predecessor, or whether they are some of the talent that mr. edwards may have brought to the agency, figuring out how to meld them together into a working unit and get past these serious morale problems that you have right now is really going to be a challenge.

>> i wasn't involved in that, i take no position on it, but what i do take a position on is people are going to do their jobs, heir going to focus on the mission, and we're going to get this thing done right. >> you have two agents in the field office in mcallen, texas, that were indicted for falsifying records and to conceal real lapses in your office's standards. and, you know, i'm biased in this regard. i believe the job of an auditor and the job of a prosecutor are kissing cousins because post of them must be dictated by the facts, and they must have an incredible rigor about following the facts and not any political considerations. um, those decisions have to be brutally independent. and by their very definition, they're difficult.

obviously, you've got, once again, warring factions in conflict because many of the field offices under your supervision believe they have suffered in morale because of the heavy hand of the central office. on the other hand, you've got people being indicted for concealing information, for falsifying records to conceal information in regards to standards. um, have you given any thought about how you or marry those two difficult propositions? >> no. and, again, this is a difficult proposition, and i agree that it's going to take some work to do. i am fortunate in the fact that there are new assistant inspector generals in both the audit and the investigation function that, my understanding, were not involved in of these things. -- in many of these things. i'm going to get with those folks, and the other thing i'm going to do is pack a suitcase and fly down there to figure out

what the problems are and see if we can resolve these issues in a way that's best for dhs and, again, focused on the very important mission of the inspect or general's office. >> having visited with you at some length about the job you're willing to undertake, i have a few questions i want to get on the record. i think it's important, and i think you appreciate getting things on the record and how that's important as we try to continue to do the right kind of oversight and accountability of this agency. do you ever believe it would be appropriate to negotiate the timing of a release of a report with dhs for any reason? >> no, senator. >> if you were asked to remove information from a report by the secretary's office, would you inform your assistant ig for audits or investigations or others about such a conversation? >> yes. >> under what circumstances is it appropriate to ask the secretary's general counsel for legal advice?

>> i am not sure whether there is ever a circumstance in which that's necessary. the inspector general's act, as you know, gives the inspector general his own general counsel and the right also to pin other counsel of other inspectors general, so i'm not sure of a circumstance in which i could do that. mr. may be one -- there may be one, i simply can't think of one off the top of my head. >> under what circumstances would it be appropriate to share information with members or staff of one party but not of the other? >> again, it's hard for me to conceive of a circumstance where that would be appropriate. >> well, i -- and i think that's something that, um, you know, we -- it's a very hard thing to do around here, to be agnostic. >> sure. >> about party identification. if there's ever a place that

it's essential, it's in the role of ig. the minute you try to play ball with one side or the other, it doesn't matter whether you're playing ball with the democrats or the republicans, that means an immediate loss of credibility of the agency. because then it isn't about the facts, it's about the politics. and, um, i just wanted to make sure i got all that on the record at hearing. i look forward to you having some uncomfortable moments in my subcommittee, and, um, also look forward to working with you to try to strengthen the independence of your office and, obviously, i know the chairman and senator johnson who is the ranking member of my subcommittee, i know all of us just want you to be able to succeed and do the work that this agency so desperately needs. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. >> senator mccaskill,

something that you said and something that mr. roth said earlier, i was talking to him about the values that he learned from his parents. and one of the things he mentioned is integrity. i think senator mccaskill really just gave you some really good advice, and i'd like to second it. one of the great quotes i've heard on begty, if you've got it, nothing else matters. if you don't have it, nothing else matters. so that's a great one to learn from your folks for all of us. i have a couple more questions, and then i'll yield back to senator johnson if you'd like to ask some more and, senator mccaskill, thank you so much for joining us. and one thought that comes to mind is just in terms of advice, just by chance you're confirmed, but i would, i would urge you -- you may have already done this, too -- to identify igs that are going into an agency where

morale is lapsing, an agency in some turmoil and talk to whoever's come in and done a good job and just to learn from that person how they've done it. as you know, the relationship between the inspector general and the secretary of the department or deputy secretary of a department, in a way, it's sort of an arm's length relationship, but there needs to be an ability to work together. in my role as governor and working with our state auditor as they audited all of our different agencies, a lot of the information they gave us was good, but we had audited that were not timely, they covered a period of time that may have been a year or two ago that had already been addressed, and there was no recognition of that in the awed fit. and so -- in the autodid. so the role that the ig can play can be very construct i, very, very helpful, but it has to be timely, and i think the ability to have a good conversation, ongoing dialogue. even at times there'll be

disagreements, but i think that's important. and i'll urge the secretary and the deputy secretary to work with you to create that kind of working relationship. it'll not just help you in the job that you and your folks are doing in the ig's office, it'll help make them better leaders and it'll ultimately help the taxpayers. and we won't have anything to do here, right, ron? find other things to focus on. all right. you obviously have extensive experience on the investigative side of the ledger, maybe less background focusing on the ig's mandate to promote general improvement, in this case in the department of homeland security's operations and programs. i'd just ask you to discuss for just a minute or two what experience you have had in identifying program weaknesses and recommending improvements, how would you approach this part of the oig mission within the department? >> certainly, senator. and i think that's absolutely

important, that we not only learn from -- or, you know, be the watchdog and the overseer with regard to dhs operations, but also to try to be the advocate for, if i'm confirmed, to be the advocate for good government. certainly, aye seen that dhs has done some of that, the ig's office has done some of that. for example, some of the reports with regard to fema, the response, for example, to hurricane sandy, i believe there was a report that was recently written that talked about things that fema did that made it effective in their initial response to the hurricane. and it was more than just a cheerleading session, it was these are the things that they did with an attempt to sort of advocate that that get replicated in future disaster events. so if i'm confirmed, that is something i certainly would want to do as i move forward. >> all right.

a second follow-up question is, goes back to acquisitions. the subcommittee that senator johnson and senator mccaskill lead focus on a number of things, but one of of those is acquisitions. and just focus a little bit on that and babe the sort of -- and maybe the sort of the management side of the ledger at the department of homeland security. i'll say at the beginning leadership is the most important criteria i've seen for almost any entity being successful. i don't care whether it's a business, whether it's a school, i don't care whether it's military, athletic, if you've got good leadership, i'll show you a team that's on the way up. if you don't have it, i'll show you a team that's not going to go far. and that's why it's so important we're making progress in terms of meeting the need for leadership within dhs. there's still too many gaping holes in the department. but secretary, deputy secretary, this position be, if we can fill

these and a couple of others in this month, that would be great progress. the department of homeland security has struggled, as you know, over the years with management of its major acquisitions. senator mccain referred to one or two of those. in recent years the department's leadership has initiated several efforts at the department level to provide more oversight by headquarters. the major accuracy decision -- acquisition of some of the components. for example, the department has implemented they call it an integrated investment strategy to look at the total needed of the department so that acquisitions are not carried out in a stovepipe way in those different components. i'd just ask what would be your approach to assessing these efforts? and if you would, please. >> certainly, senator. and what dhs has done in my reading, in my perception is that they've attempted to put a governance structure on major

acquisitions, whether it be i.t. or other kinds of infrastructure be improvements. you have to have a governance people understand. what is it that you're trying to do, what's the best way to get there, the most cost effective way to get there. and i think the ig has a very critical role to play not only in taking a look at that governance structure, but equally important, to insure that the components follow the government structure. so it is there to protect those components from waste, fraud and abuse. it's perfectly appropriate for the inspector general to be able to to take a look at that and insure that they are complying with it. >> okay. in terms of acquisition and i.t. especially, we spend on the committee a fair amount of time focusing on data centers, i.t.. we don't do i.t. all that well in the federal government. one of the problems at dhs is they hire people, sometimes fairly junior people maybe knew newly out -- newly out of school, sometimes with good experience, sometimes not so

much. we train them, get them up to speed, they get hired away by the nsa or some private entity, and we have to start all over again. one of the things dr. coburn and i have done is how do we boll thester the work force and -- bolster the work force and enable dhs and the cyber world to develop the kind of capabilities we have at nsa. so let me continue my, with my thought and my questions on with respect to acquisition. while everyone seems to agree that the d. needs stronger -- the department needs stronger management, not everyone is willing to fund the management functions of the department. i've been particularly concerned about steep proposed cuts in the management side in the house version of the dhs appropriations bill which is taking shape, literally, as we meet here this week. will you be willing to identify management functions within the department that are weaker than they should be because of lack of funding? is that something that you could

see, the oig helping us in? >> i think that falls squarely, senator, within the oig or mission, and if i'm confirmed, i'd be perfectly happy to take a look at that. >> all right. and a third question, then i'll yield to senator johnson, but i mentioned cybersecurity a minute ago. let me just come back to it. as you know, one of the greatest challenges that face our nation and our federal agencies, read something, senator johnson, just this week that reiterated thoughts in terms to our national security that is regarded as a higher one by many than terrorism, and that's regarded by many welcome back our defense -- within our defense agencies. but the department of homeland security as well as other agencies plays a significant role in securing cyberspace, auditing complex and highly technical areas such as the cybersecurity posture of the department requires strong expertise and close collaboration with department officials. if confirmed, how would you work

with the department to carry out its role in cybersecurity and any thoughts you have on how you might help improve it where necessary. >> certainly. and i agree, this is critically important, and it's important not to be fighting the last war, but try to prepare for the next war. >> yeah. we're pretty good at fighting the last war usually. >> and i was able to review the testimony and the hearing that this committee had in the anniversary of 9/11 this year where, for example, add mural allen -- admiral allen testified -- >> that was a good hearing. >> critically important to get this right. i know that the office of inspector general has a specialized unit that takes a look ativity t. issues. if i'm confirmed, i'd like to take a look at that, make sure we have the kind of expertise, the kind of vision that's necessary to really add value to the dhs efforts in this area. >> where all right, thank you. senator johnson? >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i'd just like to quickly go back to the issue of the secret service, respond a little bit to your comments, but also connect the dots between a question i had and one of your previous answers. there's no doubt about it, we have to be looking forward. and we have to make sure that we put the policies in place, the controls in place so cartagena doesn't happen again. but in response to my question about prioritization, your first priority was national security. and in no way, shape or form did i continue to pursue our investigation of the secret service because i relished it. i did it because i truly believe that type of behavior puts at risk not only people's lives, but our national security. and i had hoped that the culture report, first of all, would have come back in a far more timely fashion. i would have hoped it would have been far more rigorous.

i would have hoped that i could agree with its conclusion that this behavior is not potentially widespread. i still don't know. i hope it's not widespread be, but i read that culture report and in no way, shape or form can i conclude that we don't have a problem in the secret service. so i guess i just hope that you adhere to, you know, your initial answer to my question that our national security's your top priority in terms of looking at these issue, and i hope you agree with me that this question has, remains unanswered. because i just simply do not believe the culture report even begins to have as much rigor as what it should have. and this -- and my question started immediately from that may 2012 hearing with director sullivan that i simply did not believe the testimony was credible from a standpoint that this was a one-time occurrence. i am still highly concerned. i think the question's still on

the table, and i hope you truly pursue that so we can fete to the bottom of it -- get to the bottom of it, and then we can move forward with a credible secret service agency that protects people's lives and international security. thank you. >> what -- let me just think out loud here, call an audible. this is something that senator johnson cares deeply about, is focused and his staff a lot of time and attention on it. so has the ig's office, the inspector general. they've spent a great deal of time, and they've come forward, i think, with a timely report. sometimes investigations take years to develop a completed product x. in this case i think you've, the agency's come forth with timely work. what i would urge you to consider doing, both of you, is if you're confirmed -- i hope you will be -- that one of the first orders of business would be to convene a briefing on capitol hill which you and the folks who are intimately

involved in the investigation and to brief senator johnson, his staff on this matter. and once you've done that, senator john soften, you may want to -- john szob, you may want to consider spending some time with the new, still-new director of the secret service and some of her top team. and if it's appropriate for me and my staff to join you for that or others, feel free to do that. just a thought i'd lay out for you. >> i appreciate that, mr. chairman. >> okay. well, so far so good. i've said to some of our staff here on the republican side and on the democratic side if you're as good as an ig, inspector general, as you are as a witness, we could be in pretty good hands. [laughter] but i'd say to your sons, to john and to michael and to mo'nique, i have a lot of witnesses before us, they don't always deliver testimony as succinct and direct as your

husband and father has done today and, frankly, are questions are not always as succinct and direct either. i want to walk back a little bit on the timeline on the, that has transspired and led us to this day. this is a position, an enormously important decision. important because ten years sounds like a long time for it to have been around, but it's still -- thank you, senator -- still a department with growing pains and a lot of work that has to be done. having said that, and it's a department that, unfortunately, has low morale. having said that, there are a lot of of good people in that department. a lot of good people. they do enormously important work. and i know have they been frustrated because they went without a secretary for sick months, almost six months, they went without a deputy secretary for about eight months, and they need leadership, and i think they've got good leadership.

this is an agency that, obviously, needs good leadership. i want to just go back. i think it was in march, march 1, 2011, that richard skinner, the last senate-confirmed inspector general for dhs, that's when he retired, march 1, 2011. and about three months later the president mom nailed a woman named rosalynn maizer to be the ig. so that's not great, that's not bad this terms of timing -- in terms of timing. that was in july of 2011. almost a year later, june of 2012, her nomination was withdrawn after not going anywhere. for a year. and it was clear that she could not be confirmed because of the opposition of at least one, maybe two members of our committee. fast forward to early 2012, i

think january 2012, but i think when richard skinner retired, that the deputy ig became the acting inspector general. that would have been back in march of 2011. and continued as acting ig after rosalynn maizer's name was wrawp. withdrawn. and continued as acting ig until, i think, early -- i would say earlier that year. it became apparent that you can't be the acting ig for more than i want to say a couple, 210 days. after about 210 days, the president could have named somebody else, did not, and so he was, by virtue of being deputy ig, remained the person in charge of the agency. now, so all that transpired between march 2011 and we'll say the beginning of last summer,

summer of 2013. by that point in time, we'd been more than two years without a senate-confirmed ig. and the white house vetted an unknown individual for the nomination, and that vetting process went forward, and the president was prepared to submit that name. and just before submitting it, the nominee and his or her family decided they weren't going to move from california to washington to really come and try to help drain the swamp here. and so the white house started over again, and subsequent to that in four or five months later, you were nominated to be our inspector general at the department of homeland security. i am really grateful to dr. coburn and the members of our staffs and our colleagues for their work and for your cooperation, the department's cooperation in expediting this nomination. but it's been since march 1, 2011, since we had a senate-confirmed ig in place which is totally unacceptable,

almost three years. and leadership is critical in almost everything, any organization i've ever seen a part of. apparently my staff tells me that we cannot -- and dr. coburn suggested to me in a sidebar conversation earlier this morning, he suggested the possibility of doing a markup on nomination off the floor. it wouldn't be back here in this room in a very formal way, but we can still meet off the floor like we oftentimes do in the capitol to do a nomination, really do a short discussion ask a vote on -- and a vote on the nomination. understand we can't do the that legally this week, is that correct? a week has to pass before we can do that. but hopefully, if we can work it out with dr. coburn and his staff and our colleagues, i'd love to be able to do that maybe next week. the other thing i want to

mention is the issue of how long some investigations take. and dr. coburn asked earlier that your office, if you're confirmed, move forward in a timely way on the investigation involving now-deputy secretary mayorkas. and it's important that we move forward a pace. i want to just mention another investigation i just learned about this one, but it goes back to an investigation of a former special counsel named scott black who, which was delayed. complaints were lodged in march of 2005, march of 2005. the investigation concluded in december of 2013. and on this case it's not the oig's office who was the main culprit, apparently, it was the justice department.

and it was complicit, if you will, this the delay. in the delay. there are reasons why it took longer than normal, but as i'm sure you agree, eight years, really, really unacceptable by anybody's standard. so i would just have you keep in mind the old admonition justice delayed is justice denied. and just make sure that that's something that the folks you lead are mindful, mindful of. um, one -- you've gotten some advice from us. we hope it's constructive, friendly advice, that's for sure. the -- again, i go back, i'd urge you to spend some time early on with the secretary and deputy secretary at your convenience and theirs. i'd also urge you to spend literally within the first month time with a fellow named gene dodaro who you probably know. finish gene is a wonderful

leader of the general accountability office, testifies here often as does his team from gao. they help us in all kinds of ways. and he -- there's a matchal bond or a pickup -- natural bond or partnership between the igs and the general accountability office, and i would urge you to make it personal. you're going into it new, you're taking up leadership of an agency that has been, we've got great people there, i know, out of the 650 people there, terrific people there, a lot of them this there, but i think gene dodaro is able to give you some good advice and, frankly, be helpful. the last thing i want to do, i sometimes give people a chance to make -- you've made an opening statement, sometimes i give people a chance to make a closing statement. if you promise not to take long, i'd like to give you that opportunity now. >> thank you, senator. and you'll find that, if i'm confirmed, conciseness is one of my hallmarks. >> i've noticed that. >> i do want to thank the

committee, yourself, the ranking member, all the members of the committee, the staff for the graciousness by which they've taken the time to inform me of the issues. i appreciate the ability to be here today to discuss can these very important -- to discuss these very important issues. as i indicated in my opening, it's create tically important to get this thing right. it's important for the more than people, and it's important for the american taxpayer to get this right. i have dedicated my entire life to public service. i think it is a public trust. my credibility, my personal credibility is the coin of the realm in this town, and i have no intention, if i'm confirmed, of ever soiling that. so i'd ask for your support in confirmation, and if that happens, i think i will do a good job. >> well, i think, i think you just might. i think you just might. my staff is just handing me something i think they want me to read, so i'll do it just so i

don't -- we don't miss anything. it says i would like to thank mr. roth for appearing before the committee today, i do. i also wanted to say to mo'nique and to john and to michael, i i thought he did pretty good, what do you think? two thumbs up? what do you think? all right. you guys, i know it's a comfort to him for you three to have his back. that was great. all these years. mr. roth has filed, i'm told, responses to biographical questionnaires, he's answered prehearing questions submitted by the committee and our staff, and he's had his financial statements reviewed by the office of government earth -- ethics. and without objection, this information will be made a part of the hearing record with the exception of financial data which are on file and available for public inspection in the committee offices. and without objection, the record will be kept open til noon tomorrow, til noon tomorrow for the submission of any written questions or statements for the record.

and i think with that, i think it's a wrap. so we're going to adjourn. and, again, my thanks to you and to all who have joined us. >> thank you, senator. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> it's disappointing to all of us to see the deterioration of the security inside of iraq. you know, i spent a lot of my life over there. from 2006, end of 2006 to september 2010, i was there as we continued to reduce the level of violence and the sectarian violence that was going on. i believe we left it in a place that was capable of being able to move forward. we've now seen it because of internal issues, that security situation has now devolved into something that is, in my mind, concerning. but this is not just about iraq. in my mind, it's something we have to be cognizant of as we

look across the middle east; what's going on in syria, what's going on in will be non, what's going on -- lebanon, what's going on inside of iraq. and it's this sectarian, building of sectarian conflict between sunni and shia and then the exmoyation of that -- exploy exploy -- exploitation of that. >> this weekend on c-span, army chief of staff general ray odierno looks at the security situation in the mideast and the future of the u.s. army saturday morning at 10 eastern. live saturday on c-span2, political strategist mary matalin and james carville on their love and war relationship at 11 on booktv. and on c-span3's american history tv, prohibition and the rise of the gangster, sunday morning right past 10 eastern. >> i think that there's a way in which we have set up this sort of impossible series of

expectations, especially for our presidents. but for elected official as a whole, that they are going to come in, swoop in, save the day, and when it doesn't happen, or we give congress a 9% approval rating and the president a 39% approval rating. so the preponderatations have to be -- expectations have to be lowered, and i think that's part of really is quite amazing about the american founding. it's not that the founders themselves said, look, don't expect much from government, it is government isn't going to be the main driver of our liberty. it is going to be civil society. the federal government exists to do certain things, and it better do them well. if it does not do them well, nothing else will be properly situated. but the main area of activity is going to be in the private sphere be, in the civil society. and in the election of local officers and the carrying out of duties at the local and state levels. and there is even in that, i think, a measure of mod

deathsty, of d modesty, of recognizing it's not possible for people from washington, d.c. to run a nation of 310 million people. >> david bobb on humility sunday night at 8 on c-span's "q&a." >> new jersey governor chris christie held a news conference yesterday addressing reporters' questions about an apparent planned traffic jam on the george washington bridge that lasted for four days and possibly contributed to the death of a person needing immediate medical attention. here's a portion of his remarks. >> good morning. i come out here to this office where i've been many times before, and i come out here today to apologize to the people of new jersey. i apologize to the people of fort lee, and i apologize to the members of the state legislature.

i am embarrassed and hue hilluated -- humiliated by the conduct of some of the people on my team. les no doubt in my -- no doubt in my mind that the conduct that they exhibited is completely unacceptable and showed a lack of respect for their appropriate role in government and for the people that we're trusted to serve. two pieces to what i want to talk about today. the first is i believe that all of the people who were affected by this conduct deserve this apology, and that's why i'm giving it to them. i also need to apologize to them for my failure as the governor of this state to understand the

true nature of this problem sooner than i did. but i believe i have an understanding now of the true nature of the problem, and i've taken the following actions as a result: this morning i've terminated the employment of bridget kelly effective immediately, i've terminated her employment because she lied to me. >> a portion of new jersey above chris christie's news conference. it lasted nearly two hours yesterday. we'll have it in its entirety sunday at 10:35 a.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span. and we're live this morning as political strategists and journalists will discuss the 2014 election cycle. washington post political reporter chris solizza moderates the discussion at the newseum here in washington, it's hosted by the group center ford.

center forward. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> again, we are waiting for the start of this discussion on the 2014 election cycle and on politics featuring strategy gists and journalists this morning. washington post political reporter chris solizza moderates this discussion taking place at the newseum here and hosted by the group, center forward. the associated press reporting that the u.s. economy has added 74,000 jobs, and unemployment falls to 6.7% now because fewer people are seening work -- seeking work. again, the unemployment numbers down to 6.7%. the joint economic committee will meet this morning and discuss the december employment report. that'll start live at 9:30 eastern on our companion network, c-span3. also this morning former senate tom daschle will be the featured speaker on the topic of bipartisanship in washington. that is hosted by the washington center for internships and academic seminars and the bipartisan policy center.

that'll get under way at 11 a.m. eastern right here on c-span2. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] .. [inaudible conversations]

>> are we ready? if everyone can take a seat will go ahead and get started with our program. thank you all for coming today to the first quarterly dividend for 2014. this is, i know it's bad weather. we originally scheduled this for late last year and it snowed, and then today we get sleet. but thank you for coming. center forward brings together members of congress, nonprofit, academic experts, trade association, corporations and unions to find common ground and common sense solutions to challenges. our mission is divided bipartisan discussion across party lines to the biggest challenges facing our country today. with the semi-we brought

together did a terrific panel to discuss what we can anticipate this year in congress and with the coming midterm erections in the wake of the launch of obamacare and the recent government shutdown. i'd like to personally introduce our moderator. we're delighted to have been one today. -- chris cillizza today. is washington's -- is with "washington post." chris comforts august, white house an open political for the fixed, his political law. he came to washington those from roll call and other washington publications i'm sure we all read as well. prior to join roll call chris covered governors races and house races at the cook political report. so please join me in welcoming chris today. [applause] >> our first panel today is republican -- dan hazelwood.

he is recognized for his work in the areas of campaign strategy, message to open, persuasion which i'm not sure what i mean what they do so would like to learn today if we could. in 1992, dan formed targeted creative communications, republican direct marketing company based in alexandria, virginia. it's in virtually every state. is as close to the bush-cheney in 2004 and 2000, dole in 96 and so senate and governor races. and over five dozen members of the house of representatives. please join me in welcoming dan. [applause] >> our next unless is david wasserman, he is the house editor for the cook political report. probably a dream job for a lot of us here in the room. he is responsible for analyzing u.s. house races. he also serves as an associate

editor of the "national journal," has contributed to the almanac of american politics 2014. in april of 2011, david authored the cook political report comprehensive 20 tell redistricting outlook. please join me in welcoming david. [applause] >> our third panelist is jeff liszt. he is a democratic pollster and strategist. jeff is a partner with anzalone liszt grove research, a national recognized democratic polling firm. therefrom does polling on political candidates and various elected officials including senate members, members of congress, governors and other statewide official. in 2008, jeff as part of the campaign team that helped elect president obama. please join me in welcoming jeff

liszt. [applause] >> and with that i will turn it over to you, chris. >> thank you. thank you all for coming. i know in virginia this point it was a little bit i see, so i appreciate your making it. i'm going to talk very briefly. let these guys to all of it of the spiel and then i'll ask a few questions and and i think will probably most interested, i'll speak for myself, i'm most interested if you guys have questions. i was just going through some numbers last night knowing i was going to do this. and it is remarkable, the number of a think what we would identify as moderate, either liberal tomorrow republicans or moderate to conservative democrats, however you want to do that, the left congress either willingly or unwillingly in the last few years. this week we saw mike mcintyre

representing don't kind of come when the most conservative shift in the country, he won by the closest margin of any democratic incumbent in the country in 2012 retiring. jim matheson in utah who represents a district that he should absolutely not represent. if there's anyone else there, it's a remarkably republican district, also regarding. jim gerlach, a republican in the suburbs of philadelphia. also retiring. i don't think that's by accident. i think congress is in less than pleasant place to be at the moment. there are some members of congress here again dispute my theory but i think it's not the most pleasant place to be right now. one number i was struck by, the blue dog democrats, in the 111th congress there were 54 members of the blue dogs coalition. that are currently 50.

this is one of my favorite kind of fascinating sets, of the seven most conservative house democrats, according to "national journal"'s vote rating, of the seven most, all of them are no longer in the house. this was the seven most influential. dan boren of oklahoma, mike ross, jason altmire and tim holden of pennsylvania, into our -- joe donnelly is the other one redistricted. elected to the u.s. senate. i don't think it takes a rocket scientist to conclude that less people who, whether through their own bent or the politics of the district are inclined to cooperate with the other side. that if there are less of those people, the likelihood of

smallbore big bore, is increasingly unlikely. i think we've seen a player over the last few years. my guess, not to sound too cynical, my guess is 2014, you may or may not be aware of this but this is an election year. that seems to make it very unlikely that the deals happen that typically is not the way we work in this town, as everyone kind of looks toward their reelection races as opposed to spending a lot of time on what would likely be a very controversial or at least a difficult reach across the aisle to get something done deal, whether that's on fiscal things, immigration, energy. you know, i think, small or nothing. we all hold the possibility that we're surprised but we are often not surprised.

the one of the things i will say this as it relates to this in and then i will stop, i think you have the combination of moderates heading for the exit and i think you also have massive turnover, particularly in the senate, a place where there is not typically all that much turnover. these numbers are amazing to me. since 2008 there are 40 new center to since 2008. 20 democrats, 20 republicans. six years ago, not that long ago, 44 senators had served at least three terms. today that number is 32. the congress were currently income more than half the senators have served one full term or less. more than half the senators have served one full term or less. the house is very much in play. i think the power of outside groups, particularly on the republican side has made it that many senators are more loyal or

at least more aware of some of these outside groups than it might be a john cornyn or mitch mcconnell leadership, and you see people are just new. is not an institutional wisdom that exist. you can argue this is a good thing or a bad thing but it is a thing. to take the commendation of huge turnover with the departure of moderates and you are in some ways where we are today. i'm going to stop there because i'm really interested in what these guys have to say and then i'll just question them as i see fit. let's just go my right to my left. david. >> thanks, chris. it on a lot of important points. 2014 will be another polarizing election in this country. if you look at the house, the cook political report currently breaks 45 races out of 435 as competitive in a general election. that includes 24 democratic held seats and 21 republican held seats.

democrats need 17 seats to take control of the house but they really need to pick up 19 republican house seats because there's no realistic chance they can hold either north carolina's seventh district or utah, so if you look at that map and that all of democrats would need to win 43 of those races we currently see as competitive in or to take back the house. that's something that we've never seen before. in fact, the likelihood i think as a republican, will make a small net gain in the house and 2014 for three reasons. first of all, simply the history of the six-year itch election, the pattern where in post-world war ii era we've had the party in the presidency lose an average of 29 house seats and six senate seats in the sector midterm election. second of all, the terrain it and just the fact that the house is very well sorted out right now. there are only 17 republicans left in districts that president

obama cured in 2012. there are only nine democrats remaining in districts that mitt romney carried in 2012, two of them are in this room today, congressman murphy and congressman darrell. so then you get to the third factor which is really the midterm turnout dynamic. this is something that flies under the radar a lot in the media but will really be destiny in the 2014 midterm election. who vote in midterm tends to be older voters, wider voters, wealthier voters. that never will use to matter back in the 1990s, 1980s because in terms of this generation gap democrats and republicans were doing just about as well with voters between the ages of 18-20 voters who are 60 and older. what happens in this day and era where you president obama's approval rating 15 points better among voters and that younger age group than the older age group. you have an electorate that is basically -- two to three points

republicans in the midterm election compared to what you typically have in a presidential year without any opinions haven't changed. so we are looking at probably republican gain in the house in the single digits somewhere if the election were held today. democrats really would have needed to sustain that momentum on the 15 day government shutdown in the 2014 or to have a chance of picking up seats. we'll see if they can kind of move the needle back over the course of the next 10 months. but i think we've gone from a place of talking about how moderates are a dying breed in congress to moving on to the debate about, well, does that turn around or are the factors that are within the control of voices in the senate? and i think the first step for voices in the center in congress to realize is that there are societal forces at work here that are much larger than simply one election. i would argue there are three

trends that of early transform the landscape come and there are reforms that those in the middle can consider the kind of move away from the polarization that we've seen. and i look forward to discussing those trends today, whether it's self sorting and electric, whether it's the decline of straight ticket voting or split take it voting rather across the country, and also simply the prevalence of primaries and that force in the election moving members of congress. >> i like that. that was like a movie trailer. i have one very important thing to do that will not be in till the end. go ahead. >> i think i would actually ago the point, as a historian i would at least caution people to say that whenever anybody says this is the most decisive election in history, of course it is because it's the one you are involved in. if you look at the trend that's probably been going on where at

least of those of us on the panel our career in politics, there's been this clear trend headed to where we are and where we are going as far as polarization, the party getting a new level of equality in polling and respect on a national level. when i started in this business it was inconceivable. i was a house republican guy back when we thought they would never be a republican majority in the house back ever, in my lifetime but it was just inconceivable. we all labored under the absolute belief that obviously that thankfully is far gone. so we are in big trend where a lot is shifting. at the moment the numbers of the senate retirement to moderate, this is just happen. we have to go through this process. if you look at the seats that a large number of these new members have, they're probably going to be senators and they will get to their term in many places. not so many of the ones that are up this year.

we will be able to defeat a number of democrats issued because of the political embargo. that's the other cycle we're in right now is the cycle back and forth of polarization combined with going to the center of electorate which is very fractured and not monolithic in its year except for what? it feels totally disconnected and feels like washington and the power elite of or in this country, whether it's business or big labor or politics, state or local or federal, does not give a rats you know what about them but in the event abandoned. that i think is the challenge going for. one of the tremendous things that obama brought as a candidate in '08 was suddenly there was going to be this different approach to things. and then he made rahm emanuel and nancy pelosi is joint prime ministers and waged war on the republican party and we went right back into a highly polarized world. we are going to continue in the world and that's where we're

going to go into we get the next president. that's just sort of the fact of where we are, and politically unfortunate for the country obamacare is just a train wreck, from public opinion points of view. scraping a great opportunity for republicans but it's going to be a good year for all the demographic -- another political hide is coated with republicans. we are looking at big games and the democrats will try everything that they do to change that. i'm sure we will talk about that. one point i would caution both my party and the democrats, history is not the person that's trying to force you to do something different but it's usually going to be some outside factor that is going to pull people's attention away from obamacare. and who knows what that will end up being. the old phrase is a lifetime in politics in the next 10 months. it certainly is but it would be a fascinating year. >> job.

>> well, obviously my belief about 2014 our little bit different. i think if you look at some of the recent elections that we've had, the concrete settle relatively easy. i think that is the case in the 2006 weight yuba county was also largely the case in 2010. -- 2006 weight year. i think that certainly republicans numbers have rebounded since the government shutdown which led to a sizable democratic advantage on the generic ballots there was a cnn poll in december that showed republicans retaking and revenge on the generic ballot, people with genetic preference. in congress, but he think that there's still a great chance not only for an event driven change in the generic ballot, like a problem stemming from another budget fight, but also from the primaries and what republican

primaries delivered this you but if you look back at recent elections, the story is only in part republican gains in the house, but i think that it's at a larger since the failure of republicans to take back the senate. and until i see an example of republican primaries delivering candidates who can win general elections, i'm still going to be pretty optimistic about the 2014th election. one of the things that's going to come into play is, is how macroeconomics intersects with party messages. one of the things that's happening in america right now is that while productivity for workers continues to rise and more corporate profits continue to rise, wages remain flat. so if you're in a job and you're trying to support your family, your perception is that you're working hard and that you are not being rewarded in particular

for working hard. you are not necessarily making more money. it's harder to send your kids to college. you are struggling in spite of how hard you're working. and i think that that is a feeling among the electorate that cuts across party lines. if you look at the anger that animated voters in 2010 and delivered a lot of republican gains, it's not all that different from the anger that deliver democratic gains in 2006 and 2008. it's a feeling that we are in a society where others are getting taken care of and others are doing well in 2006 in 2008, democrats made the argument that it was a wealthy and big corporations. in 2010 i think republicans pretty compellingly made the case that obama to respond to provide insurance to people who didn't have it, which is not the people who are showing up to vote, as majority of voters already have insurance so their

perception was that the government was delivering for people -- but also a i don't think we should neglect the ways in which 2010 republicans ran to the left of democrats. david talked about seniors, and seen is doing better for republicans to republicans ran left of democrats on medicare in 2010. in fact, i think there's a tendency that the 2010 election was animated by different forces and that it was in some way a real repudiation of what did happen in washington. but i'm not all that convinced that the anger that is animating the left and the right has been all that different. i do think there is a standard that is ultimately less polarized than what you see in washington and the congress that represents it. i think that as we look forward to 2014, we are going to keep a night out for some of the dynamics that we saw in 2010. one of which is seniors and

which way they break. right after the 2010 election you saw the special election in new york in which tapioca was elected, a race decide on medicare, but ineffective the way in which the race in 2010 have been decide on medicare. i think that we're going to look also at the people who haven't really done all that well in this economic recovery, discourse with people without college degrees. i think we are going to look and see a special women without college degrees, which way they break. because 2010 was an important year in which they broke against democrats but democrats lost the edge they had with those voters in terms of who's on your site. i think we are going to look also at a lot of suburban areas, areas that i think that after to those in a democrats felt like they had locked up areas like the area outside of richmond or outside charlotte which were

important and republican victories in 2009 and 2010 in those states. but i remain optimistic, not only optimistic for democratic politicians and democrats like kay hagan in north carolina who aren't centrist, but also for the country as a whole. because i do believe we are ultimately less polarized. >> i just want to go rent one more time and then we can take questions. this is the thing i was contacted. gallup had a poll out this week, which party do you identify with, independent 42%. highest it's ever been. and yet the effort to find -- 42% of the country thinks they are independent. i think we all would agree, democrat and republican, would agree people don't like the two parties but if you say the only thing better at this moment that

the democratic, worse than democratic, it's republican. in truth, people and congress you ask them, 33% of people, everybody hates everybody. live in one of his large number of people who call themselves independent to have these efforts like in 2012 they tried to recruit an independent candidate and had money behind, having him in convention and the person that they picked was ron paul. so i don't -- who by the way wasn't even actively trying to get the nomination. so what is the disconnect between the number of people who i think we all agree say the two-party system is broken, democrats and republicans don't represent me, the number of people identified as an affiliate is going up everywhere but, in fact, that it tends to either be innocent ideologically any democratic or republican party, or to form a center that is apart from the democratic and republican party doesn't work. jeff, why did you go first?

>> first, i think that the 42% independent number is inflated a little bit because when you ask people whether not a link towards the democrats or lean towards republican, the independent number shrinks a lot. we found that if you say you're independent but you say you lean towards one party, your behavior tends to be very similar to the people who flat-out identified as being from that party. i think one of the other findings in the gallup poll was the republican identification is at an all time low. that doesn't mean that there are that many fewer people out there who are voting republican get it means a lot of them are self identifying as independent. a lot of those are key party voters. one of the challenges in the bolster when you're digging out twho defined as independent is whether not you grow as usual in the people who say they're not with any party because that tends to be more of a tea party universe. in 2010 and a lot of races you have a third party candidate on the ballot who was a key party candidate, and how optimistic

you of the democrat because of how much you really expected that third party candidate to get in the end most of those voters in him to the republican party and republicans ended up doing well. so as a pollster these days am looking more at peoplesoft identify as moderates. and less as people who self identify as independent. >> i think one of the things we're looking at exit polling in 2012 or 2013, people think that independent and moderate are synonymous. the data would suggest that they are, in fact, not at all. i remind people, ken cuccinelli one independence over terry mcauliffe. he obviously did not win the race your he lost ballot among moderates. mitt romney won the so-called critical independent vote in 2012 while losing the general election to barack obama. i think we tend to proviso in this category, we tend --

independent monitors, they are not, in fact, -- now the same thing. >> let me also add a label, when someone calls people swing voters, these terms are fiction. i mean, you know, okay, so jeff says independence am a republican, i was a moderate or democrats. both of our analysis and we differ on the degree. what's the commonality of the 42% is, in this era of polarization is like they are polarized against the beltway. they are polarizing against everybody in this room because we live in washington area. very against us. because they have been trained through repetitive painful experience that the interaction with government have caused them pain and discomfort. and i think jeff's earlier comment about talking about the inequality issues, i think there's a lot come the idea that the democrats can this group of people who are very

disconnected. the problem that the democrats have is, with that message and to that audience is those people no longer trust democrats. obamacare has been a virus that has convinced a large portion of that group of people that there's no solution at care about them. they are just trading one party, all the statements people -- there's a difference between a party when there's massive differences the parties. spent people don't feel that, right? >> the only difference is, there's 42% of americans is that the parties are the same. they don't care about. that's creating a big dynamic out there. that's where we're going to be fighting over this next election. >> which brings me toyou, though, the same question, which is that environment you would think would be right for candidates. i'm guessing why isn't there a

third party right now, but it would be right for candidates theoretically you said exactly what you just -- these people are not listening to you. i will. and yet that kind of candidate does not seem to be -- broad generalizations. that are certainly candidates like that, but that candidate doesn't seem to be emerging as often as you would think booking purely from a darwin perspective that it would be good to have a message like that. >> chris, two things going on with independence. why our independence more republican than gri group when e exit polls and their moderate. i think large part because the word republican has become a similarly dirty word as the word liberal became decades ago. there are many self-identified conservatives in the electorate who have lost faith in the republican party establishment in washington for spending too much over the last decade who

don't call themselves republicans when they are asked by gallop anymore. so i think there's a slightly conservative hinge and that conservative group your there's another thing, particularly among younger voters. this is what i expect that 42% going to go up over the net next few years but younger voters have grown up in an adequate have lost eight in both parties to come together and get things done, which is what the plurality of not the majority of the american electorate really wants to see happen in washington. so the question that it really have is what is the overlap between that 42% of independents and those already deciding to come here in primary? how me of those participate in primaries? in many cases and many elections we see in congressional primaries, participation rates of about what, 20%, which means many districts, 10% or fewer of voters are actually selecting the member who comes to washington and votes on their behalf. so how do those voices who are

being underrepresented in washington either enhance and expand participation in primary election, or open up the primary process altogether through reforms like a state of california have undertaken speaks i think it's a false choice for primary voters. a lot of the most polarizing people of come out of primaries in the last few years has been people have been angry at washington and the been talk that washington is broken. >> i want to ask one more question and then i'll open it up, which is, polarization, political polarization may be mad, as several groups, most on the right at this point because i think having the white house makes it harder, but have proven that they may be best for governance but it's quite good for business in that many groups have made their living, dan, and have cropped up and made their

living by endorsing the ted cruz's of the world that these people challenge, chris daniel running against thad cochran in mississippi. is that -- is the rise of ted cruz, mike lee, rand paul, i put them in a group though i know you are quite coded differences between the three of them, is that a good, bad or indifferent thing for getting things done in washington? and arm over again, your point s always we're not really in an -- we think we're in -- >> i'm a conservative, i'm in madison and look at the federalist papers and like our government is not designed to move fast. they fear a government of passions of the moment making big radical decisions like changing one-sixth of our economy on partyline votes. that's it had -- >> i don't know what you're referring to.

>> that's not what the founders wanted her to like the idea that a system has publications and problems and slows things down. and madison said, action must be made to combat action. you have move one or the other. you tea party movements, which are far more fractured and probably move on oregon -- organizations are more fractured than i realized. i think many is good. i think the challenge that we've got here is when you add what i think is a really smart system that forces all these political fights, so i think it is healthy. i opposed labor in a lot of situations. it's great that they're in the mix and they're trying to fight. the problem we have now in our large country of 300 million plus people is we have a political structure where it takes a massive amount of name identification and resources to run a campaign. for a congressional seat.

if you want reform, you want to change the system from all the talk about money and all that stuff is irrelevant in my opinion, generally bad. you want to change the system in a healthy way, take the house of representatives up to like 1000 people or 1200 people to it's a couple years off. who knows what that will crop up as 4-aces but what it will mean is grassroots movement will be able to compete in the local elections. so the map issue will be able to local candidates but you might see an emergence -- a time in california where the green party one innocently seek. a few other isolated places. you can't as a third entity holds the seeds against the forces in our society. there's all these other factors out there that are communication structures and other things that go on that make the seats smaller, grassroots will matter more to isolated causes, you will still have your large variety of colorful individuals

in the house of representatives. but you have lots of opportunities. and if somebody is wrong in that community and the committee will be defined to smaller, in a grassroots movement of whatever it is, whether moderates or dynamic independent or whatever it is, will be able too seriously threaten of that person which would then have a different effect on how legislation is going to happen. >> do we have a poll on adding more politicians to washington yet? >> let me just say as a political reporter, we are very much of the rest extending the house of representatives the 1200. >> exactly. >> i remember when i was first a political reporter i went up to new hampshire to cover the presidential -- like every third person was in the state legislature because it's 400 plus seats. it's massive. to dance point, jeff and then dave, is there a single reform that could change who we sent

to? i think the problem we have is we get them at going to get because why they voted with they often like that because that's what the people who elected them do, want. you know, dave unsure as a number off the top of his head of the number of congress who get elected 55 are under. 55%, i'm not even sure -- many of them won with 54.9. so it seems to me we are on the wrong end of the problem. is people are doing what they were sent here to do. is there a reform to change it in your mind, and then we'll open it up to questions. >> that meet respond to the attacks on obamacare which i promise is not off-topic. i'm skeptical, but go ahead. >> somebody remembers the history of medicare part b, prescription drug benefit not only in terms of the policy over passage but also in terms of the

trajectory of the poll numbers. when it was first introduced there was a lot of confusion here is seniors couldn't figure out how to sign up in part because a lot of mechanisms other were similar to the mechanisms of obamacare. it wasn't a government created program. you were signing up for benefits through it private provide. the poll number for disaster. democrats share the goal of providing restriction drug coverage to people. but year out from the election the assumption was that medicare part d was going to be a political disaster for the republicans but a year later the program was working very carefully, ended up being a net move. you got 10 million people who have insurance right now didn't have insurance for obamacare that includes 59 kids who are on their parents insurance. people are going to have benefits that have accrued from obamacare by the time we get around to the next election and i think it's wrong to judge a program that covers 10 million people to this point after only

a few months and has guaranteed coverage for people with preexisting conditions based on the failure of a website. but if you look at obamacare, the big difference between perceptions of obamacare, whether or not people favor obamacare and whether not a favor or oppose the individual elements of it when you test whether they want what is contained in obamacare. part of the reason is that, out of date number, a couple years older budget over 500 million bucks that have been spent through the 2010th election, not just on lobbying about obamacare but running ads attacking it. we live in the citizens united era, an era of unfettered conjugations from dark money. user a recent article about $400 million something -- coming from the cult brothers -- >> article in the "washington post." sorry. >> got to look out for my own. kay hagan has been the number one recipient of those, recipient of the attacks coming

out of those dollars. and i remember at the end of the year asking myself whether or not we just live in a new era. because people assume that they understand the impact of citizens united because we saw in 2012. 2012 was a dry run. and i started asking myself at the end of last year when we are seeing the million dollar ads coming down against taken whether or not we live in a new era, new regime where the ads are just starting to you before and they never go dark. they never come down. and i think if you look at the branding of obamacare, very different from how people feel about the individual component does the money that's been spent defining it negatively. if you look at the senate races and how much money has been spent this far out, i think if you want to avoid the kind of polarization that we've got right now, part of the solution and one of the reforms is overturning citizens united. >> so the hugo chavez on limiting free speech in the country is the solution.

i mean, that's a nice history but for those of us who may be a little older, greater, which i know you've been around a long time -- >> you told that same line to a partner who is 10 years older than i am. he said it's my grandfather. >> in 1995 and 1996, after we took the majority in the house of representatives for the first time, labor unleashed, i think it was a $35 million campaign in the off year of robocall's and tv ads bewitching all the republican incumbents. this is not soft dark money because it's good money because it comes from confiscated money held by labor unions. and that's my point of where i go back to the let the factions fight it out, get everybody in the arena and politics is not pretty. put the thumbs in each other's eyes, argue over the issues. we can argue over obamacare, pre-existing conditions and some

of the children under 26 are powerful arguments for the democrat side in the election. they been using it recently and in the past. let's have that fight. let's have everybody out there arguing as loud as they can but it's not pretty. it's unsettling to watch a family argument, how many of us have been at thanksgiving when a family erupted into a fight? it's unsettling but that's good of the republic. that's what we need and so if you want to weaken that money, give the grassroots more power. >> can i take this in a different direction? i think the current date of our polarization really began before citizens united. i think there's three causes at least that i see out there that are worth addressing with reforms. the first is really the notion of primaries. i think there ought to be more discussion what can be done to open up primaries, whether it's california stop primary system,

to reduce the extent to which members of congress are simply playing to their primary base. because that's become very prevalent as a result of the fact that we have such polarized district. so wit was polarizing districts across the country? first of all, i think self sorting and electric and this is something beyond the control of any reforms. you can't tell people where to move. but in 1992, 38.6% of the american electorate lived in counties that were -- given -- in 2012, that number was a majority for the first time. independent redistricting in the last election, 76% of democratic leaning congressional seat, this is good, 76% of democratic leaning congressional seats come or democratic, 60% of republican thinks he's got even more republican. now, i used to be a big believer

that redistricting reform was the answer get us to believe it's part of the answer, but a think majority of the polarization we've seen -- redistricting has compounded that affect by continuing to eliminate seats where voices in the middle really can't ago or have an incentive to vote a certain way in congress. and then third of all, i think we need to talk about the decline in ticket voting we are seeing across the country because it is used to be that if you had a member of congress or a candidate who have a background that was totally flawed, they would usually run underneath the top of the ticket to a pretty sizable extend. what did we see in 2012? well, that was a candidate in tennessee, an incumbent who admitted basically to having relationships with patients while he was a doctor and tried to convince one to have an

abortion. a pro-life republican. under the old system may be 10, 20 years ago i think he probably would have run 15 to 20 points underneath his ticket. the 18 points below -- he ran a point below mitt romney and still won the election. i think the question for a lot of people here is how do you get voters to pay attention to candidates background and positions and if i wear them on the race by race basis? rather than simply responding to their official attitudes towards national party. part of that has to do with revising local media and making sure the voters are attuned to what's happening in the district rather than simply reacting to what's happening in washington. >> out open it up to the local media question, i'm not care be optimistic it's going to be revised unfortunate because the business -- the business model, but one thing i would say is the bergen record deserves a huge amount of credit they have not

cut new to the extent that family-owned newspaper. if not cut nearly extent to many other newspapers and they were the people the chris christie repeatedly credited on the enough on breaking the news about, i like to call it bridge -- many difficult bridge gate. call it what you will but the george washington bridge toll here. >> is a giant problem. the bergen record for right of reasons part of which density, and if you live in jersey, then you either have to care about what the dictator of new york city wants to do with soft drinks are yet to read the bergen record to read what's going on in your community. it's a unique model. >> anyway, let's open it up. folks have questions, yes or. [inaudible] spent i think the polls have consistently shown that a majority of the public either

supported the affordable care act or thought it wasn't liberal enough. to this day. consistent. it's never deviate from the and yet you hear the notion republicans are positive this is the gift that keeps on giving, and the polls are quite different but i wanted you can kind of explained that to the second question, you saw the pew study the last week it came out that showed a substantial majority of republicans now believe in evolution. whereas democrats and independents were exactly the same spot, in fact believing evolution, which kind of undercuts we think tea party people because people who wouldn't believe in evolution and yet, which woul would sugget that it was on tv and get independents lined up with the democrats on that question. this has gotten worse since '09, few republicans believe in evolution since then. not a lot of new data since then. and i'm just wondering if i can get you any insight into the electorate that matters?

>> let's talk about obamacare. because i do think every republican i talked to, dan, this is it. indian spending, an outside group hadn't had a. against jeanne shaheen. my guess, dan, disagreement me but i don't take it will come to cincinnati was he thousands of very small iterations across the country. essentially, if you like your plan you can keep it. that's the lie of the year. according to politifact. and this is at the and there's a picture changing as a figure like a senator, you can keep her. if you don't, you know what to do. let's talk about -- the data and why republicans are absolutely convinced, disagreement if you're -- i'm convinced that obamacare is the issue that this election will both be decided on and will unless it republican gains.

i will go to jeff and let him maybe disagree spent i think if you here, and to quench was really about the affordable care act. i think it's a fascinating, i give we dress properly for this we could do a four-day examination of exactly the question. because they are pieces of the affordable care act, pre-existing conditions, as jeff said, are incredibly popular. people like the idea. myself included, we all know people who this is a significant economic benefit to the family. but the larger picture of obamacare and the affordable care act has not held consistently popular. so it's what you're looking at the absolute the right now, and they think jeff would agree, public perception at this moment, and even more so, before the holidays, at this moment is attitudes, negative attitudes of what they think, aca is doing to

our country is really affecting the center of the electorate in telling them that washington, whether they had for the right reason for the wrong reasons, they botched this whole thing up and it's a train wreck. now, jeff's point of the democrats is a, we'll get to the point where all the pain is behind it and the milk and honey is ahead of us. that's what they want in the election. right now operatives are fundamentally about now and what can we shape to a degree. right now is really unpopular amongst big chunks of the electorate because people are losing it. there's a statistic talking about -- i think jeff would agree green picture, there's pieces people like him even at the same over there saying they dislike golfing. we saw with the medicare part b years ago. people didn't like the government spending but they like the fact that they're older parents were getting. there's a lot of details in your right now this is a really, this is an example of washington

blowing it and not caring about the people. >> jeff, to your point, david mentioned this earlier about midterms being a very different electorate that a presidential -- typically older, whiter, more favorable to republicans. if you view the midterms at some level of this election, the people are going to turn up are not the casual voter. it's the people who are really invested. it seems to me, i'll cite a post-poll from december and 80% of republicans had an unfavorable view of how president obama handled the health care law. i'm not suggesting this will be true next november 88% had an unfavorable view. 77% of those folks were strongly unfavorable in terms of trying to figure out passion. on the other side i think 42% or

so democrat of democrats were sy favorable. so 77% versus 42. is there not a passion gap that if this is as midterm elections are typically base turnabout, that is not a problem for you? how do you solve it if you acknowledge it? >> i think that part of the answer was within that question. i think that the numbers on the affordable care act have always been depleted by the fact that there's some percentage of the voters i don't like it because it didn't go far enough. the act didn't end up including a public option, equivalent of medicare provided by the government. dan is a student of history, may recall that most of the ideas in the affordable care act were originally proposed by the heritage foundation. they were, in fact, the 93 republican alternative to hillary care, and a lot of the way paying for it posed by john mccain in 2008 which make republicans polarization seems more a matter of anti-obama and the most and less a matter of

policy but no less real. for all of that. but again i think part of the lack of enthusiasm, lower enthusiasm on the part of democrats is due to the fact that the law was a centrist law that was designed to elicit republican votes, didn't because of polarization in the senate, spent a year chasing olympia snowe's vote and then were accused of ramming the law down everyone's throats anyway. >> i know dan would dispute it but let's not dispute that. does that change, regardless of whether the democratic enthusiasm has dipped to do some people felt the law didn't go far enough, does it not -- how does that still change the basic dynamic of switches, republicans are going to go through freezing rain on election day or anything on election day to send the message against obamacare. at least the data today, granted, would suggest even some

liberal democrats who think it didn't go far enough are less passionate. you guys are getting in the realities of what we have now to persuade voters. >> you are not going to see lower democratic enthusiasm than you did in 2010 which is the year were you at the wreckage of of the electorate self-identified as conservative. i think that you've also got continuing demographic changes that lead to an electorate where, even if it looked more like 2010 than it does like 2012, still doesn't look as bad as 2010. in a state like florida, for example, the number of new hispanics in florida since 2006 inside the number of jewish voters in florida. the population growth among hispanics is explosive. if you look at nevada and 2010 where harry reid got reelected in 2010 was as high as it was in 2008. i think that even if you have an electorate that is more conservative and is wider than

it was in 2012, i think there's not a lot of chance -- 2012, not a lot of chances it will be as bad as was in 2010. >> i would say we haven't touched all that much on it but if they the 2012 election -- i give you a chance to not acknowledge it, but revealed the sort of problems or the republican party demographically. the electorate continued to get less white. the electorate continued to grow more hispanic and, i mean, -- >> barack obama gets 70% among spanish most excited republicans were optimistic about 2014 and i think david and dan pointed out, probably rightly so for what we know now. the massive victory in 2010 did not predict a massive victory or a victory at all in 2012. i think the same lessons in 2014 they carry over to 2016, you've got a point. >> all of us demographic changes are less important in the short

term in 2014 than they are for republicans in the long-term. i don't think republicans are necessarily new to those groups. i think it takes a new candidate who can connect and score well and who cares about the questions in order to revive the republican party with those voters. the other day i looked back at the list of the 34 democrats who voted against the affordable care act when it passed in 2010. kind of where are they now. you know, 21 of them have since lost reelection. 19 generals. seven have since retired the end of the remaining six, two are retiring in 2014, which leaves for. want them, john barrelled with your end is one very effectively in his own district and articulate his own position against the law. but equating in 2014 that i have is how well will those republicans and democrats in those states and districts articulate a message of fixing the law? to really try and resonate with

voters who are not black and white on obamacare, but recognize there are big problems and want to see some action in congress to fix what's wrong with the legislation. >> let me take a few more questions. >> thanks. is this on? >> your good. >> i had two questions. aca or obamacare, what if you want to call it. so i think whether it's perceived or real, there are people that would say, republicans are unfair to the obama administration. there are democrats out there that would say, it would be so much better if hillary would have one. and a lot of that i think is, criticism is the clintons know how to deal with washington. they are from the beltway. they are inside the belly and they know how to deal with people inside the beltway.

with anything different in the clinton administration? would a clinton administration had less polarization than what we have now? and then obviously, when she went in 2014 are we going to be less polarized in 2014 going forward? and secondly, you talked about the sin and if you could comment on the nomination, confirmation will changes in the senate and have it makes it more like the house and potential repercussions of that and maybe crystal ball, to be get to a point where that goes to supreme court nominees or do you think they will stay where they are now? >> i'll just quickly to the second one and then we'll go to these guys for the first. the 60 vote barrier for executive branch nominees and judicial nominees will only say to that group of people for

ever, not watching politics are very long. it seems to me that the door is now open. i would say harry reid, who oppose these changes for a very long time, for a fear of not being, as dan pointed out, republicans in the majority was a fanciful one. i think he probably went too many of the liberals who are pushing jeff merkley, tom udall, and said look, like we are opening a pandora's box and we're not always going to be in the majority. in fact, we may not be in the majority after this election. and i think he probably said we are okay with it. it's worth it to us in the near term. because he changed his mind. i mean, he was one of the reasons -- they have been pushing for years and he decided -- i think it has huge applications. it's not an issue that moves anyone outside of the party bases but i'm not convinced it was people inside, maybe a little bit.

my parents don't have any clue what cloture is. they just don't. and i don't think that they are rare among the american public. it's not a persuasion issue but it's how washington works, it's a sea change. okay, guys. jeff, start with you. because i answered that one so i don't need to answer the first one. spent would things be different if hillary was president? if i was seven feet tall i would be in the nba. just hypotheticals. but would it be different? and is there a the possibility -- i want to broaden it out to not just hillary, but let's say rand paul or marco rubio board scott walker or chris christie or is it possible there's a candidate out there on either side that breaks the current gridlock that we have? >> first, i don't think that there was anybody at the time that clinton was getting

impeached to thought that we would look back on that as an era of less polarization. >> all, the golden days. golden era of handholding in washington. and i think that you did have a lot of people with experience from the clinton white house in the first term, obama administration. i think also you are always fighting the last one. when the clintons tried to pass health care reform, the complaint from the hill was they had handed the law down from on high and they ignored the prerogatives of congress. and so the approach at the time was different. they had a framework which they thought was a centrist bipartisan framework, largely because it had been built on exchange that when i get from republican alternative to hillary care and they thought the details will work out they would be able to do something in a bipartisan way, anywa in a way couldn't if it was a democratic president handing things down from on high. i think that they underestimated the degree of resolve on the

part of the republicans. republicans came out scorched against the statement at a time when the economy was in freefall. i mean, this was the bill to prevent us from going into a depression, and not only was it the bill to give us an going into a depression, it was a bill that included hard infrastructure spend which the democrats wanted but also more than a third tax cuts which is what republicans wanted. i look back on the bush era, i don't remember getting a third out of 11 at any major piece of legislation passed by george bush. the republicans made a principled decision, a political decision from day one that they were going to go against everything that obama wanted a respective of whether not the policy contained therein a line with what had previously been foforth on what they were currently four. and so i think that it's, i think it's wrong to suggest that anybody else would have gotten a different result out of them. >> just a couple points.

than using part of the scene is reinventing the history there, but for a lot of things put in a bill like solyndra that republicans were not at all poor, that was where, when you were right, where obama said we're not going repeat, we will let pelosi and her chairman wage war on the republicans in the house, and the people who tried, many clients who tried to run to do business with the obama administration were rebuffed by the house democrats. very different history, but i think here's the big problem of your question. i think hillary would be better and are they smart and all that, a ghost which occurred right now, which is if, indeed, these are all the ideas they came from republicans and inside the building which is different from being popular around the country, unfortunately, otherwise, you know, they will be passing jack kemp's laws, the problem of saying, and to the

democrats can be the republican ideas. the democrats took them and mess them up and they proved they were incompetent. the health care execution, what we've seen so far, crews the democrats are incompetent with the levers of government. the massive spending that's gone on under this president and the failure to competently execute stuff. and while the country isn't keen on paying attention to what's going on overseas, there's a lot of nervousness that this administration is, getting this out of the conflict we're in which i think the republicans are reporting obama for, they still don't view this as a competent administration. so all the talk of hillary, shall be the good one, she will be the smart organize one, just undercuts all the efforts by the democrats right now, here and now to say trust us for two more years. >> let me frame it this way. i heard a friend of mine say, i thought this was appropriate that the last two presidents have been more or less presidents of half the country. they have doubled down in terms of who they are on the party's

base. george w. bush was from texas. barack obama is on illinois. inherently they're distrusted from the other side. who were the presidents before them? bill president from arkansas. ronald reagan from california know what. the question i have for 2016 is can either party nominate someone who is not kind of inherently a culturally from the own corner of the country? on the republican side, which dangerous for democrats is there are republicans from blue states in the next whether it's scott walker or chris christie who are legitimate contenders for the nomination.

>> speak to that, particularly the 2014 election. >> i'll say one thing on it, and then i'll let these guys say it. i think one of the undertold stories of the 2010 election, we all know 63 seats in the house, you know, huge, historic, was the number of republican -- the number of takeovers of state legislatures by republicans. that matters no matter what in terms of policy, it matters much more in the year before redistricting. so i think that was a huge moment there, and i'll let these guys -- let's just go in order. >> yeah. i think if elections had had their wave election in 2006, in

2010 the year before, they'd be in the majority in the house, i think they'd be in the majority in a lot more state legislatures than they are, so it's pretty much luck of the draw. the good news is the next election before redistricting cycles in 2020 won't be a midterm election, it could be an election where democrats actually do fairly well, and the redistricting map across the country can't get any worse than it was during this decade when you saw an evisceration of moderate democrats across the country. one of the first panels i did when i was in this job was at the democratic leadership council in chicago, i think 2007, 2008. and the hundreds of office holders who are centrist democrats from across the country and the room, i would venture to guess that less than a fifth of them are in office today. >> well, i would caution anybody to say never say it can get any worse. [laughter] i remember my colleagues after the 2006 elections, well, we're glad we have that behind us. we can look forward to 2008. [laughter]

one of the, all the social media, the cable culture, our politics at the national level, that is pushing the polarization down ballot, and you can see it, you know? wisconsin legislature wasn't necessarily a legislature a year ago of warm friends across the aisle. so that's going a lot of places. and, again, i come back to, you know, but even if you go into states where we have single-party domination, i come back, you know, california's a great example where a state senator represents more people than a congressman. i mean, you know, those seats are functionally just driven by whoever nominates the next person in an open, when it's an open seat. and you have california's term limits, so there's a lot more open seats. but, you know, that's where we need to actually go back and create smaller districts and bring more people into the process. chris joked at the beginning about every third person in new hampshire, you know, who's been

a member of the state legislature. you know, they give you a driver's license, and here's your membership in the legislature. but that's healthy in the long run not just for a small new england state, but as you get more and more people involved in the process and when there's an issue whether it's a garbage dump or it's some local issue or a big national issue, there's people who can lead community movements. and that's, as our communities are disintegrating and we're all becoming these social facebook electronic communities, we need to rebuild that. so that's, i think that's where the challenges are in our society. >> and, jeff, to end on this, we spend a lot of time about house and senate because we're in this town, and there's the majority debate always which is intriguing. would it be unwise for democrats to not at least think about nominating a governor given the past record of success for governors? it seems as though everyone is basically on the democratic side, well, if hillary wants the

seat, she's going to have it. is that healthy for the future of the party, and as you look back and forward, are governors not a better bet? >> uh-huh. well, this is not a slight against brian schweitzer. [laughter] you don't want to get on the wrong side of that guy. but i do think that hillary clinton would be the strongest nominee for the democrats. and i think that it would be a powerful election to have a woman leading the presidential ticket. i don't think that you can discount the inspirational factor that hillary brings to the table in addition to policy gravitas and worldwide presence from her time as secretary of state. so although i think that there are some strong democratic aboves out there -- governors out there, i do think that hillary is the strongest nominee. what's going to be interesting to me is to look at what happens in the next round of gubernatorial elections, because

you're going to see a lot of governors, a lot of republican governors who made budget decisions to cut education early in their terms, but who may be running for re-election with a rising economy behind them in their states, and you're going to see a lot of these congressional races -- and even u.s. senate races in these states -- possibly being affected by the state political dynamic and what's been going on in the state legislature, in the statehouse which may either reinforce or cut can against the national -- >> and we saw that a little bit in virginia with what the virginia legislature had done and how the republican party got branded, mcdonnell and cucinelli were their own. one other thing, huge, important states with governor's races, pennsylvania, florida, michigan, ohio. these are, i mean, it is not insignificant who wins those races as it relates to both the senate races, house races, but also the presidential. i'll stop there. go ahead. sure. >> well, what a great discussion. thank you to the panel. maybe a round of applause for

them. [applause] and on behalf of the board members of center forward and our sponsors, thank you for coming, and we hope you will attend our next event to learn more about center forward, you know, i'd direct you to our web site, centerforward.org. thank you. >> thank you all. [inaudible conversations] >> and we continue our live coverage as the joint economic committee is meeting this morning to talk about the latest monthly jobs numbers. the unemployment rate down in this month, 6.7 from 7%. we join this hearing in progress live from capitol hill. >> by 74,000. my colleagues and i would now be glad to answer your questions. >> thank you, commissioner. as you know, the unemployment rate fell pretty dramatically. do you see this as, would you

describe it as an encouraging sign of a sustainable recovery? >> this is one, um, this is one month's number. of course we don't want to get too hung up on one particular number. but most of the change in the unemployment rate, about two-thirds of it probably, was due to falling labor force participation which is -- >> people simply giving up on the market, the work force. >> well, the interesting thing is that when we looked at flows, it looked like most of the flows into nonparticipation were from employment rather than from unemployment. but generally speaking, it's not as robust a sign as if the fall in unemployment had come from creation of a lot of jobs. >> uh-huh. do you think this is, that drop and the reasons for it, is that a troubling indicator or a

concerning indicator? >> um, well, i guess it depends on the question you're asking. it's certainly not a sign of strength. >> okay. we look at, um, in your report you make the case that here we are four and a half years after the recession ended, there are still fewer payroll jobs than when the recession began. >> uh-huh. >> many which is creating a dramatic gap in jobs in america. so at the rate of the 180,000 jobs a month that has occurred over the last two years, how long will it take before america is simply back to even -- >> uh-huh. >> -- in payroll jobs? >> in total payroll jobs, it would take about seven months, into july. for private sector payrolls, it would take about four months, to april. >> okay. so we're looking at mid year before we get back to break

even. >> uh-huh. >> on the pre-recession payroll models. >> that's right. >> good. the number is 74,000 and 87,000 private sector jobs were disappointing, i think, for most of us who want to see much stronger recovery, far below the consensus for the report. from an economic standpoint be, i'm told that numbers that small are statistically insignificant in the sense of what you read. >> uh-huh. >> what in your report, where are the areas -- i think you mentioned retail information, perhaps wholesale -- what areas last month were that thetistically significant that you can tell us about? >> um, the 55,000 jobs created in retail trade were statistically significant. >> and that was in food and clothing predominantly? >> widespread in retail trade. so quite a few of the subsectors. wholesale, the wholesale trade

increase of 15,000 jobs was also statistically significant. >> was there any insight into that number? >> well, a lot of that was in electronic trading. of so these are services provided to firms that are buying inputs, and they do it electronically. so they don't actually take possession of the inputs that they purchase on behalf of other firms, but they facilitate the purchase of these inputs by firms. >> right. >> um, the other sector that had growth and i want to call your attention to is not a super sector, but it's very important, the temporary help services industry. that added a statistically-significant 40,000 new jobs. that's often a harbinger of further growth. >> thank you. vice chair klobuchar? >> thank you very much. thank you, commissioner. this morning's report shows job

growth not exactly where it was expected, but i think we do know that december marks the 46th consecutive month of private sector job growth. during this time more than 8.2 million private sector jobs have been added. what employment trends did you see in 2013 as a whole in the last year, and how would you characterize the state of the labor market this year? >> okay. well, um, yes. well, overall today's report is not strongly encouraging. there was growth, and month-to-month variation is normal in our measures. so it's not entirely surprising. i don't think we -- >> so you're just basing your assessment on december? i was just asking about -- >> the entire year, yeah. so -- >> [inaudible] >> over the year what we've seen is steady, modest growth. mostly in the services. we do still have a ways to go to

return to pre-recession conditions, but, um, but we have seen growth in the industries that we talked about, primarily in professional and business services, in health care, in leisure and hospitality. some of the areas where we have the strongest growth. the -- >> one number i did want to ask about was december. you've made some reference to the construction number, and you talked about the severe cold. i'm aware of this since people keep citing the number that northern minnesota was colder than mars for a period of time last week. >> uh-huh. >> and so what was the -- >> i retweeted that a lot, by the way. >> oh, i see representative duffy, that was probably true of northern wisconsin as we know from the green bay packers game, but we won't go into that. could you talk about that construction number and how the cold could have affected it?

>> right. okay, so over the year we've added 122,000 jobs in construction. >> uh-huh. >> and the average -- let me take a quick look here, yeah. okay. and, um, let's see, excuse me. okay. but this particular month of -- most of the decline was in nonresidential specialty trade. >> uh-huh. >> all right? and when we looked into this further, we found that most of these declines were concentrated in the northeast and the midwest, and those were the areas that had lower temperatures than normal over the past month. >> but overall, there's been 122,000 jobs added in construction. >> yes. >> just when you mentioned the regional issues, i remember in the past at these hearings we've discussed that. do you see regional