thank you. that's very nice. good afternoon and welcome to our panel discussion called who gets the money? and as bob bixby and i were observing before the discussion began, it became a whole not more interesting after tuesday's results. thought maybe talking about gridlock and nothing happening and repeats of what has gone on for the past four years but now it's a new ball game with the election of donald trump to the presidency. focusing on the budget and

appropriations. but flying higher because we have a panel of smart people here. you can see the full bios in the program but quick introductions. alice rivalan, senior fellow of economic attitudeies and as most of you know director of the office of manager and budget in the bill clinton administration and -- of the federal reserve. next is robert bixby, executive director of the concorde commission. and next to bob is leo abrutzi, economist intelligence unit, part of the economist group.

stan, a blogger for forbes, the excusive vice president for msl group -- worked on the house and senate budget committees. and ed lorinzen. two of them right here with twitter handles. senior adviser for committee for reasonable federal budget. this is a really great panel and very much appreciate they're all joining us here today. seems like we should probably start with what is on everybody's mind right away, the lame duck session of congress that's coming right at us. the big question on the hill and among everybody who follows budget and appropriation is how president-elect donald trump's victory is going to influence the process in the lame duck. will we see a continuing resolution, another continuing

resolution until next year, as some conservatives are advocating, will we see omnibus bill or mini busses as republican leaders are advocating, will a second continuing resolution be needed to finish up before the end of the year. congress comes in on monday so pressing question. is there any chance at all of a government shutdown which we always talk about with government funding. ed can you start us out? >> yeah i think no one knows the answer and hasn't been decided yet. there's definitely a strong push for people to do continuing resolution and leave it to the next president, president trump to be able to have input in it. think there's a couple of challenges with that. one the department of defense is -- would be part of the continuing resolution and pentagon is also face problems

operating under a cr. continuing until next year would cause significant problems for the pentagon, inability to have new starts and acquisitions, something a lot of republican members will be concerned about. but unlikely you have senate democrats agreeing to full year appropriations for the department of defense and not cr for other agencies because democrats have been united on treating defense and nondefense the same, so will challenging. need senate democrats' support. but bigger question is trump transition team needs to decide priorities. on the one hand may wancy but other hand omnibus is throwing into the weeds and details and does the trump administration really want to start the beginning of the term getting into weeds appropriations and line items at time they're trying to do more bick picture obamacare repeal and tax reform.

when president obama came into office with appropriations bill left over, took up a lot of their time from omb and probably wish they didn't have to do that. >> stan? >> first of all, need to ask a favor. in middle of contest to see who gets most 2003 followers by the end of the year, so remember my twitter handle is @thebudgetguy. huge favor. put a lot of money on this bet. i would appreciate the follow. real answer to your question or answer to your real question, this is one of things that changed dramatically tuesday night. up until night expecting a democratic senate and president and chances of anything getting done by december 9th relatively small and cr extended once or

twice until december 23rd. that went away. and i think the real incentive is do what ed is talking about. pass a cr on december 9th, get out of town and leave to the new republican senate, house and president. to have a legislative victory. i don't think trump will get that involved with the details, mostly worked out by congress. one thing you mentioned, one of the drawbacks for defense can be handled in cr, ease up some of the language. provide the six billion supplemental they've been asking for. chances of a shutdown 50/50 before the election are now zero. think be out by december 9th with simple cr. >> any of the rest of you? bob? >> no. i agree with ed and stan. >> just one other thing.

worth remembering that president-elect trump is critical of the balanced budget agreement agreed to in 2015 which set the top line for spending for 2017, the big question is balanced budget said $1.07 trillion, does president-elect trump insist back to the amount prior to the agreements? would create significant challenges putting the bills together. >> which a lot of republicans are interested in. >> so square it would be a challenge. >> i agree. also and i think the main point is that the election of president trump and the retention of control just gives everybody incentive to get on with the business of the next -- of the transition without any

disruption. >> one of his first orders of business on the budget will be submitting a budget. there's a theoretically a february deadline but with a new president that gets stretched. i believe president obama had an outline when he came in and revealed the details when he came in later on in may or so. we can only imagine will be changes from the obama budget request that we may start to get idea of as soon as february. what do you think will be some of the more notable shifts that we would see broadly speaking and will there be any attempts initially at entaltment changes do you think? >> most obvious change is repeal of obamacare, assuming in the president's new budget and i think we should look at this budget very carefully because we

have a new administration coming in and the first budget of a new administration is really important. it is tending to set the tone. if you think of clinton or reagan's first budget, obama's, there will be things in there we'll be debating for four to eight years. obamacare piece is one of it, discretionary spending, will be interesting to see what they want to do there, probably higher on defense and lower on nondefense although somewhere you have to fit in money for the wall, going to pay for it anyway. probably not an asterisk that says see mexico. >> why not? we've had asterisks before. >> he's got infrastructure agenda and will be interesting to see what he puts in there. the number 500 billion has been floating around, will be eye popping for republicans on the

house side anyway. interesting. how he accommodates the tax cut will be big too. republicans have had a goal of balancing the budgets at least within ten years and seems to me impossible to do that in the agenda that trump laid out during the campaign without making some extraordinary assumptions about economic growth and -- which he did during the campaign but how that gets factored into the budgets will be interesting to look at. >> will be interesting to see, how much of the agenda is set by what he talked about in the campaign and congressional republicans. republicans in congress have passed resolutions that called for balance in ten years. with huge unspecified savings and unrealistic assumptions. you have 230 rank and file republicans who believe they've committed to balance the budget

in ten years. will they expect president trump to submit a plan that does that? obviously the promises he put forward, we estimated would have increased deficit in excess of $5 trillion. >> over what period in. >> ten years. and we're on track, by the end of the ten year window 1$1.4 trillion and can he show anywhere near. how make the deficit worse with wanting to have bottom line. rosy economic assumptions it's still hard to have something that still works. and obviously congressional budget office will reestimate it and show how many higher. will be a tension with the republicans of congress trying to pass his budgets, squaring with the rhetoric and following the rules of cbo.

>> talk about rosy i economic assumptions hope he doesn't put in that growth rate he was talking about. zwroe chance of that happening. would be well to get 3%. balance on the back of unrealistic growth signal. >> new trump team has a decision to make. do they really want to work out all these things in the president's budget, in a serious budget that adds up and does various things? or do they really first want to make a campaign statement? and get some things out there, presumably a big infrastructure package, and some tax items and some others. in a kind of preliminary statement. and then say we'll tell you about the whole budget later.

and that would prove so difficult it might drag on into the spring. it depends a little on how they're working with the leadership of congress, if at all. do they want the president's budget to become again what it used to be, a basis for serious work and appropriations and the tax committees in the congress? or do they want it to be more of a political statement? this is our going in position and we'll work with you as it develops. >> if i could just add, using ed's numbers and my back of the envelope type thing, my guess is they're going to come down at increasing the deficit. that is in not being shy or ashamed about it. i keep reminding myself, the line in prospectus, past performance is no indication of

future returns, we've got to stop assuming that the republicans of the past eight years are the same republican party we're going to see over the next couple of years. i'm assuming much bigger def sitz of trillion dollars a year for four years, maybe in the out years shahhi years showing a bigger and -- republicans rebranding themselves as party of deficits. if it produces jobs and economic growth say it's worth it. >> will be interesting question to see whether the freedom caucus and fiscal conservatives agree to that. i think trump and others would but why the people who made john bay nard's job so hard -- >> dealing with republican as opposed to democratic president. and make a big difference.

>> honestly i don't think it will. i think be difficult to convince a house majority elected on limited government -- lot of the lack of enthusiasm to -- not sufficiently committed to fiscal strength. may be an era of deficits coming up but not because the republicans decide they want it. may enact policies that bring it about and make excuses for it. >> but won't claim ownership. >> might be clear that debt limit doesn't matter and might be good thing but i don't think say the same about deficits. >> i agree with that. i think all of us are too focused on the campaign promises at the moment because that's all we have. we have to focus on it. i go back to the clinton

administration, when we came in, we were very focused on the budget, s president had promised to get the deficit coming down and we did. but the campaign promises, many of them just went by the board. the president had promised a big infrastructure program, which never happened. he had promised a big middle class tax cut. these were things that the budgetee budgeteers simply said sorry sir, we can't afford it if you're going to have deficit coming down. may not be that kind of discussion in that administration but it must be remembered that not all campaign promises end up in presidential programs. >> that's a good reminder. already mentioned debt ceiling. that's where we're going next. there's a lot of interest

talking about that. suspension expires. as you know congress doesn't usually act that quickly on it and treasury probably begin the use of extraordinary measures to take us through a period after that. it's an interesting period of president-elect trump coming to congress to ask to do this. very interesting. how do we think the debate will play out? >> i wish we wouldn't go through this process every couple of years. 2011, '13, '15 again. to me it's risky to get to the point where the treasury is sending letters every week saying we have this much left in the pot and not sure what is coming into paid and get into position where there's a risk of defaulting on the treasury. i know people understand this, but i can think of absolutely

nothing worse financially in the u.s. really genuinely defaulting on a treasury debt. you think it was a shock trump getting elected, watch what happens if the u.s. defaults on treasury? >> what would happen. >> recession start the next morning. in my view be worse than when lehman brothers collapsed. everything in the u.s. is based off treasury rates and dollar to some extent. portfolios. 401 k. u.s. bond is twenty trillion treasuries and rest is corporate bonds. every interest rate associated with this goes through the roof next morning. can't estimate how bad. hasn't happened because usually somebody exercises leadership to prevent this from happening. but it is the safe haven of all

safe havens. dollar is still reserve currency and nothing close to it. even playing around with it, even though generally know will reach agreement before this happens, why risk it? gotten shockingly close to not being able to pay debt in the past. i just wish do what they've done right now, suspend the debt ceiling and make it permanent. save a lot of aggravation. remember 2011, stock market went down, bond yields up, costs associated with it. i don't think will default on the debt but rather see them permanently suspend this. to the point we were just discussing before, i think you asked is there going to be a bargaining chip again? i wish wasn't but i don't see why wouldn't be. if trump has aggressive spending plan and looks like he will

about infrastructure and cut taxes, why won't lead to higher deficits? it will. if it leads to that, fiscal conservatives wouldn't be happy and squeeze him and use tools including the debt ceiling. treasury will be do the same the last have done, writing anguished letters, we're getting closer, do something about this. >> i agree about the importance of raising debt limit and problems not doing it. i think that's why will be pressure on president-elect trump to have a budget that's dealing with. getting the votes to pass the debt limit while the deficit is going higher will be challenge and interesting to see the role congressional democrats would

play. may be a place to play. if republicans and trump are ignoring them, come to july and can't get the numbers, do democrats take the responsible governing position and supply the votes or do they say, you bought it, you owned it, you pass the debt limit. existence of the debt limit is another reason that will be pressure to show they're doing something. >> who would be the republicans to split off on that and not agree? sizeable group? >> could be, and combination freedom caucus, but other republican members. >> who on the caucus? >> worried about a primary challenge. the optics, for all the campaign proposals that trump talked about during the campaign would increase the deficit, also constantly talked about how bad

the debt would be. and all the republican candidates too. looking ahead to two years and voted to raise the debt limit and deficit going higher, cause problems with a lot of people who voted thinking they were voting for controlling the debt. not withstanding the policies would increase them. trying to square them. get members willing to raise the limit is going to be a challenge. >> several quick points. number one can't remember the last time a congress of one party vetoed or torpedoed a debt ceiling request made by the president of their own party. number two, i find it hard to believe the house freedom caucus would do things to torpedo the trump policies in the first year. may think better than the president and in safe districts and can get away with it.

third the freedom caucus, the portion in position to make life difficult for trump on the debt ceiling will want tax cuts, obamacare repealed or partially. all three will increase the deficit. do they want to eliminate the domestic side of the budget? there's not enough there unless you talk about medicare or medicaid which the president said won't touch -- and social security excuse me. not enough to make the dent. trying to figure out what the deal would be. >> did either of you want to? >> paradoxically though, it may be the first time that democrats are thinking the debt ceiling is a useful tool here to keep

republicans from doing things like really deep tax cuts that benefit upper income people. or there may be a little bit of joining forces with the freedom caucus to hold the trump administration to its more fiscal, responsible pronouncements. >> one of the things that i worry with there, if you get into a disagreement over the debt limit, one of the ideas that came up before was passed in the the house i think, idea of prioritization, change the law, if the government doesn't default pay some of the bills. >> that's come up. >> which is really bankruptcy. it's a form. that would be a bad idea also. and so i worry with both houses and republican congress and republican president, somehow that kind of bill might get

signed. i think a better approach would be for trump, ryan and mcconnell to realize that they have a common agenda, it does require higher broing. ryan's budget from last year required a higher debt limit, just didn't acknowledge it. so this is a good teaching opportunity for the -- all of the members that think that you can run the government without raising the debt limit. and it could be that the silver lining here is that the three -- the leader of the house, senate and white house would simply either easily pass a debt limit increase or find some way as was suggested permanent -- maybe permanently -- >> could you do that? >> extend it without a date, sure. have it hanging out there as a

threat, would be a good thing. put in cryogenics or something. remember that? >> and if -- stan is right though. freedom caucus and others decide they don't care that much about the deficit because getting everything they want anyway, at some point anyone who remembers first year of the clinton administration, bond market koz have a say. already been a rout in the bond market, if we get fiscal deficits back to the '80s and interest rates go up. right now with the trillion dollars deficits interest is a little over 1% of gdp because very low interest rates. less than 2% average. if the interest rates go up because the bond market pushes them up, harder to finance the deficit at that point and lot of pressure on the hill and may politically have what they want as well but financial markets

start pressuring them, somebody has to act more responsibly. >> you raised the question of entitlement reform. that's directly relevant, really the way to get budget and debt back on track nothing to do with the debt limit. those of us saying put debt limit to sleep are not arguing for putting fiscal responsibility to sleep. better way, only way to keep the debt rising from unsustainable course is change the spending and tax policies of the united states government. capping the debt itself is counterproductive. it doesn't control the debt and has all the problems outlined. speak as committed fiscal hawk on these issues, what we need to do is have a change in long-term

entitlement program, tax reform, to bring about a sustainable fiscal policy. that's the way to keep debt from unsustainable course. >> may be where the deal goes and what freedom caucus wants. and trump transition website now has language on medicare reform. change the medicare program to prepare for future needs. clearly a nod towards the types of medicaid reform paul ryan has talked about. small opening maybe go there. keep the optimism, cubs won the world series so going to be optimistic on everything as cubs fan, perhaps after president trump be as aggressive on cracking down on social security fraud and still have 9 some percent of the insolvency left and come back to make

recommendations. i think will want entitlement reform keeping with their -- and some sign maybe president trump would go along with it. >> quick question for leo. substantive, you may not know the answer. how much of the u.s. debt rolls over every year? short-term versus long-term? just guess. a lot? >> about 40% maybe. >> if interest rates start rising and government is on the largest adjustable mortgage rate in history. >> yes. >> so in addition to defense spending and infrastructure spending and tax cuts and god knows what else, likely also higher interest payments than currently assumed. >> interest payments right now, checked this morning on bills to 30 year bonds, government is paying relatively little.

cheap to borrow, across the ravg it's little. that's why it's good to spend on infrastructure, money is close to free right now so might as well invest in it. whatever you think about trump, spending money on infrastructure is good thing because cheap. might not stay. fed might push up rates now. talking about discussing this, might see a fed rate increase in three weeks as well. make borrowing more expensive over time. >> what do you think? >> i think they'll go up in december as they said they would but not very fast. one more point, i fully subscribe to bob's eloquent defense of fiscal responsibility in the long run and his pointing out that it involves entitlement

and tax reform. but the more you cut taxes, the bigger hole you dig. i see the big danger right now, have explosive tax cut and then it will be really difficult. now it's only politically difficult. then it will be really difficult to find any entitlement reforms that bring the two, spending and tax lines together. >> we want it all don't we? we want it all. if we could move to reconciliation and budget resolutions of the coming year. last year the house doesn't adopt bungt resolution because internal division over the spending levels. senate didn't pass one because of the provision in the two year budget deal that allowed them to buy the spending top line and appropriators went ahead all the in limbo.

could one of you explain for us what reconciliation means and why budget resolution is needed and how reconciliation could be used. why it's suddenly the word of the week around washington. >> this is a bit of a pet issue of mine. budget reconciliation is budget legislation that original design is to implement changes in policies to implement the budget resolution which sets spending and revenue targets. and legislation in that provides for changes in permanent laws, tax and spebding to bring about bungt. from budget nerd perspective, that's what should be done. budget calling for spending cuts or tax changes, it's implementing that. however budget reconciliation has a special status.

passed pursuant to -- is not filibuster. can pass in the senate. not way to implement entire budgets but whatever piece of legislation the majority wants to push through with 51 votes in the senate. there's talk of using reconciliation to repeal the affordable care act. if you have a -- should be used for what it should be used for. s that limits. only one bill for revenues, one with spending and one for debt limit. but repealing affordable care act would be both revenue and spending and couldn't do a separate bill with fax reform. if you did tax reform couldn't doe affordable care act under reconciliation and also bird

rule has limits on what can be included. two most notable, sec silliation couldn't have nonbudgetary effects. used to repeal the affordable care act, only the parts with subsidies and tax increases and spending but regulations regarding the preexisting conditions and all those provisions couldn't be used. swiss cheese affordable care act. structure still in place but no spending for it. other thing is can't be increasing the deficit beyond the ten year window. with the affordable care act some of the savings growing over time, have to sunset those appeals. may not be able to repeal tax increases but delay them. tax reform through reconciliation, like-wise, like the -- sunset like the bush tax

cuts in 2001. rumor that probably won't come to pass but been speculation that congress would pass in lame duck session a budget resolution for fiscal year 2017 with reconciliation instructions that allow them to move on affordable care act repeal and follow and pass a regular budget resolution in april with fresh set of reconciliation instructions used for other purposes. it's never been tested whether the parliamentarian would agree with that interpretation. but the senate is ongoing body. so budget resolution passed in this congress still part of senate rules into next congress so theoretically possible but also require making decisions very quickly and have to resolve what does it mean for fiscal

year 2017 discretionary spending level and other problems. >> since ed and i e-mailed about this last night about 6:30 or so, i've done some checking and have a slightly different rumor. i hear that congress may not take up budget resolution in the lame duck but beginning of the next session. first for 2017, there isn't one because as you suggested senate punted on it and house didn't go that far. so you do a budget resolution in january, shortly after congress got back. including reconciliation instructions, hypothetical to repeal part of the aca. that's all it would do basically. six months later congress do a budget resolution for the coming fiscal year including a separate set of instructions to do other things that you suggested. real value of reconciliation is

it prevents a filibuster in the senate. that's the real value of it. so a 52/48 republican majority could move forward with whatever they want without worrying about a democratic filibuster unless the republicans didn't stay unified. i've never seen this maneuver done before, two budgets in the one year with reconciliation. >> i don't think there's ever happened. two budget resolutions originally in the law and too complicated to get it all done and changed the law. suggests two things i wanted to say. one is all of these inside the beltway complexities we've been talking about up here are -- have been thought about in the context of divided government

for the last few years. and the context may have changed. now the 60 votes in the senate has not changed, but the idea that all of this sort of using the rules to get what you want is going to be typical of a congress which has a president of its own making in the white house i think can be questioned. and then that comes back to my other point that the trump administration really has to decide does it want to continue the campaign, in which case the first thing to do would be to repeal the affordable care act and not worry about what happens to the 20 million people insured by it. or do they want to govern in a way that's good for the people who elected them?

many of whom get subsidies under the affordable care act. and i'm not an optimistic sort. i think maybe they want to repeal and replace and replace is a complicated thing to do. repeal is easy. replace is harder. and there are quite a number of republican proposals that have been put on the table which they could work on. and i think they'd be smart to bring some democrats in on that as well because one party passing a health care law just leaves it open to attack from the other one. but most of the proposals that we have seen from republicans look a lot like modifications of the affordable care act. now you can call it trump care and you can do things that

republicans have always wanted to do, and you can solve some real problems in the act, but my hope would be they would want something that works as a legacy for the trump administration, not just well we see what we'll do, repealed obamacare and now look at it. >> if i could just -- we'll have time for maybe one or two questions. if folks in the audience do have questions, have microphones on stands over here and here. >> i do -- i agree with alice. and i want to just interject a note of gridlock. >> haven't we had enough of that? >> i think still might have problems on appropriations. i think that we'll have a budget resolution because that's the best -- the easiest vehicle to do whatever they want to do on obamacare is going to be -- want

it get around the filibuster. on appropriations, the republicans will undoubtedly set a much lower level of discretionary spending that the democrats are going to live with. so we still have the possibility and probability of senate filibuster on appropriations bills in the senate which means we could be back in the same boat of government shutdowns at end of next year. would suggest a potential basis for having some broader negotiations. i think on the -- to pick up on alice's optimism however, you have -- when you have senate, house and white house all in the same hands, republican party does have the unified responsibility to govern, can't

blame it anybody else. well maybe on democrats in the senate, you never know. but there may be -- some of the campaign rhetoric that goes back and forth and even the governing rhetoric might get dropped by the side as you say what can we get done here? we're now responsible. that's the optimistic scenario for bigger things getting done. >> pick up on discretionary spending for 2017 and going forward, trump called for repeal of the defense sequester paid for with nondefense discretionary. not just in the budget but caps in law and that requires 60 votes to change that and i think democrats will insist want it for nondefense too and lead to negotiations as well. >> question over here. >> following up on actually the most recent two comments, this

session is titled who gets the money. and you addressed defense but in terms of other agencies, justice, where i work, hhs, hud, agriculture, commerce, down the line, are there particular agencies that you think would do well from the budgets or ones that you think would get hit particularly hard? >> good question. >> let me start. i think defense will do better, and transportation will do better because we'll have a big infrastructure bill although not all the infrastructure would necessarily be transportation. and i think hhs is going to be big no matter what, they're not going to make significant cuts in the big health care programs.

the subsidies in obamacare, even if they go away, are tiny compared to medicare and medicaid. >> you have to say immigration and naturalization. >> and veterans affairs will also do well. and trump called for cuts in programs that are unauthorized. not necessarily a guide but agency not authorized in jeopardy. i think everything except for veterans and immigration and naturalization and defense, every other agency will be looking at deep cuts in discretionary spends. >> one of the questions, i couldn't help, when the question comes up, who gets the money, almost 50% or 40% of the budget is social security, medicare or medicaid, when you're talking about who gets the money, whether in trump or obama administration, central dilemma of the budget is that portion is growing faster than the economy,

health care and social security only parts of the budget growing pastor or projected in the economy. who gets the money, that's where the money is going. >> that's our sobering reality isn't on that note going to close our session and thank you very much to our panel. been a great discussion. very enjoyable. thank you. thank you very much david. thank you for joining us, been a long week for a lot of people and this is a great opportunity to debrief and recalculate where everything is. neil bradley, founder of policy solutions and former staffer for house majority leader eric kantor and worked for roy blunt, majority whip. goes back to working for senator/dr. no in the house.

and to my left, founder of rock solutions. former lead for harry reed, and worked for tom daschle who you'll be listening to a little bit later today and worked for mark pryor in the senate. thank you for being here. we've got a lot of unanswered questions. i think a lot of people, the election took them by surprise as we've heard continuously. people are kind of interested to know who are some of the people who are going to be running things, devising policy, making sure that things happen, particularly on capitol hill. neil, start with you, in house -- a lot of questions about whether paul ryan face a contested speaker's election in january and friction between them and president-elect donald

trump, what challenges do you see? he struck a conciliatory tone yesterday in his press conference and seemed excited about rolling up sleeves and going on policy, but what realistically are the challenges speaker is going to face? >> thanks jason. i think some of the challenges we read about before the election were probably exaggerated a little bit. it was never in doubt to me that speaker ryan was going to continue to be speaker ryan in the 115th congress. there's no one with more support amongst republicans in the house than paul ryan and i think that was going to continue. challenges that he would have had were frankly the challenges he's had since he took the job a year ago and that speaker

boehner had. governing a divided government with the expectations of many of the members of the house republican conference. and there was frustration that they had that spilled over into occasionally questions about leadership. that challenge is gone now. the challenges are actually quite different. the biggest challenge now is fulfilling the expectation that i think the members have and that frankly probably a lot of people have that now unified republican controlled government, going to do what they say they're going to do. to me a lot of that, there's going to be vote challenges and managing and working with the minority challenges and we'll talk a lot about that, but part of the challenge is getting caught up in putting pen to paper in terms of what you're going to do to replace the affordable care act, what you're really going to do with tax

reform. that kind of challenge is perfect for paul ryan. at end of the day he's a policy wonk, he loves those details. so his challenge will be finding the band wj for himself, leadership team and the conference to figure out how they get all the stuff done they want to get done now that they have the opportunity to get it done. >> when you were working in the senate for senator reed, dwiegs a lot of communication strategy for the democratic communication center in the senate and working with schumer and his team. senator schumer don't expect houj challenges unless something unforeseen happening, minority leader. mcconnell already spoken twice with senator schumer, yesterday afternoon, and it seems in

conversations you have -- that i've had with aides in senator mcconnell's office or around the capital, looking forward to working with senator schumer, might be a different sort of relationship. but what sort of -- what can we expect from senator schumer knowing that he's going to have to deal with a depressed democratic party. some people raring for a bit of a fight. and with senator mcconnell, obstruction has led to only success, what do you expect from senator schumer and hez team? >> i don't think senator schumer and reed when it comes to negotiations and tactics are that far off. style is apples and oranges. right now as democrats we need to tell a better story, probably nobody in the caucus better

aligned to do that than schumer. probably best leader since daschle. not something senator reed cared about. blunt on the that always got the job done. i think that's the difference we're going to see. to the extent there's things that democrats want to do that this new president says that he wants to do, there will be some movement. but there are a whole list of other things that then candidate trump said he wanted to do that democrats just aren't going to go for. and i don't think it's necessarily picking a fight. whether in a red state or in a blue state, there are certain fundamental principles that our party is just not going to go along with and i think will help rally the troops. but one of the first things, infrastructure bill, i see opportunity for democrats to win on this, trump to win on this.

not sure what the freedom caucus and more conservatives in the house are going to feel about that, but will be ways to work together. >> just a quick follow-up too, i think most if not vast majority of trump's voters and supporters would find it interesting to say the least his relationship with snart schumer goes back quite a long ways. do you think we have opportunity to be surprised by the way senator schumer and president trump would get along and have a relationship? >> i think a lot of this has to do with what we're talking about. is there a path through on tax reform. i think senator schumer, manien our caucus and donald trump would like to get done. headier issues like repealing the affordable care act and what replacement might look like, senator schumer is going to be request his caucus and proektd

the legacy of the outcoming president, president obama. same with immigration reform. i think senator schumer will try to pick his moments to work with the president, want the country to move forward. but a lot of the things it's not orchestrating a fight, when rubber hits the road, going to be a fight on some of these things. >> for a change election as this has been characterized as, there really wasn't a ton of turnover at least in the house and senate. who do you see though, aside from the speaker, as some of the most significant power players that maybe somebody wouldn't have heard of that you're seeing? it's hard to classify people in 40s and 50s as rising stars but people may not be familiar with we can look for, this person is

going to help. >> i think in addition to the speaker, committee chairman particularly kevin brady, ways and means. whoever takes over at energy and commerce for fred upton, the outgoing chairman. patrick mchenry, the chief deputy whip is really -- he's already the chief deputy whip but still a rising star. >> this is the position that eric kantor had, first leadership election helped propel him to leadership. >> and before that roy blunt was the chief deputy whip. on the republican side if you want to see, the tradition is folk ohio serve as chief deputy whip principally. in terms of younger rising stars, looking at sophomore

class. will her from texas, a difficult election but came back popular with colleagues, expertise and way of talking about issues that i think a lot of his colleagues find compelling and worth inspiring. stefanich from new york, those are folks i would look to. challenges are really going to be with the folks who never served with a republican president, a good majority of the republican conference. guys who were chairman weren't when george w. bush was president but they were largely around and understand the dynamics that take place between an administration of our own party and what that entails. i think they will help some of the newer members understand that dynamic. >> can i? to add to that. i was looking at senate and

specifically the republican caucus. messaging is easy, governing is hard. wouldn't think so, governing when you control the white house and both houses of congress can be even harder. of the members of the upcoming or incoming senate republican caucus, only 17 of them were in the senate the last time that republicans controlled the white house and both members of the house. of those three of four of them. mccould youski and isaacson came in last couple of years. in freshman or sophomore years. as we're looking at what legislation will look like, these guys getting feet wet, on the ground running, will take them a little bit to figure this out and figure out best way to work with counterparts in the house. these are no longer message amendments or bills, but pieces of legislation that should they do it right will actually become

law. it's going to take them some time. >> on that, for senator schumer again, likely minority leader, may be just one step down, a possibility of a fight over the whip's job. that's held by dick durbin right now and been talk that patty murray would be interested in the job. who are the other players that senator schumer is going to lean on so his caucus stays together regardless of who the whip is? people he will rely on? >> i think senator schumer knows when you're especially in the minority and don't have control over the white house or either houses of government that it's an all hands on deck kind of approach. and senator schumer have be spent time at dscc has

relationships with the broad spectrum of members of the caucus. going to see him rely on senator warren and senator sanders, going to be points of time we need to rally the left part of our there's going to be times he's going to look at a mansion for some of the more moderate things we're trying to do as republicans. as retains to the fighter, i had the flesh our of working with senator duran and senator murray as part of that leadership team, still have connections and friends in both of those offices, i think this is going to work itself out. the one thing that we don't need right now and i think the democratic caucus gets this. you tend to have a -- you tend to cannibalize yourself, their

circular firing squad. republicans had to deal with that a little bit i think schumer and some of these other members that have been there for a while don't twan the to see that happen again. i expect this to work out for all parties involved. >> speaking of the wilderness. when you were there. after president obama was elected, the lost seats in 2008, after losing a bunch of seats in 2006, your -- you saw he had -- really what the democrats are looking at now, you're looking into the void and wondering, what now, we need to figure out what to rally around. what sort of advice would you have for people that are in the wilderness. do we go all in on obstruction? there are very few options for them in the house. in a certain degree, the republicans did find a way to

define themselves in opposition to president obama in 2009 and 2010. and then they won the majority in the house. >> yeah, i mean, i'm generally not in a habit of giving tactical advice to the other side. but -- >> i'm not sure we would take it. >> maybe you shouldn't. >> counter program. but i am, because i think this is good for government. absolutely true that the republican minority -- 2009, 2010 became defined by how we were opposing the president. two mistakes about that. i would not draw a direct line between that, and gaining the majority in 2010, and two, there's an untold story or mistold in some cases about how we got to that. president-elect obama came in,

he met with the bipartisan congressional leadership, first time on the agenda, with some type of stimulus package. he told john boehner and eric cantor, we want your ideas, he was -- we took him at his word. i was very serious about that. we went back and had this huge internal discussion with all our ranking members, we feel like we have to give him something, he asked. we can't stiff the president-elect of the united states when he asks for our input. do we come in, with here's a capital gains tax cut? we had a lot of folks in our caucus who were advocating for us to do that, that's what we would do. we said, you know what, if we do that. that's disingenuous, he won the election they're in the majority. let's offer things we believe in.

he looked at it and said, there's nothing crazy here. we thought was a pretty good response for the ideas we put on paper. from that, part of us is terrified about what that would mean and what that would look like to a lot of our members. the president and speaker pelosi were going to get them, by giving us stuff we thought we would like they didn't ask for, we assumed anyway. you can imagine what our response was to that. that's not the -- i have no idea

whether president-elect trump will offer leader pelosi or schumer that opportunity. if he does, you should be serious about it, and take it, my advice to then president trump would be, you should take that too because that's the way i think probably my friends on the other side have a chance of coming back, and frankly, it's also the same way that my friends on my side of the aisle have a legitimate chance of getting something done that's worthwhile for the american people. >> senator mcconnell talks about this in his book, for him, it was a strategy from the beginning to deny this president everything. listen, i would like to, and i think right now, this is a

conversation that perhaps democrats should be having in two months, not two days after an election, especially an election they thought they were going to win, and most republicans thought they were going to win. you go through the five stages, you start thinking rationally again. as it turns to anger, would say, give this president nothing. give the people what they wanted. which is trump and the control of both houses to the republicans and see what happens. then repeat the rewards. i don't necessarily know that if that's in congressional democrats dna. they believe in government. i'm not saying republicans don't. they believe in government and wanting to legislate and wanting to be a part of the discussion. i foresee them trying to work with president trump and with

vice president pence, which we haven't really talked about. it's going to be interesting to see who's calling these shots with congress if it's trump or pence or somebody else. i think you're going to hear over the next couple months, do what you want to do, we're going to oppose everything. i think -- at least i hope cooler heads prevail going into the 115th congress. and we at least find some things, knowing there are going to be a lot of things we disagree on, that we can do some things to move the country forward. >> what would you tell people in the democratic party that may not be able to get past that anger stage,ny may take a relatively simple take on it and say, mcconnell kept open a supreme court nomination until he got what he wanted. why don't we go all out on

opposition? i mean, what is the response from the democratic leadership who, if they want to cooperate, they want to get a couple wins on the board, they want to make things work. how do you deal with people who are so angry right now, and shocked that they're just saying i want them to fail. what's that conversation like? >> i don't know if you can have that conversation right now. a lot of people woke up wednesday stunned. >> i think you're assuming people slept. >> and that anger and that frustration is going to percolate for a little bit, and it's going to come in -- it's going to come in phases. someone asked me you seem pretty

calm. i said, this is a concept tulle thing right now. some of these judicial candidates, you're going to see some frustration and anger. for right now, i don't think you can have that conversation. if you care about government, if you care about helping people, if you especially on the senate sued, you're an institutionalist, you at least have to try. >> this may all collapse under its weight. i don't think anyone can say right now, whether or not donald trump is -- is president donald trump more like campaign trump or is there someone else we haven't seen yet? >> does a mike pence take a bigger role? does he surround himself with smart people who have been there before and done this and can kind of keep the trains on. >> we might find ourselves in six months with a strong man

president where both your red state democrats and blue state democrats are like, we can't work with this man, we can't work with this congress. we don't know. to have that conversation now seems premature. >> listen, i think there are things that president-elect trump said as a candidate that i don't agree with, and didn't condone. even the current sitting president said some things that haven't born out very well, given the outcome of the election. so my sense is, that we probably ought to follow secretary clinton's advice, and let's all have an open mind about this. and not judge people on either side based on what they said. in what was a really bitter contested campaign. >> and long. >> long. >> that should be the first area. let's shorten these cycles.

>> we talked about some of the people we can look to who may be able to make things work in washington, who would be occupying the power structure. who are some of the -- not to look too far back, but who are some of the people who are leaving congress that are going to be the biggest losses? who are the house republicans going to miss the most? >> i won't hurt anyone's representation on the democratic side of the aisle by praising them, so i'll stick with my side. i think of john klein, maybe he didn't get all the press attention in the world, he was a really steady hand. >> outgoing chairman. >> people think of the weighs and means committee. it was an incredibly productive

committee that got things done even in a divided # congress. kelly ayotte was a tremendous voice on military and foreign affairs issues. i won't speak much for the house. even though he wound up coming to play for our team. i think democrats are going to miss chris van hollen. especially as we look at house democrats for leadership. i'm glad that nancy pelosi will be staying, she can't be there forever. as democrats, we need to start thinking about what that next

generation of leadership looks like. we're going to miss boxer, because i think the caucus is going to miss boxer, because she was just a -- caucus deliberations are private. having somebody like that in your caucus who is always optimistic, ready for the good fight. you know is something that you need. and something that you want. maybe if you're a democrat in days like this, you've just suffered some big losses. i don't want to be biassed, but sometimes you need a blunt instrument in my toolbox. and my former boss harry reid was that, he got the job done. i think history will bear out as people talk about who were good

leaders. he may not have always been the most on message leader. he protected his caucus. >> i think also lost in a lot of the news, from tuesday's results, going back to your statement of reid, in nevada, senate candidate who no one realizes was a great campaigner. it's a -- it stands as a -- it's like the election when nevada came a part of the west coast. >> it's an interesting result. >> a lot of people thought that reid's push to have caucuses in nevada was a vanity project, it wasn't.

because of it, you know, he won re-election in a year that no one thought he was going to win re-election save an ethics scandal, shelly would have won against dean heller and now we have another democratic senator taking his seat. i think his legacy in nevada and washington, d.c., is solidified. >> before we came on stage, we were talking a little bit about some of the legislative agenda, one of the things obviously that's on everyone's mind is the budget reconciliation for fancy terms is basically an expedited budget process. >> 51 votes rather than 60. >> it's not, you can't use senate deliberation tactics, filibuster to slow it down. this looks like the most likely

repeal for obama care fp it's become more and more important. is that -- what are we looking at in terms of timing on that. >> the house and the senate did not adopt a budget resolution for this year. they should have done that this spring, they didn't. we began the current fiscal year in october. one of the nice little things you can do when you haven't adopted the resolution. even in the new congress, you're three months into the actual fiscal year. the congress can adopt a budget resolution for the current fiscal year. that will provide them with a vehicle, similar to what they did earlier this congress. on repealing most of the parts of the aca that you can do under the budget rules.

i suspect -- i don't think they've made any decisions, they're working through that. i would not be surprised at all. i would probably expect that they would move pretty quickly to get a budget resolution, arm reconciliation, and be in a situation where they're moving forward. when they get to the spring in the normal process, they have an opportunity to do it again. a pretty tremendous tool in terms of getting their legislation passed. >> you can pass legislation without a filibuster, what sort of options do they have in

opposing this. do they have a chance of derailing it? >> if we're talking about aca. messaging is easy, governing is hard. you know, it was -- the republicans say, repeal and repla replace. i have yet to see the replace part of this, it took democrats the better part of two years to come up with the aca. that was their fault for stepping over themselves so many times and trying to do it, the fact is, it takes much longer to find something to replace this with. the reality of this is, and i think republicans know this, which is why they've tried over and over again early on to get rid of aca. you now have 20 million people on health care. if you just throw it out, there's 20 million people without health care, unless you come up with an alternative. so as far as legislatively, can i think of a -- or tactics wise, can i think of something right

now that we could do to derail that? no, that's why -- that's why republicans want to use reconciliation. i think we have a great story to tell. i would say looking forward to republicans trying to explain to their constituents, fine, you didn't like obama care, we're getting rid of it, but instead, we are giving you fill in the blank, that's going to be harder for them than either they're admitting or that they realiz p realizedp. >> one of the great kennards is, the republicans don't have a place. one of the things that speaker ryan did under his direction was this better way project where they outlined what they would do to replace obama care. senator hatch is going to be quite influential in whats in

health care. and who also worked across the dome with fred upton on an approach to this. there is a lot of work that really has been done on being able to move in and quickly replace the affordable care act. >> i'm not sure the story's all that great. the coverage numbers are principally from medicaid. if what republicans have to argue, we're going to provide you coverage that's better than medicaid. which is pretty substandard in both places, i think they're going to have a pretty good story to tell. about what they're offering the american people. >> who are the people on both sides? the messaging particularly on something like the affordable care act was very blunt. on one side it's phrased as a disaster, on the other side it's

phrased as people who could never get health coverage before will have it, and they'll be saving people from preventable deaths. who are going to be the people who can calmly and sort of rationally deliver the message from each side that it's a little more complicated than that. >> we're a half a block from the capital and c-span. this is a different audience than the campaigns we're attracting for these kind of -- those messages. who delivers these messages for each one of your sides. >> it's not an apples to apples what the republicans have been doing for the last six years, our job is to look and talk to the american people. if you do what the republicans want to do, you're going to lose all of these things. that's an easier message than explaining the health care bill, whatever it is that they do. the fact is, that i don't think most americans know of ryan's

better way plan or what senator burr or senator hatch has done. there needs to be a large education process here, it becomes harder to explain legislation that's going to affect people's lives versus concept tule obama care is bad, this might be good. so for us, i think it's something that most of the caucus will -- especially those that were there, that were big proponents of aca. to tell you the truth, who have gotten beaten up over it, so much over the last six years, i think this is something legaciwise, there will be no shortage of folks, starting with schumer, going to durbin, the rest of the leadership, including murray. folks like tim kaine, elizabeth warren. i could kind of go down. i don't know who in our caucus.

i think that if that's the message, which is 20 million people would lose this, this, this and this, they're going to be on the outside, pushing along with the outside groups. >> i think it's going to be a problem for the 25 democrats. if secretary clinton had won, she was going to have a real problem on your hands, what do you do with the spiking prices. republicans by the way, had we maintained the house majority and she had won, we would have had a difficulty. whatever you do, you can't let the current system continue to exist. it's not working and something has to change. >> in terms of messages, likewise, every republican is going to be messaged on this. they always do. i think that one of the weapons we have in our arsenal is the number of positions that can

work out the conflict. physicians have a particular credibility when it comes to acting with the health care system and knowing what it means to the patients they treat. we were opposing the affordable care act, they're going to be the most effective now as we replace it. >> we're going to open it up to questions in a second. i'll start while people are rushing in droves to the two mikes we have set up over there. again, you -- you put this point there. a lot of these conversations will be good for two months. say you're back in the capital, and you're dealing with a traumatized group. what do you tell people? how do you approach the younger people on your staff? what are you saying to them? on a -- two days out.

>> losing sucks. especially when you think you are going to win. that's all you can say, i thought secretary clinton gave an amazing concession speech, you continue to fight, there's nothing more you can do. if the things you believe in whether you win or lose you should still believe in them the next day, that's what i would say to my staff, and i'm sure that's what many people are saying to their staff. today and tomorrow and for some time. this is going to sting for a little bit. >> earlier talking about voices that are leaving, that are

reti retiring, one of them barbara mccull ski, and i just wanted to ask who especially on the appropriations side she's really a champion for traditional democratic priorities and ke keeping funding for those. who do you think would be stepping into her shoes. in that particular arena? >> it's -- i don't the appropriations committee has changed so much in the last 10 years, as it pertains to it has outsized influence, it's not the influence that it used to have. in some ways it's become as some of the messaging has gone more toward -- we shouldn't be spending as much, it's hard for me to say, and i actually do

love -- i don't want to up up a can of worms about situations that might happen leaving the committee that would answer that question. now that i know that i just opened did up. >> is this the possibility that patty murray may become the appropriations committee? >> listen, i think -- i'm just going to leave it there. >> we have time for one more. >> one of the big promises that trump has made is about the deportation thing. i think a lot of americans, including a lot of republicans are conflicted about it, it's obvious it's not going to be an all or nothing thing. it has to be some. one of the biggest voices, of course, in the senate has been sessions, and as an immigration reporter, i find he's extremely

knowledgeable. what happens if he leaves the senate, if he joins the administration will his power be more or less on this issue. and who will be replaced in the senate. there's a lot of voices in the house i'm not sure about the senate. what about sessions. >> if he joins the administration. it depends where he goes. if he's in the white house or he was somehow had some interaction with ins, he would have a lot of influence, the defense i've read in some places, that's going to be less so -- who replaces him on the hill. i'm not sure if anyone does. if anyone necessarily steps into that role that he's played in the senate. he's very knowledgeable but he

has a very set view on how he thinks immigration auought to py out. it's one that's not universally shared on the republican side. my sense of how this plays out is what's happened on immigration the last couple years has happened through executive action. and probably what's going to happen, other than building a wall and a few other things and resources issues, is probably going to start happening through executive action. i think the real question in my mind, i'm not approving or disapproving it. you push a policy, administratively, and someone wants to push it the other way, administratively, that's usually what happens. i think the real question is, what happens when the dust settles. in my mind, that's where real opportunity exists. i think senator schumer would be

a great leader and partner working with people on things of high skill, issues with children, who were brought here and didn't know it. i think there's a lot of opportunity once the dust settles. >> we look forward to your wisdom in the coming months and year years. >> thank you, jason. >> i -- one thing i wanted to know. when you were talking about the important aides in lawmakers there was a lot of note taking going on here. you're taken seriously. it's transition time, that's the time when you call in the wise men. i'm going to have david hawkings

introduce two very distinguished guests. i'll say good-bye to you after that, and we're going to have a session and a networking session and a book signing with these two guests. over to david. >> these two men are the sunshine boys of american politics. >> i like it. >> they spent a combined 20 years as floor leaders for the united states senate. they know how it works better than anybody, and we should get right to it. only one of you, only senator lot got to be a majority leader with his own party for four

months. give us your advice to president-elect trump about how he should manage his first 100 days. >> i wish he would listen to begin with. how he should manage the first 100 days. as we were talking in the back, his inclination is going to be to go big on tax policy, immigration reform, a lot of issues, i would urge him to look at doing some sinkholes. i think infrastructure is a good one to come out of the gate with, even though it's not that easy. you're going to have to have pay force. that won't be easy either. i was saying before the election the number one thing the president needs to do is change the tone. i think that's happened so far, i thought that president-elect trump's comments on election

night or the next morning were very good. i thought hillary clinton's -- secretary clinton's remarks were right on target, and the same thing with president obama. i thought everyone's tone was good. the other thing i would urge president-elect to do. he's doing it today, is reach out, communicate. talk to not only paul ryan and mitch mcconnell, talk to chuck schum schumer. they could communicate. and then work on both sides of the aisle, with both party's leaders on both sides of the capital. listen to them, not just talk at them. i think that would help get the tone set right and give them an opportunity to move forward. >> how long until you pull the trigger of opposition? how much time do you give them? if you were chuck schumer, how

much rope would you give this? >> first of all, i agree with trent entirely, i think tone is really what we have to address. it's not just the tone in our rhetoric i would give the same advice to democratic leadership as president-elect trump. reciprocation, do the things necessary to help change the tone. in that regard, president obama has said, we're going to do everything we can to make the trump presidency successful. that ought to be the attitude of everybody. we ought to figure out how to make this thing work, it's going to be hard. accurate rhetoric, that it's really going to take some time. so it can't just be a week, it can't just be between now and inauguration, this has to carry through, this has to be regular meetings.

this has to be more inclusion on both sides there has to be more engagement. if that happens, i think you could surprise a lot of people with what could get done. low expectations couldn't be much lower than they are and so we're working with that advantage because there are expectations if we keep setting this tone. >> i think you could see a good bit of creative ity. the senate has been slowly moving more and more into gridlock, there's so many things that need to be addressed that have been left. maybe this is an attitude -- i know there's an opportunity. i hope they'll take advantage of it. >> you think the gridlock began right after you all left? >> i saw it starting --

actually, it started in -- i think it was going on in 2004, '05 and '06, i was shocked how hard it had gotten to get anything done. it got more mean spirited i really started worried about it in 2006. it's been getting worse over the years. >> i would go back. we had a very confrontational experience with speaker right. we had impeachment of president clinton in the mid '90s. we've had some experiences that go back quite a while.

it has gotten progressively worse. >> one of the things i point out is it's not good in a way, i like it. the fact of the matter is, the control of the senate in particular, has been going back and forth on a pretty regular basis. that makes it more difficult for you to begin to find a way to work together. the chairman of the committee says if i prevail, i'll get to be chairman if i'm ranking member for the other side. that makes it awfully difficult for the leaders to get things done. to get their members to cast a tough vote. >> i agree with that as well. i think elections have really become the means. now they're the end. now everything is strategized

around that's the election that's the most important thing. we have to figure out a way to go back. >> without violating any confidences can either of you tell us -- shed any light on the relationship between senator mcconnell and schumer. they're two pros, they know the word i thought is they're pretty accomplished. do you think -- what's your predegeneration for how your relationship will shape up. >> both of them want to start over. they have a relationship to build. you've got a new partnership, and so i'm hopeful that i know chuck shooper and mcmcconnell like one thing, they're deal driven. that's a big factor in creating

that conducive environment for moving things. both of them are deal oriented. >> i agree with that, i don't think i'm reveelting any conferences or going to hurt anyone's feelings. the relationship between the two of them has not been real good. >> thank you. go file that story right now. >> some of the things they said to me is shocking. >> it's an opportunity to change the dynamics. senator schumer is very intelligent, very partisan. philosophically different from mitch. also, i have seen it work across the hall. i worked with him when i was in the senate. he's a guy that likes to get things done. >> one of the first things the

senate will have to do next year is confirm, nominate someone for the supreme court. all the republicans would line up for who the nominee is, and plenty of democrats will not, is my assumption. >> what would be your -- this is where the rubber meets the road. it will be perceive d -- >> i like the list, there were several on there i thought very impressive. he picks carefully that first nominee. >> knowing it's trading conservative for conservative, or do they do something else? what would you advise.

>> let's not politicize it. i think people ought to look at the qualifications. you know it's going to be a conservative, that's not even on the table do they have the personal background and history and integrity. if they qualify in context, you have to defer to the president. there ought to be a vigorous debate questions asked. you there ought to be opportunities to give the candidate a full hearing. if this becomes too contentious, i think it's very possible we could extend the nuclear option. we could see the senate extend the nomination to other contexts as well. it only included the judges that -- the nomination. >> below the supreme court.

but not legislation. and not the supreme court that wouldn't surprise me if we go through a long and very contentious debate. that's always on the table as well. >> did either of you ever vote against voting for a supreme court justice? >> i think i voted for every one but one. >> i won't mention his name, he's on the court. >> i felt like he had a conflict of interest. i voted for ruth bader ginsburg. i thought she was qualified. i knew she would vote on the supreme court in ways i almost never agreed with. my thinking was, and i think the attitude then was elections do have consequences. once you go through the advise

and consent process, i would hate to see the nuclear option. if president-elect donald trump comes up with a strong nomination, there will be opposition. but i would hope that that person would be confirmed. >> did you ever vote against one? the ground rules have changed irreversibly and potentially for the good. it's not just about personal qualifications but can be about ideology? >> i did vote against clarence thomas. i voted in favor of justice scalia and justice kennedy. and a number of others from the bill clinton period. i think norms are changing and i'm troubled by the fact that norms have changed as much as they have. there's almost an assumption it

takes 60 votes in the senate to do anything. we don't have to rely on the contentiousness that continues the norms that have been lost, may be lost for good. i don't know. i think it has -- we need leadership on both sides of pennsylvania avenue. >> would you avoid going to cloture on all kinds of things? >> this depends on the degree to which there is inclusive feelings and the kind of partnership, that you have to crow ate between the executive and legislative branches. if people are working in good faith to see if they can find common ground. i think it's probably inappropriate and very iladd

advised to stop going to the floor to stop everything. there has to be that inclusion, that degree of cooperation and right now, we can only help that's where we want to be. >> would you encourage senator mcconnell -- >> i think it would be a mistake. a vote of 51 has been the tradition, and i would recommend you continue that picking up on something tom just said. there are two ingredients that are so critical in washington to get things done. number one is communication. tom and i talk a lot about that. we've lost that. you don't hear of having enough talk across the i'll across the capital. they've stopped talking. the second part of that is

chemistry. tom and i had an agreement. number one, tom i'll try not to surprise you. every now and then i messed up, and i would feel the need to go to tom and say, i didn't do you right on that can we work it out. you also need to have respect for each other. the leader that you're opposing needs to go with respect. we had a good relationship. i'm hopeful that maybe chuck and mitch will begin to develop that relationship. get an understanding. every time we come back from a recess, i would send tom a list of the things we were going to try to do in that period of time. little things make a huge difference. i would really encourage mitch

mcconnell and chuck schumer to make it work. i think the potential is there. >> okay. we should adjourn there. no, we're not going to adjourn it there. the republicans are, many republicans, even though mr. trump has won, are still crying in the streets, lock her up. they're crying around their own kitchen tables lock her up, and they want president trump to do something to punish mrs. clinton. i wonder, how could that sort of magic be worked again or should it? or should it not to -- should president obama pardon mrs. clinton during his last eight weeks in office? >> no. >> then what should happen? >> pardon her for what? >> we don't know that there's a

crime there. >> that's true, although president ford pardoned president nixon before he -- >> well, we knew what had happened there. >> that question was for tom, wasn't it? >> the election is over, and i'd like for her to be able to go on with her life in a private setting. i don't know what might be going on at the justice department. obviously, none of us know what's going on at the fbi any more. i would hope we can move on from the recriminations. american people deserve better than they've been getting. >> i agrow with that. >> we really have to worry about precedent here. you imprison your opponent and you never see him or her again. god forbid our country comes close to anything like that, it's not even -- that's hardly worth talking about frankly.

>> this is a very scholarly, well informed group. i want to make sure -- i'm shameless about this, i know you need to read this very timely. >> christmas is coming, huh? >> it makes a very good christmas gift. the purpose of the book is not really about how oh, look at us, look how we made things work, in spite of challenging things we went through 9/11, an anthrax attacks. we were able to get some things done. the purpose of the book is to say, we learned some lessons, there's some other things we think would help in america, in terms of getting people to participate more in elections. understanding civic responsibility. how do you get things done in washington. and that crisis point describes where we are. we are at a crisis point. are we going to head in the right direction or not?

and how this president-elect. and if congress deals with issues, will decide which way we go from this crisis point. thank you for allowing me to do this paid commercial. >> i think we originally titled this panel beyond the crisis point? >> okay, good. is there anything in the election results tangible by a poling data or that gives you a sense of optimism at all? >>. >> first of all, i don't know that i'm ever going to trust a poll again. i'm so disappointed and perplexed by modern day polling today. if you are looking for optimism, you know what i really find remarkable is that the voter turnout, in spite of the fact that the electorate didn't see that either candidate lived up to their expectations, what they thought a president ought to be. the voter turnout was

phenomenal. the participation. one of the things we talk about is how much -- how critical it is to have participation. i didn't see the final numbers i have to say, i'm encouraged by the fact that people turned out. >> it was down. >> it may have been down about 4 million or so. >> i do know that mr. trump received 2 million fewer votes than john mccain and 1 million fewer votes -- >> and she received 5 million less votes than obama. >> who won that popular vote again? >> let's see, we might want to discuss that too. >> i did ask these two backstage, sort of whether when they were in the senate. whether there was any discussion of changing the system so it was not an electoral college? >> not really.

>> i don't think any proposal really got traction. there's always been sort of a concern of what happens, be careful what you wish for kind of a thing, when you eliminate the electoral college, i don't suspect you're going to see any real constitutional effort to do that this time either. >> my son who was a big trump supporter from the beginning, he was dogging me the last couple weeks about how we need to get rid of this electoral college and go to the popular vote. it's amazing how he changed in the last two days. >> exactly how the election was rigged and then it wasn't? >> i thought about it, maybe it's time we change it and go to the popular vote. i found over the years, most of the things our founding fathers did, turned out to be pretty wise. so i've been very hesitant about

changing that, i went through a process of one point where i was for term limits. and then i really started studying it, we don't need that, and what was really a deciding factor for me, i was reading about the great debates. i realized when i was reading this book, neither one of the three would have been in the senate, if they had had term limits. >> very interesting. >> david, what i hope we can say in about a month or two months relates to something i'll never forget. i had a conversation with justice scalia as we were leaving the inauguration in 1992, as we were walking out, he said to me, just imagine -- just think of what you just witnessed, you've seen the transfer of power in this country from one party to the next, from one man to another without a shot being fired. he said, that's the miracle of this democracy, i hope we will

always be able to boast and to expect a peaceful transfer of power, in fight of how difficult it may be, and the challenges it presents. the extraordinary nature of our country and this democracy rests on that premise, that we can switch back and forth as we've done so many times over the last 20 years, between parties, and among leaders. and i -- that will be the essence of what we can look to with great pride, if we can continue to pick up on the tone we've had for the past 24 hours. >> that's heartening, thank you. >> we're going to go to questions for a minute. senator daschle. both of you, would you advocate making the rewriting of federal health care policy the first big ask or not the first big ask?

i think did you both say the transportation and infrastructure should be the first big ask instead? >> it's one that they can find common ground, none of it will be easy. >> i agree, i would take trent's ammunition to president-elect trump, look for small things we can agree to. find ways to work together so that you can take on the bigger things. and besides that, the affordable care act is now about the most important element in public policy that relates to health, that's going to take a lot of time, and there's enormous amount of detail involved. we're dealing with 20 million people that didn't have insurance before. 31 states have expanded medicaid, you have all these new protections that are built in, new opportunities for 26-year-olds to sign up on their parents plan. all of that, a new -- totally new infrastructure around the

marketplace and exchanges, you can't simply say we're going to repeal all that, and let the chips fall where they may. that's going to take a lot of thought to figure out how are we going to do that. i think taking it piece by piece, and so much of it is ingrained in the infrastructure, it's important they take it, if they want to keep the kind of tone we've been talking about. >> if you hit singles, your encouragement that they -- flies in the face of the conventional wisdom, the 100 days, the mandate. >> they get too caught up in this first 100 days thing, they'll wind up like president obama did overplaying their hand. tom has done a lot more work in the health care than i have. i think most -- no law you pass is mr. and with time, you need to revisit most of them.

i don't think thing would disagree, including the democrats, we have some problems here with companies pulling out of aca. i know this about it, this is not easy work, this is complicated. it has a lot of moving parts. i think that they're clearly, the trump administration and congress is going to have to deal with this. i would caution them, take your time, maybe not do this the first 100 days, work through how we can get -- better participation, how do we deal with the cost, can we add some things. president-elect trump has talked about being able to buy insurance across borders and medical savings accounts. yeah, i'm with that. why in the world can't you buy across state lines. and medical savings accounts, i would work with that. there's some bells and whistles and some important things that can be added. we need to try to find a way to

make it more bipartisan and -- you're not just going to say it's over, and here's the total replacement. that's going to take some work and some time. >> do you believe in general that the time horizon for spending, there is a mandate, i guess there's going to be an argument about it. for a president trump or any new president to spends it out can last longer than the first six months or the first 100 days. when in the modern senate or congress does it become time to make it about positioning for the midterm and holding all kinds of silly amendments that don't do anything. when does that start? >> it starts earlier and earlier. >> that's a good question. my guess is, you're going to have some time. people are going to look at whether washington is working better when they make their decision two years from now or four years from now. part of what we've seen over the last couple years is just a

level of dysfunction that's so exasperated the voters that i think they voted in part for mr. trump. he was such an outsider, and so unrelated to everything that was going on in washington today. this was an anti-washington vote to a certain extent. members of congress ought to understand that. >> i think getting too focused on the first 100 days is not wise, quite frankly. i remember that during president bush's presidency in 2001, we were a 50/50 senate, we only had the 50/50 senate for six months, and then it flipped over. during that period we passed a bush tax cut bill, a bankruptcy reform bill, some major defense bill, and no child left behind. you may not agree with any of it or all of that, but those are pretty significant things, it

took us six months to do that. that's still a pretty good list of things. i hope they won't just get over consumed with the first 100 days. look, i -- i refer to it as the eyes. they need to do -- we're going to have to do immigration reform, we're long overdue, we should have done it in 2007. >> you mean deporting everybody? >> no, that's not what i said. i do think he's going to do an executive order on that. we do need to deal with how do we secure the border. i'm for a virtual wall, but i made the comment one time that walls don't work anyway, you can't build a wall or a fence far enough, deep enough, high enough, strong enough that they can't get around. we need to know who's coming and where they're going. we do need workers of h2a and

h2b. we need to make some changes in the tax code. everyone agrees, we disagree about what that would mean. we are going to have to do something about health care. and infrastructure, so just those things, if they could find a way to come to an agreement and get those signed into law it would be huge. if it takes eight months, fine. >> one more question, and think of your questions, i'm going to ask the last question here, which is, i get the sense from what you've both been saying, that you -- if you all were still in the leadership, you would encourage each of your members to figure out ways to stray from the party line a little bit. what i think i'm hearing, we're in a crisis point because of dysfunction and the results of the election, give them some -- people on both sides some license to stray? is that -- or am i over saying what i've heard. >> i don't think it's necessarily, i wouldn't characterize it as strayed.

i would characterize it as -- how do you build bridges, how do you create the chemistry within those 100 people in the senate, to get things done, in a less confrontational way. that's not strain, that's really sort of re-creating what the senate has always been institution ali. the one thing i think we really emphasize strongly, we have to be in washington a little bit longer. you know, you're not going to be able to do anything if you leave on thursdays and come back on tuesdays and try to get everything done on wednesdays. we've just got to figure out how we change that schedule. that's a function of leadership as well. i'd love to see members of the senate and housework together monday through friday, at least three weeks a month. >> we used to do that. >> really? >> we used to have bed check votes at noon on monday. and thursday night, i would, and tom too, if we finish this bill tonight we'll be out. otherwise, i'll see you on friday morning. amazing what you can bet done in

the next three hours. >> we always got to go home early on tuesday, because of your favorite tv program? >> i used to say, see -- and now they're nocturnal, they like to come to town tuesday morning, late monday night and fly out on thursday. i always thought when the sun started setting in the west, it's a good time to go home and have supper with tricia. my wife of 52 years. what they're doing is crazy. they don't bring their families up here, they don't have -- they don't have a chance to socialize, get to know each other. when i was in the house, jerry huckabee was across the street. a democrat from louisiana. billy tozan. from louisiana. and we were friends, our wives were friends. our kids kicked the can together, they played together. they don't have that

relationship they should work five days a week, three weeks a month. they've been told, you have to raise money around the clock, go home every weekend and campaign. the job is here. and number three, the idea that congressmen or senators are sleeping in their offices is the most offensive thing i can think of. i think it's -- i think it's inappropriate, it's humiliating and a very bad form of public housing. >> there you go, you're preaching to the choir. that's great. >> i can't see -- who's at the microphone. somebody is there. >> when you're talking about the supreme court, i wanted to ask about the lingering effects if any, of the merritt garland situation, you had an unprecedented time where the senate refused to hold hearings or a vote on a supreme court nominee. so when there is a new supreme court nominee, i guess this is more for senator daschle, it

could apply to both. how would you address the people who say, wait a minute, we should have had this last year, they blocked it, why can't we have some pay back this time? >> well, i talked a minute ago about norms being lost, and i have to say, i -- i will make a prediction, i hope i'm wrong. but i would predict that because this is now viewed as a very successful strategy on mitch mcconnell's behalf, that you're going to see this happen over and over again. no president is going to feel confident about a nominee in the entire last year of his or her term. i think that's deplorabldeplora. that is wrong. that isn't the way things should operate. i think it was viewed as a successful strategy in this case, i'm guessing it will be applied at some point in the future. >> i do think, by the way, that the supreme court issue was a key issue for voters.

the polling, and you can check this, a lot of polling showed that a lot of people that moved over to trump voted that way because of the supreme court. this situation in the senate with regard to federal judges didn't just get to where it is now, it started back when i was still there in the early part of 2000, where we started having filibusters of federal district judges which i thought was a mistake too. i think a lot of people think, well, mcconnell was smarts, he played his hand well, garland is not going to be confirmed now, we' we're going to get our nominee. i wouldn't have done it that way, the senate has the ability to advise and consent. you may not have moved him. but at least some hearing. maybe pay back will come into play. how about a demarcation. let's stop this. democrats and republicans. yeah, you want to stop it now, because you all got the presidency and the congress. i'm talking about the institution. one of the most important things that united states senators do

that presidents can't do, and the house doesn't participate in. is to advice and consent on federal judicial appointments, particularly the preek. that is a very sacred thing, and i don't think they've been doing a good job of it for a number of years. >> we have time for a question that takes less than a minute. >> we say that -- the vote for trump was a repudiation of washington. how do we explain that they re-elected nearly every member of congress to come back? >> that's a great question. >> go ahead, tom, take that one. >> i think in part, it was probably -- there is this sense that people still feel some personal identification with their member of congress. they hate the congress, but they love their congressperson. and it's because these members are spending over half their time at home now, and they're

all over and they're -- they develop these relationships that sort of transcend. it's not you, it's them that i'm upset with. and so i think that's -- that phenomenon still plays itself out. they didn't know donald trump or hillary clinton or if they did, they probably weren't enamored with one or the other. but they know they're own member of congress. that transcends often times, not always, but often times it transcends the people's view about the way washington's working. >> i agree with that, that's true. i do think that that was a big factor with trump. that he represented the real change. you know what, michael moore said, this would be the biggest go to that could possibly happen, when the people elected trump. also, i think the house and senate candidates played it pretty smart, if you go back and look at it, some of them who came out and said, okay, i'm for trump, i'm on his team. some of them tried to -- they'll

just give it the slip. some of them said, i'm not going to vote for him. they kind of got their message in their congressional district or senate races based on the factors in that state. i think the house and senate deserve a lot of credit. i'm a huge fan of paul ryan, i think he handled it pretty well. i hope that he and president-elect can get together and have no acrimony, but he didn't just jump on the bandwagon, and he gave, he did what he was supposed to do, and that is look after the house first. that's his constituency beyond his district in wisconsin. i think he had a lot to do with president-elect trump carrying wisconsin. i think he -- the president owes him a debt of gratitude, who would believe trump was going to carry wisconsin? anybody? not me. it was a surprise. >> speaking of paul ryan and donald trump, their lunch at the capitol hill club is wrapping up just about now, aparentally. so we should wrap this up as

well. i thank these two distinguished gentlemen, it was wonderful. gentlemen, it was wonderful. thank you. captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2008 captioning performed by vitac