cr and kind of let the new congress deal with it in february. >> probably, you know, the best way to get your answer is go to mr. coburn and mr. demint and ask them what they intend to do. [laughter] >> i think that's true, but the other context just for those of you who really watch this, remember, at the same moment in time omb is preparing the president's budget for february,

and if they don't know where you are, you may not know your next step where you're going, and that's part of the challenge here. so i hope, i hate that there is an ability to negotiate something and come to some reasonable conclusion to this year, but i think, unfortunately, it is probably more likely or just as likely that this breaks down given the fact there's only about 24 legislative days if you look at a calendar, a and, b, republicans are going to come back 'em emboldened and not necessarily wanting to negotiate, and democrats are going to come back, obviously, a little frustrated, possibly, with leadership races that sucked the oxygen out of the capitol building every time they happen. so you put all that on the table, that's like putting a five-pound bag of flour into a one-pound bag, and something's going to spill over the sides, there isn't any question about it. >> you know, one other thing to watch which we're about to

finish here, but it'll be very important, and that's how the incoming majority's going to deal with iraq and afghanistan. especially time frame issues and the president stays in afghanistan, whether we'll actually extend in iraq which we probably need to do. but there are very serious budgetary implications in foreign policy, and there'll be some interesting fissures, possibly, develop if they try to run into the foreign policy implications with the fiscal hawks, and that will have profound implications. because if you keep those numbers high, getting down to 2008 levels for everything else is going to be even more draconian. >> that's also an issue in which you can cross the partisan divide because it's not a clear partisan divide. i'm always a fan of getting conversations going between administrations, democratic administrations and republican congresses. you know, historically oftentimes you can get a lot done. i mean, trades can get done with

a democratic president whose party may be fighting it -- >> it happened with clinton. right. >> so that's not a bad. we can leave on a positive note. i think there's some opportunities here with this divisive government that can allow us to move forward in some very difficult areas with a bipartisan effort which really hasn't been the case, hasn't been the case in recent times. >> my name is reggie felton, i'm with the national school boards association. i'd like to hear your comments on how congress will address public education, k-12. if we look at the economic status, situations among our states and we know that the feds pretty much invest roughly 10% in the total cost of educating our children across the country and we look at the great concerns about how well u.s. students are competing with

international benchmarks, i'd like to hear how you believe that congress will approach public eduon states' issue and yet states aren't equipped either capacity or funding to carry out what we really need to do, and the federal government seems to be moving in two different directions. one, more intrusive and the other standoffish. so i'd like to hear your comments on how that might be addressed, perhaps not in phase one, but in phase two. >> in the new congress, i'll start and just say i think the new house republican leadership will look to the models of chris christie and mitch daniels. and they'll say that's how it ought to be done. that's who ought to be in charge of it, it ought to be done at the local level; figured out, funded from that level, and they will adapt to that type of model. again, my judgment looking at it for the new congress -- house wise, that is. >> and i totally agree. that is what folks are saying.

look to what chris christie and mitch daniels are doing. you want to hear the republican perspective, that's where folks are at. >> i think in terms of funding, that's going to be accurate. in terms of you were talking about international scores, those basically are built around math, science, those sort of things. within the department -- within the natural science foundation, we have set up some programs, the norris program modeled after you teach at university of texas and others where we're trying to really give core teachers in the math and science areas more confidence. three years ago it was amazing, but three years ago there was a study that demonstrated that about a little over 50% of the middle school and upper school math teachers had neither certification to teach math or to, or had a degree in math. almost 90% of the physical science teachers had neither certification to teach physical sciences or had a degree in that

area. so it's very difficult to teach a subject where you don't have that core knowledge. so even though in terms of funding you're not going to see much i don't think help from the federal government, hopefully in terms of core conferred at least in the stem area if we continue our funding within the national science foundation and to some extent within the department of education to at least help teachers during those, in the hers to get their competency up. also, ideals it's done away with -- unless it's done away with, we have set up scholarship programs for those teachers that agree to teach for five years, so there's been some things set up that we'll continue at least in the area of teacher core confidence within the stem area. >> i think you'll see a number of efforts to try to rein in the department of education. i think it'd be constructive if they revisit some of the mandates from no child left

behind. i think there's an opportunity there. but i also think the funding from the federal level to the local level is going to be substantially reduced at a time when we're already suffering profoundly across the country, and i think there will be long-term implications which we won't see in terms of 15 years, but we need to give some thought to what happens when you pull the federal purse out. >> yes, dallas salisbury. you made a brief mention of loopholes in some of the press coverage over the last 24 hours. there's been a discussion of refocus on the so-called tax expenditures budget and proposals from the fiscal commission to the center on budget and policy priorities related to the changes in health benefits, the changes in retirement incentives, treatment in ryan's proposals for eliminating favorable tax treatment of life insurance which have had some support in

the pennsylvania on a bi-- past on a bipartisan basis. do you see the tax expenditures area as potentially being an area where the parties may work together, or is that also getting itself into the realm of, no, that's increasing taxes? >> i think it has the potential of both. i think you have the potential of going either way. certainly, this is one of the most lobbied and financed areas, that's the reason why they're in there in the first place. have few of these don't -- very few of these don't have active, energetic and effective constituencies, and my idea of a wasteful loophole closing is your idea of an important jobs program. so very difficult, but i think within the context of comprehensive tax reform it's possible. if you start doing -- and this is true on both sides -- if you start doing rightful shot approaches it becomes difficult because it energizes that particular constituency to the

point where it becomes difficult to do it. but within a context, for instance, where you -- this may not go with what brian's saying, but, you know, where you lower the rates but you close the loopholes, i mean, that's possible. a corporate tax being possibly a good example and maybe even a bipartisan example of that given charlie rangel's bill as an example and others. so, yes, it's possible, but rifle shots are difficult within this highly-charged area, obviously. >> there's an appetite, if you combine tax simplification, especially the procedures loopholes, you know, there are a host of those out there that the keys and democrats are -- conservatives and democrats can say, you know, this is pretty silly. people may say, yeah, that raises taxes on this group but in a justifiable way that bears things out.

>> any other questions? one over here? >> i've richard fulton for the american jewish committee. speaking of impact on funding, i wanted to ask the panel broadly what we can expect to see in terms of interaction between the congress and the president in terms of foreign policy, and more specifically in terms of funding for foreign aid which has already become an issue that's come under discussion in the last couple of weeks. >> well, i think that's a very interesting question. the implications in terms of what happens to the foreign affairs committee in the house are significant because there'll be some consistent support for israel. one of the questions is going to be how you reconcile fiscal constraint with generous foreign aid packages. the second question will be how president obama's initiatives vis-a-vis palestine and israel, will those be undercut in some ways by some of the changes in

the makeup of the house? my own belief is i fear they will, and i think it'll be detrimental, but i think that's likely to happen. already they've been undercut, i think that'll be increased. >> an interesting partnership that started in the last administration with bob gates and condi rice, now it's bob gates and secretary clinton working together recognizing or at least their premise is that, you know, the juxtaposition of defense spending and security spending vis-a-vis a foreign policy and foreign affairs spending that there's some not only cross-pollination, but prevention versus a direct action. i think gates has been a very effective spokesperson on this, and he's formed partnerships both in a republican environment and a democratic environment. i think that continues as long as secretary gates is there which -- >> not much longer. >> yeah. which may not be much longer. so i think it has started within that kind of rubric and context,

and that may give you some clues to the future, but i, it will depend to a large extent on the next choice possibly in both positions, you know, not making any announcements. but this is a typical time when those kinds of changes occur. >> in these difficult economic times, every dollar that gets spent is going to be reviewed and looked at closely. and often times it may not be as apparent that the dollars spent on foreign aid is important to security and stability here at home. i've always believed that it is, and i think there is an education process that will have to go on. particularly, by the way, with some in our party which has, you know, raised questions about that. but this is a great nation. you know, by the way, one of the tie-ins in that will be looking at the evangelical community, the faith community who understands the importance of, you know, what we do in africa dealing with aids and malaria and a spiritual concept to whom

much has been given, much is expected. so i think this is now a more challenging area, but i happen to have had no doubt that america's place in the world and its outreach is critically important to economic security and physical safety in this country. but there's going to have to be a greater education process or a full discussion because of the nature of the economic times in which we live. >> i think we'll have time for one more. all right. >> hi, i'm larry bivenss, i got here late, i apologize if this question's been asked. i'd like to ask congressman gordon what impact do you think the results of the election will have on the push for an increase in nasa funding in the lame duck?

>> nasa. >> oh, nasa? well, that's going to be very difficult. in the -- i think what you'll -- well, the president asked for, i think, it was about 700 billion -- million dollars additional within this nasa budget. you know, i'm trying to give you a -- it all boils down to whether or not we're going to continue resolution or whether we're going to have some type of negotiated omnibus, and you answer that, then you'll know. jim would opt for, or i think your opinion would be more likely be a cometted resolution. if that's the case, you're going to see that is nasa's budget reduced from what was asked which then you're going to have to look at potentially maybe reviewing different missions also.

that's what it's going to boil down to. >> thank you very much. we've got a couple more -- >> one more reason we should have, you know, an omnibus. >> we've got a couple more housekeeping things. i want to thank the panel, though, this has been a great -- [applause] >> thank you, congressmen and senator coleman. we are now going to do quick breakouts. over here on the right matt cooper will be leading a panel discussion, and if you go through the doors on the right, there'll be a panel discussion on the impact on the white house and a look towards the 2012 elections. over here on the left, oh, i think my microphone just turned on. over here on the left, major garrett and susan davis will be leading a discussion taking a look at the impact on the next congress. we invite you to grab some more coffee and water and join us in the breakout sessions. thank you. [inaudible conversations]

>> for live coverage of this national journal look at the midterm election, we'll continue in a few minutes. we'll hear a discussion of how the election results will impact congress. one of the speakers will be former how republican leader dick armey who now heads the group, freedom works. at ten minutes after 12 it's charlie cook from the cook political report. he predicted a republican takeover of the house. house republican leader john boehner will speak to reporters this morning at 11:30 eastern about the republican agenda. congressman boehner is likely to be voted speaker for the new session since republicans will have the majority. you'll see his comments live on c-span. at 1:00 eastern prime presidenta talks to reporters about those election results. we'll have live coverage also on

c-span. as we wait for the next national journal discussion to get started, we'll take a look at some of the results of last night with the editor of hotline on call, a blog specializing in be political reporting. >> all right, there we go. jeremy is the editor of hotline on call, and he was with me all night last night as we sat there and yelled and screamed at each other across a loud newsroom trying to figure out who'd won and who'd lost. jeremy, what happened last night? >> well, first, i'd like to say i think we'll probably agree on more things right now than maybe our last panelists did. [laughter] i actually wanted to point out a couple -- for all of the talk about how bad the night was for democrats, i want to point out a

couple of examples where democrats can maybe take solace. there are two trios in the house that i'd like to point out. in iowa, david loebsack, bruce braley and leonard boswell all hung on. those were target seats that, you know, a week ago i probably would have thought one or two of them would have flipped. north carolina, he's schuler, larry kissell and mike mcintyre also hung on in a kind of surprising way. of course, the flip side to that argument is that bob etheridge who no one thought was going to fall about two weeks ago, did laos last night in north carolina. other places -- lose last night in north carolina. if you look at the beginning of the cycle, there was a lot of reservations about jerry brown and meg whitman and her pocketbook. the big win for them, it was a healthy target race for them, and it was very important for them going into california, going into redistricting -- excuse me. the other one i would point out

is -- excuse me -- >> one thing, by the way, while jeremy's flipping through, jerry brown had probably the best victory speech of the night. at one point he said, i'm really into this politics thing. i thought, hey, so are are we. [laughter] >> jerry brown proved that ads still worked, and in two of them, actually, he used meg whitman's own words against her. in one he tied her probably as well as anyone to another politician by actually paying clips of arnold and meg, there was 12 of them. it was a very effective ad. the other one i'm remiss not to say the nevada senate. it's almost hard to overstate how big a win nevada senate was for democrats and how surprising it was. it made all the prognosticators, myself included, look like idiots. everyone had written off harry reid -- maybe just me -- but

that was a huge win there and in west virginia with joe manchin. joe manchin's one of the most popular politicians in the country, and it took that to win in a very republican year. >> one of the great joys of working at the hotline is every morning you get to sort through a good 2,000 clips so we can bring you the best news of the day. and one thing, one person -- i had my doubts about harry reid's re-election too, but one guy who didn't was john ralston, a fantastic political analyst from nevada. lot of states have that sort of one guy, and nobody knows nevada better than john ralston. he said hah ri reid would win -- harry reid would win by three point, and he was actually shy two points. that's a big feat out in nevada. jeremy, what else around the country? sure, democrats had few bright spots, but in the long run, this is a pretty historic defeat. >> absolutely. and i think one thing to point out is the amount, the number of

tea party candidates and candidates that were backed by senator jim demint that won last night. not all of them did. christine, for example, lost, john raese lost. but including demint at this point, there'll be six senators in the senate that will be part of that pocket that he gave substantial resources to. and is that gives him a tremendous amount of bargaining power and leverage when it comes to the senate. if ken buck ends up winning in colorado, that would be a seventh. so we're approaching a tenth of the senate being at least in some way either with their bank accounts and what not aligned with jim demint. demint, of course, has said he's not going to run for president, but this gives him all sorts of bargaining power in the senate. >> and yet of the six seats that republicans have picked up, four of them are decidedly not friends of jim demint. >> that's right. >> incoming senators-elect rob portman in ohio, mark kirk in

the illinois, dan coates in if indiana and john hoeven in north dakota. demint didn't play in ohio or north dakota, he thought about getting involved in the illinois race. correct me if i'm wrong, did he actually get involved in thatsome. >> oh, he did a very long time ago. >> and he did get involved for marlin statusman in the indiana primary. by the way, stutzman ended up slipping into the seat that, oh, gosh -- >> it was in indiana. >> souder is retiring, thank you. anyway, four of the six, though r the sort of establishment candidates. does that tell you that the tea party movement has been overrated or not? >> well, it's hard to say. i mean, obviously, if you look at the demint candidates that lost, the tea party candidates helped the democrats maintain a majority with christine o'donnell in delaware ruined the republican chances there which

could have been a pickup with mike cause l. for what it means -- cause l. for what it means going forward, it's hard to say, but i do think one of the counterintuitive arguments is this class could be more willing to compromise with democrats, this incoming class, than maybe is suggested by the tea party rhetoric out there. rob portman's a good example of someone who understands government, was someone who was more moderate when he was in congress. that was under -- those would be people that harry reid and democrats will probably reach out to and, of course, that's not, that's very counter to the rhetoric that jim demint has put out there during the primary season and during this general election. >> and of the incoming members, you take a look at marco rubio, he's a conservative. but, you know, he was a legislator, too, and he was speaker of the house. it takes something to get along there. >> right. >> and rand paul. >> i'd just add on marco rubio, he sort of move today the center after charlie crist got out of

the republican party and he became the de facto front runner in that race, so he's another one that might be more moderate than people anticipate. >> all right. and in the few minutes we have left, give me the unreported story, the story that we haven't seen really emerge yet. >> well, the first thing that comes to mind right now is that harry reid, dick durbin and chuck schumer are going to be having a press conference to discuss the state of the democratic party, and the first thing that came to my mind when they called nevada was how angry it probably made chuck schumer who was angling to become majority leader. [laughter] make of that what you will, schumer funneled a lot of money to the nevada state party to help senator reid, but i don't think there was any question -- had the three of them, dick durbin was also a possible candidate if harry reid lost. the three of them discussing the state of the democratic party will be an interesting press conference to watch. >> and at least it provides some

harmony in the house that dick durbin and chuck schumer live in together. i think that the big untold story here is the, is the simple fact that a good campaign run in the right time can actually win. but not all the time. take a look at harry reid. he ran, essentially, the perfect campaign. so did a couple of members, joe donnelly in indiana -- well, not, i'm sorry -- >> one i would add to that is tom perriello who actually lost, but he ran an extremely strong campaign in a district that really had no, there was no reason to elect a democrat this year and made that race a lot closer. he was helped by obama in the last week, but he ran a very strong campaign. >> one interesting point we're pointing out in today's hotline spotlight, we'll give you a preview now, is the notion that the trifecta of senate seats, the symbolic senate seats that republicans thought they could pick up a while ago, the

illinois seat held by president obama -- once held by president obama, the delaware seat once held by mike cause l and the nevada seat held by harry reid. the lesson, i think, from those three -- well, the three very different lessons. in the illinois you had president obama do everything he could in the place where he was most popular, but voters were so dissatisfied with government, 65% of illinois voters told exit pollsters they were either dissatisfied with or angry with the federal government. it is almost impossible no matter how popular you are to overcome that, even in this a state like illinois -- in a state like illinois. take a look at the members of illinois, bill foster, phil hare, debbie halvorson. there's a good possibility even melissa bean will all be looking for new jobs. and by the way, mark kirk's seat -- >> we're going to break away from the last minute or so of this recorded portion of today' event, the national journal's look at the midterm elections.

we're back live now going over to the grand hyatt here in washington, d.c. with a panel talking about the impact of the election. this panel includes former house republican leader dick armey. live coverage now on c-span2. >> part of the revolutionary movement in 1994 that led republicans to control of congress for the first time in 40 years, at least in the house of representatives. to his right is martin frost, also a democrat from texas. a graduate of the missouri school of journalism as am i, and that's the most important part of the process as far as i'm concerned. [laughter] but he was also member of the -- leader of the house democratic caucus, and in the '98 and '96 cycles he was head of the national campaign committee. he'll have some perspective on the magnitude of last night's victory. to his right, communications directer for denny hastert, and he also worked with bob michael. and he's now at quinn

gillespie's communications. to his right is eric smith who is the president of blue engine message and media. most importantly, he was a crucial component of the obama 2008 presidential campaign as far as its paid media and advertising campaigns. he was also structural supervisor to most of the president's inauguration here in washington. formerly worked witge bo in cond his presidential campaigns. and susan davis has joined us here. so, susan, say a few words and get it started. >> okay. i apologize for being late. i was actually working on a phone interview talking to one of the members that is going to be coming to washington in january. i think maybe just the best way to start off is open it up to the possible and say -- panel and say what, what did last night mean? >> and we'll get to stan's deeper question which i think we'll give them all a moment or two to think about in a second. eric, you want to start? >> sure. what'd it mean? i mean, i think there is danger

in reading too much into this being a republican election. i said that in 2008, i think there was too much, it was too easy to read into it being a democratic mandate. i think what we've seen is three successive change election, 2006, 2008, 2010. i don't think 2006, 2008 were votes for democrats as much as -- same with 2012. all the research i've seen, they are votes against the status quo. they are votes for change, they are votes to disrupt the way things are in washington. and i think that that, you know, has to put all elected officials from both parties on notice. you know, i think the period in which one party controls either chamber of commerce, either chamber of -- [laughter] congress. sorry. >> we're already freudian here, you know. >> still trying to add up how much got spent. when one part of the -- when one party controls either chamber of congress, it's over. both parties are renters now,

and is you can get an eviction notice every two or four years. >> john? is. >> i think this is the same referendum as most midterm elections are on president obama. i think the voters fairly clearly stop. you've gone too far, we don't want you to go any further. i think a lot of voters are in favor of gridlock. there's great frustration. i think the lack of jobs and the lack of focus from the obama administration on job creation has actually killed 'em. and i do think that this portends for an interesting two years as far as gridlock might be the best thing that could happen for a lot of voters because they wanted the obama administration to stop going in a certain direction, and i think that's what this election was really all about. >> martin, in addition to saying what it means, how do you think democratic leaders will internalize the message? this. >> those of you who expect dick armey and me to get in a fight have come to the wrong meeting because we're friends.

you will see that in the course of this conversation. let's start with the president and then let's go to the congress. the question is whether the president is going to be jimmy carter or bill clinton, and i think this issue is open. he could be bill clinton if he compromises on some key issues as bill clinton did with the republicans in congress on welfare reform and on the minimum wage in 1996. i think democratic leaders have got to realize that the public didn't like what they were selling. and that democratic leaders and the president have to make a sincere effort at bipartisanship because that's what the public doesn't want gridlock, i disagree. the public wants some action on the economy, and if we have gridlock, i think it's bad for everybody including the republicans who just won the election. so somehow there has to be some progress. i'm not sure the shape of it. i think democratic leaders, it's a very interesting issue because does the democratic caucus move

to the left, or does it move to the center? if the democratic caucus which will be more liberal because a lot of the people who lost were moderates to conservatives, if it moves to the left, then it could be a minority party for a long time. if, on the other hand, the democratic party -- even though the majority of the caucus is liberal, realizes that they have to move to the center, then they've got a chance that the republican hold on this may only be two years. i mean, we're in a crazy time in this country, and congress can flip back and forth. >> dick? >> i think this is a big election. i think it's certainly bigger than '94 by a long shot. the thing that makes this election special is it is a true paradigm shift for the nation. and, yes, it is a referendum, but it's a referendum on that her piewtic fantasy -- therapeutic fantasy called mandate. after this election nobody that wins the privilege and the duty

of serving in the high office should ever be able to delude themselves, now, with the notion, oh, the voters just gave me a mandate to do whatever the hell i want and demonstrated they're willing to take it whether they like it or not. no. what they've done is the paradigm shift is the voters have said to washington, no, we don't take instructions from you, we don't follow your lead. you're not in charge. you're hired hands. we're in charge. and, yes, we want action. but we want action on our agenda, america's agenda. the middle ground agenda in america is get spending under control, avoid the financial catastrophe that we're surely headed to if we don't fix this thing, rein in government's lust for power and control and sovereign rulership over other people's lives, and have a

little decent respect for this constituency. if you don't, we'll -- one other thing. this lesson was brought first to the republicans. in the primary process and then to the democrats in the general election. and they're not done yet. they're not going to be quiet and go home. because their real interest has always been governance, not politics. they are independent voters by definition, not interested in politics. your party or my party, i don't care. the question is what are the policies. and they're very energetically, i mean, i know these folks, i work with them, i talk to them every day. they're energetically, now, anticipating, we're going to work with these new people in congress and a lot of the old ones that are returning to help them get a good legislative agenda passed through that takes the country in the direction we insist they go. and so this grassroots movement from america, this america

definition of who's in charge around here is something that is ongoing and lively, and it's going to be for those of us who enjoy watching these things even more constructive and entertaining during the course of this next year than it has been for the past year because it's going to be involved with governance. >> we're going to open this up for questions shortly, but i want to have each of you address where the rubber meets the road. let's just take the two issues that are going to come up most rapidly, what to do about the current bush tax policy and the stated pledge to america promise to cut spending by $100 million, not defense, not veteran, back to 2008 levels. now, that may not come up in the lame duck, but it's going to come up soon, both those issues. all four of our panelists have dealt with legislative realities, finding votes, moving something through the house, trying to figure out a way to get it through the senate and

from the presidential perspective. >> let me -- i've got a short answer on the tax question. what the president ought to do, i don't know that he will do this, what the president ought to do when he has his press conference at 1:00 today is say, i got the message. let's do at least a one-year extension of all the bush era tax cuts. then let's see what the deficit reduction commission comes in with and revisit the issue. and when i say all the bush era tax cuts, i'm not just talking about the marginal rates, the personal income tax, but also the 15% on dividends and the 15% capital gains. that's what he ought to do. and i don't know if he'll do that. >> erik, what do you think? >> you know, i think that from a practical perspective, lame ducks prior to controlled congress switching are incredibly unproductive times. i don't expect a whole lot to get done because i can't imagine the soon-to-be majority party, you know, looking to cut a whole lot of deals when in a couple

weeks they'll be in charge. i know we were on the other side, i don't know that we would be doing that either. i think that, with apologies to congressman frost, if you came to see john and i fight, you will be indulged. [laughter] john and i are great friends, but we do disagree on everything. i don't think people want -- i do think people want gridlock, i mean, there's a desire for post-partisanship. i don't know if that's possible or not. but i do -- >> does it have to start with the president, and can does it need to start on the tax issue? is that the best place to get started? >> i think it can start there because by necessity, that's the first issue in the coup. >> john? >> well, i didn't say -- i don't think that people want gridlock, i think what they want is the obama agenda to stop. and i think what they are happy to throw sand in the gears to stop the obama agenda. to answer the tax question, i think congressman frost is absolutely right, i think that the best-case scenario is we

punt this for a year on the tax, the tax issue so that the republicans can have a chance to figure out how they're going to proceed, and it gives both sides a chance to get to know each other and negotiate whatever negotiation there is on taxes because i think everyone agrees if you immediately raise taxes right now, at the end of december in such a dramatic fashion, the economy's going to, you know, be in big trouble which it's already in big trouble. on the spending side, i think what you'll see the congressional republicans are going to spend the first several months sending a lot of different pieces of legislation to the senate on various different rescissions or reverse appropriations or whatever you want to call it and try to set the framework for how they're going to do a budget that's going to have cuts in it, deep cuts, 100 billion or more, and then they're going to have to at some point in time negotiate

that budget with the senate, and that's where the rubber's going to hit the road. and, of course, behind all of that, and i'm sure stan knows more about this than i do, they're going to have to raise the debt ceiling. and that's going to be part of that budget discussion, and that's where who knows how this is all going to work out. but the republicans at the outset in the next three or four months are going to start with sending a lot of spending cut bills to the senate. >> well, timing has a lot to do with it, and i think you're right on the tax day that lame duck sessions are about taking care of unfinished business. for the congress that is going out. the majority congress that's going out will leave this tax issue undealt with unless they deal with it in the lame duck session. one of the few legitimate things they could do that would be applauded by america at large. and, yes, they should take that initiative. it, also, is good for their health politically because doing

so is a signal to america, yes, we heard you too. it wasn't just the republicans that heard you, and we understand this needs to be done if we're going to do it. now, the other thing that you look at on the spending side to a large extent, the new republican majority in the house is blessed with the fact that the outgoing majority never finished their budget for the past fiscal year. so they can do a lot of demonstration of their commitment to budgetary reduction and so forth as they clean up that mess. but they have to get on to a demonstration of competence. just doing the new budget on time will be a great encouragement to the american people. on april 15th, my goodness, the government met it own self-imposed deadline with the same degree of promptness that they require me on the deadline they imposed on me. and it would be a sign of

healthy responsibility. finally, when you go back to the last march from deficit to surplus budget, we all like to entertain ourselveses with who did it -- yourselves with who did it. the misguided democrats believe that president clinton did it. the well informed republicans believe that newt and i did it. [laughter] but the fact of the matter, john berry put his finger on it. that whole process for several years was the key personnel from the house, the senate and the white house sitting down and working out the budget agreement. and, yes n those deals -- in this those deals you sort of chuck the word compromise overboard and get rid of the troublesome -- you end up with an agreement. are it be a perfect agreement in the any one single person's eyes?

>> no. but it's an agreement that can do three things that must be done; pass the house, pass the senate, be signed by the president. >> you haven't had to sign the budget. >> are well, the spending bill. -- well, the spending bill. but still, never the his, the hard earth -- nevertheless, the hardest fact of life and taims the most comforting part of life. entertain yourselveses and one another if you like, but until you have done something that commands passage in the house, passage in the senate, signature of the president, you have done nothing. so let's get busy, get soberly about our business. >> major, let me just give one other point. what i think is going to happen in the lame duck, i think they will pads a second cr -- pass a second cr that will take the government, fund the government until about february or march. i think it'll be a cr probably at last year's levels. i don't think there are going to be a lot of bells and whistles added to it. i think the clean thing to do is

just keep the government funking at 2010 -- functioning at fiscal year 2010 levels, then let the new congress come in and figure out what to do with the rest of the fiscal year we're currently in. and then dick's point about final action, the last time that all of the appropriation bills were completed by october 1st, the beginning of the fiscal year, was 1987. that's how long ago it was that congress completed all the appropriation bills before the fiscal year started. >> a lot of what we're talking about raises a question about management, and this is something that john boehner who will be speaker barring something unforeseen in january has spoken a lot about. one being returning to regular order, as we call it, changing the way the house does business. but i think we've seen both republicans in this control and democrats in control, they've chosen not to use regular order in the past 15, 16 years. john, you worked for former speaker dennis hastert, you know the unique challenges the speaker will face.

is it possible to change the house in the way they do business? >> well, it is possible. it's very, very difficult. efficiency is not the thing that you necessarily want out of a congress like this that is so desperate for transparency and i think especially with the new class, they want to change the way business is done. they don't -- one of the things that john boehner promised was, i think nancy pelosi also promised and i'm sure speaker hastert at some point promised it, we're going to give you three days to look at this legislation. and boehner, who has made this a cornerstone of his drive to reform the congress, if he sticks to it, it'll actually change how congress is done. it's going to go at a much slower pace. if you have regular order, that means you're going to have rules that are open. if you have open rules, that means the democrats get to offer all their amendments that are going to embarrass the heck out of republicans.

so that is a leap of faith that eventually the process will work, the house will work its will and good stuff will eventually get done for the american people. now, the problem is, then, over the last 30 years that the regular order is broken down, and i think that the system has been gamed on both side. and i think what happens is the leadership on both sides gets so frustrated with the delaying tactics of a minority and, frankly, they get frustrated with the fact that the minority has clever motions to recommit that they just shut down the process and say, we've got to get this stuff done because they believe at the end of the day it's not about the process, it's about the results. but i actually have been a fan and a proponent of open rules because i do think the process actually does matter. i think that's one of the things that's come from this election, that just this sense of back room deals, the lack of transparency, that the regular order of breaking down is not

good for democracy. and i think that boehner, if he is going to stick to this, he's going to also have to understand that his legislative agenda is not going to be as robust, and he's not going to get as much stuff done as he wants to get done. but when i started with speaker hastert, one of the things i said to him is we want to be the regular order speaker. and that, you know, we had that after a while, but then it all fell apart. you know, things fall apart. >> martin? dick? >> the, the last time we really had the type of regular order you're talking about was, i believe, was my first term. that was in 1979 and 1980. [laughter] i remember when the department of education bill was up under an open rule. we were here until 2 a.m. three or four mights in a row. if you're going to have regular order, you have to be willing to stick around here and vote on all those amendments. i think it's a good idea. i think there's a chance that boehner will try this.

it wasn't tried by gingrich at all, it wasn't tried by speaker pelosi at all. i don't think denny really tried very much with either -- >> so you had speakers in both parties who have not wanted to do this for their own reasons. if they do it, everybody better bring a cot or bring a pillow. [laughter] >> well, i can't help but point out that i, being younger and all, wasn't there in '79. [laughter] >> he's older than i am, but he was lekked after i am. -- elected after i am. he's got a year on me. >> first of all, you talk about regular order, that is, basically, the procedures by which you develop a good work product. and, in fact, it begins in the committees and even the subcommittees. and if you take a good legislative idea and you refine it and you polish it up and you resolve the problems in the committees, by the time you take it to the floor, you don't have to have a bunch of high drama about the vote. if it's good work, it's got a good standing with the american people at large, the the folks

will follow. >> by the way, what happens on the majority of legislation is all kinds of legislation happens that people don't talk about. >> oh, yeah. but the majority of legislation draws very little interest. >> we must have voted on abortion about ten times and school prayer and all kinds of things. everybody wanted to be -- >> well, i understand that, but i wanted to make another point. there's a great misconception about bipartisanship around here. people are missing the point. they don't want bipartisanship, they want civility. and if you take along with regular order in the parliamentary rules of the body some of the old-fashioned protocols, the manner by which i address my colleague becomes a very important thing in terms of the questions of civility. when you yield to the distinguished gentleman from iowa who, by the way s a horse's rear -- [laughter] the distinguished gentleman

from -- >> minimum high regard. >> all these years, that's the public disclosure statement, it breeds a level of civility that allows you to conduct your work because somebody's not bristling because he didn't hear what i said about him. he heard me call him distinguished, and it's very difficult for him to come back nasty. so these protocols are important, and they should be observed. i think every member should make that. now, there were folks that i was privileged to work with, for example, congressman nasher, senator byrd, joe pokily, one of my favorites, who understood the instrumental value of good manners in our legislative process. it's not that hard to do, and it ought to be done more regularly than it is. >> dick raises an interesting point, though, but there ought to be full consideration in committees. we've tried to short circuit the committee process an awful lot in recent years. >> erik, does this process

question matter to the white house? is. >> yeah. >> does it make a difference when the white house has to deal with legislation that comes its way? >> i mean, absolutely. we were talking, i know the four of us are focusing on the house which is proper because that's the finer of the two institutions -- >> absolutely. [laughter] >> when john and i used to work, when he worked for the speaker, i worked for the minority leader, we used to regularly meet and plot how to get these guys to common -- [laughter] working as our common enemy which was the senate. but i would take a look at that as a management issue, susan, because i think it's a management issue for the leaders in congress and, by extense, the white house. you know, harry reid has got a much smaller congress, and he's got the 2006 class of senators coming up in some really difficult states, missouri, montana, you know, we've got a veteran like bill nelson in florida who's going to have a tough race against what might be an incumbent who was appointed previously. >> that's who my wife works for.

>> who? the wonderful senator? [laughter] civility. so, you know, within the senate democratic caucus, i think you're going to have some difficult dynamics because you have this first wave class coming up for their first election. i think something that could change the senate significantly is that, i mean, i didn't double check in morning, but the estimates were that about 40 members of the senate will be freshman in january 2011. that means elected in 2006, 2008 or 2010. and you'll have 40 out of 100 are in their first term. i think that changed the dynamics of that institution dramatically. i have one last part to this management issue which is, i think, you know, assuming mr. boehner becomes speaker, speaker boehner will have, you know, in the house one of the things we all love about it is the speaker runs the institution absolutely. and they can do what -- they can drive the schedule, they can drive resource.

he'll have the luxury of being able to pass bills that will feed his base, that will make the republican party feel good and drop them on the doorstep of the senate which will be a management issue, i think, for both reid and mcconnell to have to deal with these bills they either want passed or stopped in trying to, you know, i think much in the way pelosi kept pushing bills on the senate that ended up dying there and frustrating both bases, the left and the right, i think you'll see the same thing happening this time around. >> susan and i have spent a lot of time this week talking to members of congress to be, republicans who are likely to win. i had three interviews this morning with republicans that just won last night. obviously, taxes, spending are the two uppermost issues in their mind, but health care is right after it. and i want to put before the panel health care because we have a law, and we have a house republican majority that is committed to undoing that law. all at once or brick by brick.

you can have a piece of legislation that tries to undo it, or you can have protracted, minuscule but very important procedural fights and appropriations fights over the underlying infrastructure to put that bill, that law into force. starting with you, dick, because i know the health care issue was one of the things that drove this sort of citizen awakening that your organization has been a part of and been, i think, one of the organization's most aware of it. and then you, martin, and everyone down the panel, what happens to the health care law, and what happens to health care policy in be reaction to this election? >> well, i can't help but remember in '94 president it never got to the floor even in the house. now they've lost their majority because they did it, and they did it with extraordinarily heavy-handed parliamentary muscle.

and a big human cry coming from america is repeal it. well, i mean, we all know that can't happen because the senate -- but we can do it in the house. and my advice to speaker hastert -- i'm sorry, speaker boehner. [laughter] well, you know, at my age you know what i'm talking about. [laughter] my advice to speaker boehner is take a simple repeal of obamacare to the floor and have a vote. you're going to have debate if you want, that's fine, but the fact is that every member of that body is going to cast a vote that's between himself and his district. and i promise you he will pass that vote with nothing less than 20 democrats voting yes and thanking him for the opportunity to do so. now what you've done is you've showed, you've affirmed america, yes, we got your message on health care, you don't want this.

that also advises the courts. now, while that is doing and this is high drama, big billboard out to america, we're with you on health care, you've got your committees working on the smart mini bills. take out the mandate, take that to the floor separately. also the big test of this republican majority doesn't have brains and courage is will they for the first time in the history of congress take on and beat the trial bar on tort reform for health care and make a significant first important, critical reduction in the cost driving of health care. if they can't stand up to the trial bar, they're never going to fix health care in america. nobody in america is going to fix health care if you don't do tort reform. one out of every four medical procedures according to harvard university is unnecessary. you explain to me in what way it should be considered humane to

let a 5-year-old child go through extra painful, frightening medical procedures just to protect the doctor from a lawyer? it's not just the money, ladies and gentlemen, it's the damn meanness of it. and if we don't have a congress that's got the courage to protect children and old people from the meanness of unnecessary medical procedural infliction on their body and their mind and their fears, then we don't have much of a congress. >> i have a little disagreement. [laughter] with my good friend, dick armey. first of all, and dick is within his rights to continue to raise money for freedom works on the issue of health care. i understand that. [laughter] he'll continue to do that. i don't think this election was determined by health care. this election was determined by 9.6% unemployment and the unwillingness and inability of the administration to focus on that issue to the exclusion of almost everything else. also i think the administration

made a mistake in taking cap and trade to the floor first before health care because that was, that's what sunk a lot of democrats in the midwest. i don't think those democrats lost on health care, dick, i think they were on the wrong side of cap and trade, and i think if the president had taken health care to the floor first before cap and trade, it would have passed earlier, and it would have been a more opportunity for it to gain acceptance. but your, you have every right to wave the flag and tear down health care, and i know you will do that very effectively. but it's not going to be repealed. that wouldn't get through the senate. that would be vetoed by the president. i think the republicans will make some incremental efforts to make some changes around the edges. i don't know whether they'll be successful, but health care was not the issue that determined this election. >> john? when i first came to congress in '89 -- a little bit younger than you guys, sorry -- one of the first things that i witnessed firsthand was the repeal of the

catastrophic legislation -- >> i was there. and it -- >> and it was one of those bills everyone thought, boy, this is going to be great, and then dan rostenkowski got the heck beat out of him by a bunch of senior citizens, and they repealed it next year. i'm not saying that's going to happen this time around, but i do think that repealing this legislation is a, in its totality, is a possibility and could be a campaign issue in the presidential elections. in the meantime, i think that dick armey's right, the congressional republicans on the house side have to put this up for a vote. my other advice to congressional republicans on the house side is to focus on the weak link in the whole legislation which is the individual mandate. if they can repeal that and make that be the singular issue, i think the whole house of cards comes crumbling down. and i think this legislation is extraordinarily unpopular who have health insurance which is the vast majority of people in the country, and because the rates have gone up since this

legislation passed. so i do think that's a good fodder for republicans, and i think they're going to keep pounding on it. >> let's be clear, it's because it had an income tax sur challenge that went into effect -- surcharge that went into effect right away. my father hated catastrophic health insurance because why did he have to pay an income tax surcharge for something he already had? so there was a difference. that was an ill-conceived bill, and it impacted people right away in a very unpleasant way. >> erik, real quick before we open it up to questions. >> i think an effort to repeal health care reform will make health care reform more popular to the public, not less, and let me explain why. i think we all stipulate the house will probably repeal it, won't go much farther in the ?apt, certainly the president won't sign it. but the fight leading up to that and the debate, i believe, will

inform people more about the bill than they've been informed all right. i think the one thing democrats failed at this last congress was explaining what was really in the bill. if you do public opinion research which we're doing all the time, the first thing that comes to mind when it comes to health care reform is the nebraska cornhusker deal. i think if we have a debate in congress for weeks, months, you know how these things go, and that conflict drives media coverage, people will find out about the free checkups, free physicals, mammograms, all the things they actually like and want in this bill, and a lot of them for the first time will actually learn what's in the bill. ..

[inaudible] >> shut down with republican is disaster so are not going to give advice. republicans may have a price for them but i would urge my party to make it clear in the house and senate to the president that he is the leader of the party and then he needs to reach out in a very sincere and direct way to republican leaders. that's what the country wants and i hope the president will do that and a dozen do that the

democratic party is in real trouble. >> my own view of the shutdown which was a terrible position at the time running up to it and experiencing it, it was a matter that was a product of a that new majority, armand new majority thinking we had that. and the shutdown was a consequence of and insisted need to show the president who's in charge here. now, these folks, bless their hearts, they don't have that affliction. they don't think they have a mandate and don't believe we are in charge of and don't have some added to permit to sell my advice understand the seriousness overworked, do your work with a sober seriousness, and presented to the other body, presented to the white house as a serious work product and just put all the strut and posture

all aside. has lost its entertainment value and it doesn't endear you to the voters. what they really want to see is a quiet competence getting above the tasks before you, i don't think a shutdown would happen because it was approached that of a misguided sense of control. >> let me jump in creek, one of the things republicans can do to avoid being blamed for the shop is not how they want to shut down a government which they did on almost insistent basis and i worked with for the guys who did it. he said it for months before and they shut the government down and who got blamed, the guys who said they would shut the government down. [laughter] >> i think we have a lot of questions. >> good morning, i'm harris. question, eric, i thank you mentioned in three successive it change elections. what do all of you make of the

rate of change going on in politics right now? to parts, what do you make of it, what's driving it and that does to relationships of the political process? >> the internet and cable tv's fault. [laughter] >> it can't be blamed in a more. >> i enjoy pointing out to people that al gore is the inventor of the demise of the left. [laughter] >> could be to the right. >> if you take a look at this i think we all have to be someone to in on as to the magnitude and and the breadth of the rise of this grass roots movement. it really went from a very short time from a position of a dismissed and ridiculed to defining the whole election cycle. the communications available to people, common folks among ourselves, that is now available to the internet and will be enhanced by the way by our own

basis we are going to introduce in a few short days. it makes this consolidated in its influence and the awareness of its presence gives it a capacity to grow beyond. this movement is not going to just go away in the pages of the background that will be the defining group of the office holders for a time to come. >> this could change in two years. >> i really do believe based on a the research are have seen these are 2006, 2008 and 2010 are against the status quo more than anything. the most analogous situation is scott brown's election in a massachusetts and we will spend weeks digesting mess. when we did it focus groups with an opponent matters we saw no incongruity in voting for obama in 08 m. scott brown in 2009.

and then duval patrick or barack obama again. they were looking for something other than party labels, they're looking for people who will disrupt the status quo and do things differently and if people can work across the aisle and find ways to do that there will be positive are compared senator brown has done a good job doing that. i think that he has read the same people of massachusetts and has pursued a path that is instructive here. >> it's a very good question and i to a very serious question, serious implications for how the cars are actually gets this business done. obviously this disconnect between how washington operates and how congress especially operas and the american perceive it to operate i think that the rise of campaign commercials and how they just -- these politicians slamming each other

-- and i think it leads to people distrusting their politicians even more and then when they come to the chamber they don't have it in the vast experience and any kind of mechanism to get congress -- congressmen and women to know which other better weather is the hotels or would ever staying in the congress or going back and forth on an airplane, leads to even less interaction of which means the process itself breaks down because they don't take each other seriously. i think what's happened is the members of congress on take each other seriously woods means the people be represented by them don't take them seriously and i think that's kind of led to this decline of the popularity of the institution of. >> before dick continues to wax to more eloquently about this system movement, i have a feeling that there are going to

be people inside the republican party who will move heaven and earth to make sure there are no sharron angle and christine of donald nominated on the republican side. your movement was helpful in terms of turnout, but it cost to a couple senate seats. >> this? me up, the establishment guys. [laughter] they take the closest thing to a republican icon known in the state of delaware, you got $3 million and he loses to this woman who has nothing. then they say is her fault, his fault, he had all phases, why did he falls? so all the facts of the matter is i don't think they're moving a lot of heaven and earth, they're putting up their own best shot and our guys are failing and the fact of the matter is unless you come to terms with the electorate you are not going to win the race. here's another thing. when the dallas cowboys win in the nfc i don't want somebody telling them they should and

then be allowed to go to the super bowl because really the eagles would have a band was we liked the best. when you have an open primary that is not -- >> this is not a cowboys group. [laughter] >> dick and i are probably the only to cowboys fans in the entire world. >> but the point is if you are going to be the political party with the open primary process that says to everybody, and join our primary come to present yourself, let our voters decide who they will select, that when this is your nominee. now, what are you going to do about that? if you don't want open primary process changes the rules of their party but if you have them at least have the decency to stand by your nominee. both east to essence is that you mentioned you had two candidates that were getting shot at by the opposition party and shot in their rear by their own party and then you say they were no damn good because they did not

win. you can't win when they are going like this. [laughter] >> may you nominate a few more folks like that. >> i did not know we would have a live reenactments. [laughter] >> that is fantastic. >> this is a question about another issue that was submitted in in congress with financial reform. the -- what sense in the house might be attempted to at least moderate some of the provisions of financial regulatory reform, the dog -- frank act and a related question -- speculation the democrats are in a minority and bark -- barney frank might be open to leaving the house. what are your thoughts about not only his possibly moving on to another position saying in the administration also what challenges posed to the house

democrats since maxine waters who has had his arm ethics issues would then be presumably in line to be the ranking member? >> we put 200,000 of the own money in the race, i don't think he's going in a place anytime soon. when they give a serious answer about for an initial regulatory reform and dick may not agree with me on this one. >> it depends on how serious you are. >> my experience is members of congress take voting on financial issues, financial regulatory issues -- they don't understand or know anything about this issue is and i don't want to vote on this again. i don't care whether democrats or republicans. they may challenge the regulations the administration issued, you may have some votes on overriding particular regulations but i can't imagine they are going to revisit that bill. that's the last thing they want to spend their time on. >> i think it time it gets back to jimmy buffett said you've got

to learn from the wrong things you have done, and and workmanship. what we have seen as a consistent pattern going back to several congress as is haste makes waste, let's get this bill through before the weekend. we don't want to do the rigorous work -- >> before rating goes off to a summit meeting. >> i have to tell you i believe the work was done much more professionally in the '80s when reagan was in the white house. with tarp they wanted it over the weekend in an legislation by panic and the panic is born at of the fear that i don't politically want to be seen as the guy that doesn't see the problem and doesn't care. so are -- i will go or what ever is rushed through the committee. the fact is a worth going to have to go back and take so much of the work that was done in a rush and done carelessly with a lot of bad lose hair sticking

around that are mysterious. did you ever notice the law of unintended consequences never applied to the private sector? think about that. because of serious questions. if they're going to have to start taking some of that on. the fact is if they don't demonstrate a rigorous competence and legislative detail they will not be able to endure themselves with this new awake in that legislative constituency. because the fact is of the voters now are requiring more of people in service and office then they have ever required in any time i have watched and work with voters. >> let me -- >> they have to readdress the issues this you this professionally and with vigor. >> i will give a second serious question, this is the devil they know, the business community got a lot of things i wanted out of this bill and they won't want this to reopen in the members of

congress for what it reopened. >> i will try of yours with a more serious answer. [laughter] these are your acutely aware of the fact that we are not now legislating on behalf of the business community and we don't make legislative that makes sense the american citizens at large we are out of a job. >> i would say, congressman frost is right. despite this happening at the regulatory level by and large because us for the lobbying committed to is coming at it, i don't think online healthcare there's going to be any effort to repeal this legislation. because all they there's an appetite for that and you're right that members of congress don't understand this world and all want to understand it. and i would say that there's probably two things the republicans will focus on, some anti tarp legislation so that doesn't happen again and mostly focused on fannie mae and freddie mac and how to reform

those were put that out of business. some sort of legislation like that i would imagine that some sort of anti regulatory or something like that would, but i don't think there's an appetite for dealing with add. >> major, i have to go speak to a group of my friends were unhappy about the election results. [laughter] >> don't forget to take this. [applause] >> from the white house perspective, with fannie and freddie they're open to but that will be in an area where the work something out? >> one quick notes, there was a poll conducted in one interview on khosa came to washington a year ago for the tea party rally on nine/12 a year ago and on that pulled the war thing less popular than barack obama or the big banks and wall street. so i don't think there would be any effort to review -- repeal regulatory reform.

from the white house perspective but from them but they are acutely aware that financial regulatory reform for till in the big banks in a wall street. ta rpg is a different issue and i think that has to be handled differently but you're talking about repealing financial regulatory reform. >> [inaudible] >> again, another fight a love to have this year. >> [inaudible] we have noticed in the last two years that a lot of the the legislation were bipartisan and the campaign issues and not given the necessary floor time. what are the chances that congress are going to be able to

go and do more of a los -- the fair government and reauthorization -- [inaudible] >> if you don't mind i may end the pending free-trade agreements with south korea, panama and colombia. >> [inaudible] >> the president will make a big trip to asia starting on friday, going to look for real. it when i interviewed him last december in beijing he said he wanted to get the south korean free trade agreement of this year, it's not going to happen. >> let me address that, one of my favorite, as i have a few favorite moments, but one of the really enduring moments i had with the president when we sat across the table from each other and it was a question of trading. i said in we agree that we were born to work together on it and we did. my observation was mr. president

if you can get past third base and i can get past my days i think we could get this done. because the demagoguery over trade issues is bipartisan and by the way the demagoguery only works when it is done that way. i got a chance to observe that the industry. that becomes a real problem. if you're going to repair any trade issue without bipartisan at work and leadership is very tough. that is the one area or the have an opportunity to work together productively to the well-being of the emerging economy. with respect to this caller less sexy bills, if i am correct, that this new majority will understand they have to be professional rather than political, there's a big

difference, then you'll see in their quiet competence there are addressing issues and understanding we need to take this to the floor and get them done because it's important. when asked what is the political point in the answer is there is no political point, it's important work for america. of taken into that kind of professional competence, then they could be a blessing to the whole process before the nation. if not they will probably be written off as another bunch of political and dunderheads that are embarrassing to us. >> i think back to my friend has a rule that i found guides me along, politician at rest is a great politician. i think more legislation than do the more potential trouble -- two and that's the motivation i think about, where senator mcconnell said that his top priority -- what does the exact les miserables -- to ensure the

president was a one-term president. those things don't bode well for a whole lot of bipartisan cooperation but if you look of some of the public dynamics behind the loading and we will be looking hard at the day after but everything i am seeing two years from now all the folks collected will be charged on what they did and not what they stopped. i don't think there will be a lot of cooperation. what you're going to find it, the right balance and staff to agree on and fight on. there are going to have to go to years from now until something they've accomplished. >> does trade fall into that? >> trade has fallen that the congressman is entirely right because that's gravels politicians. >> is amazing, "the wall street journal" did an interesting poll on this that showed it cut across different economic clients we never expected where a more affluent people are becoming less inclined to support trade deals.

i think that is something where we will have to file under all politics is local. >> let me make a couple observations on trade, a lot of pro traded politicians got elected that. gordon probably the best example of that so it wasn't pro free trade is not the political killer that's a lot thought it would be. the second point is during the campaign what you saw especially as the campaign drew to a close was bashing china. to china came up, the terrible imbalance right now between what we export to china and what we import from china and how that has affected jobs and people are blaming china. there was an effort by politicians to blame each other for being pro china. so i think that's the reason i say that is that until the administration works out some

sort of big scale compromise or a big scale to deal with china that deals with that big problem, it's awfully hard to get other legislation through. now that being said, the south. fta, columbia fta and there is a third one, panama, you do have now a pro free trade it leadership in congress. it will probably pass that and you also have a senate much more pro free trade than the house. so that this did well to that. the fact of the matter is if we don't have trade we can't have jobs and i think that ultimately is the winning argument for perot trade. >> can i follow up quickly, as eric is the remaining democrat on the panel. >> the numbers are getting smaller by the minute. [laughter] >> there's been a focus on how obama will work with the new republican majority but there's

an interest a acquisition of what do house democrats do now. you brought up traded enacted during clinton a. a lot of his worst enemies were members of is on the party in the house to oppose the white house. as much as we can forecast how do you see the democratic minority in the house in their working with obama administration are becoming now potentially a point of opposition? >> i thing is hard to predict. i work for the democratic leader when clinton was president and when bush was president. it was much easier as minority leader to manage the minority with a democratic president because you have lots of goodies and stuff from te invited for produce, bridges and tunnels and all sorts of fun stuff. when you're in the minority in you don't have the president things are a lot harder, a lot more disparate and people tend for the most far to fall in line behind the president on

messaging and politics when there is in a president with a center of gravity. people tend to go there on why. i think that's what we're trying to do, united. we have these family first agendas which frost would remember, when clinton was president was easy to execute and when he wasn't the house and senate leadership would take months and months tried to build something that was really an exercise in politics. so i think that everyone will pick and choose their fights here. there'll be times when the house democrats will be shoulder to shoulder with the president and times they want. i think actually what they have seen over the last couple years is nothing rallyes people together more than being on the defense. i think any efforts to repeal the legislative gains the democrats had in the last two years will serve to kind of push them to gather more than pull them apart. >> we have time for two more questions. in the get to take charge of the

last two questions. >> i'm with the trade association. in it seems like primaries are run a lot of on ideology, elections are run on ideology and policy, and then legislation particularly that looks like it's going to move seems to be run by both parties as if there are coalitions of appetites. and that is not just talking about earmarks, exactly how the authorizations are on tap and trade as an example. renewable fuels might be another good example. and i think that that's part of what has to be over,. does that analysis make any sense? if it does, how do you over, this lobbying frenzy of the veranda seekers?

>> first of all, piatt believe a lobbying is an honorable profession it is carried out professionally. as a productive input into the process i got a ph.d. in economics. but i don't know how this bill collector in a straight and is good information for me to get from you. so a good professional intercourse between hours of congress and the lobbying community that is held to its professionalism is a healthy saying for the interests of producing good product. i would argue that virtually everything that i have seen have been officially in washington and in the legislative process by way of what bills will we take up, how will be read the bill, why are we writing the bill, has been political positions not policy decisions. it's been juvenile delinquency, not professionalism.

instead about me and not the nation. unless they can get the maturity and the discipline to transform themselves and the people understand the gravity of the responsibilities and live up to it about something other than myself, they are going to be a very unpopular group of people in respect of a party affiliation. as they have been. now and i will say again and i said before when you do this work of cleaning up the legislation when you don't need the high drama. who will vote for the bill and if it does good standing with the american people at large, you will get your votes from both sides of the aisle. the biggest problem we see, i have seen dramatically in the past several years in washington is just plain sloppy self indulgent work.

trying to fulfil a political objective and rather than serious policy objective for the nation, on both sides of the aisle. i have talked to the folks across the country all the time. what they are saying is we just want them to do their job seriously like i do my job. instead of it being just a bunch of quarreling and people trying to get a leg up on them. it is always about themselves. this is really a call for this. president obama has made it very clear that what he can get legislatively now that he has come off that path you get administratively to the agencies. if the republican majority doesn't understand the their duty to do serious responsible -- and then i used the word professional and rigorous congressional oversight of the agencies they created a, the

administration of a loss they make, then they are going to have the president running around and get cap and traded to the epa just as he promised of congress doesn't do its job. so the biggest challenge that faces these folks is how do we move from a politician two professional as we do the world -- the nation's work. it's a challenge that has not been well met by people in congress have large in the past few years. it breaks your heart to see a guy like ike skelton who has been an example for all of us to lose folks like that. but again it is really a matter of serious work, go out and do your job. as we like to say and texas, do your job. >> we have time for one more question.

.. >> they tended to kind of come pretty quickly and go pretty quietly, didn't they? i don't know that as this time. >> it was in that case and 95. the answer to your question, they will raise at the last

possible moment. if the treasury department can sell all the stuff they can, and they always seem to come up with funding. that's the one thing i remember. they always seem to come up with money. we will probably be, house republicans passed the budget, they will use gephardt rule to get it through and send it off to the senate. and then i think the president will talk to harry reid and say, harry, we need this money so we can pay for the war. and for social security checks. so you've got to get this. and if that's a process by which it will happen. the big question is does rand paul stand up and say i'm going to filibuster against this. until he gets some sort of agreement about some sort of budget reform or some sort of the budget, you know, deficit cutting bill passed or

something. that's the process speculative has a majority but the majority will not be bragging about it. [inaudible] [laughter] >> that's not going to happen. i think what we could do is to help people sort of get, i'm sorry, they need to raise the debt ceiling is the legacy of our past fiscal irresponsibility. the fact of the matter, the repercussions, destructive to the country. it's a duty that i don't want. but if you're going to ask me to do something that is this unsavory, in order to set the books right on your past spendthrift, that i need some kind of expression, if things

are going to change going forward. and for them to be hard and bargaining this, i think is a perfectly responsible and necessary thing. the fact is about as, to too great of an extent they need to raise the debt ceiling is born out of carelessness, self-indulgence, and the war, just like you responsibility, sloppy work. so use that moment, of desperation, to leverage a better understanding of what is the higher, more professional result that this body must make about how we do business going forward. spent we actually have time for one more question. >> elizabeth willis. my original question about

foreign policy and trade, but i appreciate your answers already on the trade issue. so want to talk about foreign policy, and see where it fits in the agenda for the congress. no one seems to be talking about it. trips are supposed to be withdrawn from afghanistan in the next year. funding will need to continue. star treaty and other issues. so where do you think all of this is heading? >> if i could do a brief commercial for "national journal" here, susan davis and i spent a good part of this week putting together what we in the trade call a charter to which is a chart with a lot of text and we analyze a lot of issues if possible can of possible copper monster we bring up in that afghanistan and the s.t.a.r.t. treaty, and are reported so far is afghanistan to present is likely to find and want to put this before the panel, before we conclude, substantial support among republicans in light of july, 2011 resolve is not a precipitous one from their point of view.

and that they are brought in at some level and a consultant process with the december review the president will have to evaluate is a just and policy after one year. and the star treaty core to our reporting is richard lugar is a linchpin but if he doesn't get lamar alexander more specifically, jon kyl on part of specific detail aspects of that, it's not going up in a lame duck and it may not happen at all. i want to throw foreign policy and these issues up. erica, do you want to start a? >> i will be repeating the same thing out here, but folks in both parties will get -- i think the success in 2012 will be based on, what success they have, i think foreign policy is a more intuitive and natural place to go find an agreement. i agree with, i think afghan will be a place where republicans and democrats ended their second kit can all find common ground on. i do think, i i -- per high

priority for the white house, star treaty. i know your wife's loss, senator, libya, this is something you think about on the way. you know, i think that it offers people a box to check on bipartisanship without having to get into a lot of the messier issues which are upsetting people. i wouldn't draw a distinction between the foreign policies and trade. i think trade is a domestic issue more than a foreign policy issue. >> i would make a couple observations. first, i think that the republican leadership and the president will find common ground on afghanistan. i do not assume though that all members, many members of the liberal caucus and democratic caucus, and some minister including rand paul who have great concerns about operations in afghanistan, where the

members coming in, where they will necessarily be on the. so i would say that i think there will be an effort to find common ground as the leadership level. the two things that i would also observe, what's going to happen with iran, which is the closest thing to the next war i would say that in and what could happen china, which i think is this 800 million, billion pound gorilla in the room, which is -- >> the largest guerrilla ever known. [laughter] >> the largest guerrilla ever know. i do think one of the most effective ads in this whole campaign season was that at the together by citizens against government waste where the chinese guy was talking about how america squandered its great heritage that i do think that china is on the mind and should be on the mind of all policymakers. and how we deal with the great imbalance there is between the chinese and us. >> if i'm correct at the temperament of this new congress is going to be more in respect

for the genius of the divisions of authority and responsibility, checks and balances, the creative genius by which we divided up labors, in the constitution, i think you're going to fight a greater willingness to say, to the present, for the most part international policy initiativ initiatives, it's our job to work on it with you. and so i think this is the one area or i think we might find this congress has a tendency to be more deferential to the white house, and unless the white house lurches into some position that is frightening. >> i just want to wrap up things. thank you very much for your attendance. thank the underbrush. i was a page as the underwriters but that's not exactly how it works. we do want to express our appreciation to all our underwriters. thank you for your questions that on behalf of susan davis, the panelists, thank you very

much for attending. it's a great pleasure. [applause] >> the fun is not over yet. we invite you join us back out in the main over. charlie cook will be joining us shortly. we will be serving lunch and we look forward to your potential patient -- participation there. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> our live coverage of this "national journal" look at the midterm election will continue a about 10 minutes after 12, about a half-hour from now, with charlie cook of the cook political report. charlie and his report predicted a republican takeover of the house. house republican leader john boehner speaking to reporters right now about the republican agenda. we have live coverage for you on c-span, and, of course, congressman weiner likely to be voted speaker for the new session since the republicans do have a majority, or will have. 1:00 eastern, president obama speaking to reporters about the midterm election results. we will have live coverage of his news conference on c-span as well. here's how the associate press is bring the latest numbers. in the 435 u.s. house races the

republicans have one, 239 seats and are leading in the races for five says that democrats have won 185 seat. they are leading in the race for six that independent and other candidates have won or are leading in no seat. republicans have come one control of the house of democrat -. republicans picking up 23 seats in leading and our winning 23 seats. leading in the races were zero, democrats have won 11 seats and are leading in the race. independence and other party candidates have one or are leading once he. that's "the associated press." while we wait for the next "national journal" discussion on the election, the midterm election, we will take a portion of event that took place this morning with former republican national committee chairman michael duncan, and afl-cio president richard trumka on the use of the meaning of these election results. this is about a half-hour.

using >> so, gentlemen, thank you for joining us this morning. i'd like to start withepublicann mr. duncan, former chairman ofh the public and nationalch committees now s chairman ofon american crossroads who spent billions of dollars on this election cycle. what happened lastt night? of >> think you first of all for doing this at that "national journal" is putting this on. what a difference a day makes. what happened last night? well, we had a mega tsunami. what's beyond tsunami? a mega tsunami. you've got to go back to 1948 to find a house that made more changes. it's more than the house and the

senate, the six at least that we picked up in the senate. you've got to look at the state legislatures and governors all over the country. we have probably 19 bodies of the legislature, maybe ten governors. the redistricting process coming up for the next ten years from our standpoint is going to be much fairer now because we have part of the decision making process on that. so those are the facts. what happened? well, last night the people spoke. it was, i believe, a rejection of the obama administration. two years ago i stood before some of you at the national press club and talked about what had happened then. i accepted responsibility for the defeat, congratulated president obama, president-elect obama, and said that we're a center-right country which we still are and warned that if he lurched to the left and he choked on the bone of responsibility, that the republicans would be back. and i think he did, and i think his agenda was overreaching, and i think that's what happened last night. >> mr. trumka? how do you read last night's elections? >> well, first of all, i think

the corporate agenda and groups like american cross roads had a good day, but the question is why? and, obviously, i disagree with what my friend michael just said in a lot of ways. yesterday the issue that people drove them to vote was about jobs and the economy. and it wasn't because they bought on to the pledge to america because if you look at it, we don't have all the data analyzed yet. we're going to be doing a call at noontime. so any of you that choose to find out the rest of the data we have, please, feel free to join our call at noon. but if you look at it, we went through all the issues, and 63% of the people in those congressional races, 100 races, oppose, for instance, tax breaks for people over $250,000. 63% of them -- 62% of them oppose privatizing social security. so we went through those. and if you look at even the

republican voters, the exact figure, as a matter of fact, 65% knew little or nothing about the pledge to america. so this is the third consecutive cycle where the people in power have been kicked out of power because of the frustration. so the, i think the reading from last night is the american people know that the economy doesn't work, they're suffering, they're angry because of that, and they're going -- you're going to have to now that you're part of the governing structure, you're going to have to come up with a way to create jobs and get the economy back on the move. because i think they're frustrated not because too much was done, but because too little was done. and as a result of that, i'd have to say that the republican strategy of stopping everything probably had an effect. it worked. but now that you'll be in the governing structure, you won't be able to just say no.

you're going to have to come up with your ideas, and you're going to have to create jobs. hopefully, we can do that together. that's our ultimate goal. >> so you're essentially arguing that voters, that the vote last night was not against -- rather, was not for the republican party, it was against democrats. >> yeah. it was against the ruling party, the party in power at different levels. if they believe that their agenda was embraced, i think they're going to be short lived where they are right now. because it was an anger about not getting the job done. now they're part of getting the job done, and they'll have to come up with something that says here's how we create jobs. and if it will actually create jobs, we'll probably join with you on it because that's good for america. >> are well, i hope so, and i think it is about jobs. i agree it's about the economy, but it's about the obama administration not paying enough attention to the economy. i think that we will present policies, a tax policy, for example, that goes along with a

monetary policy that's going to take more action on trying to put more money into the system. but we have to balance the budget. we have to get government spending under control. and that's what people were talking about. they understand that that's part of what makes up the psychology of jobs in this country. when you, when you suppress small businesses by keeping them in the dark about what the policy's going to be, we don't know what the tax rate's going to be, that hurts creation of jobs at the very local level. that's going to be a big change. >> michael, will you also help us stop the outsourcing of job? will you help us stop rewarding companies that take jobs offshore? >> let's stick with start rewarding companies who create jobs here. let's stick with analyzing the vote last night. [laughter] would you agree with mr. trumka -- >> this is -- [laughter] >> would you agree with mr. trumka that the results last night were not a validation of republicans, but rather, a rejection of democrats? this. >> people in this country are

giving us a chance, and we will take advantage of that. look, we messed up. i acknowledged that in 2008 and 2006. we had an opportunity, we didn't do enough, we didn't listen enough. i think you saw the republican party listening this time, and can i think that was part of the pledge to america. they understand that americans are hurting, they understand that people are out of work. the new misery index has to do with foreclosure rates and unemployment rates. that's the change, and we get it. >> i hope that's true. >> both sides, both of you have been in organizations that spent millions of dollars on this election. mr. trumka, let's start with you. one of the actual few bright spots for democrats last nighting is that among, where there was this seven-point swing nationally towards the republican party, among union households that swing was only four points. i know the afl-cio was talking a lot about the successes you had in place like west virginia, in several districts in pennsylvania. talk a little bit about the effects that the afl-cio and

other labor groups have had on the democratic election. democratic effort. >> well, first of all, we don't have all the data analyzed, so i can't give you a state by state or a race by race analysis. but overall i think our members voted for progressive candidates by about a 30% margin. in places like nevada, it was even higher. i think it was 69-29 that we voted for harry reid, in west virginia it would have been higher as well for joe manchin. we made millions of phone calls, sent out millions of pieces of mail, we had millions of door knocks, and you'll see in demographic after demographic if you're a union member, you voted for progressive candidates, and if you're not a union member, you voted the other way. so you'll get to see that today pretty graphically. we think we did our job in what we were supposed to do, and our members voted pretty overwhelmingly for candidates that are going to support

working people. >> mr. duncan, american crossroads is one of these new super passes they're calling them. you've been involved in races all over the country. talk about the effect you think these outside groups have had in favor -- >> first of all, we're using the labor union models as what we're going by, and the outside organizations that were set up in the 2004 and 2006, and i congratulate rich because he did turn out his people. and we're working on that. we were able to be involved primarily in eight senate races. we focused on senate races. we exceeded our budget. we did millions of dollars in television advertising, millions of pieces of mail, millions of phone calls. we're not as good as you are on the deployment yet, but we're working on that. we did some experiments this time. we think we made a difference. we were involved early on in nevada, we think we kept that race close there. we were able to target our efforts. we worked early on in arkansas. we worked in missouri. we worked in pennsylvania.

we worked in colorado. we were involved all over the country. toward the end we did some house races. but it's an acknowledgment that the outside groups on the democrats' side have done a good job over the last three cycles, and we're just now catching up. >> well, you did more than catch up because you conservative groups outspent progressive groups two to one yesterday. >> it's interesting, though, on turnout they may have outspent some liberal-leaning groups on television, but it seems like a lot of the union money went to ground operations. why would, why go, why do the ground operations, the ground game instead of blanketing the airwaves? >> well, we think that's our job. our members trust us when we talk to them one-on-one. and we did do a good job of talking to them. not one penny of afl-cio money went to a candidate. our money went all to the ground game, all to talking to our members. we probably touched our members between 15 and 20 times in this

election in one form or another whether it was a mail from their local union or from us, whether it was a phone call, whether it was a door knock, whether it was a leaflet at a worksite. we probably touched them 15-20 times, and it made a difference. when you see the demographics today, it made a difference with everybody because we have members that are born again, we have members that are ultra conservative, we have members that are just the rest of society. we mirror society except we give them the facts and give them the information that they need to make a decision. it makes a big difference. >> let me set the record straight on money. over the last three cycles, the democratic groups, the left groups have outspent the republican groups more than two to one, and even in this cycle we're just catching up. we're getting close to a level playing field, but we're not there. >> let's talk about the larger picture and what this means going forward. mr. duncan, you were quoted in "the new york times" saying this

is sort of the practice round for 2012. both sides, both outside groups spent far more than the democratic national committee or the republican national committee or the appropriate, you know, associated committees in the house and the senate. is this evidence that the outside groups are becoming more powerful and more influential than the party organizations that you're trying to elect? >> well, let me put this in perspective. let's talk about how much we spend on potato chips in a year, $7 billion. let's talk about how much we spent last week on halloween according to the national retail federation. if i had candy, i would give to both of you. we spent on candy and costumes $5.8 billion. in totality this time we're going to spend about $4 billion on politics. most of that is going to be spent by the campaigns and the party committees. i think the outside groups spent about $400 million. i don't think that there's too much money in politics. i think we don't invest enough in our democrat. >> you know, speaking of potato

chips, the country also spent more on potato chips than it did on energy research last year which i find quite appalling. >> what do you think about the outside spending? is this, does this mean that labor organizations and groups like american crossroads are becoming more powerful, more influential than the democratic national committee and the republican national committee? >> >> well, i think there's two issues. one issue is not just how much money was spent, but who spent it. because they have these wonderful-sounding groups, and then when you combine the amount that corporations spent on lobbying, the corporations spent on the election, you vastly, vastly -- you dwarfed us in all of that. the question is who's spending the money? i mean, some of your money came from foreign sources. >> that's ooh not true. that is absolutely not true. you cannot, you cannot say that because it's not true. i looked at every donation that we had come in -- >> where'd you get the money from, corporate america? >> we got our money from individuals all over the

country -- >> corporate america. >> donations and large donations. >> so let's not -- >> are you willing to put that list out? are you willing to talk about where -- >> let's stay focused on the election. >> are you going to disclose all that? >> okay. moving quickly on. mr. trumka, let's talk more specifically. last night, clearly, a rejection of democratic, the democratic initiatives of the last couple years or at least the fact that those initiatives haven't turned the economy around fast enough. what does that mean, in your mind, for president obama going forward as he begins his re-election campaign in 2012? >> i think he should do what we're going to do, because as of today we're going to have three priorities: jobs, jobs and more jobs. we'll be pushing our five-point plan to create more jobs. i think the president ought to do that. i think he ought to put these guys to the task. they said they can do it, now

let's make them do it. i wish you success because for every job you create, there's an american out there that'll be able to make a living and, hopefully, rebuild part of the middle class. so i would tell him to stick to his jobs -- to his principles. to work with them but not compromise his principles. >> to work with the house republicans. >> absolutely. i mean, they should have been working with us and the senate republicans should have been working with us, and they didn't. their strategy seems like it worked. i'm saying try to work with them if it doesn't cost you your principles. if it costs you your principles, then you have to stand for your principles. but create jobs and put them to the test. if it's the same old stuff which they said during the campaign, well, we'll cut more taxes for the rich, we'll deregulate, the same policies that got us into this mess, i mean, that's not going to make the american people -- >> first of all, he had a historic election, and he did not reach out to work with the

republicans. when you talk about an enemies list, when you tell a leader of the congress we won, get it? that's not reaching across the aisle. i was glad to see that he made calls last night to speaker-elect boehner and to senator mcconnell, and i hope that's a good omen for us. but to get to the jobs that you need, we've got to have policies in this country including tax policies that encourage small businesses. john boehner understands the american dream. you saw that last night in his emotional response. he came up that way in a small business, created his own small business -- >> now, mr. duncan, there were -- what republicans have said, a large number of them, congressman kevin mccarthy from pennsylvania, congressman mike pence from indiana, even eric cantor hinted at this as well that republicans should not compromise right now, they should take the same tack that president obama did and say, well, elections --

>> i wasn't talk about come propoise. >> do you think house republicans should go to the table and work with president obama? >> i think we should work with what the american people were telling us about. deficit spending, the fact that we've got to have certainty to create jobs in this country. and that means that president obama's got to move back toward the center. this is a center-right country. >> let me ask a quick follow-up here. one-quarter -- this is an amazing statistic -- one-quarter of the house republican conference is new, is a freshman. it's going to be somewhere around 80 members once all the chips fall. is that a problem for john boehner? there's this massive new influx of pop list members -- populist members coming into congress. is he going to have the same kind of control over them that, say, denny hastert and his leadership team had over that republican conference or newt gingrich -- >> he doesn't want to have the

same control. 80 new members is an opportunity. it's an opportunity to let people read the bills, to have them three days beforehand, it's an opportunity to let the committees legislate more, it's an opportunity to let congress work the way it's supposed to work. >> mr. trumka, what do you think about the democratic agenda that we saw in the 111th? the one sort of boogeyman that a lot of republicans warned about was the employee-free -- excuse me, the employee free choice act. democrats didn't move on that. did that have an impact last night or during the campaign season on labor trying to turn out for democrats? >> i'm going to answer that, but i want to comment on what michael said. michael said that they weren't given a chance to cooperate or to govern. there were 424 bills that were passed by the house of representatives that were sent over to the senate, and the senate had a record number of filly busters where they didn't try to compromise. they just wouldn't let debate go

on -- >> including cap and trade, something we probably agree that shouldn't occur. >> the point i