i think she would have to work that through in a primary. it would come from the left who are also dissatisfied with president obama. i think it's good for the party and good for her as a talent. it's a pain in the check and no normal person likes to be attacked. >> i think that. >> there is transferring her soon. >> i think she is right that i think jeb bush has been straight forward about the process and his brother had a remarkable quote. i think he wants to be president and i'm not sure he wants to run for president. that's true of probably everyone. not all of us will run for president. in terms of hillary clinton

whose first senate race i covered and there was like night and day between the first and the second half of the race that is a common trait of hillary clinton's. she was pretty terrible and 2008 much better of the her book tour was terrible and her campaigning for other candidates the last two months was much better. it was a source correction on what had taken place. i have no idea who it will be in my home state of new york. it overall pretty popular in the patterson years. he still had a pretty strong primary challenge from an unknown professor with the coolest name ever. he appealed very strongly to the grass roots and this anti-wall street sentiment. >> she got 38, i think. >> 37, 38. >> that's astonishing.

she carried a lot of counties. >> the coolest professor name is the one paul had. >> rotten crotch. >> we were all on a panel. >> my mother made me go to confession after that. >> she had no ad money. she got almost 40% of the vote. hillary clinton does not sit well on a lead. she is her own worst enemy in every one of the races i have seen her in. she resorts to tactics over messages. the big question is what does she say about president obama? does she try to run away in i don't know how she can do that on domestic issues.

i think she believes it, but foreign policy is not what they base their vote on. my big question is not actually about the primaries. i think she is in a better position now. this is not 2008 again. president obama was a unique senator and a very unique candidate. elizabeth warren is not barack obama and she's not running. in that way she is not barack obama. i think hillary will have to figure out whether she is ment willy prepared. jeb bush has to answer this too. it is so different than even seven years ago. what i have been struck by watching her over the last six months, i guess when she started the book tour, the book tour was not what i thought it was going to be at all. i thought it was an opportunity to connect with voters and speak

to people. it was like her doing this. she was signing books and sitting at a table and didn't really speak to people. her speech was good and much better than anything i saw in 07. she was still not connecting with voters. when i saw her talking with voters in new hampshire in a diner, it was not that natural. he was really good at that as a senator. she is really good in small settings, but it's hard to go from secretary of state and doing the steak fry over and over and over again. i'm not sure she is mentally there yet. that is a question. >> i want to open it up to the audience. i of love the idea of a secretary of state at a steak fry. >> it was something else.

>> who -- can you respect me because i have bites in my eyes. no one likes to ask the first question. think of this as the second or tenth question. so many questions. >> yes, sir. >> i have a question for paul and i have a question for anna. for paul, my sense is that the democrats achilles heel might be the extend to which their turn out is constantly analyzed by group. this year there was a lot of talk about how they didn't come out because obama was not on the ballot or hispanics didn't come out because there was disappointment on the immigration policy and the failure to develop that. do you see that with the prospect of hillary clinton. no african-american on the

ballot and the possibility of no advancing of the immigration issues. do you see the democrats not being able it energize the groups that put obama over the top in 2008. the fact that the first three primaries are iowa, new hampshire and south carolina that have traditionally favored far right candidates who never succeed in the end. in the course of the primaries, those further to the right candidates pull mccain or romney into positions that later hurt them in the general election and is that the republicans's problem? >> thank you, paul. you make a great point.

i'm not allowed to say that i don't know, but i don't know. i don't think anybody knows. president obama changed the way campaigns are run and the way the electorate is assembled for the better if you ask me. really impressive. he saw this coming. this is why he is our president. the rising american electorate. young people and people of color. they are overwhelmingly democratic and they are cool performers in off years and presidential years. the president -- it was a combination of the man, the message and the mechanics. we won't have the man the next time. i hope we have a message that energizes us and we hope we have the mechanics. here's one of the reasons.

the formula takes that coalition of the rising american electorate and inspire them the way he did and because i'm greedy, do better with the working class folks. president obama only got 39% of the white vote. the worst since walter mondale who carried one more state than my grandmother that year. he carried like 28 states. he had a declining power. you don't want 39%. i don't. my party has a challenge of doing better with the white working class voters. this is what happened in 2014. i went through the 20 and 14 exit polling, just the demographics.

it's astonishing. young people voted at 21%. it was terrible that 34, 26 overall? >> 36.4. >> 21.5 for young people 18 to 29. i say this at every college campus and you all will know. how many old people get free health care in america? 100. what percentage get free college who can't play football? zero. you can't do either. but zero. why? old people vote. that's why.

that's the whole game. the president really, really impressively and dramatically inspired unmarried women of color. really brought them into the game. can we pick that up. the democrats who remain in the game. and build on that. it's an unnoble thing. >> soon to be extinct. >> male, gun owner -- >> democrat. >> on the primary issue, i from

the white house looking and shaping up, i think we are headed to something that is similar to 2012. in that you are going to have a whole host of characters up there on those debate stages. i think the rnc has tried to get some logic into the struggle. i tried to put some restraint so that it doesn't look like it's crazy parade day. going on. so that we don't have debate after debate after debate where people are trying to make a name by saying colorful things. it being looks like rand paul figured out a way to run and so

forth. i convinced myself through a lot of therapy and liquor that it is a good thing. i can actually say this with some conviction. it is a good thing for us to have these kinds of primaries. i think it is as painful as it may be, and entertaining for you. it is soul searching and at the end, you kind of come out with a defined voice. i think you might see folks running who just really can't do that sudden shift to the right. it really didn't work well for

romney. i'm not sure how far to the right it turns. i think they have solid records and they have been in the news lately. they are going to see a realm of voices. on the far right and some on the more moderate side of the republican party. we are going to go through and come out with one nominee that some of us will like more than others. >> i love the campaign slogan. therapy, liquor, leadership. you get a lot of support for that. they respond to that. >> about where the two parties

are. either about the liquor or the therapy. you do have two parties that are trying to figure out where their soul is. i think the fight for that on the democratic side will look different than on the republican side. on the democratic side, the irony and you will hear hillary supporters say this, she was more popular than president obama in 2008 at the end of the campaign. and she was for universal health care. a lot of the advisers were

against it. i believe she is very likely to be the nominee and i believe hillary clinton is running and i think she is the nominee. i think we will see a very hard effort to try to pull her to the left. that's been the substantial shift from what you say when obama first got elect and got reelected. lots of discussion about fairness and the system not working for everybody. you have seen that is what elizabeth warren does so well. it was dramatic seeing her before hillary clinton in massachusetts kak pa massachusetts campaigning for martha coakley. it did not end great.

one, i think the media primary. where we are all writing versions of who is up and who is down. i'm sorry that mitt romney is not running and i can't keep pretending that he is nor can i pretend that hillary clinton is more responsible or mitt romney is responsible for them and republicans won and democrats lot of. the entire debate shifted to the right and the thing i think will be a major issue and we haven't talked about it tonight is immigration. and you did see that play out in the primaries when it comes to the -- what paul describes as a big void that has weak written on it. that's the obama vessel as voters were treating it.

you had a catch all of stuff. the border crisis and the weakened economy and ebola for a moment. you see a lot of those go sideways. and on immigration. i expect the president will do something on executive action that will please neither side of his own party. i think it will be where republicans stake out their ground. >> thank you. over here somebody has a mike. you guys take care of it because i can't see a thing with the lights. please. >> i'm sarah. i think that as a voter from floater -- >> i'm sorry. >> idle totally with you.

it was rough. a lot of my friends didn't go to vote because they felt frustrated by a lot of the name calling and the slandering. they were turned off. between the two candidates, i don't think anyone was enamored with anyone. >> anyone who met the candidates would agree. >> it was hard. >> i have to tell you, i have always said to maggie the day of the election, i think rick scott squeaks it out. part of the reason is democra democrats -- i shaved my legs for this. you have to have a reason to shave your legs and charlie crist was in it. democrats need to fall in love in order to go out and vote. where as republicans, we are a little more used to voting for our guy even if we have to do it

holding our nose. i haven't met anybody, not even paid staff that liked either of those two candidates. >> i think a lot of that in part was in the younger generation. it was like we were sitting there watching and watching issues get put aside as miami herald. the names and op eds and they are flying and this modern pedestrian that is blaming of obama for anything and a lot of name calling on either side of the aisle is pushed it to be more partisan. i'm interested in hearing your thoughts and looking at 2016 and further into the future if that's possible. how you think candidates would

have to approach that kind of campaign. >> i beg you, do not see our microcosm and the two candidates in florida as a reflection. if that's what the presidential candidates look like, we might as well start crying today. >> what do you really think? let me ask maggie on that. there was a harshness in this campaign and think some of it was -- i blame lots of things on citizens united and the outside money where almost all of that advertising was not only negative, but vicious. there is this turn off that went on and that you are seeing it particularly in the generation, your generation that got inspired in 2008. that was an amazing thing to watch. the hopy changy thing, my

favorite sarah palin line, but it was real. something terrible happened in the last six years. can you talk about this? >> this goes to paul awe point. the hope when for the democratic party, hope that when president obama got and we talked about this earlier and the first time they changed the dynamics of the electorate and that's not the case. i think it is largely citizens united. we saw in 2012 all of these candidates who were getting by with a suitcase and like $50 in their weekend if they had a benefactor. it kept them alive forever. the ads run against mitt romney in particular by people supporting the hopy changy candidate, president obama were def stated.

it was president obama. the joke among reporters became mitt romney killed a guy. that was what the ad said. >> i said it was effective.

>> after maggie is done, i want you to defend the campaigning. >> the obama advisors and they don't like the super pac and others who did. the obama approval rating was not great and unemployment rate was high. the campaign decided early on that they identified mitt romneys the likliest nominee. >> i blinked and it passed. they developed a strategy and they went through it methodically and effectively. some of the ads that romney supporters aired against newt gingrich were devastating. they did things like the super pac that was backing mitt romney

aired ads that deliberately did bags that were in the color of tiffany boxes because it was supposed to be a knock about his wife. this came up at one point. they were very, very rough. they basically tied newt gingrich -- i'm not laughing because it's funny. you will see why in a second. they tied him to china's one-child policy. the ads were really, really tough. you saw a proliferation of that and the statewides too. the todd aiken race would be one of them. that became the norm where as i referenced this before, everybody's favorable or unfavorable was below 50 or a net negative. the illinois governor had a net negative approval rating or favorable rating. that's okay because his net

negative was greater than pat quinn. and that was the same thing in florida. you saw this over and over. i think that is the turn off factor. it sounds cliche, but it's starting early and incredibly ugly. it has become baked in. race to the bottom used to get punished by voters where voters punish the person who was leading the race. now it's sort of expected. >> by the way, because when the outside groups do it, you can't blame the candidate. those guys. >> i don't want you to defend the advertising. if there is an ad that said if i wanted to raise your taxes, it would be true. nothing wrong with saying that. i am talking about stuff way beyond that. >> any good ad has to be about the public record or issues about your life and not the politicians. right? i saw one or two.

this whole cycle of negative ads that i thought crossed the line in georgia. michelle nunn was the president of george h.w. bush's foundation. she worked for the republican former president for a long time. purdue ran an ad that said that foundation gave money to terrorists. now they didn't. they built habitat for humanity homes. it was not on president bush's agenda to fund terrorists. it was a despicable ad. that was the only one i can think of. i'm for it, but i help run a super pac. 100% were negative and i lobbied to run one more so we could surpass 100%. i love negative ads. if they are fair and factual about your life, then i think

they are great. i'm sorry to be mean, but toughen up. you say the most vile things to each other. the first tweet i got, i was on for 30 seconds and someone said drink rat poison and jump in a wood chipper. >> he retweeted it. >> i do. >> it's redid you not ant. i was happy to retweet it and happy to not do it. there was science behind it. uc san diego. he has done research on this. the more negative the campaign, the higher the voter turn out. highest turn out was many years ago when win edwards recently of the federal penitentiary was running against david duke of the ku klux klan.

edwin had the greatest line. both wizards between the sheets. the bumper sticker had vote for the crook. it's important. show them the clansman and you can get high turn out. my opponent is so dumb is takes two hours to watch 60 minutes. >> seriously, as long as it's about your life, this is why they do it. because it works. i don't believe this myth that it depresses turn out. all the science said no. when they run the stupid issueless positive ads. here i am and here is my lovely wife louise. i can procreate and i should not be the senator. what? who cares. i wish we had -- i think political science is mixed, but that's for another day.

who do we have? can we go over ten minutes since we started late? anybody got a problem with that. i will go to 7:10. right there. >> i'm liz murphy, a second year evening. my question is what does it lock like in the spring with the republican caucus in the senate when you have ted cruz running or starting to run and you have possibly rand paul starting to run and coming up against the debt ceiling. what does mitch mcconnell do and do we start to see a large fraction within the senate republican caucus? >> hillary clinton gets a big smile. what do you think? and also take that and the immigration question. you have this real problem where i happen to agree with paul. the republicans have done this anti-obama thing for so long i don't see how they reverse it

any time quickly and mitch mcconnell has a hard job, much harder than before. he has to keep this caucus in line with the presidential candidates. while you are doing that, explain what is your party going do about immigration? if you solve all these, you will be president. >> like ted cruz, i think that disqualifies me. i think he is one of the most undervalued politicians. do not under estimate him. he is more strategic and frankly good at what he does than i think a lot of people give him credit for. everybody understands that some of these may be running for president. there is a number of stars

coming over to the republican caucus that i think are going to end up being pragmatic and bridging the gap between where some stand and others stand. cory gardner and joanie ernst. she is so unique. she was supported and held by everybody from the lack of birds to the mosque-covered stones. mccain calls ted cruz.

i think he is sending a message that he plans to be tough. will he be able? to actually implement that? we don't know. my money says yes. i think mitch mcconnell is more impressive and can be more persuasive. this is what this guy wanted to do his entire life. he is not going to let ted cruz mess with him much. i hate where this issue is right now.

i rate everything about it. i think some of us think that there is a chance with a republican house and republican senate of them coming together a pragmatic agreement. it's not going to be what i saw come out of the senate. it will be something that can pass muster in the house. it won't be something that everybody likes. it's going to i think it would be something that has sticks and stones. >> the issue i think will drive people just really crazy and mad. i think it will be difficult to control that. i don't know any legislature that likes the executive doing things they think should be done. here's a problem. everybody is in a box.

president obama and left with the latino community. he has been making promises for seven years and has been saying over and over again, wait your turn. there is another priorities. because of the elections and because of obamacare and because rahm emmanuel doesn't want it. he has been making promises since he was candidate obama and they haven't materialized. the latino community is frustrated. so you have got a constituency of immigration advocates of latino community that has no credibility on either of these two principals. a president obama who has run out of time and excuses. if he doesn't do the executive action, they will go chain himself to the white house fence and douse himself with gasoline and the white house is not going

to send anybody out there to turn him off. right now nobody knows and he wins. if republicans get something passed, he wins. right now. if he does executive action, it's the easiest out politically for republicans. we are not going to do it

because he did this and he killed the chances. we don't even have to try. right now if he if he delayed it to buy time which he would need to do with the congressional hispanic caucus and the latino leadership, if he did that, i think there would be such a burden on republicans to act. if he does executive action, there is no pressure. >> to the earlier point about the debt ceiling, she is totally right. we are likely to see. particularly in the case of cruz and paul gearing up for a presidential year. two people are pragmatic and trying to appeal to donors to big money donors.

the fact that the government shut down was such a mess and had the donor community up in arms and drove a lot of this establishment money towards trying to stamp out primary challenger this is past year. >> that shut down issue came up at every republican debate. one of my good friends is a debate coach. he was working on ten campaigns in this cycle. on the senate and another one was the florida governor's race. please do not. at every turn in every debate, the issue of the shut down came out and they had to defend against it. i think a lot of these newly elected senators understand that it wasn't a good thing.

>> it doesn't all take effect right away. i don't see how he hooz a choice but to do it now. the reason paul said about losing on gun control, i think he is out there to use a term and i think he can't pull back. the trigger will be this doesn't all take effect instantly and that will be the pressure. >> that's with a piece with net neutrality. he is leaning very forward out of the fcc. the net neutrality within seven days of the election. i'm telling you that you will have a strong executive order.

>> please. >> i don't think it's better words, but it's going to happen. the person in front of you, real quick, a few more people in before we close. >> my name is sebastian. thank you very much for coming. you talked about the republicans having to appeal very much to the right. having to appeal very much to the left. a pop lift message and what does it mean for the large chunk of people having to identify with one and who want a centrist candidate for president? >> hold on and the gentlemen in front of you if you can grab the mike. >> i have a question. i'm richard, also a senior in the school. i have a question about citizenship. i know from the numbers with the privates, and most of them had been negative. i want to know how that's going to affect the political campaigns in the future. is it more negative with no

punishment for races to the bottom. or not? >> do we have with the mike. >> this is more directed towards the freshman here. a self identified democrat, but this election i saw that the victory for the republicans in the senate was a victory for america. this is coming from me being a democrat. now it's the republicans versus obama in terms of a negotiation rather having this third party. what's your view on that? >> that's a great question. all three of them are great questions. >> the people who won they won campaigning.

ted in my state of texas won a couple of years ago. the "houston chronicle" said you will be a senator just like kay bailey hutchinson. i thought quite a good senator, but still -- >> how did ted cruz do in texas? >> landslide. >> a landslide? >> yes. >> he tried running against corning and corning crushed him. corning won by 62 points. he was not out there killing it for george p and george p won. paul loves this about the tea party won. i think that's wrong. >> senator cruz did not lie to the people. he was not senator yet. he said he would lay down before a trine stop obamacare. they renounced the endorsement. this is what's going to happen.

we go through them. they run one of the best campaigns in the country. she called for the impeachment for the president. she called him and i quote, he has become a dictator. >> that was not a crime. >> so it doesn't count. >> that's right. it doesn't count. you got it. >> tom cotton from arkansas. voted to shut down the government and voted to sue president obama and said i don't regret it. the senator from montana. he signed a letter who said i would never support any budget. he voted to sue barack obama. the senator-elect voted five times to shut down the government. he was a speaker of the house in raleigh and he said he would have never voted to end the shut down. can't even get the name right. the george was the last guy. cory gardner who ran as impressive of a race as anybody.

cory gardner voted and was ranked one of the ten most conservative members of the house by the national journal. they did not lie. maybe they did. i don't believe they did. they are talented and principaled people. it's not. they didn't say it was. we are just all just like -- you don't pea on my leg and me it's raining. >> the new republicans are to the right of ted cruz. they are not. when you are the congressman, you behave like a congressman. when you are a senator, you behave like a senator. i think cory gardner understands that it's more capital and understands that it's different to represent one district than to represent a purple state like colorado. a purple state like iowa. no, you don't. >> can we take off any of these questions. one was about the candidate and

in the primaries for president and i think you will have to wait to the general. i'm not sure there is going to be particularly if paul's hope is right and hillary gets a left challenge. >> that will assert her sentencinging and produce a more centrist democrats. one of the reasons i want a left wing challenge. >> if you have a bush and clinton campaign, you will see a lot of centrism. you get your wish. >> you will see a lot of policy. >> that is true. >> and citizens united, it's not that they are more negative. there so many. the conversation is moving away from television towards facebook. >> that's very true. the first contested election is thomas jefferson and john adams. in that election, jefferson

called adams a her mav dit. who lacks both the manly virtues of strength and the virtue of kindness. adams said jefferson was half black. he was off by about 230 years, but that was the first impression we had. that was way more than what we are doing now. this is america. we like negative campaigns. it's a patriotic thing to do. one will be fake populism and some will be real. the very last question. >> my name is from the candidate on the board. >> paul will do negative ads for you. >> go negative.

>> paul, you mentioned that the president is going to be about net neutrality. he tends to act as an activist more so as a he was for the assault to put pressure on congress and didn't really push the agenda. he often acted to save the strategy that is to suppress the crisis whether it's ukraine and i don't think anybody would say ukraine has changed and russia's population. i don't think that anything we have done in ukraine has changed that notion that we have a particular out come that we seek. yes, we won the escalation and that's in that direction. to the extent that the president

continues to act and that's the narrative and i don't know that this is correct or not, but to the extent that they are a cheerleader written by events, how does that affect the party going into 2016? >> it's a great point. i do think he is showing since the election as i mentioned. second, i can't let you. i spent a lot of time in ukraine and i worked for the forces there. we get so narcissistic. this was like a big thing in washington. he moved into georgia and one was a country and it was not like a threat.

the bible said who will answer an uncertain trumpet. part of the underlying critique that voters had and part of why my folks stayed home and why republicans are energized. >> i want to close by saying this panel was so good, nobody

needs either therapy or liquor although they are free to have either. the second is it may be the most cynic minded because if politics were more entertaining, turn out would be higher. i salute all three. i salute anna and paul and maggie and i invite you back here in november 2016. thank you all so much. >> oh, god. that would be great. >> republican house leadership will hold a news conference.

we plan on bringing that to you live on c-span 3. house minority leader nancy pelosi held a news conference. the election. i wonder if you gave any thought to stepping down as the leader. >> that's the second question, i've heard it from you a number of times. as i said, the most recent person asked, you've lost three times. why don't you step aside. you've heard that question on the last two times, and one time, i said, what was the day that any of you said to mitch mcconnell when they lost the senate three times in a row --

lost making progress three times in a row, aren't you getting a little old, mitch? why don't you step aside? have you you ever asked him that question? has any of you ever asked him that question? so i don't understand why that question should even come up. i'm here as long as my members want me to be here as long as there's a reason to be here. i'm not here on a schedule, on anything except a mission to get a job done. i'm so proud of the confidence my members have placed in me. my life and who i am is not dependent on things here. so i have liberty of -- if you want me here, i'm happy to be here. if you don't, i'm proud of what i have done together. but it's just as interesting as women, to see how many times is that is asked of a woman and how many times that is never asked of mitch mcconnell.

the c are c-span book tour takes american history on the road. traveling to u.s. cities to learn about history and literacy life. this weekend, we partnered with charter communications to madison, wisconsin. >> it is a glorious service its service for the country. the call coming to every citizen. it is an ending struggle, to make and keep government representative. >> bob la folette is probably one of the most important figures in wisconsin history and one of the most important in the 20th century of the united states. he was a reforming governor, he defined what progressivism is. he was one of the first to use the term "progressive." he was a united states senator who was recognized by his peers

in the 1950s as one of the five greatest senators in american history. he was a proponent of world war i. stood his ground and advocated for free speech. it was about the people. and after the civil war, america changed radically from a nation of small followers and small producers and small manufacturers and by the 1870s, 1880s, 1890s, we had concentrations of wealth, we had inequality, and we had concern about the influence of money in government. so he spent the later part of 1890s, giving speeches all over wisconsin. if you wanted a speaker for your club or your group, bob la folette would give a speech. he went to fairs, he went for

ever kind of event you could imagine and built a reputation for himself. by 1900, he was ready to run for governor, advocating on behalf of the people. he had two issues. one, the direct primary. no more selecting candidates at convention. two, stop the interests. specifically, the railroads. >> match all of our events from madison saturday noon eastern at c-span's book tv and american history on c-span3. health and human services secretary vialia burwell spoke at the center for american progress on monday about the upcoming open enrollment period in the health insurance marketplace and the efforts of her department to ensure the readiness of healthcare.gov. the open enrollment period for healthcare.gov is november 15th

this year to february 15th next year. this is about 45 minutes. well, good afternoon, everyone. i'd like to thank you for coming to center for american progress for this timely and important forum. we begin open enrollment for the aca next saturday and that will extend for three months through february 15th. so we're happy to have this opportunity to spend some time with secretary to talk about open enrollment and other aspects of the aca. but before we do that, as i

said, thank you for coming on the center for american progress. we're happy that you're here. and we're going to have a discussion up here. then later on there will be questions that we'll take from the audience. billy is going to be passing cards around in case you would like to write your question on a card, you'll be able to do that. then we'll have those questions at the end of the hour. the aca is currently providing about 10.3 million americans with quality, affordable health care individuals who did not have health care previously. more than 7 million have enrolled in the state and federal marketplaces. 8.7 million in medicaid and c.h.i.p. and 3 million more young adults being able to stay on their parents' plan and receive coverage in that way. so that equates to close to 19 million people benefiting today from the affordable care act.

but there's still a lot of work to be done. about 5 million americans fall in the medicaid gap because their governors in their states have failed to expand medicaid. so this is a timely forum and i want to take a moment just to say a few words about our guest, secretary burwell. secretary burwell is the 22nd secretary of health and human services having been confirmed in june of this year. but prior to her coming to hhs, she served as the director of the office of management and budget. and we had your successor, sean donovan here, just two weeks ago. secretary burwell has done a lot of things. she's been president of the

walmart foundation which she led efforts to fight hunger in america, empowering women and reaching millions of people through walmart's community presence. she helped the foundation surpass the $1 billion mark in total giving. secretary burwell has sent ten years at the bill and melinda gates foundation in seattle, and she's also served in the administration of president bill clinton. so secretary, we are happy to have you here. we have lots of questions and i'm sure you have lots of answers. but i want to begin with an easy question. just last friday the united states supreme court has decided to take a case that many believe could threaten premium tax credits for millions of americans thereby putting the aca in a death spiral, as some have chosen to use the term. what do you want consumers to know, and should they be

concerned as we head into this open enrollment period about this supreme court decision? >> i think the most important thing for consumers to know is that nothing has changed, that the tax credits that they'll be signing up for and the ones that they have, for those that are enrolled and want to stay enrolled, will be continuing. so as we go into open enrollment, nothing has changed. i think as the administration has said, we believe that the law stated that the tax credits are an important part of affordable health coverage and that is for all. >> so you believe that people should enter this enrollment period with a high level of confidence that what the aca promises to them will be there for them. >> that's correct. that's correct. i think the administration has been clear all along that we believe that that was the intention of the law and believe that that is where we will stay and be. >> well i've heard several authors of that law in recent

days say that that was in fact their intention. and if the congress intended it and the supreme court understands what the intention of congress was, your belief and the administration's belief is that the court will make the -- ultimately make the correct decision and this will no longer be a problem? >> that's correct. i think what's most important is that nothing has changed. as we go into this open enrollment which we'll be starting this saturday and glad that to see folks from a number of organizations, whether enroll america, planned parenthood, others of our community organizations who are out there making sure we'll be able to enroll folks, that nothing has changed. >> now, we all know that the initial rollout had had some problems. but the administration went to work and the ultimate result was more people actually enrolled and signed up than were expected to do so. but they had about six months to

do that. this enrollment period covers a shorter period of time and perhaps a more difficult task is confronting you. so let me ask you, you've been testing the healthcare.gov leading up to this enrollment period. how confident are you that people are going to have a good experience when they sign on or get in to healthcare.gov? >> as i've said a number of times, we are confident that we are going to have a successful open enrollment. and when we think about that, what is a successful open enrollment? there are really three fundamental elements of that. one is affordable choice and that is for the consumer. and the idea that the consumer has an ability to choose and have affordability. we know already that there's been a 25% increase in the number of plans participating in the marketplace. so that question of choice and affordability. the second thing is we want to continue to make progress on that fundamental number of

reducing the uninsured. when you think about one of the fundamental things when we talk about access in the affordable care act, we are talking about that number of uninsured. there are three ways to move that number. one is you move that number through people who have employee-based care. we're all for people who get unemployed and the unemployment number goes down, you can see people getting employed, that's a great way to do it. we're all for medicaid expansion. something else that you mentioned and believe that's another great way to expand the coverage and care. then finally, the issue of getting that care in the marketplace. so as we think about that idea of moving that uninsured, the third element of a successful open enrollment has to do with the consumer experience. and that consumer experience has two fundamental parts to it. one you touched upon in your question which is operational functioning. does the website work and are

people able to go in and get on the website. with regard to that piece of it, have been spending a tremendous amount of time to try to do some things differently. last year our testing went ten days. this year our testing is five weeks. and our issuers and insurers have been in testing, testing different things. we've tested load testing. we've tested end to end. in addition, have also focused on security deeply and made sure we're bringing the best practices from the private sector and whether that's bringing our colleagues at dhs in or the fbi in, to the best practices in the private sector, which include things like we actually scan every day. in addition to that, we have people try and hack us. we have people try and do that. as well as once a quarter having folks come in and do security checking. the last piece of this consumer piece -- because this is what is a successful open enrollment -- is the concept that the consumer has a better interaction. things are simpler, faster, and more intuitive.

for those who are returning to re-enroll in that state-covered part of it, for those coming back, for most of them 90% of the information is going to be pre-populated. what does that mean? you don't have to keep entering your address. all that information you entered from last year, 90% of it will be there to make that easier when you're coming back to check things out. the second place is actually those new folks coming in. for those folks what we tried for 70% of the people we're going to see a situation where they have an application that has -- it's gone from 76 screens down to 16 screens. in addition, going to be easier to use mobile applications because we know many of the young people that we're trying to reach use mobile applications. so that ability to connect there. so those are some of the things we're doing to get us to a successful open enrollment. >> well, there are people out there who are opposed to the aca, do not want it to succeed and are looking for ways to

attack it. and to create suspicion or doubt perhaps in the minds of the consumer. so can you tell me, as we sit here today, that a person who applies does not have to worry about their private medical health care information becoming public? >> so in terms of the issue of security, it is one i touched on a little bit, but it is a very important high priority for us as we work on the affordable care act and the question of the marketplace. what we've been doing is putting in place, as i said, the best practices in both the private and the pun sector. we're applying -- we've added new teams to our existing team. making sure we've done everything possible to test and try for that security. we all know, and we've seen it in both the public and private sector, that there are thins that can happen.

so our job is to put in place everything we can, all that testing that i've said. but then we can't predict, and there are many malicious people out there but we stand ready and have practice drills so when something does happen we can act and react quickly if something did happen. and the last thing i would say, is just at this point, we are fortunate that we have not had a malicious attempt on people's private information. could that change? it could. but to date we haven't had that and have put in place both preparation and an ability to deal. >> so it sounds as if you feel as if you're ready for this open enrollment period to begin and that's gratifying. now you mentioned one of the ways that people are getting health care is through the expansion of medicaid. having been the governor of the state of ohio, having been succeeded by a conservative republican governor, governor john kasich, i was thrilled. i congratulated him when was a conservative governor he chose

to expand medicaid to the people of my state of ohio so that thousands would be covered. unfortunately, that hasn't been the case in some other states and that's something that those of us here at the center for american progress are concerned about because our position is every american should have access to high-quality health care. and i know that's your goal as well. so that's an issue that will continue to be of concern. will it not? that there are people in many states in this country that fall within that medicaid gap and do not get access to coverage. >> yes. one of the core priorities since i have gone to the department in terms of the space of the affordable care act. we think about the marketplace and the importance of bringing that number of uninsured down through the marketplace. but as i said, medicaid expansion is another very important tool, and it's

something that as secretary i have been focused on in july, less than a month after i was confirmed, went to tennessee to speak with the national governor's bipartisan gathering to talk to both governors and make sure both parties, all governors, to say i'm ready to work with you. we want to expand medicaid. we understand different states have different needs. we saw pennsylvania expand in its own way. we saw iowa expand in its own way. we saw arkansas expand in their own way. i wanted the governors to know we understand and respect different states have different needs. and so i'm personally engaged with a number of conversations, a number of those conversations have been reported on, and going to continue to work on that. last week i went and spoke to the medicaid directors of all 50 states because i want them to know the importance and priority of their work, both in terms of this question of expansion as well as the work they do every day to innovate in the health care space and deliver well on the taxpayer dollar. >> let me ask you this question about the consumer experience

and those who have already enrolled, than those who enrolled last year. my understanding is that if they do nothing, their enrollment will be automatically renewed. and so some people may think, well, if it's going to be automatically renewed, i should do nothing. but it has been pointed out to me -- and i'd like your opinion on this -- that it's important for people who are already enrolled to go back and look at their options going forward because they may be able to find a plan that is better and cheaper. maybe not, but it is important that they at least have that option and understand that option. is that correct? >> i think that is a very important part. that's why right now, and as of saturday, and many of the folks that are here know that it is important as we are talking about staying covered to encourage people to go in and make sure that they check and make sure they check and make sure their information is updated and make sure that they are making the best choice for

them in terms of different options. when there is a 25% increase in plans coming on, there may be something that would work better for you. that may be in terms of either the type of coverage or it may be in terms of the cost of coverage which is something that is very important to people and we know that's something that many people are making choices and decisions on. we want to encourage everyone to do that before december 15th. because that's the point of the auto reenrollment, that you referred to earlier in your question, that that will just start happening. yesterday we put up window shopping on the site already so that people can go in. you can enter -- i did it yesterday. you enter in a zip code and you can go from and you can see and look at different plans. you can sort by cost of premium. you can also sort by deductible.

so as you're trying to think through and understand in your region what is it that you are looking for -- so making that shopping a little easier for the consumer so that even those who are re-enrolling can go in and do that. >> yes. and i think it is important for people to understand that because although they have coverage that they're satisfied with, they may be able to get a better deal. so it's worth checking. i'm glad you were able to clarify that. let me ask you this. the republicans have overtaken the senate. some of the leadership is highly critical of the aca. there have already been comments about the things that may be done once the new congress convenes to go after the 30-hour work week requirement, the medical device tax. the individual mandate which is so critical to the success of this program.

let me ask you. are these attacks of concern to you? and in your judgment do you believe the last election was an expression of the american people being negative toward the aca? >> so, i am obviously not an elected official. not a politician. and will turn to how i think about this question overall. the affordable care act was passed -- there was bipartisan agreement about the three basic premises of the act. and those are -- affordability, quality, and access. and so when i think about the question of pieces or parts, what i believe is, we've made progress. quality, 115,000 fewer readmissions. need to make more progress there, but that's an example of quality of care.

people aren't being re-admitted. the question of affordability, whether that is the fact that many people were paying $82 in a premium last year or the affordable care act made the opportunity for over 8 million seniors that are part of medicare to save over $11 billion. that's what some people refer to as the doughnut hole. or the fact that as the american taxpayer, and in my old omb job, we saw medicare spending be $116 billion less than the trajectory it was on before so that affordability is there. the last one is the issue of access. and 10.3 fewer adult americans than last year are now uninsured. the idea that 10.3 million more americans are not uninsured. that's the facts. those are the substance. as we think about the go forward, that's the conversation we want to have. i think the president's been clear. the idea of repeal of the affordable care act is not

something that this administration will let happen. what we will do is work to improve. if people have ideas in places where they believe we can increase affordability, quality or access, let's have that conversation and we would welcome that conversation. but with regard to other things, let's measure them. let's measure them substantively against what we actually agree on are the fundamental premises of what we want to try and improve as a nation. as far as the conversation, i hope that the conversation will ship to a substantive conversation about the three things that we can agree on and how do we move forward on those. >> let me pose another criticism that may be relevant to this discussion of whether or not there is trust in what people hear from the administration. what do you say to critics who

say you held off publishing updated rates until after the election because you were concerned that those new rates would equate to bad news for the consumer? >> with regard to the issue of transparency which is something that i have talked a little bit about since i have been secretary. whether it's the numbers -- we put out exactly how many letters we were sending out with regard to there were data matching issues. there were issues around immigration. we said how many people we were sending letters out to. it was a very large number. as folks may remember, the initial -- it was 900,000-some. with regard to income, with regard to income data, put those numbers out. we put out effectuated enrollment. that's what everyone said they wanted to know. not the number who signed but

the number of people paid and getting insurance. we had to put out the new effectuated enrollment. that number is 7.1 million. that's the number of people currently enrolled and paying in the marketplace. in addition, today in terms of this transparency issue, what we are trying to do is make sure we're clear. today in an embargoed basis, the team briefed and i talked about what's our goal. i talked about the goal broadly. people want to know how many people are going to be effectuated, signed up and pay in the marketplace. we try and give you information that we have that's accurate. on that one we had to think through. i wanted to understand, we needed to build what those numbers should be. so what we did was we had this many people enrolled. right now that number is 7.1. how many of those people do we think will re-enroll. how do you get to that number. the analysts and the insurers

and folks had a range from 70% to 90%. we came back, talked to a lot of folks, said that number is going to be about 83%. that's where we put it in terms of the number and percentage of people who re-enroll. how do you get the rest of the number? the total number. it's new people who are coming to the marketplace. so what we did was, we took the time to size that, and the sizing of that has to do with how many people are eligible that aren't eligible for medicaid, that are in that space. and then took that number and created a range. and we think that range is about 9 million to 9.9 million. then because i know i will get the question so i may as well answer it now. a range is hard to manage, too. what are you doing? what number? what number? so what we do was looked at a number of different analysts in terms of growth of market. when have these different

markets, whether it's c.h.i.p., different markets, when have they gotten to their stabilization point. cbo had numbers out there. 13 million that would go to 25 over a three-year period. what's that right trajectory. we looked at that. then we look at actually what we have. which is we actually have data. one of the predictions was that people would move from employer based coverage to the marketplace. that's been much lower than the prediction. so we have that number. we also have what the market did last year and we had a huge growth in the market. as you initially started this conversation, and what we did was settled that probably the market will grow between 25% and 30% this year. if you take that number and you add that number, we said around 28%. if you take those two numbers, the number that we are going to -- your question was with regard to transparency. and what i'm trying to do is, with regard to the numbers, the

data, the information, we want it to be accurate, we want it to be analytically based and move it on to those folks who were writing letters that would come off the system, that's not news that's good for us. >> i'm just looking at one of the questions. i didn't want to get into this quite so early but the question is so relevant. it's from someone in the press and it says, how do you respond to critics say the administration moved the goal post with today's enrollment estimate. and i think you tried to respond to that. was there anything you'd like to add? >> yeah, i'd be happy to add. and what i'd add is, where do people disagree? the question about the substance in the affordable care act, where do you disagree? do you think that re-enrollment should be greater than 83%? is that where you disagree?

it is not about a number. it is about the actual analytics to get to the number. do you disagree and think a market should grow more than 28% in its next year. one of the things i asked the team was to go, look, let's see what growth of new products in this space traditionally are. how do we think about that. how do you think about it. so how i respond to that is also always hearing questions, legitimate questions. we spent a lot of time i think hearing -- i obviously spent a lot of time with the team down to the numbers trying to press and road-test on that. so the question i would just say is one of the things with the cbo numbers -- everyone knows i come from omb so i have a tremendous amount of respect for my colleagues at cbo and have worked with them two different administrations and have a great respect. one of the things is the question of that line. they suggested you'll get to -- if you accept that the 25 million number is where you will level off, they went in three years. what happens if you do that over a different period of time? and how do you think about that and how do you think about the

new information that we have about what happened in re-enrollment? so the question of what one's goal should be, to me i came in and asked the team, let's analytically build it. that's what we've done. and this is where we've come out. >> let me suggest, and this is just my thinking, i'm not sure it's yours, but let me suggest that with the continued attacks on the aca from various quarters, from individuals and groups that are opposed to it, do you feel that those attacks are having an effect or will have an effect on the numbers of people who will choose to try to enroll or enroll? is it creating doubt in their minds that the aca is here to stay? what's your personal opinion about the effects of the

negative attacks that the aca has endured and it looks as though it will continue to endure for the foreseeable future? >> i think there are two important things in terms of this question of the attacks. i think about it in two ways. one, i think about the numbers and then i thing about the stories because i think those are equally powerful, in terms what is going to keep this moving forward. and that's not to say -- i should say when you're being -- when it's is the numbers and that went over, 10.3 million people, fewer people are uninsured. the numbers you gave. people who are 26, under 26 and on their parents' policy, for everybody in this room who

actually had employer-based insurance but now doesn't have to worry about pre-existing conditions. for everybody in this room who had that insurance before but now has preventative care that they didn't. those kinds of things i think are going to make a big difference and the other things that are going to make a difference are people's individual stories and we're joined today by a person who has one of those stories. who came here from philadelphia today and has one of those incredibly important stories of her coverage and what it has meant to her and her life in terms of a very healthy working out, eating right, doing all the right things. but then her mother encouraged her to sign up and she did and ended up needing the coverage both from a health perspective and a financial perspective. so with voices like ann, that is going to carry the day. >> ann, how old are you? 28. you really want to reach that age group, do you not?

in terms of signup period? >> that's right. ann is courageous to be here today. she's in the middle of her treatments. but it's that courage that's going to make the difference. >> you know, madam secretary, i have been puzzled, having been the governor of a large state, at the governors who have made the decision not to expand medicaid. and, you know, i assume they're acting in good faith based on what they think is best for their states, but i know in ohio, our hospital system, our children's hospital system, the entire hospital system, would have suffered greatly had medicaid expansion not been pursued by governor casey. can you just speak to the effect -- many hospitals are closing in rural areas and in other areas because of the decision. so could you just speak to that?

>> well, i think when one thinks about medicaid expansion, it's about the individuals that are going to get covered which is a very important part of it. but it is also about the economics of medicaid expansion. and the pressure that not having that expansion puts on especially rural hospitals. i'm from a state like west virginia where there are a lot of rural hospitals. and the pressure it puts. that is why so many hospitals in so many states support it because the indigent care, they'd rather have that care being paid for. and it makes a difference to the bottom lines. there are estimates out there from the council on economic advisors that those states that have medicare expansion are going to get 350,000 more jobs. and so the economic issues, as well as the care and health issues, are very important as we have this conversation, and we recently saw the most recent state to come in was pennsylvania with a republican governor come in and over 400,000 people will now be eligible for care in the state of pennsylvania.

i think folks know that as has been said in conversations with a number of other republican governors as well. >> i just know that our hospital system in ohio was deeply involved in encouraging this expansion. and i've been a little curious because, you know, i think people respect their hospitals. and i've been a little curious as to how governors are going to deal with their local hospitals if they continue to choose not to expand medicaid because, as you say, it's an economic issue. not only affects the individual person who's not getting coverage but affects it the entire health care system within that state and that's a serious matter. i have a question here. another question from the press. what does the administration's enrollment projection say about how it is going to reach new

enrollees. what's going to motivate them to sign up in 2015 after deciding not to do so in 2014? >> i think that question actually reflects something that's true which is the next group of people will be harder to reach. i think that's true and that's fair and i think it is also true that we're on a shorter time frame. last time it was six months and this time it is three months. but i think in terms of -- there are two parts to that question. one is kind of push and pull, demand and supply. and in terms of the question of demand and how we think about the fact that the benefits and the affordability and the question of ease of application and speed and intuitiveness, all of those things, things that we're going to do to try to bring those people in. in addition, this room happens to have a number of people who are extremely important to helping bring those people in,

helping educate those people about what the benefits are, what the costs are and how to do it. and the groups that have experience did this last year are working across the nation to make sure. the other thing that i think is going to help is the stories. the other thing is for anyone who wants to, this is the new enrollment, this question was new enrollment, not re-enrollment. this is the get-covered, not the stay-covered group. i just want to remind everyone because i think it is really important, you can go to healthcare.gov. you can actually go and find where there are local people who will assist you in your local community, individuals to help you, many of whom are from the groups here represented today. and then the last, there is a 1-80091. and one of the things we're going to do to address what's embedded in that question. make sure there are lots of ways people can do it. there's lot of help to get. when you do it, it is easy and affordable.

>> what are you most concerned about, madam secretary, in terms of this enrollment period? >> so i think in terms of this enrollment period, there are obviously, many details and many thing, but two things that i think are important, and i just touched upon it. one is the idea that we do have a shorter period of time and we have a group of folks we're moving to the next group that may be a little harder to reach. that's one concern. the other concern that i have is, this is actually the first full round. and i know everyone thinks this is the second open enrollment. but because of the topic which we discussed, which is re-enrollment, this is the first time that you're going to go through the whole -- we have to technologically and from a consumer perspective both -- both of those things i think are challenging. any time you do things for the first time it's hard. and you worry. and that's one of the things. talked about all the planning and preparation we've done.

we've been testing for an extended period of time. we've load tested. we've done all of those things. but i also know that we are going to have things that will go wrong. the private sector, the public sector, any time when you have a system that's complicated, when you have a product -- health care is difficult in this employer based market in terms of people understanding all the different pieces and parts. this is hard. we will have things that won't go right. we will have outages. we will have down time. but the most important thing we can do about that is make sure that we are prepared. that's one of the other things we've been testing, is, you know, we run tabletop exercises for what you do when something goes wrong. and we do that so that it will happen. something will happen. what we need to be able to do is be transparent, fast and get it fixed. those are some of my concerns and also how we are addressing some of those. >> so i'm a person who already has health insurance. why should i care about this?

>> i think you should care about it for any number of reasons. first of all, in terms of the things that happened and the benefits that were received when the affordable care act was passed, and whether that's the up to 26 year olds being on coverage. the fact that there are no bans for preexisting conditions. the fact that there is more affordable health care and that will work for everyone. the fact that as we think about the economics we just talked about, those are economics we all benefit from. when fewer people come to emergency rooms and have care, we benefit from that in our system. it's about your own personal coverage and economics. the other piece of the economics i would say are actually important are the economics actually as a taxpayer. because one of the parts of the affordable care act that i think continues to sometimes not be focused on is affordability for the individual. but it's important in terms some

of the changes that have been put in place to try and slow some of the growth in medicare. >> and aren't there provisions within the aca that have nothing to do specifically with getting coverage, but that offer projections for people that do have insurance? or, say, i'm in a job and my company goes bankrupt and my lose my job and i lose my health care. there's certain protections that apply to everyone whether they are receiving health care through the exchanges or not, are there not? >> that's correct. in terms of trying to make sure there's downward pressure on premiums, all premiums. >> so, another question we received. you've alluded to this. but how confident are you that the website will work on saturday? and i think you've spokenen to that. you're as confident as you feel you can be because you've gone

through all the -- there's another question here that deals specifically with the end-to-end testing, something that i don't really understand. you mentioned more time for end-to-end testing. can you say more about that? we'll leave the last minutes of this event to take you live to the capitol. john boehner was reelected as speaker today. live coverage. well, good afternoon. americans have trusted republicans with control of both the house and the senate. i think we're humbled by this opportunity. i'm proud of our leadership team that's assembled here, together, our focus will continue to be listening to the american people, by making their priorities our priorities. now, we've got an opportunity in

the coming months to do some important things. and i think we've already made it clear that we'll start with those jobs bills that we've passed through the house. almost all have been on bipartisan basis that sit in the united states senate today. we decided not to wait on one of them and that's the keystone pipeline. the house will vote tomorrow to build the keystone pipeline. hopefully, the senate will pass it as well. this is a vote for lower energy costs and create more american jobs. listen, finding common ground is not going to be easy. but for the sake of the american workers i hope that the president will sign this bipartisan bill without delay. >> well, i'll start by congratulating the new leadership team. and i want to thank also by thanking my constituents for giving me an opportunity to serve another two years.

the election was a very large election. we must not md lead into what it said. the american public have brought from obamacare to the va to benghazi. the challenge that this government has had and incompetency. our mission as house republicans is to change that. to move america in the right direction. and we'll watch and see what we start with tomorrow as the speaker talked about keystone pipeline. it's jobs. it's the economy. it's moving us forward. you will find that, as we walk into the new year, the house and senate will work together. we have a number of bills already sitting that we can move to the president's desk. we ask for an opportunity that this president starts anew. that both houses and the president work together to put america first. i made a promise when i took the leadership job a few months ago, and we will keep that. the house republicans will have the wisdom to listen, but the

courage to lead. >> it's an honor to be reelected by my colleagues to serve as the house majority w.h.i.p. as well as people southeast of louisiana give me an opportunity to serve for another two years. and we're excited about the opportunities we had to work together to get our country back on track. if you look back to the election, the president said this would be a referendum on his agenda. and i think the public took him to his word there. if you also look throughout our races in the house, both the returning members of congress and our new members. we talked about the bills, over 350 bills that we passed out of the house to get our country back on track that were stuck in the senate. and i think the public also went to the polls and said that they want to get a congress and a washington that works for them. and when you look at this new freshman class and this large house majority, largest since the 1920s. and i would argue one of the most diverse congresses we've ever had, we've got some great

people with great energetic ideas who came here to roll up their sleeve, and get to work solving problems for the american people. i'm excited about that opportunity to be part of this leadership team that's stronger than ever and more focused on the problems that this country is facing to get our country back on track. i, too, am excited to congratulate the new leadership team of the 114th congress. and this is a team that is committed to listening. committed to advancing real solutions. and committed to making life better for every person in this country. that is what focuses us. it's a team that represents every corner of the country, diverse backgrounds. diverse experiences. but we are united in a belief and a promise of this country. and we're going to be working every day to advance those policy solutions that are going to improve people's lives. that are going to create more opportunities. i want a lot of people to keep more of their hard-earned

paychecks, moms and dads and recent graduates and veterans so that they have more opportunities. as i i think about the new congress, i think, you know, beyond the traditional just left versus right, or even republican versus democrat debate, this really is a debate about the future of this country and what kind of a country are we going to have and the opportunities that are going to be made available for every person in this country. and we're about a bright future, the promise of america. i look forward to the challenges ahead. >> well good afternoon. i'm greg wheldon, chair of the national committee i want to thank my constituents for reelecting me and my colleagues for reelecting me to head up the nrcc. we had a big night. if you catch the bus, you got to govern. you got to drive the bus and we're going to do that as republicans. from a political perspective, we

want seats deep in blue territory. at least ten seats were seats that president obama carried in the primary election. some as much as 17%, our candidates won with 60. from maine to samoa, republicans were elected across the country. new faces, great diversity. the youngest woman ever elected to congress. incredible opportunity for us to grows a party and we did. we know '16 will be a different election year. we start right in. we got a new red zone. we have an opportunity to gain seats on top of what we have. our mission will be to retain and gain. we hope we can do that. but first, we have to govern, thank you. >>ly, i'm luke messer, i'm the newly elected policy chair. a new member of this team. it's an exciting opportunity to be here. i certainly want to thank the voters in indiana 6th congressional district. none of us get to serve in these roles without being first sent by the people we represent in

our district. on election night just a few days ago, the american people spoke loudly. they've given our party an opportunity and they expect you us to deliver. this congress is serious-minded about jump-starting the u.s. economy. that makes a difference with the american people. that starts tomorrow with a vote on the keystone pipeline. and that's just the beginning in the days and coming month. >> hi, my name is meeny walters, i'm 52 and i'm a freshman. i'm very excited to be the voice for the freshman class at the leadership table. we have a wonderful diverse group of new members, and i'm looking forward to getting to meet them and to know them. and i'm grateful for the opportunity to be working with the left of this group. >> i'm going to take a couple questions. luke? >> speaker boehners there talk

from the conference that that language would prohibit the president from moving an executive order pertaining to immigration, do you support that language? >> no, the president is threatening to take unilateral action on immigration. even though in the past he's made clear he didn't believe he had the constitutional responsibility for authority to do that. i'll just say this, we're going to fight the president tooth and nail, if he continues down this path. this is the wrong way to govern. this is exactly what the american people said on election day they didn't want. and, so, all the options are on the table. having discussions with members. there's no decisions made as to how we will fight this if he proceeds. [ inaudible ]. >> all options are on the table. we'll have a conversation with our members and let you know. >> you said the government shutdown should be off the

table. a government shutdown is not good for the country. >> our goal here -- our goal here is to stop the president from violating his oath of office and violating the constitution. it's not to shut down the government. >> do you believe there's a mechanism by which you can stop him? >> we are looking at all options that are on the table. our goal here is to stop the president from doing this. we'll find out. [ inaudible question ]. >> well, you know, every administration needs this and needs that. needs all kinds of things, you know, if he wants to go off on his own, there are things that he's just not going to get. nice to see you.

you heard the house republican leadership there. the senate republican conference has elected its leadership team as well for the 114th congress. mitch mcconnell of kentucky will be the senate republican leader. he'll be the majority leader in. john cornyn of texas, majority w.h.i.p. john thune of south dakota. the conference chairman. roy blunt of missouri, vice conference chairman. roger wicker, mississippi, national editorial chair. and john barrasso of wyoming will serve as policy chairman. senate democrats also holding elections for leadership during the next session of congress that convenes in january. harry reid will be the minority leader. he's now the majority leader, he will continue to lead the democrats, however. dick durbin of illinois will be the assistant leader. chuck schumer of new york,

policy chair. patty murray of washington is democratic conference secretary. debbie stabenow of michigan will be ddvp vice chair. and elizabeth warren of massachusetts will serve as strategic policy adviser to the dpcc. house minority leader nancy pelosi held a news conference earlier today. one question concerned her future as minority leader. her response, she suggested there was a gender bias to the question. >> -- leadership after democrats lost seats last week in the election. i'm wondering if you gave any thought to stepping down as the leader, and what you thought about -- >> okay. why don't we start with the second question because i've heard it from you, from you all, a number of times and what i said to the most recent person asked. he said you've lost now three times. why don't you step aside. we've heard that question the

last two times and one time. i said, what was the day that any of you said to mitch mcconnell when they lost the senate three times in a row, lost making progress and taking back the senate three times in a row, aren't you getting a little old, mitch? should you step aside? have you ever asked had him that question? have you ever asked him that question? so i don't understand why that question should even come up? i'm here, as long as my members want me to be here. as long as there's a reason to be here. i'm not here on a schedule. on anything, except a mission to get a job done. i'm so proud of the confidence my members have placed in me. my life and my -- who i am is not dependent on being here. so i have the liberty if you want me here, i'm happy to be here. if you don't, i'm proud of what we have done together.

but it just is interesting as a woman to see how many times that question is asked of a woman, and how many times that question is never asked of mitch mcconnell. this weekend, on c-span, nonie darwish author of "arabs for israel." >> i arrived monday night 7:00 in the morning. a arrived at my home in los angeles. and i awoke 6:00 a.m. l.a. time to seat second airplane hitting the twin tower live. and i was traumatized. because that was when i knew that this is terrorism. it's not one airplane accident. so, i went to the phone, and i called many people in egypt. i wanted them to comfort me, especially after i learned that

muhammad atta, the leader of the terrorists was from cairo, the same city i was from. i called around eight people, and they all said the same thing, even though some of them don't know the other. nonie, how dare you say this was done by arab s or muslims? don't you know this is a jewish conspira conspiracy? the jews did it. and i hung up the phone and wept. i suddenly felt that i cannot relate to my culture of origin anymore. and this is a very hard feeling when you -- when you can't relate to how the people you love and you're brought up with for many, many years of your life, that they don't see the reality as it should be. >> her entire interview sunday

evening at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q & a. on booktv we're featuring new releases. karen armstrong on religion. president bush on the biography of his father and john mccain on unsung military heroes. and the world war i symposium. find that on c span.org. call 202-626-3400. e-mail us at comment comments @cspan.org. or send a tweet, #comments. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. virginia senator tim kaine told an audience yesterday at the wilson center that there is currently no legal authority

sufficient enough to support action in combatting isis. and that the mission against isis is not covered by wording or intent. panelists discussed the congressional action, providing authorization process and what constituted war on military interventions. this is 1 hour and 10 minutes. good morning, everyone, who are physically here, trying to get through secretary, watching live-streaming or on c-span, i'm jane harman, the president and ceo of the wilson center and a recovering politician, having served nine terms in the united states congress. it's my pleasure to welcome you to a very important national conversation on congress. the presidency and military intervention. last week, i was at harvard law school, an institution i attended decades back. and i was teaching a seminar, an authorization for war.

it was a three-hour seminar, and of course, i didn't think i was skilling enough to do this all by myself. skyped in a man sitting in the front row is a partner practice at a major law firm, was the former general counsel of the cia and counsel to the senate armed services committee under senator sam nun and knows about this subject, as to the members of this panel. jeff, again, my thanks for making me look good. i hope the rest of you do the same. article one, section eight of the constitution says, congress shall have the power to declare war. but up to this point, this congress has been awol. we're at war, that's the administration's term, with isil, a new enemy, but the administration is relying on a decade old authorities. though the president has decided

to seek a new authorization to use military force, aumf, his administration insists that the old authorizations apply, too. i voted for them. i voted for the 2001 aumf and i voted for the very controversial 2002 iraq aumf. this isn't the fight those of us who voted for those aumfs intended to authorize. this is a fight against a new enemy in a new country. more than a year ago, right here at the wilson center, senator bob corker, who will become, i think, the new chair of the senate foreign relations committee, warned that congress had no ownership whatsoever of our foreign policy. he was right then and he's right today. and we aren't the only people saying this. half a dozen new aumfs have been introduced by both parties in both houses, including by our

keynote speaker today, senator tim kaine of virginia. very astute observers have flagged just how unprecedented president obama's approach is. in an article in the new republic about a month ago, they call this president, not president bush 43, the master of unilateral war. i'm sure jack will speak to that today. with midterm elections and three months of air strikes behind us, i think it's pastime to address this issue. the president has realized that welcoming congress to act isn't asking congress to act. and just last week he requested new tailored authorization from congress. but if the president was right to ask, and he surely was right, then congress also needs to do. the duck and blame game has to end. it's time to govern, and in my

view that governing and that process ought to begin now in the lame-duck session. the pending bills raise important issues. i'm sure we will discuss them. should the old aumfs be repealed? what should the new scope of any new authority be and how will we pay for operations that have already cost nearly $1 billion? we will move that dialogue forward today. but the american people deserve representation in this debate. they ought to get it now through congress. with that, i would like to introduce our wonderful keynote speaker, senator kim kaine of virginia. since he was elected to represent virginia a few years ago he has made his mark. he has worked across party lines with john mccain to bring the 1973 war powers resolution up to date. this september, he introduced

and he has been advocating for his proposal for a new aumf against isil. after his remarks, approximately ten minutes, senator kaine will join me and jack goldsmith who will be introduced shortly in a conversation with jim schuto, the only journalist to imbed in 2003 in the iraq invasion? >> with u.s. special forces. >> okay. former chief correspondent for abc in london and author of a book entitled "against us the new face of america's enemies in the muslim world." we are happy to have them with us today. on the first day of the lame-duck session -- i hate that name. on the first day of congress coming back into session, it is the right time not only to have

this discussion but to call for action in congress. thank you very much. >> thank you. [ applause ] thank you and good morning. if past history is in i guide, i'm hoping a lame session will be followed by a verile duck. i want to thank jane for the introduction and the opportunity to be here to talk about an issue i'm passionate about. hard to say everything i want to say in ten minutes. let me try to say three things. first -- i never do this. i'm going to talk about why this matters to me so much. it's not relevant to whether what i propose is good or bad. i went to the wreath laying ceremony monday. i was at veterans day events yesterday. that made me want to talk about why this matters to me. i want to talk about what's at stake, both the constitutional allocation of powers between a president and congress but an underlying moral value that we

don't talk about. third, i want to talk about what we need to do. i have an immediate term, short-term and long-term. people come in to elected office with passions and interests. i have many. but i only have one obsession, and this is it. my obsession with how a nation makes a decision to go to war and what are the right processes that would engage congress, the president and the american public. it's an obsession of mine. will focus on this as long as i'm blessed to be here. the obsession started when i was lieutenant governor of virginia and watched the debate around the iraq authorization in october of 2002. i was lieutenant governor. i didn't know anything about the intel. i assumed everything i heard was true. but even assuming it was all true -- some of it turned out later not to be true. i was troubled with the fact that a vote was being pushed right before a midterm with no apparent reason for the timing. remember, we didn't go into iraq

until march of 2003. what explained having a big debate and vote -- i was listening to it -- and doing it in october of '02? i concluded that the most likely explanation was a desire to hopefully make a midterm election work out better. let's push the timing so that it happened. it turned out to be very smart politics in the sense that the midterm election did work out better than it might otherwise have worked out. but i think it turned out to be very, very problematic. i would put that vote -- i've cast votes that i would take back. i put that vote up with maybe the kansas-nebraska act as a low moment for congress. that started my obsession. i became governor -- one of the jobs of governor is to be commander and chief of the virginia guard and air guard. that's a part of the governor's job that nobody talks about. doesn't go on the bumper sticker. when you are in two wars and you have thousands of people being deployed multiple times in many cases, as a governor you go to the funerals, the deployments,

homecomings. i visited iraq and afghanistan to see our troops there. one of my cabinet secretary sons was badly injured, a church member had a son killed. another cabinet secretary son came back suffering significant challenges as a result of his service. along the way i have both a son and nephew who joined the military. this is up close and personal to us in virginia. it's very up close and personal. so my thought about the policy and the fact that it's so present to us in virginia and even in my own family has turned this into a real obsession of mine. it's an important issue. what's at stake here? first thing -- we have one of the real experts on this in jack on this panel is the constitutional allocation of powers. how she we make a decision to go to work? the framers had such a clear view of this. it was smart. they were virginians. forgive me for leaning heavy

into them. it's important when you look at the constitution -- jane read the section from our article one about congress's power to declare war. we are used to our constitution. we forget how abnormal it is, how unusual it is. war prior to our constitution was for the king. it was for the executive. that was what the world history had been. so the framers of the constitution stood in the flow of history and tried to alter it a different direction. and put the decision making powers about war into a legislative branch, taking it away from a monarchy, away from an executive. it's congress that declares war. it's the president who is the commander and chief once a war is declared. the last thing you need is 535 commanders in chief. but in describing why it was done this way, these folks were very clear. george mason of virginia during the debate about ratification said this provision is meant to be a facilitator of peace, not of war. it's meant to be a clogger of

war by handing the power to congress. principal drafter james madison, ten years after the constitution was final, wrote a letter to jefferson and said, our constitution supposed what the history of all governments demonstrates, that's it's the executive that's the branch most interested in war and most prone to it. it's for this reason that we have put the question of war in the legislative branch. another virginian, one of our first presidents, thomas jefferson was confronted with a war similar to what we're dealing with now, quasi terrorist, grappled with what congress said, what the constitution said about the allocation powers. jefferson knew as president and commander in chief, i can defend the nation immediately. as our ships were being attacked, he could tell the commanders of the ships, you have to defend yourselves. he didn't need congress for that. but at some point he decided, you kn