the overall budgetary effect will depend on a combination of changes like subsidies and medicaid costs and tax receipts but we're working on that. >> representative clyburn. >> looking at revenue from a different perspective is it fair to say the decrease or the increase in unemployment has decreased revenue in federal coffers? >> that is right. >> if we had a decrease in unemployment of 1/2% from 9.1 to 8.6, what would be the level of revenue increase? >> i can't do that in my head. it would help but i don't know. we pay less unemployment insurance benefits and people who are earning money would take taxes on those earnings. >> it is a double whammy.

>> both sides of the budget would be affected. >> i would like to see some computer printout. >> i will test my computer with that task. >> senator portman. >> that is a great point. the economy plays a huge role. this is a hearing of the history of how we got here. going back to look at your may 12th, 2011, report we talked about earlier. 32% of the difference between $5.6 billion surplus production and a $6.2 trillion deficit which is an $11.8 trillion wing, it is because of the economy. 33% as new spending and a third of that is the war on terror, iraq and afghanistan and other spending. it is 39% new spending when you add the 6% of what is the

stimulus. 50% in the bush tax cut. the rest is interest in amc and rebates in 2010. it is a great point of the economy that drives so much of this and we talked about this earlier. you said that you fought increasing taxes in this point would have a negative impact to surge in spending cuts on economic growth and jobs. in response to senator camp said some tax reform like lowering the base would have a positive economic impact. can you speak to that as it relates to the corporate tax code and the possibility of lowering the rates? >> in terms of individual income tax and corporate income tax congress would widely agree that lower tax rates and a broader base would be good for the economy both because lower rates

would reduce the disincentives to work or save but also broadening the base itself can if done in certain ways reduce incentives for miss allocating capital resources. to estimate the effect on the economy our colleagues would need specific proposals and spent time modeling those. it is a complicated business. >> how long would it take? >> i will not admit to that of hand. we have proposals from you that we will work on as fast as we can. >> and prioritize. >> we are giving high priority to the work of this committee. >> there is a big distinction of 98% of america getting a tax cut

and 2% are the wealthiest people whose decisions are different in this impact on the economy, there is a big difference in that versus a blanket discussion of all of the tax cut versus none. >> in terms of economic effects yes. >> that is part of the modeling that needs to be done because that distinction will be very telling in a lot of ways. what i want to ask is it would be helpful to all of us in the committee. i have great respect for the rogueoff/reinhardt discussion. i would like you to draw the distinction. your analyses and much of our discussion centers around the public debt. that is 62% gdp but we have had some references to be gross debt which includes the trust funds

where there's a different impact because of the full faith credit and so forth. help us understand how that plays out in our deliberations particularly with respect to the impact on interest rates. public debt has more impact on interest rates and economic judgments. maybe you can educate us a little on that distinction. >> cbo focuses on debt held by the public because we think it is a better measure of the impact of federal borrowing on financial markets today than gross debt. any snapshot of what the government knows that a point in time would be very complete without looking at where the fiscal trajectory is going. that is why we combine our reporting on current levels held by the public with projections of revenue and spending and

financial markets are very attentive not just to the current amount but the amount of debt they expect the government to be trying to get them to buy in years ahead. the public with these projections for the future offers you and your colleagues complete but by no means perfect picture of the federal budget situation. gross debt includes money bonds held by government trust funds. it does not measure the amount of debt the private financial system has today nor is it a good measure what will happen in the future because for some programs the mountain the trust fund is less than they need to pay benefits under current law. in other cases it doesn't correspond to future spending so we don't think that is the most

useful measure. reinhardt viewed that as the best measure over the period of time they have done this analysis. we have discussed this issue with carmen. in our case because we do these leopard projections on a detailed level of the budget, combining those projections held by the public gives you the best sense of where this country stands today. >> representative camp. >> as part of the fiscal commission and research of federal revenues exceed 20% of gdp and only done it three times in the history of the country. 1944-1945-2000. and in 2000 there were 20.6% of

revenue due to the increase in capital gains from $40 billion in 1999 to $120 billion in 2000. >> that is right. >> in the 11 fiscal years since 1940 we have had a surplus revenues between 19% and 20% and first seven of those years they will less than 19% of gdp. i have a letter that outlines this that i would like to submit for the record. in the 12 years the government was in surplus outlets never exceeded 19.4% gdp. it is important to keep those

revenue levels in historical perspective. i would like to submit that letter for the record. >> the last time federal spending was around 18% of gdp was 1967. we made a decision to provide health security for seniors so we have to look at the period of time since then if we want to continue that commitment including what years the budget was in balance was in that period. you are not making recommendations but your testimony was clear that you can't address the deficit challenge without modernizing health security programs unless you have a large increases above current law. unless you change current tax policy you can't address the

deficit situation without deep cuts in health security programs. i want to have a quick question. you mentioned there are some tax policies that generate more economic activity and some generate less. you mentioned a payroll tax holiday generated more than the others because more money in people's pockets. isn't it also true with respect to spending programs there are some that generate more activity than others in the economy and investments in the area of infrastructure and education provide economic growth? isn't that also the case? >> yes. i want to be careful about pieces of the budget. revenues and social security and the rest of the budget. what is not possible is to maintain social security and major health care programs in their current state and maintain the rest of the federal government this same share relative to the size of the

economy and maintain revenue. one needs to move at least one or two or three as you choose but not possible as a matter of arithmetic, to have all three pieces look like they look historically. different policies on the spending side effects different economic growth and they edge above the horizon so some policies are more effective this year or next or over longer periods of time and we can try to provide that information if you are interested. >> just making the point that tax policies as well as investment spending policies can have positive economic impact. >> that is right. >> senator toomey. >> dr. elmendorf, one of the

challenges we face is how we can address these challenges in a credible way. how willing will future congresses be to send reductions or discipline that we might try to imposed? we cannot tie the hands of future congresses. i wonder if you might reflect on ways that we could maximize the chances that spending restraints we hope to achieve would come to pass weather through strengthening existing budget enforcement mechanisms or creating new ones or other ways we might do that. >> the most effective way to assure the changes you discussed today take effect is to announce those changes into law today. enforcement procedures are only

a backstop. congress will need to enact changes in the legislation governing certain programs or provisions in the tax code if it wants to make those changes. if specific changes are enacted this year there's a greater chance than if there is a settled objective for total amounts of spending or total amounts of taxes or other benchmarks. >> so structural reforms in a program are likely to have more enduring results than long term caps designated. >> yes and we have seen that historically. the original legislation from hollings was cast aside because the target for the deficit proved to be impossible to meet. whereas the provisions of the

early 1990s made it more difficult for the congress to make budget deficits worse, seem to have been somewhat effective when congress was concerned about budget deficits. the important aspect of this for long term effects and short-term effects of believing deficits will be smaller comes from specificity in putting provisions into law today even if they're trying to take effect for different reasons that different points in the future. >> i want to thank our committee members for their input and a staff input for the day as well. i want to remind our members they have three business days to submit questions and i hope the witness can respond quickly to that.

members should submit questions by close of business friday, september 16th. without objection the joint committee stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

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

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> senator lamar alexander announced yesterday he would be stepping down from his republican leadership position. the tennessee senator has served as republican conference chairman for nearly four years. he made his public announcement on the senate floor. we will hear from his republican colleagues, mitch mcconnell and bob corker. this is 15 minutes.

following the annual retreat of republican senators, i will stope down from the senate >> falling to retrieve republican senators are will step down from republican leadership. my colleagues have elected me as conference chairman three times and i will have completed four years, reason for doing that is this. stepping down from the republican leadership will liberate me to spend more time trying to work for results on issues i care the most about. that means stopping runaway regulations, runaway spending but also means confronting the timidity that allows health care spending to squeeze out support

for roads, research scholarships and other government functions that make it easier and cheaper to create private sector jobs. i want to do more to make the senate a more effective place to address serious issues. 4 four years in our caucus my leadership job has been this. to help the leaders succeed and help individual republicans succeed and look for a consensus in our caucus and suggest a message. i have enjoyed that. but there are different ways to offer leadership in the united states senate. i concluded that after nine years, this is the best way for me to make a contribution. serving in this body is a rare privilege. i am trying to make the best use of that time while i am here. for the same reason i plan to step down in january from the leadership. i will not be a candidate for leadership in the next congress.

but i do intend to be more, not less in the thick of resolving issues and plan to run for reelection to united states senate in 2014. these are serious times. every american's job is on the line. the united states still produces 23% of the world's wealth even though we only have 5% of the world's people. all-around world people are realizing there's a different -- nothing different about their brains and ours and they're using their brain power to achieve the same standard of living we have enjoyed here. as a result some have predicted within a decade for the first time since the 1870s the united states will not be the world's largest economy. they say china will be. my goal is to keep the united states of america world's strongest economy. there are two and other matters that are relevant to the

decision i am making today that i would like to address. when i first ran for united states senate in 2002 i said to the people of tennessee and they were not surprised by this, i will serve with conservative principles and an independent attitude. i will continue to serve in the very same way. i am a very republican republican. i grew up in the mountains of tennessee and still live there in the congressional district that never elected a democrat to congress since abraham lincoln was president of the united states. my great-grandfather was once asked his politics. he said i am republican. i fought for the union. i have been nominated five times by tennessee republicans to serve in public office. i have been elected three times by senate republicans as conference chair. if i could get 100% republican solution to any of our legislative issues i would do it

in a minute. i know that the senate usually requires 60 votes for a solution on serious issues and we simply can't get that. only republican votes for democratic votes. second by stepping down from the leadership by expect to be more aggressive on the issues and look forward to that. the senate is created to be the place where the biggest issues producing the biggest disagreements are argued out. i don't buy for one minute that these disagreements create some sort of unhealthy lack of civility in the united states senate. those who believe the debate today in our senate are more fractious than the debate in political history simply have forgotten american history. they have forgotten what adams and jefferson said of one another. they have forgotten vice

president aaron burr killed secretary treasury alexander hamilton. they forgot congressman houston was walking down the street to washington one day, came across a congressman from ohio who oppose andrew jackson's indian policy and started caning him for which he was censured. they forgot there was a south carolina congressman who came before the senate and nearly killed by hitting him with a stick a senator from massachusetts. they have forgotten another senator from massachusetts named henry lodge stood on the floor of the senate and said of the president of the united states i hate that man. we forgot his compromises. the debate that were held in the mccarthy days. the watergate debate and the vietnam debate. the difference today between the debate in washington and the debate in history are that today because we have so much media

everybody hears everything instantly. most of the people shouting at each other on television have never been elected to anything. it would help if we knew each other better across party lines but to suggest we should be more timid in debating the biggest issues before the american people would ignore the function of the senate and would ignore our history. the truth is united states senators debate divisive issues with excessive civility. i have enjoyed my four years in the republican leadership. i thank my colleagues for that privilege. i look forward to spending more time working with all senators to achieve results on the issues i care about the most. issues i believe will be chairman for the next generation

what kind of economy we will have, what our standard of living will be for our families and our national security. i thank the president daniel before. >> hi say to my friend of 40 years even though there are a number of colleagues on a floor i am confident we agree this is not a eulogy. we are about to engage in. i have a great sense of relief my friend will run again in 2014 and make an extraordinary contribution to the senate and to of america. when i first met lamar he was at the white house. i had come as a legislative assistant to a newly elected senator. he had accomplished a lot and graduated from new york university law school and

clerked for a well-known circuit judge and been involved in howard baker's first campaign and helped him set up his first office and that was before i met him. since i met him as many of you are already aware it is hard to think of anybody who has done more things well. he went home in 1970 and ran a successful campaign for the first republican governor elected since the civil war and ran for governor himself in a bad year in 1974. he is pretty persistent. he tried again in 78. elected governor. reelected governor in 82. spectacular record. he did a very unusual thing. i remember knowing about it at

the time. i kept up with it since we met years before. we were in washington. he took his family and went to australia for six months. put the kids in school. actually wrote a book called six months off which i read then. i don't know how many books senator alexander sold but it was a fascinating review of taking a break, doing something entirely new before getting back on the career treadmill we knew he would get back on. once the australian experience was over this extraordinarily accomplished individual became president of tennessee. that is when they used to play football. [laughter]

then president bush asked him to be secretary of education as a cabinet member. at his mother's insistence he became quite proficient at piano. he is a fabulous piano player and a musician. my mother let me quit. the only mistake she made in an otherwise perfect job of raising the but your mother by insisting gave him that dimension as well. we have a guy who has been governor, president of his university, a member of the cabinet. he went to the private sector and started a successful business which did very well.

he thought his career or over but fred thompson decided to do something else and suddenly he was in the united states senate. not just in the senate but becomes a leader in the senate in a very short period of time. we have had an opportunity to get to know our colleague. hard to think of anybody more intelligent or accomplished likable than lamar alexander. i am relieved you are not leaving the senate. this is not a eulogy but it is an opportunity for those who know you to recount your extraordinary accomplishments during a lifetime of public service. it has been my honor to be your friend and rival continue to be your friend and glad you will continue to be our colleague. i yield the floor. >> i think republican leader.

i am grateful for his comments with one exception. i have great confidence -- he is a fine football coach in the university of tennessee. they play very good football and i intend to be in my usual seat at the georgia game in two weeks. mr. corker: madam president, thank you. i want to say to my colleague i certainly enjoyed your comments today. i'm excited for you. i sit very close to you here in the senate and i'm with you a great deal. i do plan on keeping a cane out of your reach for a few days. but i very much appreciate your service and leadership to the republican party here in the united states senate, and i think that what you've done in that position is to bring out the best in all of us in the best way that you can. i'm excited for you and i look at this as a great day for the

senate, for the united states senate. it's a great day for our country. this is a great day for the -- for the state of tennessee, and i can tell you paced on the conversations that we've had and the way that i know you the united states senate is going to become very quickly a more interesting place to serve. and for all of us who have been concerned about our lack of ability to solve our nation's greatest problems, i look at what you've done today as a step in the direction towards us, being able as a body to more responsibly deal with the pressing issues that you outlined in your talk. i thank you for having the courage to step down from a position that many republican senators would love to have. i thank you for the way that you serve our country.

i thank you for the example that you have been to so many in your public service in our state and our country, and i thank you our country, and i thank you he ran for president three times and lost but he change political history. he's one of the 14 men featured in c-span's new weekly series, the contenders.

friday at 8 p.m. eastern to learn more about the series their upcoming program at c-span.org/thecontenders. >> former senators trent lott and byron dorgan sat down for discussion about bipartisanship in washington. they talk about the current debate over deficit reduction, jobs, immigration and taxes. both former senators now work as lobbyists. the event was hosted by the washington center which organizes internship opportunities in d.c. for college students. this is an hour and a half. >> at the washington center for internships and academic seminars. my name is doctor outgrows. it's my great pleasure to welcome you to the first conversation in the fall 2011 leaders whose. the series is founded in the

spirit of the lifelong friendship of two extraordinary leaders from opposite sides of the aisle. alan simpson, republican, served for many years as a senator from the state of wyoming, and norman mineta, democrat from california served first and house of representatives and then as the secretary of commerce in the clinton administration and subsequently as the secretary of transportation in the bush administration. they met, however, during world war ii when simpson's boy scout troop visited the net is in wyoming where secretary mineta's family was interned with 10,000 other japanese americans. despite the eventual political differences, both their friendship and their commitment to leadership and public service into it. here at the washington senate the simpson mineta leader series aim to create a form in which students from around the country and, indeed, from around the world can gauge with extraordinary leaders and explore issues of contemporary public concern.

we also hope to be a meaningful supplement to the civic engagement and leadership development efforts of the students in the academic internship program here at the washington center your to introduce today's events is my pleasure to welcome one of the leader, our president, mike smith. [applause] >> thank you very much. it's a pleasure for me to welcome senator dorgan and senator lott to the washington center today. both senators, while partisan during their terms in the senate, various terms in the senate, had a reputation for reaching across the aisle, working with the other party, the opposite party, and affecting constructive legislation to help the american people. we are fortunate that steve scalise going to moderate

today's discussion. steve is a senior executive producer and political editor for the c-span networks. since 1990, steven been responsible for the planning and editing of all campaign programming including presidential and congressional election. for the public affairs cable network. steve serves as one of the regular host of the "washington journal," a daily live public affairs program as well as newsmakers and other c-span programs. steve is also a member of the associate faculty here at the washington center where he teaches a course called the road to the white house. this course is a comprehensive study of american presidential politics in the age of television and the new digital media. without further ado, steve scully. [applause] >> thank you. senator dorgan, senator lott, thank you for being with us. let's get right to this. in terms of the word bipartisanship and compromise, we are hearing today the lines

been drawn i in the sand when it comes to taxes and the deficit. medicare, medicaid, social security economy and taxes, can they be bipartisanship, and if not, why? >> bipartisanship is very hard to achieve no matter what the issue might be or what it is. it seems like it's more difficult now than it has ever been but i think i guess we all kind of, it was tough in the '80s and '90s. i first came it as a congressman when i was 31, 1973. and those were some tough times, particularly in the house of representatives where the majority has ultimate power there. and i think that's one thing that happened to bipartisanship in the senate over the years, at some point the majority of the senate had served in the house. the house kind of turns you into a partisan warrior. when you get to the senate it's

hard to get over it. but it can be cheaper just to have to work at it. a lot of these students, first of all, congratulations to all of you. i think this is a great opportunity for you. this is a great program. the washington center. and i am sure we leader you will not ever be the same again, and i hope that's all in a positive way. but, you know, right now it is particularly tough but you have to work at it, and it is called leadership. you have to have men and women of goodwill you're willing to run across that i'll, which is only an imaginary island, not a blockade or wall between the two parties, but also i found after just a short period of time innocent if you really want to get things done you've got to be prepared to be a little flexible. you can get in trouble with either party if you're to flexible. i became known by such derogatory terms as dealmaker, pragmatist, you know?

but i really didn't give up that much on my philosophy. part of what he did was try to find issues where philosophy is not the key thing. we were on a commerce committee together. a lot of what happens there shouldn't be partisan. nasa, is nasa a partisan thing? no. transportation, railroads, highways, i never thought of it as being partisan. he and i even worked on a newspaper issue that we agreed with a majority of both our parts didn't agree with that we gave a lot of people heartburn when we got together. there were two or three issues that, importation of drugs, prescription drugs across the border was something we worked on together. so it's not an easy thing to achieve, particularly now with a 24/7 news media and with all the traveling back and forth down. but it can be achieved if people make up their minds they're going to get it done.

>> on the issues today, especially what comes to taxes, how can it be achieved? what are the lessons from your years in the senate? >> well, you know, the only lubrication that i'm aware of for democracy is for people who feel differently about issues to find ways to compromise somewhere in the middle. some sight of the middle. but nontheless, compromised. if trent lott runs for the senate from mississippi and i'm a candidate for the ascent from north dakota, we come here with different constituencies sending us here. my constituents may feel differently than his constituents on certain issues. so we can also with our own notions about things, about how things should work and what we believe. and so we did hear let's assume he and i feel very differently about some key issues, taxes for example. feel very differently. well, the only way you can resolve that in democracy, you can decide, we're just going to sit on her positions and we will never reach accord.

so that's it. or you can decide it's important for the country to us to reach a compromise and become to the middle somehow to do that. the tax issue right now, for example, is a very important issue because we are deep in debt. we can talk about the reasons for that, but we are. we been fighting two wars now for nearly 10 years, haven't paid for penny of it, not that many. so i've always felt that we should increase some taxes to pay for the cost of the wars, at least if you're going to send young men and women off to risk their lives, strap on body armor, get shot at, should we at least have the courage to say we will pay the bill so when you come back from the war you don't have to pay the bill? so that's my feeling about it. there are others who feel absolutely not, never. we don't intend ever to support any additional taxes. so there's a difference of opinion. so how do you resolve that quechee resolve it to try to

figure out where it is there some rule, some give-and-take and then you move ahead with a solution hope represents the best interest of this country. >> on the president's plan today -- >> let me jump in that. first of all i never met a tax i like. they just agitate me from beginning to end. however, one of the things you need to do as a leader, particularly in congress but in life is listened a little bit. right now all you're hearing is the president saying we've got to more taxes, democrats saying we have to have more taxes on everybody but the so-called middle class. and republicans say no taxes. if you listen carefully what you are some us saying is republicans say some of these loopholes we can probably take a look at closing those, and some democrats are saying look, well we know we are not going to get all these proposals that are being made now by the president this very day. but are there some areas, genuine tax reform that might

actually make, that would reduce individual rates and corporate rates would help the creation of jobs and competition around the world. if you listen to what both sides are saying, they are, there actually is some common ground. now, i don't give that much of a twit about it because the way it works in washington, everybody says i'm for this and nothing else. i'm for this and nothing else. but they are positioning quite often to then at some point get the job done. they will find a way to stop, just staking out their positions or string positions if you will come and see whether it is common ground to do with the problem we do have and that's the deficits, the debt and your future. but that's what, the differences that's not what's happening today. it happened traditionally the way trent described it when we spent most of what several decades, 30 years, and you i and

you i don't know, in house and senate. that's the way it did work. but i think in recent years that's not the way it's working. instead, you reach an impasse, nothing happens. this ship floats out there does will be in need of help, desperately in need of good decisions being made, and both sides in saying we don't intend to compromise. there's one thing that has bothered me the most is in this country now there's some political dialogue that suggests there are two choices. you either stand by your principles and fight for your principles, or you compromised. if you compromise that means you have caved in on your principles. well, that shouldn't be the case at all. the only way democracy works is compromised. we've got a bleacher section that watches and they all have microphones and their programs on radio and television on both sides, and they watch the playing field and they say how dare you compromised. you didn't come here to stand for your principles? shame on you. so the result is impasse at a

time when the country can least afford to have an impasse. this country needs good decisions to put it back on track and put people back to work and invest in education. and by the way, nobody likes to pay taxes but, frankly, when i see a good school that my kids attend, i'm happy to pay taxes for the school. when i see good road, i'm happy to pay taxes to have the kind of infrastructure they don't have in honduras, for example. i understand nobody wants to pay more taxes than we need to invest in this country. on the other hand, we need spending drink, we need new revenues, we need to pull out of afghanistan. >> let me talk about one point. senator lott i want to frame this question, mitch mcconnell the same he went to see barack obama has a one-term president today there was a -- the

prescott of class warfare when it comes to taxes. and yet you to sit down and work with as president. you work with bill clinton. senator dorgan should work with george w. bush. despite public posturing with some harsh words towards the administration. how do you do that? how do you say one thing in front of the camera and sit down behind closed doors and work out a deal? >> well, sometime it's unseemly looking, shall we say, but also, and i think this is one thing that is missing. i used to urge president bush to invite harry reid over, late in the afternoon, just the two of them come sit at the on that south porch and look at the washington monument and the beautiful view and talk about the country. and i even said it would be nice if y'all could have a glass of something to drink other than code. but neither one of them were drinkers i knew that was hopeless. but i do think that the personal relationship, one of the reasons

why byron and i started doing work together, we got to know each other, he had a beautiful brilliant wife. i adored her company. but seriously that's part of what is missing out. because the senators and house members and administration, they don't really pursue personal relationships. they don't pursue an opportuni opportunity, beyond, look, the headline, the limelight, the president got to talk to his base, mitch mcconnell wants to see president obama defeated, the president wants to see the senate remain democrat. that's their ultimate goal, but somewhere along the line somebody's got to say oh by the way, in the meantime we're going to do something for the country. tom daschle and i went back and forth. i was the majority leader. he was the minority leader and we switched i think least a couple of times.

but on occasion we would get in a corner and say look, if we get this done there will be enough credit to go around for both of us for our parties. and i remember one time we pushed in issues together, to party leaders when our conferences were against us, the patriot act. that's right, you read the article in the "washington post," my conference, i have two conservatives who are about ready to throw me out of my position because they thought it was going to for. tom was running into resistance in his caucus, also maybe from byron. we actually had a cell phone conversation and agreed that we would meet on the floor of the senate and call it the bill and get it done. and we did and it wound up passing like 98-2. him a been a mistake in retrospect. the important thing was we needed to get it done. it's the aftermath of 9/11. you can argue about the details. the most important thing is try to get something done so our intelligence community can do

the job they needed to do. >> well, when mitch mcconnell said that i kind of was grading my teeth, but that's politics. the republican leader of the senate would certainly want to say democratic president replaced with a republican president. that's not news. it was a bit of news when he said it was his highest priority at a time when our country has such desperate problems, such high unemployment, a sick economy and a lot of issues. but, you know, i think there's a lot of things that in politics on both sides, a lot more important to devalue what people do rather what they say. so the question is for this congress and future congresses, are they going to do the things that are necessary to put this country on track to become the country that we were. that is, jobs that give middle income people place to go the work and make a good income and have some job security and take care of the family. is this going to be an economy expands, provides opportunities? that's the key issue in my

judgment. >> let me get one star the very good question. were my favorite quotes of all times from margaret thatcher. she was speaking to the republican conference of senators, and she was talking about how she did things for the parliament and a republican senator from a state that show remain nameless to death instead lady thatcher, that's all well and good but the united states senate, we have to pursue consensus. we have to try to come to an agreement that the great majority of the senators agreed to. how do you deal with that? and she paused for a moment. she said, the pursuit of consensus is the abdication of leadership. truly a ship is a is to establish a position that your principles support and lead to a consensus. i thought an awful lot about that. and that's kind of what byron is talking about. you don't give up all your vegetables. you fight hard for the ones you believe that you allow that to help shape the debate and develop. they can develop into a

consensus. >> thank you for being with us. on behalf of the students on the washington center, and we will begin with questions right over your. first introduced in an, where you go to school and go ahead with your question. >> i am andrea from tcu in fort worth. my question is what do y'all think of radical groups like the tea party be the idea of compromise and bipartisanship? >> senator lott's? >> first of all, i don't agree with your description as a radical group when you come to the tea party. you know, who are they? first of all if you look at it the democratic completing democratic candidate for governor in louisiana is a tea party member. a democrat. so it's just not, you know, it's not a radical group of republicans. it can be independence but it's a lot of women, men and women. where i'm from there are people that are really very much concerned about, particularly

about the deficit and debt and they don't get into a lot of other issues. that's what i want to talk about and they will hammer you on that. it varies. this is a very -- i can't quite figure who does run the show. somebody said all the tea party candidates in my state lost last year. in the primary. and summary said why is that? don't have a tea party? i suggest, but the tea party is us. it is the republican party. it's not some separate group. they ran, they lost. we had candidates wound up having support and all worked out. but you do have groups on both sides of the party line, and philosophical lines, that you take extreme positions and they do make governing difficult. that is what our former democracy is all about. it's messy. and i think anytime you have a good hot debate, if you listen,

you're learning from it. i'm all for it. i don't take offense. i always make it a point to go to union halls. when was the last time you heard of the republican office we're going to union all? it turns out my father was a union member in the shipyard. i would go into the union halls. the leaders did not like to see me, but the members would listen to me. so i'm not inferring that there's some kind of radical group but philosophically they were not where i was on most issues. >> i think probably the origin of the question is the tea party and its representation that you know see and hear, i think the tea party is an important part of the poco process. it's way off from where i am in terms of its positions, but boy, they were right to get involved and their would have been fall. they have every right to do that. however, i think probably what

originates your question is michele bachmann, congress and bachmann says she's the leader of the tea party here in washington, you know, in washington and has had leadership positions and done a lot of things within. and her positions on a wide range of issues are fairly well off the chart. she would like to get rid of the minimum-wage would like to get rid of medicare. she believes that we should have defaulted on our debt. she led the effort is a i don't want any compromise. i want the country to default on the debt. so that is radical i think. and you know, her presentation of being ahead of the tea party and taking those positions is described as radical. having said that, the republican party at this point has tea party influence in all of the important states, and i think all of those are running for president have to find a way to get through a crevice as far to the right to use be on the republican side. then i think for the general election they will have to move back some other closer to center. i don't know whether trent will

agree with that or not publicly. >> i'm going to support the candidate that i think can win. and that may not be the one i would prefer philosophically. but that's where my activism takes them. i think you've got to look over the horizon and look beyond just your personal preferences and think about it would be, i frankly, it would be a better president. sometime it's a more conservative candidate. sometimes it's a more moderate candidate. i don't have a problem with those kinds of shades. and, of course, that's what i got in trouble sometime. >> and who is the candidate's? >> i'm supporting mitt romney for president. my state would probably, vote for kerry. i like texas. i like texans. i like swagger. i like his philosophical position. i like governor perry. but right now i want somebody that really is going to focus on the economy, how we can create

jobs and understand how to do that. i think our best candidate to win the election is mitt romney. and so that's who i'm supporti supporting. >> over here. >> my name is trevor. i'm from oklahoma. my question is for several lott and senator dorgan. what existed in the world today that is the greatest threat to individual liberty and personal freedom. >> senator dorgan, let's start with you spoke let me take a really 30,000-foot level of this. with about 30,000 nuclear weapons on this planet. the explosion of one of which in a major city will change the life for f. on the planet as we know it. about a month after 9/11, 2001, there was a cia agent called dragon fire, nicknamed dragon fire, reported there was a piece of intelligence information that suggested that a nuclear weapon,

a 15-kiloton russian nuclear weapons had been stolen from the russian arsenal and had been smuggled into either new york city or washington, d.c., by terrorists and would be detonated. now, for the next month or so there was an epileptic seizure in the standard you didn't read about. they didn't even tell the officials of newark city about the threat, but there was a seizure around her, what if one of the weapon had been stolen, invite terrorist truck continue up or on a barge or whatever they did, or washington, d.c.. and exploded, and 200,000, 400,000 people killed. now, this is a planet in which there's about 30,000 nuclear weapons. i just described the seizure we had over the potential loss of one in the year 2001. if we don't get about the business of trying to figure out to dramatically reduce the number of nuclear weapons on

this planet and take new and more aggressive steps to keep them forever out of the hands of rogue nations and/or terrorist groups, you all will live at a time when nuclear weapon is exploded in anger. that's the ultimate loss of freedom because it would change everything on this planet. >> i'm glad we have representation here from oklahoma. did you say you're an ou student? >> roger state university spent okay, good. deeply oklahoma football? >> i played obama football from about third grade to my senior in high school. >> glad to have you. i think it's hard to disagree with what byron says about the threat, but, you know, and i don't want to go too far on this, but i think that the strength of the american people can withstand just about any kind of attack like that. and i am pleased in both administrations, this one and the previous one have done an awful lot of things to prevent

that sort of thing from happening, but it is a very series threat. but when i think about my grandchildren, all of a sudden that's the most important thing in my life, is i get really mad when i see things happening in government, around the world or anywhere, that i think may be uncomfortable for me now but i worry about what it will mean for them. i really think if we see to me -- look to government in washington or in jackson, mississippi, to do everything to us, for us, with us, beyond anything that is reasonable, i think that's the greatest threat. my predecessor in congress, democrat i work for for four years in the late '60s used to say the greatest threat for our country is not from within, but from about our borders. and i think we need to think about that and think about the freedoms and responsibilities we have as americans and protect those first, last and always. >> let's turn over here.

>> good afternoon. my name is maria. i'm a student from florida international university. my question is what your perspective of possible immigration reform and if you think that congress will ever come to an agreement to resolve this issue, thank you? >> we've come close a couple times but never there. why? >> that was the bill in a moment when i decided to retire from congress, the last time we tried it. because i'm so ashamed and embarrassed by the conduct of the senate on that. ..

it was worse. we need immigration reform, legal and illegal. we need to think about how to get more people in the country legally that want to come and have something to offer that in many cases are educated and have everything you are looking for and can't get any of it. yet we seem to be unable or unwilling to lease our borders to patrol illegal immigration in this country. then you get into the terrible problem of what you do with those that are here already illegally. i don't think you can build a fence deep enough to keep people out. i don't think it should be an attitude of looking around or above. i have three death rates because i had the temerity to say something like that. and working to get immigration

reform bill that i thought would be good for the country. i wouldn't have voted for it in the format was at that point but that is what the legislative process is. you have amendment and debate and decide how to vote at the end based on what is in the package and yet we let it die a on a technical ground. the effort was by ted kennedy and trent lott and harry reid. an eclectic group in both parties yet we went down into ignominious defeat. the reason was when i look back on it, i did review that some of you look like you may be in rotc or the military. what happened was we were doing okay on the process and substance. we messed up communications. the man at our position had to be described in three paragraphs and the opposition position was it is amnesty. we couldn't overcome that one

word. we were going into details and procedural parliamentary substantive details and got killed. we do need it. it will take a bipartisan effort. we need a president who will lead on it. it is not immigration reform. we will get under the hood and get in his or her hands. we need a congress with leaders who will deal with it responsibly. is it going to happen right away? know. there will be a window of opportunity in the early spring of 2013. i hope the next president whether it is this one or different one and congress will confront this issue. it is difficult and complicated but we didn't sit here to play checkers. >> over here. go ahead with your question. >> i am from emerson college. nice to meet both of you. i want to talk about how the media framed the debate. it was framed in a win or lose

scenario and i am wondering from your experience if you could speak to that, if it is the same old song and dance and we keep repeating the same stake? >> the media reports almost everything that is in the news as who is ahead in the backstretch, they continue to report which side is going to win rather than the meat and the substance. c-span is extraordinary. let me give you a comment. i think c-span is one of the great places where the american people get an unvarnished view of what both sides believe and how they feel about issues in some detail. go to headline news or fox business or whatever you want to watch and you see snapshots and most is about who is winning. that is not very thoughtful. has it changed? it has changed dramatically.

we don't even know what journalism is any more. anyone can call themselves a journalist if they have a microphone and a note pad and a pen. doesn't make you a journalist. who is fact checking all that? answer is nobody. and of course with the internet and a 24/7 news hour and things going viral, massive amounts of misinformation can move to every one. it is much harder to have a thoughtful, lengthy debate that airs out all the sides on complicated and controversial issues. let me come back to the last question. i am curious how many of you in this room have traveled to another country? some of you are international. how many have traveled to another country? i ask that because if you have left this country, you are an american and you have gone to another country and you look in

the rearview mirror you understand what this country is and why in a planet where there are close to seven billion people, why there are a lot of people who aspire to come to the united states of america. they see as a beacon of hope and opportunity and they want to go there. we can't accommodate everybody. if we had no immigration laws at all and said come here and work with us and play with us and join us and live with us we would be overrun by people who want to come to be part of the american experience. we have these quote ups but we are not able to police our borders. immigration is a very important issue. we need to get it done right. we need to get it done most importantly to enforce our borders but especially to resolve the status of those who are here. a lot of young kids out there. some are fighting for this country is status is not resolved. we need to do all these things.

it hasn't been done because it is very hard and very controversial. it ranks among the five or six issues that have to be tackled by this country. >> of the 24/7 news media coverage we get now particularly the electronic media, is up big part of the problem. why our leaders, our congress have such a difficult time coming together producing results on almost anything. since your students studying political science and history go back and study the history and see what john adams and alexander hamilton and jefferson had to say about the media. the media was -- raked them over the cold. a lot indicates thomas jefferson was malicious and untrue. they went at it. the media has always been part of the problem with politics and why america as great as it is,

freedom of the press, i hate it and i love it. >> next question. >> i am a student at tampa, florida university. some think the institution of the united states senate has become a problem that there are too many obstructionist tactics and procedural delays and the institution needs to be reformed. do you agree or disagree with that? >> you know the rules better than anyone else. >> not necessarily. i think reform or ways to improve an institution should always be on the table. as a matter of fact with cooperation from the two leaders harry reid and mitch mcconnell, senator schumer and lamar alexander came up with some reforms and you can always find ways to do that. the problem with the senate is not the rules for the institution. it is the people. i had that conversation standing in the front of the chamber

where we were having one of these embarrassing voterdramas, 10 or 15 minutes, most didn't know or care what were in the amendment because it was the process that was embarrassing. what are we here and looking so bad tonight? it was a:00 or 9:00 at night. joe lieberman and chris dodd, independent democrat and lindsey graham and don kyl. it was a mixed group. kent conrad from north dakota. we were discussing what the problem was and i think that the rules should be changed on that. the problem is us because we put up with this. we don't try to find a way to get something done. i took advantage of the rules. i used to do what harry reid does now and mitch mcconnell

does now. when the leader fills the tree you block amendments from all senators. that doesn't sound very democratic. but i didn't discover that but it is being used more than it was in the past. i think there is a problem when you get into a filibuster on the motion to proceed. that you would take a bill. may be some of those should be evaluated. it depends on your perspective. i used to think seniority was a bad idea until i woke up and i would get close to the majority and was number 2 and i thought this isn't bad at all. when i'm with a freshman rookie i would get so mad george mitchell i couldn't restrain myself and said what i thought about him. that i was standing in the leader's chair and i saw it differently. the senate is a unique place. it is hard to get anything done. it is easy to block stuff.

if you got true leadership and true commitment and you find ways, i would urge harry reid to stop finding things to fight over. see if you can find things to move along and if you look under the covers there have been a couple things they have done in the last week where you see cooperation between harry reid and mitch mcconnell. one was on disaster assistance. i can't remember what the other one was. i keep pushing them to do a highway bill. it is something we need in this country. it would create jobs. it is not partisan. quit pushing this envelope in areas where you know you have a fight and won't get it done and try to find those areas where it looks like the president says pass my jobs bill like it is. that won't happened and he knows it. say to the congress this is what i would like to have but let's see if we can do the payroll tax

issue or maybe the highway bill. what are the things we can do together? then see if you might get those done. >> i will give a short answer. the senate was designed to slow things down. it has been successful. >> did you want to follow up? >> no thank you. >> go ahead with your question. >> i am from st. boniface university in new york. my question is in addition to his question. last week i was on the hill and attended two said at markups to the appropriations committee. the first was a subcommittee and seemed very bipartisan and they got through a lot of different issues but the next day i go to the full committee and it is partisan. so many splits down the middle. i was wondering why you think in the subcommittee there's more bipartisanship that when you move up the ladder. >> which bill was it? >> commerce --

>> what was the controversy? >> there was no controversy in the subcommittee. on the committee for there wasn't that much. they passed the bill through but it was all these amendments they put on the senate floor. >> i was on appropriations for many years. normally appropriators say if you have a controversial amendment don't bring it to the committee even though you have a right to. save it for the floor of the senate. than the bill never gets to the floor of the senate. the last two years we passed all the appropriation bills through full appropriations committee and made spending choices, established what the priorities were. none got to the front of the senate. that is one area where the senate is broken. we can't continue that way. there are a lot of reasons for it. i won't take the bait on the

notion of the jobs proposal. neither side offered the american people something to be proud of these days. probably in an inappropriate way i was giving a speech a while back and said both sides remind me of the poem about a man who drinks too much and his spouse scolds him. he drinks because she scolds. she's cold because he drinks. neither will admit what is really true. he is drunk and she is a shrew. they didn't mean to suggest that of a congress except to say neither side is offering the american people very much. congress needs to get its work done. needs to find ways to compromise on tough issues and america needs decisions. >> turn over here. >> my name is toby and i am from the university of new hampshire. i would like to hear from both sides on this question.

my question is what do you think is a major step that needs to be taken to reform our current convoluted tax code? >> we need broad tax reform. we have not had a major tax reform bill since 87 -- 86. every congress has a few additions to the tax code. i won't describe them in a derogatory way as a mishmash that is confusing and overwhelming and i hate to use this but it is unfair. you support this group but not that group. i have a lot of faith in the leadership of the ways and means committee and the house. we have fought for members on both sides. same in the senate. you have experienced hand in the senate finance committee with

max baucus and orrin hatch and john kerry. you have philosophical balances and the lot of hearings. when i was on the finance committee we were having hearings than and a run up of what should be tax reform. tax reform. broadbased fundamental tax reform takes three years. have a hearing and ask questions and close the loopholes that if they get so charged and look across the board and make a fair tax code and take away the incentives and breaks for different groups and individuals but lower the rates for individuals and corporate tax rate it would be very good for the country and for job creation. one of the things i say to paul ryan who is chairman of the budget committee in the house, your old hero jack kennedy used to say never say the word cuts

or balanced budgets without saying growth. what is it your going to do to have responsible budget? do in a way in terms of tax code and where you spend or don't spend in a way that will provide growth in the economy and we lost that second word. i would be for the broadbased fundamental tax reform. it could be done right now. i would like to see this committee, the supercommittee decided of the tax-writing committee eight months to sit down and have fundamental across the board tax reform. what i would refer as republican is to be revenue neutral. if they gave them a vote and said what a fair tax code and has to provide some revenue which can be applied to the national debt, give them time to

do it sensibly. it needs to be done now. don't get it done in eight months we're looking at 2013 or 14. we need it now. >> this town is full of lobbyists trying to make short individual companies or industries get those tax breaks, get those loopholes. what would change? >> it is hard to do. i helped to write the act. it was hard to do. we lowered the rates. ronald reagan pushed for it. i give him credit. bipartisan on the ways and means committee. we broaden the base. got rid of a lot of special little deals. it was the right thing to do. i think over all these years i agree with trent. let's lower the rates and get rid of a lot of deductions and special deals. when we tackle this question let's understand there is a disgrace in the tax code not

withstand another things. warren buffett has written an op-ed piece to the new york times describing -- i like him. he is a good guy. second richest man in the world. they have 30 employees or so. they all volunteered to evaluate what rate of taxes they pay. it turned out the second richest man in the world pays the lowest rate of tax in the office and lower than his receptionist. with your name? i want to put alley in place of a real human being. callie makes $3.6 billion a year. that is $300 million a month. is that $10 million a day? callie makes $10 million a day seven days a week all year long. you know what her tax rate is? she pays an income tax rate of

15%. this is a real person i am describing. income is described as carried interest. it is disgraceful that someone at the top of the food chain making the highest income in the world running a hedge fund pays 15% rate and all your parents are paying 25% or 30%. that is the disgrace of the code. i would be willing to get rid of the corporate income tax and replace it with a value-added tax. general electric is one of the largest corporations in america makes billions and pays zero. that is a tax system -- let's move to a value-added tax because every other country with whom we trade impose their 17% in the case of china 70% of everything we send them and take their 70% off on the good they

send. >> i was talking to one of those groups you would think would be opposed to losing tax credit. this group gets the benefit of some of them. they will tell you we might not want to resist if we thought at the other end of this exercise we would get a lower corporate tax rate. we think it might be better for us in the tax credit we are getting. there is some of that thought going on in corporate america's mind. >> one of the foreign students. welcome. >> i am maria from university of central asia. my question is far from politics. what advice can you give young and smart professionals and future leaders who will change the world in a couple years? >> you should run for office. that is the advice i give. young people like you with that

line and it gets out there and takes on the burden of being a candidate and providing leadership. you need to get involved. when i look back on my own life i say the same thing and look at the blessings of the opportunities i had. my dad was a shipyard worker. my mother was a schoolteacher from mississippi. and yet i lived the american dream. what is the american dream? the opportunity to go out and take a chance to put your name on the line and put your family's name and reputation on the line and try to make a difference. we need young people like you that are educated, sensitive to international considerations. issues like what senator dorgan mentioned and try to make a difference. learn all you can. i talked to a lot of young

people. one of my answers is when you see the opportunity sees it because it may not come again. i was one of the ones in political life that i had my good times and bad times. i made my mistakes and got in serious trouble. i was down in the valley and climbed back up but through it all it was an incredible opportunity, incredible system we have in america that is the envy of the world. we don't take an oath to the people. we take an oath to an idea which is inculcated in the constitution. the only thing we need to preserve the constitution is young people like you that are prepared to get involved and make a difference. >> it is a great country. welcome to our country.

lige ligeti's the feisty young people was go to the best school you can find and exo. and get the best job you can find and do better than anyone else in the workplace and strike oil. easier said than done. the key issues don't limit yourself. the only limits you will have are going to be on yourself. i come from a high school class of 9 in a town of 300 people and went from that desk in that small school to the united states senate. that is pretty improbable. when you see daylight run for. when someone asks can you do that the answer is yes. don't ever limit yourself. >> when you first ran for office how old were you? >> i have a very unusual story. i have been in statewide elected office since age 26 in north dakota. my story was born of tragedy.

and incumbent officeholder, i young brilliant man had just been elected. he went to harvard law school and ran for office in north dakota and won. i was not living in north dakota. i went to graduate degree. he asked me to come back. i was inspired by him and a year-and-a-half later he took his own life. tragic situation. six weeks after that the governor called me to his office. i was 26 years old. he said i would like you to fill the unexpired term. statewide constitutional office at 26. i ran and ran again. ran for reelection in state office. ran for the house again a few times and ran for the senate. i ran 12 times statewide and at the end of the 30 year career in congress i decided i wanted to

do some other things. i am very proud of it and wouldn't trade the experience for anything. >> you came to washington and a young age at the height of the watergate scandal. how old were you? >> 26. i came to the city at 26 to be administrative assistant to my democrat predecessor. he retired four years earlier and i read at age 31 and served 35 years. >> next question over here. >> good afternoon. i am from catholic university and my question is we were allowed to vote in the democratic party primaries. considering this fact do you think we should be allowed to vote for president also? thank you. >> it'd be a state? >> that should be up to the people of pr.

the people have decided in the past and will in the future whether you want to be a, well for state. in the first instance it to be left to the people of puerto rico. >> that is my view as well. we have these issues presented to the congress. my view is let's evaluate what the people of puerto rico want. >> i wanted to view your point of view because i see my people's point of view and we are undecided what to do because some of us want to vote and some of us don't want to vote. i wanted to see the congress's point of view. >> you are going to have to vote. when you make of your mind will be up to the congress. >> you get the next question. >> i attended villanova university. my question is about the presidential election going on. do you think the free use of republican candidates governor

rick perry and former governor mitt romney overall match the american public and if they do win the presidential election in 2012 what issues could they face by the american public if their views are not compromised? >> before they answer that question are those the only two candidates? is the race set or could another republican challenge mitt romney and rick perry? >> i have no idea. i heard that it is mitt romney. >> i will give you one example. when i was in the house of representatives are represented the mississippi gulf coast, southeastern corner of the state. it was very easy population to represent because i was

reflective of my background. when i got elected to the senate i represent a different constituency. the people were different. there wounds and desires were different. i spent a couple years going around talking to people and listening to people seeing where i had taken different positions and deciding what to do to be helpful to them. when you become president you identify where i really am. this is where i stand and where i want to be and what is best for my family and my country. as you go forward one of the good things about the american political system is you learn. sometimes you do have to modulate your position because some things you were so sure about, that is not exactly the way it is. you become a