were in the minority and barney frank might be open to leaving the house. what are your thoughts about not only his possibly moving on into another position but what challenge this poses to the democrats since maxine waters has some ethics issues within and presumably in line to be the ranking member. >> members of congress eight voting on financial issues. they did understand it, they do not know anything about these issues. they do not want to vote on this again.

they may challenge the regulations, you may have some votes on overriding particular regulations, but i cannot imagine they will revisit this bill. that is the last thing in the world they want to spend time on. >> jimmy buffett says that you have got to learn from bowl wrong things you done. we have a consistent pattern going back to several congresses, haste makes waste. let's get this bill through before the recap. we don't need to do other rigorous work. >> out believe the work was done much more efficiently in the 1980's. t.a.r.p., they wanted it over the weekend.

the panic is borne out of that the year of not wanting to be seen as the guy that does not care. the fact is, you have to go back and take so much of that work done carelessly and did you ever noticed the law of unintended consequences does not apply to the private sector? think about they have to start tuck -- taking some of that back. if they do not demonstrate a rigorous confidence, they will not be able to endure themselves to this new legislative constituency. though voters are requiring more of those in office.

>> i'm going to get u.s. second chance to answer that question. this is the double that they know. the business got a lot of the things that it wanted out of this bill. they will not want it reopened. >> we are not legislating on behalf of the business community. the american citizens at large are out of a job. >> he is right in one sense. i don't think there is any appetite for that. they're members of congress that do not really understand this.

i would say that there are probably two things the republicans will focus on. some sort of anti-t.a.r.p. legislation so that it never happens again, and then focus on fannie and freddie and how to reform them or put them out of business. some sort of legislation like that, i would imagine some sort of anti-regulatory would come up. >> i have to go speak to a group of my friends who are unhappy about what about the election results. [applause] >> one more thing, is fannie and freddie a place where they can work something else? >> there was one of the

interviews of people that came to washington a year ago for the t party rally. on that poll, the only thing that was less popular the barack obama was the banks on wall street. i do not think it would be any effort to repeal regulatory reform. i think that there probably acutely aware that financial regulatory was incredibly impact popular ridges incredibly popular. i think that is a nonstarter. [inaudible] let them find out about the house this year. >> we have noticed in the last year's a lot of the less sexy

legislation [unintelligible] what are the chances that the house and the senate will be alloted to -- allowed to do more -- [unintelligible] >> i may add, the pending free- trade agreements. panama and colombia. the fact that they made a big trip to asia starting on friday , going to career of. when i interviewed him last december in beijing, he said he wanted to get this done this year. it is not one happened. and these other issues.

>> what my favorite moments and , we sat across the table from each other, and it was a question of trade. we agreed that we were going to work together on this and we did. my observation was, if you get past your base and i can get past my base, i think we can get this done. because the demagoguery over trade issues is bipartisan. it only works when it is done. that becomes a real problem. you're not going to repair any major international issue, particular trade, without bipartisan work and leadership. that is the one area where we had an opportunity to work together productively to help

the american economy. the less sexy bills, i am correct that this new majority will understand [unintelligible] and there is a big difference, then you will see in their quiet confidence, they are addressing this issue and getting them done because it is important. what is the political. bank? there is none. it is worth the needs to be done for america. if they can achieve that type of professional cooperation, it will be a blessing to the whole process. but not if it is written off as a bunch of other political stuff. >> i think back to my friend --

the more legislation that they do, the more trouble that they get in. senator mcconnell said his top priority was to -- what was the exact language? ensure that obama was a one-term president. that does not bode well for bipartisan cooperation. again, it is hard the next day after, but two years from now they will be judged on what they did and not what they stopped. some stuff'll find that we can agree on and fight on, and they will go to years from now and show something that they have accomplished. >> can i follow that?

>> the congressman is quite right. the wall street journal did a poll that shows across economic allies. people are less and less inclined to support trade deals. >> back a couple of observations on trade. a lot of pro-trade politicians got elected pro-free trade was not the political killer that people thought it would be. the second point is that during the campaign, when you saw as the campaign drew to a close, how china came up and the terrible imbalance right now between what we export to china

and what we import from china. how that affected jobs and people planning china, and there was an effort by politicians to blame each other for being pro- china. the reason i say that, until the administration works on some sort of the scale compromise, that deals with that big problem, it is hard to get other legislation through. that being said, the three free trade agreements, you do have a pro-free trade leadership and congressman -- in congress. you also have a senate that is much more pro-free trade than the house. that does speak well for that. the back of the matter is that if we do not trade, we cannot grow jobs. that ultimately is the winning

arguments. >> cannot follow up real quick? the remaining democrat on the panel. >> the numbers are falling by a minute. >> talk about how all will work with the majority. you brought up trade upnafta during clinton, and a lot of that was done in the house. as much as we can forecasted, had easy the democratic minority in the house working with the obama ministration or becoming now potentially an opposition? >> i work for the democratic leader when clinton was president. and when bush was president. it was must address the money later to manage a minority house.

they get lots of goodies, they get stopped from the white house, they get invited to the parties. and you are in the minority and you do not have the president, things are a lot harder. people tend to fall in line behind the president. when there is not the president there, there is a center of gravity. people tend to go the wrong way. you try to have the family first agenda, which went really well. when clinton was president, it was easy to execute. when he was not, the house leadership took months to develop something that was just an exercise in politics. i think that everyone will pick and choose their fights here. the house democrats will stand shoulder to shoulder with the president but at times they will not.

over the last couple of years, nothing brings people together more than being on the defense. i think this will serve to pull them together more than personal part. >> you can take charge of the last two questions. >> i am with the trade association. it seems like primaries and a lot about ideology, elections are run on ideology and policy, and in legislation which looks like it is going to move seems to be run by both parties with a coalition of appetites. that is not just talking about earmarks. it is having the authorizations written, and cap and trade my again -- might have been a good example.

renewable fuels might be another good example. that is part of what has to be overcome. does that analysis make any sense? if it does, how do you overcome the lobbying frenzy? >> i believe lobbying is an honorable profession if it is carried out professionally. and it is a productive input into the system. i made at a ph.d. in economics and be a bright handsome fellow, but i would not know how it might affect your issue. the lobbying community that is held to a platform of professionalism is a healthy thing in the interest of producing a good product. i would argue that essentially

everything that i have seen happen officially in washington in the legislative process public of what bills will we pick up, how will we write the bills, why are we writing the bill, had been -- it is not about me. unless they can get the maturity and discipline to transform themselves into people who understand the gravity and the response ability to live up to about something other than myself, they are going to be a very unpopular group of people, in respect of the party affiliation. when you do the grass-roots work you do not need the high drama. they will both for the bill, if

it has could standing with the american people at large, you get your votes from both sides of the aisle. this is the problem that we see dramatically. on both sides. and i have talked to these folks all the time. we just want them to do their jobs seriously as i do my job. instead of that being just of quarreling about the budget, people trying to get a leg up. it is always about themselves. [unintelligible] president obama has made it very

clear that what he cannot get it legislatively, he will get it administratively. and this republican party, if they do not understand their duty to do serious responsible and there i use the were professional and rigorous congressional oversight on this that they created in the administration and a loss that they made, that they are going to have a president running the in run and you would get cap and trade treaty epa of the congress does not do its job. how do we move from politician to professional as we do -- as nation's work? it is a challenge that has not been well met by people in congress at large over the past few years. it breaks your heart to see a guy like ike skelton lose folks

like that. but again, it is about that. this is serious business. let's go out and do it. as we say in texas, cowboy up and do your job. to deny think there is time for one more question. i saw a hand up over here. >> on what the federal retirees. the question of the debt ceiling brought up in the other panel, i'm interested in the difference of opinion between the treasury and omb and cbo, when it is needed, and also the likelihood of how it mechanically might happen, standalone, or be packaged with other elements. >> an opportunity to put together or one of those things that pushes things apart.

>> if my recollection is right, these fights in the past have not cut as much attention that i believe that they would. they come quickly and go quietly. i know not know of that is the case this time. >> it was the time in 1985. but your question, they will raise the debt ceiling at the last possible moment. the treasury department, if they can sell all the stuff that they can -- and they always seem to come up with money. that is the one thing i remember. they always come up with money. the process will probably be, the house republicans passed a budget, and they use the get part rule gephart rule, and he says that we need this money to pay for the war efforts also security checks, so you have to

get this through the senate. that is the process by which it will happen. does rand paul say that i am going to filibuster against this? until he gets some sort of agreement to have some sort of budget reform or some sort of deficit-cutting bill passed something, but that is unknowable. that is the process by which it will happen. >> it will pass by a majority but the president will not want to brag about it passing. [unintelligible] ] that is not when happened. we need to help people get a sort of -- this is just that. the need to raise the debt ceiling is the legacy of our past fiscal irresponsibility. it is a bipartisan and as to be done. but the repercussions of not doing and are extremely

destructive to the country. it is a duty that i do not want. but -- if you're going ask me do something that is and savory, in order set of books right on your past spendthriftyness, i need an expression and result from you that things will change going forward. for them to be hard in bargaining s, it is perfectly responsible and necessary. the fact of the matter is, to a greater extent, the need to raise the debt ceiling is borne out of carelessness, self indulgence, and/or just plain irresponsibility. so i think use that moment of desperation to leverage a better understanding of what is the higher, more professional

resolve that this body must make about how to do business going forward. >> we have time for one more question. >> elizabeth willis with the embassy of australia. my original question was on foreign policy and trade. but now when the talk about foreign policy and see where it fits in the agenda for the congress, no one seems to be talking about it. troops are supposed to be withdrawn from afghanistan in the next year. funding will need to continue. the start treaty and other issues. where do you think of this is heading? >> i could do a brief commercial for "national journal" here? susan davis and nine put together what we call a chart icle.

we analyzed all lot of issues a possible compromise. we bring up in the afghanistan and start treaty, and the president is likely to find -- and i want to put this before the panel -- substantial support provided the july 2011 withdrawal is not precipitous from their point of view, and they are brought in with the december review that the president will have to read and is -- to evaluate his afghanistan policy after one year. and the start treaty, dick lugar is a linchpin, but if it does not get some specific details, it will not happen in the lame duck and may not at all. i won it for this over to you. >> we are paying -- it sounds i am repeating the same thing. but both parties will find places. the success in 2012 is based on

-- what success was choosing fights on both sides. foreign policy is the more intuitive place where they will find agreement. talking to susan major, they will find some common ground on this. i do think there is a high priority for the white house is this treaty. this was something that senator lemeiux was thinking of my doing on his way out of the door. you do not have to get into the must messy -- much messier domestic issues. these foreign policies issues. >> i think that the republican

leadership and the president will find common ground on afghanistan. i do not assume that all members -- many members of the liberal caucus and the democratic caucus and some members, including rand paul, who have great concerns about operations in afghanistan -- where the members are coming in, where they will necessarily be on that. i'll say that there will be an effort to find common ground at the leadership level. the two things that i would also point out, what will happen in iran? the closest thing to the next war, i would say. and then what will happen with china, which is this 800 million billion pound gorilla. >> the largest guerrilla ever known. [laughter] >> and one of the most effective campaign ads this season was put

together by citizens against government waste, with a chinese guy was talking about how america squandered its great heritage. i think that china is on the mind and should be on the mind of farm policy makers and how to deal with the great imbalance. >> i am correct that the temperament of this new congress will be more in respect for the genius of the divisions of authority, responsibility, checks and balances, the creative genius by which you divide up a layer in the constitution, you will find international policy initiatives, it is our job to work on this. so i think this is the one area where i think you might find this congress to be more deferential to the white house, the less the white house lurches

into some position. >> i want to wrap up things. thank you for your attendance. thank you to the underwriters. alice said patronize underwriters but that is our words. we thank you for your excellent questions. i have susan davis, my colleague, martin frost, dick armey -- thank you very much for coming. >> you are watching 2010 political coverage on c-span. on tomorrow's "washington journal," the federal reserve's plans to stimulate the economy. the head of the group freedom works, dick armey, discusses the election results. a look that the effect of the new health care law on medicare

with someone from the center for medicare and medicaid services. it begins live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> when a degree features of the c-span video library is the ability to clip and share our programs with your friends. during this campaign season, if that includes more than 100 debates we have erred on c-span. if you're new to it all, wash the tutorial on how to clip and share right there at our website. search, find, and share with the c-span video library. >> this weekend on both tv's in debt, and john a kohlberg, editor at large of "national review online" discusses the conservative movement and the next wave of reader -- of leaders on the right. join our conversation with your calls, e-mails, and tweets on c- span2. today, president obama held a news conference at the white house to talk about yesterday's

congressional elections. republicans had a net gain of at least 60 seats in the house, securing a majority in the next congress. the falcons also gained 6 seats in the senate. this news conference is an hour. >> good afternoon, everybody. last i had a chance to speak to the leaders of the house and the senate and reached out to those who had both won and lost in both parties. i told john boehner and mitch mcconnell that i look forward to working with them. and i think nancy pelosi and harry reid for their extraordinary leadership over the last two years.

and after what i am sure was a long night for a lot of you -- and needless to say it was for me -- i can tell you that some election nights are more fun than others. some are exhilarating. some are humbling. but every election, regardless of who wins and who loses, is a reminder that in our democracy, power rests not with those of us in elected office, but with the people we have the privilege to serve. over the last few months i have had the opportunity to travel around the country and meet people where they live and where they work, from backyards to factory floors. i did some talking, but mostly i did a lot of listening. and yesterday's vote confirmed what i have heard from folks all across america. people are frustrated -- they are deeply frustrated with the pace of our economic recovery and the opportunities that they hope for their children and their grandchildren.

they want jobs to come back faster, they want paychecks to go further, and they want the ability to give their children the same chances and opportunities as they have had in life. the men and women who sent us here do not expect washington to solve all their problems. they do expect washington to work for them, not against them. they want to know that their tax dollars are being spent wisely, not wasted, and that we are not going to leave our children a legacy of debt. they want to know that their voices are not being drowned out by a sea of lobbyists and special interests and partisan bickering. they want business to be done here openly and honestly. now i ran for this office to tackle these challenges and give voice to the concerns of everyday people. over the last two years, we have made progress. clearly, too many americans have

not felt that progress yet and they told us that yesterday. as president i take responsibility for that. what yesterday also told us is that no one party will be able to dictate where we go from here, that we must find common ground in order to set -- in order to make progress on some uncommonly difficult challenges. and i told john boehner and mitch mcconnell last night i am very eager to sit down with members of both parties and figure out how we can move forward together. i am not suggesting this will be easy. i will not pretend that we will be able to bridge every difference or solve every disagreement. there is a reason we have two parties in this country, and both democrats and republicans have certain beliefs and certain principles that each feels cannot be compromised. what i think the american people are expecting, and what we owe them, is to focus on those issues that affect their jobs, their security, and their

future -- reducing our deficit, promoting a clean energy economy, making sure that our children are the best educated in the world, making sure that we are making the investments in technology -- allow us to keep our competitive edge in the global economy. because the most important contest we face is not the contest between democrats and republicans. in this century the most important competition we face is between america and our economic competitors around the world. to win that competition and to continue our economic leadership, we are going to need to be strong and united. none of the challenges we face lend themselves to simple solutions or bumper-slick -- bumper-sticker slogans. nor are the answers found in any one particular philosophy or ideology. no person, no party has a monopoly on wisdom. that is why i m eager to hear good ideas wherever they come

from, whoever proposes them, and that is why i it did -- i believe it is important to have an honest and civil debate about the choices that we face. that is why i want to engage both democrats and republicans in serious conversations about where we are going as a nation. and with so much at stake, what the american people do not want from us, especially here in washington, is to spend the next two years refighting the political battles of the last two. we just had a tough election. we will have another in 2012. i am not so naive to think that everyone will put politics aside until then, but i do hope to make progress on the very serious problems facing us right now. and that will require all of us, including me, to work harder at building consensus. a little over a month ago, we held a town hall meeting in richmond, virginia.

one of the most telling questions came from a small business owner who runs a tree care firm. he told me how hard he works and how busy he was -- how he does not have time to pay attention to all the back-and-forth in washington. he asked -- is there hope for us returning to civility in our discourse, to a healthy legislative process, so that as i strap on the boots again tomorrow, i know that you guys got it under control? it is hard to have faith in that right now, he said. i do believe there is hope for civility. i do believe there is hope for progress. that is because i believe in the resiliency of a nation that has bounced back from much worse than what we are going through right now, a nation that has overcome war and depression, that has been made more perfect in our struggle for individual rights and individual freedoms.

each time progress has come slowly and even painfully, but progress has always come because we have worked at it and because we have believed in that, and most of all because we remembered that our first allegiance as citizens is not to party or region or faction, but to country -- because while we may be proud democrats or proud republicans, we are prouder to be americans. that is something we all need to remember right now and in the coming months. if we do, i have no doubt that we will continue this nation's long journey toward a better future. so with that, let me take some questions. i am going to start off with ben feller at ap. >> thank you, mr. president. are you willing to can see at all that what happened last i was not just an expression of frustration about the economy, but a fundamental rejection of

your agenda? who'd you think speaks to the true voice of the american people right now, you or john boehner? >> i think that there is no doubt that the people's number one concern is the economy. what they were expressing great frustration about is the fact we have not made enough progress on the economy. we've stabilized the economy, we have got job growth in the private sectors. but people all across america are not feeling that progress. they do not see it. and they understand that i am the president of the united states, and that my core responsibility is making sure that we have got an economy that is growing, a middle class that feels secure, that jobs are being created. and so i think i have got to take direct responsibility for the fact we've not made as much progress as we need to make.

moving forward, i think the question is going to be, can democrats and republicans sit down together and come up with a set of ideas that address those core concerns. i am confident that we can. i think that there are some areas where it will be very difficult for us to agree on, but a bunch of areas where we can agree on. i did not think there is anybody in america who thinks that we have got an energy policy that works the way it needs to, that thinks that we should not be working on energy independence. and that gives opportunities for democrats and republicans to come together and think about whether national gas or -- natural gas or energy efficiency or building electrical cars in this country, how we move forward on that agenda? everyone in this country thinks that we have got to make sure our kids are equipped in terms of education, science background, math backgrounds to

compete in this new global economy. that will be an area where i think there is potential common ground. on a whole range of issues, there are going to be areas where we disagree. i think the overwhelming message that i hear from the voters is that we want everyone to act responsibly in washington. we want you to work harder to arrive at consensus. we want you to focus completely on jobs and the economy and growing it, so that we are ensuring a better future for our children and our grandchildren. and i think that there is no doubt that as i reflect on the results of the election, it underscores for me that i have got to do a better job just like everybody else in washington does. [inaudible] i think john boehner and i and mitch mcconnell and harry neat

-- harry reid and nancy pelosi are going to have to sit down and work together, because i suspect that if you talk to any individual voter yesterday, there is something that they agree with democrats on, there's some things i agree with republicans on. i do not think people carry around with them a fixed ideology. i think the majority of people are going about their business and lives. they just want to make sure that we're making progress. that will be my top priority over the next couple of years. savannah guthrie. >> just following up on what ben just talked about, you do not seem to be reflecting any of the policy decisions you have made, instead saying the message the voters were sending about frustration with the economy or even chalking it up to a failure on your part to communicate effectively. if you're not reflecting on your policy agenda, is a possible butter's can conclude you are still not getting it?

-- voters can conclude you are still not getting a question margin that was just the first question so we will have more here. i am doing a whole lot of reflecting and there are areas in policy where we are going to have to do a better job. i think that over the last two years, we have made a series of very tough decisions, but decisions that were right in terms of moving the country forward in an emergency situation where we had the risk of slipping into a second great depression. but what is absolutely true is that with all that stuff coming at folks fast and furious -- a recovery package, what we had to do with respect to the banks, but we had to do with respect to the auto companies -- i think people started looking at all this and it felt as if government was getting a much more intrusive into people's

lives than they were accustomed to. another reason was it was an emergency situation. but i think it is understandable that folks said to themselves, maybe this is the agenda as opposed to a response to an emergency. that is something that i think everybody in the white house understood was a danger. we thought it was necessary, but i am sympathetic to folks who looked at it and said this is looking like potential overreach. in addition, there were a bunch of price tags that went with that. so even though these were emergency situations, people rightly said, we already have all of this debt and deficits. this is potentially going to compound it, and at what point are we going to get back to a situation where we're doing what families all around the country do, which is make sure that if you spend something, you know

how to pay for it? as opposed to racking up the credit card for the next generation. and the other thing that happened is that when i won election in 2008, one of the reasons i think that people were excited about the campaign was the prospect that we would change how business is done in washington. and we were in such a hurry to get things done that we did not change how things got done. i think that frustrated people. i am a strong believer that the earmarking process in congress is not what the american people really want to see when it comes to making tough decisions about how taxpayer dollars are spent. and i, in the rush to get things done, had to sign a bunch of bills that had earmarks in them, contrary to what i had talked

about. and i think folks look at that and they said, gosh, this feels like the same partisan squabbling, it seems like the same ways of doing business as happened before. and so one of the things that i have got to take responsibility for is not having moved enough on those fronts. and i think there is an opportunity to move forward on some of those issues. my understanding is eric cantor to say -- today so that he was this a moratorium on earmarks continuing. i think that is something we can work on together. >> which is still resist -- resist the notion that voters rejected the policy choices you made? >> savannah, i think that what i think is absolutely true is that voters are not satisfied with the outcomes. if right now we had 5%

unemployment instead of 9.6% on an plummet, people would have more confidence in those policy choices. the fact is, for most folks proof of whether they were not is, has the economy gotten back to where it needs to be? and it has not. my job is to make sure i am looking at all ideas on the table. when it comes to job creation, if republicans have good ideas for job growth that can drive down unemployment, and we have not thought of them, we have not looked at them but we think they have a chance of working, we want to try some. so on the policy front, i think the most important thing is to say that we're not going to rule out ideas because they are democrat or republican. we just want to see what works. ultimately i will be judged as

president as to the bottom line -- results. mike emanuel. >> thank you, mr. president. health care, as you are aware, republicans ran against your health care law. summit called for repealing the law. i am wondering if you believe that health care reform that you were so hard on is in danger at this point, and whether there is a threat as a result of this election? >> i know that there are some republican candidates who won last night who feel very strongly about it. i am sure that this will be an issue that comes up in discussions with the republican leadership. as i said before, though, i think we would be misreading the election if we thought that the american people want to see us for the next two years relitigate arguments that we had over the last two years.

with respect to the healthcare law generally, and this may go to some of the questions savannah was raising -- when i talk to a woman from new hampshire who does not have to mortgage her house because she got cancer and is seeking treatment, but now is able to get health insurance, when i talk to parents who are relieved that their child with a preexisting kissed -- pre- existing condition can now stay on their policy until there 26 years old and give them time to transition to a job that will give them health insurance, or the small businesses now taken the bench of the tax credits provided, then i say to myself, this was the right thing to do. now the republicans have ideas for how to improve our health care system, if they want to suggest modifications that would

deliver faster and more effective reform to a health care system that has been wildly expensive for too many families and businesses and certainly for our federal government, i am happy to consider those ideas. one of the things that has come up is that the 1099 provision in the health care bill appears to be too burdensome for small businesses. it just involves too much paperwork, too much filing. it is probably counterproductive. it was designed to make sure that revenue was raised to help pay for some of the other provisions, but if it ends up just being so much trouble that small businesses find it difficult to manage it, that is something we should take a look at. there are going to be examples where we can tweak and make improvements on the progress we have made. that is true for any significant

piece of legislation. but if you ask the american people, should we stop trying to close the doughnut hole that would help senior citizens get prescription drugs, should we go back to a situation where people with preexisting conditions cannot get health insurance, should we allow insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick even though you have been paying premiums -- i do not think that you would have a strong vote for people saying those are provisions i want to eliminate. >> according to exit polls, about one out of two voters apparently so that like to see it overturned or repealed. are you concerned that that may embolden voters who are from the other party? >> it also means one out of two voters think that it was the right thing to do. obviously this is an issue that has been contentious. what is going to be useful is

for us to go through the issues that republicans have issues on -- not sort of talking generally, but let's talk specifics. does this particular provision when it comes to preexisting conditions, is this something you are for or against? helping seniors get their prescription drugs -- does that make sense or not? if we take that approach, which is different from campaigning -- this is now governing -- then i think that we can continue to make progress and find some common ground. chip read. >> republicans say more than anything else what this election was about was spending. they say will be when freezes over that but will accept anything remotely like a stimulus bill or any proposal you have out there to stimulate job growth through spending. do except the fact that any spending to create jobs is dead

at this point? if so, what else can government do to create jobs, the number one issue? >> it will be an important question for democrats and republicans. i think the american people are absolutely concerned about spending and debt and deficits. and i'm going to have a deficit commission that is putting forward its ideas. it is a bipartisan group that includes republican and democratic members of congress. hopefully that will rival -- they were able to arrive consensus on areas where we can eliminate programs that do not work, cut back on government spending that is inefficient, streamline government, but is not cutting into the core investments that are going to make sure we are competitive economy growing and providing opportunity for years to come.

so the question i think that my republican friends and me and democratic leaders are going to have answer is, what are our priorities? what do we care about? and that is a tough debate, because there are tough choices here. we already had a big deficit that i inherited, and that has been made worse because of the recession. as we bring it down, i want to make sure that we're not cutting into education that is going to help define whether or not we can compete around the world. i did not think we should be cutting back on research and development, because if we can develop new technologies in areas like clean energy, that can make all the difference in terms of job creation here at home. i think the proposal i put forward with respect to infrastructure is one that historically we have had bipartisan agreement about. we should be able to agree now

that it makes no sense for china that have better rail systems than us, and singapore having better airports than us. and we just learned that china now has the fastest supercomputer on earth -- that used to be us. they are making investments because those investments will pay off over the long term. so in these budget discussions, the key is to distinguish between stuff that is not adding to our growth, it is not an investment in our future, and those things that are absolutely necessary for us to be able to increase job growth in the future as well. the the single most of the one thing i think we need to do economically, and this is something that has to be done during the lame duck session, is making sure that taxes do not go up on middle-class families this year.

and so we've got some more to do on that front to make sure that families are not only is not seen a higher tax burden, which will automatically happen if congress does not act, but also making sure that business provisions that historically we have extended each year -- for example, provide tax breaks for companies that are investing here in the united states in research and development -- that those are extended. it makes sense for us to extend unemployment insurance because there is still a lot of folks out there hurting. there are some things that we can do right now that will help sustain the recovery and advance it, even as we are sitting down and figuring out, ok, over the next several years what kind of budget cuts can we make that are intelligent, smart, they will not undermine our recovery but will be encouraging job growth? >> of the region most of the things you just called

investments they call wasteful spending and they say it is dead on arrival. without their support, you can i get any of it through. >> without republican support on anything, it will be hard to get things done. i am not going to anticipate that they will not support anything. i think that part of the message sent to republicans was we want to see from a job growth in this country. if there are good ideas about putting people to work that traditionally have garnered republican support and that do not add to the deficit, then my hope and expectation is that is something they're willing to have a serious conversation about. when it comes to a proposal we put forward to decelerate depreciation for business so that they are building a plant or investing in new equipment next year, they can take a complete write-off next year, get a huge tax break next year,

and that would encourage a lot of businesses to get off the sidelines -- that is not historically considered a liberal idea. that is an idea of business groups and republicans have supported for a very long time. the question will be, do we all come to the table with open minds and say to ourselves, what do we think will make a difference for the american people? that is how we will be judged over the next couple of years. peter baker. >> thank you, mr. president. after your election when you met with republicans, in discussing what policies might go forward, that elections have consequences. he pointed out that you had won. i wonder what consequences you think this election should have in terms of your policies? are there areas you would be willing to compromise on that you might not have been willing to compromise on in the past?

>> well, i think i have been willing to compromise in the past and i'm going to be willing to compromise going forward on a whole range of issues. let me give you an example. the issue of energy that i just mentioned. there are a lot of republicans that ran against the energy bill that passed in the house last year. it is doubtful that you get the votes to pass that through the house this year or next year or the year after. but that does not mean there is not agreement that we should have a better energy policy. so let's find those areas where we can agree. we have got, i think, broad agreement that we have got terrific natural gas resources in this country. are we doing everything we can to develop those? there is a lot of agreement around the need to make sure that electric cars are developed here in the united states, that

we do not fall behind other countries. are there things that we can do to encourage that? and there is already been bipartisan interest on those issues. there's been discussion about how we can restart our nuclear industry as a means of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and reducing greenhouse gases. is that an area where we can move forward? we were able over the last two years to increase for the first time in 30 years fuel efficiency standards on cars and trucks. we did not even need legislation. we just needed the cooperation of automakers and autoworkers and investors and other shareholders. that will move us forward in a serious way. so i think when it comes to something like energy, what we're probably going to have to do is say this is areas where there is too much disagreements between democrats and

republicans. we can i get this done right now. but let us not wait. let's start making progress on things that we do agree on, and we can continue to have a strong and healthy debate about those areas where we do not. >> is there anything in the pledge to america that you think you can support? >> i am sure there would be areas around reforming how washington works that i will be interested in. .

the toughest thing is seeing public servants not having the opportunity to serve anymore. there are some terrific members of congress who took really tough votes because they thought was the right thing even though that today expected political problems. many of them came from really tough districts or majority republican districts. the amount of courage and conviction that they have shown is something that i admire so much i cannot even state it. there is not only sadness about seeing them go but also a lot of questioning in my part in terms

if being able to do something more said they could still be here. i will tell you that they have been incredibly gracious. they told me that they don't have regrets because i feel like we were doing the right thing. and might have said that to make me feel better which is a sign of their character and class. i hope many of them continue to pursue public service because they are terrific public servants. with respect to the tax-cut issue. my goal is to make sure that we don't have a huge increase in taxes for middle-class families.

not only would that be a terrible burden, this would be bad for the economy. it is very important that we are not taking a whole bunch of money out from the people who are likely to spend that money. that is why i think that unemployment insurance is important. this is the right thing to do for the economy as a whole. michael is to sit down with mitch mcconnell, harry, nancy in the next few weeks and see where

we can move forward in a way that does no harm. the tax cuts that are important for middle-class families also encourage businesses to invest and some certainty over the next year or two. how that negotiation works itself out is too early to say but this will be one of my top priorities but given that we have an interest in growing the economy and encouraging job growth, we will not play gamesmanship. >> he said it was clear that congress is rejecting the idea as a captain trade program and would not be able to move

forward. would you feel the same thing it about the epa or is that off the table? you said you did not do enough to change the way things were handled. in order to get your health care bill passed, it needed to make those deals. the wish you had not made those deals? >> i think making sure that families are secure and we are on a trajectory to lower health- care costs is absolutely critical for this country. when you are navigating through a house and a senate in this kind of partisan environment, this is an ugly mess when it comes to process and i think that this is how people look at

the outcome. that is something that i regret it. we could not have made the process more healthy than it ended up being. the outcome was good. with respect to the epa, i think the smartest thing for us to do is to see if we can get democrats and republicans were serious about energy independence and keeping our air and water clean and dealing with the issue of greenhouse gases. seeing other ways that we can make progress in the short term and invest in technologies that will help to solve this problem. the epa is under a court order

and that says that greenhouse gases are a pollutant and this fall's under their jurisdiction. one of the things that is important for me is to not have us ignore the science but to find ways that we can solve these problems that don't hurt the economy, and encouraged the development of clean energy. in fact, opportunities to create jobs and create industries and put ourselves in a competitive posture around the world. it is too early to see if we can make progress. cap and trade is not the only way to deal with this problem.

i don't think that they are desirous of protecting their powers. >> i want to do a personal policy. you said that the republicans were sitting on the sidelines but he said that if you want to go forward you will choose d. what changes will you make to your approach to try to fix your connection to the american people? don't ask, don't tell something that you promised to end. this is a tough issue, you have

not been able to do it. are you going to have to tell your base that you not able to get this done? >> i have been a strong believer that in the notion of someone is willing to serve in our military in uniform and putting their lives on the line for our security that they should not be prevented from doing so because of their sexual orientation. there has been a lot of discussion about polls over the last 48 hours, many americans still the same way. this is the right thing to do. as commander in chief, i've said that making this change needs to be done in an orderly fashion. i've worked with the pentagon, with secretary gates, with admiral mollen to make sure that

we are looking at this in a systematic way that remains good order and discipline and we need to change this policy. there will be a review that comes out at the beginning of the month and they will have surveys and attitudes and opinions within the armed forces. i would expect that the secretary of defense will have something to say about a bad review. i will look into this very carefully. on that will give us time to act during the lame duck session to change this policy. we have a bunch of court cases that are out there as well. something that would be very disruptive, good order and discipline and unit cohesion is if you have this issue bouncing a round in the courts as it has over the last several weeks where the pentagon and the chain

of command is not know what rules we are working on. we need to provide certainty. time for us to move this policy forward. this should not be a partisan issue. this is an issue where you have a sizable portion of the american people squarely behind the notion that people were willing to solve on our behalf and they should be treated equally. and terms of how we move forward, i think that the american people understand that we are still digging our way out of a mess. i don't think anyone thinks that we are not in a ditch. to move and the analogy that i used in the campaign. what they want is the democrats

and republicans pushing some more to get the car on level ground. we have not done that. if you think i was in beijing in too much campaign rhetoric saying that the republicans -- if you think that it was engaging in too much campaign rhetoric by saying that the republicans are sitting on the side of the road, at the very least we were pushing in opposite directions. when i came into office this economy was in a freefall. the economy has stabilized. the economy is growing. i think it would be hard to argue that we are going backwards. what you can argue is that we are stuck in neutral. we're not moving the way we need

to to make sure that people have the jobs and we have seen economic growth in their communities. that will require democrats and republicans to come together with the best ideas to move things forward. this will not be easy not just because democrats and republicans might have different priorities. these issues are hard. the republican said that they were very concerned about debt and deficits throughout the campaign. one of the most important things we can do is economic growth. what other proposals to they have to grow the economy? if they are rejecting some of the proposals i have made, i want to hear from them what

affirmative policies can make a difference in terms of encouraging job growth and promoting the economy. i don't think that tax cuts alone will be a recipe for the kind of expansion that we need. from 2001 until 2009, we cut taxes pretty significantly and we did not see the expansion that would be necessary in driving the unemployment rate down significantly. but we will need to do and what the american people want is for us to mix and match ideas and move forward on where we can agree. agree without being disagreeable on those areas that we cannot agree. if we accomplish that, then it will be time for politics later but of the next year we can solidify this recovery and give people some more confidence.

>> i was going to as if you were going to have john boehner over for a sleepy but i'm going to ask a serious question. -- for a slurpee but i'm going to ask a serious question. >> is actually a good drink. >> is there a reset button that you will be using? can you get them off the sidelines and hiring again? >> this is a question we have been asking ourselves for several months. as i reflect on what has happened over the past two years, one of the things that has not been managed by me as well as it needs to be was finding the right balance in

making sure that businesses have rules of the road and are treating customers fairly whether this is credit cards, insurance, their mortgages. also making absolutely clear that the only way america succeeds is if businesses are succeeding. the reason that we have an unparalleled standard of living is that we have a standard of living. that free market has to be nurtured. there is no doubt that when you have the financial crisis on wall street, the bonus controversies, the battle

around health care, the battle on financial reform, there is a success of set of issues. i have to take responsibility in terms of making sure that i make clear to the business community as well as the country that the most important thing that we can do is to boost and in courage our businesses and make sure that they are hiring. we do have plans on how we can structure that outreach. as i plan for my trip later this week to asia, the whole focus is on how we will open up markets so that american businesses can

prosper and we can sell more goods and create more jobs here in the u.s. and a whole bunch of corporate executives will be joining us so that i can help them open up those markets and allow them to sell their products. there has been a lot of strong interaction. i think setting the right tone publicly will be important and it could end up making a difference in terms of how businesses make investments. >> i already discussed -- >> [inaudible] >> i made these proposals a few months ago but this was in the midst of a campaign season where it was doubtful that they would be getting a hearing. as we move forward, sitting down and figuring out exactly what would help you make more

investments, more jobs here in the u.s. and listening hard to them in a context where maybe democrats and republicans are together. we are receiving the same message and that the same time, -- on that agenda could make a big difference. >> how do you respond to those who say that such an outcome was the voters saying that you are out of touch with their personal economic situations? >> he know, there is an inherent danger in being in the white house.

people did not had any complaints about my leadership style when i was running around iowa for a year and they got a pretty good look at me up close and personal. they understood that my story was theirs. i might have had a funny name but the values of hard work and responsibility and honesty and looking out for one another had been instilled in them by their parents and that is what it took from my mother and my grandparents. the track record has been that when i am out of this pace -- place, that is not an issue. when you are in this place, it

is hard not to seem removed. how do i meet my responsibilities here in the white house which requires a lot of hard hours and a lot of work. i had the opportunity to engage with a lot of people on a day- to-day basis. to give them confidence that i am listening to them. those letters that i read every night, some of them just breaks my heart. some of them provide me encouragement and inspiration but no one is filming me reading those letters and sell it is hard for people to get a sense. i think that there are more things that we can do to make sure that we are getting out of

here i think it is important to get out of this that there are a couple of great communicators, bill clinton, ronald reagan, were standing at this two years into their presidency getting very similar questions. the economy was not working the way needed to be and there was a whole range of factors to the people concerned. this is something that every president needs to go through because the responsibility of this office are so enormous and so many people are depending upon what we do and in the rush of activity, sometimes we lose

track of the ways that we connected with people who got us here in the first place. i'm not recommending that day take a situation like we had last night. there is an easier way to learn these lessons but i think that this is a growth process. the relationship i've had with the american people is one that build slowly, peaked at this incredible high and then during the course of the past two years as we have gone through some very difficult times, has gotten more difficult.

i am sure that there will be some more ups and downs in the course of me being in this office. the one. i want to and don is getting out of fear is good for me as well. when i travel around the country, even in the most difficult of these debates. in the midst of the health care when there were protesters, when i'm eating families who have lost loved ones in afghanistan or iraq -- when i meeting -- i am meeting families who have lost loved ones in iraq and afghanistan, there are wonderful people were finding ways to live together, educate kids, improve

their communities and create businesses and work together to create various products and services. the american people always make me optimistic and that is why during the course of the last two years, as tough as it has been, as many scary moments as we have gone through, i have never doubted that we will emerge stronger than before. that remains true and i will be looking forward to playing my part in helping that journey along. thank you very much, everyone. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> earlier, house republicans held a press conference to discuss last nine elections.

this is 15 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. we are humbled by the trust that is placed in us. this is a time for us to go to work on the people's priorities, creating jobs, cutting spending, and reforming the way congress does its business. this is not just with the american people are demanding, this is what they are expecting from us. the real question now is this -- will we listen to the american people?

republicans have made a pledge to america and our pledges to listen to the american people and to focus on their parties and that is exactly what we're going to do. last night, the president was kind enough to call me and we discussed working together on the american people's priorities -- cutting spending, creating jobs. we hope that he will continue to work with us on those priorities. as i said last night, the majority will be the voice of the american people and we have clearly expressed that. we will continue and renew our efforts for a smaller and less costly and accountable government here in washington. i would like to say things to my two colleagues. most of you know, senator mcconnell and i have worked closely together over the last five years or so.

haley barbour and i have been friends for the last 20 years. i am proud to stand here today with both of them. >> at the risk of this sounded like a neutral admiration society, i would like to say what a pleasure it has been to work with john over the past four years. this is a happy day for the three of us. let me make a few observations. we are in deep humbled and ready to listen to the american people. and to lead on the issues that they have indicated that day -- that they are clear about. we will work with the administration when they agree with people and confront them when they cannot. choosing -- what our friends on

the other side learned is choosing the president over your constituents is not a good strategy. this was clearly a referendum on the administration and the democratic majority here in the congress. ignoring the voters and their wishes as you could see during the entire two years produces predictable results. the health care bill was a metaphor for the government access that we witnessed over the past two years. the american people want the -- do not want the government working over banks, business, and health care became the tipping point. i would say to our friends on the other side of the aisle and listening what they had to say, many have missed the message somewhat.

i get the impression that to their opinion is that we have not cooperated enough. what the american people were saying is that they appreciated as saying no to the things that to the american people indicated that there were not in favor of. i think the group that should hopefully get the message out of yesterday's elections are our friends on the other side of the aisle. we hope that they will go in a different direction, work with us on things like spending and debt and trade agreements and nuclear power and clean coal technology and other things the president has said he is for that most of my members are for. the question is, how do we meet in the middle? the best strategy for the other side would be to listen to the voters. they made a question of -- a clear statement about what they would like to see done. we would like to make progress for the country over the next in two years. let me turn to gov. barbara.

>> thank you for allowing me to be here. on behalf of the republican governors, while the governor's races might be separate from what is going on in washington, in this case, this election was a referendum on obama's policies and the policies of the obama administration. going forward, governors believe that we can work with the congress to try to set things in a better direction. the voters yesterday voted against deficits, trillions of

dollars in new debt being loaded on our children and grandchildren. a huge tax increase right around the corner. we have to cut spending as governors. i can remember when my career in washington was going on, the budget was supposed to go up 8% and it only went up 5%. i hope that this will be an example for congress. we look forward to working with them and appreciate their support in helping us get to there. >> did you talk to nancy pelosi? >> the speaker attempted to reach me this morning and left

me a very nice with smell. i expect that we will have to and very smooth transition with her office. what unites us as republicans would be the agenda of the american people. we are listening to the american people. i don't see any problems in corporate and the members of the two-party along with our party. they want us to cut spending and focus on creating jobs in america. >> will you be open to some kind of less than permanent continuation? >> we continue to believe extending all of the current tax rates for all americans is the right policy for our economy at this time.

>> what made you cry last night? >> difficult to talk about my family and my background. >> the exit polls last night said that 53% of americans have an unfavorable view of the american -- at the republican party. what does this tell you about how you will govern? >> we will listen to the american people. they sent a very loud message last night. if you look at the number of republican governors that one and the number of republican legislative bodies, it is clear that the american people want a smaller and more accountable government from washington, d.c. the american people see us doing things that they're telling us to do and they will do just

fine. >> all of you have been reading about 94 what are the lessons that you take away from that? >> it is important to listen to the american people. there are more people engaged in the government today than i have ever seen in my lifetime. the real key to having success is to keep the american people engage in this process beyond last night. the government will do exactly what the american people demand every day.

>> clearly, the election did not transfer full control of the government to the opposition. this was a first step in that direction of changing what we have been doing in washington there are a key opportunities for that change to occur. our friends can change now and work with us to address the issues that are important. in the meantime, we were sent here to work on the people's business. it is clear that we will have to have some kind of bipartisanship agreement and hopefully that will be on the issues of spending and debt and that is what the american people are asking us to address. i anticipate that democrats will come our direction on spending

and debt. >> how are you going to be able to help -- >> we need to do what needs to be done on behalf of the american people. >> talk about your conversation with the president. >> we talked about working on behalf of the american people and i look forward to happen the opportunity to talk with him about those areas where we can

work together. >> in the two parties, how will you work with them? -- the tea parties, how will you be working with them? >> will be working with them over the next couple of months. >> i believe operating under the 2008 level of spending before the bailout and the stimulus is an irresponsible way forward. >> will you formalize this link between american people on line and your administration? >> we will continue to talk to the american people every day. the ideas will be intended to

provide the american people and form and a vehicle to talk to us so that we can listen every day. >> republicans have pledged to repeal the health care process. do you plan to use an appropriation process? >> i believe that the health care bill that was enacted by the current congress will kill jobs in america, ruin the best health-care system in the world , and bankrupt our country. that means we have to do everything we can to try to repeal this bill and replace it with common sense reforms. >> how about finance reform. >> i think that one of the

things that congress has not done a very good job of is -- over a site. the -- oversight. this is a constitutional responsibility of the congress. the 350 regulatory filings in the bill will require oversight. the american people understand just what this bill will do. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the day, senate leaders spoke about the election through conference call. this is 20 minutes.

>> we have already done press. i hope that this is helpful to you. the election was tough on all sides. this is nothing compared to what families are facing. the american people expect us to work together. we are committed to putting the concerns of middle-class families first and we are working to find common ground

and resolutions and progress. we're not finished fighting big banks which have an lot of money and they're not using those to stimulate the economy. we want to make sure that we protect social security. we want to make sure that we do things that stopped companies like bp and others from spoiling the earth. the number one issue in nevada was corporations that ship jobs overseas. we will look at that very closely because there is nothing that has impacted the middle- class and than this. republicans must take their responsibility to solve the problems of ordinary americans.

we are working to get things out of the economic ditch that we were in. >> thank you. this is dick durbin from chicago. i could not -- we need to work together. strengthen the middle-class and our family and strengthen businesses. the senate will be the crucible between some of the most important issues of the day.

some of the most controversial issues requires 60 votes. we know that we will need help from the other side. play to a drop and we achieved little in nothing, people will see right through it. do you want us to roll up our sleeves and define common ground even as it means giving and as we must. this is what the american processes been about and this is what the senate has been about and this will be the challenge from the next two years. >> i want to say two words about my colleagues.

senator reid did an amazing job in nevada. senator menendez under the most difficult of circumstances did a phenomenal job. i think that that is true for every one of our caucus members. the middle class is hurting. that is the lesson. the average bill, the most salient statistic, median income declined during the last election. average middle-class people did not have good paying jobs. -- median income declined during the last administration. our job is to focus on the middle class like a laser to

create jobs and to help them stretched that. there are many places where we can find common ground with our republican colleagues to do just that. they will believe a little bit more. we can come to common ground and we want to come to common ground. we don't have the america we know. the american people are optimistic and they want to believe that their lives would be better 10 years from now. their children's lives will be better than theirs.

and did we believe that we don't have all of the monopoly on knowledge to make waste that our republican colleagues -- on knowledge that will assist our colleagues. >> i would like to congratulate the leader on his successful election. money all over the country coming in. i always thought i had two jobs, one was to keep the democratic majority and the other was to make sure that the majority leader was reelected. i think it is important to note the challenge that we had beyond

the midterm election which always has the party lose their seats. since 1930, every time the house of representatives has which control and we beat history by keeping the democratic majority in the senate. so, i certainly appreciate that. i appreciate the fact that democrats had a solid night despite difficult circumstances. people stay focused on jobs, the economy, spending.

we had a good night considering the history against us and the economic challenges that we inherited and we worked assiduously to return them around. i think the results of the elections only strengthens our resolve to make sure that we deal with an economic challenges. we know that this election is not about political parties but about the people that we represent. >> we will take some questions now. >> first, we have a question

from "the hill." can you tell me what the plan is for the defense authorization which has the don't ask don't tell repeal in it. >> i had a nice conversation with chairman leaven and he is anxious to move forward. we probably will have the defense authorization bill which means that it takes a while to get it done. if we can get some agreement from the republicans, we can move the bill with a lot of extraneous amendments. this conversation here today is not on tactics for the lame duck or the new congress. we are here to talk to you about the election. this is done bu.

we will have some meetings with my caucus before we get into specifics but. we are closer on a number of issues but we have a number of things to try to work through. we had a very constructive conversation with leader mcconnell within the past hour. i think that we will work well together. there is a concerted effort by both caucuses to reference what the election meant. it means that he will work together. if anyone tries to take more out of that, that is a big mistake. this will not be alloway or their way or the highway. -- our way or the highway.

>> is there anyone there on that would like to ask a question? >> it should be but --

>> sanderssenators, we are tryio get the questions through. >> well, i think what we are going to half of -- it appears that we have some technical folk the coty's -- we have some technical difficulties. >> center, are you there? q. have 59 votes it was incredibly difficult to get anything done. -- you had 59 votes and it was incredibly difficult to get

anything done. in the upcoming congress, you will be down to 52. you have talked about the importance of compromising. senator mcconnell did not sound like he wanted to compromise that much. you have some senators coming in who will not compromise. how do you manage a caucus like this that was already hard last time around? >> first of all this whole congress has been the easiest team i have ever played on. we have worked together. our concern is that we have not had input from the republicans. every piece of legislation that we proposed could have been improved with some input from the republicans but they said no to everything. i cannot imagine that there

will be there continuum. they cannot do that. they have already been identified as the party of the know. -- party of no. we are willing to work with them, they should be willing to work with us. >> ok. >> senators, i feel like i have heard you say this before. we want to work with republicans, the american people are asking for bipartisanship. my question is, do you really think that you will be able to govern with what looks buying an unruly house gop and majority and an involved in senate minority. will there be anything to insure

that you can get bills onto the floor? >> we are not reinventing the wheel. this government was set up in the 18th-century and that they knew there would be problems. that is why they made this unique system. this has all happened before. we have had a president of one party, a senate of the same party, a house of a different party and we have gotten by. we have done some good things. the message i repeat today is that the ball is in their court. you keep talking about the small majority. 53 is a pretty good majority. we wish that russ and blanche

had won but we are comfortable where we are. we have made the message very clear. if they are unwilling to work with us, there's not a thing that we can do about that. >> i want to ask senators schumer and durban, there has been a lot of speculation about a possible leadership fight. do you support senator reid for majority leader? >> absolutely.

>> you talked about the compromise, senator reid. on the compromise of the renewal of the bush tax cuts, are you open to the tax cuts compromise or how to use see this going forward? >> the one thing that we are focused on like a laser is this. we are going to have taxes for the middle-class. i would hope that republicans would not knock that. we are going to work with them. if they have some better ideas, we will look at that. legislation introduced by my counterpart, he extended everything in definitely. that is a road to more debt.

we are willing to keep our ears open. our main goal is to do everything we can to make sure that the middle-class gets in their tax cuts that they deserve. we have one last question. >> this is a question for senator reid. . .

i am hoping they will be the case and i'm confident that it will be. >> thanks again, everybody. >> coming up next, analysis of yesterday's election from the national journal and from the faith in freedom coalition. later, at today's news conferences with republican party leaders and president obama. we are covering several post- election events tomorrow and c- span. senator mitch mcconnell will discuss the republican agenda for the next coverage live from the heritage foundation beginning at 11:00 a.m. eastern. at noon eastern, analysis of the election results from the american enterprise institute.

you can watch it live on c-span and on c-span.org. >> one of the great features of the c-span video library is the ability to clip and share our programs with your friends. and during this campaign season, that includes more than 100 debates we have aired on c- span. if you're new to it all, watch the tutorial on how to clip and share right there at our website. search, find, and share with the c-span video library. >> today at this conference held by the publication of an " national journal," journalist and political analysis recapped the election results. participants include brian barrett and bart gordon and dick armey. this is four hours.

>> what happened last night? >> what a difference a day makes and what happened last night? we had a tsunami. you have to go back to 1948 when they work 70 seats that chained. it is more than the house, more than the senate with at least six that we picked up. you have to look at the state legislatures and governors of a country. we'll probably 19 bodies of the legislature, maybe 10 governors, and the redistricting process coming up from our standpoint will be much fairer now because we have part of the decision making process on that. those of the facts. what happened? class that the people spoke. it was a rejection of the obama administration. two years ago i stood before you at the national press club and walked -- and talk about what

happened then. i accepted responsibility for the defeat and congratulated obama. i said that we are a center- right country which we still are. i warned that if he lurched to the left and choked on responsibility, that the republicans would be bad. i think that he did. i think his agenda over reached and that is what happened last night. >> mr. trumka, how you read last night's election? >> i think the corporate agenda and the american crossroads had a good day. the question is why. obviously i disagree with what my friend michael just said in a lot of ways. yesterday the issue that people -- what drove them to vote was the jobs and economy. it was not because they bought the pledge to america. if you look at it, we do not have all the data analyzed yet, and we will be doing a call at noon time -- any of you that choose to find out arrest of the data that we have, if you'll

free to join our call at noon -- but we went through all the issues, and 63% of the people in those congressional races and governor's races oppose tax breaks for people over to her and $50,000. 62% of them posed privatizing social security -- opposed privatizing social security. even among republican voters, the exact figure -- 65% knew little or nothing about the pledge to america. this is the first consecutive start to the third consecutive cycle where the pipe -- the people in power have been kicked out of power by frustration. i think the reading from last night is that the american people know that the economy does not work. they are suffering and angry because of that. they are going to -- now that you're part of the governing structure, you will have to come

with a way to create jobs and get the economy back on the move. i think that they are frustrating, not because too much was done but because too little was done. as a result of that, the republican strategy of stopping everything, it probably had an effect. now you are in the governing structure and you will not be able the just say no. you have to come up with your ideas and create jobs. hopefully we can do that together. that is our ultimate goal. judy your essential argument is that voters were not against -- was not for the republican party but against democrats? >> it was against the ruling party in power. at different levels. they believe that their agenda was embraced, they're going to be short-lived where they are right now. there was an anger about not getting the job done. now they are part of getting the job done.

they will have to come up with something this is this is how we create jobs. if you create jobs, we will join you with that. >> i hope so. i agree with you that it is about the economy. but it is about the obama administration not paying enough attention to the economy. i think that we will present policies -- tax policies that go along with the monetary policies to take more action on trying to put more money into the system. we have to balance the budget. we have to get government spending under control. that is what people were talking about. if they understand that as part of what makes the psychology of jobs in this country. when you suppress small businesses by keeping them in the dark about what the policy is going to be -- we do not know what the tax rate is going to be -- that hurts creation at the local level. it will be a big change. >> would you also help us stop the outsourcing of jobs? will you help us stop rewarding

companies that take jobs offshore or to margin start rewarding companies that create jobs at home? >> let's keep with analyzing the vote. [laughter] would you agree with mr. trump the that the result last night was not a validation of republicans but a rejection of democrats? >> the people in this country are giving us a chance. we will take advantage of that. we messed up. ivan knowledge that in 2008 and two dozen seats. we have an opportunity and did not do enough. i think is all the republican party listening this time. i think that was part of the pledge of america. the understand that americans are hurting and out of work. the main it misery index had to do with the foreclosure rate in the unemployment range. that is the change in we get it. >> i hope that that is true. >> of the deal had been involved in organizations that spent millions of dollars over this elections. mr. trumka, one of the bright

spots for the democrats last night is that among -- there was a seven-point swing, but among democrats households, it was only 4%. there was like west virginia, in several districts, pa. -- talk about the effect that the afl- cio and other labor groups have had on the democratic election and effort? >> we do not have all the data analyzed so i cannot give you a state-by-state or race by race analysis. but overall our members voted for progressive candidates by about 30% margin. it places like nevada, it was even higher. it was 69-29 that we voted for harry reid in -- and in west virginia it would have been higher for joe manchin. we made millions of phone calls. we sent out millions of pieces of mail. we had millions of door knocks.

you will see that in democratic after demographic, if you are a union member you voted for progressive candidates, and if not, you voted the other way. you will see that today pretty graphically. we did our job in what we were supposed to do. how are people voted overwhelmingly for canada's that will support working people. >> american crossroads is one of they callpac's as them. you have been involved in races all of the country. talk about the effect these outside groups have had. >> the labor union model is what we're going by, the outside organizations set up in 2004 and 2006. i congratulate -- because he did turn out his people and we're working on that. if we were involved in eight senate races. we exceeded our budget.

we did millions of dollars of television advertising, mail, phone calls -- we're not as good as you are on the deployment but we're working on that. we think it made a difference. we're involved early on in nevada. we think we kept that race close there. we were able to target our efforts. we worked early on in arkansas, in missouri, pennsylvania, we work in colorado -- we were involved all over the country. toward the end we did some house races. but it is an acknowledgment of the outside groups on the democratic side have done a good side of the last three cycles. we're just now catching up. >> we did more than catch up. the conservative groups house brent progressive groups to 1 yesterday. >> it's interesting that on turnout they may have outspent some liberal leaning groups on television, but it seems like a lot of union money went to ground operations.

why did the ground operations instead of blanketing the airwaves? >> we think that is our job. our members trust us when we talk to them one-on-one. and we did do a good job talking to them. not one penny of afl-cio money went to a candidate. our manning goes to the ground game. -- our money went to the ground in. we touched our members between 15 and 20 times in this election. whether it was mailed from the local union, or from us, whether it was a phone call, a door knocker, we probably touched them 15 to 20 tons. and it made a difference. when you see the demographics, it made a difference with everyone. we have members that are born again. we have members that are ultraconservative. we have members that are the rest of society. we mirror society. except when we give them the facts and the information that the need to make a decision, it

makes a difference. >> let me set this straight over money. over the last two cycles, left- leaning groups have outspent us more than 21. we're getting close to a level playing field but we're not there. >> let's talk about what this means going forward. you were quoted saying that this is a practice round for 2012. both sides, both outside groups spent far more than the democratic national committee or the republican national committee or the appropriate associated committees of the house and the senate. is this evidence that the outside groups are becoming more powerful and more influential than the party organizations that you are trying to let question or gillette me put this in perspective. let's talk about how much we spend on potato chips -- $7 billion. last week on halloween, we spend on candy and costume's $5.8

billion. the totality this time, we will spend about $4 billion on politics. most of that will be spent by the campaigns. i think the outside groups spent about $400 million. i do not think that there's too much money in politics. i think we do not invest enough in our democracy. >> speaking of potato chips, the country spent more on potato chips than on energy research last year. which i find quite appalling. >> what you think about the outside spending? does this mean that labor organizations and groups like american crossroads are becoming more powerful or influential than the democratic national committee in the republican national committee? >> those are two issues. one is not how much money was spent, but who spits it? we have this wonderful sounding group able to combine the amount that corp. spend on lobbying, that they spend on the election,

it vastly dwarfed us in all that. who is spending the money. some of your money came from foreign sources. >> that is not true. that is absolutely not true. you cannot say that because that is not true. eyeleted every donation that we had come in. we got our money from individuals all over the country. >> corporate americans? >> small individuals and large individuals. >> are you able to put that list out? >> we've got ourselves. let's focus on the election. moving quickly on, mr. trumka, clearly a rejection of democratic initiatives over the last couple of years or at least the fact that those initiatives have not turn the economy around fast enough -- what does that mean for president obama

going forward as he begins his reelection campaign in 2012? >> i think he should be aware that. as of today we're. at 3 priorities. jobs, jobs, and more jobs. if we are pushing our 5-point plan to create those jobs. i think the president ought to do that. he ought to put these people to the task. they said that they could do it, now let's make them do it. and i wish you success, for every job you create there is an american out there able to make a living and hopefully rebuild part of the middle class. i would tell him to stick to his principles -- work with them but not compromise his principles. >> to work with the republicans? >> absolutely. they should of been working with us. the senate republicans should have been working with us and they did not. i hope that we do not bp's strategy. try to work with them. if that does not cost to your principles. if it does, then you have to stand for your principles.

but create jobs. if that is the same old stuff that they said during the campaign, we will cut more taxes from the rich, we will deregulate -- the same policies that got us into this mess, that is not going to make it. >> president obama had a historic election and he did not reach out and work with republicans. when you talk about putting us in the back of the bus and an enemies list, when you tell the leader of the congress we won, and get? that is not reaching across the aisle. i am glad to see he made phone calls to speaker-elect boehner and senator mcconnell, and i think that is a good omen. but to get the jobs that you need, we need policies in this country like tax policies that encourage small businesses. john boehner understands the american dream. you saw that in his emotional response. he came up the way in the small business, created his own.

[unintelligible] >> mr. duncan, what republicans have said is that all large number of them, republicans should not compromise right now. they should take the same tactic that president obama did and say, elections have consequences. >> i am talking about working with tax policy. >> should at house republicans go to the table and negotiate with president obama? >> wish to sit down and work together with what the american people were telling us about, deficit spending. we have to have certainty to create jobs in this country. that means president obama hafts to move back from the left back to the center because this is a center-right country. to get this is an amazing statistic that someone brought to my attention this morning. 25% of the house republican conference is new, a freshman. going to be somewhere around 80

members once all the chips fall. is that a problem for john boehner? this massive new influx of populist members coming in the congress. is he going to have the same kind of control over them that, say, danny hastert had? >> he does not want the same control. 80 new members is an opportunity to lead people read the bills, have them three days before him, an opportunity to let the committees legislate more, to let congress work the way that it is supposed to work. >> mr. trumka, what you think about the democratic agenda that we saw in the 111th congress? the one boogeyman that republicans talked about and warned about was the employee free choice act. the democrats did not move on that. does that have an impact on union or during the campaign season on labour turned it

turned out for democrats chris sergeant i'll answer that but i want to go back and comment on what michael said. but was said that they were not given a chance to cooperate or to govern. there were 424 bills passed by the house of representatives. they were sent over to the senate. the senate had a record number of filibusters. they did not try to compromise, they just would not let that go on. >> including cap and trade, something we probably agree. >> get democrats respond in kind right now, we will not get the job done that we need. it will be us taking the first that because you had a chance to govern and you said no to everything that came down. you did not say, but sit down and negotiated out, you said no and you filibuster. i think that was one of the most outrageous things that the country has seen to stop progress that way. hopefully we will not say that in the future.

did the employee free choice at have a dampening effect? probably it did, because there was an enthusiasm gap early on with our members. but the more information we gave in the more progress that we showed that was made, regulations on wall street, progress on health care, the different things that were done, i think they have less effect. will we continue to fight for? absolutely, and the reason is that it is a very essential part to recovery. our economy is 72% suspended -- driven by consumer spending. if they do not add money, they cannot spend. to compensate that over the past few years, they borrowed. consumers cannot borrow any more. if you believe that corporate america out of the goodness of their heart is going to start sharing more money with the vast number of workers in this

country, i would say that i have property -- oceanfront property in southwestern pennsylvania that i will sell you. what we need is the ability to sit down with our employers so that we can work together and be profitable to gather and share in net profit and build an economy. >> can you agree with me that that have to have an environment and a trust in government to invest their capital? if that during the depression there was a period of time when capital was not invested. we've got to allow that money out there to a small businesses, not wall street, small businesses creating most of the jobs in this country. >> and small business is starting right now. they need that money from the banks. we need to get money, used or paid back to park money into the hands of the regional banks to get them into the hands of small and midsize businesses to start creating jobs.

>> people are not applying for the small business loans because of the uncertainty. >> let me go back to something you brought up, mr. trumka. the t.a.r.p. mode, if it clearly had a big impact on this election. senator bob bennett lost his primary running for reelection. senator murkowski lost her primary although she may have won anyway. several members were at least scared in close primary all because they voted for t.a.r.p.. a number of democrats who voted for t.a.r.p. loss last night although it is not clear that is the reason that the loss. for those who write against t.a.r.p. what impact will it have on the republican party going forward? >> it was a giant motivator on the republican side. it was ill-conceived and ill carried out. there were good results but it was part of government

overreaching and big government and more deficit spending. that is energized a lot of people in this country who've never been involved before. >> in 21 of the 50 blue dogs, losing last night, if this is all about ideology, then the blue dog should have 1. but they did not. it is too complex and too simplistic to look at race and say, this vote. it is far more complex. there was an anger because this economy, people are hurting. more and more americans are hurting. 15 million people unemployed, 11 million more underemployed, 6.5 million have been unemployed for greater than six months. they are angry in the one action. i can tell you, michael, that you do not start the action if we do not start the action, it will be the fourth cycle the next time around. you will get tossed out. >> what you think about that? we've seen three cycles as mr.

trump got mentioned and that has not happened since 1946, 48, and 1950. are we getting into an unusually volatile period of american politics? >> is. some of this referred to the beginning of the last entry with the changes in government. the people that given us a chance this time. we had a change in 2008 and we're having a change in direction, a change in the ship this time. we get that. i suggest less by to talk to leader boehner about some of the programs he is putting forward. this is a great opportunity for the republican party and the conservative principles of this party. get back to the basics. do not spend more than you have. look at what the governors are doing. i think haley barbour is doing a great job of that. we can have more efficient government and create an environment to help small businesses produce jobs in this country. those are the things that you will have to hear us talking about, health care reform you

will hear us talking about. such a dramatic impact that it have on us. it will there is talk about cap and trade. it would have destroyed the competitive advantages in many parts of this country. these are opportunities to conservative principles forward. >> are we seeing a new leak volatile electorate question are >> absolutely. people want action. they're fed up and frustrated and they want action. if you want to listen to them, here's what they said last night. 85% of people said that allowing health insurance denial for pre-existing conditions, we are against that. 75% rate against reducing or eliminating the minimum wage. 72% were against eliminating the department of education. 68% were against raising the social security retirement age. 63% were against cutting taxes for those who made more than $250,000. that is what they said last night.

i do hope that you listen. i hope that we work on this together. >> there are more questions on their purdue won smaller and more efficient government? that is one of the things right now. we need to create a new environment in this country. >> let me ask you another question. everyone keeps talking about smaller government. what would you eliminate in this government, and do not say waste generically. what would you eliminate? to thes leave the policy policy guys. , that as the question that we will all be asking ourselves over the next few days and everyone will be predating their own action on knowledge, but when did you know, mr. duggan, the house was going to fall into republican hands? it and i think we started seeing that in the ural spring. we saw indications that that was going to happen with the quality of canada's. i remember speaker bonner came

tet lexington in ky phat had talked to a group about 100 seats that he thought would be in play and people were laughing. but we knew because there had been a great effort to recruit quality candidates this time. we saw the mood of the country moving in a different direction. we started to believe that that point that there would be a change in the congress. >> mr. trumka, did you have any precedents that this would come? jennifer we saw that as soon as the citizens united states saw more money flowing into this election, and there was oil in the gulf, that is when we figured they would be a problem. >> that is absolutely not true. you guys continue to outspend us and you did in this cycle. >> that is just impossible. >> get the stats on this and we will put it in the "national journal." >> you create up reality and we have to put it out with the facts. >> mr. duncan, the tea party

has influence the republicans and ginned up this new populist mood. where do you see republicans going from here and how are they going to avoid what mr. trump that forecast as another cycle in which the bonds get kicked out chris a margin liberty and freedom movement in this country is help the republican party energize our volunteers and in the turnout yesterday. you will see these people coming with fresh ideas. you'll see them holding us accountable. it bodes well for the future of the country because we want more people and called in our government. we need to have more money in people -- and people involved in government. we think it will be assimilated within the party in the party will be much better off for the fact we had this movement. >> where does the democratic party go from here to mark you just lost more seats than any party since 1948. howdy regrouping get back into the five? >> he believes that there should

be more money in politics. >> to catch up. >> i personally believe there is too much money in politics. there ought to be more policy debate and talk about policy rather than trying to destroy people and destroyed their candidate's character. where did they go? back to the simple notion of jobs, jobs, jobs, and more jobs. fight for jobs. but for reauthorization of the transportation out. by for the clean energy act which will help solve problems in this country and create jobs. there should be a major investment in infrastructure. over a 10-year period so that we can get in crowd -- private money into the process and fix the problem. we have a $2.2 trillion deficit after deficit. the only way to do that is to go after a jamaican long-term commitment. you should those -- force votes

on job bills. stay true to your principles and work with the other side if it does not cost you your principles. if it does, you have to fight for what to believe in. >> thank you so much for joining us this morning. [applause] >> that's better. he was with me all night as we set and yelled and screamed at each other across a loud room trying to figure out who had one and two lots. chairman, what happened last night? >> i think will agree on more things right now. i wanted to point out a couple of things. for all the talk about how bad it was for democrats, there are

a couple of examples where ameritech -- democrats can take solace. in iowa, for israeli -- bruce b raley held on. however thought that it would apply. north carolina, mcintyre also held on in a surprising way. the flip side to that argument is that on average one person did lose in north carolina. a california governor, i think we're very happy about that. there was a lot of reservations about that and about ms. whitman and her pocketbook. the other one i would point out

is -- >> one thing, and jerry brown probably had the best speech of the night. he said that he really missed this politics thing. we said, hey, so did we. >> he ran one of the better campaign ads that was on the cycle. made whitman's own words were used against her. actually playing clips of them saying the same words, a cliff on all and then of meg, very effective ad. the nevada senate, and is always hard to overstate how big a wish it was for democrats and made all the difference. it made all the pundits look of -- look like idiots. everyone had written off harry reid. that was a huge win there and in

west virginia with joe manchin, one of the most popular politicians in the country, and it took that to win in a very republican year. those are big wins for democrats. >> one of the great choice is that you get to sort through a good 2000 clip so that we can bring you the best news of the day. one thing that i have my doubts about, one who did not was john ralston. [inaudible] this is an historic defeat. >> the number of tea party

candidates and that canada's that were backed by senator jim demint won last night. christine of donald did not. she lost. but include demint at this point man, they will be six senators that will be part of that caucus. and he gave substantial resources to them. that gives him leverage when it comes to the senate. ken buck, if he wins, that would be a seventh. that would be one-tenth of the senate being in some wine all lined with jim demint. he said that he will not run for president, but this gives him all sorts of bargaining power. >> and yet of the 6 seats but republicans have picked up, four of them are decidedly not friends of jim diment. rob portman in ohio, mark kirk

in illinois, dan coats in indiana, and others. he did not play in the ohio or no. column. he thought about getting involved in illinois. did he get a long time ago. judy he may have got involved in the indiana primary. marlin statesman -- stutsman in it up looking out this year. four of the six are the establishment candidates. the tea party movement, has had been overrated or not? >> if you look at the edemint candidates that lost, they helped democrats maintain a majority. ruin the and delaware republican chances there which

could of been a pickup with mike castle. what that means the counter into the argument is that this could mean be more willing to compromise with democrats. rob portman is a great example. he understands government and being moderate. those have been people that harry reid would reach up to. that is very counter to the rhetoric that jim demint has put out there. >> and about the incoming members, you take a look at marco rubio, a conservative, but he was a legislator as well. he was speaker of the house. >> marco rubio move to the

center after charlie crist got out of the republican party. he became the frontrunner in the race. he is probably more moderate than people anticipate. >> in the few minutes we have left, and give me the unreported story that we have not seen emerge yet. >> the first thing that comes to mind right now is that harry reid and dick durbin and chuck schumer are born to be having a press conference to discuss the status of the democratic party in the senate. it may have made chuck schumer angry because he was angling to become senate majority leader. [laughter] make a that what you will, but he also funnel lot of money to help harry reid. there's no question -- for the three of them, dick durbin could have come up for majority leader of harry reid loss. they'll be discussing that. >> provide some harmony in the house, with dick durbin and

chuck schumer living together, that would of been the anger is set of remains for a while. the big story is the simple fact that a good campaign run in at the right time can actually win. but not all the time. take a look harry reid. he ran essentially a perfect campaign. so did a couple of members, joe donnelly in indiana -- i'm sorry. jim webb i would add to that who ran a strong campaign in the district that -- where there was no reason to elect a democrat. he made it a lot close. he ran a very strong campaign. >> one interesting point that we are pointing out, a preview before you rush off to read it later, the notion of the trifecta of senate seats, a symbolic senate seats the republicans thought that they could pick up. the illinois seat, held by

president obama, once held, the delaware seat held by mike castle, and the nevada seat held by harry reid. the lesson from those three -- very different lessons. in illinois, but president obama do everything good in the place he was most popular but voters were so dissatisfied with government, a 65% of illinois voters told them they were dissatisfied with or angry with the federal government. it is almost impossible, know how it -- no matter how popular you are, to overcome that. take a look at the members of the illinois -- bill foster, debbie how orson come back even mullis had been could be looking for a new job. -- melissa bean could be looking for new jobs. there were a few states that turned out worse for democrats

than barack obama is on stage. and then in delaware, where that tea party candidate robb republicans not only of one seat, but some house republicans might thought they have a chance at keeping that senate seat with the right primary nominee. that nominee lost along with congressman mike castle. democrats picked up the seats. that tops a lot about the dangers republicans face going forward if they continue this sort of shrinking the tent and purifying the party. finally, nev. -- a perfect campaign can overcome a terrible approval rating. three different states and it is fitting that illinois was the state that actually slipped to republicans. >> and i would mention the place for democrats, just how bad it was. in wisconsin last night they lost the governorship, they lost the senate, but lost the senate

seat, two house seats, they lost both chambers of the state legislature. all in one night. this is a state that voted for the democrat and the president election in the six last presidential elections. that shows you how much a seemingly blue states like wisconsin can change. >> thanks so much. we encourage you to take a look at your hot line which will be out well before you get out of the session today. thanks for your time. [applause] [applause] >> moderator next panel his jason, a 12-year veteran at "national journal."

currently the editor of the daily, formally known as congress daily. as editor, jason is responsible for the accurate and credible and insightful and intelligent coverage you get every day in the issues that you receive as a subscriber. i'll turn it over to jason and his distinguished panel. >> thank you very much. thank you for coming to a policy discussion so early in the morning. we're going to focus on policy today. we will have plenty to discuss politics earlier and we will get to that and it will be a lot of ottawa. but now we want to turn to some of the types of issues that the next congress will find itself facing. i want to introduce our panel. directly to my right is mark gordon, a 15-term congressman from tennessee. he's a member of the energy and commerce committee. he is a blue dog and had been

around town for a long time. his insights will come in handy talking about the health care debate. he had a front seat table as a blue dog member of the energy and commerce. is also retiring at the end of this commerce -- bop -- of this congress voluntarily. [laughter] next is norm coleman, the chief executive officer of an organization. as a republican senator, he ran for 2002-2008. he was the mayor of st. paul. when he was in the senate, it was chairman on investigations including for the oil for food program. we will talk about some of the investigations that the next congress my conduct. next is representative jim nestle, a former eight-term congressman. he was also the chairman of the

budget committee and then the president of george w. bush's omb director. it is a budget die. he will get questions for the budgets and the tax credits. brian barrett, a democrat from washington. he chairs science and technology, energy and environment subcommittee. it's been a better part of his career focusing on issues that are extremely technical, especially the environment, but also policy and taxes. he has won reelection in a district that has voted for president bush ties. he is also retiring voluntarily. he is a psychologist, which it must come in very handy. as the right into it. representative gordon, health care. over and over again as a set polls throughout the campaign, was also much attention focused on health care.

you had a front row seat as a member of the energy and commerce committee. use all this unfold in 1984 and 1983. use all the way that health care can affected election. john boehner and the likely next majority leader came out of the gates and said that we're going to repeal the healthcare law. just signed into law in march. they are saying we're not going to let you down to members of the tea party very fired up about this. with this backdrop and with a democratic senate and a president who considers this his signature domestic policy, what are we in line for next year and 112 congress for health care? >> i lifted her socks and it helped wake me up. i am ready to go. healthcare is a very personal issue.

they look at what they run. i think that what you will see is an early on there will be of vote to repeal, to carry out that promise. i suspect that it will carry in the house, but it will not get by the senate, or if it does it by a filibuster, then the president will veto it. the next cut at it will be them, at popular bits that would undermine it. things like doing away with the mandatory requirement, the cadillac tax, that sort of thing, which you will probably see that pass, although they will have a pay go problem, but they will have a pot of money that we use for that over and over. you'll see that it stopped in the senate. mary gets dicey is later on in the appropriations process. you will see an effort to cut off funding for hhs or some

agency for implementing some of the rules. i think it would give the republicans a good forum to do what they say in terms of their vote, but you really will not see much action on the other end of it. to some extent, it could protect also from not having the dire consequences. >> senator:, as a member of the senate you're both majority and minority. you had a fairly moderate path as a senator and you work in the middle of filibuster fights over drilling in anwr. how easy this playing out in the senate was a margin -- how do you see this playing out in the senate? >> it is city and the enormity of what happened last night, being defended in the eight districts in minnesota. it is because of democratic

territory, i do not think he had a debate until this year. he never have less than the 60% of the vote. minnesota -- kyle is in the same place. minnesota republicans took control of the minister of this state senate for the first time in 1972. never controlled both houses of the do today. that control of the house and the senate. a huge victory. bad as last night. setting the stage. the politics of health care, to add to your question, if you look at the polling before and obviously we have come up health care. a big part in this election. the intensity of those who were strongly opposed to health care was about 44% of likely voters

as opposed to 24% who supported it. among those most likely to vote, those who showed up last night who were angry in many cases, and use of a huge sweep in the house, health care was a driving force. if you are speaker banner -- boehner, you'll have to say that we heard this and we're going to repeal obamacare. the senate -- the shape of that is forming. i've seen mitch mcconnell light ben hur, holding on to his chariot, and the as guy with the wheels on him -- any of the guy next to him with the wheels. they are symbolic statements that have to take place in the house because of the nature of that institution. the action in the senate is not good to be as clear and not as divisive because of the nature

of the senate. but clearly you look to the next cycle, 23 democrats up and they have to be looking at what happened last night. even the democrats still control the senate, there is going to be a number of folks in montana and virginia and other places where they have to have greater conversations and more conversations and they have before. those conversations, when i was there, they went on to a certain degree. it lessened as we got near 60. you get financial reform but without any republican support. i think you'll see more conversations going on now because of the political reality of what happened last night as folks look into the future and see 2012. >> discussed the budget and appropriations process and it might be one area that health care can be attacked with a

health care law can be defended. as an expert in this room, it things bogged down on a straight repeal ticket, is that a viable option for republicans? and democrats to support repeal? >> i suppose that is one scenario. first of all, part is right. -- bart is right. if you grew up with schoolhouse rock, i'm just a bill, i'm only a bill -- their parts of repelling this. see -- i see three overriding issues. first the three issues. this goal -- everything will be based on monday. money, money, money. we do not have money in washington. we're running deficits and

debts. money will be an undergirding, overriding backdrop to all this. second is an anti-establishment, anti-washington politics that right now is bigger than republican and democrat. it drove independent voters. but third overriding issue is going to be the start of the presidential race which will start earlier this raise and i can name you all 17 of them in iowa. they will start earlier this cycle than ever before. if you remember the last opportunity was in president clinton's situation, bob dole at that point was not presumptive blood i could presumption under that. that is not out there now. this is why it opened. after last night, if you're thinking about running for president, you would just put the afterburners on. three seasons, you have a lame

duck session where everything can still need to be accomplished. there's the budget, let alone the extenders for 2010 are provisions from 2001 and 2003. you get 24 legislative days to figure this out. that is number one. the second season is the first 100 or so days, the budget cycle where fiscal issues in the state of the union, how they begin to work together, that will be paramount. and then you have the vote that will lead a predicate for the rest of the session and year. when that dead vote comes up, if you listen to treasury it is one thing, and if you listen to olympian cbo is another. springer summer, you will have a debt vote where you have a situation republicans not wanting to vote for data on one of their first votes against the

president's desk. and democrats are not willing to help and appropriately so. how you manage that is going to be very interesting. those are the three seasons and the three issues. everything will tie and bounce off of those three things in my judge it -- in my judgment. >> a quick follow on that. the debt issue is looming out there. as much attention as we pay to tax cuts, there is wiggle room all the people do not want to hear that in terms of getting an extension before people have to file their tax returns for the 2011 year. the debt limit, if we do not raise that and we start the fallen treasury bonds potentially, the results could be catastrophic. the potential is that this becomes a huge soul-searching moment for a newly emboldened

republican? >> no question. in 1995 the vote was the continuing resolution which shut down the government. that was in october after a lot of debate and discussion and a lot of things. this po will be precipitated on the feeling itself and it will be a very tactical field. we are out of money and we need to bottle it and you have a republican coming in not wanting one of their budgets to be extending the debt limit. and you have democrats who like republicans this year are not necessarily going to be willing to help unless they get their seat at the table. very difficult negotiations coming up at that point in time. it very well may be one of the most important junctures of the next two years. it will be coming after the lame duck and after the first 100 days, once the chest beating and

smoke and maybe a little bit of fire as a result, it will be a very difficult testing period for both parties in washington. touch on health care " quickly and then we would turn to some of the deficit and debt question. you won reelection in a district that voted for president george w. bush twice. if you were returning to your district and health care was coming up as an issue, how would you be explaining this, how would you maneuver as a member of a minority, and it will be a more liberal minority, but how would you take that -- have those conversations? >> i think we made a lot of mistakes in the health-care purge. i think our intentions were good. we try to help people that had

no insurance to get insurance, to stop discrimination against preexisting conditions, to try to lower the cost of health care. but the biggest challenge for the new majority are entitlements. you are all these people running for congress saying, i am going to cut waste, fraud, and abuse and now will balance the budget alone. the deficit exceeds all discretionary funding spending combined. if you stopped everything, you're still in deficit. we have to deal with entitlements. that problem gets worse and it will mighty interesting to see people with these promises dealing with medicare and medicaid when the long term deficit is $52 trillion. how you resolve that is simple and my judgment. it is not simple but you have to grow the economy, cut the spending, including entitlements, and you have to increase revenues.

on the one hand, they will not want to cut entitlements because people will get angry to them. they are pledging not to increase revenue. they will be in a box, a top box to deal with. >> we can get into some questions of the deficit. we have a presidential commission on the deficit and debt. those are due december 1. democratic leaders pledged earlier this year to take up any recommendations that were forwarded. it takes 14 out of 18 of the members to sign off on what these recommendations are. just a quick prediction, d.c. any of those recommendations been ordered, and you see any action taking place or to margin one of the most disturbing things about the campaign season where people on the left and right before the commission even issued its report pledging to block it. on the left, people saying we will not touch entitlements. on the right, people say we will not raise revenues. not raise revenues.