numbers, my guess is they will come down with increasing the deficit. that is, and not being ashamed about it. i keep getting, keep reminding myself, the line into perspective, past performance is no imitation of future returns. we've got to stop being commerce and republicans of the past eight years on the same republican party we are going to see over the next couple of years. us in a much bigger $1 trillion a year for four years, we've may be in the out years showing a bigger and faster reduction but i think we're about to see the republicans essentially rebranding themselves as a party of deficits. if it produces jobs and economic growth, they will say it's worth it. >> an interesting question whether freedom caucus and fiscal conservatives agree to that.

trump would want to do that and maybe some of supporters. why would the people who made john boehner slice of visible a year ago suddenly decide they like huge budget deficit? >> because they will be dealing with republican as a post a democratic president. i think i will make a big difference. >> i don't think it will. i think it would be very difficult to convince the house majority that has been elected on limited government, and a lot of the enthusiasm, or lack of enthusiasm for the republican establishment, these because they thought they were not sufficiently committed to fiscal restraint. there may well be an era of trillion dollar deficits coming up but i don't think it's going to be because the republicans will suddenly decide that they want it. and may enact policies that to g it about and might make excuses for it -- >> but they -- >> i don't think also that declared that deficits don't matter. did not -- they might declare a

deficit doesn't matter. >> i agree. but i think all of us are too focused on the campaign promises at the moment. because that's all we have to. so we have to focus on, but it go back to the clinton administration. when we came and we were very focused on the budget. the president had promised to get the deficit coming down, and we did. but the campaign promises, many of them, just went by the board. the president had promised a big infrastructure program which never happened. he had promised a big middle-class tax cut. these were things that the budget years some decent sorry, we can't afford it. not if you're going to get the deficit come again. there may not be that kind of discussion in this

administration, but it must be remembered that not all can promises end up in the presidential programs. >> that's a good reminder. we've already mentioned the debt ceiling and that's where record to go next a cousin of his love interest in talking about that. the debt ceiling suspension expires march 15 as everybody knows. congress does not usually act that quickly on it until, at the treasury problems will begin the use of extraordinary measures to take us through a period after that. it's an interesting picture of, present and let trump, to congress to ask to do this. very interesting. how do we think this debate is going to play out on the debt ceiling? leo, you had some thoughts. >> i agree. i wish we wouldn't go through this process every couple of years. 2011, 13, 15 again. to me it's reckless and very

risky to get to this point whether treasury is sending letters every week saying this is how much money we have left in the pot and we're not quite sure what could be coming in a. to get ourselves in a position where there's the risk of defaulting on treasury. i know people understand this but i can think of absolutely nothing worse financially than the u.s. really genuinely defaulting on the treasury debt. if you think it was a shock come getting elected, watch what happens the day after the u.s. defaults. >> what would happen speak with the recession would start the next morning. in my view, it would be worse than 2008 at the lehman brothers collapse. >> a most every financial instrument in the world, not just in the u.s., is based off of treasury rates and off of the dollar to some extent or another. everyone has it in a portfolio. every 401(k) plan has treasuries. interest rates would go through the roof the next morning. u.s. bond market is almost $40 trillion. at about 20 trillion is

treasured addresses corporate bonds. every single interest associate with this goes through the rooff the next monica i can't even estimate how bad it would be. it hasn't happened because usually somebody exercises leadership to prevent this from happening. but if the u.s., it is the safe haven of all safe havens. the dollar pistol the reserve currency. there's nothing close to. even playing around with it, even though we generally know that they'll reach some sort of agreement for this happens, why even risk it? they have gotten shockingly close to not actually being able to pay some debt in the past. i just wish they would do with it done right now, suspended the debt ceiling and make it permanent. that would tie things have a lot of aggravation. there have been times, remember 2011, stock market went down, bond yields with the. there were some cost associated with the. i don't think they're going to default on the debt but i would much rather see them pro-merely

suspended this. to the point we're just discussing before, i think you asked is there going to be a bargaining chip? i wish it wasn't but i don't see why it wouldn't be. because if trump has an aggressive spending plan and looks like he will with infrastructure, he's going to cut taxes, i think ed said the same thing why is this going to lead to higher deficits? and will. if it leads to higher deficits and fiscal conservatives will not be happy about this and they will squeeze him and they will use whatever tools available including the debt ceiling. i suspect whoever the new treasury secretary is will do the same thing the last december to start writing these anguished letters from march to july saying we're getting closer and closer, please do something about this. >> i agree with everything said. i think it's also that goes to the point of why i think there will be pressure on president elect trumped other plan to try to do with the deficit.

whether it's in his budget which was thereafter, getting votes past the debt limit while the deficit is going i will be a challenge. i think will be interesting to see what role congressional democrats play. that's one place where they may be needed, give them leverage if the republican leadership in congress than an trump is going to. then in july can't get 218 republican votes for debt limit, do congressional democrats take the responsible government position and supply the votes or do they say you bought it, you owned it. it's up to you to pass the debt limit. the debt limit is another reason in addition to the position refocused the taken at their will be pressure to show they're doing something on the deficit. >> who would be the republicans would split off on that who would not agree? would it be a sizable group? >> it could be. a combination, the freedom

caucus, other republican members -- >> on the freedom caucus? >> the optics, full all the campaign proposals that come talked about during the campaign would increase the deficit. he talked about how bad the debt would be an all republican candidates talked about how bad that would be. two years from now if members voted to raise the debt limit and the deficit is going higher, that's going to cause problems with a lot of the people who voted thinking they were voting for controlling the debt. notwithstanding the fact this is a policy that would increase the. trying to square those where you can get members voting to raise the debt limit will be challenged. >> i can member the last time congress of one party vetoed or torpedoed a debt ceiling request made by a president of the own party. that's just one. number two, i find it hard to

believe the house freedom caucus would end up doing things that would torpedo a child presently particularly in the first year. it may happen to him maybe they think themselves above the president but they are in safe districts and can almost certainly get around it. third, i don't know what they want in return. the freedom caucus, the portion of the republican party that is presumably in a position to make life difficult for president trump on debt ceiling. they want the tax cuts, the defense increases, obamacare repealed or partially repealed. all three of those things increase the deficit. so what is it, didn't want to eliminate the domestic side of the budget? there's not enough there unless you talk about medicare and medicaid which the president-elect said he will not touch. medicare and social security, excuse me. there's not on the discretion side to make a dent in the trillion dollar deficit. i'm trying to forget what the deal would be. >> -- to figure out what the

deal would be. >> paradoxically though it may be the first time that democrats are thinking a debt ceiling is a useful tool to keep republicans from doing things like really deep tax cuts that benefit upper income people will. or there may be a little bit of joining forces with the freedom caucus to hold the trump administration to its more fiscal responsible for announcements. >> a lot of the things that i worry about, if you get into a disagreement over the debt limit, one of the ideas that came before it that was passed in house was at this id of prioritization change the laws

of the government doesn't defaulted to pay some of its bills. which is really a bankruptcy. it's a form of, that would be a bad idea also. so i worry with both houses in a republican congress, republican president, some of that kind of bill might get signed. i think a better approach would be for trump, ryan and mcconnell to realize if they have a common agenda, it does require higher borrowing to even if it didn't, ryan's budget from last year required a higher debt limit. they just didn't acknowledge it. so this is a good teaching opportunity for all of the members that think that you can when the government without raising the debt limit. and it could be that the silver lining is that the three, the leader of the house, the senate and the white house, would

simply either easily pass the debt limit increase or find some way, like was suggested, permanent, maybe permanently -- >> could you do that? >> sure. have it hanging out there as a threat. that would be a good thing. put it in like cryogenics or something. >> stand is right. freedom caucus and others decide actually don't care that much about the deficit because you said that getting everything they want anyway. at some point anyone who moves the version of the clinton administration, the bond markets could have a say at some point. >> again, the last few days since trump has been in there's been a rout in the bound -- on the market. if we get fiscal deficits back to four, five, 6% of gdp, then interest rates go up. so right now even with these trillion dollar deficits, the interest on these deficits is a

little over 1% of gdp because we got very low interest rates. the average interest rate on the government's -- of its debt is less than 2%. if interest rates go up and becomes a lot harder to finance the deficit at that point a lot of pressure on they'll and yes, we made political applicable as well but if the financial markets start pressuring them, and some asked act more responsibly. >> raise the issue of entitlement reform in your question. that's directly relevant in the sense that really the way to get the budget back on a sustainable track has nothing do with the debt limit. those of us who are saying the debt limit should be put to sleep is not arguing for putting fiscal responsibility to sleep. i think a better way, the only we could keep the debt from rising on unsustainable current course is to change the spend and tax policy of united states government. capping the debt itself is counterproductive.

it doesn't control the debt and it has all the problems that leo has outlined. i speak as a committed fiscal hawk on these issues. but what we need to do is have a change in long-term, employment program, tax reform, to bring about a sustainable fiscal policy. that's the way to keep the debt from going on an unsustainable course. >> i would say interesting on the trump transition website has language on medicare reform. if they can show that talks, i can member the exact phrase that change in the program to prepare for future generations, future needs. it was clearly a nod towards the type of editor forms the paul ryan has talked about. very big but a least a small opening of maybe they would go there. i will just keep optimism, the cubs won the world series while

the optimistic on everything, that perhaps after president trump as salsa could administration, crackdown on those gritty fraud, discovered he killed 90% of the cell security insolvency left, and come back and maybe a point some type of commission, i think i do think congressional republicans want to see some entitlement reform keeping with some sign that maybe a president trump would let them take the lead on it and go along with it. >> a quick question for leo. this is a substantive question. how much of the u.s. debt rolled over every year? how much is short-term versus long-term? >> a lot. i'd say about 40% of it i think it is. >> so if interest rates start rising the government -- >> yeah. >> in addition to defense

spending going up in infrastructure spending and tax cuts and god knows what else, we are likely to also higher interest payments that are currently being assumed. >> the interest payment right now, i checked this modicum right now on everything from bills went up to the 30 year bonds right now, the government is paying as you know relatively little. it's cheap to ball right now. so across the entire maturity range is less than 2%. it's been very cheap. that's what a lot of economists are right now it is essentially good to spend money on infrastructure because of the money is basically, it's not quite free but very close to free right now so free right now see miners will invest in a. whatever you think about trump spending money on infrastructure is not a bad thing because the money is cheap. it's not going to be cheap. the fed might also decide to push rates up a little more. we might see a fed rate increaseincreaseas well. that will make borrowing more expensive over time. >> what do you think about that? >> i think they won't go, they won't go up into some as they said they would but they are

certain not going to go up very fast. but one more point. i fully subscribe to bob's eloquent defense of fiscal responsibility in the long run and he is pointing out that it involves entitlement and tax reform. at the more you cut taxes, the bigger hole you dig. i see the big danger right now that will have an explosive tax cut, and then it will be really difficult. now it's only politically difficult. then it will be really difficult to find any entitlement reforms that brain the spending and tax laws together. >> we want it all, don't we? we want at all. >> if we could move the reconciliation, budget resolutions of the coming year. last year the house did not adopt the budget resolution because there was so much

internal division. the senate didn't pass one because of a provision in the two-year budget deal as you all know that allowed into just how spending topline. and appropriate went on at although it's kind of in limbo now. could one of you explain for us what reconciliation means and why it budget resolution is needed and how reconciliation might be used by this new congress? why this, why reconciliation has become the word of the week around washington. >> this is a pet issue. the budget reconciliation, budget legislation, it's designed to actually implement changes in policies to implement the budget resolution. budget resolution sets the spending and revenue targets, and budget reconciliation provides for changes in the from clause and the tax-and-spend policies to bring spending a red district that is at least from a

of budget perspective which you begin to pick up a budget that is going for substantial spending cuts or tax changes to make certain changes, reconciliation legislation is the limiting that. however, budget reconciliation has a special status, budget resolution and reconciliation legislation that is passed pursuant to a budget resolution is not subject to filibuster. they can pass with 51 votes. reconciliation has become not the way it i is and permitting e entire budget for whatever piece of legislation the majority wants to push through with 51 votes in the senate and so there's talk that you can reconciliation to repeal the a portal to act, to do for tax reform. i would still executive budget resolution that's calling for deficit reduction, that really should be what legislation issues for. there are limits. one is you can only have one bill that deals with revenues, won the spin and one with the debt limit your maybe we see reconciliation for the debt

limits but repealing the affordable trip would be both revenue and spending and, therefore, you couldn't do a separate reconciliation bill with tax reform defeated budget resolution. if he did on tax reform you can to affordable care act under reconciliation. and it also us t of limits on wt can be included in the reconciliation bill. the two most notable limitations are reconciliation, that anything that is non-budgetary effects. if we used reconciliation to repeal the affordable care act you would only repeal the parts that had subsidies and the tax increase in spending but all the regulations regarding pre-existing conditions and staying under parents health insurance, all those provisions could not be addressed in reconciliation. you have a swiss cheese affordable care act, a lot of the structure in place but without any of the spending and revenue for. the other important distinction educated they think is increasing the deficit beyond the tenure window. the affordable care act, some of the revenue raised in savings

are going over time that you have to sunset those appeals. you may not be able to repeal the tax increases that delay them. if you did tax reform to reconciliation like was coming out of have cut the rate reductions and tax reforms sunset like the bush tax cuts when 2001. [inaudible] >> the rumor probably will not come to pass but there's been speculation in the past that congress would pass, during the lame-duck session would pass a budget resolution for fiscal year 2017 with reconciliation instructions i would allow congress to move first thing next year on the front installation instructions for forward to act repealed and then follow it as a regular budget resolution in april with a fresh set of reconciliation instructions that could then be used for tax reform our deficit reduction or other purposes. it's never been tested whether the attorney general would agree with that but this is an ongoing

body so budget resolution passed in this congress would still be part of senate rules into the next congress so it is at least theoretically possible. >> that would also require making decisions very quickly ann shoket resolve what that means for fiscal year 2017 discussion spending level and other problems. it's at least an idea that's out there. >> i've done a bit of checking. i've got a slightly different rumor. i hear that congress might not take up a budget resolution and a lame-duck session but in the beginning of the next session. that he would first be for 2017, there is one for 2017 because you suggested the senate punted on and how student do anything. so you do a budget resolution in january, shortly after carter's got back that includes reconciliation instructions. this part will be hypothetical. that would repeal part of the aca.

and then that's all it would do. basically. than six months later congress would to a budget resolution for 2010, the regular budget resolution for the coming fiscal year that would include separate set of reconciliation instructions that we do other things as you suggested. the real value is it would prevent or prevents a filibuster in the senate. that's the real value of it. so of 52-48 republican majority could move forward with whatever they wanted to do without being worried about the democratic filibuster unless the republicans didn't stay unified. alice, you may know, bob, you may know. i've never seen this kind of maneuver done before, two budget resolutions that in the first year, and one year with reconciliation. can you recall anything like that? >> i don't think that's ever happened. of course, there were two budget resolution originally in the law, and it was just too conficker to get it all done so

they changed the law, which suggest two things i want to say. one is all of these inside of the way complexities that we've been talking about up here have been thought about in the context of divided government, for the last few years. and the context may have changed. the 60 votes innocent has not changed, but the idea that all of this sort of using the rule to get what you want is going to be typical of the congress which has a president of its own making in the white house, i think can be questioned. and then that comes back to my other point, that the trumpet administration really has to decide, does it want to continue

the campaign, which case the first thing to do would be to repeal the affordable care act and not worry about what happens to the 20 million people who are injured by it? or do they want to govern in a way that's good for the people who elected them? miniboom get subsidies under the affordable care act. and i'm optimistic sort. so i think maybe they want to repeal and replace, and replace is a complicated thing to do. repeal is easy. replaced is harder. and there are quite a number of republican proposals that have been put on the table, which they could work on. and i think it was more to bring some democrats in on that as well. because one party passing health care law just leaves it open to

attack from the other one. but most of the proposals that we've seen from republicans look a lot like modifications of the affordable care act. you can call it cope care -- trump care and you can do things republicans have wanted to do and you could solve some real problems in the act. but my hope would be that they would want something that works as a legacy for the trump administration, not just we said we're going to do, we repeal obamacare and now look at it. if i could, we'll a time for maybe one or two questions. so if folks in the-itis do have questions, we have microphones on stands over here and over here if you want to join. >> i agree with alice, and i want to just interject a note of gridlock.

in the sense of -- >> haven't we had enough of the? >> i think we still might have problems on appropriations. i think we will have a budget resolution because that's the best, the easiest vehicle to do whatever they want to do on obamacare is going to become you want to get around the filibuster your on appropriations, you know, the republicans will undoubtedly set a much lower level of discretionary spending that the democrats would want to live with. and so we still have the possibility and probability of senate filibuster on appropriations bills in the senate which means we could be back in the same boat of government shutdowns at the end of the year next year anyway, which suggest a potential basis for having some sort of broader negotiations. i think on, to pick up on

alice's optimism, however, you have, when you have come get the senate, house and let us all insane has as can republican party does not unified responsibility to govern. they can't blame it on anybody else. so some of the same, maybe democrats and acidic and you never know, but i mean it may be, so the campaign rhetoric that goes back and forth and even the government rhetoric might get dropped by the side issue, unit of what can we get done? we are now responsible. answer that can of the optimistic scenario for bigger things getting done. >> discretionary spending, for 2017 and going forward, trump called for repeal of the defensive questor, it's not just in the budget but our caps in law and required 60 votes to change that.

democrats are they going to seize their providing sequestered relief for defense and the wonderful nondefense and that could lead to negotiations as well. >> and looks like we have a question over here. >> following up on actually the most recent two comments, and this is, this session is titled who gets the money, and you addressed the fans. but in terms of other agencies, justice, hhs, agriculture, commerce, going down the line, on the particular agencies that you think would do well in terms of trump budgets, or ones that you think would get hit particularly hard. >> good question. >> let me start. i think defense will be better and transportation will be better because we will have a big infrastructure bill, although not all the infrastructure would necessarily

be transportation your and i think hhs is going to be big no matter what. they are not going to make significant cuts in the big program, the big health care programs. the subsidies in obamacare, even if they go away, are tiny compared to medicare and medicaid. spin you've got to say immigration and naturalization. >> also come calls for cuts in unauthorized. i think everything except immigration, and accusation for defense come every other agency i think is going to look at very deep cuts in their discretionary spending. >> one of the questions i couldn't help when the question

comes up who gets the money, i mean, almost 50% of the budget or maybe 40% is also steady, medicare and medicaid. when you're talking about who gets the money, weather and some administration or obama administration the central dilemma of the budget is that bush is going faster than the economy, is health care salsas could only parts of the budget that are growing faster or projected to grow faster than the economy. so who gets the money? that's what the money is going. >> that's a sobering reality. and on that note we are going to be closed recession and thank you very much to our panel. this is been a great discussion. thank you. [applause] ..

>> next up on this cq roll call day-long discussion, we'll be hearing from former congressional staffers on capitol hill's new power brokers now that a non-politician will be leading the country. and then how congress can get past working on crisis and facing continual government shutdowns. that'll all be coming up shortly here on c-span2 as soon as they return from this short break. a look at some tweets. president-elect donald trump visiting capitol hill this afternoon to meet with

congressional leaders including the senate majority leader, mitch mcconnell. c-span congressional producer craig kaplan tweeted the remarks from the president-elect who said beautiful, really beautiful, after touring the area where he will be inaugurated at the u.s. capitol. the president-elect also meeting with house speaker paul ryan. they walked through a side hallway. this is just past the main rotunda of the capitol on their way to the house side of the capitol. and then speaker ryan took mr. trump to the speaker's office in the capitol to show him the area where the inauguration will take place on january 20th. congress returns for a lame duck session next week. still on the agenda, federal spending for 2017. also a look here at a tweet from stan colinner the: trump's surprise win totally changed what will happen in the lame duck session of congress that begins next week. we'll have live corning an on --

coverage on c-span and c-span2. here's a look at some of today's white house briefing dealing with the presidential transition. >> thanks, josh. president obama described the meeting with president-elect donald trump as excellent. i wonder if there was anything specific that president-elect trump told the president about how he plans to govern this country that led to president obama's characterization of his -- [inaudible] >> well, josh, i had an opportunity shortly before coming out to visit briefly with president obama about the meeting, and there are, you know, many details of their discussions that they'll keep between the two of them. a couple of things that i can share with you. obviously, the president indicated during the pool spray that they had an opportunity to discuss some foreign policy and some domestic issues. some of those foreign policy issues came up in the context of the's upcoming trip overseas. the president described to the

president-elect some of the issues that he expects to come up with some of our allies and partners and other world leaders that he'll meet with on the trip, so there was an opportunity for them to talk about some of those issues in advance of the president's trip and in advance of some of the conversations he expects to have with world leaders on the trip. there also was an opportunity for the two leaders to talk about staffing and organizing a white house. that's complicated business. and any white house is expected to be structured in a way to deal with multiple challenges or even multiple crises at the same time. and the president-elect indicated a lot of interest in understanding the strategy of staffing and organizing a white house and, obviously, that's something that president obama has thought extensively during his eight years in office. they spent a large portion of the meeting discussing the importance of properly staffing

up and organizing a white house operation. but, look, other than that what the president heard from the president-elect is a clear commitment to the kind of effective, smooth transition that president obama has been vowing to preside over for the better part of a year. and the president tends to make good on that promise in the 70 days ahead. >> did the president leave the meeting any more reassured that president-elect trump will not try to dismantle all of the work that you and your colleagues have done over the last eight years, and did he -- did president obama make any pitch to trump, for instance, not to get rid of obamacare or other significant policies? >> well, listen, i'm not going to get into all the details of their meeting. i think that president obama came away from the meeting with renewed confidence in the commitment of the president-elect to engage in an effective, smooth transition.

that, obviously, is what president obama believes serves the american people the best. we are committed to doing what is required on our part to make sure that that happens, and the president was pleased to hear a similar commitment expressed by the president-elect. >> do you know if the president got any reassurances from trump about whether he plans to pursue what he discussed during the campaign about trying to incarcerate hillary clinton? >> well, listen, i'll let president-elect, let the president-elect sort of read out his end of the conversation. but as i mentioned yesterday, the president was, found reassuring the kind of tone that the president-elect conveyed in his election night remarks. as i mentioned yesterday, these were remashes that -- remarks that the president-elect delivered not just to his supporters in the ballroom, but to the citizens of the country that were tuned in to this

historic election, but also to people around the world. and given the intensity of scrutiny of his remarks, it's notable that he chose that kind of tone. i think we saw a similar tone just in the oval office 30 minutes ago where he was, you know, indicating his, you know, commitment to working closely with the outgoing administrationing to insure a smooth, effective transition. it doesn't mean they agree on all the issues. they obviously have deep disagreements. but what they do agree on is a smooth and effective transition. that's a good thing for the country. >> and we're live here today, publication cq roll call hosting a day-long conference on the impact of the 2016 elections. in the next panel, we'll hear from former congressional staffers about who will be the new power brokers on capitol hill now that a nonpolitician will be leading the country.

and then the final panel of the day starting at 3:20 eastern. former senators tom daschle and trent lott will talk about how congress can get past working on crisis and facing continual government shutdowns. the cq roll call conference expected to restart in just a few minutes. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> thank you. am i on? yeah, i am on. thank you, everybody. we're now going into the home stretch, our afternoon session. i just want a couple of housekeeping things, you should have gotten an e-mail on the e-mail that you registered for the event for this feedback forum. we also have a feedback forum on our app. we really want to hear from you about what you took away from the day and what we can provide more in the next round. i'd like to just quickly move on to deputy editor of cq magazine, jason dick, and his special guest. >> thank you very much, david. and thank you for joining us. it's been a long week for a lot of people, and this is a great opportunity, i think, to kind of debrief and kind of recalculate

where everything is. i'm joined today by neil bradley, at my far left, he is the founder of policy solutions and a former senior staffer for, former house majority leader eric cantor. he also worked were roy blunt, now senator blunt, the majority whip. experience goes all the way back to working for senator/dr. no when he was in the house, tom coburn. [laughter] to my left, one of the founders of rock solutions, a former senior aide for harry reid, the outgoing minority leader in the senate. he also worked for senator tom daschle who you'll be listening to a little bit later on today. also worked for mark pryor when he was in the senate. so thank you very much, gentlemen, for being here, appreciate it. we've got a lot of, a lot of unanswered questions. i think a lot of people, the election took them by surprise as we've heard continuously, and

people were kind of interested to know who are some of the people who are going to be running things, who are going to be devising policy, making things happen particularly on capitol hill? neil, let's starter with you. in the house, i mean, there are a lot of questions about whether paul ryan was going to face a contested speaker's election in january, about the friction between him and the president-elect, donald trump. what sort of challenges do you see speaker ryan as he heads into the new congress? because it's, he struck a very conciliatory tone yesterday in his press conference. he seemed very excited about kind of rolling up his sleeves, getting going on policy. but what realistically, what are some of the challenges that the speaker's going to face in the 115th congress? >> well, thanks, jason. you know, i think some of the challenges that we read about before the election were probably exaggerated a little bit. it was never in doubt to me that

the speaker ryan was going to continue to be speaker ryan in the 115th congress. you know, there's no one who has more support amongst republicans in the house than paul ryan, and i think that was going to continue. the challenges that he would have had were, frankly, the challenges that he's had since he took the job a year ago and the challenges that his predecessor, speaker boehner, had. and that is governing a divided government with the expectations of many of the members of the house republican conference. and there was frustration that they had that kind of spilled over into occasionally questions about leadership. that challenge is gone now. the challenges are actually quite different. the biggest challenge now is fulfilling the expectation that i think the members have and that, frankly, probably a lot of people have that in a now-unified republican-controlled

government, they're going to do what they say they're going to do. and to me, a lot of that probably -- there's going to be vote challenges, and there's going to be, you know, managing and working with the minority challenges. i'm sure we'll talk a little bit more about that. but part of the challenges is getting caught up in putting kind of the pen to paper about what you're going to do in terms of replacing the affordable care act, what you're going to do when you're really going to do tax reform. and that kind of challenge is the perfect challenge for paul ryan, you know? at the end of the day, he's a policy wonk. he loves those details. so, you know, his challenge will be finding the bandwidth both for himself, his leadership team, you know, and the conference to figure out how they get all the stuff done that they want to get done and now that they have the opportunity to get done. >> riddell, when you worked for senator reid, you were also

devising a lot of the communications strategy for the senate democratic communications center and working a lot with senator schumer, the incoming minority leader, and his team. senator schumer, you know, we don't expect any huge challenge. he will, unless something very unforeseen happens, will be the next minority leader: senator mcconnell yesterday spoke that he had already spoken twice with senator schumer yesterday afternoon, and it seems just in conversations you have with different -- that i've had with aides in senator mcconnell's office or around the capitol that they're actually looking forward to working with senator schumer, that there might be a different sort of relationship. but what sort of, what can we expect from senator schumer knowing that he's going to be, you know, having to deal with a depressed democratic party? i mean, people who are probably raring for a bit of a fight and saw that with senator mcconnell that obstruction has led to only success? what do you expect from senator

schumer and his team? >> i actually don't think that senator schumer and senator reid when it comes to negotiations and tactics are all that far off. i think as far as style, it's apples and oranges. you know, right now i think as democrats we need to tell, we need to tell a better story, and there's probably nobody better aligned to do that than senator schumer. he probably will be one of the most on-message leaders we've had probably since tom daschle. it wasn't something senator truly cared about. he's a blunt objected9 that always got the job done, so i think that's the difference that we're going to see. you know, i think to the extent that there's some things that democrats want to do, that this new president says he wants to do, that there will be some, there will be some movement. but, i mean, there are a whole list of other things that, you know, then-candidate trump said he wanted to do that democrats just aren't going to go for, and i don't think it's necessarily

picking a fight, you know, whether you're in a red state or you're, or you're in a blue state, there are certain fundamental principles that our party's just not going to go along with. and i think that'll help rally the troops. you know, but if one of the first things that we're talking about here is, you know, say, for instance, an infrastructure bill, i see an opportunity for democrats to win on this, i see an opportunity for trump to win on this. i'm not sure what the freedom caucus and some of the more conservatives in the house are going to feel about that, but there will be ways to work together. >> so just a quick follow-up on that too. i think most, if not vast majority, of trump's voters and support's would find it -- supporters would find it interesting to know that his relationship with senator schumer goes back quite a long ways. is that, do you think that -- we have the opportunity to possibly be surprised by the way that senator schumer and a president trump would get along and have a relationship? >> like i said, i think a lot of

this has to do with what we're talking about, you know? is there a path forward on tax reform? i think that's something that both senator schumer, many in our caucus, donald trump would like to get done, you know? i think when we start talking about some headier issues such as repealing the affordable care act and what a replacement might look like, you know, senator schumer's going to be with his caucus, and he's going to want to protect the legacy of this outgoing president, president obama. same thing with immigration roadway form, you know? -- immigration reform, you know? so i think senator schumer will try to pick his moments to work with this president, you know? we want this country to move forward. but on a lot of these things, you know, it's not a matter of orchestrating a fight, you know? i mean, when the rubber hits the road, there's going to be a fight on some of these things. >> neil, for a change election as this has been characterized as, there really wasn't a ton of turnover at least in the house

and senate. and what do you -- who do you see though as aside from the speaker, who do you see as some of the most significant power players that maybe somebody wouldn't have heard of, you know, like -- that you're seeing is not, it's hard to classify people in their 40s and 50s as rising stars, but who are some of the people that we may not be familiar with to look to to say this person's going to help move the trends? >> i think, you know, clearly at the center of this in addition to the speaker will be the committee chairmen, particularly kevin brady and -- >> whoever takes over whip finish. >> whoever takes over for fred upton who's the outgoing chairman. beyond that, you know, i think patrick mchenry who's the chief deputy whip really is a, i mean, he's already the chief deputy whip, but it's still a rising star -- >> and this is the position that eric cantor had, the first

little leadership election which helped -- >> sure. and before that roy blunt was the chief deputy whip and at least on the republican side if you want to kind of see the trend, the tradition has been the folks who serve as chief deputy whip -- principally, it's not always the case, but principally, that's true. you know, i think in terms of younger members who are rise aring stars, i'm looking at the sophomore class, you know? will hurt from texas who, very difficult election but came back, very popular with his colleagues, really has an expertise and a way of talking about issues that i think a lot of his colleagues find compelling and inspiring. lee stefanik from new york. because if you think about the challenges, it really is going to be with the folks who have never served and with a republican president, right? which is a good majority of the republican conference. finish the guys who are chairmen, you know, they were --

they may not -- they weren't chairman when george w. bush was president, but they were largely around, and they understand the dynamics that take place between an administration of your own party and what that endales. entails. you know, i think someone like lee stefanik or will hurt will help some of the newer members understand that dynamic. >> can i -- >> yeah, please. >> to add on to that, i was looking at the senate and specifically the republican caucus, and, you know, messaging is easy, governing is hard, and you wouldn't think so, but governing when you control the white house and both houses of congress can be even harder. of the members of the upcoming, the incoming senate republican caucus, only 7 -- only 17 of them were in the senate the last time that republicans controlled the white house and both members of the house. and of those, three or four of them kind of came into those last couple of years when they

were in their freshman or maybe sophomore years. so, you know, as we're looking at what legislation is going to, will look like, these guys getting their feet wet, getting on the ground running, it's going to take them a little bit to figure this out and to figure out the best way to work with their counterparts in the house, because these are no longer message amendments or message bills. these are, you know, pieces of legislation that, you know, should they, you know, do it right will actually become law, but it's going to take them some time. >> so on that, for senator schumer, again, you know, likely minority leader, there may be just one step down though. there's a possibility of a fight over the whip's job that's held by dick durbin right now. there's been some talk that possibly patty murray would be interested in the job. who are the other players that senator schumer's going to lean on to make sure that his caucus stays together? regardless of who the whip is? i mean, who are those people

that he's going to rely on? >> listen, i think that senator schumer knows especially when you're in the minority and, you know, you don't have any control over the white house or either houses of government that it's an all hands on deck kind of approach. so i'm going to -- and senator schumer, having spent so much time at the dscc, has relationships with the broad spectrum members of this caucus. so you're going to see him rely on senator warren. you're going to see him rely on senator sanders, or because there are going to be points in time where we're going to need to rally the left part of our base. there are going to be times when he's going to look at a manchin or a warner for some of the more moderate things that we're trying to do with republicans. and as it pertains to a whip fight or a possible whip fight, i had the pleasure or working with senator durbin and senator murray as part of that, part of

that leadership team, still have connections and friends in both of those offices. i actually think this is going to work itself out because the one thing that we don't need right now and i think that the democratic caucus gets this is, you know, when you're out of power and you're in the wilderness, you tend to have a, tend to maybe cannibalize yourself or start a circular firing squad. i think republicans have had to deal with that a little bit, and i think that schumer and some of these other members that have been there for a while don't want to see that happen again. so i actually expect for this to work out very well for all parties involved. .. >> and we're wondering what

now, wondering what to rally around what sort of advice would you have for people who are in the wilderness is right now, looking into that void and trying to figure out what do we do now? do we go all in on obstruction? there are very few options in the house but to a certain degree, the republicans did find a way to define themselves in opposition to president obama in 2009 and 2010 and one the majority in the house . >> i'm generally not in the habit of hitting tactical advice to the other side but. >> maybe you shouldn't. counter programming. >> but i am because i think this is good for government. i absolutely, it's true the republican minority 2009 2010

became defined by how we were opposing the president. i think two mistakes about that, one is that i would not necessarily draw a direct line between that and being the majority in 2010 and two, it's kind of an untold story or miss told in some cases about how we got today. so president-elect obama came in, met with a bipartisan congressional leadership. first on the agenda was some kind of stimulus package. john boehner and eric can tour, they told them we want your ideas. we took those and were very serious about that and i believe he was serious. we went back and had issued internal discussion with our ranking members and all these folks about , we feel like we've got to give them something. he asked and the

president-elect of the united states, when he asks, do we go in with what we would do if we were in charge? here's the capital gains tax cut and here's all these things and we had a lot of folks in our caucus who were advocating reform and that's what we would do and we said you know what? we do that, that's disingenuous. he won the election, they are in the majority. let's offer things we believe in but we think could be common ground.and it ended up becoming a five-point plan that eric took in to the oval office once the president-elect was sworn in. he said there's nothing crazy which was a pretty good response for the ideas that we would put on paper and we actually expected that from that we would be working together and part of this was a little bit terrified about what that would mean and what that would look like to a lot of our members. what we didn't know was that a decision was made that our votes, our republican votes

were needed and if they were going to get them then the president and speaker pelosi were going to get them by giving us stuff we thought we would like that we didn't ask for but they assumed anyway. you can imagine what our response was to that. that's not the conversation we tried to have, that produces zero republican votes and from that we never got back to what the possibility was. i have no idea what president-elect trump will offer pelosi or schumer that opportunity . but my advice to both of them would be that if he does , you should be serious about it and take it and my advice to president trump would be you should take that too because that's the way that i think probably my friends on the other side have a chance of coming back and frankly, it's also the same way that my friends on my side of the aisle have a legitimate chance of getting something

done or america. >> it shouldn't be surprising that i remember this a little bit differently than my friend does. but i wasn't in the house but i was in the senate and senator mcconnell even talked about this in his book that for him, it was a strategy from the beginning to deny this president everything. listen, i would like to and i think right now, this is a conversation that perhaps democrats should be having in two months, not two days after the election, especially an election that most republicans thought they were going to win. you go through the five stages and you pick yourself back up and start thinking rationally again. there are a lot of people that when it turns to anger would say give this president nothing and give the people what they wanted which is trump and the control of both

houses with the republicans and see what happens and reap the rewards. i don't necessarily know that that's in congressional democrats dna. they believe in governments, not that republicans don't, i'm just saying they believe in government and want things to legislate and want to be part of the discussion so i foresee them trying to work with president trump and with vice president pants which you haven't really talked about. it's going to be interesting to see who's really calling some of the shots here, if it's trump or pentz or somebody else. so i think you're going to hear over the next couple of months a lot of do what you want to do, we are going to oppose everything but i think , or at least i hope that cooler heads prevail going

into 115 congress and we find something, knowing there are going to be a lot of things that we disagree on but finding a few things we can do together to move the country forward. >> what would you tell some of the people in the democraticparty though who are , may not be able to get past that anger stage right now because they might take a relatively simple take on it and say like, mcconnell kept them from the supreme court nomination until he got what he wanted. why don't we go all out on opposition? what is the response form the democratic leadership if they do want to cooperate and get a couple wins off the board, they want to make things work, how do you dealwith people who are so angry right now and shocked that they are just saying i want them to fail . i want this burned into the consciousness that we don't cooperate with trump or a mcconnell or ryan. what's the conversation like?

>> i don't know if you can have that conversation right now. you have to let that anger and frustration, a lot of people woke up wednesday stunned. >> that's the people who didn't sleep. >> and the anger and frustration is going to percolate for a little bit and it's going to come in phases. someone asked me, you seem pretty calm. that you haven't snapped or anything. this is a conceptual thing right now. we start seeing what the cabinet looks like and some of these federal judicial candidates, then i think you're going to see frustration and anger but right now i'm not sure you can have that conversation but those of the 115 congress as we move into it, they care about government and helping people. if you're in institutionalist and you believe in the institution moving forward you have to try.

this won't collapse under the weight. i don't think anyone can say whether or not donald trump is as president donald trump more like campaign trump or is there a side we haven't seen yet? does mike pence take a bigger role? does he surround himself with smart people who been there before and done this and he can keep the trains running, we don't know any of these things. we might find ourselves in six months with a strawman president where both your red state democrats and your blue state democrats are like, we can't work with this man. we can't work with this congress and you might see it but we don't know. to have that conversation now seems a little bit premature. >> i think there are things that president-elect trump said as a candidate but i certainly don't agree with and don't condone area but even the current sitting president said some things that haven't worn out very

well even after the election so my sense is that we probably ought to follow secretary clinton's advice and have an open mind about this, not judge people on either side based on what they said in what was a really bitter, contested campaign. there's something about that, that should be the first area of bipartisan is him. >> we talked about some of the people who we can look to for who might be able to make things work in washington, who would be occupying the power structure. who are some of the, not to look too far back but who's the people who are leaving congress that have the biggest losses? how will the house republicans missed the most on either side of the island? >> i will hurt anyone's reputation on the democratic side of the aisle and i'll

stick with my side but i can think of john klein. who maybe didn't get all the presidents attention in the world but was steady and on the education resource committee which people think of the eight committees and their productive appreciations and ways and means and commerce, it was an incredibly productive committee even in divided government. we found things that even i didn't think they could get done on pension reform so i think of someone like that. i look at the losses from tuesday on the other side of the building but kelly ayotte was really a tremendous voice on military and foreign affairs. i think we're going to miss that immensely. >> i think, i won't speak too

much for the house and you know, he wound up coming to play for our team. house democrats will miss ms. allen. especially as we are looking to what the bench will look like for house democrats and their leadership possibilities going forward, i'm glad that nancy pelosi will be staying but she can't be there forever and as democrats we need to start thinking about what that next generation of leadership looks like. i'd be biased on the senate side but i think were going to miss, i think the cost caucus will miss her because she was just, you know, caucus deliberations are private but having somebody like that in your caucus who is always optimistic, who is always ready for the good fight is something that you need and something that you want especially if you are a

democrat in days like this where you just suffered some big losses. i don't want to be biased but i think sometimes you need a blunt instrument in your toolbox and my former boss harry reid was that. he gotthe job done . and i think history will bear out as people talk about who were good leaders, he might not have always been the most honest leader but he got things done for this president and he protected this caucus while he was doing that. that's really all you can ask for is someone who's there that has your back and protects this i think also lost in a lot of the news from tuesday's result is that going back to your statement about read, that in nevada , the candidate who no one technology was a great campaigner on two house seats left helped deliver it for

hillary clinton. it stands as the election in nevada became a part of the west coast. it's an interesting result. >> a lot of people thought reed pushed to have caucuses in nevada as part of the first four in 2008 was a vanity project. it wasn't, it was about registration democrats and registering for that state and because of it, he won reelection in a year no one thought he was going to win reelection. i think in an ethics scandal, i think kelly would have one against dean heller and now we have another democratic senator taking his seat so i think his legacy both in nevada and also in washington dc is solidified. >> before we came onstage we

were talking a little bit about some of the legislative agenda and one of the things obviously on everyone's mind is the budget reconciliation for an expedited budget process. that does not require senate deliberation tactics, filibusters to slow it down. this looks like the most likely vehicle for repeal of obama care. in the budget committee along this sort of outpost for years and become more important is, what are we looking at in terms of timing on that? and who will be the people pushing that in the new year? >> so i think we are in kind of a corporatesituation. the house and the senate did not adopt a budget resolution for this year they should have done that , they didn't. we began the current fiscal year in october.

one of the nice things you can do when you have adopted a budget resolution for the year is even in the new congress, easing as you are three months into the actual fiscal year, the congress can adopt a budget resolution for the current fiscal year and that can spin off a record reconciliation bill that will provide them with a vehicle similar to what they did earlier this congress on the kind of repealing most of the parts of the aca that you can do under the budget rule.i suspect, i don't think they've made any decisions, they're still working through it but i think i would not be surprised at all, in fact i would probably expect that they would move pretty quickly to get a budget resolution, arm reconciliation and be in a position moving forward and the thing that means is that when they get the spring in the normal budget process , they have the opportunity to

do it again and do another budget resolution and another reconciliation bill which is a pretty tremendous tool in terms of getting some of their major priorities accomplished. >> in a closely divided senate, you have what looks like the most likely scenario is democrats in the louisiana raw results next month. in this sort of situation where you can pass legislation without a filibuster, what sort of options does a democrat having opposing it? do they have any chance of derailing it? >> if we're talking specifically about aca and i said this before, messaging is easy, government is hard. the republicans say repeal and replace. i've yet to see the replace part of this. it took the democrats the better part of two years to come up with the aca and part of that was their fault for stepping over themselves but the fact is it's a much longer to find something to replace it with but the

reality is and i think republicans know this, that's why they fight over and over again early on to get rid of aca is that now you have 20 million people on healthcare and if you throw it out, then there's 20 million people without and unless you can come up with an alternative. so as far as legislatively, can i think of a tactic, can i see something right now that we could do to read derail that? number that's why we want to use reconciliation but i think we have a great story to tell and i would just say that i'm looking forward to republicans trying to explain to their constituents and the american people, fine, you didn't like obamacare. we are getting rid of it and instead we are giving you will in the blank. that's going to be harder for them than either they are admitting or that they realize. >> i have a slightly

different perspective on that. one of the great arguments, we don't have a replacement. one of the things speaker ryan did under his direction was better wage practice where they outlined what they would do to replace obamacare. he was busy building off work that was already done by senators burr and senator coburn, senator hatch area it was going to be quite influential in what happened in the house and he would also work across the dome with the chairman of the commerce committee and so there's a lot of work that really has been done on being able to move in and quickly replace the affordable care act. >> i'm not sure the story is all that great. the coverage numbers for medicaid and if what republicans have to argue is better than medicaid in which

is substandard in a lot of cases, people on bothsides seem to admit . i think they're going to have a good story to tell about what they are offering the american people. >> who are the people on both sides were going to be delivering the message ? the messaging particularly on something like the affordable care act is very blunt. on one side it's a disaster, on the other side it's phrased as people who could never get healthcare will have it and you'll be saving people from preventable deaths area who are going to be the people who can call me and sort of rationally deliver the message to each side that is a little more complicated than that and in washington dc, where a half a block from the capital and c-span. this is a different audience than the campaigns are attracting for these kind of messages. delivers these messages for each side? >> it's not an apples to apples to what republicans

have been doing for the last six years. our job is to talk to the american people and this is what you have, you're going to lose all these things. that's the easier message then explaining a health care bill, whatever it is that they do in the fact is i don't think most americans know of brian's better way plan or what senator burr, senator hatch has done so there needs to be a large education process here and it becomes harder i think to explain legislation that's going to affect people's lives versus conceptually, obamacare is bad, this might be good. so for us, i think it's something that most of the caucus will, especially those that were there that were big opponents of aca and in the

truth, we got beat up so much for it over the last six years this is something legacy wise that there will be no shortage of starting with schumer, going with durban and the rest of the leadership including murray, folks like tim kane, elizabeth warren, i kind of go down. i don't know who in our caucus, maybe a few of the red state democrats that are up for 2018 might want to shy away from this fight but i think if that's the message which is 40 million people are going to lose this and this, there are going to be a lot of people on our side pushing that along with outside groups and what have you. >> i think it is going to be a problem for the 25 democrats in red states. if secretary clinton had one, she was going to have a

problem on her hands with what do you do with these spiking prices and declining number of insurers. as we maintain the house majority and she won, we would've had a difficult time. whatever you do, you can't let the current system continue to exist. people on each side say that's not working, something has to change. in terms of messengers, likewise, every republican is going to be a messenger on this, they always do. i think one of the weapons that we have in our arsenal is large number of positions that are part of the republican conference in the house, mike berg, senator grassley in the senate. these positions have a particular credibility when it comes to interacting with the healthcare system and knowing what it means for the patients they treat. they were are most effective spokesman when we were opposing the affordable care act and they were going to be the most effective now as we replace it. >> were going to open it up to questions in just a second.

i'll start while people are rushing in droves to the two microphones we have set up over there. you sort of put this point that these conversations will be good for two months, not twodays from now what you say you are back in the capital and you are dealing with trump , what do you tell people or how do you approach the younger people on your staff?what are you saying to them two days out? >> losing elections sox. especially when you think you are going to win. but you know, you own it to yourself and your principles and the people that you say that you represent to wake up the next day and continue to fight. and that's all that you can say . i thought that secretary clinton gave an amazing concession speech.you continue to fight.

there's nothing more that you can do. if the things that you believe in, whether you win or lose, you should still believe in them the next day and that's what i would say to my staff and i'm sure that's what many people are saying to their staff today and tomorrow and for some time. we've just got to think a little bit. >> we have a couple people lined up, yes, sir. >> earlier you were talking about leaving, people that are retiring. one of them that is influential is barbara mccluskey and i want to ask who, especially on the appropriations side, she was really a champion for traditional democratic priorities and keeping funding for those, who do you think would be stepping into her shoes in that particular arena? >> the appropriations

committee has changed so much in the last 10 years as it pertains to, it still has outside influence, just not influence that used have and in some ways it's become as seriously as some of the message has gone towards we shouldn't be spending as much . it's hard for me to say and i have a thought on this but i don't want to open up a can of worms about situations that happened with people moving to the appropriations committee, leaving the committee that would answer that question. now that i know that, i just opened it up. >> this is a possibility that patty murray might be the top per person on appropriations. >> i was going to say that but i think, i'm just going to leave it there.

>> we got time for one more. >> one of the big promises that trump has made is about the deportation thing and i think a lot of americans including a lot of republicans are conflicted about it it's obvious it's not going to be an all or nothing thing, it has to be some. so the biggest places of course in the senate is in concessions and as an immigration reporter i find he's extremely knowledgeable. what happens if he leaves the senate if he joins the administration. will his power bill it be more or less on this issue and who might replace him in the senate mark there's a lot of voicesin the house but i'm not sure about the senate . >> if he joins the administration in terms of this voice on immigration, it depends on where he goes. if he's in the white house or

somehow has some interaction, he would have a lot of say. in some places i think that's going to be less so even though the pentagon maybe not really it with immigration. in terms of who replaces him on the hill, i'm not sure anyone does, i don't think anyone necessarily steps into that role that he's played in the senate. he's very knowledgeable but he has a very set view on how he thinks immigration ought to play out. it's one that is not universally shared on the republican side of the aisle amongst the majority party members in the senate . my sense of how this plays out, what happened on immigration the last couple of years has happened through executive action. and probably what's going to happen other than building a wall and a few other things

in resources is probably going to start happening through executive action. the real question in my mind because by the way, i'm not approving or disapproving of this as fact, you push your policy administratively, someone wants to push of the other way administratively. that's usually what happens. the real question is what happens legislatively when the dust settles and in my mind, that's where real opportunity exists. i think senator schumer will be a great leader and partner working with people on the republican side of the aisle on things like high skill, on issues about children who were brought here and didn't know it. i think there's a lot of opportunity once the dust settles administratively, hopefully in a bipartisan way on taxissues . >> it's been a great conversation, thank you so much neil bradley. we look forward to your wisdom in the coming months and years. [applause] >> thank you jason.

that was one thing i wanted to note to our guests about the panel is you were talking about the important and lawmakers, people to watch and there's a lot going on here so you are taking a serious approach. >> a and a networking session and a book signing with these to guess. so over to david. >> thank you very much. obviously, the, people needing no introduction, these two men are the sunshine boys of american politics.

>> i like it. >> how do you like that? they spent a combined 20 years as four leaders the united states senate, so they know how it works better than anybody a we should just get right to it. incredibly even though you did this for two decades combined only one of you, only senator lott was, got to be majority leader with the president of his own party only for four years. and four months, excuse me. so give us, give us your advice to president-elect trump about how she should manage his first 100 days. >> i wish he would listen to begin with how he should manage the first 100 days. as we're talking back and the back i think his inclination is going to be really to go big on tax policy, immigration reform, a lot of issues. i would urge him to me to look at doing some singles, tried to find some things was going to be bipartisan agreement. i think infrastructure is good want to come out of the gate

with even though it's not that easy because you will have to our some pay-fors in the infrastructure. in other words, some taxes of some kind. that will not be easy either. i was saying before the election the number one thing the new president needs to do is to change the tone of the campaign on both sides, for a year was not good. i think that's happened so far. i thought resident elect trump's comments election night, the next we were very good. i thought hillary clinton, secretary clinton's remarks were right on target. same thing with president obama. of the everybody's told was good. the other thing i would urge president-elect to do, and he's doing it today, is reach out, communicate, talk t to not only paul ryan and mitch mcconnell. talk to chuck schumer. i suspect there's a couple of new yorkers maybe they can talk. i might not understand what they were saying but they can

communicate. and work on both sides of the aisle with both parties leader on both sides of the capital. and listen to them. not just talk at them. i think that would help get the tone set right and begin to give them an opportunity move forward. >> senator daschle, how long until you pull the trigger of opposition? how much time to give you if you are chuck schumer, how much rope would you give this? >> i think first of all i agree with trent entirely. i think talent is what we've got to address. and by town it's not just the tone and our rhetoric. it's the actions involved on both sides. i would give the same advice to democratic leadership as trip would give to president-elect trump. it would reciprocate can do the kinds of things necessary to help change the tone. in that regard president obama, i said, we will do everything we

can to make this presidency successful, that trump's presidency he wants to be successful. that ought to be the attitude of everybody. we've got to figure how to make this work. there's been so much polarization and confrontation and rhetoric that is going to take some time. it can't just be a week. you can't just between now and inauguration. this has to carry through. there has to be regular meetings. i really have to be more inclusion on both sides. there have to be more engagement. if that happens i think he could surprise a lot of people with what could get them. the one thing we know is low expectations right now couldn't be much more than they are. working with that advantage because there are social expectations, but boy, there's some real opportunities here. if we keep setting the stone i think will be in much better shape than people expect. >> you could see a good bit of activity and positive move to

next year partially because they're such pent up demand. the senate, the congress has been slowly moving more and more and more into gridlock going back to 2006. there's so many things that need to be addressed that have been left, and so maybe there's an attitude, i know there's an opportunity. i hope they will take advantage of it. >> do you think the gridlock again wide offer you all left? >> i thought starting. actually it started i think it was going on in 2004, five. by 2006 i have gotten back into the leadership as with in the senate and i was shocked at how hard it had gotten to be to get anything done here it had gotten more mean spirited and i don't know that i could blame it on any one person or thing, but i was really starting to worry about in 2006. that's been basically getting worse and worse for 10 years.

>> senator daschle come a different point of? >> i agree it has gotten worse. i would go back i think keep in mind, we had a very confrontational experience with speaker right way back in the late 80s. we had impeachment of president clinton in the mid '90s. we had a government shutdown in the mid-nineties. suite had some experience that go back quite a while. but it has gotten progressively worse. there's no question about it. >> one of the things i point out is, it's not good in a way and i don't like it, but the fact of the matter is that the control of the senate particularly going back and forth pretty regular basis every two years, every four years. and what happens is that makes it more difficult for you to begin to find a way to work together because the chairman of the committee gets up and says if i prevailed out to to be chairman, if i'm ranking member

on the other side can i do want to let them get credit for anything. that makes it awfully difficult for the leaders to be able to get things done, to get their members to cast a tough vote. i think that is contributed. >> just to comment because i agree with that as well, i think that elections have become, used to be the means. now they are the end. now everything is strategizing around the recognition that it's the election the most important thing. we've got to go back and look at figure out a way for a campaign and politics becomes the means to accomplish something. >> without violating any confidence can either of you tell us, shed light on the relationship between senator mcconnell and senator schumer. they both strike those of us who covered up the hill for a while as they are to produce. the word i took up his -- like you were, the want to get stuff done. they're both pretty strong headed guys. what's your prediction for how

that relationship will shape up? >> i think it starts with a positive tone. i think both of them want to sort of start over. they got a relationship to build. you've got a new partnership, and so i am hopeful, i know chuck schumer and mitch mcconnell would like to get one thing, and that is a deal. they really are deal driven. that's a big factor in creating that conducive environment for moving things. you've got to create that deal, motivation. both of them are deal oriented. >> i agree with that. i don't think i'm -- the the relationship between senator reid and senator mcconnell has not been really good. >> thank you for that. i'll go filed a story right now. [laughter] >> some of the things they said to each other were really shocking to me. i think i just the fact you hava new person in that leadership team between schumer and

mcconnell is an opportunity to change the dynamics. i'm very hopeful. i mean, look, senator schumer is very intelligent, very partisan. he is philosophically very different from mitch but also i seem to work across the aisle. i worked with him when i was innocent and he's a guy that does like to get things done, like tom was saying. that's positive. >> one of the first things that the centerleft to do next year is confirm the person, president trump nominees for the supreme court. the assumption would be that all the republicans would line up for whoever the nominee is, and plenty of democrats will not. i guess that's the point i would go back you, senator daschle. that's where the rubber meets the road for the first time. it will be perceived as highly polarizing on both sides still depends on who the nominee is.

>> any of that one that mr. trump -- you'll think it would be any of those? >> i like that list. there were several of them are not very impressive with your credentials, their experience. women and men. if he picks carefully that first nominee that will make a huge difference. >> into the democrats allow that to happen that its trading a conservative for conservative and, or did he do something what would you advise? >> my first piece of advice of the let's not politicize it if we can help the. i think people want to look at the qualifications first of all, first and foremost. you know it's going to be a conservative show that's not even on the table. do they have the personal background and history and integrity and if they qualify in the context, i think you have to defer to the president. but obviously there ought to be a vigorous debate. thought to be some questions asked. there ought to be some real opportunities to give the candidate a full hearing and

hearing but the bottom line is that if this becomes too contentious, i think it's very possible that we could extend the nuclear option. we did see this an extended the nuclear option to other nominations and other contexts as well. right now as you know the nuclear option only included the judges that -- right. below the supreme court. but not legislation and not the supreme court. but that would not surprise me if we go through a long very contentious debate. that's always on the table as well. >> did either of you ever vote against -- >> i voted against can i think of it for everyone in my 19 years in the senate but one. i won't mentioned his name because he's on the court but i felt like -- [laughter] >> you can go to cq.com and figure it out.

>> i feel like had a conflict of interest but i did though, i voted, usually for to this one, ruth bader ginsburg because of thought she was qualified by an education experience and demeanor. i did not she would vote on the supreme court in ways i almost never agreed with. but my thinking was, and i think the attitude then was that the elections of the consequences. president of a right to the nominations and once you go through the advice and consent process, i would hate to see the nuclear option imposed. i would hope the senate can work through these nominations but it begins with the president. if president elected donald trump comes up with a strong nomination, look, there will be opposition but i would hope that that person would be confirmed. >> did you ever vote against one? do you believe the ground rules have changed irreversibly and potentially for the good or the

ill, that is not just about personal qualifications but it can be about ideology? >> i did vote against clarence thomas. i voted in favor of justice scalia and justice kennedy at a number of others of course from the bill clinton period. i think norms are changing and i'm very troubled by the fact that norms have changed as much as they have it is almost an assumption now, it takes 60 votes t to do anything us and. it didn't used to be that way. we don't have to be that way. we don't have to rely on the contentiousness that continues. but we've changed a lot over the last 20 years, and the norms i think that have been lost, may be lost for good. so i don't know. i think it has a lot to do, trent and i talk a lot about the importance of leadership, and boy, we sure need a lot of leadership now on both sides of pennsylvania avenue. >> would you counsel senator schumer to tread lightly on

having to go to coac college onl kinds of things? >> again, it depends on both of us i think it's a doubt the couple of times, it really depends on the degree to which there is inclusive feelings and the kind of partnership that you have to create between executive and legislative branches. if that partnership exists, if people are working good faith to see if they can find common ground and i think it's probably appropriate and inappropriate and very ill advised go to the floor to stop everything. but there has to be that conclusion. there has to be the degree of cooperation. and right now we can only hope that that's exactly what the attitude will be. >> would you encourage senator mcconnell to -- to use a expansion of the nuclear option? >> i would. i think would be a mistake. i think for supreme court nominee, a vote of 51 has been the tradition and i would recommend he continued that.

picking up on something tom just said. there are two ingredients the really are so critical in washington to get things done, particularly innocent. number one is committed haitian. we talk a lot about that and he makes the .1 of the most important part of communication is using your ears. we've lost that. right now you don't hear him enough talk across the outcome across the capital and certainly between the congress and the president. they stopped talking. the second part of that is chemistry. you know, tom and i had agreement. number one, i will try not to strike and hope you do the same for me. every now and then i invest up and actually would feel the need to go to talk and say hey, i didn't do you write on data can we work it out. but also you need to have respect for each other. the leader of your opposing party needs to respect that goes with the position but also in

the case with tom, i trusted him. we had a good relationship your i'm hopeful that maybe chuck and mitch would begin to develop that relationship. i used to send them every time would come back from a recess we would have a work period i would send tom a list over other things were going to try to do in that period of time. we have time to talk to us conference about, developer positions. little things like that make a huge difference. i would encourage mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer to work to make that happen. i really think i'm hopeful. i would think that potential is there. >> okay. we should adjourn it right there. the republicans, many republicans, even though mr. trump has one, are still if not crying in the streets, they're crying around their own kitchen tables and they want president trump to do something to punish mrs. clinton.

i wonder as the two of you who saved all of us from a long and protracted impeachment trial in 1999, how could a sort of magic be worked again, or should it not? should president obama pardon mrs. clinton's last eight weeks in office? >> no. pardon her for what? we don't know that it is a crime. >> that's true. >> although president ford pardoned president nixon before -- >> we knew what had happened there. [laughter] >> that question was for tom, wasn't it? [laughter] no, look. the election is over and i like to be able to go on with her life in a private setting. i don't know what might be going on in justice department to none of us know what's going on in the fbi anymore, but i would hope that we could move on from

the recriminations begin to find a way to do some things our country. american people deserve better than they've been getting. >> i see you agree with that. >> totally. we really have to agree on president here. this is what's happened with a lot of other countries around the world. you can prison your opponent and you never see him or her again. god forbid our country ever, ever comes close to anything like that. it's not even come to chart it worth talking about, frankly. >> by the way this is a very scholarly well-informed group of want to make sure -- [laughter] i'm shameless about this but i know you need to read this very timely -- makes a very nice christmas gift, crisis point written by tom daschle and trent lott a year ago. the purpose is not how come look at us, that we made things work comes but it's a very challenging things. we went through 9/11, anthrax

attacks, impeachment trial we are still able to get somethings done. the purpose of the book is really to say we learned some lessons but for some of the things we think would help american comes to getting people to process the, understand civic responsibility, how do you get things done in washington. the title crisis point describes where we are. we are at a crisis point. are we going to begin to turn this thing around and headed in the right direction or not? and how this president-elect and his congress deals with the issues will decide which way we go from this crisis point. thank you for allowing me to do that. paid commercial. >> i think we originally and handled -- entitled this bout beyond the crisis point. so is anything in the election results tangible, polling data or a result of future a sense of optimism at all? >> first of all, i don't know

that i'm ever going to trust a poll again. i'm so disappointed and perplexed by modern-day polling today. you know, if you're looking for optimism, you know whatever they find remarkable is that the voter turnout in spite of the fact that the electorate really didn't see that either candidate lived up to their expectations, what they thought a president h2b, the voter turnout was phenomenal. the participation. one of the things we talk about is how much, critical it is to have participation. i didn't see the final numbers but i have to say i'm encouraged by the fact that people turned out. >> it went down. >> it went down about maybe 4 million for something like that. >> i do know mr. trump received 2 million fewer votes than john mccain, and 1 million fewer votes than -- >> she received 5 million less than obama. but still, 59 million voted for

each one of them. >> i did ask of these two backstage sort of weather, when they were innocent whether there was ever any discussion of changing the system so it's just a national, not electoral college and not really speak was not really. became up in 2000 when the same thing happen. i don't think any proposal really got traction. there's always been sort of concern about just what happens within. careful what you wish for kind of a thing when you take care, eliminate the electoral college. i don't suspect you're going to see any real constitutional effort to do that this time either. >> my son who is a big trump support from the very beginning, and i supported other candidates, but he was for him to begin and he was gone to meet the last couple of weeks about

how we did get rid of the electoral college and go to the popular vote. it's amazing how quickly changed on that over the last two days. >> probably the same way the election was rigged and then it wasn't. >> i thought a lot about it. i thought maybe it's time we change it go to -- and go to the popular vote. i found most of the things our founding fathers did in the constitution turned out to be pretty wise. so i'm very hesitant about changing that. i went through a process one point where i was for term limits. and then it really started studying it why, why we did need that and what really was the deciding factor, and reading about the great debates between henry clay, johnson calhoun and webster. i realized when i was reading this book is one of the three would have been in the senate if they have had term limits. >> very interesting. david, what i hope we can say in about a month or two months

relates to something that i'll never forget that i had a conversation with justice scalia as we were living in a duration in 1992, bill clinton. as we were walking out he said to me, just imagine, just think of what you just what does. using the transfer of power in this country from one party to the next come from one man to another without a shot being fired. that's the miracle of this democracy. and i hope we will always be able to boast and to expect a peaceful transfer of power. inspite of how difficult it may be and the challenges it presents, the extraordinary nature of our country in this democracy rests on the premise that we can switch back and forth as we've done so many times over these last 20 years between parties and among leaders. that would be the essence of what we can look to with great

pride if we can continue to pick up on the tone that we've had for the last 24 hours. >> that's heartening, thank you. we will go to question any minute. i want to take it down from that lofty plane onto something more policies that you. senator daschle, or both of you actually, would you advocate making, rewriting of the federal health care policy the first big ask? did you both say the transportation and infrastructure should be the first and ask instead? >> it's one that i visit i think they can find common ground but none of it will be easy. go ahead. >> i agree. first of all i would take trends admonition to president-elect tron, look for small things we can agree to and build on those. build some trust, build some chemistry, find ways to work together so you can take on to bigger things. besides that, the affordable care act is now about the most

important element in public policy as it relates to help and that's going to take a lot of time. there's enormous amount of detail and fall. we are dealing with 20 many people that didn't have insurance before. we have 31 states that expanded medicaid. you've all these new protections that are built-in, new opportunities for 26 year olds decide upon the parents plan. all of that, a totally new infrastructure around the individual marketplace and exchanges. you can't seem to see we are going to rip you off at about the chips fall where they may. it's going to take a lot of thought to figure how we going to do that. i think taking a piece by piece and recognizing that so much of this is now ingrained in the health infrastructure. it's really important that they take it especially if they want to keep that kind of tone which has been talking about. >> singles, your encouragement that they do small balls first to build up steam can which

flies into face of conventional wisdom which is the one or days, the midterms right around the corner et cetera, et cetera spirit if they get too caught up in this 100 days and they will wind up i think like president obama did in some respects overplayed their hand. tom has been a lot more work inn the health care than i have but i think, look, no laundry baskets perfect. with time you need to revisit most of them. i don't think anybody would disagree including the democrats don't know, we've got some problems are with companies pulling out of aca, the explosion of the cause. there needs to be some work done. but i do know this about it. this is not easy work. this is complicated. it has a lot of moving parts. i think clearly the trump administration and the caucasus going to deal with is the i would caution them take your time, maybe not do this in the first 100 days, work through how we can get better participation

from how to do with the cost. can be add some things? president-elect trump has talked about being able to buy insurance across borders and medical savings account. i've always wondered why can't you buy across state lines like medical savings accounts, i've been a big advocate for that. even work with ted kennedy years ago. there's some bills and whistles important things that can be added at we need to try to find a way to make it more bipartisan. you're not just going to say it's over and here's the total -- that will take some work and some time. >> do you believe in general that the time horizon for spending, if there is a mandate, i guess be an argument about whether there' it is a mandate,r president trump or any new president to spend and how, last longer than the first six monts of the first 10 100 days? when does it become time to make

it about position for the midterm and holding an image that don't do anything? wind is that kerry to start start? >> unfortunates start earlier and earlier. my guess is you have some time. people are going to look at whether washington is working better when they make their decision to use about or four years now that is washington working better? part of what we've seen over the past couple of years just and level of dysfunction that so exasperated the voters that i think they voted in part from mr. trump because he was such an outsider. and so on later to everything going on in washington. this was an anti-washington vote to a certain extent. members of congress have to understand that. >> i think the focus on 100 days is not wise quite frankly. i remember during president bush's presidency in 2001, when

we were a 50/50 senate, we only had the 50/50 senate for six months and then they flipped over because jim jeffords switched, 51-49. during that period we passed a bush tax cut bill. we passed bankruptcy reform bill. we passed major defense bill and we passed no child left behind. you may not agree with any or all about but those are pretty significant things but it took us six months to do that. that's still a pretty good list of things. i hope they will not just get over consumed with the first 100 days. look, i refer to as the eyes, we will have to do immigration reform. we're long overdue. we should have done in 2007. >> you mean deporting everybody and building won't? >> that's not what i said. i do think what is the executive order but we do need to deal, secure the border and i'm not just talking about a physical wall. i've never been for the wall. i am for a virtual wall.

i made the comment one time that walter work anyway. people are like goats. you can't build a wall or a fence that they can't get over. why do the? plus this is america. wall concept of dried you crazy. what we do need to control the flow of immigration into this country. needs to be a reasonable sensible way to know who's coming and where they're going. we do need workers but we need to do that. we do clearly we need to make some changes and some reforms in the text of the everybody agrees when they do and we can disagree about what that would mean. we are going to do something about health care and infrastructure. just those things if they could find a way to come to grieve and get the site into law that would be huge. if it takes a month, fine. >> one more question. so think of your questions and i'll ask the last question, which is i get the sense from

can't give you all are still and leadership you would encourage each of you members to figure out ways to stray from the party line a little bit. .. >> sort of re-creating what the senate has always been an institution and the one thing i think we emphasize wrongly is we got to be in washington a little bit longer. you're not going to do anything if you leave on

thursday and come back on tuesday and try to get everything done on wednesday. got to figure out how we change that schedule and that's a function of leadership as well. i'd love to see members of the senate and house worked together monday through friday, at least three weeks. >> we used to have that check votes on the thursday, quite often i would and tom to would say look, we spend the night and otherwise i will see you tomorrow morning. it's amazing what you can get done in the next three hours. >> we always got to go home on tuesday because of your favorite tv program. >> i used to say, now they are nocturnal. they like to come to town tuesday morning, monday night and work late wednesday night and they want to fly out on thursday. the sun started setting in the west, i said it's a good time to go home and have dinner with patricia, it's the same reason i'm still married to the same woman these years.

it's crazy. they don't bring their families up here. they don't have a chance to socialize and get to know one another. when i was in the house, wine from ohio in the house on the other side of the street with harry huckabee, a democrat from louisiana, john groves, a democrat from louisiana and we were friends. our wives were friends. our kids kicked the camp together, we'd socialize together. they don't have that relationship. they should work five days a week, three weeks a month. they should bring their families. i'm sure you've got to raise money around the clock, but the time is here. and number three, the idea that congressman or senators are sleeping in their offices is the most offensive thing i can think of. [applause] >> i think it's inappropriate, it's humiliating and it's a very bad form of public housing. >> your preaching to the

choir, that's great. i can't see this in my microphone, somebody is there. >> when you're talking about the supreme court, i wanted to ask about the lingering effects of the merrick garland a situation where you had an unprecedented time where the senate refused to hold hearings for vote for the supreme court nominee so when there is a new supreme court nominee, iguess this is more for senator daschle , though it can apply to both, how would you address people who think wait a minute. we should have had this last year. they blocked it, why can't we have some payback this time? >> i talked a little bit ago about dorms being lost and i have to say, i hope i'm wrong but i would predict because this is now a very successful strategy on mitch mcconnell's behalf on his part that you

are going to see this happening over and over again. no president is going to feel confident about a nominee in the entire last year of his or her term. i think that's horrible. i think that's wrong. that isn't the way things should operate but it was a successful strategy in this case and i'm guessing it will be applied at some point in the future. >> i do think by the way the supreme court issue was a key issue in voters. i think of the polling, you can take this and a lot of polling shows a lot of people that moved over to trump voted that way because of the supreme court. this situation in the senate with regard to fellow judges didn't get to where it is now. it started back when i was still there in the early part of 2000 where we started having filibusters of federal district judges which was a mistake to and a lot of people think well, mcconnell was smart.

he played his hand well. garland is not going to be confirmed and we will get our nominee. i wouldn't have done it that way. i think the senate does have a responsibility to advise and consent, have some hearings. you might not have moved them but at least some kind of hearing. maybe payback will come into play. i've got demarcation, let's stop this. democrats and republicans. you want to stop it now because you all got the president to stay in the congress. i'm talking about the institution. one of the most important things the united states senator should do that presidents can't do and the house doesn't even participate in or vote on is advise and consent on federal judicial appointments, particularly the supreme court. that is a sacred thing and i don't think they're doing a very good job with it for a number of years. >> we have time for one question that takes less than a minute, you are. >> we see that a vote for