challenged the guys however long we are privileged to serve here whether it's two years or 20 years, can you look back and say, you know what, was it about simply winning the argument or making a difference? are there measured marks of success where you have moved the needle forward? >> i think that consists of three things. what i mean by the right voice, if you go back to in business in marketing some of you may have worked in the arena, a product can reach a maturity state. people are walking pass through it in the store. ..

many times are guilty of simply preaching to the choir. that's where committee would use the metaphor, that's what the eight minutes are. that's the easy place. but the aspect or the goal should be how do we get that consume the message in the new communities, into new places? sometimes it's not always leaving with policy but our relationship to visit, to listen, to grow these relationships. in this sense, if you go look at a new car or used car and you go on the lot and to look at all the bells and different what does -- whistles, if i'm a salesman, that's the nastiest piece of automobile and see in my life.

we have to do better across the board as conservatives. i believe it that comes down to our messaging. that's what drove me to run for congress originally. we will stay consistent with that and i believe the rcc provides a conservative across the board while doing leadership, the freedom caucus or in tuesday's groups as well. >> i have to agree. mark calls it effective conservatism. i called thoughtful conservatism. it's all the same thing. it's the right policy, the right approach. the right voice which is similar to what you trade custody because you talk about the conservative hard and how we don't do well in conservative messaging. we've got to do it, we have got the right way to message the policies that the american people essentially vote for on november 8. so we've got to help articulate that and have the policy underpinnings behind.

behind. i believe the rnc has the ability to do that. again, the membership today has a cross-section like you said. it's not a mini conference. if you look at the average conservative scores, it's way more the conservative. but we do have enough diversity that we have good thoughtful ideas coming out of it that is run those solid concerns solutions. >> what i find exciting is there's going to be, continue to push. i know it's important to you, bill but try to drive potential message outside of the traditional concert constituency. i realized that this look like a pretty good year and a place for republicans but it was a 50/50 election. it was not the wave you would say there are things going to sound republicans -- it's pretty good at the state and local level to be sure but this doesn't look like from a victory or huge wave.

republicans going have to take a the message into nontraditional communities. you mentioned this as part of your priorities. stop the house confront in his senate and get down on reconciliation, talking tax repeal of a lease parts of obamacare and maybe dodd-frank. what other nontraditional think you're thinking about that's going to help represent the conservative republicans that show basically conservatives had become a little hard. what he going to do about that? >> just yesterday we were able to bring, my staff and i, we brought in the top evangelicals from across the country. not just baathist like me but across the board nondenominational guys can people in different regions of the country to talk about two things. immigration and race relations. i believe the church has opportunity, not to write the policy but to partner on getting

this message to fresh communities. i was privileged this past time to be to the two major endorsements in my area, to wonderful life long democrats from the african-american committee. one lady mayor johnson she's never had a republican yard sign in your yard before. it's the intentionality to build a foundation relationship. because it's going to invest in that time it allows you speak on the topics you would call a nontraditional topics. i believe those two, not just like to build a republican party but there is fertile soil. we have the data on our side the last eight years have not been, benefit any community. in north carolina of ownership is down eight straight years are wrote in our minority community. we have the data but the conduit valve we show that message is crucial. if we come in with a strong

number, attack, attack, if any aspect of like when you start from an edgar so position you limit your game. i feel like if they're willing to look across the conference, across the rnc to put but these nontraditional items, we have incredible opportunity to impact our culture. >> mark is exactly right. our messaging has got to go outside. we can't just be on fox news all the time. wwe've got to go talk to msnbc and make the case about why american families are struggling today, are better off under an apartment that has the most competitive sex system. how they are better off if we look at a new which approach poverty because the old way didn't work. and look at a way to look at the obamacare failed. we have new, fresh ideas to deal with those issues and talk about my constitutionally limited government is better for the american people, because i think the government is taking less of the liberties away from the american people and getting it

back to them and that government works for them, not against them. those are the things that resonate across any community. we've got to reach in this communities and use whatever tools we can find in those committees. it ma may be msnbc at me because there that are hostile folks to interview with. we've got to do that. we've got to get outside our comfort zone to carry this message out to the american people. >> nothing is more effective for the conservative message, for any message, if politics is a business of persuasion of those is ugly locking database and talking to the true believers which is a good way, wind, and it's everywhere, and one of the great ways to do it is to talk to people who are hostile. why? because those watching our persuadable. they're the ones is a i just saw mark walker on msnbc and no warrants come a man.

that's crazy. and who knows? the elvis impersonation was unbelievable. >> i think you guys have even address this. it was on the very first page of your website. we encourage civil disagreement. that says that all because what you're doing is you're going into environments because you're not just taking a message to people who agree with you. when you can think from the perspective context i believe you should opportunity to widen the base. >> republican study committee, going where they're not invite and saying things people don't expect. let's talk about another faction, a lease another movement in conservatism, republicanism today. it's hard to miss the populism that happen in the republican party of late. nobody knows how long that's going to persist that certainly that's the way that kerry president trump toward the white

house. i think all as to what the phenomenon is but have some policy wrinkle to it that are interesting from a rsc standpoint. rsc is often very stalwart about the concept of free trade. rsc has been mixed with respect to immigration but not restrictionist in the traditional sense. how do we iron out all those wrinkles and how do you see it? >> if you listen to what donald trump said about trade, he started out with something this would get everybody's attention, and that is that nafta hazard the american people. tpp would hurt the american people. then as he went along, that was the hook to get people to listen. and then as he went along he served with him to the next debt. and that is neede is a good i'mo negotiate great trade deals. essentially saying, we need free

trade but we have to have fair trade deals. and to all we have to do is make sure that he's going to scrap tpp. i'm fine with that. when the next radios negotiate with got to be a trade deal that make sure we're taking care of america first you can take care of america first in a way where the other side of the bargain table doesn't lose. you can do this whatever else went as a part of the process. the president is smart enough to do that. i think we as the rsc not to do that. when it comes to immigration, i had a very conservative district in texas but you know what they want? basic find out a path to citizenship for dreamers. 90% of a district designed with a path to citizenship for dreamers. we are home to many hispanics as any state in the country. the second thing they say is

they are fine with a path to legal status for folks who broke the law and came here illegally. but they want to see the border secure before you do any of that. so i think we go back to what president trump said, build a wall. i look at whether it's a physical wall or more of a virtual systems type wall, but you make sure the american people feel comfortable that they are safe from people coming across the border. and then within a discussion of what you do with the folks were here, the dreamers, the folks who committed the crime when they came across? if you can take a conservative district like mine and find a way that sounds like a liberal policy but it's not, it's a compassionate conservative policy, i think there are ways to have a good robust discussion about this and do the right thing. and the other thing, the

offshoot is we have people committed to the conservative movement to the republican party for ever. because you sat down with him and you engage them in a way where you didn't make him your enemy. and too often i think we as conservatives, we turn off groups, we turn off underrepresented groups and we don't have to do that. >> i have one, if not the finest lettuce or director, who should today but there are times i disappointed when he gets into these 30 minute policy rants, and when i have to sit idle thank the people care. what i mean by that even though it's a very out of the depth and confidence of policy, all i can, i am married to a family nurse practitioner commoners who flies on the helicopter and is real work. if i am in a situation where i am needing that attention, i don't really want to care what

about the hippocratic oath or how many cc am going to need to make my pain go away. i just feel like there's a crises and when it's about. that's what the american people are. when we did in this policy only doesn't talk, we just need to make sure that are messaging is strong. when i first began to think about running for office and still a minister or member i can the republican national convention in 2012. i wasn't a delicate. i found a ticket and lodging and went down there and looking around the want of the things i noticed was this great lip service, and genuine intentionality about reaching all communities in different youth and generations the minority. as soon as we finished, now put your hands together for the oak ridge boys. what gathered in that moment was what we are doing versus what we were saying was the contrast. i feel like a need to answer the

question where we need to go at this point. we need to make sure as we talk to the american people that we are able to do not in these condescending terms of political greek and latin, but be able to say listen, this is where you're hurting. we are at point a. we need to get to point b. and here are the steps we need. if we can do that and communicate, we will abide and that maybe we haven't seen in generations. >> i find it interesting that your nuanced approach to the immigration question in particular is really important. point of fact, the house of representatives have traditionally been the think tank of the republican party. which is a great role. policy experimentation happens. it's not were policy goes to die, which he didn't say that about the senate. i guess i in simulated that about the senate. things can happen in that place.

i love the spirit of policy expectation which also talk about an approach that is pretty nontraditional. it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker about a wall. it doesn't treat all immigrants even illegal immigrants as equal to one another. i love that. i think that's important. point of fact, it does are present a relatively nuanced views of your constituents. that leads me to my next question which is as the policy experimenting body for the republican party, what is your view on the ability to do that looks why bring that up? has been will complete a separation of powers of light. the extent to which it osha continued to be the congress and for your nuanced i just disagree should take precedence when the constitution designates that. how is the approach going to change? when the republicans control the house of representatives and the senate it was kind of easy to talk about the problem of the imperial presidency when president obama was using the

pen and the phone and issuing a bunch of executive orders. what happens when it a president of their own party? >> i think we would all agree that some of president trump's proposed policies are not going to line up very well with our conservative policies. with respect to that, what i'd like to do, if i absolutely control of the gin and ask him and i don't, don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to claim that, but what i would cut it is safe what are those of them -- areas where w we are good ally but wht president trump once ago and where we want to go and tell them we will take the lead on this and we will give you the legislative constitutional support to go forward. that when he's not inclined to try to use of pen to follow the obama one. early on during the election process he said i will do it

executive orders to do this, this and this. he so over time he began to ameliorate those views and to soften the because i think his advisers were saying hey, you have to pay attention to what article once there is versus article ii says. so i think the way to enforce that to make you feel accountable with that is these are the things we agree, let's do tax reform, let's repeal obamacare. let's replace obamacare. let's start in with border security. let's rebuild our national security. and then those areas were his agenda is not exactly a bunch of ours, we could easily take six months to do those things where we agree and it gives us the next six months to try to figure out what is the commonality between what he wants to do with respect infrastructure and what we think the way would be to go with respect infrastructure, just one example. i think that's what we need to do. let's work on the things we know we are together.

then we'll figure out how to deal with. so the american people know they're getting something for the vote they made last november. >> yao. >> and then we'll figure out the rest in the next six months. on until. >> on the 80% concept of ronald reagan, when he talked about.com it was interesting. he was not talking not just a% of republicans agree on. he was talking about the 80% that republicans and democrats agree on. so market, what's your view on the most likely way for you can make some new friends on the other side of the aisle? >> i'm a relational person. it has to be genuine. one of the things we were able to do early on from what we understand the first time was done in congress is we launched a bipartisan hbcus internship program. and reached out to doctor alma

adams, big in education and big in hbcus world. we have a lot of their precious coming in february next year. the way to do that you have to take the lead. not in a way where you attack your time to show opposition let's show this is an area. it's not just the lip service but literally intentional actions that you can make. that was one of them. it is an environment whether it's the outside groups or other entities, press, we are in this boxing ring and we're having to dodge and bob and weave and move our feet at the same time so it's a difficult. the real place with that can develop is at the local level. as this thing grows up it spreads out more and makes it more challenging. it doesn't dominate our responsibly to make every effort we can, whether you go to dinner or going out and playing some sports together or whatever it

might be. that's an opportunity. if you always use it it doesn't dumb down to some of the harsh rhetoric we see sometimes in washington, d.c. >> one of the key things that is cause bitterness between republicans and democrats is obamacare. no specific piece of legislation has been more divisive than that. in 2008 when president obama won and promised to do that, in 2009 when he rammed obamacare through on a straight partyline vote, i was brand-new at be the i -- at aei and i was thinking to myself they should probably see if they could find some not completely implacable enemies on the republicans the. may believe the most something and they didn't. they said this is the way it's going to be. i won, you lost. boom, strict, partyline vote. the shoe is on the other foot now. i've heard from a friend who were responsible for the obamacare legislation, and it's a very bitter.

they can't believe their life's work is about to be be repealed and replaced by something at least in part. is there a lesson that we conservatives can learn from that? is there a way we can at least attenuate some of the hostility from the other side and maybe that make allies and make a list of implacable foes, learn how to did not win the way the democrats did? >> i immediately think my dad and mom were born and raised in alabama, huge crimson tide bear bryant fans. only have see my dad cry to. one was when coach brian past. so we grew up big crimson night football fans but he said this. and six national championships. he said, lose with grace, when with humility. when you're asked the question that's what i thought of the. when with humility. we don't have despite the football. because where to ask ourselves

long-term what's our end goal. is it to accomplish? is a to as you suggested to build those by partnerships relationships. there's a moment here, we are winning. we didn't go out and attack, attack, attack. or we can say some of this and some of the. is that a pollyanna viewpoint? it is. even if it moves a few percentage point whether in congress or interdistrict i believe that is a big win for us spent the way i look at it, let's go back to the core issue. what wit would the democrats trg to do with obamacare? they were trying to increase access and improve portability. if they'll come absolute bill. one of the reasons is the ignored all the ideas that our side of the aisle had. i will tell you some of my colleagues in congress are very bitter about the fact that they got totally shut out of the process. wwhen we look at the replacement

for obamacare, we need to think what are the two things we need to? we need to increase access and improve affordability. you have a couple second issue shifted you would like what do you do with those with preexisting conditions? if our goal is to achieve those three objectives, then i think we ought to, it behooves us to reach across the aisle. there may be a good idea, there may not, but go ahead and include them in the process. as long as they are acting in good faith i would say continued the discussions. if they don't act in good faith, if everything is designed to be a poison pill, if that's the case, warned them, look, are you with us an in trying to increase access and improve affordability? then lets it sit down and do this. if you're not and you're just there to make political points with poison pill a minute, then we will slam the door on you. but i would even though they didn't treat us this way, i would extend the olive branch and give them a chance.

i'm not optimistic they would do that but give them an opportunity so please come and do it on c-span so the american people can see at least we gave them the chance to be part of the process and they elected to not be part of the process, to pay political games. hopefully they'll understand obamacare was probably the thing that caused been the majority in 2010. >> there's two possible ways. whaone is most people should age the patient should make the decision regarding health care. number two is the amount of democrats that are hearing from small businesses of what the obamacare mandates are doing to those businesses. that gives us a major opportunity. i want to add a third one, we're talking about this the other day, one of our first guest of kind item we may be bring in bill clinton to speak about the ills of obamacare. maybe you can share some of the things he said.

we are going to turn to the obvious. we've got some great questions that are coming in from my ipad. we will start actually you're right in the back, and then we're going to go to the ipad. why don't you wait for the mic is until a short affiliation and name. >> hello. madeleine from the center for american progress. you mention you met with responses question about the nontraditional priorities of the republican study committee am wondering what specific message to the church get out and what -- >> i give an example. one of the pastors were concerned, they have a church of several thousand attendees on a sunday morning and one of the church planters in the hispanic community. he said were talking the other day about putting people on the

elder and deacon board. he said we realize we had 200 undocumented people and we're wrestling with the fact should we allow them to serve in the deacon board? the problem with sometimes the republican talking points come and become a talk about this its secure the border, secure the border. we can't talk about the, we have to secure the border. we sit here and cannot ignore the situation long-term. what are our solutions with as opposed to the we'll figure it out once we secure the border. maybe it's time for balkan repus to be proactive instead of reactionary. to your specific, the heart of your question, that's what some of the evangelicals as we saw even in the primary, the presidential primary 16 of the first 24 states the evangelicals drove those primary votes. user issues that are important and that the place i believe we can partner with the humanitarian, the compassion sight of the church to offer long-term solutions. >> i see my colleague out in the

audience. he runs our poverty practice which is something that's critically important to us here at the american enterprise institute, something we invest in tremendous the. i know the to do care a lot about this because i talk to you about this particular issue. what do we see that is new among conservative republicans in trying to ameliorate poverty? this is sad an a question that didn't come up very much during the campaign. yet american poverty has become extremely entrenched, particularly over the last eight years. if they're going to make progress on it over the next four years i think the ideas are going to, at least in part come from the house site. what kind of encouragement can you give us that we're going to see some big new thinking about helping our brothers and sisters who are skillful at following below the poverty line in this country? >> i think you're going to see some really bold transformational thinking on this. if you look at the better way

agenda that we created in the house, that represents the thinking we did in a big, big percentage of that, of those policy solutions were developed by rsc membership. we had a few members in particular our passion about this issue and we went out and talk to the communities that are stuck in poverty. we said what is it, i mean, you don't like being here, what is it you need? what is it you want? we look at it from a totally different way than the way the party programs after they their designed to the poverty programs of today are designed based on input. how many people do get housing assistance to? they never judge of the outcomes. our welfare programs have become replacement instead of things to get you equipped and ready to go to work.

they sometimes have disincentives so your disincentivize to go work. we totally turn this on its head and say we can help you get the training that you need but we're going to make sure that you always but often of a job to go grab the wrong on the economic ladder and start climbing the economic ladder of this country have all the opportunity. and not that you get to where you are stuck in poverty. that's the thinking we've got. of all the things that could change the country, you could eliminate a big chunk of the sort of permanent underclass that is developed if we can start looking at poverty a different way and view it as it's designed to get people out of poverty, not to help them stay in poverty. that's a problem with the programs we have today. once you are in its hard to get out. if you are on welfare and you get married, your benefits are cut. so then you destroy the family.

when you destroy the family your chances of getting out of poverty are diminished even further. we have to do things that protected them and not destroy the family as part of the way we look at dealing with this issue. >> i would jump right in with generational poverty and talk about the family. everything we can do whether it's a second chance act, just as reform, anything to drive the family back together. if you go back to the 1960s, our families were intact more than 80% of the time. now in various places it's less than 20%. the statistics are easily read what it comes to the family as productive. they are overcoming poverty. will receive it is the breakdown of the family. that's a cultural condition, a spiritual condition. those are the policies and implementations we need to be doing to drive them into their will to create a pathway for the family to be intact as much as we can. not to put incentives and our

laws that as bill just talk about, to keep people suffered, to enhance people for not getting married, not have that structure family. that's where we have plenty of room to attack. >> i don't either of you with even a hint of hostility towards the safety net, per se. which is i think sort of remarkable from an american perspective or think they know what conservatives are. you are pro-safety net conservatives but you want welfare with work and welfare with the dignity. >> the safety net needs to be more of a trampoline. we catch you when you fall but we doub doubt you out on your ft and heavy get a job and raise a healthy family. the best social problem available to any family is a paycheck and a great job to support it. that's how you feed a family, house the family, educate the family, grow your liable -- grow your local tax base, grow the middle class. we need a trampoline to help them bounce back to their feet.

>> one of the rewarding of my short tenure in congress is to go into the various communities and have an opportunity to speak and talk about the fact that god has created you with specific skills and talents and abilities that are unique to your very person. and because of that you have every right, every opportunity to flourish, to find a pathway. and to see some of the resident for the first time, it's incredibly rewarding to those of the messages i believe we need to be talking from a conservative lot process are not one of condemnation. >> a very hopeful message indeed. up to the periphery, not of society but of our conference room. and the mic is coming to you right now. >> congrats to 80 odd on the new di. very impressive. rather remarkably during the election campaign there was little to no discussion about the countries prodigious fiscal problem including entitlement reforms. what is the rsc plenty to do to

drive some much-needed solutions in that area? >> do you want to go first? >> i don't want to keep on being this thing. >> your fine. 1967-68, you have mandatory and discretionary. the late 1960s we had about 26 or 27% mandatory, 73, 74% discretionary spending. what is discretion to? it's what should be focused on, infrastructure, different education arenas, military defense, et cetera. what is mandatory? entitlements and interest of the national debt. since that time it is invertebrate by 2023 it will have grown to 80% mandatory and 20% discretionary. why is that a problem? it's not only a fiscal one but is also national security issues some point. we've seen the cutbacks already trying to take on the military and put them in different places. we have to do some our decision-making when it comes to the entitlements i.

i've seen a few bills passing around right now. we couldn't get it done in the past eight years with a lack of veto power but those are some things you are all correct, it wasn't talk much in a campaign but as members of congress on the legislative side which we control the purse strings him that is something we're to take a look at otherwise we are doing a disservice to the generations behind us. >> if you want to see come if you want to see how we've looked at this from a rsc perspective, go look at the budget we have proposed the last six years that i've been in congress. since we had a republican majority. if you look at the rsc budget they have always been much, much more conservative than the house budget as a whole. and we have been timid about touching the so-called third rails. retouched medicaid, medicare, social security. not with a view towards cutting them but with a view towards making them sustainable. and also making sure we stop the

intergenerational theft. because today, what's happening today is our millennial generation is being robbed of their future by older generation. we have to stop that. our budgets particularly the last two, which balance and listen to music of which makes salsas good and medicare and medicaid solvent are the ways we should do that. we as conservatives in the house have not forgotten about that. we've actually put it in writing and we listed the political fallout that comes in putting these aggressive agendas on the table. some of those things actually, some of our ideas have worked their way in the house budgets. our number my first year on the budget committee we touch medicaid and medicare, the very first year. our first budget balanced and like 30 years. the rsc budgets were bouncing intend to the second budget in

my second year balanced in 10. the house budgets have become more -- we have continued to push the conference to the right. but do it in a way that doesn't blow up those programs because that's the first thing the other side says is you're taking food away from babies r. throwing granny over the cliff. we have proven what's happening today is we're taking the food away from babies from future generations and granny will get thrown over the cliff when these programs fail anyway. what we have done is say we have made them sustainable for current generations and future generations. go to our website. >> an interesting point that it did not come up as a matter of republican politics during this presidential campaign. is it fair to say this is an area where rsc was resolute independent notwithstanding were any other republican party ghost? >> marked with deadly have an answer on this as well but we

are going to show independence, particularly i think from the president. thithis is where that the hobbye daylight between the president-elect and us. because he wants to spend billions on infrastructure. he hasn't talked about the border. he says we're not going to touch and dollars. not touching entitlements damages his ability to be a successful president because we will not have to for national defense. building the virtual wall, the physical welcome whatever it is he wants to do. so we're going to have to a heart to heart within the unending critical giunta sync with the sit down and have a rational conversation. the thing about the president-elect, look at his behavior the last three weeks. i think is shown he's willing to sit down and talk to people with diverse viewpoints on this. we are going to be very challenging and. it will not be me. it will be marked. if mark wants me, i will be

there for him. >> i'm thinking we may have to push back a little bit, whether it's not just presidents and ministers but sometimes the leadership of the excesses been than. that's are sometimes it gets a little sticky. goodness gracious, china owes a trillion dollars of national debt. now is an opportunity to do so. >> that's a good place to leave it on the bark of independence come out a market principle. we've talked an awful lot about really where the conservative part is for these gentlemen. where we can expect to see from the rsc. i speak on behalf of all my colleagues at aei, we are honored to be working with you. great to share resources on ideas that really go beyond partisanship, they really go to the principle of the we are and how we are kind to create a better country and a better world. please join me in thanking our two guests, bill florez and mark walker from the rsc.

[applause] [inaudible conversations] >> the hill this point with this story, federal judges ordered michigan election officials to conduct a recount of ballots cast in the presidential election beginning this morning, actually today at noon eastern and that's agreeing to multiple reports that u.s. district judge issued the order early this morning. that ruling comes after green party president nominate jill stein file for a recount in the state which president-elect donald trump won by a razor thin margin in his ruling the judge said a state law that requires two business day waiting period to begin a recount is likely in violation of what he writes, the "detroit free press." that article from the hill today. coming up in about 45 minutes we'll bring you a conference of the first 100 days of the donald trump presidency.

roy blunt, joe manchin, tony blair and kirk schrader and peter welch all take part. it gets underway at 1145 eastern and it is hosted by the group now labels. until then some of this morning's "washington journal"na and the postelection role of democrats. >> joining us my clothes, senior reporter for the and covers congress extensively. good morning to you. what does it mean to be house democrat these days? >> guest: a manger in all of it of a position you didn't think you're going to be a montm ago. there has been some turmoil, and disarray since the election. they came and. .org is at the top. they thought that was going to be a boon to them downtown to pick up top of pick up significant number of house seats, 20 plus. doctor going to take the senate but thought they would have the white house but none of those things happen.

they are in this position of what went wrong? it's a big time of reckoning for them. he just announced they're going to do not doctor. a remember the republicans did their own autopsy, said a commission as of what went wrong, how did we miss thesese t voters? how to energize our base? how can we speak to the voters because we didn't do it this time around. to be a democrat is to be questioned with the future of the party is. >> host: there's talk of unity especially from the leadership. is that the case transferred we saw a lot of disunity in thelo wake of this election. it was an enormous call for the leadership to be overthrown. nancy pelosi has been there for 14 years. there is a younger crop of people who are frustrated they haven't been able to move up the leadership ladder. they're frustrated this is the fourth election cycle they haven't been able to take the majority.aying we h we've got to go back to square one, go back to winning. and just nancy pelosi raises a lot of money, she has experience. she to energize the liberal

base. she's very well-respected on capitol hill among the democrats. they don't mean to suggest that the purchasing after four cycles we've got to do something to win. it hasn't been the case with nancy pelosi so tim ryan came in and challenge. he lost decidedly. are of 40 is still very much unquestioned but going forward therbut is this movement that is growing and growing and growing but as the years go by these people are getting younger and younger, the older generation of democrats is aging out of congress.im you are seeing this happen in real-time. >> host: you talked about tim ryan and his loss to talk about how many votes he got and is at a significant, the number two is a significant he got the number he did? >> guest: depends on who you ask.he if you ask nancy pelosi, she o still got two-thirds of the vote. 134-63. she has said going in i would get two-thirds. she got two-thirds.

shiga 130 votes which was just over. so she is saying i still command this enormous amount of the very liberal living politics and choose this liberal icon. that part is not in question. tim ryan says wait a minute, the last on your challenge key for sure, 10 and that was after they got wiped out. they have rebounded since then.t keith schuler was a blue dog democrat from north carolina, not very senior and so he challenged her. it was more a symbolic jobs anything else but nobody thought he was going to win but it is a secret vow and he got 43 votes.h it was sold at more than people thought he was going to get. so tha there was that sense wita secret dollars i can say because we got wiped tha that we shouldt be the same person and even though we know we're going to keep the same person in. it was that type of message. he got 43 and then ryan comes in and get 63. so again you are seeing this,

the wave is going, the younger people coming in, the numbers are just going. >> host: house democrats postelection, when it comes to the own leadership, if you want asking questions about that especially with the coming competition, what it means -- you can post that our facebook page the letter from nancy pelosi, house minority leader just after her reelection, how she talked about going forward and mike lillis we will get you to comment on what she says. >> as we go forward as we did in '05 and '06 working very closely together as the opposition, which is a different world than we've had in the last few years, our unity is very important. so we will be strategic, unified and we will be unwavering in our

support of america's working families. that is what joined us togetherr to everything else is part of who we are, but what unifies us our values and those values are america's working families and what she says america's working families choice. that seems to be a theme as par of the last election about the reach today. what goes on from here? >> guest: she's calling for unity. they think they been unified all along. part of their scratching their heads this month and asking why the lost so badly is the things they've been pushing economically poll very well, minimum wage pulse labeled. they support gun reform. all of these things pull any 80, 90% out. they can't figure out why they're losing elections based on his economic message. trump comes in is to make america great again and ago russia's to the polls were donald kohn. when she is in unity she is

stressing they are on the same page. tim ryan believes in all those issues i just mention. the most conservative democrat is going to vote for all of those things that nancy pelosi believes in. when she says unity she's talking about issues. what have to figure out is howow to convince voters they're on the same page, that those issuee actually will resonate, will help them on a day-to-day practical basis. i think what you're going to see them do went into the future is home that message, how can we convince people we are for them and how do we translate these polls all of these things, minimum wage the sauce is good and medicare, all these economic things, had we translate that into simple leverage that can go on a bumper sticker and people to go vote democrat. >> host: tim ryan will bewe wednesday, the democratic were presented from a how to share his thoughts on the democratic part and its future. mike lillis, our current guest to talk about these things

reporting for they'll and you can go to the hill.com to see his writings about what's going on in the house and the senate. nicholas from maryland, republican line come you're up first. go ahead. >> caller: i just have a question and a comment. the question is, the implication was with schuler there was a secret ballot but with pelosi there wasn't? i didn't quite understand that. was that a misinterpretation? >> guest: the secret ballot was for both of those elections. my suggestion was that because it's a secret ballot somebody can go in, vote against pelosi without suffering any kind of political repercussions. nancy pelosi has been very good at unifying the party of sorts of because she has gone unchallenged but also because she knows how to leverage that power. she can keep people on committees, the most them, she raises tons and tons of money. she cannot get that to certain campaigns such as ways of

keeping democrats in line. a secret ballot vote in 2010 and this year in the tim ryan raised allow somebody, maybe a freshman member to go in and vote for the other candidate with that nancy pelosi ever knowing that wasn't the case because it's not a public about the that digi anonymity and has no politicalrr repercussions. that's it. i'm sorry for the confusion. it was both the case in 2010 and 2015. >> host: independent line. >> caller: yes. i wish is going to say the reason i'm an independent is i because i have said this before in a cauldron, i think the republicans and democrats, neither one really -- what to do in the constitution but the democrats have basically been the same for the last 12. 40, 45 years when george mcgovern took over the party.

they had immediate convert it now for some 40 years not exposing the real radical agenda. i think the public is pretty much catching on, pretty much so in the midwest where i live. but i was just going to say, you know, i see the media keeps onon beating up on trumpet i was a big trump fan at all or clinton fan. i was just wondering, do you think the democrats in thee future are going to bring more people in like the leadership,o like keith schuler or tim ryan arty think it's bee but a much g to stay like the coastal party like the east and west coast like it is right now traffic great question and that's a conversation they're having. the short answer is at the very top and were being a coastal party. they tried to topple pelosi. they couldn't do it a. her number two so marilyn, number three is a south caroli carolina. and down it goes. it still brajkovic oh, and new york after that, california after that.

what did that is to carve out new leadership positions that are going to go to more junior members and two more midwesternr members. this was tim ryan's argument all along. he said nancy pelosi, she is as liberal icon but she particularly to my district and win votes. he points out, he's from ohio,co blue caller manufacturing district or he's got 68% of the vote but donald trump on the district. he said i'm a guy that can go to the fisheye, i can go to the church services and i can talk to these voters and we can get these voters back into the democratic fold. so pelosi not ceding leadership, one, but recognizing and realizing she has to do something which she did not do in 2010, the challenge wasn't strong enough, the groundswell of discontent wasn't strong enough. issue a certificate she hasof carved out a number of new leadership posts. if you ask the critics they say they're just cosmetic things to

cover her, you know, for her to save face and say yes, we are doing this, bringing more voices and. bringing more voices and. if you ask those are being placed in these positions, they're very appreciative they'll have a spot at the table. they will be in those weekly leadership meetings as they stare message, as they stood policy. so that's the type of thing you're going to see. we have some elections on friday. will have some elections this afternoon when congress returns, and those things will start to be unrolled and you'll be able to see who those people are.gues >> host: so what happens this afternoon transferring able vote on the campaign dash that kind of thing, pelosi is to appoint the head of the democratic national committee committee. now that it's been ray lewis, new mexico, democratic he was appointed two years ago. people said that is giving too much power to one person. so part of this conversation, part of this revolt post election was we need to spread

that power around. so now that role is going to be elected. there was a god that he would be challenge. sean patrick mahoney, new york democrat last week has suggested he might challenge him. not going to happen. so he will run and challenge. so the more things change the more they stay in touch with the more they stay the same. that's what happened this afternoon.ee this also committee called the democratic policy and communications committee. this was great a couple of years ago essentially for steve israel, new york democrat was ed and another place to go afterwards. so pelosi car for this position. that was appointed. that's going to be elected and now be cut into three different ice chairman. begin spreading power, making aa more democratized, like these people to vote whereas pelosi was appointed in the past that you will see a couple of those probably go to midwest states. so spreading the power around regional league, generation and

just allowing these people a vote. >> host: here's a democrat from springfield, virginia. erica, you're on. g >> caller: i want to make a comment about what i see the democratic party is not getting unify. i think is because they havem walked away from the grassroots. we don't need charity. we don't need $10. we want $15 minimum wage raise. we don't want desperately want the student debt to be much more aggressive so the students can really go back to the economy and not the worried. we don't just need little things that we need to walk away from a operations influences, and that is very, very on board. because as you say some people want to --

[inaudible] but it's bad for her to mentor the new generation and have new democratic leaders, along and embrace the progressive roots, grassroots that really, really wants to make change away from -- [inaudible] >> host: eric ago we will let our guests respond to you put a lot out there. >> guest: a great comment and part of this discussion they are having right now she's asking a question how are we going to defend president obama's legacy from donald trump and congressional majorities in both chambers? there's a lot of disagreement about what to do on that front. a lot of people agree with you that the reason the democratstht lost, the message a president, that they did not get the google base out was because they went to soften things like that.

they didn't fight hard enoughid for those core liberal values. liberals stayed home at the polls come and arrest we now. but there's another come and i should mention, they have strong champions in congress, bernie sanders and elizabeth warren in the senate in particular. pelosi in the house is in a different spot because she is a leader and each would have to negotiate with the otherha republican leaders. but in terms of policy she's i think one of% on the same page as bernie sanders and elizabeth warren. so policy wise you have that sector.a it's a very liberal, heavy democratic caucus. and so a lot of people agree exactly with what you said. >> host: shifting gears, there's also recognition that t won't have to cover must if they're going to get anything done. - nitch mcconnell when obama was elected, mitch mcconnell is the senate majority leader, who at the time was minority leader but he said his primary goal was

not going to be to allah obama could get anything at all. you want him to be a one-term president. so they just block everything and he was criticized sal before that but eight years later if you look at the results politically it seemed to work out very well for the republicans. there some democrats are saying we've got to pick up a one-term president. we have to make it a one-term president. so this kind of a mixed message. do we work with trump, do we no work with drop? the democrats have always been the party of, that believes in government. there at this crossroads where they can't just burn the house down just to defeat trump, just to make trump look bad and tofe block everything he wants to do. there's a sense back to work with him, but again there's also this large group of liberals who feel they have to fight for the present house and should block anything trump wants to do that would undo them. >> host: from pennsylvania for

our guest mike lillis of the hill, this is john. john, you're on. go ahead. >> caller: good morning, pedro. pelosi who is 76, holier to 77 and the third in charge if they to 77 or something like that, cliburn or elijah e. cummings. they are part of the neoliberal switch that is, you know, can be attached to the clintons. clinton in 96 jesuit neoliberal, which is a corporatist stance. and that hasn't worked. that hasn't worked because it split the democratic party between like the black caucus and the neoliberal. so they are republican white. bernie sanders was so popular because he wasn't republican white. he was an fdr democrat and

wasn't taken in by all the money that the neoliberals were. and that's one of the large problems. they need to learn from the republicans. republicans have had outlet in place for 30, 40 years and they write the laws and they are really the organization that runs the republican party. >> guest: i think this goes back to the previous question. as the democrats by to locate a strategy that could get him back on the winning track, do they stick with their liberal values? do they compromise which inevitably is going to mean going back on some of those liberal priorities that they been pushing? you mentioned alex, the democrats o a plan of support, too. part of the problem i think is that they have been for years the party of labor unions, and just with the demise of labor unions over recent years, a lot

of the base has eroded. the question is appealing to a lot of those workers who were left behind after the great recession, convincing them that the democrats are for them, that the policies are going to help them improve, particularly economically. everything is economics these days, right? and that's what this election said. that's what almost all of thesee elections say. 2010 all of the different because obamacare played such a de facto but that was the anomaly. democrats have to find a way to appeal to these voters that they say they well. until they do that they're going to be in the minority. >> host: we have a viewer who says he is giddy about nancy pelosi's reappointment.e a tw it assures even greater losses in 2018. go to 2018, 2020, what did the democrats face in house as far as elections transferred midterm is on the telephone for the incumbent party. nancy pelosi's argument is i've done this before, this is her

argument for remaining in power. i have done this before. in 2006 we were in the wilderness.ow george bush was in the white house and we wiped out the republicans in the midterm election. i have done it before, i can do it again. so that's her argument right now. 2018 is going to be a very difficult cycle for the republicans. a lot of old guys are still there but they will still be avoidable in two years. .. were not, but they will be very vulnerable in two years. historically, it is a tough cycle for the incumbent party. so, nancy pelosi is saying that with all of those actors combined we could make enormous -- those factors combined, we can make an enormous difference. give me a chance, and i will make it happen. that is her message. nancy pelosi thinks she can do it, and we will not know until two years from now.

that is her argument. host: sun city, california. on the democrats line should write, go ahead -- on the democrats line, roy, go ahead. caller: can you hear me? guest: -- host: yes, you are on. caller: just like the republicans were because they always wanted, we as democrats always wanted to look out for the people. we need to be worthless to fight republicans. i just want to make one quick statement about your last issue. i wonder how many of the people that want that pipeline would accept it running on the arlington national cemetery or the pearl harbor memorial. >> host: okay, thanks.

>> guest: i think a lot of people are really with you. a lot of democrats agree they should. n my, was ruthless. he didn't want obama to get anything done. he filibustered everything, even things republicans are going to support. to keep other things off of the floor. a lot of democrats think that the low c. and incoming senate minority leader chuck schumer should do the same thing. the democrats for years have said they are the party of government. they believe and governing to help people in their everyday lives -- they just block a everything and shut down threats and all these different thingspl we've seen over the past couple years and the democrats are being blamed for those things, suddenly they are not the partyy of good government. it would be a sharp political p tactic on their part. they would have to somehow block

the tight rope where they are saying we are knocking downi don government. i don't know how successful it would be sending it to the electorate. that's the discussion they are having right now and sharp disagreement. >> host: the "washington post" this morning looks at potential leaders to maybe challenge to ws replace and and a highlight of- the year but shared to become the california attorney general and steve israel was retiring. debbie wasserman schultz move to the chair dnc. if that's the case, would you look to it making itself known right now who are the shining stars? >> that it's been the problem with the democratic vote. you have this brain drain of younger guys have had a certain level and there's nowhere else to go.

just the latest one of those. they have to start looking d deeper to root for these guys to come out. you see joaquin castro mentioned as a rising star. joe kennedy in massachusetts. people think he's going to jump back in the state. he remains in the house. he certainly a rising star. if you look at the nominees for some of these new leaderships to carve out at the hawaii democrat who will be now in leadership.ha they are going to have to elect somebody side terms are less they are going to elect today. certainly seth bolton and kathleen wright who had made

their name by opposing policies and came out at the out at dmn endorse tim ryan which is a political risk for them in the mirror term. they are playing the long gamest and those are the types of rising stars you can see. bustos has just nominated to the communication is one of the cochairs of a relatively young illinois democrat. also nominated for that position and not heart rate from pennsylvania that just one further republicans for the first time. they are trying to get voters back in the polls yet these are the types of people who want to move up and we will wait and see how successful they are. >> host: this is mike lillis.

we are talking about the house democrats with the incoming administration especially after this election. democratic fine, joe, go ahead. >> i've got three points here. number one as democrats no matter where it has to be taught to get out the vote. it's not a matter of seeing how many people you can register. the main point is come election day that the vote. nobody talks about voting. this tragedy. these old-timers have to go. and another thing when the democrats do get in, they always promise and what are they due for the union?was the

nothing. they had all three houses.mum these people were talking about minimum wage. the card check was inaccurate. >> host: thanks, caller. >> guest: you're absolutely right. that's the original point. you mention people are talking about voters, which i would disagree with. everybody's talking about how to energize the vote. more specifically about why this cycle is such a dismal turnout. people looking back to the past two cycles when you had obama in 2012 will loan and hillaryuc clinton who is 62. anyone keeps mentioning the huge groundswell of support for donald trump and didn't get any more voters out than that from a

day it was hillary clinton not energizing the base. they will have to improve upon that when they went back to national elections in congressional aide. but to say they are not talking about it i don't think is right either. their key focus in this autopsy will examine why the advantage and losing $150 million didn't exactly work. hillsdale k. i think she brough in $140 billion. nobody even comes close on the hill. you know, she would save may be you didn't get us into the majority, but it would've been much worse if we didn't have it. nobody can sell that void.

so part of that argument we are having with money and how important as it did not make it go further. >> as far as policy, what is the democratic response to letters change the affordable care after the incoming administration? on another front, what about the idea of infrastructures and in which donald trump likes, what do you think democrats will be and what role do they play in uzbek topics? >> two very different topics. one appeal of obama carries something that obviously they don't wanted all. that is obama's domestic achievement that will be hissomh legacy. and so the question is how we play defense from the minority? republicans will vote 100% for repeal. the senate is the firewall. republicans don't have 60 votes,

so schumer can filibuster anything he wants and he's going to do. he no-space-off is the last line of defense. all eyes on chuck schumer and the obamacare deal. the infrastructure is basically fascinating because that's a very different dynamic. everybody wants to bring money back to the districts. the question is how to pay for it. transmit enough a lot of promises. democrats are found to work with republicans but when they get to the issue of how to pay for it, that is when the real questions are going to happen in the real tough decisions have to be made. he's promising a trillion dollars. that's a very big number and he doesn't say where or when or how long he wants to spend it. but when they have to come up with a trillion dollars, you can't find a trillion dollars on capitol hill.

these are the budget fights we have every year, the shutdown thread so without to fund these different things. certainly this scenario they can come together or they do agree on a bipartisan basis. >> a bit on the modern day. congress -- what needs to be done when it comes to budget issues? >> two things they've got to wrap up in the thought is they can get it done this week. the government does the spending for government does expire this friday on the ninth so they have to have something by then. will they push it a couple days to get something longer term or can they pass a continuing resolution short-term, and longer short-term budget by the end of the week and the thought is they can do it. they can vote by wednesday and everything can be done by friday.be we still haven't seen the built. initially there was talk of it

from the government through march. trump will be coming in and appoint his cabinets and vote on all these things. the thought now as it might go through may a little bit longert term. it allows the republicans to have more of a say in the spending and they don't have to rely on barack obama who will become of course in january and make these decisions when they have a republican in office. the other thing they have to pass if the defensese authorization bill last week. that should probably have a couple points there and obama has said what are you going to do with it. usually pretty bipartisan and not expect good to move. there's water resources andopmeb develop bill and i spent money on that.

the water crises of flint michigan. democrats pushing for hundreds of millions of dollars to help that issue and push it for a year since the crisis started in a city opportunity of speaker ryan on this water bill and that's the other thing that's expected to pass. a short calendar with a couple things then they are gone so we don't really expect any major fight. from >> mark, independent line. >> yes, hi. good morning. thanks for c-span. it made me think about president johnson quoted in the 60s.ans ie if you can't win on the issues come to your only is character

assassination. we have a lot of that going on more so today than they did back then. i just think a lot of theha callers that it called in andnd spoke about the democrats, they have been too soft at the game plan and they need to get tougher. that's my only quote. >> guest: it's a great quote in great quote and i'll shootou one back at you. there's another quote that says democracy ensures we get no better than we deserve. a lot of democrats are wondering what's going to have going toem happen with this trump administration with george bernard shaw. one thing i will point out, we've had a stalemate on capitol hill for at least the past six years since the republicans came in there was the tea party response to obamacare and some of the things president upon it did when he first arrived.

it is also a response to the democrats having both chambers of congress. when one political party has all the power that tends to be a pension on the thing that the other way. house democrats plus 63 weeks and i have not rebounded yet. a lot of the tea party guys who came in go back to the districts. they become obama legislative bo agenda. what we hear on capitol hill at this stalemate and the spending bills are tough these days. it's all criticism inside the beltway. they just hear nothing but praise. there's a lot of different -- r

the gerrymandering with all these districts and extremely conservative. the number of purple districts is minimal at this point. it's difficult to get back into power in house. for these reasons, democracy is masking and that's what we see every day on the hill.m new je go ahead. >> good morning, how are you? i've been listening to this report from the hill. first of all we are talking politics and deflating up with policy. when they go back to their districts because they got to select who voted for them, not

the voters selected as the best candidate for a given area. talk about nancy pelosi. talk about the democrat leadership in the house. when you have gerrymandering and 90% of your district is white older what over there is alldi this false equivalency, where the democrats did it too. the democrats who are control oa california, the whole governmenn on down has 55 electoral votes, 53 house seats, if they did that, it was swing back the did other day. >> deus, caller.ther

>> parties argue gerrymandering. no question about. what happened in 2010 is a control bar statehouses and theo were taking advantage of that and a lot more conservativetr districts then there are liberal districts. to say both parties haven't done it is unfair and inaccurate. we are just living the latest example of a bind because they were so good at it, that is why it is such an issue right now. the voters to rollout until their own members. they have carved out the map. there is coders in the stateev level every 10 years after they redraw the maps. voters could go to the state elections again the people in who draw different now.a that's how democracy works i'm not level and the districts are

drawn in the results of that. i don't think it's fair to say in the urban centers in those areas and i say number has been there for decades. >> host: mike lillis, there's a story on senate majority leader harry reid will get sent out this week before he these congress. talk a little bit about the legacy of harry reid and what about those who remember him far will remember him in the congress he's so soft spoken. he's just so good at what he did and there's numerous stories ofh him twisting arms to get what he

wants.hone, it's in front of a microphone and you wonder how they're able to do it. on capitol hill, obamacare will be one of the major legacy iteme in just the ability to unite the party, there's a lot of moderate leaning senators thayer and his scott to come into the room and convince them to make a really tough vote on something likeke obamacare that can hurt their political career, that could end their political career and he was able to do that through very good legislative maneuvering, tweaking language set that will carve out for you, but also just the right thing to do for the party and a lot of people will miss him. not republicans, but a lot of

democrats. >> host: do we know what happened as far as what he'll do a career of pursuit? >> guest: i don't know the answer to that. i think he would be happy to just go back to nevada. i don't know the answer to that. >> host: one more call for a guest tom, north carolina, by and for republicans. you are free to go ahead. >> okay, thank you. i am nonpartisan in and so i don't vote in the primaries, but i'm one of the people who ran away from the democratic party. as you mention above is legacy, he left a legacy and that's the reason why you want to know how to get back to the democratic party and care about the middle class.s. working people built this country, pay their taxes and they are getting clobbered by obamacare. you have a lieutenant governor. i forget her name is t. stand

talk a week or so ago from the northern state and perceived presented both sides of it. 29 get benefits. 200 million get clobbered. they can afford wages. people tell me they paid 1800 a month or 2100 a month.h. mil middle-class people cannot afford plus they get clobbered under the tax penalty. obama was told that was unconstitutional. i think it was republican justice who will get around it. that is a money grab. they should be rewarded for saving a few dollars. $1800 is a mortgage for some of these people they couldn't afford to pay.ax penal we will keep increasing the tax penalties.

>> collar, which got to leave it there. >> obamacare is his legacy but also one of the most controversial things i've ever seen pass on capitol hill. d and it's divided for those who benefit from it or is seeing a premium rise. if you're one of the people who have insurance now because it's always been in place you might be pretty happy with it. you're not happy with it.t. that is part of the split and we will see what they're going to do with that. republicans want to repeal the whole thing. what are they going to for 20 million people who now have insurance and hope that they d don't vote for you come up with what will get them covered in a way that's affordable. these are the debates they will

have and they will be increasingly clear that they want to repeal it for political reasons. trott made this an issue in the republicans try to do it forld years. then i can leave the tough decision and say they repeal it they haven't found a replacement over the last six years. the time crunch is going to move very quickly and will be interesting to see what they come up with. >> host: with all the changes to house minority leader is making and how is chosen, when the democrats get a chance if it's working or not? if the new structure has affected the way going forward. >> immediately you'll know if it's working with those who are so unhappy right after the

election if they are satisfied with it. if they have more power. that's the near-term upside. even that is unclear. it seems like once for listing one, it sounded like they are okay with it. they've got their shot to make a protest. longer term is going to be 2018. how many people came out to thet pool? that will be the ultimate test. >> host: mike lillis reports for the hill. his story can be found at the hill.com, covers congress extensively. mike lillis, thanks for your time. >> in a few moments led to a conference on the first 100 days of the donald trump presidency posted by the group no labels.

>> it's time for a menacing look at programs in addition by the y federal government with how much they are funded and what they do. our guest today is liz farmer,r, with governing magazine, she is restaff reporter for the publication. talking about the topic of federal funds that report across the united states. good morning. if you are an average largee city, how much is based on federal dollars? >> i would say around 8% to 10%. it is no small amount.

there are unfortunately no consistent statistics on this, but anywhere from 5% to 10% for most midsize car cities by theds site is fairly average. we are talking about a billion dollars in large cities and several hundred millions in small cities. >> host: does not go directly? how does that work? >> it works for different types of funding. a lot of the finding is passed through a significant amount of state and some directly to cities. in some of the research i've done, it is difficult to carve out which of the funding that digit comes directly from the federal government. >> host: i would imagine a city like los angeles or new york to get a larger share in cities across the nation or is this based on size primarily?or >> guest: is based on the ability to attract federal funding. the largest cities in grants they have been all those kinds of things.

it's sort of an inequality issue in some of those ways. typically the larger the city the more money they get. >> host: is about to the city for request for the suns and if so, how does that usually wear? >> guest: the city does make requests.. some of it comes to the state.jo a major example is medicaid funding and grants administration and what the city wants to do. some of it those stories different types of services said he wants to provide. typically there is a long-standing agreement with the annual passats.it >> host: the topic of federal funds spoken the last couple weeks particularly because the statements made by the trump administration when it comes to policy and immigration. can you characterize the discussion here? >> guest: the concern for the cities is as they harbor illegal immigrants and don't toss them up to the fed, the trump

threatened to withdraw federalut funding.fu there's obviously a ton of conversation around that. some huge legal issues and people say trump can't do this to begin with good cities are starting to stand up and say we will make contingency plans. it is becoming very divisive. >> host: contingency plans involved in the question of what happens if we don't get these dollars.ns >> that's the issue, yes. they are working on them. my decision is behind closed doors they are working on ways to rejigger money. for some of the cities, especially the larger ones whenc i talk about a huge pot of money and the contingency plan if you lose several hundred million dollars in funding. >> host: this firm are here to talk about the city especially in light of the possibility of what may happen. particularly how much better of dollars on a research chance toy

do so. you can take that and they will be a will be republican 227,488,001. independence (202)748-8002. you can create requests or questions or comments at c-span wj or a post on her face that page. -- facebook page providingng analysis of how much federal funds are part of it. we walk over the specifics, but for a city like new york if the money is gone or taken, who has directly impacted? >> this is true for most cities as well, but in new york city whose impacted our home last, is battered women in the social services like that, health care needs, public safety, law enforcement federal grants and

things like that. you're looking at a wide swath of services. in new york city, a little over 9% of the budget is directly from several funds and 11 agencies received almost all of that funding and they are largely childcare services. a lot of social things about.af >> does that mean services or does it go further than that? >> it could be suspension program. if you lose federal funding for the outcome of the cities got to either come up with some way to pay for it herself in the program. it could appeal to the states for funds to help cover thats, appeared either way the moneywh vanishes and it has to come from somewhere or it doesn't come from anywhere. >> the question is why do cities get money for the federal government not primarily from their state or city itself.

>> a lot of this goes back to the 70s. there's some constitutional issues at play here, but kind of the media that is that cities want direct access to federal funding. they don't want to just rely on the state to be the parent doling out to whatever they think is correct. this is a way for cities to have a direct connection to white house and congress and to be able to make their own appeal to capitol hill in terms of other direct means there rather than only relying on the state. >> host: 2-027-488-0004agai republicans. -- let's start with bill. in wisconsin, democrats whine for a guest.go you are on.. go ahead. >> yes, i would just like to interject the funding for states

is very timely call. i just read an article saying tt for instance new jersey which has the highest in state, 61 cents back for every dollar of federal taxes paid whereas wyoming, which is one of the least dense state gets $1.11 back from the federal government for every dollar wyoming citizens. the federal government. i think it is important to keep that in mind when you talk about city budgets and as you just said on the cities don't want to begin just understated becauseju they're such a great variation. thank you. >> that's right. there is a great variation in state funding and specificallytl the states that have low income population, more poverty relied more on federal government spending. so states particularly the south tend to get more federal dollars largely connected to medicaid and things like that.

there is certainly a disparity in what each ticket back in terms of about the federal state. the new jersey wyoming example -- >> we will leave this "washington journal" segment to go live to a conference on the first 100 days of the term presidency. it is hosted by a group called no label just getting underway. >> that may well come you to our lunch session. i have the privilege of meeting the wnba and that is a group of national women athletes. and i often remind them that there are two international languages. music and sports. we have the benefit of playing sports. but what we have to recognize that a regular basis is that our teams can't win unless everyone

is engaged. basketball is a team sport. i would submit to you that democracy is also a team and dagger. we are delighted you are here with us today to have these conversations about where we are going as a nation. and you have been willing to step forward, engage, participate and bring others along with you. if my assumption correct? are you sure? are you going to bring another person into this movement? you're going to listen, learn today and made a example? okay, i'm going to make you all stop eating in a minute and really make you listen to me. so without further ado, we are delighted to have you here today. we have an opportunity truly to listen to some exceptional colleagues, to hear what they have to say, synthesize,

internalize what they have to say and then bring that back to our communities and fears of influence. and without further ado, i'd like to bring my teammate to start our program. give him a warm welcome if you would. [applause] ♪ >> good afternoon. great to be here. it is tremendously exciting to see the progress that no labels has been made over the last five years. a testament to that is your presence here with us today. central to our efforts is to create a durable center of bipartisan action that can work through compromise to effect positive legislation that supports the no labels national strategic agenda and in particular boat.

i want to talk briefly about the two sharpest tools in our toolkit, the problem-solving caucus and are super pac. the problem solvers caucuses in meeting now for several years and up until now, it's been an opportunity or a congressional leaders to build trust, to get to know each other and of course forward progress. what is most exciting if they are ready and were ready to see their take on the tougher challenges, the big issues and to create a lot that can be an enabler of legislation in the upcoming congress. the second big tool, which if you read your "wall street journal" this morning was announced the $15 million super pac that will provide the kind of air cover that will enable our congressional leaders to

make the tough decisions and for that matter to take out those. we owe an enormous debt of gratitude who has provided training, leadership and great commitments. nelson is an icon of american business with preeminence by nancy air and business leader as an anonymous leisure to work with nelson and efforts here. but out further a due. [applause] ♪ >> thank you, india. thank you all for being with us today. i know that i am really excited. when i first met nancy jacobs years and years ago, i met with

her out of frustration because i like all of you didn't like the way things were going. and here we are, a major turning point in america. we've got a new president, new congress and new labels have really come together. as andy talked about the super pac has really put some bite behind a dark. we all know there's a lot of capital on the left and a lot of capital on the right and we are going to be capital in the middle, bringing everyone together. i thank you, louis paik, and many others who've all had a very important standing. without further ado, i want to introduce our two cochairs, joe lieberman and jon huntsman.

john is a two-term governor. our china hand, very important going forward. joe served for 26 years in the senate as i like to think of them is a real independent, he was no labels before we ever thought of this place. without further ado, let me bring them both out. the ♪ >> such a good song. a beautiful day by u2. we actually won that election. following now st. paul's and andy persky, what a special moment. when people like that, when they take this effort seriously, you know what we are doing is that

serious purpose and intent. all of you in this room don't waste your time. you want to be part of something purposeful that is going in a direction towards a destiny that is good for this recovery. i'm delighted to be here with joe lieberman, my cochair, rabbi, friend, big or other. if you are here, we love you, too. you are terrific. there she is. let me just remind you of a couple things so significant about why we are here today. number one, there is a new center of rapidly emerging in american politics. by virtue of how things have played out not over one at the station and it's brought us to where we are today. it is called unclaimed real estate and its center-right, centerleft, where the deals get done.

it is where business is transacted. i can tell you that the state level as governor where we got all of our work done. we are here to plant our flag and not real estate. make no mistake about what we are doing when you walk out. this is where we are. it is a claim to this real estate. number two, no labels is leading the effort. i don't know of another organization are undertaking what is organized, got the energy to make things happen with respect to this new political real estate. number three, this new center of gravity is by an emerging problem solvers caucuses has had a number of years of blood at a pretrial exercise. some of them are here working together burnishing their ability to do things cross boundary. i am here to tell you, they got the result to really play a significant role as the problem solvers caucuses on capitol

hill, that could change the balance of power but the tax reform. number four and finally, we couldn't be doing any of this without defensive mechanisms in place. note -- make no mistake about it. this is where we have not adequately built the systems. that is protecting the center lane and primaries with an unprecedented new super pac. we talked about it in my tattoo that it. maybe then reporting on those numbers. i'm here to tell you if we can bring all of this together, claiming center right, great down the center lane for deals are done and problems are solved. if we can keep it on capitol hill alive and well, organized and focused on the mission if we

can build these defensive mechanisms, folks, we will be an organization to be reckoned with in the amount of good we can do for the american people, for the good taxpayer, i think will be very consequential and important longer-term. thank you for being here. a great privilege to serve as a cochair of no labels. i can't begin to thank you so much for what you're doing in your own individual ways. with extra this microphone over to my great friend, joe lieberman. >> thank you, john. thanks, ladies and gentlemen. great honor to be cochair of no labels anything better to be his friend. i want to take my tax for my brief remarks this man from a holiday card that i got for my former colleague in the senate, tom carper of delaware. on the card, he quoted this

african proverb. if you want to go fast, go alone. if you want to go fire, go together. and i think that proverb really sums up what no labels has been about and what we are doing here today. there has to be a new center in american politics where people even if they have different ideas can work together to get things done for our country. because if we don't have a center in american politics, we don't really have a functioning democracy. we just have a never-ending battle of factions trying to impose their narrow views on one

another. that too often in recent years is exactly what it sounds like in america. it feels like we are coming apart when we should be coming together to solve our problems. but here is the hopeful fact beneath all the partisans flashing back and forth. at the level of the american people, we are not really as divided as a lot of people would suggest. if you look at the polling, the majority of people in america are in the center right to center left. they are not at the extremes. but in washington, it doesn't feel that way. it feels like the majority has been squeezed out by the extreme. so what i'm seeing as we have the numbers.

but we need is the will and the organization to put those numbers in the common sense that comes with them back into our government and that really is what no labels has been about and why they stay at such a moment of great opportunity. it's a different day, a beautiful day in a different day. why? we've got the juicing congress and the liberal supporters across the country stepping up like never before. we've got the problem solvers working together. we've got the political action committee ready to help those who are problem solvers and fight those who are extremist and who are not. i can tell you how to read there, that at the moment when a

member of congress faces a big decision about a boat and he or she feels that what is in the best interest of their constituents and our country is what they want to vote for, but the party leadership interest groups are telling them to vote the other way, too often that is what they do. at that moment, we want them to know that the problem solvers is what i'm in a very real and tangible way. the super pac will be with them at their backs in next time they run for office. there's another reason why this is a moment of real opportunity for no labels. in the last election, whether you supported hillary clinton as i did for donald trump, the election of donald trump is a disruptive event for a political

system that has needed to be disrupted. it opens the door to enormous change. and if president trump wants to really carry that change forward , he can't listen to the people and the republican party who say let's just shut it down their throats and he won't benefit and won't be able to get anything done if the voices in the democratic party that are calling for resistance obstruction at all costs prevail. he needs a group in congress from both parties to come work with him to take america forward. so i would say that today marks a new and exciting chapter in the history of no labels. we have a lot to build on, but we've got a lot of great things we can do for the country to go back to the african proverb, we can and must go far, but we can

only do it if we got together. thank you very much. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome from the great state of texas, former senator kay bailey hutchison. ♪ >> well, thank you, everyone

unwelcome. this is a very exciting opportunity for our country to reboot as joe lieberman just sad. it has been disrupted and so now let's go forward in a positive way. i think this panel today is an example of the diversity geographically and our country and the party diversity as well. our task is to talk about what to expect in the first 100 days. that raise your hand if you would like to predict what will happen in the next hundred days after watching this campaign of the last year and a half. kind of hard to predict right now. that is what this group of experts who are sitting in congress today can enlighten months on what the president-elect can actually do without congress?

what can he do maybe with the consultation of congress, work with congress to do and what can he not do at all without a congressional way forward. so with that, let me introduce the panel. first to my left is my friend and former colleague, roy blunt, the senator who has just been reelected for a mystery. [applause] senator steve daines -- i guess i should say party affiliations to show the difference. roy blunt is a republican. senator steve daines from montana, also a republican. [applause] we're expect dan joe mentioned i'm a democrat from west virginia run in west virginia running the blood of day. if he gets here, he will be on the chair at the end. congressman, democrat from

california. congressman kurt schrader, democrat from oregon. [applause] and congressman peter wells, democrat from vermont. [applause] moderated by ryan clancy who is one the chief strategist for no labels. i think he's going to start us off, let every buddy say what the lay of the land is and be ready to ask the questions that you would but to answer our make that statement that the question to follow as well. >> thank you very much, senator. i wanted to start with senator blunt and daines. for anyone following the news, we have a sense of what's on the docket in the first hundred days. tax reform, infrastructure, some

other things. what is more interesting is not only what is going to get done, but how. is the republican party seen opening with senate democrats politics to get something done together. would love to hear your perspective and conversations with senator schumer and other folks on the other side about what you can work on in the first 100 days. >> i thought sarah liebermann's observation about the importance of the disruptive event. disruption not a bad thing. in fact, i've got a friend who has an investment group he calls the disruptors. it's an important thing in an economy to keep that title. i think there is a synergy available that would not be available under other circumstances. i think the new president makes us think about different ways to look at things because he's going to look at things in different ways.

on the senate side, a lot of the first hundred days will be the personal business we are involved in both houses and involved in. trying to move forward with appropriate speed to get a government in place. very possibly will have a supreme court nomination to deal with and not 100 days. we will probably pass two different budget. we have an opportunity to pass a budget in january that gives us a vehicle to do something to move forward with health care and then we will pass the budget for the budget year that begins next september by next october october 1. that's all we will be able to get done in the first 100 days.

what you think about the inclusiveness of fact, that is going to be a pretty big moment, steve. what do you think? >> i come from a state, montana if you think about no labels, we are a state, a notorious ticket splitting state. i was the first republican in the day to the u.s. senate seat and 101 years. i say about my home state little bit of john denver and merle haggard. on one hand i love the outdoors. the time we are back home from montana to preserve and protect the amazing quality of life. we have the environment and responsible in natural resource. i'm also a chemical engineer. i'm the only one to serve on the hill and engineering and trying to follow. i think this last election that governor huntsman and senator lieberman are booted to was less

about ideology. president-elect message is quite pragmatic staying focused on american jobs, energy security, they need to secure and the need to responsibly manage the fiscal house here in washington and achieving a balanced budget. i hope we can stay focused on these bigger picture issues. this suffers from attention deficit disorder. the question about the first 100 days is very important as we mentioned. the presidential appointees will consume a lot of time. we've got to think beyond 100 days because the issues we face are going to take longer than 100 days to solve. >> sure, okay. question for the congressman. you face different challenges in the house or the omen for the democratic party who do not want

to see democrats work under any circumstances with the new president. where do you see the opportunity where you can work for the new president and with your colleagues here in the senate? >> i will start. the first thing is not aware, it is weather. the republicans have a major decision to make. there is a tendency when one party gets power to overreach and my hope is that the republicans won't do that. paul ryan is going to have his work cut out for him, even though he continues to have the majority. they will be a wing and the party that will push it too far. if he makes a decision to try to get some bipartisan progress, he will work with democrats willing to work with him. that is going to be a huge advantage for us to get practical things done. second, the challenge for the democrat is do we pay for

failure or do we put out an affirmative agenda that we are advocating on all these topics that we now need to be addressed. and that remains to be seen. the democratic party is in some turmoil now. we are now a bicoastal party. we got hammered with a group of americans that democrats like to think we represent, working-class americans. white, hispanic and african-american. we've got some internal soul-searching to do, but that tells us we don't have the answers credible to a lot of people we think we represent. the bottom line here is a big decision by mr. ryan. will he worked to get things done and be willing to get votes from democrats in order to accomplish that, something john brainard dead and will democrats be smart not to know that we don't need to be criticizing tribe. he's going to do well or he's not and that will be on the basis of what he does come in the basis of what we accused him

of having failed on. are we going to have -- >> if i just play off of what peter jay shared, we are in the dim x craddock said going to experience in 2008. we are going to get a radical tea party equivalent that is going to really clamor for just straight opposition. .. beyond out the president-ele