instrumental in that. and over the years that economic power has grown. i still believe there's a subordination of clerical authority at this particular point. that are more meaningful acts on the table and some of the decisions the islamic republic is likely to me, whether it's about domestic power or about foreign relations have to take into account the guards. also if you look at some of the guards publications, they tend to refer to ayatollah khamenei as -- have already elevated him to the point of substantial authority. so i think there's a sort of codependency there. in terms of high touch briefing on the saudis. ..

the market share that as a result of the sanctions are unlikely to be retrieved and the export product is unlikely to command. the barrels of oil have gone off the market and no one seems to care that much. >> he talked about his vision of

economy that has less dependence on commerce and on the orioles and so he is already signaling from his perspective that national poverty is a sort of direction as opposed to the global integration so they may have to be able to live with that sort of entrenched economic situation for some time to come. >> on the support for the radical groups i would just say that it is a misperception about iran and the way they power the region meaning that i don't see it aspiring to the secretary and the power and ideological power and if you share it can be hamas you could see hugo chavez.

so i think as mentioned there've been instances in the past where they support the groups in the way of protecting against and provoking the united states and they see perhaps these groups with power in the taliban there was a concern concern for television may that television may be coming back to the position of influence. on the question about the simplifications i would just add another question in the first is by historical standards they had been ruling for 25 years $80 a barrel is still pretty high. there was a time more than a decade ago when the prices were less than $10 a barrel. so from his vantage point where

it is right now is pretty high. second, the economic welfare of the population for the leader has never been either first or second. so he's willing to the subjective population to the severe economic hardship. last, at last, what are the amplifications for the nuclear deal. outcome number one is what we are hoping for which is a resolution and i don't think the dog are that great but i would say that i don't think the odds are great between now and november 24. it doesn't mean that it will happen as the new resolution. we failed to reach an agreement with both washington and tehran

and it doesn't behoove either side to roll back to the kind where we are able to model through. >> at the brookings institution, i want to know can any of the panelists such on the iran kurdish act to battling isis whether it is the iranian kurds. thanks. this is a question to all of the panelists. it's easy to point to the policy

and the sectarian policies as a reason for the spread of isis but why isn't there more focus on how to combat the ideological cause of the jihadis? that is the foundation that it relies on and what we see are the symptoms of this disease so my question is how can the u.s. play a positive role in putting pressure especially on the saudi to stop funding the extremism that morphs into terrorism in the form of al qaeda or isis. thank you. >> joe? >> thank you. meddling through kicking the can down the road in the negotiation what does it mean for the power

struggle and by extension if you project back on the scene that we are attacking this morning or today what to expect in iraq, serious and lebanon in terms of the policy switchboard is mean that if we called it that way we would go further or would it be the crisis management in serious and iraq. >> v. iran kurdish balancing act >> as we've seen they've been incredibly grateful about the support to protect them against isis. there were some officials who had been visiting in recent months and they would argue

against what i said earlier about the dangers of u.s. partnering with iran to fight isis in the concern that it could fuel the radicalism that we are trying to fight to say it's too late for that. it connects essential issue and i've been tremendously grateful for the support. but there's a tactical convergence as kurdish aspirations for greater independence broke i think that you will start to see those kind of old tensions come to the end perhaps the growing sentiment among them. with regards to what happens if there isn't a nuclear deal it's like a gambler that's gone to

las vegas and put every single chip he has in his hand on one number which is the nuclear deal. he was elected for a variety of reasons. he was going to improve the kind of human rights records and was going to be more tolerant or civil society and improve but really all of his focus has been on the nuclear issue. he won't have spent all his chips on the issue that he hasn't resolved and then simultaneously he won't have delivered on any of his promises to be helpful to where the civil society and the cause of human rights and the one thing that i always thought about is that he is a brilliant. he's the second longest serving in the middle east and there is

a reason for that in his modus operandi is power without accountability, and in order to do that he needs a president that has accountability with power and that is precisely what he will become to have accountability. people will say what has he done. we came out in droves and you didn't deliver on the nuclear deal or elsewhere so the popular blame goes to the accountability to deliver the nuclear deal. to talk about the orthodox sunni ideology which is how to create isis. i think that is a valid point. you can point to a lot. some of it is the brutality and heavy handedness.

but certainly also the ideological basis for this i think is really the creation of isis but the panel is about iran, so we focus on the role that i think that as we said earlier this morning about the critical role of education and helping to encounter this type of radical involvement in the sunni ideology is so important. >> i will touch on the last implications on the domestic balance of power. if you look at the history of the presidency since the end of the war that is the three presidencies and all of them lose power as the presidency progress is because they all

come in with promises that they are unlikely to deliver. they came up with the promise of the economic rejuvenation which he did deliver -- didn't deliver. all of them had unfulfilled promises and you begin to see that you regenerate the popularity of the balance of power shifts to the office of the supreme leader which is not subject to the sort of electoral challenge. so it is likely to see a similar thing happened in that case is because he has made promises that he has not kept or in my view he never had any intention of keeping. and as i said, i don't disagree counting the prospects of the nuclear agreement and the percentages that he eluded to, but i do think that there perhaps is a greater sort of understanding between the parameters of the nuclear

treatment. to suggest that he is looking for an agreement that requires a substantial dismantling of the infrastructure there is no public record of that and they seem to have been lockstep and from his experiences as a nuclear negotiator between 2003 and 2005, he persistently had state authority of the supreme leader and how this is basically a consultation and agreement within the system. too often i think in the past when we looked at the system we had a scene factions and personalities. but when they talk about their system they talk about i think how it is less factionalized today than it was in the past. there is more of a consensus in the system than there has been in the past. if you look at the reformist

period, they challenged the institution of the supreme leader and the notions of the unaccountable power. the president mahmoud ahmadinejad to try ahmadinejad to try to tried to essentially usurp the authority that he didn't have and move forward. he hasn't touched any of those red wines. he's kind of a technician of the state so if you are looking at the soviet model he's not shaking things up. but as i said in the absence of the agreement they have the preservation of the negotiations and the negotiating table has been in existence for 12 years since 2003 and the reason it's been negotiated because we have a way for the table to continue and as it suggested they want to go back to the mutual escalation

but i would say at some point there is an agreement in some point they will walk away from it the way they walked away from the agreement between 2003 and 2005. they will walk away from it when they are ready to introduce the technologies into centrifuges, what have you. when that happens, the restrictions of the interim agreement, and with the technological capabilities i think you'll see them walk away from it. >> i think the question about the balancing act is an interesting one. so, most recently we saw the militant assault to lift the siege. the town would have been

immediately after it was broken was that the password to and the militants dot into gun battles and they began clashing and they did that in at least one other town. so it's not a perfect marriage between iran's shia militant proxies in iraq and the kurds that this is something you could have predicted for several years because you could see the attention not just between the sunni and shia i'm sorry, the sunni and the kurds it's not just a green line in iraq -- >> we will leave the discussion at this point to go to the cq rollcall conference for the midterm elections. the afternoon sessions will look at the impact on the legislative agenda. this is live coverage on

c-span2. >> people from this group shooting questions at them. so we looked at what happened, why it happened and now it's time for what's next. to believe that the discussion i'm going to turn over to david hawkins. david has been with cq rollcall for 20 years in a variety of roles spent seven years as managing editor of cq weekly, senior editor covering legislative affairs and economics and congressional affairs and is the co-author in the american book. anyway, all around smart guy joined by four other smart people that he will introduce. >> thank you very much. thank you. welcome.

this is my tenth one of these. >> we will have the two institutional experts and to policy experts put the policy experts know about the institution and they know a lot about the politics. so, on my far left, and eight-year veteran of rollcall that has been for the last year or two senior congressional correspondent for the washington examiner and we are going to turn to him as the go two guy to guy for the discussion but to his right leg -- megan has been of cq rollcall before that worked for one of the competitors. to her right, neil is rollcall's correspondent and has been doing various different things into

the predecessor organizations for the last seven years. he's going to he is going to be our domestic policy expert for this discussion. so as david explained that the top, this is the view of setting the stage. it's been a little bit backward looking to try to understand what just happened and now we do the immediate pitted into what's going to happen with a focus on the 114 on the new congress although a vip and we will have about 15 minutes for questions and if you want to talk about the lame-duck i'm sure we can do that. if you haven't already, your sort of programs -- this is especially useful for this hour because it has a good baseball program to explained who they

are going to be. the house we will get rid of him to the discussion first. since the house had the turnover they were going to expect in the senate i am just wondering your most particularly familiar with the top leaders. tell us a little bit in your own estimation how does having the largest majority since herbert hoover was president what does that do to the life of john boehner and kevin mccarthy? >> when you win it's only good because when you lose it is always a bad anyway. what a lot of people were not aware when they were looking at the house playing field they had

the seats in 2010 and only lost a few i think it was about 18 and 2012 they were playing in the purple or blue turf. so the pickups across the board were in the seats where you're more likely to have people that probably think of themselves as governing in the election so it's going to make it easier for john boehner and his team to get to the 218 then it was so far that we could usually get to about 218 to 20. the 20 of the 200 that said i don't know if i want to be stuck here so that he is back to one a.d. and 190. also, the consequence of winning the leadership they were pretty much safe after the shakeup over

the summer because he had some new leadership because he came from the south and alleviated a lot of the tension that had built up because the leadership team had been in place for so long where something needed to burst one way or the other so they alleviated of the tension and had a big day on the far end of the high end of their forecast as the leadership team slides into the next congress. >> there could be a token challenge that nobody really wants the job. [laughter] the guy that wanted the job lost his primary. nobody can round up the votes even if they act like i'd run against them. they hadn't done the work. it's one of the reasons why he never had a chance in his

leadership race. he hadn't done work and of the work and the way you win the races is to work with your colleagues and raise money for people, put in your time even if it's quick put in the work and then go to them. you don't say just give me a chance. it doesn't work up there. so he doesn't have much to worry about. mccarthy doesn't have much to worry about on down to just about every member of the leadership. >> we have got word yesterday from both nancy pelosi and steny hoyer that they are going to spend the next two years separating this minority. it will be a generational push to get rid of all.

>> something will give, but i think that their idea is that with -- and i'm putting myself in their head. i don't really know what's going on. this is a john malkovich thing but my thinking is 2016, hillary is on the ballot. we will win big and it helps to pull the house across the finish line. i don't know if i see it that way even with the victory. the one thing -- there has to be a full scale rebellion because they lost on a map that nobody thought they could win. and even though they were losing the entire time they raised a lot of money and probably did all that they could. they picked up, they lost pretty big but they still picked up about three seats and so i think they are going to have another shot and it will be interesting to see what happens after. >> what's the big picture so

every senator that went on television yesterday is that the same question do you support mitch mcconnell and they all seem to have bathed been given the same talking point. as far as i know nobody else is running. they all want somebody else? >> on monday afternoon, david and i were actually those in the same airport terminal in bowling green kentucky fair senator mcconnell was in campaign mode although he was talking a lot about the potential of the republicans taking control over the senate and whether they had any concerns about senator cruise and is a likely contender

senator mcconnell was asked because it was not on supporting and asked if he concerned and he said no when he was asked to elaborate as he did again yesterday essentially he is going to be the leader, he's going to be the majority leader and there is a vote that will be taking place a week from today in the senate republican conference for the leadership for the next year but there has been no sign of any challenge because it's not like this is going to be a narrow republican majority as people thought and they are going to have 54 and 55 seats when all is said and done.

a lot of these people that are elected there were a number of people that were conservative but in some of the sentences bear were not necessarily all -- many of them were driven by the government's interest from a conservative perspective of course that's not necessarily the kind of people that want to come in and burn the place down. >> i do wonder why would anybody want to do what he has to do for the next two years when he's going to have a block of confrontational types with their avatar in chief as ted cruz and i think i counted up this is one of those numbers everybody is going to commit to memory one,

two, three, four, five, six running in two years in the obama states. >> one of the things we have to absolutely look at is when we look at the way the senate is going to be operating or at least the way senator mcconnell envisions the next two years because we don't know how this experiment is going to work and the doctrine appears to be a return to what we used to call regular order or some assembling the regular order where you build through committees. he actually thought aloud from the press. he held a news conference yesterday afternoon i'm not kidding, at the auditorium at the mcconnell center on the campus of the university of

google. >> was there any federal here marking paid for by the government? [laughter] >> he got a laugh line from the press is said to believe it or not the committees have to function and when the bills come out of the committee on a bipartisan basis as they often traditionally would do in the senate in the years past they should come to the floor and they've been talking about bringing back the appropriations process to pass all of the bills that happened in the recent history. but that comes with it difficult those so it is the inverse of no avail of what senator reid

attempted to do to protect the members from casting difficult votes. it sounds like the new universe, the difficult votes are going to happen and 2016 will have to look at that. >> that is a good segue to talk about the functioning of the system and maybe we should touch on the total revamp -- nothing changes when the partisan turnover happens like the committee structure. every ratio will be more or less reversed. it's gone from 55% to probably 54% republicans and it's so every kennedy ratio that you have now will be flipped on its head and all 20 gavels will change hands and office space changes and and of course for the first time since obama the

republicans get to flip the agenda so who would be the people to do that? its start on the foreign-policy side we should state for the obvious david and neil were competitors covering the race. they decided what they were going to drink when obama and mcconnell do together. get-together. >> all a nose for-- all i know is mcconnell x. eight manhattan with ice and two cherries. >> what does john mccain like to drink? >> a very bitter beer i think.

the pentagon and at the white house and the defense industry are watching as john mccain prepares to take the gavel of the committee. you're going to see see a lot more friction than we have seen in the previous years with the longtime chairman. mccain is going to be aggressive on everything from the operations to go after them for being behind the schedule. you're going to see a very muscular committee and one that is doing a lot of oversight and digging and a lot of fighting at the same time you have this kind of interesting conflict with mccain himself while he is a watchdog he is also an old-school hawk so he might want to take the pentagon to task for

spending money in ways he doesn't find it to be appropriate you will not see them calling for a decrease in the defense spending so they will have an ally of their -- >> will he be moving to break the sequester? i don't know that you will come up with a deal with the chamber is controlled by republicans, so it is going to be amenable to the white house. we will see. he's been working the past two years with others to find a way to do away with it but they haven't managed to come up with any deal that the parties could come up to agree to. >> and he will be the new ranking democrat? >> yet. for the first time, i should say perhaps for the first time as long as i can remember you will

have the military cabinet men at the helm of the armed services committee. mccain is an annapolis graduate and mccain assuming he takes the services and doesn't do banking they have different approaches and harry reid will be much more supportive of the white house in the operations and campaigns but they understand and defend the respect. they worked together on the subcommittee. where harry reid was the chair and mccain is the ranking member said they have a pretty long history of collaborating. >> we will give you a break for a minute. what do you want to discuss first since you are the domestic policies are for the morning. >> one of the things is to help pension where you have lamar alexander from tennessee ascending to be the chairman of the panel and also the retirement of tom harkin who

especially after ted kennedy was the leader in a lot of ways and devoted his career to help the issues. and alexander is also involved in the committee for the education and has really kind of position himself to oppose obama a lot more vocally but at the same time i find it makes alexander so interesting to watch but only was he opposed what he has an idea what he wants to do instead and he pushes those ideas and he thinks them true to make them something that happens. so he doesn't just say no, no. there will be a lot of his ideas coming through and if we turn to the regular order you can expect to see a lot of bills out of the committee because he likes to legislate. similarly in finance you have

orrin hatch in utah probably taking the helm and hatch and alexander are similar in that state. they are old-school. they come from the world where you would reach across the aisle and make a bill and write legislation. you have a lot of laws with his name that have been around for decades. so this is a similar approach but we haven't seen as much from the new senators. and these are very important domestic policy panels who are really dirt to start getting things done. >> anybody jump in here. for those that are expecting the confrontational with the senate republicans to assert they are going to read headline into the team of the chairman who are not from that school.

who is in a position of power now is in the formal power is the team for a revolutionary test. >> with a lot of these members are still young in terms of their senate careers looking at the key party wing. but i think one dynamic that is going to be interesting and i'm curious to see rdf exon behavior is they've until now been in the position of opposition only. even in the house they could pass things they were trying to hold back the white house and democratic senate and the senate republicans and desist route since 2010 really have only been in the position where they could vote no. they could do their own agenda put their own agenda on the floor with very few amendments.

it's not like we can put on the floor and vote for anything because we are not in control of the floor so let's oppose we are wondering how much pressure my feed and how much it might change their behavior when it's like we get to vote on our bill. we get to move our bill through the committee and force them to vote on our bill and maybe put the president on the defense by saying you're governing by passing things. there's a chance that it could relieve a lot of pressure on the house where i just have to tell you that the frustration especially with the guy is elected in 2010 and 2011 with the sort of school house rock what has been your biggest frustrations the senate won't even vote on a belt. i can't believe they won't vote on our bill. welcome to washington. they don't like the bills. but now they have an opportunity to actually legislate because they have full control of one third of the government instead

of as they like to say one third of whatever. >> one half of one third of all the fraction. so, let's see how that impacts things. don't forget. it's all about other than a couple other members they are all about equally conservative. so it is a matter of where the attention to govern versus the philosophy meets and it will meet at times. so it is for legislating which will create tension but this new dynamic could make things more difficult than the people anticipate. >> on that last point, one of the things we might see, which isn't strictly speaking a legislatively, is because some of these new members who may be running for president probably a well not have the full committee

gavels. but they will have many or all of the committee gavels some of which some of those could be rather interesting places for them to be. for instance, to pull out one example of something i was talking the other day with senator paul and i asked him what would you like to do at the committee level when you have a majority situation and he pointed at the possibility that he was going to be the chairman of the subcommittee of the homeland security committee that has broad authority to investigate the government waste and corruption which portended to me the possibility of a lot of investigations and hearings. so if you are an administrative

official or someone that perhaps the officials for hearing expected to be turning up at the senate a lot. and i would think that that would be the way that some of this tension actually gets relieved that may not be done through legislation that you can take out your shots at the white house and the administration through hearing and investigations into subpoena power that you may not do through legislation. >> think of all the oversight you've seen in the house in the past couple of years especially on the house oversight government reform committee who will no longer be the chair of that committee because he is limited, the dot all that you have seen in the house plus more in the senate and continuing to do their investigation because it is a great way to tie it up the administration and make a point even if they haven't docked with the public and even

if you are not always making your message and if you are having to come up in every week on the shows and remind people about whatever the cause is of the time because there were lots of them committed is the use of people you make them show up, prepare the testimony, make them come to speak at the staff meetings. this is one way that they feel they hurt the health care law by bringing in the officials constantly constantly so they testify to the committee or the staff and not actually building or doing other things they needed to do. >> you saw that in the last few months but it seems like every day the pentagon and state department coming up to brief the intelligent become armed services, foreign relations and operations overseas anything across the board and it does go

into that end than there is a share amount of time that people all the way up to the cabinet level positions are having to put into. i think you're going to see that increase significantly. >> it's also true that through how they chose the committee hears ago in addition to being the armed services chairman and i also chose the senate subcommittee on investigation. >> carl levin did that in the past. in the current congress. he could do that going forward. >> i want to ask one other question about rand paul and mitch mcconnell. my understanding is that we all know he didn't want rand paul to take up the senate seat and now they seem to have reached an uneasy peace. >> at this point i'm not sure. they seem to be able to get along quite well.

one of the things you saw senator paul actively working to get senator mcconnell reelected. part of that is that there is a benefit in kentucky to being a mind with the operation of senator mcconnell which is top-flight. but there is a distinction i think that one of the other things when i was talking to senator paul that i happened to ask about our somethings they haven't thought of much yet but there will be a concern not only for him but for senator cruise or pork men or whoever else if they decide they might want to run for president is that senator mcconnell was insisting they are going to work longer hours. they agreed to have the votes on friday. we don't really know what voting on friday looks like in the united states senate and in the way that it's been lately.

but there is a problem with giving that potentially even if you are running for president and supposed to be at a luncheon in the the des moines but you have to cancel because the senate is still voting so there will be a lot of back and forth that will go on in that regard. but i think that to your earlier point, really there are two different characters and they are not always going to agree on paul and mcconnell but i think that they have formed a pretty strong partnership. they play off of each other's strengths and they sort of know when one should be further to the other one at this point. >> if we can start at the

premise that mitch mcconnell at least at the start of the year is going to win this argument between dialects just to send obama to things we know he is going to veto what on the accomplishments cited to you see happening first? >> there will be a little bit of time to say no so everybody can come onboard and on board and make sure the constituents know that yes i said no like i told you i would. we will do that a couple of weeks and then start doing somethings. especially on health care which is something that they've been dying to take down and now they have an opportunity. and i think that he keeps saying i think what he really means and i think people get upset when he says that, that he's going to go to repeal the bill.

i didn't then they will actually vote to repeal parts of the more people don't like that it can be taken down which is a funding mechanism and the law and it doesn't impact people a lot. you could see this change where they are going to define the full-time work and right now it is to find the 40 hours a week. those are things that have bipartisan support that probably would have passed by now if harry reid had allowed them to be voted on. now he's going to let them be voted on and he will have to do it as well and it's going to be taken up. some conservatives don't like this approach. they think that it is improving the wall that is inherently flawed. at this point they are saying let's start chipping away.

>> if he agrees on the medical device tax you're not trying to make a tenure score under a certain numbers or you can get the bill passed it doesn't really matter that much anymore. >> it seems interesting to me in the last week's the islamic states or the march to war that's going to rear its head soon. >> bob parker said he wants the president to come up and ask for an authorization of the force which would be the first one since the iraq war resolution more than a decade ago and yesterday he said he would ask for an authorization. there are those in the senate in particular wanted congress to debate debate that authorization when they come back next week but we are going to kick it to

the next congress which is when you will see them come back and they will have to grapple with this debate over how much strength to give the president and interestingly you've seen the democrats want a much more structured. they learned from the mistakes of the 2001 and 2003 authorization and we want something with a time limit a time limit that repeals decry your authorization and you see senator in a half has drafted his own and he wants something that gives the the president a lots more flexibility. that is against the specific group. when they first come in its the first debate since 2003.

>> is it your sense that they've made the party on capitol hill more hawkish or isolationist or opposed >> the past few years you've seen the erosion and the power and john warner. i think with the threats coming up you have russia and the air on negotiations going on. you have isis but become more prominent again the issue of the war and spending and i think you will see them particularly with john mccain and bob parker who

are vocal active chairman on this. >> does rubio sit in on this conversation? >> i think you'll see them. if you are running for president, you have to show that you have national and foreign-policy credentials. particularly rubio that is on the foreign relations committee's to assert himself earlier. >> if i may jump in and just reference the rubio would certainly be likely as a candidate and the other thing is perhaps there was a reporting a couple of weeks ago about the potential lindsey graham campaign. the race was too easy. but to the point of this position on that foreign-policy matters and of course senator graham as david mentioned had really not a race for his own

reelection certainly in this camp was mccain rubio seems to be in the group and kelly ayotte was another person i'm going to be interested to watch what the senator from new hampshire is that in 2016 as one of these and new hampshire was the one place on the senate map with a close contest the race that was supposed to be a close contest at the race and the democrats held on. scott brown is not returning to the senate. senator shaheen won the reelection so it will be interesting to see because often with mccain and graham she will be an interesting one to watch. >> the three amigos as we watch them. >> and they said that joni ernso

be a member of the three amigos. they brought back to her resume and stability in the middle east and vladimir putin don't forget has made national security much more like it was before the rise of the libertarian wing. and when you look at who's coming to the senate whether it is tom cotton or joni ernst, you have more hawks in the campaign and the house strategists were very aware that the insecurity over the ice this thread was palpable and that's why there were a lot of ads down the stretch and i think that you are going to find that sort of there is a carryover.

the one thing in any of the voting for the new authorization for the use of military force is they want obama to lay out the strategy. if it is you need to give me an authorized agent for the military force they will laugh because they don't want to give a blank check they are on the hook after he's been gone and they are hoping to be here so what they are going to say is taught me what you want me to do. what am i authorizing you to do and let me see how i feel about it. but the vote i believe are there because they take it seriously and we will see in the 2016 campaign in the early states where rand paul will have more trouble trying to modulate where he is on the policy and national defense because this is not going to be a replay. >> i am trying to make a segue into one of my favorite topics which is jim and a -- inholfe.

what other policy is more important in the long term and the warming of the planet and we have a new chairman of the senate committee whose -- if anybody can name the title of the last that i would appreciate it. it has the word hoax. it's a great hoax. i believe that climate change is a hoax. are there -- just putting it out there -- >> it wasn't last year but a couple of years before that he built a snowman in his yard and had a sign and took a picture of it with a caption like now what, al gore. [laughter] like this is true.

so that is the chairman of the environment public works. >> are there any other descendents out of the house or the senate who are in this category and try to describe the category. [laughter] 's been a kind trying probably getting myself in trouble. but i do portray my own -- i don't think it is a bias. i think that it is an overwhelming amount of scientific and scientific evidence now that climate change is real, human beings are part of that and i don't think that it's taking a picking a fight anymore. if i am offending somebody. i'm going to take that and paid it off. >> of the relationship between the senator and a inholfe who's

the most conservative by the voting record in the entire senate commander senator barbara boxer from california who is one of, if not the host of liberal members of the u.s. senate and the two of them can can completely disagree on the climate policy and always will. but when it comes to transportation, senator inholfe says there are a few things the government should be doing a lot of and one of them is national defense. another one is public works projects and so we have a highway bill that is coming up and putting its deadline next year and it will be one of the projects that will need to be done by the new congress. one of the things that the republicans in the white house will have to figure out an answer to is the funding and the operation of the federal highway

programs. and on that one, inholfe and boxer have written the bills before. i have a fairly good confidence that particularly the amendment process is allowed to work in the senate and one of the big bills the senate will do next year is a highway bill and we will have a couple of years of debate on that over the next year. so that is an excellent point. every reporter and editor at the cq rollcall got assigned to write one of these profiles and i was assigned at random the profile of a professional from georgia who is one of the most, he should have been elected four years ago but he's a sort of quintessential tea party type but he said the same thing i wanted nothing more than to come to washington to be the first on

the transportation committee so that i can steer money so that's what they said about the five things that will get done and the highway bill is one of the ones that is going to get done. >> jump in and ask some questions. i know somebody has a microphone out there. you raised your hand first. >> iem peggy and i'm a congressional correspondent with the outlook and i covered mainly the higher education and immigration. it's interesting we have republicans on the house committee and have been very positive about certain pieces of

the immigration bill including the kids act with the legalized streamers. .. if you look at how the campaign went, being against legalization was a great campaign line. and so i think that you can see piecemeal moves for security

measures. i think you can see piecemeal moves possibly for making sure people you were hiring, i'm forgetting the terminology, making sure the people you're hiring our legally allowed to work in the united states, verification measures. >> guestworkers. >> and something like visas for high skilled workers might be possible. i think though that anything right now that has to do with legalizing any subset of the undocumented community that is current in the united states is going to be very difficult. and if the president does move ahead with an executive move, do this, you can just kiss it goodbye until the next administration and we will see what they do.

>> there are a lot of business groups including the u.s. chamber who really want to see a big immigration bill, something more than just a small measure here and there may be something more than maybe the visas or have a more qualified workers, leading skilled workers coming. that's something a lot of groups are aligned with republicans want to see and i think that's going to be a compelling argument for a lot of newcomers. and also looking towards 2016, obviously a big issue. mitt romney lost the hispanic vote by a bank 27 -- he got maybe 27% of it. more than george bush, and that's going to be something that the presidential hopefuls are certainly keeping in mind. they will have to be something that, whether they said no, absolutely nothing that you have to make some kind of statement on that issue. >> hi.

emily mentioned lamar alexander. there's a whole slew of education bills that are stacked up, reauthorization of no child behind, hire and act, et cetera. what's your prediction or sense of the you think we will see any progress in this congress? also, how do you see alexander and patty murray getting along? >> you mentioned patty murray, it will be interesting to see if patty murray goes the full harkin and takes on both house and -- sweater vest. which is the thing i'm going to miss most than they did not tom harkin which is winter style. just like tom coburn's beard comes back every winter. so harkin is not only the health chairman but also the chairman of the appropriations committee that does labor health and education. patty murray could do both of those also if she wanted i don't think that she will but she will probably, she will come on

health. i think murray has been on help for a long time. she and alexander had a working relationship. i think she's also for someone who is proven herself to be very willing to get things done here at heart she's a negotiator. she's a legislator. she likes writing bills and having her name on the upper not be surprised to see some alexander-murray bills every few months hitting before. the health committee has a long tradition o of passing bills protecting the larger brother session, no child left behind, doing a big reauthorization everything right now on that goes going to be incredibly difficult to get through one chamber much less both. and then you can sign but i think you can see some action on student loans. i think maybe, alexander is different priorities than harkin did but there are things -- higher education, things, early preschool, preschool early education is a big thing of patty murray's. she's a big proponent of the

pre-k sort of initiative pics i think you might see some smaller change in those, it has been looking at them closely and i think you'll see, you can some areas but i think his big grand reauthorization we been waiting for for years, i don't expect to see them again. >> yes, sir. >> sunshine press. we have not seen much, to what the effects of elections is going to have on the democrats. do you see the democratic caucuses moving farther to the left, moving farther to the right to accommodate the republican victories? how do you see them changing in each chamber of? >> very, very quickly, i don't know but i don't think it will move to the center. i think as you probably are aware, the last white male democrats in the deep south were defeated on tuesday.

the house democratic caucus will be plurality but not majority white male once again next year. it is arguably more demographically polarized itself and any of the other three caucuses, and house democrats are the party of the city. certainly they're keeping their leadership as we discussed, steny hoyer and nancy pelosi it'ithink you'll stand that thet two years. that's my answer. >> on the senate side, what happened is that using a similar effect. the sort of many members of the moderate wing of the democratic caucus in the senate were defeated on tuesday. or quite potential will be defeated coming the beginning of december in the other particular

case. and if that's the way it is you're going to see that the democrats were in the senate are more interested in more sort of liberal issues. so what i would expect, and this is a guess that i have no real basis for, it's just speculating, but i would suspect that they would be pushing more liberal approaches in terms of, or progressive of approaches in terms of amendments and things as part of the process. but that doesn't mean there will not be dealmaking, too. they will be pushing their own agenda, but i think at the end of the day the calculation is going to have to be made, and i don't think, i think it's far too early to know what the calculation will be, but when bills start getting on the floor

and you debated him for a week, do you then vote against cloture? the question for the democrats will be whether to do something the republicans often did effectively in the minority and -- >> i think that's exactly what they're going to do because they're looking at the outset a good 2016 senate map and they don't want republicans to look like the governing, the same way republicans did what to do the democrats any care in helping govern. because what do they get out of it? they get a republican majority that looks pretty responsible and helps sell themselves in states like pennsylvania, in florida and new hampshire and illinois, just to name a few of the states were republicans are running for reelection in the senate. the overall thinking, house and senate, democrats, is going to be that hillary clinton is likely to be on the ballot for us and they have nobody and we will kill them and we will be in the majority. and so let's just play this smart and we will be back in

control in just two short years, and there's no reason to look at this any other way. and if i were them at this moment i would like at any other way, just putting myself in their shoes. >> yes, ma'am. >> we have spoken a lot about the leadership turnover in the senate, but as you mentioned before with chairman issa it will be turnover in the house. seconding speech a little bit about that? do you think the speaker will use the new chairmanship to kind of encourage bipartisanship and dealmaking, rather than putting someone perhaps was a bit of a firebrand? >> i can jump in. we have a lot of thoughts. one of the more closely watched one of the house armed services with chairman mckeon stepping down. that traditionally has been a bipartisan committee. one of the few to music it

builds on every single year and have 452 years, the defense authorization. >> knock on wood for this year. >> it looks like mac thornberry will be the chairman of the committee although he will not be challenged from randy forbes of virginia. but thornberry, he's a hawk, just like most democrats and the republicans on that committee. he will challenge, challenge obama on isis, i'm opportunities overseas. but you will kind of continue to see the committee operating in the same way it did under mckeon. there's also some other -- dolby and intelligence committee. i think there are about four members who in the next for the. geof miller could take it which would then open up an opening on veterans affairs will be a closely watched committee early on in the next congress with everything that's happened in the last few months.

i think you'll continue to see those committees anyway in the way that they have been acting, and kind of opposing demonstration when they can in areas that they can. >> i was going to sit we've got again a four-person race to replace darrell issa which is a good high profile position to build your reputation if you want to. i think right now jason chaffetz from utah is the front runner but there are a few other guys trying to compete with them, turner, jordan, possibly mica. paul ryan is looking at moving over from budget which is a very natural step for his interest but kevin brady from texas also is interested in running that post to right now he's the ways and means health the ways and means help committee chairman. there will be a little bit of a race there. maybe i will it gave a talk about who john boehner would like to see in the chairman

position. >> i will take, paul ryan will be the next ways and means chairman. we all know that. i think brady is right to position himself to replace ryan ryan windsor president and decides to step or from the chairmanship, a smart move. i think that the speaker wants people in chairmanship. >> and govern. and that are not going to cause problems unnecessarily, unnecessary political problems for the conference. and so he will tip the scales on steering to i think he needs to. i think all the names mentioned here are the right names. in part the right things because they can get the job done. they've done the work in terms of helping their colleagues and they're not going to go on tv and say anything stupid that the speaker then has to take a bunch of questions from people like us about what about social justice said this, what do you think? -- what about so-and-so just sent this. i don't ago beginning shocking chairmanship appointment or

people winning races that you didn't expect. >> keep an eye on the appropriations committee, a lot of musical chairs in there and a lot of the subcommittees i think in both chambers. >> including the one, i was at another event earlier this morning and i was told here's the hot rumor of the day. andy harris, the only republican from maryland, a physician is going for leadership, they will make him head of the labor, hhs subcommittee. that would be an interesting move. it's a good fit for him, but would be a different set of -- >> hasn't been lucky for the last few chairman. >> we need to wrap it up here. i'm going to do one bit of logistics before i say the next part of the program is you all are welcome to grab a box lunch

and make a phone call or two but please come back right at noon because we have a big finish. i'm sorry, i'm sorry. at one. at one big finish christina bellantoni will be back to moderate the final panel of the day, two of the smartest names in politics, former governor ted strickland or the democrats and former congressman tom davis for the republicans. so lunch and then back in the next 15 minutes. thank you all to the painless. this was great. thank you. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> so about a 15 minute break year. we will return to more live coverage at about 1:00.

1:00 is when we expect discussions to continue and we will do that here o here on c-s. i quickly might are coming up at 1:15 p.m. eastern john boehner will be holding a news conference to discuss the midterm election results and the republican agenda. that is 1:15 p.m. eastern live on c-span. in the meantime i will wait for this discussion to recent remarks from john boehner from earlier this fall on the republicans economic agenda. >> let's fix our tax code to you of all heard a lot lately about corporate conversions and they are really just symptoms, visible symptoms of a much deeper problem. our tax codes terrible. nobody understands it. not even the irs. people pay accountants hundreds of dollars so they can try to lower their tax bills. they've had to because over the years thousands of changes have been made to this tax code. and mostly for the benefit of

those who are well-connected. all this talk about in versions is just making the problem small but it's like fussing over a debate when the road is loaded with potholes. let's fix the hole, corporate and personal. medicaid program, profamily and bring down the rates for every american, clear out the loopholes that allow people to do taxes on two sheets of paper. look at the camp plan, 95% of the american people could do the taxes on two sheets of paper. i know, i can feel the blood pressure going down in the room already. so we do this. we get one of the biggest reasons that jobs are moving overseas. and we make it easier for families to do everything from build a house to save for the college costs for the kids. secondly, we've got to solve our spending problem. for 53 of the last 60 -- 50 years were spent more tha than e

brought him. is where people get on me about comparing apples to oranges but hear me out. would you do this in your own home? of course you wouldn't. you would never get by with it. can anybody run a business this way? absolutely not. well, guess what. we can't do it as a country either because it's bad for our economy. it's getting from our kids and grandkids, robbing them of the benefits they will never see and leaving them with the burdens that are nearly impossible to repay. the question isn't what's driving this debt. it's who. it's baby boomers like me retiring at the rate of 10,000 a day, 70,000 this week, 3.5 million this year, and this is going to go on for another 20 years. our entitlement programs were designed for almost all those retiring at the same time, and they certainly weren't designed for the fact that most of us are going to live well beyond 80.

these programs are important to tens of millions of americans, so you can't throw them out and you don't want to throw them out. but they need to be fixed and put on a sustainable path, and we can, in fact, do that. thirdly, we've got to reform our legal system. we let anybody in america to anybody, any day, for any damn reason they won't. this is crazy. and we all pay for it and everything that we buy. listen, the costs are staggering. we spend more per person on litigation, like two and half times more than the average industrial competitor we have around the world. and they don't show up just in higher premiums. they show up in literally the cost of everything that we buy. it's inefficient. it makes america less competitive. listen, there's got to be a better way. i'm all for taking care people who have been injured and having cannot just access to the system, but there ought to be reasonable standards and recent

let's on compensation. fourthly, our regular system. the way the federal government hands down regulations, its coercive, it's combative and, frankly, it's very expensive. you take the dodd-frank law as an example, with its 849 pages and $21.8 billion worth of compliance costs. now, the interesting thing about this is that thought frank was passed to in the bailouts and get rid of too big to fail. not only has a failed to do that, the compliance costs are indiscriminately getting small community banks and credit unions. and for the small banks and credit unions, their bread-and-butter our small business loans and family loves. but now you've got more and certainty. you've got more money going into compliance. and what happens? the cost of borrowing goes up, and access to credit goes down. it's the last thing that main street needs right now.

of the countries have a more collaborative process for deciding what is a problem, a more collaborative process for how to address that problem. and result is that you've got fewer regulations, but the ones that do have are more meaningful and don't necessarily -- unnecessarily drive up the cost of doing business in that country. but even if we did these four things, i don't think we're going to maximize our potential out of this energy them. so the fifth issue is real simple. we've got to find a way to educate more of america's kids. aside from arthur brooks, you going to meet a more half glass full guy than me. but some of these figures are really rather depressing. last year, one out of every five high school students didn't graduate with their peers. one out of five. and among those who did graduate, one in five need

remedial education before they can start college. and that's because, according to the nation's report card, only 38% of 12th graders performed at or above proficiency in reading. only 26% performed at or above proficient in math. we are simply not educating enough of america's kids. now, one thing no child left behind did was require every state to adopt standards and make assessments of progress. frankly it's there so we can track with the kids are hurting. that's the good news. the bad news is that too many children still aren't learning. and many are born because they are sentenced to attend a struggling school. that's why one of the things that we've done with great the first federally funded private school choice initiative in america, the d.c. opportunity scholarship program. and i'll tell you what, it's succeeding beyond anyone's highest expectations.

97% of these kids are graduating from high school, 92% approval rating from the parents. and so why would we go ahead and start expanding this program to the rest of the country? let's get more poor kids and their parents a chance to find better schools that they deserve. there are other things that we can do in the education arena, but we all know if we're going to have a growing economy we're going to need workers. we can't have workers who don't get the basics of a decent education in america. >> and again we are live or a conference on the midterm election results. they are in the middle of a brief break now as you can see people having lunch. it should be resuming shortly. once again john boehner will be briefing reporters on the election results and how it is likely to effect the republican agenda. that will be live starting at 1:15 p.m. and you can see it on c-span. while we wait for more

discussion here at aei, comments from political pollster stuart rothenberg from the rothenberg political report looking at the election results your earlier today. >> good morning, david. good morning, everybody. how are you? show some life, please. [laughter] i've got to feed off you. it's a pleasure to be here, and welcome again to it should be a really interesting day. you see an old guy up here with a microphone, and i see a lounge in the sands hotel in 1955, and it's me as part of the rat pack. that's what using this. i don't have a lot of time and have a lot to cover and there's a lot of interesting people after me who you want to hear some going to run through what happened, why, and look a little bit forward to go to touch on

two or three things, groups of folks live in today will go into more detail on. what happened actually we had a wave election. by the way, if i don't agree to credit me with the statistics i would've checked to see if they were right. i just figured what the heck. no, you are right. what happens? we had a wave election. send it, nine senate seats i believe at the end of the day after the louisiana runoff, probably nine senate seats will slip to republicans taking them from 45 to 54. the last house numbers suggested summit in the mid teens, whole bunch of recounts, some races are too close, they'll be too close to call for weeks probably. the summer, i don't know, you want to say between 13 and 17, that's probably somewhere in there. a handful of governorships all went, net went to the republicans so it was a terrific night. now, there were plenty of

surprises. there was one or two races. i'm still stunned by them. but the overall outcome should have shocked you, stunned you, left you, your mouth open and unbelieving. a very smart person who i sometimes don't, don't always but sometimes a great wrote this, in september, september 8, september 8, i'm not expecting a substantial republican senate wave in november with a net gain of at least 70 i wouldn't be shocked by a larger gain. the combination of a partner president and a midterm election can produce disastrous results for the president's party. given the presence 10, the public's discipline with the direction of the country, the makeup of the midterm election of 2014 sinemet am expecting a strong breeze at the back of the gop, and, and if there's a

strong breeze most of the race is now regarded as competitive will fall one way towards republicans. this doesn't happen all the time but it's far from unusual. right now the cycle looks much like 2010 when democrats with recent profile got crushed in republican leaning and swing states. with the president looking weaker, the news getting worse, democratic candidates in difficult and competitive districts unlikely to ever truly erred in some albatross around their necks. that was written september 8 by someone often, not always, agree with, me. [laughter] now, if i could see that on the horizon, i think most people could see it on the horizon but it's not like i've always superduper secret power insights that other people don't have. thank you. what we saw was why did this happen, mood. most midterm elections are about

mood. it's different from presidential elections which are much more about the two individuals running for office. their qualities, their backgrounds and their preparedness to their agendas. midterm elections tend to be referenda on the sitting president. not on congress which is why when people look at the congressional job approval at the congress is unpopular and republicans controlled the house so maybe the election will be about the house. well maybe, but no. it's never about that. i'm not saying the next election couldn't be that way, but this is the black swan three. we don't have those kinds of elections. midterm elections tend to be about the president and when voters are and become disappointed, frustrated, uncomfortable, worried, anxious, nervous, those elections tend to send that message to the president's party. that's exactly what happened. so we had mood. we had the seven states that were of the republican recruiting was quite good. they have strong candidates this

time and the turnout. it's an midterm election. that's somewhat different from a presidential year. different people vote. i looked at a house national exit poll the other day. i made this on the "newshour" but i will make it again. doing that 2014 electorate at the 20 with a look at, this electric, the turnout tuesday, i know this comes as a shock but not everybody votes, and what's important to me as a handicapper is who votes. met with the national public opinion is. so i compared 2014 to 2012. the 2014 electorate was more male, older, less liberal, more republican, wealthier, and more of them said that the country is headed off on the wrong track than the right direction. probably shouldn't surprise you that those voters then voted more republican. but it's even more than that. in 2012, the exit polls that you

approve or disprove of the job barack obama is doing as president of united states? the exit polls, presidential exit poll in 2012 was approve 53, disapprove and 46. it shocked a lot of us because of the national polls did not show an obama job approval in the low '50s. it showed been in the mid to upper '40s but when people voted that's who voted. this time to approve or disapprove of the job barack obama is doing as president? 44% approved, 55 disapprove. it was a different elected with a different mood and it delivered a different opinion about the president of the united states. so we had a wave election because the country wanted change, that everybody wanted change. if there are people inhibiting the president is doing a great job, the country is headed in the right direction -- >> back live now to capitol hill for more examination of the midterm elections posted by cq roll call.

>> joining christina bellantoni and a be back just after the with some closing remarks to a over to christina. >> thanks, david. hello, everyone and welcome to our afternoon portion of the afternoon. this is been such a great event. i've learned a lot and i think that a great conversation this morning and i'm excited about our lunchtime discussion as well and very lucky to be joined by former congressman tom davis of virginia. he is a republican. currently his director at deloitte government affairs shop and, of course, he came to congress in the gingrich revolution, served two terms as nrcc chairman and left congress in 2008, or after 2008. >> and left undefeated and unindicted. >> always important things to point out. >> congratulations. >> on the left, not mr. potential is governor ted

strickland, former governor of ohio, a democrat and destroy the president of the center for american progress action fund. he's also a delegate to the united nations general a silly appointed by president obama, and he served six terms in congress before coming to become governor and i was about one thing in common, something that we have an, and that was all we are all fellows at harvard institute of politics which is a really great program. one of the most important things. so i will get off right to the beginning of what were your main takeaways from tuesday's elections? i will start with governor strickland. >> well, i think the main takeaways is that the people of this country are dissatisfied with the way our government at various levels is functioning, and they went to the polls and expressed themselves. the republicans came out the winners but i don't know that that's an indication that the people feel particularly good about the republican party any

more so than they apparently do at this time about the democratic party. but it was an expression of frustration, perhaps some anger and a desire to have the government respond to the needs of the country. >> how about you? >> it's a typical midterm. in the year of the president attributed to lose a lot of seats. innocent ulysses because when president comes in they bring people in the coattails and secures later these people are naked really instead went to the back, they've got wind in their face. and republicans turned out. they were angrier. they were more motivated. democratic turnout was abysmal even some of these key races. it hurt mark warner, the governorship and maryland was alternate. just a turnout factor but one takeaways is if you're in new york you notice michael graham was related by 10 points with a

federal indictment over him but they also reelected to members of the state senate and an assemblyman with indictments on the. my undefeated indictment in new york isn't going to help me. look, there is a great frustration as ted says at this point the republicans were not elected because they were. that got elected because who they work, and that is the president's party and the president usually there's a point in and midterm. the depth of this republican think it was pretty deep. they control more legislation at any time in history. they are in a high water mark since 1920. i don't think you wash that away easily. will be a challenge for the now in terms of governance, least being able to put builds on the president desk and working within our caucus to produce the work product, something that has eluded them the last couple of years. >> this might be an area where you agree. governor strickland from your thoughts on the direction of the republican party right now? >> well, that is yet to be determined.

i have said that we don't know what this senate will look like in terms of the republican response until we determine how these newly elected senators choose to affiliate within the republican caucus. i mean, are they going to affiliate with the ted cruz wing of the party or are they going to affiliate with majority leader mcconnell? i think they'll make a big difference in whether or not there is actual opportunity for the administration and the senate to work together. i have less hope for the republican house to it seems to me that three public and house has been strengthened -- that the republican house has been strengthened by even more conservative members than before the election, and so i think, from my perspective it's rather

doubtful that there will be a lot of ability for the administration and the house to work together. what does that mean? does it mean continuing legislative gridlock? perhaps. but we don't know yet. this is a new situation. as tom said, the republicans did very, very well in this election. was it an indication that the country has embraced republican philosophy and republican agenda? i think not, but i do think there's an opportunity now if it is seized upon by serious leaders and serious thinkers to try to come together and do some things to move the country forward. >> one thing i actually wrote the editor's note in the guide to the new congress that you all should have a copy of.

very excited but we put that out with profiles of all these new members. one of the things i noticed was that you hearing the word solution from john boehner, mitch mcconnell a lot of republicans in the senate. people saying a understand the message from voters that they are tired of gridlock. if you were to pick one area where they could come together, with this opportunity for copper buys. let's talk about the policy, congressman davis. >> staring us right in the face are tax reform and immigration reform, the issues that are very difficult that no one party can lift on their own. because you make a lot of nasty decisions along the way that could alienate groups and i think there is a potential for those things. it's not 50% i think there is an opportunity to try work on the. i think the xl pipeline the president will see that on his desk very early. we have to understand though that over the last 20 years, since i came to congress in 94, ted came in 92, the world has

change. you've got three macro factors. the parties are not ideologically sorted. you have any any more liberal republicans or conservative democrats. lou dobbs, a couple of puppies left the way they have gone. they have just been wiped out. >> and they have a vote. >> the single party districts members now worry about the primaries than the general. fully 80% of the hous house seae pre-ordained to elect one party or the other. so the primary is the main event. for many of these members november is nothing more than a constitution or mildly that they have to go through. and primary voters are a narrow slice of the electorate. it's nowhere near a majority that that's who caters and a tough of a compromised. they want you to stand up tough. the media model, whether fox or msnbc or talk radio or the internet, these are attracting people based on people hearing what they want to hear.

they tend to carry a message that is a more polarizing message. >> not cq roll call. >> not cq roll call for the record. and the superb, the advent of the super pacs now between mccain-feingold and then you add to that supreme court decision citizens united, the money has moved away from the parties now which had been a central force in american politics to integers and now onto these interest groups which tend to be basically more ideological. now the financial pressure is out of these groups to please these groups as well so when they raid a vote, when you're reading a vote and taking names on a vote, and what about super pacs come to the district and and pushing them into primary because there's no relief. they raise money the hard way. >> this makes it hard for leaders to sometimes go back to their members and sell the copper much. you couldn't have to better leaders to work with your institutional us in mcconnell and bangor but can it deliver

the caucus? think it's so that anything republicans can vote for probably something most democrats can't vote for. optimize will take everybody trying to come together. i think there's some hope, opportunity in the first six, nine months and then the 2016 campaign gets full tilt. >> we will dive deep into tax reform and immigration the moment but i'm curious for your thoughts on less but also to the president obama might have learned out of tuesday's revolt? >> i think if i can make reference to the question directed to tom earlier, what can be done together to really get something done? this country, it needs an infrastructure program. the country is crumbling. this is a program that democrats and republicans used to agree upon, a robust transportation bill, and infrastructure bill. and it seems to me that such an effort creates jobs, good paying

jobs, helps the economy go do something that's going to position this country to move forward. it's an investment in the future and it seems to me that if there was one area where there should be an opportunity to have quick, rather quick agreement, it would be on an investment, job creating bill to really put resources, significant resources into the building of this country. and i'm not talking about, you know, a small effort. i think we need a major, major effort. and i would hope that the president and the two houses of congress can agree on that but and i think it would be good for the country. in terms of the other two issues, tax reform and immigration, we could have a long discussion about that, and i hope we do because these are two areas that are important to the current situation.

and right now the situation doesn't look very hopeful. immigration is one of the issues whether is a thing incredible polarization, and i think it's going to be difficult to come to an agreement. >> let's get right into. it. maybe we start with immigration since you brought it up. you have seen many votes on immigration, sort of from both sides to the senate passed a bipartisan comprehensive bill. most of those members who voted for are still there. the republicans were elected on tuesday are probably not going to support that kind of bill. is there hope for a measure like that ever passing? or how is it just going to be the gridlock within the house on this issue? >> the house is a tough. these house constituencies are tough. at this point i don't think the senate bill has been per. i don't know if it gets through this and now that the senate is

a change. you can get a scaled-down bill. are somethings everybody agrees need to be done. the problem is that you the different constituency and what the whole thing and holding up things like high-tech visas and stuff, basically holding them hostage to try to get other things that are less popular. there's a reason they could move in commitment and a number of these areas. >> and easy to democrats willing to accept that? that's a great point because people said they want the whole enchilada. >> i mean, i'm going to express a personal opinion here that reflects my thinking. i don't know about the president or the leadership, but it seems to me that this issue has been a troublesome issue for a long, long time. there's been a lot of talk, a lot of debate. and he seems to me that it may be time to bring this debate to an end. and it won't happen legislatively. i think it's highly unlikely that as far into the future as

we can see, until maybe there's a significant change in the makeup of the house of representatives, we are not likely to get meaningful immigration legislation passed. that's why think the president, as he said yesterday, will take as much action as he can using his executive authority. i suspect when that happens i think it will happen, i suspect when it happens it will cause kind of an explosion within the political world, as that action is debated. but i think my point of view it's the right thing to do. i think there's been enough talk, and i suspect that it will happen and then we'll have to see what the outcome is. >> whether that's the right thing to do or not, i think reasonable people can disagree.

and i understand the perspective of let's get this thing over. you've got 12 million people or so hanging in the shadows, let's get this thing resolved. at a recognize that. maybe if he does something like that will treat it will. but you have to look at the other side of the. republicans have used this is very cynical, wait until after the election. you are doing this in our face before we are even convened but i do think it poisons the well on a lot of other issues. and that doesn't mean that you don't at some point go ahead and do this and act if congress is incapable of action. i think the end result is when congress can't do things, president are bound to head on their own to the country estimate it sometimes and congressional dysfunction not withstanding no matter which party has a more bipartisan conflict, but i wish he would wait for my perspective, give them a chance to see if the new congress and the new leaders can do in good faith with this issue. otherwise i'm afraid it will

poison a lot of other good things that can happen. >> you did the president said over the course of the year, i am waiting on the house to see what they're going to do with the senate bill, but then he got a lot of criticism. it's interesting because you think maybe you get into the psychology of it. on one hand it might cause an explosion, or poison pill bu bun the other end of it takes the issue off the table and then republicans are worried about primaries don't ever have to think about it again. >> the courts protecting some issues off the table for republicans that may be helpful to them over the long term, whether they would admit it or not. >> do you mean gay marriage? >> exactly. i think of a particular issue of immigration, stupid very explosive at the grassroots level at this point. i'm not sure exactly what his ability to do is big you could also end up in defunding situations where you will withhold funding. it's an issue the racial people, head and i could probably sit down to write a bill and i think those members could but you have

to remove the political forces. these guys have to go to the primaries. if you don't think immigration is an explosive issue, talk to eric cantor who found out that his constituents were feinman using the president faced but when he starts reopening the government and he starts voting for a debt ceiling and then the debt limit and you move in on immigration, they didn't want that collaboration. they want him to stand up and that is the dilemma that house republicans from these safe distance have to go up against the i understand the frustration on both sides. i have confidence in, with holdings over them, give them an opportunity to work at a think it's more understandable. >> what's considered a progressive organization come if the president did wait, if he said let's give the republicans the chance, our progress is going to continue to be frustrated? does that matter? he doesn't face the voters aga again. >> i think progressive community will be very frustrated. the president made a commitment, and i think it would be very

damaging to his standing among the american people if he does not follow through as he said he would yesterday. i also think there's a political dimension to this that cannot be ignored. after the last presidential election, leadership of the republican party i think accurately said that they needed to work to expand their base, and they needed to become more of a party that is reaching out to different constituency groups. and i think this issue has the potential to diminish the republican party as a national party in terms of winning national elections. the demographics in this country are changing. they are irreversible. we all know that, and it may not

happen two years from now or four years from now, eventually there's got to be a recognition within both parties but i think especially in the republican party that this country is so diverse, and that must be factored into our parties. and i think it's going to be really difficult going forward for the republican party to have a national win, to ever win the presidency, unless they come to terms with the reality, which is this immigration issue. >> i agree with the. having come to terms different than they would but i think there are some things that could be done that would give the issue off the table and move into other issues. >> if you were a betting person,

if this were to either be the present taking action our congress taking action, what would -- >> look, i'm not sing at the end of the day the president is not taking action. realistically when congress gridlock on an issue and will address issues and they fester, executives i think have the prerogative and sometimes i think the mandate to move ahead. i'm just saying i think it's a poor choice right now. right of an election would withhold to try to elect some of your own, and for this might've said new hampshire and virginia for the democrats i'm not doing it before. it's pretty cynical, now i'm going to do now. winking at the other group sang it's on its way. we have new leadership saying we want to work together, i think you give them a reasonable period of time and the timetable. you can have this whole -- it's a lot more sense but and i think, ted, the allies, if we were to do this and dangle this thing may give them a little more space to understand the impatience, it's been years but we passed a bill back in '06,

'07, the house and senate very different bill and we could never get to conference on. it's a tough, tough issue. >> they melted down there were so many angry calls. >> my betting on this is survival to both sides of the issue. so you dig in. but it's an issue that's got to get resolve. status quo to do is not helping anybody. >> let's switch to the other, transportation infrastructure. highway bill is an issue that has been one that we follow very closely at cq roll call. how do you see any agreement coming forward on the infrastructure investment or potentially some sort of job creation program? either of you. >> without being in office i can talk about taxes. [laughter] >> tell us what you really think. >> you. i mean, the truth is that, that the infrastructure of the

country is in need of investment. i don't think anyone really questions that. the issue is where do the resources come from, and how are they directed? and it's been a long time since we've had a meaningful increase in the federal gasoline tax, and we all know as cars become more efficient, all the reasons why the resources going into the trust fund has been diminished significant diminished. so they're no longer meeting the needs and the trust fund is basically empty any practical sense. i think we need to have a serious discussion about increasing the federal gasoline tax. and there may be other ways that we can get resources, and we can talk about public-private, you know, organizations and relationships that can provide

funding and get the private sector resources involved more heavily. i asked the beginning it seems to me that we ought to talk about resources that we need. and what we are paying now is nowhere near what the purchasing power of the gasoline tax was 10, 15 years ago. >> what ted says makes applets and. you were governor. you really hit the map on this. i was account executive and we get the map of how this stuff works but i think it will be difficult to get any kind of a tax increase out of the congress, and republican congressman into a presidential election. remember the 2016 race actually began yesterday. that's the way these things work your it always baffled me in the president's stimulus package when it came to office he didn't have more but it would been a great time to do this instead of the other stuff. not revisiting that i think there is an agreement among a

lot of republicans that we need to do a lot on the infrastructure, and we just build the silver line out to the dose airport in open face one. i chaired that, the airport, who built the thing and we did most of it through tolls and a public partner -- public-private partnership. we found that people who oppose tax is also a polls polls. unique in my from somewhere. infrastructure can't wait. it's crumbling. it's a great jobs bill as well and hope they find a way to come together on the. i know the people on the committee want to do that. >> the members who joined his committee want to get it done. it's getting to the leadership and particularly to our conference on republican side everybody wants to spend the money but nobody wants to raise it. >> but, you know, what? there are trades that can be done. the president doesn't want, i think it the congress to angry because all of his appointees

are not going to go to a republican senate. and at the end of the day it's going to force the conversation that we haven't had for the last four years because senator reid is the majority leader, has controlled that and he just wouldn't bring up anything the republicans did want to confront on amendments and bills, just keep them away from the president. now you have the president engaged with congress. we passed welfare reform, third time, vetoed it twice before deciding the third time. sometimes conversations can take place and cooler heads prevail, everybody has to stand the ground but eventually you move from your positions towards the center. i think there is some possibility. >> let me tell you a brief conversation i had with former speaker gingrich. i said to him, nude, when i was in the house and do the speaker i thought things cannot get worse. but knew it, i kind of miss you. [laughter] spent i had the same conversation with bill clinton on the other side.

[laughter] >> you heard that here first. he mentioned that the transportation to make any chance to plug our guide to new congress on have a whole list of all the committees but also some breaking news we had that the ranking member position which is well know is pretty important on the house side in transportation, peter defazio will be seeking to keep it is being challenged by john garamendi of california. we broke the news yesterday. these changes better when you're talking about holding a bill in committee. we will focus her close of the tax reform, tax extenders and if they can potentially try to get that done. >> the catechism tax extenders through. the interest groups both control parties. you'll find control to get into. i don't know if nascar gets their tax extenders through, that i think you'll find a way to get better at the end as they always do.

tax reform which is a much were difficult issue, i think at least on our site an agreement you've got to lower the corporate tax rate but to do this on this got to pay for it. so you have some winners and losers in that. the reason you want to lower the rate, for efficiency sake, getting it done and moving, that's a better way to do it and all of these superficial carve outs that they have right now that don't seem to be producing any real economic benefit. it's a difficult conversation to have because of the interest groups really control this now when it comes to that. >> when it comes to the overall budget and spending, they cut to fund the government, coming right up on their long to-do list but eventually there will be more issues of debt and -- >> the debt ceiling is coming up in like march or april. you've got a debt ceiling coming up. >> how does the newly republican congress deal with the? >> i would send the president, if they can agree, the key for republican success is to get the house and senate to produce a package and put on the president's desk. that's what they need to do.

last time the house couldn't produce the package on its own and neither the senate with a couple members running for president who don't necessarily listen to what mcconnell says. they're going to go right to the base. >> the promise of an open a minute. >> the world has changed. i had to turn for we five, 60 majorities in the house and we're still able to get budget resolutions passed which are very tough and still put a package together. those days are over. you just have too many free agents now worried about the primaries and pleasing interest groups out there, the through pacs and the like that march to the beat of their own drum. no matter what -- makes it very hard for the speaker and it may be tough for leader mcconnell to deal with. but assuming they can do that and giving package on the president's desk whether or not he vetoes it they want done their job. so i think there's and chances are but we will know very early and that's why i'm nervous about

the executive order coming up too soon but i think that just ties the speaker stands and the majority leader stands in terms of delivering their members for some of these other issues. gives them a reason not to do it. >> the democrats, are they going to want to go along with the? does harry reid tried to block everything the republicans pushed through? >> you mean like the republicans didn't? >> yes. or does the work to compromise? >> i hope the compromises without violating, you know, the core principles that the party stands for. ..