are not? i would argue the chips will take care of that pretty well. it's really the number of bands that causes cost rather than the number of different technologies to we the chips work. they've gotten so small we can cram lots of radios onto those chips. so i think what we really want to see is just the kind of road lock to get broken, busted through and get that spectrum out onto the market. we know there's demand. both on the public safety site and on the commercial side. so it seems like there can be a. >> host: finally, paul jacobs, has qualcomm helped to develop a south, southern california, silicon valley because it your size and where you're located? >> guest: certainly a lot of companies have spun off not just of qualcomm, but the previous company. we've also attracted telecom companies. san diego is very well set up

for wireless, but it's also interesting that it's very well set up for biotech and which has a little less to do with us. it's actually looking at going forward is this whole notion of wireless hell as being something that will get centered in san diego and has a big opportunity. the notion there is you may wear sensors on your body or in the environment that will actually talk to your phone, monitor things and talk to your health care provider when it needs to. i think there is a huge opportunity, certainly hugely for cost savings and productivity improvements in health care. so this is another area i think san diego will get known for. >> host: all those devices will be used for spectrum? >> guest: not do fairly always fill your spectrum. if you would a body worn sensor stuck on your skin, and they talk over a different technology to the phone and a fumble talk sailor to the network. so there will be wireless embedded in these things.

it not always going to be the cellular radio. >> host: paul jacobs is the chairman and ceo of qualcomm. paul kirby is a senior editor with "telecommunications reports." thank you both for being on "the communicators." >> guest: thank you. >> republican leader senator mitch mcconnell said on the senate floor today he supports a moratorium on congressional earmarks. >> if everyone would please be

seated. the committee will come to order. i'd like to record to reflect that all eight members of the subcommittee are present. this hearing of the adjudicatory subcommittee of the committee on standards of official conduct in the matter of representative charles b. rangel will come to order. the constitution authorizes the house of representatives to discipline its members. in the house, the committee on standards of the official conduct discharge with recommending and enforcing ethical standards and ensure that members and staff act in a manner befitting the public trust. it's under that authority that we are meeting here today. this hearing is authorized by house rule 11, clause three and committee rule 23. the purpose of this hearing is to determine whether any of the 13 counts included in the

alleged violation in the matter of representative charles b. rangel have been proved by clear and convincing evidence. on june 17, 2010, a bipartisan investigation subcommittee of the committee on standards of official conduct adopted a statement of alleged violation in a matter of representative charles b. ringel. representative gene green share the investigative subcommittee. the ranking member of the full committee, representative jo bonner serves as the subcommittee's ranking member. representative bobby scott and doc hastings also served on the subcommittee. the investigative subcommittee adopted a statement of alleged violations which includes 13 counts. for each count, the investigative subcommittee concluded that there was substantial reason to believe that representative rangel violated the code of conduct or a loud will regulation or other standard of conduct applicable to representative rangel's duties or discharge of his

official responsibilities as a member of the house of representatives. the world the adjudicatory subcommittee is to determine at a hearing whether any count of the statement of alleged violation has been proved by clear and convincing evidence. the purpose of this adjudicatory hearing is to do that. however, it is important to bear in mind that the preceding is a hearing, not a trial. attorneys from the committees nonpartisan professional staff of the moving party in these proceedings. their role is to make a case of the statement of alleged violations adopted by the investigative subcommittee. at the adjudicatory hearing, the burden of proof rests with committee council to establish the facts alleged in each count of the statement of alleged violation by clear and convincing evidence. representative rangel will have an opportunity to present his side of the story should he wish to do so. the response is not required to present his fate in his defense and should representative rangel

not do you represent a case, they will not and may not try and make it a negative influence from that fact. as members of the adjudicatory subcommittee, we are neither accusers or are we defenders of our call of mr. rangel. it is our job in our duty to act impartially as finders of fact and law. we are honor bound to do so without regard to partisanship or bias of any sort. we're required to act honestly and fairly, based on the evidence during the adjudicatory hearing. in light of that will, i remind my colleagues that while this hearing is in progress and while the ethics process continues to this matter, we should continue to refrain from commenting on the facts, the law or any other aspect of this matter. in conducting this hearing, the adjudicatory subcommittee will follow the procedures established by the rules of the committee. the quorum required for the adjudicatory subcommittee to conduct any business is the majority plus one or six

members. if at any time the subcommittee does not have a quorum, the chair may recess the hearing and may direct the clerk to contact the members who are not present. in addition, the chair can reset the hearing at any time if needed. the order of the adjudicatory hearing will be as follows. first, the subcommittee will hear argument on the motion noticed by committee counsel. each party will have 20 minutes for argument. i will note that unless he is under oath, any statements, questions and arguments that representative rangel makes will not be considered evidence in this matter. members of the subcommittee will then have an opportunity to ask questions of the party should they choose under the five-minute rule. following a ruling on the motion, committee counsel and representative rangel will each be allowed 10 hours to present their case, including the time allotted for opening statements in closing arguments. the orders established by committee rules. first, i would recognize

committee counsel and then representative rangel who i gather, cynthia sitting by himself at the table, maybe representing himself, for any opening statements they wish to make. each party will be limited to one hour for the opening statements. each party will then present their case. the order for receiving testimony from witnesses and other pertinent that this is his also established by rule. committee counsel will present their evidence and call witnesses first. representative rangel will have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses called by committee counsel should he wish to do so. next, representative rangel will have the opportunity to present evidence and call witnesses if he chooses to do so. committee counsel at the opportunity to cross-examine any witnesses mr. rangel cause in his defense. after representative rangel finish this case, committee counsel may ask to present rebuttal witnesses as permitted by the chair. numbers of the subcommittee will also have the opportunity to ask

questions of each party's witnesses under the five-minute rule unless otherwise directed by the chair. after all testimony and evidence has been presented, committee counsel and representative rangel will each be permitted to take a closing argument. each party will be limited to one hour for their closing argument. members of the subcommittee will then have the opportunity to ask questions of the parties under the five-minute rule unless otherwise directed by the chair. at that time, members of the adjudicatory subcommittee will then meet in executive session to consider each count included in the statement of alleged violation. the subcommittee will determined by a majority vote of its members whether each count have improved the adjudicatory subcommittee will then report its findings to the full committee. as an outcast group, the full committee will prepare a report to the house, based upon the report of the subcommittee. on the other hand, if any one or more other 13 counts in a statement of alleged violations

are proved, the full committee will conduct a sanctions hearing to determine what sanction, if any, the committee should recommend the house. the allegations included at the statement of alleged violations are significant and we take seriously our obligation to conduct these proceedings fairly and impartially and with the dignity and decorum defending any proceeding before the house of representatives. this is a form to discharge our responsibilities and our duties that set forth in the rules of the house and the rules of the committee. the adjudicatory hearing will be conducted subject to rules and decorum of the house of representatives and all participants will be required to observe strictly and probably all evidentiary procedural and other rules of the committee and rulings issued in this hearing. as i chair these proceedings, i plan to do so when the fairest way possible to all parties involved as well as to the house at this time i recognized representative mike mccaul, ranking member of the subcommittee for his opening

remarks. >> thank you, not chair. as i sit at the hearing last july, this is an important day, both for mr. rangel, for the committee, for the congress, but most importantly for the american people. and let me be clear. no member of this committee asks for this assignment. sitting in judgment of a fellow member and colleague is a very difficult thing for all of us to do. but we accept the responsibility here today. we served for no other reason than to protect the honor, integrity and credibility of this institution, often referred to as the people's house. the american people's confidence in us is that in historic low. they want their elected representatives held accountable for their actions, just as they are held accountable as private citizens. it is my sincere hope that these public televised hearings will help increase transparency and

accountability and restore much-needed to the house as an institution. our responsibility as judges in this matter is to be fair and partial. there is no place for presumed guilt before innocence in this process and there will not eat in this case. hearings of this kind are rare and historic. these hearings follow a 21 month long bipartisan investigation, an investigation that receives the sworn testimony from nearly 50 witnesses and over 20,000 pages of documents. an investigation that produced a 13 count statement of alleged violations. and over 500 exhibits that have been placed on the committee's website. these allegations, if proven, would demonstrate that mr. rangel violated multiple provisions of the house rules on federal statutes. as judges, we must determine

whether these allegations were proven by clear and convincing evidence. on numerous occasions, the respondent, mr. rangel, has requested public hearings, reiki is afforded under committee rules. today, this hearing affords him the opportunity to be heard. as judges in this matter, it is our responsibility to make sure the process is both fair and dignified. as a former federal prosecutor and the public integrity session at the department of justice, due process is nothing new to me. it is guaranteed by our constitution and it is a responsibility i take very seriously. so as we prepare to the evidence against bumper is most tenured colleagues in the house, we need to ensure we have done everything we can to assure the american public that we will handle this matter with the utmost professionalism and nonpartisanship that it deserves. we can never forget the public

office is a public trust. and with that, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. before the proceeding, we see that the committee counsel is present. mr. rangel, are you represented by counsel here today or are you representing yourself? >> madam chair -- [inaudible] [inaudible] and i truly believe that -- [inaudible] the reason i asked to --

[inaudible] but this was two weeks ago. and now we have been afforded an opportunity to set it up. but a lot more forces do not to make in the question of due process is not just for me, but with any member of congress it is anything that he is found on several occasions spoken with the chair. [inaudible] basically denied me the opportunity to get a lawyer for three reasons. one, because this matter has been going on for over two

years. and because during this period of time i have found that is true. but it's not my fault that it took two years before the states allege what was reported good and i'd like to add that during this period of time, my employers were trying to be involved when you're investigating. when the charges or counsel became over $2 million i could not convince them that i'll be able to pay for one of the lawyers that are a billion dollars for the hearing. the committee knew what they would do. so the argument that this has been going on for two years is accurate. but i don't see how it relates to me not being able to a counsel before you today. the senate issue has been raised that he thinks the most horrible

experiences not that i have been asking for this matter. i have been saying that my colleagues in the congress and my constituents of my family have the opportunity to hear this. my family has caught hell's the result of what has been out there. all i ask is when can we develop these charges? when can people be exposed to what it is. and this really is met with counsel. they have recalled that it than 40 witnesses that she is called who have indicated that their first pages of test timoney i have not been able to explain my position other because of who the confidentiality, because it has resurfaced. but each time that i've asked for a hearing, do you any of you

believe i am not powerful? and the vast me for the opportunity to have counsel. i still feel strongly that the congress and the community should know what i have been charged with. [inaudible] and what has been helpful if you have done it before the general election, for the reason the united states was caused when i had counsel it was not done. when my opponents and critics were charging me with corruption allegations, i focused that this committee and hoped they would say that one of your colleagues, there was no evidence.

[inaudible] i certainly didn't get it. [inaudible] anaïs convened a right to have it right now because i don't have the opportunity to have a legal defense fund set up and because i can't afford another million dollars and can you promise not to counsel. but quite frankly, committee members, this is the very region the chair has been given to me as to why. i'm not entitled to postpone it because this perhaps is not been resolved. but you tell me under what

theory of fairness that i have been denied the due process, that i would deny an attorney because it is informed to be the end of the session. when we know that i would be entitled if we had were concept of what you're saying. how long does this go but this counsel because we don't have time. i meant to add that in for you,

i have no idea as to how the council intends to proceed. i think that would indicate that this committee may not be the big witnesses, that this committee was asked at a judgment be made. [inaudible] but to me it just sounds unfair to say that because the elimination of time, people even go through.

if they did want to have the appearance of fairness, mr. mccaul said you spoken with 40 witnesses or more, that the 30,000 pages of testimony. and my to know what they testified to. i've been given deadlines in terms of how to respond what witnesses i would want to subpoena. i have been denied that opportunity. if the chair is suggesting that i can quote my remarks, then i would do that. but i would want you to note that i don't think it's fair that i participate in any type of proceeding is in fact what you are basically telling me that the political talent will not allow you enough counsel, enough time to allow me to get a lawyer at this crucial point in

my life. fifty years of public service is on the line. i truly believe that i'm not being treated fairly and that history will dictate that notwithstanding the political calendar, i am entitled to a lawyer during this proceeding. i went to thank you for your courtesy. there's a lot of pain that i feel because i fought in the wars. i prosecuted in the u.s. attorney's office. i've served as a legislative in this state. i'm so proud of my record in the congress. i love this congress to love this country. i think i'm entitled to more than what's being suggested today. thank you so much for this courtesy. >> thank you, mr. rangel. before turning to committee counsel, i would just note for the record -- and i will put into the record the exchange

referred to by mr. rangel, so this will not be a mystery to the public. but i would note that we would advise that mr. rangel's council withdrew a little over a month ago and further counsel has not been retained and that the committee has indicated an intent to proceed today. >> chair, would it be appropriate to ask a question? >> certainly. >> are you going to construe mr. rangel comments over the last 10 minutes. i listen to what he had to say very carefully. i may say that it troubles me he is before the committee today without counsel. are we going to consider his statement to a motion to continue? >> is that they motion to continue, mr. rangel? >> i don't know whether -- first of all, my role here is that the

respondent and i am not here representing myself. i've been a lawyer long enough to know that it is very, very unwise for any person, a lawyer or a judge to be his own lawyer in the preceding like this. so i'm not in a position to make a motion unless we're talking about fairness. unless we're talking about someone contradicting everything i've said. unless any member has any question that asks of me notwithstanding the fact you're submitting your letter for the record. if there's anything i've said about that letter and all of the conversations we've had, i would think that notwithstanding procedure judge, that fairness would allow you to save that this is a statement of how i feel as a person, as a member of congress and as a citizen is fighting for due process.

you can call it a motion and i can't quite answer that question. >> we appreciate that, mr. rangel. we will turn out to committee counsel, mr. chisholm to introduce your team and to make your motion for the admission of evidence. >> on a chair, ranking member mccaul, members of the subcommittee, representative rangel. my name is blake chisam, and chief counsel for the committee. to my right is deborah morris, counsel to the committee. into my left is donald sherman, also counsel to the committee. at this time, madam chair, i would move to introduce exhibits one to 549 into the record. >> is there objection? >> well, madam chair, if it pleases, with all due respect, i'm not in a position to pass judgment on what counsel is

about to do. i've never known that this proceeding even existed of summary judgment if this is what he's about to do. any voyeur i have talked with have said that this committee has no history at all. >> if i may interrupt, mr. rangel, just to clarify this, we were noticed, as were you as this motion. i would like to make clear, however, that we will hear the motion, the argument from the committee counsel and whatever argument you may choose to make, but that if you wish to be heard in an opening statement, if you wish to proceed with witnesses, we will hold any ruling on the motion in advance so if you wish to be heard we will hear you. >> i appreciate that. would that include the right for me to have a lawyer? >> you may hire whoever you wish as a lawyer. that is up to you.

>> well, you've seen the record. 2 million already and i advise this hearing could cost me another million. you've afford me the opportunity to have a legal defense fund, which would allow perhaps a lawyer to come into the case if that's what you're saying, there is nothing i would not yield to for the purpose. but you know that if you're saying we can't move forward, then that restricts me from getting a lawyer, not only financially, but the legal defense fund has suggested i would add would have no meaning at all. if what you're saying, if there's anything i can do within the rules of the committee that would allow me to move forward with this i wouldn't object to just the procedure. but i did not know until a week ago that this lady page would be the way you intended to judge my

conduct a week ago. so i've listen to what he is saying. but does this mean that is going into this procedure, that i don't have councils to guide me? >> if i may, mr. rangel, if you could be seeded. for clarification, the respondent has inquired the committee, whether a fund could be created, where contributions could be made for legal representation and has been advised of the committee that that is permissible. however, the retention of counsel is up to the respondent, with your uber to hire it at your own expense for your campaign committee for through a fund is your decision, not the committee's decision. >> all i ask if i agree with you 100%. all i'm asking for is the time

to get counsel. i have lawyers from washington d.c. and new york that are willing to give me free counsel, to be able to come here, because they don't think i've been treated fairly. and yes, they say if they do it as a gift it violates all the laws. .. >> i think no one can say that this is the way that ends up.

yes, i can do these things, but you have to conclude this now and the next day, and my reputation, 50 years of public service has to suffer because this committee has concluded that you must conclude this matter before this time ends, and all i'm asking for is time to get counsel, time to get counsel, and you're saying now, i think, that you denied it before, and you denying it now. >> i gather that you do not object to the admission of the evidence brought before counsel -- >> i object to the proceeding, and with all due respect, since i don't have counsel to advise me, i'm going to have to excuse myself from these proceedings because i have no idea what this man has put together over two

years that was given to me last week, and i just hope that the history of this committee in terms of fairness will be judged for what it is, so with all due respect in recognizing the members of this committee, as colleagues, as someone who would like to reserve the right of members to be judged by their peers with counsel, i respectfully remove myself from this. >> madam chair, before the respondent leaves, may i ask an additional question? >> certainly. >> even though the respondent did not specifically make a motion to continue this hearing, i deem his comments to be a motion to continue, and i would like this committee to seriously consider a motion to continue. i would like for us to do it in executive session and discuss among ourselves what the respondent has said because i

take his contentions very seriously. i served as a judge in my state for 15 years, and i i know the importance of counsel in this environment. i ask that we deem his motions to continue, and discuss it in executive session. >> all right. that is the request from one member to have a discussion on the -- it'd be your motion to -- >> i'll make a motion to continue the matter as we take it up in executive session. >> we will go up into our closed session and have a brief discussion, and then we'll return. >> was there a second? >> yes, there was. >> there was a second to the motion, all right.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> i wish i could make a statement, but as you know, they have gone into session to consider my remarks, and i don't think there's anything that i can say depending on their response. [inaudible] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> the house subcommittee declined charles charlie's request for more time for a lawyer for the 13 charges against him that include financial and fund raising misconduct. they met for several hours with the mr. rang l. -- rangel. we'll have more coverage tomorrow on the c-span networks.

>> senate minority leader, mitch mcconnell has congressional're marks, and eliminating the congressional earmarks would not save the taxpayers money. he spoke earlier on the senate floor for 10 minutes. >> mr. president, i've seen a lot of elections in my life, but i've never seen an election like the one we had earlier this month. the 2010 midterm election was a change election. the likes of which i have never seen, and the change that people want above all is right here in washington. most americans are deeply unhappy with their government,

more so than any other time in decades. after the way lawmakers have done business up here over the last couple of years, it's easy to see why, but it's not enough to point out the faults of the party in power. americansment change -- americans want change, not mere criticism, and that means all of us need to get serious about the way we do business, even on the things we have defended on the past perhaps for good reason. if the voters express themselves clearly on an issue, it's not enough to persist on doing the opposite on grounds that that's the way we've always done it. that's what elections are about after all, and if this election has shown us anything, it's the americans know the difference between talking about change and actually delivering on it. bringing about real change is

hard work. it requires elected officials whether they're in their first week or 50th year to challenge others and above all, to challenge themselves to do things differently from time to time, to question, and then to actually shake up the status quo in pursuit of a goal or vision that the voters have set for the good of our country. i thought about these things long and hard over the last few weeks. i've talked with my members. i've listened to them. above all, i've listened to my constituents, and what i've concluded is that on the issue of congressional earmarks at the leader of my party and the senate, i have to lead first by example. every day the senate has been in session for the last two years, i've come to this spot and said democrats were ignoring the wishes of the plern people. when it comes to earmarks, i won't be guilty of the same thing. make no mistake, i know the good

that's come from the projects i helped support throughout my state. i don't apologize for them, but there is simply no doubt that the abuse of this practice has caused americans to view it as a waste and out of control spending that every republican in washington is determined to fight. people like me show the american people they are willing to follow through on their small or symbolic things, we risk losing them on the broader efforts on cutting spending. that's why i'm announcing to join the republican leadership in the house in support of a moratorium on earmarks in the 112th congress. over the years, i've seen presence of both parties acquire doal discretion over proarpgs and both parties wasted dollars on meritless projects, commissions, and programs than any other earmark put together. look new further than the

stimulus that was passed without earmarks only to have the current administration load it up from turtle tunnels to tennis courts. contrast this with vital projects i've supported with the work related to the plant in western kentucky. it was a facility that the workers were unaware of the discharges the plant caused to their health or how to safely dispose the chemicals used there. the danger was made known, and i set about forcing the government to put a cleanup plan in place and treat the people who had worked there. through the earmark process, we forced reluctant administrations of both parties to do what was needed and clean up the site and screen the people for cancer. these screenings saved lives and

would not have happened if congress didn't direct the funds to pay for them. another success story is the bluegrass army depot that houses the most deadly weapons on earth. we decided we would not use the weapons that were stored at this site, and yet the federal government was slow to follow through on safely dismantling and removing them. even after we'd sign an international treaty that required it, but thanks to congressional appropriations, we're on the way to destroying the chemical weapons at the site safely and thus protect the community that vundz -- surrounds it. this is one the reasons i have been reluctant to see responsibility for continuing the good work that is being done on them and on others to the executive branch. i'm not wild about turning more spending authority to the executive branch, but i share

the view of most americans that our nation is at a cross roads, we will not be able to secure the kind of future we want for our children and grandchildren unless we act and act quickly, and the only way we will be able to turn the corner and save our future is if elected leaders like me make the kinds of difficult decisions voters are clearly asking us to make. republican in and out of washington argued for years that spending and debt are at crisis levels and demonstrated our cuts in spending and reigning government. the member voted against every appropriations bill in comet this year -- committee this year because they cost too much most including funding for projects in our home states, and we voted against them anyway. planning earmarks is a small step that we can take to show

we're serious, another step on the way to serious and sustained cuts in spending, and to debt. earlier this month, volters across the -- voters across the country said they are counting on republicans to make tough decisions. they gave us a second chance. with this decision i'm telling them they were right to put their trust in us. it's our oath we'll dmon vat to the american people in some way how serious republicans are about not letting them down. republican leaders in the house and senate are now united on this issue. united in hearing what the voters have been telling us for two years, and acting on it. this is no small thing. old habits aren't easy to break, but sometimes they must be, and now is such a time, but a $14 trillion debt and an administration that talks about cost cutting and sends over a budget that triples the national debt in ten years and creates a

new entitlement program, it's time for us in washington to mean what we say about spending. with republican leaders in congress united, the attention now turns to the president. we have said we are willing to give up discretion. now we'll see how he handles spending decisions, and if the president ends up with total discretion on spending, we'll see where his priorities lie. we already saw the administration's priorities in the stimulus bill that's anonymous with wasted spending, that borrowed nearly a trillion dollars in earmarks for turtle tums and a sidewalk that led to a ditch and voter perceptions on a bill. through congressional oversight, we'll continue to monitor how the money taxpayers sent to the administration is actually

spent. it's not up to the president and his party in congress to show their own seriousness on this issue, to say whether they will join republican leaders in this effort, and then after that in significantly reducing the size and cost and reach of government. the people have spoken. they have said as clearly as they can that this is what they want us to do, and they will be watching. mr. president, i yield the floor. >> why did senate minority leader endorse the earmarks? >> he was under pressure from the right wing of his party and jim demidnight and pushing here to get support for the earmark ban approved. it was really just bad politics for mcconnell. he knew if he backed the

proposal, that he wouldn't get the backlash he would that he otherwise would have from the tea party wing of the caucus, and he knew that and he has a new ban of freshmen, 13, that want to reform the ways of washington, and earmarks are an easy target and hard to defend even though there's not much wrong with the earmarking, but in the end, mcconnell decided politically it made sense to jump on board. >> why do you characterize it that way? >> mcconnell is a big time earmarker. he sits on the appropriation committee and gets hundreds of millions of dollars to send home on projects things on military basis, medical research to the local universities. he had defended the practice even in the run up to this vote which is happening tomorrow.

he said, if we hold earmarks, it doesn't do much to the federal deficit, and it's congress' authority to dictate its spending priorities. this is not the job of the white house. it's a job of legislatures. over the past week mcconnell was on the phone laying out his concerns and seeing it as an attempt of why we tried to kill it, butted in end it -- but in the end, it made sense to vote and keep the party together. >> where is this vote taking place? >> it's happening behind closed doors behind the senate floor tomorrow afternoon. >> how many senators are for, against, and undecided? >> before mcconnell made his endorsement, it was up in the air. it appeared as maybe 15 or so

senators who were for it, and 14 or so who were against it. a lot of them were on the fence, but then after he made that announcement, you suddenly saw a huge number of senators saying they were also for it. people ranging from other republican leaders and moderates like olympia snowe. right now, it's an overwhelming number of 47 member republican caucus is going to support this and maybe only just a handful are going to oppose, some of the more, old bulls of the senate republican conference like jim and thad cochran. they are big and will certainly oppose that at the end of the day, but this has enough votes to pass tomorrow. >> what affect could this bill have on legislative work in >> this is not even a binding

measure. really, senator republicans could still earmark if they want. of course, they will look politically could be embarrassing for them or their party if they buck the will of their conference, but i think you're going to see most senator republicans not earmark or see any house members earmark because the incoming republican majority will not allow any of these special projects into the appropriations bill, and that really puts pressure on senate democrats for resisting any curves on the practice right now. you'll see this come to a head in the appropriations process a battle between the democratic majority and house republican majority in whether or not to include these earmarks. >> we appreciate your time. >> thanks a lot. >> on tomorrow's washington journal, philadelphia congressman talks about the

agenda. >> the effects of the recent elections are discussed in new orleans. democratic and republican stray gists and pollsters talking about whether cooperation between president obama and congress is possible.

from tuwane university, this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> they're going to talk about the -- i'm going to introduce the moderator to say that he is the father of lee howard, an incoming freshman here this fall. it's a delight to have john harwood here and when you talk about people in journalism, john has got everything that you would think. he was started with the washington star, graduated magna consume lad di, and i graduated thank the lordy. [laughter] he's been on nsnbc and meet the press and everything you think of when you think of being

established. you are a given a really, really warm welcome from the people, john harwood and the father of an incoming freshman. [applause] and, giving you a waive on your tuition for being here. [laughter] >> exactly. i'm going to get micked up and thank james for that introduction and say if all the things he said aren't enough to make you dislike me, i'll add one more thing. i'm a duke guy and duke basketball fan and i know that's pretty popular most places, so bring it on.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> can you hear me now? okay. okay, guys, we have a fantastic panel. everybody's in the room. i'm going to introduce each one. i'm going to have a question for each one just to start us off, and it's going to be relatively short answers before we get into the broad subject of the panel which is is there any prospect for bipartisan prospects on the country's problems in the next

two years. first, matthew dowd works for a contributor and joined as a cull upist and strategic adviser and known to you as a lead strategist for president bush in his two campaigns in 2000 and 2004. he told carl rove what to do. [laughter] that was highly successful. [laughter] and he's also worked for arnold schwarzenegger for his campaign for governor and worked with business leaders connecting with the american community. steve mcmahon is a democratic strategist, and a cofounder of purple strategies in communications and public affairs firm. steve started in politics working for senator ted ken dpi

and -- kennedy and worked for several campaigns across the country including the campaigns of howard deen and barak obama. he emerged from a spectacular successful campaign working for marco rubio as ayers mentioned. todd has worked against matthew in the 2000 campaign in two different it rations. he worked for john mccain in the primaries and before that he worked for john casic early in the cycle, and it didn't last too long, but he's now the incoming governor in the state of ohio. whit there and kate zernike who

worked at the paper for ten years, the author of boiling mad, inside tea party america. she knows more about the tea party than anyone else on the platform. she was a member of the team that shared the pulitzer prize in explanatory reporting for stories about al-qaeda and the 9/11 attacks and covered scandals and the hurricane katrina. welcome all of you. let me start with the first question for matthew and it's reluctant cant to the -- relevant to the broader subject of the panel. math threw, -- matthew, i thought your key insight to president bush was the number of swing voters was small and the electorat had been polarized dramatically on both sides, and the reason the numbers didn't move up to the year was it was just a tiny

number of people who were capable of being purr sueded. -- persuaded. now, since that election, we've seen three different change elections where the independents have moved quite a bit, and i just wanted to get your updated take on the existence of the middle and how big it is in the current context. >> yeah, sure. thanks, john, it's great being here. actually, if anybody's acquainted with this thing, i'll give a quick history on it because it's been slightly misinterpreted. i think there is a big middle, but people are put in a position to have to make a choice between the two political parties, and when they do that, they line up and down the ballot. when they are in contention for a race, they make that decision up and down and vote all the way down to state rep, and why republicans did very well on

state rep races picking up nearly 700 seats because there was a republican wave and then people didn't like washington and voted republican up and down the ballot, but in 2004, i think that still takes place. this does not mean there is not a group of folks in the middle which is the majority of this country who are not pure ideological on either side, and that -- i remember this because i gave the memo that actually helped obviously move the stray ji for the campaign in 2004. there was two pages. the first page was there's a loss of the middle overtime and in 2004, there was a president who was polarizing to added to that and democrats hated him and republicans loved him and few people were in the middle of that. i put this together after 2000. because somebody says they are a republican, does not mean they

are socially conservative, for smaller government, and always want lower taxes. if you look at people who say that, that represents 25% of the country. people who say i'm a socially conservative, if you govern that way or the opposite way of that which is bigger government, higher taxes, socially liberal, you represent a minority share of the public. i think that going back to reflect on president bush, while it was successful in the campaign, he in the end got positioned in the place where he only represented a minority of the country in how he governed, and so we are still a country that people -- this could be a different panel whether or not we need another party in this system, that people have to make a choice, and in most national elections, most elections are nationalized, and when they are nationalized, people have a tendency to vote

not necessarily straight ticket, but they pretty much vote straight ticket in practice going down the ballot saying i don't like president obama and i vote for republicans. let's say practice with the major swings in the country and affect from top to the bottom. >> hey, i want to get you talking about the tea party and a lot of the argument over the interpretation of the election has been about what the tea party really is and what it represents, and i heard ed on the previous panel, and i agree with him, say that in the main, the tea party was a substantial asset for republicans in the campaign even though people focused on the tea party as a problem, but on the plane down here, i was reading a piece that a liberal historian wrote about the tea party, and he took some of the rhetoric and some of the strains of arguments that

prominent tea party figures have been using saying these are the heirs to the 50s and 60s, and the smart conservatives during that period of time recognized that the more exposure that group of conservatives got, the worse it would be for republicans and conservatives trying to keep them down, and the conclusion of the piece was the guardrails are off on that, and i guess what i want to know is do you think that the tea party is fundamentally and ideological force, and that's where the zeal comes from, or is it a group of people of whom are in the middle as matthew said who are upset, and moving in the same direction, but not motivated by the same things? >> i'd say in terms of being in the middle, that's a different question. poll after poll after poll in

what shows tea party tends to be republicans. there's talk early on that they were independents who voted for obama and they were upset now and that's not the case. they decided themselves as conservative and that's true. within the tea party i think there is a split that is going to be problematic moving forward because it starts out with people who were very ideological, most libertarian ron paul supporters or of that strain, but as the tea party swelled and the great proportion of it now are people who came to it with frustration and no ideology. the first segment, the ideological vent is they do believe in things like, you know, saving accounts and investment acts and not social

security. a lot of the older voters in particular who have come to the tea party don't share those goals. i think it's a question going forward and particularly talking about spending cuts, i don't know many of the people said that they were tea party supporters. i don't know that they would go along with the cuts that some of the more ideological tea partyers talked about. >> you mentioned you were on both sides of the wave on the campaign and working for senator hutchenson against rick perry, and she was rolled over by that tea party wave in the general, and you worked for marco rubio in the general. what is your assessment of the tea party, and how susceptible they will be towards working with president obama and democrats, the cut of people who would follow rather than punish republican leaders who made compromises and deals? >> well, there's no question in

texas, you know, the exact same wave that marco rubio road successfully -- rode successfully to the senate was the same one that crushed hutchenson in texas fueled largely out of anger over spending, earmarks, the bailout. i have a slightly counterintuitive take on the tea party and bipartisanship just to define counterintuitive in the world of critical panels, people who make something up. [laughter] i think that the establishment in washington views the tea party movement as almost like a doaberman pinchers, one you're glad to have around, but scared of. it would behoove the leadership

in washington to let some of that tension out of the tea party balloon, let some of that anger, let it vent out a little bit in the way that you do that is to give them some of what they want, and so that actually, that suggests some amount of bipartisanship in washington whether it's on spending or even some of the giant issues, you know, entitlement reform, marco rubio won in florida by 19 points, and he was one the only candidates anywhere in the country who said if you elect me, i'm going to support changing social security, and we need to talk about raising the retirement age, and we need to talk about means testing for benefits. all these things you're never supposed to mention, marco rubio talked about, and that's in florida of all places, and so in terms of what the tea party

means going forward for the republican party, i think that if our leadership, the republican leadership, doesn't do some things to give them some of what they want, and do it pretty quickly, that anger is only going to intensify, and it's going to spill over in the 2012 primary election, and we as republicans are going to end up with a nominee who has just absolutely no chance whatsoever of winning in november. >> just to understand where you're comeing from, when you say give them some of what they want, do you mean like in the early moves to organize the congress? are you talking about things down the line? for example, would it be smart to say, okay, you get the job in the leadership. >> no, no, i'm talking about real -- [laughter] you know, i don't think -- there's very few members of the tea party waking up every

morning mad as hell about what committee assignment michele bachmann gets, but they are mad as hell about spending and especially younger tea party members, they don't necessarily know what it is they just voted for, but i do think that we have a moment, a possibility now for some real bipartisanship in an environment where you never would have expected it because republican leadership, unless we want, you know, the dobberman to come after us in two years, we have to do something substantive to reduce the amount of tension. >> i'll come back to that, but steve, from a democratic perspective. the pursuit of bipartisanship and the health of the democratic party, inn sigh pelosi wants to remain a democratic leader. is that a good or bad thing? >> that's a great thing.

>> [laughter] >> fantastic. [laughter] it's a complicated thing. [laughter] it is, it is. [laughter] i think the fact is that the speaker has been, i think, the most effective speaker in maybe 100 years. she basically got everything the president wanted passed, passed, and she did it sometimes in an ugly way because she understood what it took to get members of the congress to take very, very difficult votes. now, obviously, in the recent elections, democratics didn't do so well, and there's a lot of people who will blame nancy pelosi. she was demonized by the republican party i think unfairly, and her numbers reflect that. does she deserve to be the leader? absolutely. should she be the leader? i think that question is a little more nuanced because her numbers are such that the singlism of leaving her there leaves problems for democrats. on the other hand -- >> when you heard she was

running again, were you disappointed? >> i was not surprised frankly because she's a very, very tough cooky, and she did a great job, and people who do a great job getting the work of the house of representatives done, deserves to be able to go out on their own terms, and i think that she's going to get reelected because she's strong. i think she's going to do an effective job of drawing distinctions between the democrats and republicans because that's what she does well. i understand why the republicans can say it's great when nancy pelosi has numbers that are not attractive, i'm just being honest here, creates a target for republicans, but i think she deserves to be reelected, and i'm happy with her as the leader in the house. >> let me ask you a leadership question about your party. one of the things of the issues discussed over the last 10 or 15 years about republicans was that they were -- the party and its spokes people

and leading figures were too weighted to the south which is the most conservative part of the country, so the fact that you now have a speaker from the state of ohio, is that a good thing in and of itself for republicans? >> can i say something about nancy pelosi first? [laughter] yes, it's a good thing. the upper midwest in particular was an enormous boost for republicans this last election, and having a speaker from the midwest, from the heartland, is a very good thing. no longer can people fairly paint the republican party as a regional or sectional party. it is quite clearly now a national party, and there this was a national victory for republicans. >> stan, you have been around when the president got whacked in the midterm. you talked about 1994. tell me about what you expect and what you think should happen

as to whether or not president obama needs to fundamentally change something either substantively or in terms of communications in the white house or as james told me talking before this panel, you know, maybe the best thing for obama is to sit tight for awhile and let republicans make the first move. >> uh-huh. well, first of all, having been there, you know, i know this has many acts that have not played out. the first reaction is a pain reaction. we know the meeting in the cabinet and the change there in which the president talked about all the people lost in the election and felt great pain and guilt for what happened. you know, but, you know, he took action for months that changed his presidency, and i have no doubt that president obama will, you know, learn from this and make, you know, important

moves. you know, the most important one is he signaled on the focus on the economy, and his every reaction has been on that since that. that's a very important change. the piece we expected most from him which was a narrative around what he was doing is not what happened in the process of governing. he clearly has to have a knavetive in showing -- narrative in showing people where we are going. that's a long process. he has two new things here, and the -- his instipght was to -- instinct was that transcend washington and when he ran he focused on the economy, but that wasn't his focus before that. he was focused on a different style of politics in washington. i think he will view this new moment of opportunity and bipartisanship. he will do -- i don't know what areas he'll

move on. i think he should move and not sit back. he should show he's ready to move in areas people will find surprising. >> will he involve people who work for him? one of the complaints that emerged and i don't know if it is valid or not, there's two people advising him. after 1994, you had dick morris, mike mccurry -- >> right. >> is that something that's important symbolically or factually? >> i don't want to speak to it, but you know, i'm sure, i mean, every president has a change at this point with this kind of election, there's changes. i don't know what, you know, what they will be, new chief of staff possibly, a whole range of thing. >> matthew is itching to say something. >> i think the president is in a different spot than bill clinton

was in 1994 and a problematic spot. bill clinton's ability to control his disney was -- destiny was in his hands because what brought him the failures wasn't a disastrous economy because the economy going into the reelection was rising and beginning to do very well, but he lost because the public thought he was off on the wrong track and mismanaged and he corrected miscommunications problems, brought in people, the health care thing he had done, and when he corrected them, the economy was on the rise, and he was rewarded for that. i think barak obama could make personnel choices and 72 speoses and say he's -- speeches and say he's doing all this stuff, but if the economy doesn't change, he won't get rewarded for a management change, and that's a much different place. >> alternatively if the economy does get better, does that mean all the critique about his

policy agenda saves -- >> well, that's the interesting thing. there wouldn't have been any tea party this year if the economy was doing well. >> he could have passed health care reform and he would have won midterm elections. it's totally his destiny which is interestingly like ronald reagan, but the huge differences between ronald reagan and barak obama is the ability for the president to improve the economy. his ability to change that dynamic of the economy is, i mean, it's like he's going to pray that the economy does better because if it doesn't, he's lost. >> right. >> if it doesn't, it doesn't matter. >> everything we say -- there's a now set of rules in the game. >> do you agree with what matthew said?

you know, if the economy is in slightly better shape or the unemployment rate went down and the momentum from the spring hadn't faded, the context is set by what matthew said. do you agree with that in >> i think it explains a 30 seat loss in the house. it can't explain a 60-plus seat loss in the house, and the additional power comes from the actions taken by the democratic leadership in washington. it was a stimulus that people think did not work. it was a $1.3 trillion deficit. it was an auto bailout. >> a 30 seat loss is baked into every first midterm. >> not every one. it was not in 2002. >> right, but it's consistent? >> you could explain half of the democratic loss with the

economy. you can't explain a wipeout like that. >> i think it's important for people when they look back at the direction to understand that this election was about big things. you know, a lot of elections are about very small things. this election was about really, really big ideas, big decisions, you know, whit can tell you when we did polling in florida, the swingiest of all the swing states, and we asked people what they thought this election was about and asked focus groups, and they really felt this vote was about fundamentally changing the direction of our entire nation, and so if that's what is fueling -- >> isn't that another way to say what matthew just said? >> yeah, yeah, i agree with matthew. >> whether my kids are better off than i am. >> exactly. i agree with matthew. if you're looking for specific

course corrections to make, you know, we all remember after 1994, suddenly you talked about school uniforms and things like that or staffing changes at the white house, that's all window dressing for in terms of what the election was about, and therefore what the results moving forward are going to be. >> i just have to dissend the president here. these guys talk about these were choices the president made rather than things thrust upon him. i never once heard him say when i'm president, i'm going to take over the united states auto industry. when i'm president, i want to bailout wall street and the banks. he didn't do any of that because he wanted to. i'm going to pass this stimulus package because the world financial system is about to collapse. he didn't say those things

because they were not things he chose to do, but he had to do. >> excuse me were one second -- [applause] >> i understand that there are people whose lives, that they are struggling, they don't have jobs, and i understand there's people out there who felt the stimulus package was not eivelgive as it -- effective as it should have been, and i think president obama would say that and i know people feel the government is too involved and spending too much money. these are choices he made. the one choice he made was health care reform that he promised during the campaign and did. i would argue he spent too much time on it and could have done it differently and would have been better off, but they got it done. the only choice that he made, everything else was something that your party left on his desk. >> the other thing -- [applause] the other thing that president

obama never said once during the 2008 election is if you elect med, i'm going to turn over control of all of my signature issues to nancy pelosi and harry reed and let them write and get them up with democratic spending plan that they wanted to get done. i'm baffled. i've always been baffled why it is that the spouse seated control of the signature issues to people who didn't understand the reasons why the president got elected in the first place. >> i'm going -- >> i want to step back and ask the big question. i think in fact that's not what happened, and i think when you talk to people at the white house when they passed the stimulus bill, is that the stimulus bill you wanted? they said yes, we want that

bill. it didn't help them, but they got a bill. on health care, i think what they did is say i wanted a cheap health care reform, and i think the best strategy for doing it is to set out a certain set of principles and let them get them done, and i say on the evidence of being the only person who got it done in 70 years, it was a successful strategy, but i want to back up a little bit and refer to a group i had at my house, republican and democratic, they worked for members of the house and senate before the election, and everybody knew at that point it was going to be a big election for republicans. i asked them what they thought was possible to get done in the next two years, and the answer was, please, nothing. we're going to fight for two years. we'll pass, you know, we'll do appropriations bills, and it's just going to be basically an

extension of the 2010 campaign run in to 2012, and there's no other way around it. i want to start with steve and whit and see if you agree that's in fact what's in prospect. >> i think it's going to be interesting because i think the republicans now have an obligation and a responsibility to try to get something done. >> matthew? >> what? [laughter] i have had more criticism over the last five years. >> i do think it's going to be interesting because if the tea party folks have a decision to say no and mitch mcconnell has been rewarded for saying no for two years, and when the tea party is asked to raise the debt ceiling, i think they're all going to say no, and i don't see a reason why they would compromise and say yes. this notion they're coming to town and scheduling votes to release the pressure and they can take a stand on things i

think is just wishful thinking on our part. >> you agree with the proposition next to nothing gets done in two years? >> i absolutely agree. >> do you agree? >> it's a matter of the odds, that's the most likely outcome, but i also think these independents we talked about in the last panel expect something to happen. they expect some kind of action to address the problems facing this country particularly on the economy, taxes, and deficits. now, you'll see in our survey that the republican voters are more adamant than the democrats to stick to core principles, but the good news ed mentioned is they are closer to core republican voters than democrat voter 6789 i think the independents are going to demand something happen, and they are the ones -- >> here's -- i want to ask kate -- >> the problem we have which is why i think this meeting and meets like this are or not is

because if you turned it over to the 120 million americans and say what do you want? they say we need to get stuff done because it's in the interest of the country. the question you have from the administrative standpoint and democratic leadership and republican leadership's stand point is are they going to pay attention to a small minority ideological who represent tea party people, but not frustrated voters, are they going to pay attention to those and do nothing on both sides, or are they basically going to say no, the mass of the country helps our own reelection in 2012, both president obama and the republican leadership in congress would help them if they appeal to the voters, do they have the capability of listening to many voices unheard in the cable channels and in the halls of congress. that, i think, is the problem. the vast majority of independents want something done, but they don't have the phone to talk in the ear of a

boehner and the folks in congress have all the time. it's the loudest most minor voices in the republican party. >> kate, i want you to talk about this. if, in fact, and i accept there's attention in obama's platform between the substantive agenda in the campaign that he pursued, and the motion he was going to change the way washington works. as ed said, he sidetracked the latter to achieved former because he thought it was more important, i think. is there an equivalent tension with the tea party of getting stuff done, work together, stop fighting, and stand up for what you believe in, cut the hell of the government, and -- >> absolutely. >> how does that get resolved? >> it's an ideological divide and people who came in with incredible frustration. the tea party is not a party, it's a state of mind at this point. it's hard to define of the there's no particular agenda

they were elected to act on. >> as you said, it's not only not a party, it's within the republican party. >> absolutely, but aims, i think -- but also, it's true that tea party candidates came in with, you know, having said we're going to say no, but i don't think that's what tea party voters are saying. i don't think they want gridlock. some do, and again, some tend to be ideological or so fed up with washington that nothing can happen. >> rand paul and sharon angle got votes from people who don't actually agree with what they would do. when rand paul is not extending the debt limit, do you think people voted for him who don't want that to happen just move forward? >> i think people voted for candidates like rand paul because they were frustrated with washington and wanted something to change, but kentucky is a republican state. that was not a change for kentucky, but i don't think tea party voters are necessarily saying we want you to go to washington and have gridlock.

i think there's regional differences of the tea party. when i went to kentucky with rand paul, audiences were cheering gridlock, gridlock. they were excited about that idea. you don't hear the same thing in philadelphia where the tea party also had victories. they are people who say, you know, we're tired. we don't like the process of health care, the special deals of health care. they want -- again, they want to reform washington. you know, it's interesting. i wrote a piece last week of people interviewed in the same spot in nevada, and one said i want gridlock. another guy brought up a commissioner from years ago and said why can't democrats and republicans come together, doing something for the good of the country. why can't we have more of that? we're in the exact same spot with no regional differences.

i think within the tea party there's difference, and i don't think the tea party voters want gridlock. >> this is incredibly difficult to do indicated by this poll. by two to one the republicans and work of the president want to get stuff done, but two-thirds of republicans say president obama is trying to do ire revoke harm to the country and another is in the intensity of their views. it's going to be difficult to work with. on the other hand, i think that they, i think the president will force them to address these issues because i think he will see this opportunity. i think -- i wouldn't rule out on something like energy. it may in fact be good policy, but nonetheless, there's a set of policies on energy that

virtually everybody supports. there will be moments with republicans and democrats need to pass something to show they can act for the country's interest. i think energy is one that is the most likely to figure out something on the tax thing and there's a deal with it going forward. .. >> probably going to pass in the house. all of these things are going to be able to cast the votes to say this is what we did.

there's enough adults that are going to prevent some of it from happening. they get a free pass. >> is that the right way to think of it. that you have the mainstream republican leaders, and tell me if they think of themselves as the adults and they are managing the unruly children and the kind of hair that the might riot and wreck the car. that's the dynamic we are dealing with. [laughter] >> it's a parental thing there. >> i've got a lot more respect for voters than a lot of people do. i think the tea party movement, we've done a lot of focus groups with them, are fundamentally, economically pressed middle-class people who feel scared and frustrated. it's painful doing these focus groups. i've had people break down in

tears. i just loss my job with the company i've been in 35 years, my husband thinks he'll lose his job. we're in our 50s. truly the people in washington, republican and democrat are just not listening to them. that they are giving their money -- [applause] >> that they are giving their money to bailout wall street and they don't care about them. this is a cry of frustration. they are not children. they are not blind to the choices being faced. but they are saying we don't want the country to keep spending like we are spending and mortgages our kids' future. they have to stop that and figure out how to help the middle class that feels economically depressed. that's the message of the tea party. [applause] >> well, in that frustration, would the voters and the

politicians that represent them have an incentive to welcome a government shutdown, a defeat of the debt limit as a sign that god dammit, something is going to be different. >> no, they don't. they want government to work effectively to address the problems that they feel are pressing them. they are not into symbolic shutdowns of the government. >> real quick point on that. if you look at -- you know, there's so much written out about marco rubio. but it's important to listen to what marco says. in his victory night speech, he said, i'm paraphrasing here, it would be a mistake to embrace as the republican party. it is not. it is at best a second chance for the republican party to do the things that we said we were

going to do originally. and so, you know, i think that there are leaders like him, i'm bias obviously, there are people like marco who can put a foot in each camp. he has absolute credibility on the tea party side, and he has creditability on the leadership side. he's willing to say, the republican party, we deserved to get thrown out of office. we are not being put back into power because suddenly people are in love with us. >> speaking of that, foot in both camps, a week before the election, i interviewed jeb bush in miami. he sort of struck a similar profile. he said base clay that a, center of my country. they don't like the way that obama is going. they want to change the direction. b, they want people to stop fighting and get stuff done. he said the way to think about it you figure out a set of

things to do together. do them. save your big fights for later. if they are not able to do that, i think you could be looking at the dismemberment of the two parties. do you agree with that? do you think it's actually a possibility? it's the kind of things we think about all the time, and it never happens. >> at least on the republican side, there's enough anger with the grassroots of our party, i don't think it would be something that would happen in the next two years. but it could marginalize the republican party and slowly suffocate it. people will just stop turning out and voting. which was the point i was making earlier, it's in our leadership, the republican party's leadership best interest to get some things done in a bipartisan fashion. even if it means giving the president a win and we get a win. we got to do something that take some of the air out of it. >> matthew, do you think party

crack up is a clear and present prospect? >> well, it's remarkable how low the esteem is in both parties. we asked the third party. beginning to explore that question. it's a little indetermined. i think the country -- i think the third party ross perot-type candidate would run very well. >> like bloomberg? >> possible. bloomberg is not the profile of the candidate that i would pick to make the most out of the frustration. it ought to be more of a -- bob perot is more of a republican party in terms of asset. there's a lot of space for third party voting. >> you know, the best thing possible for our system would be the emergence of a new party. the history of our country, we've had two political parties. one party, we've gone through similar, not exactly similar things. one party changes and adapts. the democratic party today is

not what the democratic party py --ed democrat and republican parties were not with the democrat and republican parties were 60 or 70 years ago. or 80 years ago. very different parties. that i think -- i think that could easily happen. i think our structure of our system to allow a third party to con pete with the two parties is probably less likely. the ability of one party to remake itself where they are now sort of reflective of where the majority of country is is definitely a possibly. i think we would benefit from that. i think it contingent on what happens in 2012. if barack obama's numbers continue to deteriorate, and the republicans nominate a sharon angle, it makes the window -- i'm not saying any former alaska governor's names -- if that happens. not a bloomberg. i think if bloomberg wanted to, in my view, have a third party,

take $500 million, create a platform and institution and have somebody else nominate him. i don't think he fits. i can't see him winning missouri, he has so many things he's done in alaska. alaska. sorry. [laughter] >> so many things he's done in new york that don't fit a majority of the country. >> matthew, do you think it's more likely than not that obama gets reelected? >> that's a very interested -- there's so many factors in that. i think it's going to be -- i said this earlier in front of a group of people. in barack obama -- if the economy creates 150,000 in the next two years, he loses. i think stan or somebody alluded to this, are we are in a fundamentally different place that this is not going to allow him to readjust himself in a

fundamentally different place than it has. >> we are deleveraging. i agree with whit. i trust 300 million americans much more than i trust 300 million people in washington to make decisions in their best interest. the 300 million people in washington don't really follow what the majority of voters want. we have lost -- the public has lost faith in trust and every major institution at the same time. the federal government, the financial institutions, the media, the two political parties, churches, sports institutions. all at once. >> cowboys. [laughter] >> and that i think is a problem. that creates not only economically, great anxiety. how are we going to bind ourself together? we have had two presidents this a row that got elected on the same message. we are going to bring people

together to share the common interest. both presidents said you are not going to have to go through pain. we are not going to go through pain. nobody has to pay the bill. president bush and president obama got elected on the same platform and did diverted from that in almost the exact same way, ideology differently, but the same way. >> real quick to your question. i think it would be a mistake to narrow discussion about a possible third party as specifically to the realm of running for president. because i think what you could see is, you know, 50 individual little laboratories and just, you know, if you want to fund intellectual exercise, think about what could have happened if meg whitman in california had run actually as an independent and hasn't had to go through the republican primary process where she was -- she then became a republican and had to move to the right of steve foysner. meg is not a perfect candidate.

once she did that, it was hard for her to get back. if someone like whitman, especially in the blue states, the republican brands, you know, on the west coast is tarnished. it was the one place that this red tie that, you know, it never hit out there. >> over 50% in california. >> someone like a meg whitman out west running for governor, i think there could be real possibilities. >> we should not drop matt's point. matt's -- he couldn't say the probability of obama being re-elected. if we are a more vibrant country than that. i think we are. but if you think our gross is 4%, which is not great postrecession, 4%, right now we are creating 150,000 at 2%.

if you are talking about 34% and a slow drop of unemployment, i would think the president does have a better and even chance of getting re-elected. and the mood dramatically. but we are close to an argument that this is premised on what do you think america's future is? this last election was the big issues. these are big issues. >> i want to invite all of you guys who work in politics to take shots at me and kate. and i'll let kate defend us. if necessary. the question -- >> no, i can't imagine it would be. >> the question is if you look at the array of forces that you saw play out in the election and then what we have in washington when we come around to january, do you see the -- those of us in the media, newspapers, television, radio, as an independent obstacle to

achieving results for the american people, pragmatic solutions to the countries problems, or are we simply just describing the aspects of the problem that exists in the political system. steve? >> it seems to me that the internet has changed so much. one the things that has changed most profoundly is the way people get their information. it wasn't that long ago that there were four or five major newspapers in the country. and they were all newspapers that treated everything right down the middle. people got up and read the papers and local papers. >> still does that by the way. >> i know. i understand that. but you can see what's happening online. and you had three networks, abc, cbs, and nbc. you watch the evening news was balanced. >> abc still does that. >> so does nbc.

[laughter] >> the viewership is 1/3 of. people are getting news from places and sources that they agree with and that align with their point of view. so if you are a republican, you get a lot of your news from the fox news. if you are a dramatic, nbc. if you are a young person, you think jon stewart is an evening newscast. i'm serious. we have done focus groups with kids and we ask them where they get their news. they don't read newspapers. they do to sites that sort of align with their point of view. so it's not that you are doing a bad job. it's just that the mainstream middle of the road, cover both sides, don't have a point of view is becoming less and less relevant. >> whit? >> without passing judgment on whether "the new york times" and the major networks play things right down the middle, which i

quibble with, i basically agree with steve. marco rubio built up a 2-1 lead over a popular incumbent governor in his own party in florida without running a single paid television ad. without running a single ad. it was a stunning example of the proliferation of information sources and the ability to communication to large numbers of voters without doing the traditional things that we think move numbers. and it goes to steve's point. that you had all of the republicans and activist and marco created the national movement, certainly national fund raising, all without running a single tv ad. >> stan, rean independent problem? >> no, it's important to the internal republican party. i'm sorry. >> are we an independent obstacle to bipartisan progress. if so, big one or small one?

>> media. cable driven aligned is for sure. i'm not making a judgment about the major newspapers. and major, you know, network news and cnn, but the cable process is i don't want to say obstacle. it's a fact. that's how people with getting the information. that's how you have to operate. i wouldn't rule out the fact that major stories that are in print journalist impact the way issues and stories, you know, play out. you know, you can't have afghanistan, i don't think, without -- there are major issues in which the media play a big part on how the public looks at it and also how the partisan aligned media. >> i've seen you on cable tv. how do you plead? >> plead? balanced? >> i was thinking guilty or not guilty. >> what i worry about is what you are saying is correct. that people are so hungry for

something that's not either side. i written the book that very consciously tried to come up through the middle and look at the tea -- the publish cast and i made a conscious decision there was a lot of polemic out there. i'm a columnist. i couldn't write a polemic. so there was merit in saying we're going to take an objective as possible look. certainly conservatives think i'm not objective, liberals think i'm too objective. you can't win on that score. i think we produced a pretty good balanced effect. i worry that people aren't that interested in it. they want something -- >> setting the tea party aside. do you think it's bad? >> do i think it's bad? no. reveal your real under line. >> no, so i worry. you know, i think, look, the fact is -- i think stan's points about afghanistan goes to this this.

there's a certain amount of content. people want to go to the respective corners. >> what is equally worrisome to me, taking aside -- taking off my republican hat and my political consultant hat and putting my american hat on. the total's estimation of state press corpses in state capitols across the country is very alarming for the country. because -- [applause] >> -- people on both sides are not getting vetted the way they used to be. stories that used to be no brainers that would be written ten years ago are not being written anymore. that's not good for our democracy. >> we're going to go to q and a in a second. one question before the panel. that strikes me as not totally ridiculous and implausible. it's a description of what might be a path to achieving some of the things that we've talked

about that would be good for president obama and for the tea party and what actually achieved progress. assume that the big systemic legislative programs are -- they are not happening in the next two years. but it seems to me possible that that is not what obama was going to make the next two years about anyway. it might not be in his interest. instead, if you take -- obama had long talked about a turn towards deficit reduction after you get out of the first two years. he's got the deficit commission. they are not going to have a big systemic deal on the long-term deficit either. why couldn't you have a president who makes legislative compromise with the president on energy, not cap-and-trade, but some energy stuff. some trade, move some trade agreements forward. you then have the president and

republicans go about spending cuts and governmental perform in ways that are not big dollar wise but are symbolic and might have the capacity to raise confidence in the american people that they are looking at where their dollars are going. and being smarter about it. why is that not a recipe for calm down politics for the next say 12 months or so, and some actual headway that make people feel better. is it? >> i think it's a possible scenario. i think most the folks who are identified as independents there would welcome that outcome. i don't think it's likely. but i think it's possible. >> i think it's in a political interest of the press -- to free up the country's -- california isn't the country. it is in the political interest, i believe of the president, to move on this. to do it. to take the heat, the partisan heat out of it. this ideological, intense, you know, this hot house is not good

for his politics. i think he needs to let the steam out. >> i completely agree. that's the point that i was making before. i think it's in the republican and establishment of the republican parties best interest to let some of that tension out of the tea party movement or else in two years, it's not going to be good. >> kate? >> well, i think what stan said. >> reasonable? basically the next 12 months would be about modest spending reductions that nevertheless make like people hear it and see it and feel better about it. >> i think that's what people want. what's interest me is what stan was talking about in the previous panel. are the republicans going to make the same mistakes on health care that obama did. are they going to keep putting the up or down vote, repeal and replace. where do you stand on health care? make that their issue. >> i don't think any -- i don't

think he will benefit from any legislative victories at all as a president. i think the thing that he needs to do is figure out the best way to restore faith and confidence in our economic system and what's the path forward in that system and how to do that bipartisanwise? >> spending cuts the way to do that? >> spending cuts. not like $10 billion here, $12 billion here. it's a much bigger deal. if you want to send the signal. he, i think, from the political stand point and the future of the country, the best thing that could happen, he called up speaker-elect boehner, we are going to put all of the stuff aside. the economy is in shambles. we're going to have to tell people why the promise land is and tell people how to get there. boehner may say have good luck with that. have a good time. his political interest is whether people have confidence in our economic system and business as it is to invest in

that system. if they don't feel that confident, we can do all sorts of legislative things. he's dead. >> right. so trade progress. symbolic cuts. that won't do it. >> he has to go to 10,000 feet and convince the american public that he is is a person that believes in our economic system, and that we can have some confidence in it. so businesses start to invest and small businesses feel like they have a hand and partner in washington, not an enemy. >> steve, do you agree with matt? >> it's rhetorical and sort of communicating a vision rather than doing little things with congress. >> totally with matthew. one the things that was so attractive about barack obama the candidate, what we can do and be and become again. i think there are a lot of people out there, particularly the people who are scared and feeling the economic pressure

that want somebody to stand up and say we can do this. here's how we are going to do it. i think if you can stand with some republicans and do it together, that'd be better. i think there's some symbolism in making some spending cuts and doing some things to kind of restore people's confidence that he heard them in the last election. but in the main, what he needs to do is do up here and say here's where we can go together. yes, we can. here's how we're going to do it. he hasn't been able to do that. >> don't let the kumbya get out of hand. there's two issues. one the question of growth. growth is not just narrative and rhetoric. democrats have a point of view. they want to do investments, infrastructure, they want to do things. there was a real -- there's a real -- ultimately, because he won't be able to pass any of that stuff. when they come to the election, that issue is going to be there.

they are also going to get to the tax increases, there's a big question which will be put off to the election. do wealthy people pay for the deficit reduction? are they part of the pain. that's going to be a big choice in the election. this is all fine in terms of getting there in the right way. just as in, you know, 96 with bill clinton. you have a big battle over the welfare, spending, there was ultimately a big battle over the big choice. going to get to a big battle. >> the policy of the president, so far, in my opinion has not been wrapped in the aspirational narrative that he was so good as in the campaign. what you need is to get his mojo back. to be able to get that back and say all of the policies that the democratics are promoting, and all of the places that we can meet republicans in the middle are a path to get us to a better place. here's what that's going to mean for you in ohio, michigan, and

one the swing states i need to get re-elected. the largest narrative is missing. >> he saw what people saw as a leader of the country to a leader of the party. people elected a leader of the country. when head transition was made, and people perceived his decisions -- his decisions they were making. whether they were the right ones or wrong ones, he lost that. >> republicans said he won't get one vote. >> he never really asked. you know that. >> if you have a question, we have a little bit of time. and with have a microphone. [laughter] >> wow. >> and if you have a speech, we'd be delighted to hear. >> actually the american public did repudiate some of the tea party. sharon angle, joe miller, comic relief on the east coast and

california, although some did give in. now you've got the cats that are running around. it's going to be up to the republican leadership to heard them. isn't it in the best interest of the republican party to maintain the gridlock with the biggest prize being to defeat obama? >> let's not do that. [laughter] >> i mean again that was the point that i was making before was while the tea party -- the tea party is fueled by failure in washington. and so the more -- the greater the perception of failure in washington, the more gas that you put in the tea party tank, the danger and so, you know, on the surface, if you are a republican, that's great. the danger, however, is having that tea party wave actually then come crashing down on every

establishment republican. orrin hatch in europe. just a few years ago, the notion would have been absurd. lindsey graham in south carolina. there are going to be -- they are always going to be the element. the better element on the right that are just angry. but what really fueled the tea party movement and gave it energy was all of the people who were just -- they are not the idealogues, not the partisans. they were just angry. those people need to be spoken to and their issues and concerns need to be addressed or they are going to be angrier in two years. >> okay. guying, we have only a few minutes. i'm going to try to limit to one wise respondent. we will move it around. >> you touched on this a little bit. social security and government shutdown, do you think there's a

disconnect that i'm for gridlock or social security reform or what the specifics of that moon. obama with health care, i want health care reform. is there a disconnect between i want health care reform and health care reform means increased -- you know, could mean increased spending? something like that? >> yeah, there's a disconnect. part of what happened with president obama and health care if 80% of the people who were voting and wanted health care reform had health insurance. what they wanted, the public state, they wanted lower health care premiums, lower cost, and expanded access. they got higher premiums, increased cost, and there's still a question about what access is able. it's probably been expanded. they wanted health care reform. people know we need social security reform. if you gave truth serum to all of the republicans and democrats

at the conference, they could come up with a solution fairly quickly of what we need to do if you gave them truth serum. because everybody knows we have a problem with that. but -- and the country knows. it's bankrupt. there's people here from tulane. they don't think they will get social security. my kids, 25, 24, 21, they don't think we will have it. we are paying for a system that's never going to benefit them. there is a disconnect. but it exists because leaders of both political parties many times aren't willing to communicate the hard truth about what the situation is and how we solve it. and that's -- that is fundamentally the problem. the public is pretty smart. if they are given the right facts that and they are told the truth. but on social security reform, they have not been told the truth by either political party. >> amen. next question. >> couple of quick questions. for todd in records to pelosi

saying, how do you respond to the argument though she's unpopular, what she did was the right thing to do? >> well, from a political polit? >> that's not his department. >> from a political consultant, they can make that argument for the next two years. i know a lot of direct mail vendors that are thrilled to take the exact same mail pieces that they mailed out, change the 10 to the 12 and mail out the same one again. >> fair enough. as a political matter, yes. what about her point on the justice of the thing. put yourself in the position of if it were a republican leader who had done what his party wanted to do and achieved it, but was demonized and like how do you respond to the justice argument? >> they are two separate questions. you know, the political rather of it is very different from whether she deserves to be made minority leader. >> but address that party. the deserves party. >> earlier, if she says as

minority leader. >> honestly, like, i don't care. it's not my cocktail. >> yes. >> and kate, how did kristin o'donnell get 40% in delaware. how did that happen? >> well, i think people are always saying the tea party is astroturf. it's not grassroots, made up in washington. she was the ultimate it was a grassroots movement. the groups in washington didn't want kristen o'donnell to win. it was people in delaware who believed, hope against hope, they could win the two southern counties. that was enough for her to win the primary. she did. there's certain republican votes who are always going to be vote republican. but the reality is my cast -- the numbers absolutely switched. so. >> sir. >> conspicuous with his absence has the christian right and

their agenda. i guess my question is did these folks get rolled over by the tea party? did they willingly sign up? and considering the very different priorities that these two groups bring in social issues and economic issues, there's a potential for the subplot playing itself out over the next couple of years as these two groups begin to struggle for control within the republican party. >> whit, we haven't heard much from the christian coalition for a long time. >> the religious right is alive and well. what happened this election cycle is the economy washed out everything else. so the concern about jobs, and economic growth, and the related governmental budget deficits and taxes and spending drove every other issue under ground. >> my questions about marco rubio and the republican party, he's thought of the obama the

republican thought about being a minority candidate. he is an english only. he is pro immigration controls and stuff like that. if he doesn't run on one the big concerns, like the latino community, is that all for show that he happens to be latino or is there a breakthrough because he's latino. >> marco rubio shows how you can run as a conservative republican and how they can win latino votes. >> for the record, marco does not support glib -- glib -- english only. he does support making it the official language, but not english only policies.

on the previous panel, 56% of the latino vote in florida. we did very well not only with the cuban vote, but the noncuban, hispanic vote. if you look at data in florida, the issue that is were most important to latino voters were the exact same issues that were most important to white voters and every other voter segment. he was able to tap into that. >> sadly, we only have time for one more questions. that's youred. >> sort of two questions. one is weak. the first is it proper etiquette at a panel discussion like this to clap after a panelist says something that you agree with? i've been noticing that happen a lot. >> yeah, sure. >> it is. all right. >> yeah. >> and the second question is, like, it's been mentioned there's been tea-party like

groups in the past. how do they end? is that end result likely for the tea party and their leaders leadership? >> i think -- >> go ahead. i'm sorry. >> i'll cut in. yes, absolutely there has been other groups. i compare to the goldwater movement. you saw the libertarian of goldwater and the christian supporters. and the reagan revolution. they tend to support other sources. >> the movement that put barack obama in office was a minority anti-war movement that started off with a -- people with voices that they say they thought were way out. they respected a large part of the population. they swept bush. the tea party because it's been branded tea party. nos -- it's not a party. it's a movement that people speak for.

in similar ways because of all of the anti-bush and anti-iraq, they don't always speak for the minority, but represent the frustrations and anger. >> all right. in response to your question, it is appropriate at this time to clap. [applause] [applause] >> thank you all again for coming. this concludes or morning sessions. we are going to take a brief break for lunch. a limited number of box lunches out to the ballroom. please don't go too far. we will pick up at 1 for our afternoon panels. we will see you shortly. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> tomorrow morning, a ground breaking ceremony for the new george w. bush presidential center, speakers include president bush, his wife laura bush, dick cheney, and condoleezza rice. it will include a museum and policy institute. live coverage from dallas begins at 11:30 earn. -- eastern. and later, air cargo around the world. that's at 3:15 eastern.

>> next former congressman vick fazio and bob walker talked about the minority party. they discussed the options that minorities have to push the agenda forward. mr. fazio is a former democrat from california, mr. walker represented pennsylvania. from the wilson center, this is about two hours. >> director of the congress project here and your moderator today. those of you who are new, let me tell you about what we do. the wilson center was created by an act of congress. to this day, he remains the only president to hold a phd. he was a president of the american science association in 1909, 1910, while he was

president of harvard and ran for governor of new jersey and president in 1912 and served two terms. wilson thought that scholar and politician thought both would benefit from coming together and exchanging ideas on important issues of the day. it's in that spirit that congress created a living memorial, rather than another marble statue down in the mall. in that spirit, we have about 800 meetings a year in these walls. we are just one smart part of that as is the congress project, which i head up. we bring in a member of the congress, a scholar that writes about congress, and politics and the hill. we mix it up on the policy issue or subject matter and how that's working out behind the scenes. trying to enlighten the public on how the process works. that's what the congress project is about. we are indebted or grateful to chevron corporation for a grant

that has helped with this series. we are now in the midst of a two-year series on the theme of public policy, the media, and public opinion. and so we are grateful to them for that. before we proceed, let me ask that if you do have any electric devices can be please turn them off. we are broadcasts on c-span and web cast. they tend to interfere. we appreciate if you would turn those off. a couple of introductory notes from the audience. first of all, the head of the american political science foundation congressional program, jeff biggs. he's in the back there. he's brought with him about 39 or so fellows for this year. please raise your hands if you are part of that class. well, you are helping to fill the room. thank you. [laughter] >> it might point out these are not just political scientists

that study congress. these are from all over the world, some are practitioners, some are teaching medicine, and we have people from a variety of sector that is are part of that program, including a few people from the executive branch, as i understand it. all of them, after this orientation period, this is, i think, about the third week of their orientation. they started the day after midterms. they will then be placed this congressional offices and be working with members of congress. jeff, do you want to add anything on that? >> i want to say we are very much in your debt. it is always a pleasure coming here. and we always leave better informed than when we arrived. you have become a part of the orientation of the fellowship. >> thank you very much. we appreciate that. we are always glad to have you here. as you know, today's program is on the topic of the role of minority parties in congress. at the time that this was

original planned several months ago, we didn't know what the outcome of the 2010 midterm elections. we heard rumors one or both houses might flip. the house has just changed control after the democrats were back in control for four years. we have a new minority, which was an old minority. the democrats are back in the minority. the senate the republicans did pick up some seats. but they continue to be the minority in that body. so i think that we have a new dynamic, working with the democratic president. we'll see how that will unfold. but as you may recall doing the last half of the 20th century, the democrats controlled the house from 40 don don -- 40 consecutive years. they took control and returned for the next 12 years. the democrats returned to power with the 2006 election.

political scientists and repun didn'ts and reporters tend to focus on the parties for the same reason that willie robbed the banks. it's where the money was. i'm not saying congress is where the money is. although there's a lot of money they contribute. for students of congress, it's where the power is. the minority is where the power is. the minority is given short shrift in a lot of these studies. yet we over look minority parties for they are often weather vain for shifting opinion. sometimes they have a winner of new majority. plus importantly additional check that wasn't contemplated on the checks and balances. finally, they are an incubator on new ideas. the majorities that we are studying as well. my mentor at the university of iowa when i was in grad school

over saw my thesis approached me after i'd been on the hill for ten years. don, i want to do some more -- some studying of the minority party. because we really have over looked that. at the time, i worked for the republican chairman, john anderson. i think they were beginning to get the idea there's something there that was worth exploring. matthew green today is another example of that. we'll talk about that in a little bit. the legislative political parties really began to appear even before the constitution was ratified. if you thinking the federalist and anti-federalist, it was two parties in incubation. even though george washington ran for two terms without any opposition, the jeffersonian-republicans soon emerged. one the things i like to point out within jefferson was the vice president to john adams from 1797 to 1800. he realized there would be a lot

of problems arising, and there hadn't been when adams of the vice president of the senate and not been sufficient keeping of precedents, any consistent rulings. what he did was to compile a manual of legislative practice, or parliamentary practice for the use of the u.s. senate. he expressed the hope the house would use it too. it was later incorporated in the house rules and part of the senate rules and precedents. so he did have a lot of precedent on that. maybe if i'm urged to later on, i would recite a poem. i will spare you that for now. his introduction to the manual of the parliamentary practice. jefferson observed it's always within a power of the majority by their numbers to keep or stop any improper measures by the proponents. but the only weapons by which the majority can defend themselves are the forms and rules of proceeding which are adopted to become the law of the house. he continued only by adherence

to the rules. can the weaker party be protected? which the one in power is too often to suggest to large and successful majorities. so we begin to understand right from the beginning that the role of the rules is not only to allow the majorities to work their rule, but also to protect majorities and their right to participant in the process. and perhaps as i mentioned earlier, not coincidentally, jefferson found himself as a nominee in the minority party in 1800, which had asserted his rights in the congress leading up to that over such things as the neutrality proclamation, the jay treaty, and the alien acts. we already saw the parties at odds over issues early on. if you fast forward about a century from when the first congress met in 1789, you go to 1889, 1890, we saw a new type of

party governance emerging. that was with the speakership of thomas bracket reed who began with an election contest. he decided to use that as a way to set some new rules and precedent for the house. we began to over rule some the motions to obstruct the way things were being done. as chairman of the rules committee, reed went and asked his committee to put these in the standing rules and have the host adopt those. these rules allowed the house to come into the modern time as we know it, the modern speakership, the modern party system, as a way to expedite the majority's legislative agenda. but all through this, there remained in the rules, up until this day, very important safeguards for the minority. we're going to hear a little bit about that as we hear from our expert panelist as we proceed. i think that's been engrained

from the beginning as party of the american way. yes, but with minority rights. we're going to hear, i think, a the bit more about the importance of minority rights, the roles of minorities, the various roles of minorities, as they try to struggle for majority power. we also have with us today, i wanted to mention, because i was just going to quote robert mensies. we have a couple of senators from the australian parliament. raise your hands. okay. not here yet. i think robert was about 16 years in the minority in australia. he said being in the minority is not wondering in the wilderness, look at what you did wrong when you were in the majority and chart a way for the party as to serve as opposition to the governing party. he saw it as an opportunity, not just an impediment.

we are very fortunate to have the two members who did distinguish themselves in the house of representatives and with their representative parties. both in the majority and the minority. i think we are very fortunate to have that perspective. i'm sure they will agree with the off quoted phrase of anybody who's been in the majority and minority, being in the minority was okay. it's a lot more fun being in the majority. bob walker who is now the executive chairman of the wexter -walker, from 1977 to 1997 as the 16th congressional district of pennsylvania. 18 of those 20 years were in the minority. he is credited as forming the republican majority that emerged by the leadership of the conservative opportunities society. a group of back ventures who began to challenge the house majority in a variety of ways. c-span came along about the same

time. that had a lot to do with their strategy. he'll probably talk a little bit about that. when he was -- in the he was in the minority. he was deputy whip, who was the minority whip. then when the republicans game into the majority, he chaired the leadership committee under speaker gingrich. he also managed at the same time to chair the house science committee in all of his party activities. after congressman walker, we'll here from victor fazio, who's a senior advisor. he's likewise, a 20-year veteran of the house 1979 to 1999, as a democratic representative of the third congressional district of california. while in majority, he served on the campaign committee for two terms. he served in the minority a democratic caucus and on the legislative branch appropriations. third we're going to hear from

the guest scholar, matthew green at the matthew university and an associate fellow of the institute of politics, is it political research and catholic studies. >> policy research. okay. i have a typo. he's the author "the speaker of the house" published by the press this year, i believe. >> uh-huh. >> she's currently working on a massive project. -- he's currently working on a massive project, that's why i invited him here. he's well suited for today's topic. last week many of you recognize jaquline calmes. prior to that, worked 18 years with the wall street journal, covering the budget and tax, as well as conventional, she was able to swap here, we are grateful for doing that. she started out, i think her

journalism in texas and worked her way up to austin. then she came to d.c. i believe her first job here was with "congressional quarterly." we are pleased to that her here. we'll hear from them in this order. then we'll open the floor to questions from you. all are invited to a reception immediately following this program. congressman walker, speak from the podium. i think it would be easier for our web cast and c-span audience. >> very good. thank you, don, very much. good afternoon. when i was asked to speak on the role of minority parties, i came up with a title for that speech. that is more than potted plans -- more than potted planted, but not by much. [laughter] >> because, in all honesty, the

chief job of the minority party in the congress is to become the majority. and if you are not working towards that end, you are probably not doing that which is necessary to really fulfill your roll in the minority. now having said that, the main roll then, of the minority party in the whole business of governance is to critique the majority. and that involves a strategy both in committees and on the floor. and it often involves finding the weaknesses in the legislation or in the process that the majority is bringing forward and then using those weaknesses as a part of your way of differentiating yourself from what the majority is doing. as dawn mentioned a minute ago, some of us back in the mid

'80s began the process of trying to move the republican party toward majority status after a long time in the minority. and one the places that we found some help was in the whole c-span program. and that came about a little bit because i had spent some time on the house floor and in some of the early meetings of what we then called the conservative society which was a small group of back ventures. i made the point that every time i go on c-span, i'd hear from people and i'd get letters from folks. maybe there were people out there watching this stuff. we decided to use that as a way not only of defining an agenda that we thought was the right agenda for the future, but also to use it as a way of critiquing what the majority was doing at that point. now if you were a smart majority, you actually give

ample opportunity to the minority to do exactly that. and that's sometimes the hard thing for majorities to do. because it usually involves things like a very transparent committee process, and it involves the use of open rules on the floor. because if, in fact, you want to find out what's wrong with your bills? or what's wrong with your process? put it open to debate. allow the minority to come out and make their points. because they will define it in a much better way than nearly anybody else. the reason for that is because of what we tend to do when we were in the minority was we would start down through legislation. we weren't going to take on the whole bill. it was impossible. i mean it was put out there in glowing terms. if you could find one little flaw in the bill and press the point home and just hammer away, in particularly in committee, you could often bring the whole

process to a halt just by taking on a particular aspect of the bill that didn't appear at first to be a serious issue, but could be made into one. and that, it seems to me, is one the things that the majorities in both the republican and democratic caucuses have found or have lost in the last few years. by shutting down the process, they have not allowed the congress to work it's will, and they have therefore ended up with situations where they did not know what was in bills and what could become bill political points until after the bill had actually cleared the congress. yes, there were points being made out in the public where it was being -- seems to me that open rules are really the

necessary part of allowing the minority to actually help in the governance process. now i will tell you that being in the minority is actually kind of exhilarating at times. first of all, it is a time when you get to think a little bit. you don't have the responsibility for day to day coming up with the agenda, doing the schedule and doing all of that. you actually get a time to think about policies. and as a process of doing your critiques, you actually try to come up with some alternatives along the way. but it's also kind of fun. because every day you can fight great ideological battles. you can charge up the hill with your flag flies and get all bloodied and so on. you come down off of the hill at the end of the day, you lose. but you feel really good about it. [laughter] >> in the majority, the problem is that you win every day. but often you don't feel particularly good about it. by the time you cut all of the compromises to be the majority,

you just haven't really done what you'd like to do. and, you know, so as a resort, you get the aftermath of campaigns. now the democrats are saying if we'd only stuck to our real gone -- guns and done this the right way. that's the job of governance where compromise becomes an end part of the result. it's also interesting to note there's a huge difference between the time when we were out of power when i was in the congress for 40 years and a four-year period out of power. because what we ran into -- after a time when we had been out of power for four years, was we had a lot of republicans. particularly in the leadership. :